Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Granite_Devil Sep 25 2004, 05:40 PM

I've searched these boards and nobody seems to have noticed (or cared) that the character telling us about master shedim also mentioned that there was writing on the walls. The writing consisted of "an elaborate system of slashes and dots".

What I'm wondering is: what ancient language consists of slashes and dots (not cuneiform or phoenician) and why has nobody questioned this?

Figuring out this mystery might lead to a discovery as to the origins and history of the master shedim...

...just throwing it out there...

...do not shoot me...

Posted by: Axe Sep 25 2004, 06:01 PM

Maybe it's "Shedimese"

Posted by: blakkie Sep 25 2004, 06:01 PM

Thought of the question. Assumed it was an open ended GM hook kindly provided by the authors. Morse code was the first thing that jumped to mind, but that isn't really ancient. It might have been based on some tidbit of anthropology trivia, but nothing i'm familiar with.

Posted by: hobgoblin Sep 25 2004, 06:24 PM

was not some of the oldest known writeings based on slashes and dots? found on clay tablets in the middle east i think...

Posted by: Ancient History Sep 25 2004, 06:34 PM

No, hobgoblin, you're thinking of cunieform, based on the shape of a type of reed.

Posted by: the_dunner Sep 25 2004, 06:38 PM

The druidic Ogam (or Ogham, Gaelic randomly inserts extra H's) writing system is nothing but slashes, dots, and dashes. It's all over standing stones in Ireland.

Here's a guide to the alphabet:

http://www.highspeedplus.com/~edonon/translat.html

Here's another link with some nice photos of standing stones:
http://www.irishmegaliths.org.uk/pillarstones2.htm

Or, you could just google it. Pretty much any time somebody finds slashes and dots on rocks, it's considered to be Ogam. Because of this, there's rumors of Celt splinter civilizations in Africa, North America, and all over Europe.

Posted by: Granite_Devil Sep 25 2004, 06:45 PM

Interesting. Originally, I found a similar guide to Ogham, but did not see anything in the way of dots... but the_dunner's link shows dots in the alphabet...

Food for thought...

Thanks for the replies!

Posted by: snowRaven Sep 25 2004, 10:20 PM

My guess would be either Ogam or Cuneiform writing along the lines of Ugaritic.

Ugaritic utilizes a number of shorter wedges that I guess could be described as dots - at least to a casual observer.

I know of no other script whre more than a handful of characters firt the description.

Posted by: Cynic project Sep 25 2004, 10:58 PM

They talk in bionary...Just like the people of babel from snow crash....

Posted by: Ancient History Sep 25 2004, 11:06 PM

Ye gods and hairy fishes...Cynic, please understand that binary consists of ones and zeroes, not the viral meme languange of Snow Crash. Also cunieform doesn't generally resemble slashes and dots. Not that you can't use it, but for strictly information purposes.

If you want to use the Ogham idea; you might want to work in Celedyr and the Knights of Rage or the Templars. Just for flavor.

Posted by: Cynic project Sep 25 2004, 11:24 PM

History reread the book, you will note that in one point Hiro talks about the signs of power in a statue's hand.One being an one and another being a zero. Also it was somewhat a joke.


But really that is a lot like bionary to me. And never stop me from geting to my bad jokes!

Posted by: Backgammon Sep 26 2004, 03:54 AM

Isn't slashes and dots morse code?

Posted by: Starfurie Sep 26 2004, 04:03 AM

Posted by: hobgoblin Sep 26 2004, 02:12 PM

Posted by: Zenmaxer Sep 26 2004, 02:29 PM

How do Shedim communicate anyway? we know that they operate with some degree of tactical cohesion, but the fluff related to them never mentions any active communication.

Posted by: Jason Farlander Sep 26 2004, 04:41 PM

Posted by: Lycanthropic Dreaming Sep 27 2004, 01:25 AM

*shrug*

I guess this Threats 2, right? It could really be anything, though I'm inclined to agree with the "GM plot hook" concept and assume there's no more meaning to the sequence than that.

Here's another option to help muddy the waters:

Germanic Runes were often "encoded" in other forms than the runes you see in popular media. Part of the deal was apparently that the magic was stronger if made more secret. The dots could represent which aett the rune comes from, (one of three groupings of the Futhark/Runic alphabet) and the dash the numerical position within the identified aett for example.

Posted by: Nomad Sep 27 2004, 02:06 AM

Slashs and dots are also numeric values in Mayan.

Just to add my 2 nY to the mix.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Sep 27 2004, 02:34 AM

Perhaps they're what the Azzies are so afraid of that they're willing to turn to blood magic?

~J

Posted by: Zoot Nov 3 2011, 04:04 PM

Remember that although they are intrinsically linked, language and alphabet are not the same thing. The whole point of code is to use a secret alphabet to transmit something that you don't want to everyone else to now.

Even if we knew what alphabet the graffiti was (ogam, cuneform, etc) we still don't know the syntax grammar etc of the language.

The classic example of this is WW2 Navajo Codetalkers. The transmission was morse code I think, but the underlying language was impossible to understand for the Germans.

Ultimately, if it is Shedim, we can't ever understand it unless a) one of them translates it for us or b) we find a Rosetta Stone for Shedimese.

oops, serious necro-post. sorry, forgot I was reading search results not current topics...

Posted by: MK Ultra Nov 3 2011, 04:18 PM

You just can´t keep them Shedim-Threads dead O.o

Posted by: Yerameyahu Nov 3 2011, 04:32 PM

Zoot, I thought Navajo code talkers were in the Pacific Theater… so it was the Japanese who couldn't understand.

Posted by: HunterHerne Nov 3 2011, 04:37 PM

This is true. Another reason for that, was because of the similarities in physical appearance of Native Americans and Asians. In the thick clouds, a Navajo could sneak around the Japanese more easily then the average North American at the time.

Posted by: Ol' Scratch Nov 3 2011, 08:14 PM

That's not necessarily true. Like code, languages can be broken. We may not be able to decipher how it was spoken or anything like that, but it could be possible to unlock what it means if you have enough of the material to work and even the smallest reference(s). Doubly so if it is similar to other written languages that have already been translated.


Don't sweat it. I never understood why people get their knickers in a twist about it, especially when they're very often the same people who throw their nose in the air and shout at you to look up old topics rather than starting "yet another thread on the topic."