Names and the speech

[J.A.K_In_B&W]

So we all know that names in the speech say a lot about who a person is, to the point of describing them in entirety. That is a lot of information to just through around, so I got thinking. The speech doesn't work like the English language, and why should names? I came up with how I think names are likely done and I was wondering if I could have some feedback.

Everything in a person should be described in a name, their body and soul as it were. at the most basic level of a name there would only be about 4 symbols two describing the body and two describing the soul. Each of these symbols should hint at the meanings beneath them, and when read give a general since about what the being is, but not much more than. On a page any of these symbols can be expanded into several subgroups, for instance; likes, dislikes, memories, world views, and the like (and that is just under one symbol of soul!). Each of these symbols has its own flavour that gives more detail about what the person or object is like, with a little bit more detail. If one of these symbols are expanded then the name becomes more detailed once again. At the end, after opening all of the symbols in one section, the persons fundamental individual molecules can be manipulated, as well as the tiniest part of their actions or beliefs. In this system when you talk to another wizard you would just give him a 4 or so symbol name, whereas when a beginning wizard writes they write out there name in a depth of two or three (Reference: In 'So you want to be a Wizard' Kit looks over and sees Nita's age, but not nearly all of the information that Darine had to give spot in 'High Wizardry'.). Later Wizard start viewing their name in more and more depth, because they know that precision is extremely important.


What do you guys think?

[spyells]

That sounds about right to me. I mean I had never gave it that much thought but that sounds logical. We know for a fact that the speech can describe anyone or anything in its perfect entirety. We also know that if a syllable is left out or is done incorrectly it will change the thing in which it had named. I think that was a good observation. Welcome to the Young Wizards forum J.A.K_In_B&W!

[J.A.K_In_B&W]

Thank you!

I was starting work on a cross-over fanfiction using the youngwizards universe, and was trying to think of a good specialty for one of the characters, and then it hit me: Name modification. He could write temperary modifications to his name. I got thinking about how names would works, and came up with this system. It seemed to hold together, but I wanted some feedback from the community. However if there is a better explination out there I would love to here it!

[Birdhead]

I like some of what you're doing, J.A.K, although I think some of it's a bit, um, random and prescriptive for me (Why four main symbols? Why two for body and two for soul? Where would things like family go?)

Also, it's interesting what you say about wizards seeing their name in more and more depth. I seem to remember that wizards actually start being able to write their names more quickly and easily as they get more experienced - I'm pretty sure Kit mentions a "scrawl" that he's reduced his name down to, a sort of short hand. This fits in with what we understand about older wizards - although they don't have the same firepower, they use their proficiency with vocabulary to better effect - able to describe things more quickly and more precisely. Think about... imagine if you don't know the word purple, but you do know that the colour is made up of red and blue. Every time you wanted to talk about the colour purple, you'd have to say 'the colour made out of red and blue.' But as soon as you learn the word "purple", you can just say 'the colour purple.' Much quicker and actually a little more precise too!

[J.A.K_In_B&W]

I chose 4 randomly. It is high enough that I think that it would get some of the feeling across, while still being short enough to write in a single 'scrawl' as Kit put it.

Family and friends would fit under the Soul section. I was using more of an RPG version of the word. I meant anything to do with the person that isn't physical. Their power level, relations, and such would be under 'Soul', as more physical things would be under body.


<hr class="ev_code_hr" />

As to your second point... here is a counter example: There are a lot of different varieties of purple, and sometimes you have to be more accurate. Instead of saying purple we could say RGB 250,0,250. I have even done that at times when talking about a certain color. normally it doesn't matter, but when it does, we have ways to describe it that are longer, but far more accurate.

This is sort of how I envisioned the speech, broad symbols covering major things, and more specific symbols describing the details.

[Birdhead]

normally it doesn't matter, but when it does, we have ways to describe it that are longer, but far more accurate.

I agree, and of course Hex numbers and colour indices are really good things to think about in the context of the Speech. It's just that we know that spells (and, specifically, names; although I think Kit refers to his short nameform as "shorthand", so it's possibly something a bit more like an acronym.

The use of acronyms, which canonically are way more common in the Speech than in English, is another thing that's really interesting; they're able to convey precise, definite phrases in a very short space of time.) definitely get shorter as a wizard becomes more experienced and develops a greater vocabulary. I think more senior wizards are definitely more precise, though, absolutely.

[Kathy Li]

Do you really think that those kinds of syllabic acronyms are more common in the Speech? I mean, think of modem (modulator/demodulator), interpol (international police), and retcon (retroactive continuity). It's not like English doesn't have a good few of these precise and definite words.

[Birdhead]

You might be right about that; I can't speak with authority on the relevant frequency, I guess.

I think I was thinking about the Wiki entry on Syllabic acronyms and relying on a totally false memory that that page specified that these kinds of acronyms are more common in the speech. Um, my bad!