Technology discovery question

[Esox]

It makes sense that Writing comes before Alphabet. What I don't get is - why is having an Alphabet a prerequisite for teaching another civ how to chop down trees? Or catch fish?

I guess they had to set a tech-trading point somewhere.

 

[zeeter]

I know I'm just saying technically.

It is technically still innacurate. The letters of the alphabet serve solely to be used for writing. They are tools used in writing. If writing were never discovered then the alphabet would never be invented. They are graphical displays that represent the sounds that we make. While they can be said verbally there is absolutely no use in doing so since their point is spelling, and the ONLY point to spelling is reading, and the only way to read is to write.

 

[zeeter]

It makes sense that Writing comes before Alphabet. What I don't get is - why is having an Alphabet a prerequisite for teaching another civ how to chop down trees? Or catch fish?

I guess they had to set a tech-trading point somewhere.

You're probably right. There's gotta be a point somewhere. I guess you could say they'd need to write down directions or something. Maybe they should have created a tech called diplomacy that allowed for trading.

 

[Dusty4prez]

The alphabet is also used for sounds but I guess you might have to write them down to tell what sound it is...

 

[candela]

* - Indeed it is possible to speak, read and write fluent "Chinese" without knowing a single character (by relying on Pinyin, the romanized version of Chinese) - the only reason people bother to memorize thousands of symbols is simply for the sake of tradition.

It's more difficult to read pin yin than simplified or traditional chinese. I'm pretty sure that's why they still use it.

How many characters use the sound "shi"?

 

[John Corbin]

Was thinking about this...

suppose tech discovery was based on race ?

example of alphabet vs writting...

Western cultures ( america, europe ) would have had to have an alphabet before writting. No ?

 

[King Flevance]

I think some people think of writing as "literature". Writing is the technology we know to take graphite, chalk, charcoal, etc. and scrape it against another surface to leave a mark. Or even to take a stick and make a line in the sand. Or to take a liquid and 'paint' a mark on a surface. Writing is simply the ability to know how to leave a 'mark'. It involves no real communication foundation. When foresters mark trees with a orange 'X' they are writing by leaving a mark. That is all the technology of writing is, the ability to know how to mark something.

You don't even have to use pictographs, although this was the first type of 'writings' we have found. However, I am sure our first uses of writing will never be found. An alphebet puts this writing technology to good work. Without an alphabet communication through writing is limited and will advance very slowly compared to a society with an alphabet. Then comes literature, which could even be merged with the alphabet, IMO. As the alphabet spawns literature naturally.

 

[Garand]

Alphabets are simply written symbols that represent sounds, and those sounds are grouped to form words. However, writing itself does not necessarily have to be writing words with letters. The Chinese and Egyptians are excellent examples of symbols being used to represent entire words and concepts, not just individual sounds. So, it makes sense to have writing before the alphabet.

 

[JoeBas]

I think it'd be an interesting idea to actually see these two separate and independent, and not necessarily HAVE to discover both, just one... get some kind of bonus if you do get both, but only need to have one to move on.

 

[TheNiceOne]

The alphabet is also used for sounds but I guess you might have to write them down to tell what sound it is...

No, the alphabet is the written representation of basic sounds. You simply cannot have a written representation of something without writing.

From wikipedia: "An alphabet is a complete standardized set of letters — basic written symbols — each of which roughly represents a phoneme of a spoken language"

I think it'd be an interesting idea to actually see these two separate and independen

But it is impossible, without changing what alphabet actually means - unless you can tell how you can write basic sounds without knowing how to write them

 

[TheNiceOne]

I think some people think of writing as "literature". Writing is the technology we know to take graphite, chalk, charcoal, etc. and scrape it against another surface to leave a mark. Or even to take a stick and make a line in the sand. Or to take a liquid and 'paint' a mark on a surface.

I disagree. My two-year-old daughter knows how to leav a mark on a wall, but that is not writing because it doesn't represent language or information. Or as wikipedia says it:

"Historians draw a distinction between prehistory and history, with history defined by the advent of writing. The cave paintings and petroglyphs of prehistoric peoples can be considered precursors of writing, but are not considered writing because they did not represent language directly."

 

[JoeBas]

But it is impossible, without changing what alphabet actually means - unless you can tell how you can write basic sounds without knowing how to write them

I don't know about that. Look at Chinese, which evolved for years along what could almost be described as a pictorographical line, with combinations of symbols conveying independent ideas, without the rigidity of sounding out every syllable.

True, it'd be hard to imagine egyptians describing how to design a nuclear reactor with heiroglyphs (writing), but that's in the world that evolved as it is. Part of the fun of Civ, is the "What if" factor...

Just an idea.

 

[King Flevance]

I disagree. My two-year-old daughter knows how to leav a mark on a wall, but that is not writing because it doesn't represent language or information. Or as wikipedia says it:

"Historians draw a distinction between prehistory and history, with history defined by the advent of writing. The cave paintings and petroglyphs of prehistoric peoples can be considered precursors of writing, but are not considered writing because they did not represent language directly."

Point well taken. However, I will throw in she writes on the walls by the fact she has been shown that is what you use a crayon or whatever to do. She was tought how to utilize the instrument by someone. That is just a small non valid point though.

As for the second part, this depends on what you consider writing. I fail to see how a cave painting differs too greatly from hieroglyths. Of course, I have not studied the differences either. A sentence may not be created but the communication no doubt got across, and it was through the idea of writing that allowed the communication to exist. When a picture of a buffalo was drawn by the native americans the people knew that the informer was refering to a buffalo. Alot of the native american pictographs seem to tell a story, such as when they ran herds of buffalo off cliffs. Without sentences they have told a story through writing and recorded it.

Just food for thought.

 

[TheNiceOne]

I don't know about that. Look at Chinese, which evolved for years along what could almost be described as a pictorographical line, with combinations of symbols conveying independent ideas, without the rigidity of sounding out every syllable.

True, it'd be hard to imagine egyptians describing how to design a nuclear reactor with heiroglyphs (writing), but that's in the world that evolved as it is. Part of the fun of Civ, is the "What if" factor...

I agree, and therefoe has nothing against the idea of knowing writing without having an alphabet as the above examples. But the other way is impossible - you just cannot have a system of written symbols without writing.

 

[snipafist]

Some of you are missing the point. Before the development of a phonetic alphabet (thanks, phonecians!), all languages were some pictographic or cuneiformic language. These languages are much harder to learn than alphabetic languages (often kings would employ people whose only worthwhile trait was being able to read cuneiform), and it's harder to conduct trade when everyone uses cuneiform. The Phonecians came up with the bright idea of making a system where symbols represented sounds, which decreased the number of independent characters drastically and enabled them to more easily understand foreign tongues, and they got hella-wealthy off of trade. Everyone else saw what a swell idea this was, and adapted their languages to become more phonetic. To say the alphabet is a worthless achievement, or that it's as simple as writing, is amazingly ignorant. Even the Chinese have an alphabetic system that was used before pin yin (or the earlier Wades-Giles system), that is/was used for teaching the language. It's admitedly clunky, but if you can get even the proud and traditional Chinese to adopt an alphabet of sorts, you know it's a good idea.

 

[GABB]

I think it'd be an interesting idea to actually see these two separate and independent, and not necessarily HAVE to discover both, just one... get some kind of bonus if you do get both, but only need to have one to move on.

This happen exactly in Civ IV. You can research Future Tech without Alphabet. However, you lose a bonus: you can’t research neither Literature nor Music. I agree with Literature, but I’m not sure about Music. I think that Music don’t need alphabet.

 

[vsipinen]

Some of you are missing the point. Before the development of a phonetic alphabet (thanks, phonecians!), all languages were some pictographic or cuneiformic language. These languages are much harder to learn than alphabetic languages (often kings would employ people whose only worthwhile trait was being able to read cuneiform), and it's harder to conduct trade when everyone uses cuneiform. The Phonecians came up with the bright idea of making a system where symbols represented sounds, which decreased the number of independent characters drastically and enabled them to more easily understand foreign tongues, and they got hella-wealthy off of trade. Everyone else saw what a swell idea this was, and adapted their languages to become more phonetic. To say the alphabet is a worthless achievement, or that it's as simple as writing, is amazingly ignorant. Even the Chinese have an alphabetic system that was used before pin yin (or the earlier Wades-Giles system), that is/was used for teaching the language. It's admitedly clunky, but if you can get even the proud and traditional Chinese to adopt an alphabet of sorts, you know it's a good idea.

According to the Wikipedia the honour of discovering alphabets seems ro belong to ancient Eqyptians:

"The history of the alphabet starts in ancient Egypt. By 2700 BCE the Egyptians had developed a set of some 22 hieroglyphs to represent the individual consonants of their language, plus a 23rd that seems to have represented word-initial or word-final vowels. These glyphs were used as pronunciation guides for logograms, to write grammatical inflections, and, later, to transcribe loan words and foreign names."

 

[Esox]

Writing is simply the ability to know how to leave a 'mark'. It involves no real communication foundation. When foresters mark trees with a orange 'X' they are writing by leaving a mark. That is all the technology of writing is, the ability to know how to mark something.

With respect, all writing in any form (other than obviously a child learning how to hold a crayon) is communication. When a forester marks a tree he is communicating something, "Cut this one down." Even if we don't understand ancient petroglyphs, they communicated something the people who made them.

The Sumerians get credit for inventing our first system of writing, which began as a way to record quantities of crops for trade and storage purposes. This is why Writing appears first in the game. The Phoenecians later came up with a way to make the symbols represent individual sounds, instead of objects. That is Alphabet.

 

[King Flevance]

I stand corrected. Bad wording on my part. Take out the second sentence in that quote. I believe I was wanting to point out that to communicate through writing you dont need sentences or anything of the like. So long as people understand the mark you made, you have successfully used writing.