When is it too much?

[rwley]

Well, I think I have the solution. I took Teskas' advice and looked at oriental language, specifically Japanese. Then I took individual syllables and recombined them and came up with this:

Ecclery - I still like this and I'm keeping it for the "monastery" although it's much more than that.

Sacrium - I kept this, too for the church or chapel. It's pronounced SAY kreeum

Now for the others;

Tep - generic term for those who devote their lives to the service of Adon - specific title for those who have just begun their training and study; they wear grey trousers and white tunics and can at any time back out of their decision. They have taken no covenants and are not bound in any way.

Saitep - One who has taken their First Covenants; They are addressed as Sai (SIGH) and it is here they begin to branch into their specialties; There are Healers; they wear black trousers and white tunics; Scholars; black trousers and yellow tunics; SCribes - wear black trousers and red tunics. At this point in training, one can still back out of lifetime commitment without much hassle.

Kaitep - One who has taken Second Covenants; They are addressed as Kai (KIGH) and are more adept at their specialties. These are also the teachers in the eccleries. They are known by the variegated sashes they wear over their tunics. One can resign from service at this level, but it is rare and must be for very good reason.

Chitep - The highest order; these have taken Final Covenants and are known by the Tri-Circle emblem they wear. These are the heads of eccleries and sacriums. Addressed as Chi (KEY); At this level, one can no longer voluntarily withdraw from service but one can be removed for heresy or for violating any of the Final Covenants.

So, what do you think? Too much? Nothing much else is changing. Kings are still kings, soldiers are soldiers, etc. Distance is in leagues and acres are plots. Days are days and weeks are weeks.

Thanks for the help.

Robi

[Spokane Flyboy]

I think it ultimately depends. You look at the Bible and what titles haven't been translated into their English equivalents. I read one the other day for example in Acts 8. The title Candace is used, which the English equivalent is akin to Queen Mother. For me, I like to draw the line at common words outside of dialogue and to be sparring with invented words inside of dialogue. Often they'll be used more to show that there is a bit of a culture divide between groups. For example (this is just off the cuff):

"We've been stranded here since our ship became disabled and we need a videis," he said to Clement, who was thoroughly confused and it showed plainly on his face.

"A what?" Clement asked.

"A videis," the alien reiterated, "Oh what do you call it? It powers the ship and reacts like a miniature star. A reactor! Yes! That's it, a reactor."

[myrthman]

I like your choices of words, Robi. It makes great sense to me.

[newburydave]

I read a writers tip once from a standard source that said don't call a rabbit a smerp.

It seems to me that using familiar terms in a story are part of the whole effective storytelling thing.

My point of reference is preaching the Gospel to street people and the unchurched. If you try to talk "church speak" to them you may as well address them in a foreign language. They don't get anything out of it. I remember as a new convert myself wondering what on earth people in the church were talking about. I hadn't learned the language yet and their church speak was an unknown tongue to me.

When I became a preacher myself I always found myself working to translate "church speak and Bible speak (KJV)" into the normal language of the streets, the language of the people I was preaching to.

One principle that I might suggest to you as a rule of thumb is the principle of "transparency". Please consider that as a story teller you may want to be a transparent window through which your readers can see your story unfold.

The question I would raise for your consideration is "would this new set of hierarchal titles make the story more transparent to your audience or would it make it more opaque and harder to follow?"
Will these unusual names break the "readers trance" or will it enhance their focus?

I'm assuming that your setting and action is going to be somewhat exotic, being set on a different world, with a whole different social and racial structure. That is a lot of difference for your readers to wrap their heads around.

Since you are "Translating" this story from their native language for us Earthlings of the 21st century you might want to consider translating the titles into the titles of analogous offices that we are familiar with. The differences should become obvious in the action and dialog.

Just my Humble opinion, hope this helps.

[rwley]

Part of why I wanted new words is because there really isn't an equivalent in English. This is not a quasi-Catholic or quasi-Protestant religion. It's different. These positions and titles are not easily crossed to what we have in priests, preachers, etc. The closest would be the Healer, which is yes a doctor. But their healing is directed by their religion. So they are part of the religious hierarchy. The levels do not correspond to anything particular in our Christian churches of any denomination and I didn't want them to be read that way. My teps do not take vows of poverty or celibacy. They are not bound to the ecclery until they reach the final level. The eccleries are more like boarding schools/clinics than monasteries.

I basically wanted to get away from the reader drawing too many parallels with our own systems.

Robi

[Divides the Waters]

Which is completely legitimate. I think that's when you almost have to come up with new words.

[JC Lamont]

I've often wondered that same thing. When I see a fantasy book/trilogy/series and every other word is new I get overwhelmed and feel that I don't have the time or energy to learn a whole new system all over again. That being said, when it's just a few words, or a category of something, that is much more managable and even expected for the genre. So I basically agree with Jeff. Write it for now, give it to some test readers and specifically ask them if the fantasy aspect/words are too much and take it from there.

[CastleLyons]

As long as we're talking about languages, I have a question. In another thread, it was brought up that a different planet wouldn't have the same biblical experiences as Earth. Let's take the confusion of the languages at Babel as an example.

Let me pose a scenario: What if there was a world where God created three races of mankind, and those three races spoke the same language and lived in unity for a time, but gradually grew distant from each other. In this world, there was no Babel experience, thus they continued to speak the same language, albeit with gradual dialect differences emerging but essentially the same language. Doesn't this seem logical?

I'm asking because the question had been raised to me by someone in my critique group. She had a hard time believing that three races of people on my fantasy planet all spoke the same language. I maintain that without a Babel experience, it would only be logical that they would all speak the same language, since they are all the same species (human) and were created at the same time and given mandates (by their Creator) to serve the other races with the gifts they each had been given. An author wouldn't have to create a different language for each race just because that's the norm here on Earth, would s/he?

From a creationist perspective, all languages on Earth can be traced back to some two dozen roots that all seemed to have appeared at once. At the risk of being redundant, I will say again that without a Babel experience, wouldn't the races continue to speak the same original language?

[Divides the Waters]

I think it's safe to assume that language would have "evolved" to some degree anyway, as it does to this day. But those languages might well be considered dialects of one another. It is my firm belief that it is the written aspect of language that cements it in time, and left to itself, language continues to mutate and degenerate according to culture.

[torainfor]

As Kira the Gelfling said, writing is "words that stay."

Eugene Peterson (I think in Eat This Book, although I can't find it right now) talks about language and story. If I read it correctly, he points out that there is give and take when it comes to verbal vs. written communication. Communication is based on what another gives us and what we bring in--our preconceived ideas as well as our experience determine how we interpret what's being communicated. In that way, a written word would ensure the author's intent is maintained throughout the ages, although it would be read increasingly through the years by people who do not share his point of reference. Like when you read the King James Version.

Verbal communication is so transient, but can relay the speaker's intent more accurately. While he's speaking, he can see which points are understood (by looking at the listeners' reactions) and which need further clarification. There's still a disconnect in experiences that can/will lead to misunderstanding, but it's more easily rectified immediately.

Actually, it reminds me of reading "Dora, the Explorer" to my son. I can get the gist of the Spanish as I read it, but since I've never heard it, I can't pronounce the words very well. The written and verbal are both important for language and ideas to pass on accurately.

[seraphim]

Have you read any of Gene Wolfe. He is a master putting new life into real but mostly forgotten words.

Perhaps one tack is to look at the "real" word you are trying to develop a substitute for then track down its etymology and development. Then find a similar root meaning and engineer it up.

Here is an example of what I mean: consider this etymology: thurible censer. XV (turrible, thoryble). ¡ª (O)F. thurible or L. t(h)¨±ribulum, f. t(h)¨±s, t(h)¨±r- incense ¡ª Gr. th¨²os sacrifice, offering, incense. So thurifer one who carries a thurible. XIX. ¡ª ecclL

Let's break it down a little further. The latter part of thurifer (fer) is from a root which means "to bear/carry", indeed it is connate to "bear". So if you see this sylable in any number of ecclesial terms it mean one who bears/has right to the key item, such as riasophore is a Orthodox monastic at the stage beyond novice...having the right to bear/wear the riassa, the monastic robe. The stage of development of thurible at "thoryble" also looks fun euphonically speaking, put a pin in it. The first part ofthe word "thuri" is from a Greek word "Thuos/Thuia" which meant cypress, a wood often burned as incense.

Now lets look at another etymology for deacon: Etymology: ME deken < OE deacon < LL(Ec) diaconus, a servant of the church, deacon < Gr diakonos, servant, messenger (in N.T., deacon) < dia- (see dia-) + -konein, to strive < IE base *ken- > L conari, to try, W digon, can

The middle English form "deken" looks useful and it seems period friendly to "thoryble"

So with a little play we can create a matching form Thorybur or Thoryfur (thurifer). Since in origin term discribes an accolyte who was responsible for bearing the turible, the incense burner/censer we could "assume" that a Thorybur was an experienced accolyte, one trusted with a set of more explicit secondary duties. Then we can add Deken so we have a Thorydeken or Thory-deken, a deacon in charge of incense and presumably other related duties and items, the guy who keeps track of the paraphenalia of religious service. He might also be the one considered in charge of training accolytes.

As for your reptile, how about this etymology as a starting place; lizard
"an animal resembling a serpent, with legs added to it" [Johnson], 1377, from Anglo-Fr. lusard, from O.Fr. lesard (fem. laisarde), from L. lacertus (fem. lacerta) "lizard," of unknown origin, perhaps from PIE base *leq- "to bend, twist."

Two terms in that list look useful: "Lusard" orn the PIE "Leq". A really big one you could call a greatleq perhaps.