Tulir he/him Posted March 3, 2012 Report Share Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) So I've been meaning to post this for a while, but I never really got around to it. In the Prelude, the Herald is reffered to as Kalak. But elsewhere in the book, it is Kelek that is referred to. Is this a mispelling, an example of how language changes over time, or are Kalak and Kelek different people? If someone could answer this I would really apreciate it. Edited March 3, 2012 by Tulir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zas678 he/him Posted March 3, 2012 Report Share Posted March 3, 2012 I'm pretty sure that it's just due to time. Pretty sure they are the exact same person, just the name tends to get changed after thousands and thousands of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulir he/him Posted March 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2012 Ok, it was confusing me throughout the book and I wasn't sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelek he/him Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 Yes, I am the same person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telcontar Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 They're the same person, I agree. I thought Kelek is the Vorin name for Kalak. Like Jezerezeh for Jezrien etc. For now we don't know when Vorinism did appear or why. Maybe it wasn't but after the Heralds departed. So the ardents would never actually have met the Heralds and take their names how they sound. Plus, they love symmetry, so Heralds will even be more divine when their names are symmetric. (Of course Kalak already is symmetric) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odium's_Shard Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 They're the same person, I agree. I thought Kelek is the Vorin name for Kalak. Like Jezerezeh for Jezrien etc. For now we don't know when Vorinism did appear or why. Maybe it wasn't but after the Heralds departed. So the ardents would never actually have met the Heralds and take their names how they sound. Plus, they love symmetry, so Heralds will even be more divine when their names are symmetric. (Of course Kalak already is symmetric) I really love your second point (about the symmetry of the Vorin names of the Heralds). While most of the names aren't perfect, they're all close. Jezerezeh, Vedeledev (perfect), Shalash, Ishi, Talenelat (perfect). Also, if we start using language or structural device analysis (that's right I did a course in English Literature...) then the fact that the true names of the Heralds aren't 'perfect' as the members or ardents of Vorinism have come to believe, doesn't this raise questions about the 'pure' nature of the Heralds. Maybe they are just like normal people, I'm sure they haven't the personalities of Saints, after all, they did end the wars with the Voidbringers and their Contracts with the Dawnblades to escape the torture, however bad it was. So they must of had actual personality flaws, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telcontar Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 Also, if we start using language or structural device analysis (that's right I did a course in English Literature...) then the fact that the true names of the Heralds aren't 'perfect' as the members or ardents of Vorinism have come to believe, doesn't this raise questions about the 'pure' nature of the Heralds. Maybe they are just like normal people, I'm sure they haven't the personalities of Saints, after all, they did end the wars with the Voidbringers and their Contracts with the Dawnblades to escape the torture, however bad it was. So they must of had actual personality flaws, too. I would be very surprised if Brandon did not use the different names on purpose. Doesn't he teach creative writing? I believe that the Heralds were just normal people (as normal as a king can be) who took the burden. Not gods, not angelic beings. Just people. So of course they're flawed, as everyone else. In Vorinism though, they are gods. so if symmetry is divinity, symmetric names would be very useful for ardents to make their points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
name_here Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 Shalash is actually perfect, I think. When the symmetry thing is being explained, Kasbal says Shallan is one character off from being perfect, and this plus some other names that include Sh lead me to believe that the Alethi writing system uses a single character for the 'sh' sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odium's_Shard Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 Shalash is actually perfect, I think. When the symmetry thing is being explained, Kasbal says Shallan is one character off from being perfect, and this plus some other names that include Sh lead me to believe that the Alethi writing system uses a single character for the 'sh' sound. This would make most sense. So it would also explain the seeming inconsistencies of Jezerezeh, as in many languages I have studied (including English, when Nordic was replaced with Frank) some letters (such as 'j' and 'h' in Alethi) seem to share the same symbol. In Latin, 'y' and 'th' have the same letter, which is why when the French invaded England, many shop titles were changed (stereotypically) to 'Ye Olde', etc, instead of 'The Old' (because in Latin, the letter 'd' is said 'day'). Finally get to make use of my two seemingly useless qualifications... (English Literature and Language/History). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KageNoOni Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 ... lead me to believe that the Alethi writing system uses a single character for the 'sh' sound. And you'd be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4dave he/him Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 I always thought Jezrien was pronouced "Yezrien", as Jaznah is prounounced "Yaznah" according to BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelek he/him Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 Kalak, Kelek, Ketek... could all be related. Kalak the herald hides behind the penname Kelek after the poetry form of ketek was named after him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulir he/him Posted March 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 Kalak, Kelek, Ketek... could all be related. Kalak the herald hides behind the penname Kelek after the poetry form of ketek was named after him. Well, that just blew my mind. However, you might be correct considering how they are all practically the same word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odium's_Shard Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I looked at the Ars Arcanum table, and I can't see any specific reason why Kelek's name would be used in a colloquial term for a poetry form, considering how he is Resolute/Builder, however, this is a religion. It defies science, logic and reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeshdan he/him Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I looked at the Ars Arcanum table, and I can't see any specific reason why Kelek's name would be used in a colloquial term for a poetry form, considering how he is Resolute/Builder, however, this is a religion. It defies science, logic and reason. I disagree. Religion is the foundation of reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odium's_Shard Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 It is foundation, unto and of itself, however where did that the reason that religion emanates come from to begin with? There must have been some leaps of reason to come to the eventual conclusion of Vorinism, because it isn't a logical path of thought, to create a religion in which one gives up ones pride to beg for the benevolence of a mystical figure. However this debate is highly subjective and I do not in any way wish to enforce any opinions I may have on others, and so, if you disagree with what I have said, voice you opinion, and I will attempt to reconcile, or just agree to disagree. Religious debates make for bad first impressions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikomis he/him Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 Jezerezeh, Vedeledev (perfect), Shalash, Ishi, Talenelat (perfect). As mentioned above, SH is one letter, making Shalash and Ishi perfect. I think likewise, Jezerezeh is perfect in sounds but written differently (Maybe it's pronounced Hezerezeh, or maybe Jezerezej was just awkward, or maybe final Js are silent?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterAhlstrom he/him Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 When there's an unbalanced h in an otherwise palindromic word, it is written with the other letter, but (usually) given a special diacritical mark to indicate that it is pronounced as an h. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulir he/him Posted March 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 Ok, that makes sense. Can you tell us if they are the same person, Kalak and Kelek, Peter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odium's_Shard Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I think it has already been confirmed somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeshdan he/him Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 It is foundation, unto and of itself, however where did that the reason that religion emanates come from to begin with? There must have been some leaps of reason to come to the eventual conclusion of Vorinism, because it isn't a logical path of thought, to create a religion in which one gives up ones pride to beg for the benevolence of a mystical figure. Could you rephrase this? Because i'm not sure whether I disagree with this, let alone how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odium's_Shard Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'm basically saying that if religion can claim to be 'the truth', then where did its 'truth' come from? The Kelek to Ketek thing might just be a gradual misinterpretation leading to a whole new word, however, in other cases they operate under false assumptions. However it is, in the end, of no import other than your personal beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeshdan he/him Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I'm basically saying that if religion can claim to be 'the truth', then where did its 'truth' come from? The Kelek to Ketek thing might just be a gradual misinterpretation leading to a whole new word, however, in other cases they operate under false assumptions. However it is, in the end, of no import other than your personal beliefs. Christian theology is "true" in that it is an accurate description of the origin of the universe, the origin of sin, the nature of right and wrong,the cure for our evils, etc. Incidentally, by saying that my beliefs do not matter, you are saying that they are wrong. (not on purpose, probably, but the one follows from the other.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odium's_Shard Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 I believe you took it that when I said 'it was of no import other than your personal beliefs', you thought I meant your beliefs do not matter. Sorry. What I mean was that all that matters is your personal beliefs. Also, I'm sorry and I will not continue on this note as this is scientific/religious theory not Cosmere related discussion, but I cannot accept it when you say the Christianity is an accurate portrayal of the origin of the universe. It is academically accepted by scientists and indeed some Christians that the Big Bang was the undeniable origin of the universe. Although you could still argue that it was caused by God, for which I have no argument other than thats what you believe, and it is different to what I believe, and that at the end of the day, that's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeshdan he/him Posted March 5, 2012 Report Share Posted March 5, 2012 What i meant was that if Christianity is true, it is of literally infinite importance. If it were false, it would of course be of no importance whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts