So, here’s the thing. I have this setting I’ve been working on for years now. And the setting ended up with almost 5000 years of extensive lore, and you need to be familiar with several different philosophies and cultures to understand any of it. I was trying to come up with some names for characters in a story I am writing in said setting. And when I was researching how names and languages change I was struck with a thought. Am I overcomplicating this? Do I really need an explanation why there is a guy named “Al Banian” and why the name is actually a remnant from a completely different reality? I’m getting to the point where the lore is so complex it starts to sound stupid if you don’t know all the details. Case and point, a guy named “Al Banian”.

Another example. There are several creation myths, and three of them are technically correct.

I need some advice. Feel free to ask questions.

    • Jax@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      26 days ago

      This has been your lesson on how history gets muddied and how, despite fiddles not existing, the fiddle became associated with Nero.

      Also, I sincerely doubt Romans would have been playing on ancient Mesopotamian lutes. The European lute was adapted from the oud in Europe somewhere around the 13th century.

      • Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        11·
        26 days ago

        Was it a lesson? I guess, because I learned something.

        I asked the person who first told me this fake news about Nero. Turns out it really was a lyre, and I did misremember.

        And lutes really were invented before 3000 BC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lute Not just in ancient Mesopotamia. Egypt and Greece too. And many other places. Before Rome was evem built. It wasn’t invented just once. Just like language.

        So yes, maybe I wasn’t right, but at least I don’t have to admit you were right the whole time. Can we just call it a draw?

        • Jax@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          26 days ago

          No you absolutely weren’t right, you tried to correct my statement (paraphrasing) of ‘We know Nero wasn’t fiddling’ with ‘Actually we know Nero wasn’t fiddling because fiddles weren’t invented’. You literally proved my statement while trying to say I was wrong.

          Not to mention, the link you provided indeed states that evidence points to their existence in 3000 BC - in ancient Mesopotamia. Their earliest known existence. From which spread to Egypt and Greece, specifically Greece in the form of the pandura. The only thing I’m technically wrong about here is assuming ancient Greece isn’t a part of Europe, because the Greeks themselves didn’t identify as European. They actually invented the term.

          You need to actually read. I’m not interested in continuing to give you history lessons.

          • Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
            1·
            25 days ago

            I never tried to prove you wrong. I was just correcting WHY we know that. We know he wasn’t fiddling, because the fiddle wasn’t invented yet. If he was playing anything (and he wasn’t) then it would’ve been a lyre or a lute. This is all I wanted to say.

            • Jax@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              25 days ago

              I never tried to prove you wrong. I was just correcting WHY we know that. We know he wasn’t fiddling, because the fiddle wasn’t invented yet. If he was playing anything (and he wasn’t) then it would’ve been a lyre or a lute.

              Explain how this is a ‘correction’ to this.

              Do we know that Nero wasn’t actually playing the fiddle while Rome burned? Yes.

              • Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                1·
                25 days ago

                Of course. The correct version would be: “Do we know that Nero wasn’t actually playing the lyre while Rome burned? Yes.”

                • Jax@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  1·
                  25 days ago

                  Fiddled is a verb. The only person who fixated on it being a noun is you, a point I should have addressed immediately.

                  • Young_Gilgamesh@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                    1·
                    25 days ago

                    Fool! You think I know what the difference is?

                    spoiler

                    This is a sarcastic, over exaggerated reaction. Just so you know I’m not actually trying to insult you.

                    No, really, I think I understand even less now. And how is the word “fiddled” being a verb change anything?

                    The term “fiddling/fiddled” implies there is a fiddle involved. My problem with the statement is that there couldn’t be a fiddle involved. Because fiddles were not invented yet. Lest Nero was fiddling himself (or someone else), I cannot accept your version of the idiom as correct. Just because there is no such thing as “luteing” or “lyreing” doesn’t mean “fiddling” is the correct verb to use.

                    Edit: I think I know where the misunderstanding is coming from. Are you assuming I am disagreeing with any part of your statement? I am not. I am simply saying that the correct version of the saying would not mention fiddles. Because there were no fiddles. Unless that is the point. We know he wasn’t playing the fiddle because there were no fiddles? Is that the point?