Talk:Cuzeian epics

From Almeopedia

Regarding this bit: "The epics are largely set in the same epoch as the later Count of Years [...] the theology and sense of chivalry are imported from the time of composition (roughly -100 to 50)":

"The same epoch as the later Count of Years" is most readily interpreted as, "the same epoch as the Count of Years, which was composed later". But the earliest written version of the Count of Years dates from -50, and oral versions are older, so it can't be described as later than -100 to 50.

I think it should read something like, "the same epoch as the latter sections of the Count of Years". But this isn't really accurate either, because most of the way up until the final compilation in 1350 it was customary for scribes to update the Count of Years with history leading up to their own day. I think what you really mean is, "the same epoch as the latter sections of the earliest manuscripts of the Count of Years".

(Or something.)

Incidentally, an article on the Count of Years may well be my next significant contribution to the Wiki (though at present I've barely started making notes). Zerrakhi 10:24, 8 September 2006 (PDT)

Actually, what I meant was that the epics are set in the same period covered by part 9 of the Count of Years-- the period of the conquest of Eretald, but before the unification of Cuzei. Zompist 10:42, 8 September 2006 (PDT)