THE PACK Message Boards

Yes I have and they are rare. Its a trick that takes time and a bit of luck. Next the head would be more wolfish meaning that the brain cavity would not be the same size as that of a humans, meaning that memory and brain compacity would be limited. Now yes possibly a "hybrid" werewolf would have human vocal cords be because of the mouth structure they would be unable to speak fluently. Maybe one or two words at a time. But, we gotta think, a real werewolf is not someone that turns into a hybrid, but into real wolf.

Neoritter is right about wolve not having the proper structure to be able to talk. Their capasity for sounds is another thing. I think that if a werewolf could talk it would sound toothy, because of the way their mouths are designed(muzzles).
It might sound like a welsh acccent, if you've ever heard one. Sean Connery is welsh, so you can get a good idea of what it might sound. Without defining lips to speak with it might sound like that, if a werewolf could talk.
My guess is that it would depend on whether the human to werewolf thoughts are different. That only means that I think that werewolves base their decisions on instinct, but on logic when in human form. They don't become stupid or primitive, to me. Their way of thinking changes and that determines whether a werewolf could talk, in my sense of thinking. So, I believe that werewolves can talk, but don't use it as a main way of communicating. There are other senses that we humans neglect. People should try using them rather than being gullible to words. Body language is important in my line of work. It's fassinating to watch people interact. You get a sense of who is lying, by the way their eyes shift and how their hands move when they're nervous...
I'm an artist, after all....

Actually, that'd be up to the palate: the Human has a High palate, and that is the source of most speech, between lips and tongue. If Were's didn't have a high palate, they still might be able to talk, but it would sound like they had a mouth full of Peanut butter.
Let's see: Tongue...if Were's had the same lengual control that humans do, talk would be possible, even if some words were a bit mangled.
Lips: Here's the crux of the question: Do Werewolves have thin lips like Dogs, or do they have remainders of their Human lips? IF Human-like lips (leftovers), then with even a moderately raised palate and mobile tongue, they could talk.
Most likely, they'd sound like Sylvester P. Pussycat...spraying their words as much as speaking them....which could make for a whole new way to "Innoculate" someone with the Were'making Virus: Talk to them!
I do suspect, however, that Werewolves wouldn't talk...unless they had something to say (unlike Humans).

I would like a deep rusty voice to talk with but i dont think a werewolf would want to do to much talking anyway(I will kill you) thats probley what i would say the most

i thinking grawls winpers barks and snarls in a interesting combonation would do fine

It all depends on thr Were's word making equipment: if it doesn't change much from the Human (especially the High Palate) then speech is a certainty.
If it mutates to a purely canine shape, some speech would be possible, although distorted (like a mouthfull of peanut-butter).
Most likely, there would be two distinct forms of communication: between Were's (Verbal shorthand/Acronyms/gestures) and Humans (likely whispers...takes the vocal cords out of the equation) using phrases to compress ideas.
Either way, they'd be really sloppy speakers, that much tongue would gaurantee they'd spray it, not say it...and you'd have to get used to the way they speak.

this has been repeated soooo many times here!!!

Fenrir wrote:this has been repeated soooo many times here!!!

Yeah...but do you realize that this makes another way to initiate Crossing, or the Were'-making? Getting a good long talking to by a Werewolf slobbering his/her words into your face would possibly/probably expose you to the Virus in sufficient amounts to initiate the process.

RedEye wrote:

Fenrir wrote:this has been repeated soooo many times here!!!

Yeah...but do you realize that this makes another way to initiate Crossing, or the Were'-making? Getting a good long talking to by a Werewolf slobbering his/her words into your face would possibly/probably expose you to the Virus in sufficient amounts to initiate the process.

No. It would have to enter the blood stream. Just slobbering on someone would do absolutely nothing.

RedEye wrote:Actually, that'd be up to the palate: the Human has a High palate, and that is the source of most speech, between lips and tongue. If Were's didn't have a high palate, they still might be able to talk, but it would sound like they had a mouth full of Peanut butter.
Let's see: Tongue...if Were's had the same lengual control that humans do, talk would be possible, even if some words were a bit mangled.
Lips: Here's the crux of the question: Do Werewolves have thin lips like Dogs, or do they have remainders of their Human lips? IF Human-like lips (leftovers), then with even a moderately raised palate and mobile tongue, they could talk.
Most likely, they'd sound like Sylvester P. Pussycat...spraying their words as much as speaking them....which could make for a whole new way to "Innoculate" someone with the Were'making Virus: Talk to them!
I do suspect, however, that Werewolves wouldn't talk...unless they had something to say (unlike Humans).

This is what happens whenever someone disproves a notion about any mythical creature, especially werewolves. Well, maybe the mutation would be selective enough. NO. If werewolves could talk there would be myths about them doing so.

RedEye wrote: NO. If werewolves could talk there would be myths about them doing so.

huh? the vast majority of werewolves in werewolf myths can talk.
granted few germanic ones can, but the majority around the world talk even when in wolf form.

PS: You can't use both the biology and mythology to prove a point by the way. If they are magical than there really are no boundries. if they are soley biological then there are boundries.

Rhuen wrote: huh? the vast majority of werewolves in werewolf myths can talk.
granted few germanic ones can, but the majority around the world talk even when in wolf form.

Find me one. You can't? Because you don't know what in the hell your talking about.

PS: You can't use both the biology and mythology to prove a point by the way. If they are magical than there really are no boundries. if they are soley biological then there are boundries.

You certainly can. You take the mythological basis. The true one and say how can this be possible in reality? What characteristics would govern such and such. No werewolves are not magical. Even if they are, you can't come up with random bullshit that has nothing to do with the actual myths.

Werewolves of Ossory, that's one. want another?

random bullshit

Errfh...did the censoring software go on the fritz?

neoritter wrote:

Rhuen wrote: huh? the vast majority of werewolves in werewolf myths can talk.
granted few germanic ones can, but the majority around the world talk even when in wolf form.

Find me one. You can't? Because you don't know what in the hell your talking about.

As someone who has written a book on the subject, I can say that shapeshifters talking when in beast form is found in legends, but it is not common. However, sometimes when the legend describes this talking in detail, it is actually supposed to be a voice that is heard inside the person's head (like telepathy), not a sound coming from the mouth of the creature.

When we expand over to Kitsune and other spiritual shapeshifting animals yes we find talking rather common.
Perhaps "vast majority" is a bit over stated on my part, but I am getting kinda sick of mr. the proof and limit of the biology is in the folklore. considering the folk lore is a magical creature transformation done through specialized sorcery it makes such a claim ludicrous.

But back onto the more civilized side of the discussion.
Seeing a full wolf talk would be more unsettling than say seeing a small fox or Raccoon-Dog talking. Perhaps something to avoid in a werewolf.

Bob Curran is a nut, and that should be stated first. And as Jamie, a supposed expert said, they are rare and when they are told its generally a telepathic sorta thing.

Kitsune and other animist myths are of a different breed, and really have no relevance in this argument.

What argument? this is supposed to be a discussion. When you start to think of it as an argument who become defenisive and un-justifiably hostile.

Also as werewolves are sorcerers turning themselves into an animal form in the folklore I include all versions of that in with them.

The closist thing to what we commonly think of as werewolves today have as their closist resemblence creatures like the Windigo. which I think could talk, not certain though so don't quote me on that.

"as for werewolves, I also included in my thinking the Dog people, Cyano...something or nother."

Sounds like somebody needs some quiet time....

Rhuen wrote:What argument? this is supposed to be a discussion. When you start to think of it as an argument who become defenisive and un-justifiably hostile.

argument - syn: debate, disagreement, position, stance, statement, thesis. Let's try not to just use the word's connotation and look at its denotation.

Now, as for why you can't compare, kitsune and werewolves, and why your example of sorcerors does not work is this. One, kitsune as I said come from an animist religion, and are meant as a why of giving animals human characteristics (aka: anthropomorphism). Two, the sorceror myths are basically religious propaganda, very much like the Portugese werewolf. If the Portugese werewolf isn't religious propaganda then I don't know what propaganda is. That type of werewolf was spread because Muslims would brand a Christian with a crescent. This story probably serviced around the time of the Crusades and/or while the Muslim Moors occupied parts of the Spanish Peninsula (correct geographic name escapes me at present).

In Europe you barely find that many werewolf tales prior to the Christian era. The werewolf was for the most part just another way for the church to brand people and make an excuse to exicute them. The wolf spirits, gods, and shapeshifters in the germanic lands likely prior to this period bared a close resemblance to their cousins in other cultures that still practice or have at least kept better records of the myths from their time as nature worshipers.
Prior to the christian era all we have are the few tales like Lycian and the werewolf that participated in the Olympic games (which I think could talk). But it might not really say, and that may have just been a bad translation of a dog-person "something the Greeks thought lived somewhere in the west or east".

PS: while a word may be synonimous its meaning in the ever changing living language of English can change dramatically.
In business they teach you that a little change of words can mean a world of difference.
When you say argument: one pictures two people yelling at each other.
While a discussion: makes people picture people sitting down and talking over the details of an issue calmly.
this alone can supposedly cause even the person using the terms to subconsiously treat the issue at hand differently based on what words they use to describe said issue.

PSS: my spelling is atrocious

Rhuen wrote:In Europe you barely find that many werewolf tales prior to the Christian era. The werewolf was for the most part just another way for the church to brand people and make an excuse to exicute them. The wolf spirits, gods, and shapeshifters in the germanic lands likely prior to this period bared a close resemblance to their cousins in other cultures that still practice or have at least kept better records of the myths from their time as nature worshipers.
Prior to the christian era all we have are the few tales like Lycian and the werewolf that participated in the Olympic games (which I think could talk). But it might not really say, and that may have just been a bad translation of a dog-person "something the Greeks thought lived somewhere in the west or east".

You could say that about the Germanic myths, and you seem to not know much about them. But if its a naturalist take, then again we arrive at people turning into actual wolves. Also, the greek olympic story is very vague, and there is no reference to talking, so using that as support for either side (ability or inability) can't be used. Now, many of the less religious toned stories were based off prior myth and legend. Supposed eyewitness accounts say this and this. And just because a story was created under Christian nations does not mean they are of Christian lore. There are plenty folklores and wive's tales that really have nothing to do with Christianity and hale from earlier periods of time. Case in point fairies. Old folklore from areas populated by descendants of Norse or Celtic religion. Yet these stories were adapted to Christianity to say that fairies are the lost children of Eve. I won't say the story, I assume someone here has heard it.

PS: while a word may be synonimous its meaning in the ever changing living language of English can change dramatically.
In business they teach you that a little change of words can mean a world of difference.
When you say argument: one pictures two people yelling at each other.
While a discussion: makes people picture people sitting down and talking over the details of an issue calmly.
this alone can supposedly cause even the person using the terms to subconsiously treat the issue at hand differently based on what words they use to describe said issue.

Again what you are saying is about the word's connotation. I am talking about its denotation. It was probably a slip of the tongue so to speak that caused me to use that word when people here might not look at its contextual connotation and/or its denotation.

PSS: my spelling is atrocious

Yes, at times it is. But its this is a forum and there generally isn't a good spellcheck incorporated into the website.

Its hard to find data regarding ancient middle european mythology.

My sources for Europe are dominantly, Nordic, Roman, and Greek.

I know far more regarding American, Egyptian, and far east asian mythos.

However this is not to say I know little of the center countries, I know a great deal regarding the nordic influenced lore as well as those spread during the Roman Empire. But little on things other than late christian era in regards to werewolves "all I could find on the subject were court cases really, all of which can be seen as false accusations, or caused by some sort of madness"

on the fairies thing, christian influence is a pain to get past in such things. They even made up some sillyness about Pixies being the souls of lost pagans who refused to convert to christianity.
They even diminished their power from grand almost god like beings of nature to minor imp like fiends.

Rhuen wrote:on the fairies thing, christian influence is a pain to get past in such things. They even made up some sillyness about Pixies being the souls of lost pagans who refused to convert to christianity.
They even diminished their power from grand almost god like beings of nature to minor imp like fiends.

Now, be careful about the phrase "made up". Considering that they are different interpretations on the a similar myth. Both can be considered made up. Let's exclude made up because technically its all made up.

I used "made up" as a myth or legend is something someone once believed, where as the church out of no where just started to say things about this and that belief to either make it make sense to christians, or demify it.

At one point they even claimed Zeus was the devil and the old gods demons, but latter would change their minds and just declare them myths.

You sound like your personally hurt by all that. Anyway, saying their fiction is actually worse than saying they're the minions of Satan. Because the former takes anyway any power that the old gods, or demons in older Christian terms have, while the latter acknowledges their existance and at the same time gives them some level of power of man. I don't find it hypocritical or contradicting to change gears I call it smart religion making. What better way to prevent people from worshipping other gods then by saying they aren't real.

Christianity isn't the only religion to really do this either. Its kind of a common theme to denounce gods of an opposing religion, either by making them fictional or by making them into demigods with very little power.

Don't point the finger at a religion when its human condition.