Merriam-Webster doesn't require a "not-provably-true" clause either, so I'm affraid your supportive evidence is looking a bit thin.
> In any case, even the definition you cite makes no claim of
definite
> factuality, the very words "story" and "supernatural" tend to imply
> the opposite.
You're seriously telling us that there is no evidence or proof of the supernatural in Glorantha?
> O.K., I'll accept that "myth" in Glorantha is used differently than
> in English. But since these events actually did happen, (right?)
IMO
> it's a poor choice when "history" fits much better.
There is a clear distinction between history and myth in glorantha. They are not the same thing. History is in the past. It cannot be changed, and is bound by time.
Myth is the living expression of cosmological forces in and on the world. Myth exists in the present, not merely in the past. It's forces and consequences can be manifested in the material world _now_ through the excercise of magic, or even simply through the effects of natural phenomena.
>From time to time we talk about 'going back to the Green Age',
and such, but the Green Age is not truly in the past at all.
It's not so much a place as a state of mind, magic and matter.
If myth was in the past then all magic would be a form of time travel, and that isn't the case.
> As for how this affects play in HW, if all the Orlanthi believe,
and
> can visibly see via Quests, that these deeds of their Gods are
> factually true, why, why do they call them "myths"? Is there some
> doubt? Do Quests often reveal fake things?
No, you simply don't understand what a Gloranthan means by the term 'myth' (or what many of us you are engaged in this discussion mean by it, or what at least two different dictionaries mean by it either).
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail