Re: GFM and Man Rune

From: David Weihe <weihe_at_gsidanet.danet.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 96 10:51:17 EST

> From: David Cake <davidc_at_cs.uwa.edu.au>

>	skipping 


> 	The difference between the Humakti and the Yanafali Death runes is

> a particularly poor example. First, the God Learners were all gone before
> Yanafals Tarnils birth. Secondly, the Yanafals Tarnils cult is more or less
> directly descended from the Carmanian Humakt cult - it did not evolve
> independently. And differences between the way they represent the runes are
> a conscious rebellion, and any similarities are a result of a direct
> cultural connection.

No. You're wrong. That is a perfect example of the point that *I* was trying to make. Before the GLs, there were scads of variant runes, from different cultures, different histories, revolts (like YT's), and probably convergences from different origins entirely. They took this mishmash and produced a stripped-down set that seemed to accurately have the same significance (the eigenvalues of the runes, they thought) and same or better ritual usefulness, just like they did with myths. After a few centuries of meddling with the Mythic landscape, they became rather dramatically wrong, and their culture and empires went splat.

After this, the process of runic variation started anew, with the YT vs Humakt Death Rune being the best known example. If Etyries and Issaries split to the point that she claims to have rooked him into buying a pig in a poke or magic beans for a cow or whatever (the Trader equivalent of defeating him in battle), maybe Etyries will need or want a different rune, as well (maybe she will adopt '$' or '#', instead).

> Of course, we now know that both the runes and the simplified God
> Learner mythology are not things you should rely upon. Both work up to a
> point, though.

Yes, agreed. Don't use them as "proof". Weak evidence, perhaps, but not proof, by any stretch.

---