Actually, that's not so bad, as Orlanthi Confusion (or Confused =
Orlanthi,
perhaps) goes -- if one always talks of "the bloodline of [X]", then
the meaning is (fairly) clear, whether [X] is "Heort" or "my granda
Alfast".
It only gets to be ambiguous if you say something woolly like "same
bloodline", to which an Orlanthi pedant would say "which same =
bloodline?".
In this sort of context I assume it's normally taken to mean the
usual 3 or 4 generation 'temporary' bloodline.
> Yes - however a trespass by a member of a clan can be redressed =
against any
> other member of that same clan.
Yup, that's what I thought. Basically each "level" of organisation (individual, (stead?), bloodline, clan, tribe, kingdom) deals with each "subordinate" unit as a collective entity, at least for the most part, not as individuals, or as sub-sub-parts -- that seems to be the general principle, right? To "pick out" a particular individual for some sanction or other requires going through the representatives of each level (tribal king, clan chieftain), if you want to stick with legal protocol.
Incidentally, I predict that the Lunars, having a quite different sort of social organisation override this often, greatly pissing clansfolk off, even without really meaning to. When they start breaking up existing clans, mind you, I think they mean to.
> >and leadership of the bloodline is effectively in the hands of =
whichever
> >of his sons or grandsons have the most money, huscarls, grain, =
favours,
> >or Plot Points, depending on the whatever pressing matter is at hand.
> Or daughters, daughters-in-law, etc. with the most money, strongest
> personality, clearest sagacity, favours, or Plot Points. =20
No-brainer on my part, whilst interpreting the concept of =
"patrilineage",
with my brain firmly in 'neutral'. (Blame too much Patriarchal =
Pendragon
on the brain.) Honest, guys and gals, this wasn't reflex sexism,
just elaborate idiocy on my part.
Sl=E1n,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail