Re: Orlanthi vs Orlanthi from Malcolm Williams on 2000-02-03 (Glorantha Digest Vol 07)

From: Malcolm Williams <M.Williams_at_teamphone.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 09:31:48 -0000

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF6E29.7E8969F4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Alex Ferguson :
> >> ...And if we _were_ to seek to abolish a meaning of
> >>the term 'Orlanthi', then the sense of 'culturally Orlanthi' is
> >>the one I'd least like to say go...

David Dunham:
>>... In fact, I believe Hero Wars is going to try to refer to the most >> commonly known Orlanth-worshipping culture as Heortling...

Etc...

Your pardon chaps & chapettes, but other than for the sake of neatness, I really don't see the problem here.
The crux of it is (IMHO) that language evolves, and that although Glorantha (et al) has also been subject to evolution, changes of plan and lapses of memory, it is primarily the result of a collaborative design.

Structures (conceptual as well as physical) that are designed, generally have a neater, perhaps more symmetrical, arguably more harmonious 'feel' to them, than ones which evolve and grow in a natural, unplanned way. I think that maybe this creates an expectation that because we know Glorantha *is* designed, that ambiguities like this are undesirable, and should be fixed.

I disagree. Glorantha has been designed as far as possible to mimic the diversity of an evolved and evolving world, and there are many reasons why the generic, cultural use of "Orlanthi" could have grown from the specific "religious" use. Not least because the Orlanthi religion is pantheonic.

Sorry, this is longer than I intended (especially for a first contribution to the list); my main point is this: If the ambiguity of Gloranthan calenders, worldviews, and so on, don't bother [you], why should the fact that one word has two (related) meanings?

Malk Williams.

Ps. Alex, as I said, I'm new here, and your previous "gripes about neologisms" may have made the above superfluous, but I ain't read 'em!

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF6E29.7E8969F4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =

charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version = 5.5.2232.0">

<TITLE>Re: Orlanthi vs Orlanthi</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

Alex Ferguson :

<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;&gt; ...And if we _were_ to seek to abolish =
a meaning of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt;&gt;the term 'Orlanthi', then the sense of =

'culturally Orlanthi' is
 > >>the one I'd least like to say = go...

David Dunham:
 >>... In fact, I believe Hero Wars is going to = try to refer to the most 
 >> commonly known Orlanth-worshipping culture = as Heortling...

Etc...

Your pardon chaps & chapettes, but other than for = the sake of neatness, I really don't see the problem here. The crux of it is (IMHO) that language evolves, and = that although Glorantha (et al) has also been subject to evolution, = changes of plan and lapses of memory, it is primarily the result of a = collaborative design.

Structures (conceptual as well as physical) that are = designed, generally have a neater, perhaps more symmetrical, arguably = more harmonious 'feel' to them, than ones which evolve and grow in a = natural, unplanned way.  I think that maybe this creates an = expectation that because we know Glorantha *is* designed, that = ambiguities like this are undesirable, and should be fixed.

I disagree.  Glorantha has been designed as far = as possible to mimic the diversity of an evolved and evolving world, = and there are many reasons why the generic, cultural use of = "Orlanthi" could have grown from the specific = "religious" use.  Not least because the Orlanthi = religion is pantheonic.

Sorry, this is longer than I intended (especially for = a first contribution to the list); my main point is this: If the = ambiguity of Gloranthan calenders, worldviews, and so on, don't bother = [you], why should the fact that one word has two (related) = meanings?

Malk Williams.

Ps.  Alex, as I said, I'm new here, and your = previous "gripes about neologisms" may have made the above = superfluous, but I ain't read 'em!

</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF6E29.7E8969F4--