Simon Hibbs <simon.hibbs_at_marconi.com>:
>
"Next to" meaningless, but not *entirely* meaningless. A Christian (or Jew or Muslim) could explain to, say, a Hindu what he means by the term "angel", and the Hindu could understand. And the Hindu, in turn, might in describing some myth say something like, "And then ___ brought a message--I guess you could say ___ is kind of an angel of Vishnu--anyway, he brought a message to so-and-so..."
As I understand it, Greek historians often translated religious terms, even the names of Gods. It wouldn't be out-of-place for a Greek historian to say something like "The Egyptian Zeus is called 'Amun', and they honored him in this way..."
So:
> Going back to the Dara Happan references, it seems to me
> that if the term Angel is meaningful there then that is
> no reason to suppose that it is meaningful in the context
> of any other Gloranthan religion.
Evidently whoever "translated" the Glorious Reascent of Yelm ran across a Dara Hapan word which meant, more or less, "servitor god", and he chose to render it with the corresponding English word, "angel".
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail