>Me>I was referring to _your_ statement that the Humakti do not believe
> >that Humakt is the sword and at the same time you acknowledge
> >they do eleswhere.
>My statement was that they do not acknowledge Humakt as the weapon
>that killed the Evil Emperor. That deed is attributed to Orlanth's
>misuse of Death.
That's good for the Heortling Humakti. That they believe such a thing does not mean that the Dara Happans can't say that Humakt is the sword that killed Murharzarm.
> >If they do recognize Humakt as the Sword then
> >there is nothing to stop the Dara Happans from saying that Humakt
> >is the sword. Hence your objection isn't.
>Well "there is nothing to stop them" - other than the fact that their
>main source for that version of the story says otherwise
No, it doesn't. The myth says the weapon is Terminatus. Nothing in the myth says the weapon cannot be Humakt. My position is that the Dara Happans now identify Terminatus with Humakt and Rebellus Terminus with Orlanth.
> >The myth which you claim has the lesser influence has
> >two Orlanthi names whereas the myth which you claim
> >has the greater Orlanthi influence doesn't have _any_.
>Well it has the wrong names.
How do you know the names are wrong?
>But more to the point, the second story
>reads like a synthesis of the first and the Orlanthi myth of Orlanth
>and the Evil Emperor.
I do find it surprising that when it comes to my statements, you require an explicit assertion in the text before you can accept it as true but when it comes to your own statements, the lack of anything explicitly contradicting it means that you statement must be true.
> >>nor identify Terminatus as a God.
> >Neither is anybody else in the myth for that matter.
>Yet we know that the Thunderer and Yelm are Gods
We do? But you are using extrinsic knowledge in the case of the Thunderer rather than the strict source reading. Why then do you object to the use of the same extrinsic knowledge to equate the Thunderer with Orlanth and Terminatus with Humakt?
>- but Terminatus appears only as a weapon.
Not so. It is also one of the twenty-seven runic gods of the Dara Happan alphabet (FS p104).
> >I refer you to the Arming of Orlanth (KoS p80) in which Humakt
> >is clearly described as Orlanth's sword.
>Which is not part of that story so it only repeats the idea that at
>some times Humakt is referred to as a weapon and sometimes as
>weaponthane.
In which case the statement that Humakt is Terminatus cannot be said to be incorrect on the basis of Heortling Humakti philosophy.
>However given the Humakti insistence on Honour and the
>stories of the misuses of death
Which is a Heortling interpretation of the Truth Rune and not the complete truth (the Carmanians certainly have a different take on the whole matter). Hence it can't be used to disprove the statement that "Humakt was the sword that Orlanth used to strike down Yelm". All you can say with certainty is that the Heortling Humakti do not agree with this statement and they would probably draw a distinction between Hu and Humakt.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail