The issue is not whether your idea can be disproven but whether it is proven - or at least strongly supported. THe point is that since it is the synthesis of this Orlanthi story with the Dara Happan story of the murder of Murharzarm then we have to accept that there is a strong possibility that the Dara Happans are aware that the Orlanthi story distinguishes Death from Humakt.
[...]
>
>>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.
And their main source for those elements of the myth appears to be the Orlanthi story.
> 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.
Since this really started with my statement that I didn't know where the idea came from I'd really just like to see you produce a clear case for it.
>
>> >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?
Well you've already referred to p87 of GRoY which states that Plentonius is uncertain about the names and certainly neither Lanatum nor Erlandus are current.
>
>>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.
I've already pointed out ways in which the second story is closer to the Orlanthi version. While the names you mention are firstly a reference to just one rebel God - along with others - and a later addition to the story (and thus not even relevant). And you're the one arguing that since the inadequacy of your evidence fails to disprove your claim then it should be accepted as proven. Please don't insult my intelligence by attributing your own style of "argument" to me.
>
>> >>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?
I didn't object. You never introduced such knowledge so how could I ?
>
>>- 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).
OK, so that is one thing in favour of your view. But we still have to get to the identification of Terminatus with Humakt.
>
>> >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.
And yet another case where you argue that since the evidence does not disprove your view, your opinion should be accepted. Why try to pretend that I do this when you do it so often ?
>
>>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).
Well if you can show how Carmanian ideas are directly relevant on this issue I'm willing to listen. But since we are dealing primarily with a synthesis f Dara Happan and Orlanthi ideas it seems unlikely that there would be a major Carmanian input.
> Hence it can't be used to disprove the
>statement that "Humakt was the sword that Orlanth used to
>strike down Yelm".
Then it is just as well that I am not trying to disprove it. It does however suffice to show that it cannot be used to prove that Humakt IS believed by Dara Happans to be the sword used to cut 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.
And we can say one thing more - that we cannot simply assume that anyone drawing on Humakti ideas would not make the same distinction.
-- -- "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala Guide to Taoism_ Paul K. ------------------------------
Powered by hypermail