> David Dunham questions the need for distinguishing between a
> stead's holdings and a clan's.
Not intentionally. I was confused because I knew what a tula was: "The lands claimed by a clan" (according to a book you co-authored, not to mention a computer game I produced which calls it "a clan's home territory"). Had I noticed that you were attempting to redefine the term, my opposition would have been stronger, but to the change to a technical term that's already well defined.
> the differences between a stead's tula and a clan's can be of
> central importance.
I completely agree with this. I just don't think there is such a thing as a "stead tula." It's called something else (and "stead holdings" is probably just fine for us English speakers, though Thunder Rebels leads me to believe it's called a "harsting" in Sartarite).
There's also a fine distinction in that stead holdings are nominally assigned, not claimed.
I'm also not convinced that stead holdings have boundary stones -- I think when I read that in your original message I assumed clan, because only clans have boundary stones.
To summarize: your proposed change is far more confusing.
-- David Dunham <mailto:dunham_at_...> Glorantha/HW/RQ page: <http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html> Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Powered by hypermail