Re: "Don't mention the gyrda!"

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_TI6yboz27M7dNWpdOEDPCkeFSjXXcyZsVCj4VadS6G2617xWbk7WuTpY5nfk1GMemln>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:40:32 +1200

At 09:04 a.m. 23/07/2008, you wrote:

>God-talker, being an English translation, can also be used for other
>theistic religions such as Dara Happa.

IMO God-talker is an Orlanthism and to call a Dara Happan Priest a God-talker sounds to me as false as calling a natural philosopher in Athens a wizard. God-talking conveys the impression of someone who talks to gods as he does with people whereas the relationship between a Dara Happan Priest and his deity is more like that of an unworthy servant who keeps silent in the divine presence unless spoken to.

On the issue of Gyrda, I can see where John is coming from. At the same time to have a feminine form of Godi, itself a colourful way of saying God-talker, seems to me a bit too much work for a bit too little reward. What does saying "a gyrda of Ernalda" give us that saying "a godi of Ernalda" doesn't? And what if I say "Godis" instead of "Godar"?

On the preceptor et al thing in ILH-2 which is a manifestation of a larger complaint, I think the wisest thing would be to simply the rules terminology so that instead of having practictioners, initiates and orderlies, you just had initiates and prefaced the words with animist etc. if that particular detail was necessary. The higher ranks of Shaman, Disciples, Devotees and Magus being more noteworthy would still have their own titles and rules.

--Peter Metcalfe            

Powered by hypermail