"Overmen" is, presumably, an over-literal translation of Uebermenschen though? Whereas the translation "Superman" makes it sound grander by, ironically, using the Latin word for "above" or "over" rather than the equivalent word of Teutonic origin
That said, "Men of All" is the more canonical form isn't it-- and it avoids some of the ambiguity attached to "Knight", which suggests different things in different places around the Lozenge
Richard Hayes
- On Thu, 24/3/11, Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_NXZBnaWYxjEDVC4AYpaFUa0-IoXVB2Gp91J5cbj36o6U1VGuC6BiKunnM2x6AtzoVuMBiUj2rrsswl5M_expU7I.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_NXZBnaWYxjEDVC4AYpaFUa0-IoXVB2Gp91J5cbj36o6U1VGuC6BiKunnM2x6AtzoVuMBiUj2rrsswl5M_expU7I.yahoo.invalid>
Subject: Re: Pithdaros answers
To: WorldofGlorantha_at_yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, 24 March, 2011, 3:01
On 3/24/2011 9:34 AM, Trotsky wrote:
>
> Is the term "overmen" canonical? It's one I never liked myself - sounded
> too much like "ubermenschen", and seemed to imply parallels with Nazi
> ideology that obviously don't fit with the Hrestoli. But me disliking
> something is not evidence its non-canonical (far from it), so have I
> missed something somewhere?
Overmen does appear in the Glorantha: Intro (although I get the
impression that it's something that slipped past the editorial pen).
And it's supermen that insinuates Nazi ideology, not overmen.
--Peter Metcalfe
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]