From: allen wallace (email@example.com)
Date: Tue 12 May 1998 - 01:44:31 EEST
I obviously wasn't clear in what I was saying on a couple of points.
> then RW linguistics, including etymology, apply.
Description of Gloranthan languages could be done, of course, but: =
GLS the A-Good-Guess version: It's a game.
>Familiar and Allied spirit are close enough to be identical. =
Well, I disagree, but there's nothing wrong with this POV.
Etymology and linguistics can apply, but only to the point you can rely on
the linguistic expertise of the author, and more important, editor. To be
able to make conclusions based on the base root of enlightenment and
illumination, you must be able to find out if the author is aware of this.
Otherwise you need to go be the most basic interpretation of the words.
This is actually where we got out of step on the familiar/allied spirit
question. Yes, by definition in game terminology, a familiar and allied
spirit are totally different types of beings, but the real world meaning
for familiar is far closer to the allied spirit concept than how it is
being used in the game. I can't think of a better example for the risks of
using RW etymology on game concepts. OTOH with the real lack of data to
flesh out a campaign, sometimes you've got to take those risks, just
recognize when you do so you don't get in a knock-down drag-out over a
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:17:12 EEST