From: Peter Metcalfe (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed 13 May 1998 - 14:54:30 EEST
>>Since the definition of being orthodox is adhering to accepted
>>conventional views _and_ that there are far more Malkioni than
>>there are Brithini (even if the People of Old Brithos suddenly
>>showed up), I see no problem in calling the mainstream Malkioni
>Don't you think that would depend on the subject matter?
>I'm quite willing to accept "orthodox westerners" as
>meaning certain Malkioni and not other westerners,
>except when what is being discussed is religion itself,
>or some other very basic transcultural subject.
>The phrase "orthodox westerners" in such a context, IMHO,
>becomes meaningless, although we may still be able to mention
>orthodox Rokari, Hrestolists, Sedalpists, or Brithini,
>or even orthodox Orlanthi, dwarfs, Hsunchen and trolls,
>if such were to the point.
So if I say that 'Orthodox Malkioni (or westerners) worship only
the Invisible God', I am uttering gobbledegook in your humble
opinion because I am discussing religion?
>Also, you *were* implying that orthodox malkioni were
>"righter" than other westerners, for obscure etymological
Despite an explicit denial that I have called the orthodox
malkioni 'righter' than anybody else, Julian thinks I am
doing so for 'obscure etymological reasons'. Where do I
collect my card and secret decoder ring in the International
Etymological Conspiracy (Secret Agenda: To describe Glorantha
using Plain English [or German, French etc])?
>Words sometimes just do things we don't want them to.
And some people it seems have more trouble with words than others.
- --Peter Metcalfe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:17:17 EEST