|
|
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ==Out-Of-Game Discussion==
| + | {{ResolvedTalk}} |
| − | | |
| − | It came out longer than expected, as the bishop once said......--[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 06:20, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | There appears to be some problem - Andelphracian Lights were created by Andelphracia, who would have only been 5 years old in -325 EC. It's hard to think that she would have created the lights, and for them to have enough gestation to be the cause of a battle. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 13:14, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Not sure on this- doesn't the entry use Andelphracian Lights as a common modern example of smilching? Perhaps these smilchers practiced a very primitive form of smilching- firey sticks or some such? Unfortunately, this ancient history is outside my area of expertise. But I am looking forward to hearing those more learned about this ancient era elaborate. When dealing with ancient dates from the time of legend though, it wouldn't surprising if there would be some difficulty defining a date so precisely... but I think for this layperson, the crux that needs clarifying in this entry is: did this war precede Andelphracia's discovery, or did in fact her new, superior smilching method predicate it? --[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 14:40, 13 Sep 2004
| |
| − | | |
| − | Hmm, I guess I can see that particular approach. Is that your intention, Gineste? There seems to be a lot of flexibility on a quick re-scan: these battles could still be going on, no master smilching technique has been agreed upon, and so on and so forth. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 14:53, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | That's the way I see it; I wanted to link in, but not explicitly or overtly, a number of strands, whilst leaving space for others to digress upon... my strands are 1) a clear relation between andelphracian lights and altoxian bulbs; 2) our lack of information about so many things ancient, which urgently needs at least the framework of an explanation, and so conflict and iconoclasm sprang to mind (the Raking, etc.); and 3) the desire to see some discussion of the physical (ie scientific) structure of this world-what is the underlying unity? how does obith relate light to noise, if that's what it is? But principally it just sort of came out... Let me also add that I don't think the entry places any temporal reference between Andelphracian lights and the battle; but others might have further information on this score. --[[User:Ginestre|Ginestre]] 15:08, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | What's ''(fit 7 lines 1124-1127 in my published transcription of Dunby’s transliteration)'' mean? --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:21, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Fascinating. My only complaint is a minor error in your manuscript. You write: ''"Scholars have long wrangled over who or what could have originally summoned two neighbouring clans, the Exingians and the Looliers, to the Barnum Stones on the pretext of a peaceful contest to decide whose smilch was the most powerful,"'' But you introduce the subject by saying ''"not only were both the traditional producers of light (“smilchers”) and of ritual music (“canoralists”) constrained ... but also the underlying unity of the separate phenomena was so far from being even suspected that bloody battles were fought to uphold the superiority of one procedure over another. The most celebrated of these battles is almost certainly the Battle of Barnum Stones"'' If that premise is correct, I presume the contest was in fact one of smilchers vs. canoralists, and not competing smilchers, with a third party of some unknown affiliation? Or are you hypothesizing the third party was in fact a group of carnoralists that lured two competing groups of smilchers into combat befoe eliminating the "victor" of that battle? The former situation seems more logical to me in the context of this entry. But either way, unles I've read it wrong the first sentence I cited is in error, or the various carnoralist vs. smilcher affiliations need to be made more explicit for those of us not as versed in the subject. We scholars should all take care to remember this is an encyclopdedia of general knowledge, even if the writers are well educated in matters more arcane. --[[User:Bast ResNovae|Bast ResNovae]] 20:07, 13 Sep 2004 (EDT)
| |
This Talk: page once existed, but has since been resolved, refactored, or made irrelevant.
To see the text that was once here, choose a previous version under the History tab.
If you need to add new discussion, remove the reference to this template.
