(urth) Thecla and Thea

[Andrew Mason]

>
> (FWIW I think Wolfe addresses similar issues in BotNS. In Thecla and Thea we have "half-sisters"
> the relationship unexplained. But surely it means something. This is a society in which
> cloning occurs but is not mentioned in polite conversation. I think we can detect it from names
> given- a clone gets a name which is a derivation of the source. Carina-Catherine, Pelagia-Pega and
> perhaps a couple others. If Borski was to get anything from his "onomastics" he should have gotten
> this one. But he didn't. Hah! ;- ) )

I find this improbable, for a number of reasons, Thecla and Thea
don't, I think, look enough alike to be source and clone - their
differences are specifically mentioned; they do look alike, but it's a
normal family resemblance. On the other hand they both _have_ clones,
whom we meet (who of course don't look exactly like them either, but
there's an explanation of that in terms of blood transfusions, which
won't work for Thecla and Thea themselves, as they are both of full
exultant height). Then again, this naming convention is certainly used
sometimes for people who are not clones - Agilus and Agia, Severian
and Severa - while we don't have any clear examples of it being used
for clones. (The closest, perhaps, is Thais, whose name does echo her
source's, if as has been suggested she is Thea's khaibit, but in a
rather different way.)

Might I suggest an alternative view that may have a similar import -
that their mothers might have been source and clone? An exultant goes
to court to become a concubine, taking her kahibit with her. Later she
retires and gets married. What does her kahibit do then? Arguably,
continues to go with her and becomes her husband's mistress. So they
produce half-sisters.