(urth) Literal or metaphor?

António Pedro Marques entonio at gmail.com
Mon Apr 15 03:30:55 PDT 2013

Gerry Quinn wrote (15-04-2013 10:42):
> From: Lee Berman
>> It was a number of years ago. But IIRC, the debate started when someone
>> else speculated that the name of a certain character, (maybe Patera Bull
>> or even Bison?) was suggestive of him being related to Horn. I think it
>> was Roy's general contention that Vironese names were picked (by Wolfe)
>> at random and any connections between them were personal inventions and
>> shouldn't be to be used to find extra-curricular meaning. I remember asking
>> Roy if he might concede that if not bovine then ungulate connections tied
>> the male names of Horn's family together, but he never responded. That may
>> have marked the end of Roy's participation on this board. A shame, but
>> understandable.

[I would rather imagine Roy doesn't see a point in filling the list with 
discussions of the same ideas again and again and again.]

> If that was the reason I would not find it understandable, and so I assume
> there must have been some other reason.  Even if one doubts the ungulate[*]
> connection (which I would find difficult) one cannot dispute that Wolfe
> picked the names with a view to alliteration at least.  And given that
> alliteration reduces the space of possibilities, the chance of an accidental
> ungulate connection is reduced.
> [*] Maybe ungulate isn't quite right, though.  Horn, Hide and Hoof might be
> thought of as epidermal by-products of large domesticated grass-eaters.
> Either way, it's natural to link them.

Not necessarily epidermal, cf. Sinew. But that, not 'bovine', is the theme 
in Horn's family, the remark over 'bull' notwithstanding. I don't recall 
anyone ever not seeing it.

More information about the Urth mailing list