Talk:Kadli
Is there a reason why my (admittedly entirely speculative) notes on systems having Kadli names were removed? (Plus, in some articles, additional notations on Darmine history)?
As I say, it's all speculative, so if there's published material I missed that make this idea unlikely, fair play.
Since I made the assignation based on the apparent shared features of the names in question, their distinctiveness from other Imperial systems (and evident non-Vilani, non-Anglic roots), and their general location, I'd like to ask the reasoning behind the scrapping of the idea.
Obviously, I don't want to start some silly edit-counter edit fight, so I won't restore anything until I've asked what the disagreement is based on. But I would like to hear some reasoning as to why the "not Kadli" idea supersedes the "Kadli", and thus far there doesn't seem to be any offered.
EDIT: My initial reasoning, reposted:
The 1201 Traveller Map data renames Titania (Zarushagar 0622) to Lodri-Hap, as part of a new Darmine Federation. This suggests that the system names with similar form in 1105 are also Darmine-named. This assumption is supported by the fact that a fair few are on the same main as Ishag (Zarushagar 1323).
- Kawa-Kwi (Zarushagar 1420)
- Keeli-Ho (Zarushagar 1314)
- Konat-Kale (Delphi 0925)
- Leng-Hioh (Delphi 0114)
- Rommen-Kucera (Massilia 0217)
- Skaob-Heti (Zarushagar 2422)
- Ter-Ritt (Zarushagar 2023)
- Toulon-Cadiz (Zarushagar 0510)
I'd also propose that the otherwise anomalous names of F'ornans (Zarushagar 1427), K'pyrene (Zarushagar 0827), N'mra (Zarushagar 1113) and T'saeris (Zarushagar 2212) be Darmine in origin, given their location.
Nasat (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Update: I've compromised, by noting in each article that some sources suggest Kadli origins for the names and others dispute this -- entirely reasonable, I think, given the region's long history of settlement and conquest by Vilani, Solomani, etc.
Nasat (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Your modifications to these articles appear helpful and informative. If anybody disputes the details, i like your approach of compromising on "theoretical histories", as this avoids making any explicit conflicts with established canon. The invented linguistic factoids are a very constructive tool for stimulating the imagination. KevinHutchins (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)