[<a href='3100.html'>Next Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='3098.html'>Previous Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='3100.html'>Next Message in Topic</a>] | 
[<a href='0.html'>Previous Message in Topic</a>] <br/><br/>
<b>Message ID:</b> 3099 <br/>
<b>Date:</b> Thu Jul  8 16:38:53 BST 1999 <br/>
<b>Author:</b> Bob Stewart <br/>
<b>Subject:</b> Wordsmithing <br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-86922149">At 11:27 AM 7/8/99 -0400, John Kim wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt;It&#39;s not the official term?  Hurrah!  I thought it was stupid<br/>
&gt;too, but many bards seemed to recognize it better than<br/>
&gt;stacking or weaving or juggling.  I will stop using &quot;twisting&quot;  <br/>
&gt;(except out of habit :-).<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>As the wordsmiths of Norrath it seems resonable and proper that it should<br/>
fall upon the bards to shape the language.  But can we even shape it among<br/>
ourselves, when speaking of our own unique abilities?<br/>
<br/>
I can only hope.<br/>
<br/>
Can we agree on a word for the interweaving of multiple spellsongs?  Can we<br/>
begin to use it religiously ourselves, first here and then among others?<br/>
Can we change the language of Norrath?<br/>
<br/>
Of the terms so far, I rather like &quot;weaving.&quot;  It has the correct<br/>
denotation and good connotations for blending strands that are similar but<br/>
distinct, to create a fabric that is stronger and more useful than the<br/>
individual strands.  It&#39;s short, clean, and to the point.<br/>
<br/>
Do we have the interest and self-discipline to pick a word and effect a change?<br/>
<br/>
Today, perhaps, &quot;weaving,&quot; some day, with victories behind us, we can take<br/>
on &quot;proc.&quot;  :-)<br/>
<br/>
	Thrush</div>