---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Jason *Jaxel* Axelrod <jda3 at njit.edu> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:32:21 -0500 >> Actually, there might be. I get the notion that "lord" as a suffix >> (Dragonlord, Dzurlord, and also Hawklord [1]) might indicate that the >> individual does rank above other Dragons or Dzur or Hawks who are >> *not* lords, perhaps having to do with how much land they control, >> perhaps with whether they control any land at all. For example, >> Morrolan is a Dragonlord. He's Count of Southmoor, probably Duke of >> Eastmanswatch - that's a fairly large chunk of land, altogether. On >> the other hand, there's Dortmond (to pick one) from /Dragon/. Given >> that he's been soldiering for 200 years, he probably doesn't have any >> lands that he's responsible for. I think he would just be a Dragon, >> not a Dragonlord. > >A pretty good derivation... but you forget that throughout all of SKZB's >books, he calls all Dragon soldiers as "Dragonlords" even if he knows >nothing about their lineage or estates. Moreover, you just don't want to take the chance of offending any Dragon, whether or not he happens to have lands or a title. I think that, in that case, "lord" as a suffix is a prudent courtesy, extended to random persons of the House of the Dragon against the chance that the omission of "-lord" would possibly cause them to have hurt feelings and take out those hurt feelings ON YOUR SPLEEN. As a rule of thumb, any Dragon, "real" lord or not, could probably tie you into a pretzel and then skewer you, without being put to any real trouble, so giving 'em a "-lord" keeps everyone happy and your organs in their rightful places. ¬ mj