On 20 Feb 2005 12:10:21 -0800, "tenworld" <ten@world.std.com> wrote:
>the oxen and running beasts (aka horses) both had thick coats because
>they were adapted to the winters (ever see the scottish breed of cattle
>or the mongolian horses?) so there are other possible sources
>
>and calling them "running beasts" isnt so much of a stretch since years
>were "turns" and other examples. languages evolve and the original
>colonists were not all english-american ancestry
>
>Taki Kogoma wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:04:17 GMT, "MaryD"
><nojunkstuff1776@hotmail.com>
>> allegedly declared to alt.fan.pern...
>> >A couple of times a blanket or jacket was described as being "fur".
>Where
>> >did this "fur" come from? I don't remember any fur-bearing animals-
>"just"
>> >runner/burden/herd beasts. Pelts from sheep?
>>
>> IIRC, the DLG suggests that the "furs" are, indeed, ovine in nature.
>>
>> --
>> Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @
>swcp.com
>> Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
If I remember correctly, in the "Dragon Lovers Guide" it shows the
domesticated animals were genetically adapted to be heartier and have
shaggy fur coats. Also I think that it mentioned that wherries skins
were used as they furry rather than feathered.
I'd look it up real quick, but as a coincidence, my nephew just took
my guide book last night...
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
|