A direct translation into English from a book written in latin?
No, from a book written in Greek. It uses the Latin names for the gods because they were considered more familiar to the readership.
You probably know that the Greeks had their own language (or better their own languages) before they were conquered by the Romans?
Don't posture. Of course I do! I said in my post that the TRANSLATION uses the latin names for the gods, and I suspect you and only you read that as the translation is from the Latin. Weren't you complaining earlier that people didn't read your posts? than again, you are also the one who insulted me and then claimed I was rude, so I suppose consistency is too much to ask.
As with Aquinus you just throw some "known" names but you should know that wikipedia isn't the only source of direct information
Ahh, the old "I have no argument so I'll belittle my opponent and claim in the hope the people don't notice" dodge. Funnily enough, I got my information on Howard from reading Howard, and my information on the Iliad from reading the Iliad. I avoid wikipedia: its completely unreliable.
Misleading. Homer's Iliad was never written down by Homer
It was composed orally, that's true. But oral transmission is no less reliable than written if the proper techniques are used, and it was written down by the classical period, which is what most people think of when they say ancient Greece.
Further, it doesn't look like a direct translation of the original surviving texts at all. Direct translations (as direct as we can come through two or three languages) are done in poetic form, as that's how they were written to start with,
Two or three languages? Why? we are perfectly capable of translating it from the original Greek. And there are both prose and poetic translations, because translating the poetic forms is actually quite difficult. Its very hard to get a translation that is both accurate, and scans. If you want a line by line translation, I've found one here:
http://www.library.northwestern.edu/homer/
Its more stilted, but modern and uses the greek names.
Likewise, just because someone calls something a God, doesn't mean that it really is a God.
That depends who calls it one. Certainly, if a character calls something a god, it may or may not be. But if Howard calls it a a god, then it is. Generally, I believe, if something is called a god in the narration; that is to say that no character says it, its part of the descriptive text; then its accurrate. Khosatral Khel, Ollam Onga, the divinity that appears in Shadows in the Moonlight are all described as gods or divine in the text, and Atali and Ymir appear in a story whose title is "Gods of the North".
You would appreciate that I feel your "godly" argumentation persuasive, don't you? Don't you think your argumentation is a bit authoritarian
king, you have to accept something here. It is clear that you have a strong idea what a "god" is. Its an interesting idea. Its not an idea I entirely share, but I can respect it, certainly. However, we are not dealing here with your world, or the real world. Hyboria is a sub creation that was brought into existence by Robert E Howard. He defined the world. He created the world. With respect to the Hyborian world he is the Creator. We are discussing here whether gods are present or absent in the Hyborian world, and indeed what gods are. When discussing Hyboria, ALL that matters is what Howard defined. This is why I pointed out that your diversions into real world thought were off topic: They are completely irrelevant to HOWARD's thought, and in Howards world, Howard's thought is all that matters. We cannot take our preconceptions about what gods are to Howard's writing, we have to derive our definitions from him.
Now, Howard does have a being defined as a god that doesn't seem physically present; namely Mitra. However, it is made clear that this is unusual. Most gods are described by Howard as physical entities, or at least entities that often take physical form, of great but not infinite power. Gods are awesome, ancient and mighty beings, but they are beings whose goals and designs, and even persons, can be meaningfully opposed by the greatest mortal heroes such as Conan or Epimetreus. Deities whose area is not war or combat may not even be that formidable, as Atali wasn't. The parallels with the Iliad are clear.
Now, this isn't your conception of godhood. If it comes to that, it isn't mine either. But it is Howard's, and in his world that is all that matters.
Almost every creature is a god then: the winged thing because it is worshiped by men who he himself transformed into hyenas or even a communuty of gods feared by the common folk (servants of Bit-Yakin).
No. Read the books. The winged thing is described, by Howard in the narration, as the last survivor of an advanced an ancient but earthly race. It is not a god. The servants of Bit Yakin are unknown to anyone, but the goddess of the valley is described, again by Howard in the narration, as a fake cooked up by Bit Yakin. They are NOT gods, and Howard makes that clear.
You see, you can't even read your own language; so why would you tell me you understand what Howard is writing. Troubleshooting help: try and read your book in the other sense.
King, another thing. I'm going to go further than Krushnak. It has been obvious to me for some time that English is, in fact, not your first language. Your English is good, but many of your phrases are constructed very oddly. Its not usually a problem, but you are sometimes very difficult to follow, and you occasionally lapse into incoherence. Krushnak could perhaps have been more tactful, but that paragraph is in fact completely meaningless in English. Push with much strength and look at your own back? No, try again.
