Lore talk:Khajiit

Archives
Archive 1: Mar 2007 - Feb 2012

Suthay and Suthay-raht distinction

Since no clear explanation of why Khajiit in morrowind look different to oblivion and skyrim (especially with regards to their beast legs) I took the liberty of placing them under "Suthay" instead of Suthay-raht and added the detail under Suthay that defines them as having beast legs.

While there is no sourced evidence to support this distinction, I could equally find no evidence to support the assertion that they were Suthay-raht (and according to the ohmes-raht entry, most khajiit are supposed to possess beast legs <though granted this assertion is not sourced either>). This way at least provides some explanation for their physiological difference until someone can replace it with a solid, sourced explanation.

62.150.124.202 18:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In Morrowind, the Khajiits claim that they are Suthay-raht ("In Vvardenfell Khajiit are all Suthay-raht like me -- smart, quick, and agile.") This is evidence that they are Suthay-raht

other things that the Khajiits say in Morrowind that suggest they are Suthay-raht are "Suthay-raht make good jumpers and sneakers, but not good warriors like the Cathay-raht." and "Suthay-raht prefer claws to weapons. Fast and always ready."

I'm changing the Suthay to be discrived as similar but smaller to the Suthay. I'm changing the Suthay-raht to include Morrowind's Khajiits.

--70.194.15.149 19:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC), Woundedkneecap

Void Nights?

Probably not the place for it, I was curious, has there been any information/sources explaining any effect on Khajiit dimorphism during the time of the void nights? Or did things continue as though the moons were still in place? 94.168.28.209 12:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I never heard anything about it and in Skyrim the Khajiits seem to be normal so I would say no. Although if you go through the lore pages you might find something but I don't think so. RIM 15:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

S'rendarr / Stendarr?

This has been marked as a question that needs to be answered.

"Nothing is known of S'rendarr, save that the Khajiit revere him as the God of Mercy." Seems like an obvious parallel to the Nordic god Stendarr. Is this intentionally left unstated on the page, e.g. due to lack of in-game evidence? 206.116.154.115 00:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The Lore page on gods does state that they are the same god. In fact, many of the gods on this page have parallels to other gods, and none of them are stated. Additionally, none of them redirect to their respective sections on the other lore pages. Before I fix this, I would like some clarification as to whether this is intentional or nobody noticed. The descriptions for the gods on this page seem more like in-game descriptions instead of wiki material. APSX3427 (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

They should have separate sections in the gods section, to be completely honest. They are clearly the same deity, but they are as different as Mars and Ares or Zeus and Jupiter. Therefore we must treat them as separate. We are likely to get more information on the different versions of each god in ESO. Jeancey (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

Etymological Note

Browsing the page anonymously at first, I saw a specific part mentioned under the Etymological Note regarding the nature of the Khajiit, which I decide to change, as aforementioned, anonymously. Quite a bold statement to be made, since it's basically my first contribution, but I was wondering, since there is no verb in the English language (desert) that elaborates on the point the Khajjiti language is trying to convey, should it be reverted back? Taking into account of course, that the suffix -iit defines one's occupation or residence, it could be possibly changed to stress out the desert as the area in which Khajiit live. --Lupus 20:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The page says that "desert" is in this case related to the noun "desert". Actually, on this page, it is stated that iit means to walk, so Khajiit could literally mean desert-walker in Ta'agra. I don't know where someone got "one who deserts" from, and I haven't been able to find anything through a lore search. Vely^{►Talk►Email} 23:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What strikes me the most is, that above, in the suffix and prefix list, next to the -iit suffix is stated that it defines one's area of residence or one's work. It comes as much as a contradiction to the walker definition mentioned above by Vely here. On top of this, the phrase one who deserts simply makes no sense, even with the explanation next to it, no? So, should that part be reworked, looked into, or deleted altogether?

Note: I undersatand that *desert* in this case, is related to the noun, but seeing that we're trying to correctly translate it, shouldn't it at least, follow a correct format, which could be faciliated by, let's say periphrasis. --Lupus 10:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If we can figure out what dialogue or book the information came from, that would be best. Vely^{►Talk►Email} 14:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Legoless reverted my change last, so I suppose he may be aware of its true source?--Lupus 17:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not know if he does or not, but "one who deserts" is probably not the same as "one who lives or resides in a desert"--desert-walker is the best translation I can see, based on our current article on Ehlnofex languages. Vely^{►Talk►Email} 17:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This was based on the explanation of the -iit suffix right above the Etymological Note ("-iit" is used to state where one lives, and is also used to define one's job.) But as I said before this goes against the definition of the -iit suffix as seen on the Ehlnofex language article chart. --Lupus 18:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Anthropomorphism VS Therianthropy

I'd like to debate which of the two would better suit Khajiit in the opening of the page. Therianthropy refers to the metamorphism of humans into other animals, while anthropomorphism refers to human characteristics within another animal. Since Khajiit do not start as human and turn into another animal (for example like that of a Werewolf) they are not truly Therianthropic. Instead they are humanoid felines, thus falling more under the Anthropomorphic category. A quote from Wikipedia about therianthropy: "Therianthropes are said to change forms via shapeshifting." which proves that Khajiit, whom are born already in a humanoid feline form, are not Therianthropes. I bring this here in case people can prove otherwise.--Dro'Bakha (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2012 (GMT)

No they are not humanoid felines. They are feline Mer. i.e. not felines with human characteristics, but "humans" (mer) with feline characteristics.--98.234.113.80 20:58, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

Two things, One, humans and Mer are different. Two, do you have evidence to support that they are not humanoid felines? Jeancey (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2013 (GMT)

Technically half of the Khajiit subspecies are not humanoid. :P And both mer and humans are humanoid so that's not wrong either.

And yes Anthropomorphism is correct. Therianthropy is the catch-all term for all types of were creatures, being Lycanthropy(wolves) one of them.--Ashendant (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2013 (GMT)