Results from the Poll re: the name ' Laegolas' in the Fall of Gondolin

[lindil]

Below is, as far as I know, is the essence of our discussion on Legolas.

the old comments on Legolas

lindil:looking legolas up in the name list on p.216 I
read:'named by the eldar there
Laiqalasse'
So he has already been given a 'Quenya' name by JRRT!
there is then a reference to an extended note in I
wherein we read CRT saying
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'the following Note is of
great interest' "Laigolas =green-leaf,......legolast
i.e.keen-sight...but perhaps both were his names as the
gnomes delighted to give similar sounding namesof
dissimilar meaning, legolas-the ordinary form is a
confusion of the 2."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So we are given 2 options that I can see [and I do not
excpect anyone to rely on me for linguistic skills!]

A 'quenya' - Laiqalasse'
or an uncorrupted 'sindarin' - Laigolas Legolast.
a third option could be just Laigolas -


Aiwendil:I don't think 'Laigolas' is usable, at least not if it is meant to represent a different word from 'Legolas'. It seems most probable to me that it was merely an alternate spelling. But anyway, if we accept the etymology of Legolas (as we must), then 'Laigolas' lacks an etymology entirely.

Tar Elenion :Actually there is an etymology of sorts.
"Legolas means 'green-leaves', a woodland name - dialetical form of pure Sindarin laegolas: *lasse [with overscore on the 'e'] (High-elven lasse, S. las(s)) 'leaf'; *gwa-lassa/*gwa-lassie 'collection of leaves, foliage' (H.E. olassie [w/ overscore on 'e'], S. golas, -olas); *laika 'green' - basis LAY as in laire 'summer' (H.E. laica, S. laeg (seldom used, usually replaced by calen), woodland leg)."
Quoted from Letter 211.
"'Technically' Legolas is a compound (according to rules) of S. laeg 'viridis fresh and green, and go-lass 'collection of leaves, foliage'."
Quoted from Letter 297.

'ae' and 'ai' are often interchangeable (eg Aeglos, Aiglos (Gil-galad's spear)).

Aiwendil:What I meant was that 'Laigolas' is really not a different name at all from 'Legolas'. However, 'Legolast' might be used, if it could still represent 'keen-sight' (I doubt if it could, but we might change it to a more suitable form).

lindil:Re: legolast /laigolas etc. I am for anything other than duplicating legolas /legolas greenleaf.
The others are such close variants that perhaps the Quenya version should be used despite it standing out.

Cian :

I'd go with Laegolas for the "pure Sindarin" that JRRT offers, in the letter quoted by Tar-Elenion.

Laica (LAY) is cognate with S. laeg ~ Helge F. prefers to also honor "older" word laiqua as a viable Quenya word as well. Laiqa shows old "Qenya" orthography.

Tolkien gave the next elements in both High and Grey Elven (S. golas, -olas Q. olassië) as denoting a collection of leaves. Cheers~

later Cian posted:
Re: keeping the form Legolas ~ remember that this form shows Silvan dialect.

Lindil, yes an "updated" situation can (may) be considered:

Quenya laiqua (LAYAK) Sindarin cognate *laeb (Noldorin lhoeb in Etym.)
Quenya laica (LAY) Sindarin cognate laeg (Cf. Q&E WotJ laegel, Laegrim)

The term Laiquendi "Greenelves" was likely originally conceived of as resulting from laiqua+quendi. But laica can also "fit" here, so to speak ~ according to Helge F., the first element may be a reduced form of _laica_ , or prefixed _lai_ may represent only the base itself (LAY), or maybe even laica+quendi > Laiquendi considering rocco+quén > roquen "knight".


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Cian posted :

I'd go with Laegolas for the "pure Sindarin" that JRRT offers, in the letter quoted by Tar-Elenion.

later Cian posted:
Re: keeping the form Legolas ~ remember that this form shows Silvan dialect.

[i]Aiwendil on the 11th of October provided this excellent summary:


Legolas Options

Forgive the longwindedness instead of a simple vote, but I feel compelled to summarize the situation:

As I see it, we currently have the four following options with regard to the name "Legolas":

1. Retain "Legolas". The advantage to this is that we are making one less alteration to the words of JRRT. The possible disadvantages are these: a. "Legolas" appears in LotR as a (probably) Sivanized name, not pure Sindarin. The name in FoG should obviously not be Silvan. b. Elves do not tend to reuse names.

2. Change to Quenya ("Laiqualasse" or something like that). The possible justification is that some names originally given in Sindarin were changed to Quenya (e.g., Bronweg to Voronwe). On the other hand, it seems like this would be taking a little too much liberty with the name. Also, this does not solve the problem (if it is a problem) that the name is reused in LotR; it is the same name, whether it appears in the Sindarin or Quenya form.

3. Change to Laegolas. This would address problem 1a, replacing the perhaps-Silvanized name with a conjectural pure Sindarin form. The disadvantages are: a. we are changing a name (always a disadvantage, however minor) and b. it does not address problem 1b.

4. Change to Legolast or something similar. The idea here is to change the etymology from "Green-leaf" to "Keen-sight". This would nicely sidestep 1a and 1b. This is, unlike "Laicalasse" and "Laegolas", actually a different name from "Legolas". The justification for this is that BoLT I suggests that the name may have been "Laigolas Legolast". The disadvantage is that there is no evidence for the name "Legolast" being his only or primary name.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
what time frame should we give this Aiwendil and any one else?


2 weeks from today [ending monday october 21, 2002]?

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]
***as no one has suggested a time frame I put forth 3 weeks, unless anyone has objections/alt. suggestions and they are seconded]***

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Maédhros]

Laegolas. I'm not much of a language expert, so I will abide the judgement of Cian in this one.

[HerenIstarion]

Laegolas for me.

For it is stated that even for Noldor in Beleriand Quenya was become Latinlike dead language. Though Gondolin is purely noldorin realm of course.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: HerenIstarion ]

[Tirinvo]

I vote for Legolas (not Legolas Greenleaf), as to not contradict LotR. This is the same reason on my decision on the orc/k issue, but that is another topic. Unless we can otherwise provide background information on the change that is compatible with LotR being in the future. Newcomers to the Sil will think Laegolas and Legolas(in LotR) are two different people.

[lindil]

"newcomers will think that Legolas and Laegolas are 2 seperate people"

That is exactly mypoint, they are!

and so any justifiable adjustment of the name [ and JRRT provides several imo] will help to differentiate him from the 3rd age Elf wh is ason of thranduil and has maybe a 1 in million chance of being the same as the Laegolas of Gondolin.

I actually would go w/ quenya myself because a. we have other quenya named elves in Gondolin and b. JRRT provies one, and C. it even further disassociates him from Legolas of Mirkwood, but no one else in the group wants to countenance using Quenya names as substitues.

[Aiwendil]

Legolas Options

Forgive the longwindedness instead of a simple vote, but I feel compelled to summarize the situation:

As I see it, we currently have the four following options with regard to the name "Legolas":

1. Retain "Legolas". The advantage to this is that we are making one less alteration to the words of JRRT. The possible disadvantages are these: a. "Legolas" appears in LotR as a (probably) Silvanized name, not pure Sindarin. The name in FoG should obviously not be Silvan. b. Elves do not tend to reuse names.

2. Change to Quenya ("Laiqualasse" or something like that). The possible justification is that some names originally given in Sindarin were changed to Quenya (e.g., Bronweg to Voronwe). On the other hand, it seems like this would be taking a little too much liberty with the name. Also, this does not solve the problem (if it is a problem) that the name is reused in LotR; it is the same name, whether it appears in the Sindarin or Quenya form.

3. Change to Laegolas. This would address problem 1a, replacing the perhaps-Silvanized name with a conjectural pure Sindarin form. The disadvantages are: a. we are changing a name (always a disadvantage, however minor) and b. it does not address problem 1b.

4. Change to Legolast or something similar. The idea here is to change the etymology from "Green-leaf" to "Keen-sight". This would nicely sidestep 1a and 1b. This is, unlike "Laicalasse" and "Laegolas", actually a different name from "Legolas". The justification for this is that BoLT I suggests that the name may have been "Laigolas Legolast". The disadvantage is that there is no evidence for the name "Legolast" being his only or primary name.

I am not going to vote yet, as I'm not really sure which solution I currently favor. 2 and 3 are essentially the same type of change, using a different form of the same name, and I think that 3 is the stronger of those two. 4 is interesting and would be an excellent solution if it were a little better attested. I'm inclined not to go with 1, as 3 definitely seems superior to it.

So I guess I'm for either "Laegolas" or "Legolast". I will give it some thought and then vote.


[mod note: I liked this summary so much I am puting it up in the original post of the thread -lindil]

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[lindil]

Thank you for that objective and succinct summary Aiwendil, each poll should ideally begin w/ somthing like that.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[lindil]

OK I emended my the opening post in the thread to inculde Aiwendil's summary and extract my vote [ which I really knew I should keep seperate anyway].

OK I emended my the opening post in the thread to inculde Aiwendil's summary and extract my vote [ which I really knew I should keep seperate anyway].

my personal vote is for Laegolas

I am basing it on Cian's observations that the lotR form of the name is not one that would have existed in Gondolin.


Also I am in favour of distancing ourselves form the Legolas Greenleaf of the LotR.

Undoubtedly a different Elf altogether.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Tirinvo]

It is as it may seem; I do not agree with the Sindarin form of the Legolas name. Elves lived a loooonnngg time, so it is very possible that Legolas in LotR and Legolas in the Sil are the same person. I doubt this, but I base this on the fact that JRRT said that Elvish names don't recycle. Yet, I can 'go with the flow' and, be it as it may, I can go either way.

[Aiwendil]

it is very possible that Legolas in LotR and Legolas in the Sil are the same person.

I'm afraid this is not really possible. Legolas in FoG is an Elf of Gondolin, probably Noldorin (though possibly Sindarin). Legolas in LotR is the son of Thranduil, son of Oropher; Oropher is said to have been a Sindarin prince who came east to settle among the Silvan Elves. It is strongly suggested in UT that Legolas was not yet born when Oropher moved east.

[Eruhen]

Seeing as my earlier post is now null and void, I will submit a new vote, simply for Laegolas.

I agree with Lindil, in that we are not certain that Legolas in Gondolin and Legolas in Mirkwood are the same person. However, that possibility exists, so we should give him a name that can still be recognized by people who haven't read HoME.

However, we are all overlooking a possibility here. Is there any reason that Legolas of Gondolin wasn't killed in the Battle at Sirion's Mouth, and then, after an age of penance and contemplation in the Halls of Mandos, his soul was sent back to be born into Middle-earth again as the son of Thranduil? I feel that this may be a distinct possibility, however, I may not have all my facts straight. If I don't, feel free to correct me. So, in light of this, I think that we should all ponder whether Legolas of Gondolin and Legolas of Mirkwood aren't the same Elf.

That's just what I think, though.

[lindil]

What happened to your original post [?] Eruhen?

I apologize if I have said anything to create confusion, but I will try and state my Legolas position in its rawest form.

I do not think there is a chance in Udun that the 2 Legolas' are the same.

Zero zip nada.

I do not think there should be anything in our FoG that even suggests the possibility and I do not for a moment think JRRT would have either.

And here is why:

While Tolkien wrote/debated/corresponded rather exstensively on Glorfindel and his return or not, never once in HoME 6-9 [to my knowledge], the Letters or of course the LotR is Legolas [ of Gondolin] included in on this. The only realistic conclusion I can draw from this sfrom this is that JRRT never saw the 2 as identical.

The above coupled w/ the fact that legolas' name as it stands in LotR shows a 'sylvanization' that would no longer have been present in the Sindarin of Gondolin, leads me to conclude that while they share a similar name, to leave them identical against evidence is only the more likely to breed a confusion that need not exist.

Hope that clarifies my position at least.
as Aiwendil's stated I'm afraid this is not really possible. Legolas in FoG is an Elf of Gondolin, probably Noldorin (though possibly Sindarin). Legolas in LotR is the son of Thranduil, son of Oropher; Oropher is said to have been a Sindarin prince who came east to settle among the Silvan Elves. It is strongly suggested in UT that Legolas was not yet born when Oropher moved east.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

we should give him a name that can still be recognized by people who haven't read HoME.

Putting aside for a moment the
(im)plausability of the LotR Legolas being the same as the FoG Legolas, I don't think our decisions, especially decisions such as this, should be made with respect to the confusion or lack thereof of a reader. The question is a canonical one, not a literary one.

Is there any reason that Legolas of Gondolin wasn't killed in the Battle at Sirion's Mouth, and then, after an age of penance and contemplation in the Halls of Mandos, his soul was sent back to be born into Middle-earth again as the son of Thranduil?

Elvish rebirth was rejected by Tolkien sometime during the 1950s, and replaced with reincarnation. In this latter version, the bodies of Elves are simply reformed by the Valar and reinhabited by their fear. Legolas is quite definitely the son of Thranduil, ruling out the possibility of reincarnation.

[Eruhen]

Okay, okay. I concede my position. However, I am still adamant on using Laegolas, for the same reason as Cian:

I'd go with Laegolas as the "pure Sindarin" that JRRT offers, in the letter qouted by Tar-Elenion.

Well, I told you to correct me if I was wrong and you guys have obviously taken that liberty. Seeing as I didn't have all my facts straight, I abandon my position and just withdraw from this debate altogether.

My vote stands as Laegolas.

[lindil]

I apologize Eruhen, if my tone was a bit hard [ and I think it was]. And please do not worry, I have been corrected and instructed in these forums many, many times. Why look at Aiwendil's last post smilies/smile.gif .


Actually there is still in my mind an unresolved issue amongst our 'principles' re: aesthetics and how to deal w/ contradictions between how we might perceive Tolkien's intention [ unfullfilled, that is as in the case of 'Laegolas'name ] and reconciling that w/ our other principles.

It has yet to ever be a direct clash, but I imagine we will have to vote on the very principles themselves, which have been a rather effective guiding point till now, rather soon. PRobably no later than Rog's entry into the story.

Anyway, the votes seem to be nearly all in, w/ the exception of Underhill and Mithadan who may not regard themselves as voters [although I hope they do!]

[Tirinvo]

I hate to do this, but in reading HoME and some other reasources, I found what lindil was talking about. The fact that Legolas of Gondolin was not (plausibly) the same as Legolas of Greenwood (Mirkwood).

So I therefore withdraw my origional vote. I must go with the Quenya, for it is closest to Noldorin that you can get, and there is no way, with that name, that you can confuse FoG Legolas with LotR Legolas. Laegolas and Laigolas seem really close, in spelling, to the Legolas of Mirkwood. That is so there is no confusion in the transition or comparison of the two.

[Tar Elenion]

Laegolas.

[antoine2]

Laegolas.

For me, it s the best choice.

[Aiwendil]

So I therefore withdraw my origional vote. I must go with the Quenya, for it is closest to Noldorin that you can get

I must point out that Quenya is not closest to Noldorin. What was originally Noldorin later became Sindarin. I'm not trying provoke an argument or alter anyone's vote; I merely think that we should have all such matters made clear so that no one votes under mistaken assumptions.

[Eruhen]

I'm not speaking for him, but what I think Tirinvo means is that Quenya is the closest to Noldorin, the Noldorin as in the language that the Noldor originally spoke. Don't take my word as the Gospel truth though; wait until he says what he means.

---------------------------------------------
Tally thus far:
Laegolas: 6
Laiqualassë: 1
Legolast: 0

[Tirinvo]

Thank you, Eruhen, that is what I mean.

[Aiwendil]

Ah. I understand. Thank you.

[Tirinvo]

You may also note some of my other reasons, such as the fact that Laegolas and Laigolas are one letter away from the origional, yet the Quenya is only similar in its begining. Some may think of the American 'armor' and the British 'armour'(both meaning the same) and make this link with 'Lelogas' and 'Laegolas'(both being different), seeing the two as the same character, just the latter having the more ancient name that later comformed to some standard. Thus, no confusion occurs with the Quenya.

[lindil]

I would go with the Quenya myself for just about every thorny name problem within FoG but there seems to be no support for that outside of ourselves, so I would just as soon not flog an almost dead horse.

[Eruhen]

Lindil, is that a vote for Laiqualassë or are you just complaining? smilies/biggrin.gif

[Tirinvo]

I'm with you there, lindil!

So where are we at:
Laegolas:6
Laigolas:0
Laiqualassë:1(2?)
Legolast:0
So, unless there is a miracle mind-changing turn-around, the vote seems to be as unanimous as it will ever be. Objections???
Otherwise I think this vote is decided.

[Aiwendil]

Not that it matters so much anymore, but my vote is: Laegolas.

[lindil]

You may recall Eruhen that there was a day or so when i had a convoluted post up trying to squeeze in a 1st and 2nd choice.
Upon further reflection I scrapped that post as I realized I was opening a can of worms.

So, no I am voting for the popular Laegolas, but under duress if you will smilies/tongue.gif

I think your vote was already in the tally Aiwendil. and it does matter! Every vote counts look at Florida! Well Ok every vote might count smilies/mad.gif


there - graemlined out.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

I think your vote was already I the tally Aiwendil.

Oh. I hadn't actually voted before; I wasn't decided 'twixt Laegolas and Legolast. Now I'm quite decided: Laegolas, a mere update of the Sindarin. Minimal tampering.

look at Florida!

Precisely the source of my cynicism.

[lindil]

Unless any one objects, as it is a runaway election for Laegolas, I will go ahead and close 'er up and move it over too the public forum for public consumption.

I originally said 2 weeks [ today] and then 3 but as no one commented on either, I will go with the original 2 week period.

[lindil]

While the Poll is closed and finished, folks [project members or not] are free to continue the discussion.

[Eruhen]

No need to keep talking, if the vote is over and done.

[Elendur]

1. Retain "Legolas". The advantage to this is that we are making one less alteration to the words of JRRT. The possible disadvantages are these: a. "Legolas" appears in LotR as a (probably) Sivanized name, not pure Sindarin. The name in FoG should obviously not be Silvan. b. Elves do not tend to reuse names.

In response to this.

a.) I thought there were Silvan elves living in the Mirkwood forest. I remember reading that there weren't many of them but they were leaders to the Sindarin elves in that area. So wouldn't a Silvanised name make sense because Legolas was a prince?

b.)Aren't Legolas and Laegolas pronounced the same? If that is the case, it doesn't seem to fit with the rule because only a spelling change to the name has been made.

Im sorry if my points dont make sense. I haven't read anything from HoME except for the first half of The Lost Tales. But I remember reading about Silvan elves in Mirkwood so I thought I would share my unkowledgable opinion. I would like to get a quote from the book, but I have no idea where I read that from. It is probably Unfinished Tales.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Elendur ]

[Aiwendil]

I thought there were Silvan elves living in the Mirkwood forest. I remember reading that there weren't many of them but they were leaders to the Sindarin elves in that area. So wouldn't a Silvanised name make sense because Legolas was a prince?


You're right; but (and there's no way you could have known this without reading BoLT II), the Legolas in question is a different one. Long before LotR was begun, there was a Legolas of Gondolin. He was, unfortunately, ommitted from the compressed later versions.

Aren't Legolas and Laegolas pronounced the same?

"Legolas" is, I believe, pronounced
le'-g^o-los (that's English phonetics, not international). "Laegolas" is l^i-g^o-los. The "ae" is a diphthong pronounced like the long "i" in, well, "I".

[lindil]

It was the Sindarin Elves [Doriathrin refugees and their descendants] who were the rulers of the Sylvan Elves according to UT's Galadriel and Celeborn.

[Aiwendil]

Looks like I need to read other people's posts a bit more carefully before I respond. Yes, "Legolas" is the Silvanized form, and yes this makes sense. This is not, however, because he is a prince (that would actually be a reason for his name not to be Silvanized).

[lindil]

Although the Mirkwood/Greenwood Sindar were rather anti-Noldor, I recall reading something on the lines of Thranduil or his father 'resenting the intrusions of Noldor' into sylvan realms. So from that point of view the sylvanization of his name makes sense.

I have often wondered if this resentment [ aimed particulary at Galadriel and Celeborn] was the cause of the lack of contact [mentioned by Celeborn in FotR] between the 2 communities of [predominantly] Sylvan Elves.

My personal guess [since I am on the subject smilies/smile.gif ] is that the Elves of Dorwinion were fiercly anti-Noldor and that somehow this either rubbed off on many of Thranduil's kingdom and soured Lothlorien/Mirkwood relations or caused a sort of trade with them or us attitude.

All pure hypothesis put together from UT, Hobbit and Celeborn's words to the Fellowship.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Westerly Wizard]

I am curious what the actual argument for including Legolas (of any spelling) in the Fall of Gondolin story. The story with him in it is by far the most complete, but much of the stuff was abandoned either directly or idealogically in Tolkiens writings. Legolas has always seemed to me to be one of these, as there are no other major repititions of elvish names, besides Glorfindel which Tolkien explained with reincarnation . The two Legolases are clearly distinct in origin, so aren't the same, yet they are similar (e.g. keen-sighted). But it is doubtful that Thranduil, who was not too fond of the Noldor, would name his son after one. Ultimately, I think, as of now, that the accuracy of including Legolas in the Fall of Gondolin story is very doubtful.

[lindil]

I agree w/ you Westerly Wizard. But the project is run on a set of principles [ 95% not 100% worked out] that at times we have to weigh them against each other.

I and 1 other member favored to differing degrees using the quenya name Laiqulasse or a variant to distance the Elf from Legolas as far as possible. As we felt that as you said a 'Legolas ' would not appear. However we have a character whose actions are not incompatible. With the story and nothing he does is as we could say 'cause for dismissal'. So we need a name and no one wanted to manufacture one out of thin air when JRRT at one point did have name [names actually] for the character.

Rog is a similar point to my mind and in order to decide I rather suspect we shall have to get 100% on our principles.

CRT felt Rog's name because as he says 'it was absolutely certain that my father would not have retained this name as a Lord of Gondolin' was completely incompatible with the tone we could say of a later Silm.

So to my mind we must have a principle that states 'does this feel/sound/look like a story that would have made it into a LotR or later Silmarillion.

If we do not address these problems directly and with a principle of their own we will end up with a text that may not literally contradict anything from the Lost Road Era or later [by which time all of the legendarium's 'primitivisms' if you will have all been expunged] but does not meet the exceedingly lofty standards of story or euphony that JRRT demanded of the stories.

Thus the archaic speech peculiar to Lost Tales but absent in it's quaint form from the late 30's on, the name Rog and the idea of hordes of Balrogs and Mechanical Dragons all are things that one or more of the project members see as incongruent.

We are however. admittedly on a slippery slope that could descend into complete subjectivity which also is to be avoided.

So basically W. Wizard some of us saw your point more problematic than others but no one felt Legolas was so bad to stage a 'filibuster' if you will over it and go back to the 'principles' drawing board. but I suspect that time can not be long delayed.

I do hope you can take some visual comfort in 'Laegolas' and the fact that he is an altogether different Elf.

And as has been pointed out, we have 2 galdors [maybe] and 2 Rumil's [positively] and there may be other examples.
Tar elenion in particular has researched this.

Eruhen - and you wanted to close this thread ?
smilies/wink.gif

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

Inquit Westerly Wizard:
Legolas has always seemed to me to be one of these, as there are no other major repititions of elvish names, besides Glorfindel which Tolkien explained with reincarnation .

Respondit Lindil:
And as has been pointed out, we have 2 galdors [maybe] and 2 Rumil's [positively] and there may be other examples.


Also two Gelmirs. I think it can be pretty well demonstrated that Elvish names are in fact repeated. Not that the point is completely lost, however; I think it should be reinterpreted thus: Elves are not named after namesakes (with the exception of patronymics). So Rumil of Lorien is not named after Rumil of Valinor; he was given the name independently as it were. I have no evidence at hand for this hypothesis, and it must be considered merely personal opinion. But it does explain, to some extent, the repetition of a few names.

Inquit Lindil:
I and 1 other member favored to differing degrees using the quenya name Laiqulasse or a variant to distance the Elf from Legolas as far as possible.

I feel I should set down my disagreement with this view. I would love to be able to get around the problem of name repetition - that's why I was tempted to vote for Legolast. I don't think Laegolas addresses the problem. But neither does Laiqualasse or any other Quenya form. Laiqualasse is just a different form of Laegolas, just as Legolas is a different form of it. In other words, Laiqualasse is as close to Legolas as is Laegolas. It might look more different, but to an educated Elf it isn't. So if what we want is to fool the readers, Quenya is a viable solution. If we want to deal with the fundamental problem of name repitition, it is not. That's my view, anyway; I know Lindil and I disagree on this rather vehemently.

Inquit Lindil:
CRT felt Rog's name because as he says 'it was absolutely certain that my father would not have retained this name as a Lord of Gondolin' was completely incompatible with the tone we could say of a later Silm.

I never understood why CRT felt this way; he provides no evidence. I don't see anything about Rog that makes it incompatible with later Sindarin. How is it different from Balrog? And it appears as late as the 1930 Quenta Noldorinwa.

I also think it might be useful to make the following distinction. There are many things that Tolkien would probably (or almost definitely) have changed. Of these there are

1. Some that we must change because they contradict other things - for example, the Tale of Years story that Dwarves invade Doriath must be altered because of the existence of the Girdle of Melian.

2. Others that we must change because Tolkien indicates that he was going to change them and indicates exactly how he was going to change them, and they can be changed without producing any problematic contradictions. This includes things like Gil-Galad being Orodreth's son instead of Fingon's.

3. Others that we cannot change because to do so would result in a contradiction: the round earth cosmology; the story that Celeborn was a Teler.

4. The tricky bit. Things that JRRT would probably/definitely have changed, but which do not present contradictions and also about which there is no authoritative note. That is, they do not fall under 1,2, or 3 above. This means things like Rog or Legolas (though for different reasons). My view is this: these things should either be retained as they are or dropped/made ambiguous. Even though we can be about 90% sure that JRRT would have changed them, we have no definitive note, no pressing reason to change them, and most importantly, no good idea of to what to change them.

This is, of course, not anything like a simple question, and my answer is inadequately simplistic. Nonetheless, I think our guiding principle in such cases should be minimal tampering wherever possible.

Note that the change Legolas -> Laegolas does not fall under 4; it is necessitated by changes in Sindarin.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Westerly Wizard]

Lindil-thank you greatly for the informative response

[Westerly Wizard]

Aiwendil-thank you also for your post, I didn't see it the first time around. However, you say: I think it can be pretty well demonstrated that Elvish names are in fact repeated.
I took this to mean that Tolkien didn't mind repeating names, because of the stress. Indeed names are repearted, but JRR writes in the second essay on the Glorfindels in The Peoples of Middle-Earth: "This repition of so striking a name, though possible, would not be credible. No other major character in the Elvish legends reported in The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings has a name borne by another Elvish person of importance."

Thus, two important people shouldn't have the same name; although the first Legolas doesn't have prominent importance, with this context, it wouldn't make sense for an important later elf to have the name. The Lorien Rumil is fine, because even though the Rumil who invented the first Tengwar is important, the later one isn't at all.

[Aiwendil]

I agree that the statement: "This repition of so striking a name, though possible, would not be credible. No other major character in the Elvish legends reported in The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings has a name borne by another Elvish person of importance" cannot be dismissed. However:

1. I don't think that the Third Age Legolas was anywhere near as important a character in the mythology as was Glorfindel. That he was a major character in LotR does not mean that he was of great importance to the Legendarium as a whole.

2. I think your reasoning is backwards: you seem to say that a non-important Elf can repeat the name of an important Elf but not vice versa. But surely it cannot be known with any certainty how important an Elf will be at the time when he or she is named. Thranduil would not have said "I think my son's going to be important in days to come. Better not name name him after anybody."

The reverse, rather, would seem to be the case (and this fits very well with my hypothesis in my previous post). If Elf A is not important or well known, Elf B may very well be given the same name, not in imitation of or tribute to Elf A, but independently. But if Elf A is famous, his or her name will be well known, and Elf B will not be given that same name, because it is already an "important name". This can be summed up succinctly: Elf-parents do not tend to give their children names of important (well-known) Elves.

The one problem with this is Rumil. This is a problem, in any case though; certainly Rumil was already the name of an important Elf, and ought not to have been repeated. Apparently there were some that did not follow this rule (or perhaps the rustic Silvan Elves hadn't heard of Rumil the Sage!)

[ November 07, 2003: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[lindil]

Also possibly various clans Sylvan or Sindar or Noldor used names from other clans.

[aravanessë]

According to PE XIII, the noldorissa form is Legolas, and the eldarissa Laiqalasse. In parentheses appear translation 'Green Leaf' and the form Leiqualassë.
There is no occurrence of an additional meaning, or of another form, or of a mix of two names, so Legolast and Laigolas may be rejected. A qenya form would be unsuited, but a pure sindarin form would be too. Legolas is said from the House of Tree, is a goldogrin name, and in the context of the composition of the Lost Tales, we must assume he is of gnomish origin. But we know, in the later phases of composition, that the sindarin names of Exiles, are not pure but are 'sindarization' from quenya or amanya telerin ; choosing a pure sindarin form like Laegolas doesn't seem to me to be good solution, all the more the Sindar of Gondolin are form Nevrast, they must speak the north sindarin, not the traditional speech.

aravanessë

[Findegil]

I was not jet a member of teh forum when the discussion was fought out. But I have certainly read it and made my mind up about the problem of {Legolas}[Laegolas]. Since this seems to come up know I will add my two cent to the discussion.

{Legolas}[Laegolas] is a acceptable change for me, especially since it is linguistcally argued. A more substantial change would not have found my approval. I would have tried to change the group decision earlier if the vote had been for a more substantial change.
My reason for this is not linguistcal but purely for reasons of possible interpretetion, which we should not contradict: I am not as sure as other members in the forum that Legolas of Gondolin and Legolas of Grennwood are diffrent elves. That is not saying that I am absoltue sure that they are one and the same, but I see a possibilty that they could be (and a chance much greater than one to a billion, which Lindil once mentioned). Therefore I think our text should be ambigious in this matter. That would allow a linguistcal change like {Legolas}[Laegolas] but nothing more.

As an aside not: Is {Legolas}[Laegolas] a change in the spelling in the elvish script at all or is it just a change of pronounciation?

aravanessë, I did understand your argument agianst pure Sindarin, but I do not quiet agree to it. Noldorin as it was when The Fall of Gondolin was written, is clearly not the language JRR Tolkien later in his life envisaged for the Noldor in Beleriand to have ever spoken. Such a speech existed probably in Tolkiens mind, but it was not the earlier Noldorin of The Lost Tales. Any way it would be help full to hear your positive arguments for the change or no change for the name Legolas.

Respectfully
Findegil

[aravanessë]

Positive arguments? What is it? Arguments in favour of Legolas (not against the other suggestions) ? :)

My reason for this is not linguistcal but purely for reasons of possible interpretetion, which we should not contradict: I am not as sure as other members in the forum that Legolas of Gondolin and Legolas of Grennwood are diffrent elves. That is not saying that I am absoltue sure that they are one and the same, but I see a possibilty that they could be (and a chance much greater than one to a billion, which Lindil once mentioned). Therefore I think our text should be ambigious in this matter. That would allow a linguistcal change like {Legolas}[Laegolas] but nothing more.
I agree with the development, but more categorical in my conclusion. As you say, the two Legolas could be the same (even though the possibility is tenuous), it seems to me logical that they bear the same name, not a variant. The respect of the name in the elvish society is very important (See the ire of Fëanor against the change of Therindë/Serindë, or his jests about Hwëanáro/Hwinwë which should stand in vanyarin, or the ceremonies about names-attribution).
Moreover, a same name for two different persons is not so uncommon : Galdor seems to be in this case, but the name Ingoldo also, and a lot of Stewards (with heroes of First Age), Míriel, Ambarussa, Finwë, Maidros, Gildor, Haldir, Rúmil,… So why changing the name chosen by Tolkien ? And Oropher is from sindarin ascendancy and was born before the destruction of Beleriand (if my memory is good), he must know the story of Gondolin and Thranduil too, it could be reasonable to imagine him giving the name of this well-known hero to his son.

As an aside not: Is {Legolas}[Laegolas] a change in the spelling in the elvish script at all or is it just a change of pronounciation?
'Just' a change of pronunciation ? It is too much for me. :p And /ae/ and /e/ are written differently in tengwar, see the King's Letters. It is a change of the substance of the name, not only of the outside.

aravanessë, I did understand your argument agianst pure Sindarin, but I do not quiet agree to it. Noldorin as it was when The Fall of Gondolin was written, is clearly not the language JRR Tolkien later in his life envisaged for the Noldor in Beleriand to have ever spoken. Such a speech existed probably in Tolkiens mind, but it was not the earlier Noldorin of The Lost Tales. Any way it would be help full to hear your positive arguments for the change or no change for the name Legolas.
I'm not sure to understand… You want to say gnomish is not the language Tolkien envisage for the Noldor in the later texts? If it is this, I think it isn't a problem, we know gnomish and sindarin dialects, the languages adopted by the Noldor in Exil in later phases of composition, are close linked as for vocabulary, and we know Legolas is attested in gnomish and in sindarin.

It is long and difficult to speak English, and I can't express exactly what I want to say. Rhhhh ! :D

aravanessë

[Findegil]

It is long and difficult to speech English, and I can't express exactly what I want to say. Rhhhh ! This is at least a problem we share. ;)

About pronunciation: Ma own name does never change in spelling, but when I move to a country speaking a different language, even one in the same group of languages e.g. English, the pronunciation will change.

If we now consider for a moment that the two Legolas' were one and the same, then we see him move from a country speaking a northern dialect of Sindarin enriched by Quenya words (Gondolin) to a country of speaking a fare removed Silvian dialect which is slowly sindarizied by the influence of his father and grandfather and the contact with other communities over a time span of 3000 years.

Under such circumstances I think that a slight change in the pronunciation is at least possible if not probable. Since we also can consider that in Gondolin the Fëanorien Tengwar was used and in Mircwood the elves tended rather to the Cirth a appropriate change of spelling seems possible as well.

That is not to say that I would not argue for not changing the name if we really reopen that choice, put I am a bit reluctant to through away the old decision, since many of the old members which discussed and voted on this one are no longer active and will not take part in a new discussion. So what I do really is teasing you to bring forth your arguments as compelling as possible to turn at least all the active members over to your side not only me. ;)

Respectfully
Findegil

[aravanessë]

Oh! From which country do yo come from ?
I agree with you, but who/where are the active members I have to convince? I will take a malicious delight in it. :p

About pronunciation: Ma own name does never change in spelling, but when I move to a country speaking a different language, even one in the same group of languages e.g. English, the pronunciation will change.

If we now consider for a moment that the two Legolas' were one and the same, then we see him move from a country speaking a northern dialect of Sindarin enriched by Quenya words (Gondolin) to a country of speaking a fare removed Silvian dialect which is slowly sindarizied by the influence of his father and grandfather and the contact with other communities over a time span of 3000 years.
Under such circumstances I think that a slight change in the pronunciation is at least possible if not probable. Since we also can consider that in Gondolin the Fëanorien Tengwar was used and in Mircwood the elves tended rather to the Cirth a appropriate change of spelling seems possible as well.

Yeah I had not thought about this possibility.
Personally, I respect the pronunciation of 'Julian' in Deutsch when my correspondant come at home. But it is my own experience, not a generality, I concede.
In Gondolin, 'gondolinic runes' were used according to Tolkien-compositions from 1920-30. And the difference is made between /e/ and /ae/ in both systems (gondolinic and runic).
Oropher, the grand-father, is one of the iathrim, I think he speaks a good sindarin, and continue to call his grand-son by his right name if the others Tawarwaith dont do so.

aravanessë

[Findegil]

I am from Germany and have to travel in my job regularly to France, and the USA. I also have visited Scotland, Brazil, the Netherlands and Denmark. The Brazilians were as a rule not able to pronounce my first Name “Ralf” in any recognisable way (to safe the day for the Brazilians, I did meet there a lot of people that had some knowledge of German and spoke it fluent alongside a good pronunciation of my name, but many of them had German ancestors). The Danish and Netherlands have no problem with “Ralf” but the native English speakers tend to change the sound of the vocal. But as you do with the German pronunciation of Julian, I accept the English pronunciation of “Ralf”. It is hard for people to change their habit of speaking and would only lead to lesser flow in communication. I think that this is quiet common, but who knows?

As an example of even greater changes take the names Charles and Henry corresponding to German Karl and Heinrich.

Respectfully
Findegil

P.S.: As fare as I can see the active members in the moment are Aiwendil, Maédhros, you and me. But if you look at this thread you will find a lot more names who had all taken part in the first round of discussion and many of them had also voted. In all the time I am at the project we never had a vote, but voting was more common at the start of the project, when much more members were active and an agreement of all was much harder to reach. Some time Aiwendil Maédhros and I discussed about the old votes and what we would do if we would reach a point were the result of such an old vote becomes doubt full. But I am not sure if we had come to a conclusion.

[lindil]

I do not at all see how Legolas [LotR] could be one and the same unless you discount everything said in UT about Thranduil being the son of Orophir and thus Kin to the SIndarin Celeborn.

Legolas in LotR simply never lived in Beleriand [unlike Glorfindel - who could have and I think in XII does, but w/ small reservations on JRRT's part], does he not say somewhere in XII, ok I went out to the garage to get XII.

On p. 379: and if [glorfindel] was a cheiftan of the City he must have been a noldo
Also we have the Orophir being painted as a very partisan and grudge holding Doriathrim. SO much so that seemingly Thranduil his son cuts off contact w/ Lorien because of the Noldorin taint!

So unless we disregard UT [all late writings] and XII's 'late writings' Legolas as Gondolinite is 100% out. I am sure someone here can come up a better case than that [if need be].

[Findegil]

Okay, if it is wanted I will add a further information of how I see it as possible that Legolas of Gondolin and Legolas of Mirkwood are one and the same person.

My main arguments for Legolas being older as normaly acounted comes from The Lord of the Ring:
1. Legolas tells that only in Fangorn he feels young again since wandering with the companions. Considering that just before he had meet such old elves like Galadriel and Celeborn makes it very suspicious that he is as young as many see him.
2. In Moria he is beside Gandalf the only one and he is the first to identify the Balrog as what he is. Compare that to Aragorn. He has been educated in the last High-elven refuge. But even after hearing Gandalf and Legolas name the demon he does not use that name when telling about it in Lorien. For me that means he has never heard before about Balrogs at all. Therefore this matter seems not to be anything Elves thought their children or young warriors. At least this should make us suspicious about the curriculum viëta of Thranduil and Oropher. Doriathrim had never any known contact to Balrogs in the wars of Beleriand. How would they get a knowledge good enough to educate Legolas so that he could identify the Balrog at once?

A further point is added by The Unfinished Tales: There we are told about the feelings of Thranduil after the war of the Last Alliance. That he did know that the peace would not last for ever and that he was anguish when ever he thought about Mordor. And all what we hear seems to me to contradict that he could have had a child in the third age.

Now all these points would be solved at once when Legolas of Gondolin and Legolas of Mirkwood would be one and the same. But that would of course need a special viëta for Thranduil his father. If we assume for the reason of a possibility check that the Legolases are only one Legoas and that he is the son of Thranduil. Than Thranduil would need the following viëta:

Oropher was a Elf from Doriath and he stayed their until its final downfall in the fight against the Fëanorians. (From this his embitterment against the Noldor.) I assume that he fled to Ossiriand but that is only a guess.
Thranduil seems also to have been witnessed the building of Menegroth, since he build his own fortress very similar to it. Which probably meant he was born in the early days of Doriath. In the long time of peace that followed the building of Menegroth he wandered into the north and settled in Nevrast, were he stayed until he moved with Turgon to Gondolin. In Gondolin Legolas was born (since he never had heard the cry of the gulls he can not have been born in Nevrast).
After the Fall of Gondolin Thranduil and Legolas separated from the fugitives of Gondolin (possibly when Tuor deicide to move from Nan-Tathren to Sirions mouth) and went in search of Oropher. (If we assume that they found him in Ossiriand, than we might have found the missing link, that triggered the move of Nimloth with Elwing from Ossiriand to Sirions mouth.) From That point onward the story is more or less given in UT beside the fact that Legolas was all the time with his father and grandfather.

I know very well that this viëta of Thranduil is pressed to fit the assumption that Legolas of Mirkwood was in Gondolin, but since we did not find any clear no go in this way, such a viëta is possible even if improbable. I do not say that is how it was, but I say that is one possibility how it could have been.

For me the faint possibility given above is enough to deny any drastic change of the name.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Galin]

Wouldn't one need to keep Legolas out of 'New Ossiriand' as well? considering that it became a seaside kingdom.

The first entry in Appendix B for the Second Age concerns the Foundation of Lindon and the Grey Havens. The text concerning the Sindar and Thranduil appears just before the entries begin of course, including information about who lived in this 'new' Lindon (called the 'Kingdom of Lindon' in drafts).

The Second Age

'(...) In the beginning of this Age many of the High Elves still remained. Most of these dwelt in Lindon west of the Ered Luin; but before the building of the Barad-dûr many of the Sindar passed eastward, and some established realms in the forests far away, where their people were mostly Silvan Elves. Thranduil, king in the North of Greenwood the Great, was one of these. In Lindon north of the Lune...' The Return of the King Appendix B

Here I think the suggestion is that the Sindar dwelt in Lindon at this time, but at some point before the building of the Barad-dûr, Thranduil and others went East and etc. I guess one might argue that if he left before the building of the Barad-dûr it could have been well before, despite that the context seems to imply (to my mind) 'sometime after they lived in Lindon, but yet before the building of the Barad-dûr'. According to Appendix B this span is about one thousand years.

Compare to another description in Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age (noting the sequence of description): the destruction of Beleriand is described, Ossiriand is explained: 'that country had of old been named Lindon'. Next: 'Upon the Shores of the Gulf of Lhûn the Elves built their havens...' and then comes...

'Others of the Eldar there were who crossed the mountains of Ered Luin in this age and passed into the inner lands. Many of these were Teleri, survivors of Doriath and Ossiriand; and they established realms among the Silvan Elves in woods and mountains far from the sea,...' Of The Rings Of Power And The Third Age

Here these Eldar are said to have crossed the Ered Luin in this Age, and the new realms established are far from the Sea.

For interest maybe, in the drafts 'Remnants of the Telerian Elves (of Doriath in ancient Beleriand) establish realms in the woodlands far eastward...' is under the entry for Second Age 750 (Thranduil is mentioned). Obviously this version contains details that were changed in any case, but it still seems to me, from the overall texts, that these Elves began the Second Age in Lindon.

[Findegil]

You make a realy good point, Galin.

I have to confess that the passages in Unfinished Tales dominated my view in which the reasons for Oropher leaving Lindon were described: He did not want to live under the domination of the Noldor. If I remember correctly Lindon was more or less split in two halfes, the south dominated by Sindar and the north dominated by Noldor. But all was contorlled by Gil-galad the last High King of the Noldor. Thus I assumed that Oropher would have gone as soon as Gil-Galad established his kingdom in Lindon. But from what you have shown this is doubtfull.

Thus I have to agree that we must assume that Thranduil and, if he was already in being, Legols lived for some time (510 FA to 700 SA) in South Lindon.
In this 780 years the country of Lindon was about 700 year a seaside country. It is likly from the map in The Lord of the Rings that in all Lindon seagulls could be heared. Even if I could argue that before the Downfall of Númenor Lindon might have been much wider, this would not help since the Gulf of Luhn was there from the start and would suffice for gulls coming over all Lindon.

Now the only explaination I could offer is a bit fare fetched:
In the passages of HOME 12 SA 700 we get the impression that it was Thranduil who established the Relam in Mirkwood. But from UT we know that it realy was his father Oropher. Assuming that the annals of that time were later compendiums of mixed sources it could be that the information lying behind that § are:
- In SA 700 some Telerin Elves left Lindon, one of them was Thranduil.
- Later it was know that they were Lords of relams in the dale of Anduin. Thranduil in the North of Mirkwood and Celeborn in Lorien.

From this point of view we could assume that Oropher left Lindon when Gil-galad etsablished his Kingdom and went east to south mirkwood. He is clearly depicted to be an Sindarin loath of the Noldor and it would be fitting for such a one to leave Lindon so early.
In SA 700 Amdír the father of Amroth left Lindon and established Lorien. With him went Thranduil to join again his father.

Since Gil-galad established Lindon in SA 1 and we must assume that Beleriand did not sink all of a sudden, it could be that at this early times no Seagulls could be heard in Lindon (or at least in part of it lets say the feet of the Ered Lindon). So we could think that Legolas this time follwoed his grandfather rather then staying with his father how is reported to leave in SA 700.

Please keep in mind that I am not saying that is how it was, I just say it could have been so. And that is sufficient for me not to change the name. The slight spelling update to Laegolas is for me already hard at the boundery, but still acceptable.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Aiwendil makes persuasive points. Nevertheless, it makes sense to nolderize and modify the earlier personage in order to avoid confusion or debates about reincarnations ala Glorfindel. I think we all know that JRRT simply reused a name he liked and had never worked out all of the etymology and progressions respective to his later refinements of Telerian and other tongues and naming customs.

Also, since the Sindar were prevalent if not predominant among Turgon's people, could not the earlier Legolas be attributed to a Sindarin house, and then one might say that the Gray-elves of Middle-Earth were not so strict about the reoccurrence of names.

As for Legolas of Mirkwood, we know nothing positive about his maternal lineage or when he was born. It seems fair to say he was chosen for the Fellowship because he was representative of Elves as they still existed and to some degree flourished in Middle-Earth in the Third Age; even though technically an Eldar, in LoTR his Eldarin nature is at best downplayed. So, I've always assumed that he also would have had Laiquendi or Nandorin ancestors as well, though not necessarily Avari. Also, while he was unimaginably ancient by our reckoning, he was not among those that had seen the happenings of previous ages. So, again, I have assumed that at the oldest he belongs to the generation of Elrond's children, or perhaps even later, such that he might be only a mere thousand or so years old at the time of Fellowship, where he remarks on how even in his time he had travelled very little, especially not anywhere near the extent of Aragorn in his then roughly 90 years.

[Findegil]

In the end, all reasoning falls short. What we have as jet is:

- A vote from old times for changing "{Legolas}[Laegolas]"
- As far as I see two newer participants in the discussion that would vote for "Legolas", but not any of the old voters has shown even the smallest sign that he would take his vote back based on any argument brought forth

That means at least for the time being that we have to keep "{Legolas}[Laegols]".

But for the sack of the discussion:
Posted by Man-of-the-Wold:As for Legolas of Mirkwood, we know nothing positive about his maternal lineage or when he was born. It seems fair to say he was chosen for the Fellowship because he was representative of Elves as they still existed and to some degree flourished in Middle-Earth in the Third Age; even though technically an Eldar, in LoTR his Eldarin nature is at best downplayed. I agree on this point, but he had not dinieable Sindarin roots by his father and Grandfather. Thus your further conclusion is not compelling to me. Specially since Oropher clearly down played his own being as Sindar as well.

Posted by Man-of-the-Wold:Also, while he was unimaginably ancient by our reckoning, he was not among those that had seen the happenings of previous ages. This assumption is exactly the crux we have to deal with. Why? What made you feel he was a young Elf, as they count years? I find it very difficult to deal with this typ of overall impresion that people often bring forth in support of this argument. We have to keep in mind that we are dealing with a immortal race. Open mindness and continous interest in the wonders of the wide world might be considered as the special features that brought Legoals of Mircwood into the Fellowship of the Ring.

As jet I have not heard any argument that would give a no go for the possibility I showed of Legolas of Gondolin being the same person as Legolas of Mircwood. That alone is an interesting fact, if I consider that more than one of the old voters made it cristally clear that they dinied even the slightest possibilty of this. Were are now the persuasive line of argumentaion on which they base their sure assumption?

Respectfully
Findegil

[Galin]

Just to explain, I didn't vote on any form of the name thinking that this was voted on long ago in any case.

As for naming customs I have written a 'summation' based on passages from HME X and HME XII, which includes a bit on the repetition of names among Elves. Most here probably know the details, but I don't think the following example has been raised in the thread (the text about the name Glorfindel has been raised of course) so, just for possible interest...

It concerns the valour of an Elf with a Quenya name: Tolkien states that Aracáno never changed his name to Sindarin form (especially when slain so early in the history of the Exiles) but the name Argon (the Sindarin form): '... was often given as a name by Noldor and Sindar in memory of his valour.' The Shibboleth of Feanor, The Peoples of Middle-earth

[Man-of-the-Wold]

In response to Findegil, Legolas' Sindarin ancestry is "undeniable" and would still be true even his mother were of the Nandor, like presumably Nimrodel.

Nevertheless, until one gets to the appendices of LotR, Legolas comes across as very much the wood elf, chosen as the representative of the Elfin race, and not as one of the great and wise to possibly bring special abilities to aid the ringbearer, as Elrond considers in the context of possibly selecting one from among his own household.

I cannot tell what of my other conclusions is unaccepted.

Judgment and impression is all one has sometimes. Facts and hard evidence are hard to come by.

But the fact that Legolas talks about hardly ever having ventured beyond Mirkwood, and that his father (though a elven lord) is not even a member of the White Council or necessarily accounted among the Wise at the time of the Necromancer's expulsion from Dol Guldor might suggest that Legolas was not present during the Goblin Wars. If he had been around for the Last Alliance, it seems strange that such great lore and experience does not arise in the narrative of the LotR.

Yes, one must keep in mind that other possibilities exist when conclusons are based on supposition and circumstantial or partial evidence, but still the perponderance of evidence and intuition suggest that the Legolas of the published and finished work is a character of the Third Age, which by the time of the WotR had had a long and rich history, already.

But if voting, I'd vote for a variant name for the personage of Gondolin.

[Findegil]

Posted by Man-of-the-Wold:Nevertheless, until one gets to the appendices of LotR, Legolas comes across as very much the wood elf, chosen as the representative of the Elfin race, and not as one of the great and wise to possibly bring special abilities to aid the ringbearer, as Elrond considers in the context of possibly selecting one from among his own household. Agreed completly. But to have a long and complicate history behind makes him in my view an even better representative of the Elven-race in general. We should not make the mistake to think that being in Gondolin would make Legolas at once one of the very improtant Wise elfes of Middle-Earth. The role that Legolas of Gondolin playes in the Battle does not show him as one of the councilmembers of Turgon or one of the great heros of the Battle. He is just a kind of pathfinder in the dark, that does a good job in guiding the host of fugitives over the plian in the dark.

Posted by Man-of-the-Wold:I cannot tell what of my other conclusions is unaccepted.
Judgment and impression is all one has sometimes. Facts and hard evidence are hard to come by. Non of your conclusions are unacceptable, but also no of them is forcing. To make up your mind about Legolas is one of the tasks that a reader has to undertake, and the results are often quiet diffrent and should be so. Our work is not meant and should not end any such Discussion as this if it is not neccesary for the forming of the text we are willing to produce. If all evidence allows for more than on interpretation of a charachter that is fine and should be so in our version of The translation from the Elvish as well.

Posted by Man-of-the-Wold:But the fact that Legolas talks about hardly ever having ventured beyond Mirkwood, and that his father (though a elven lord) is not even a member of the White Council or necessarily accounted among the Wise at the time of the Necromancer's expulsion from Dol Guldor might suggest that Legolas was not present during the Goblin Wars. If he had been around for the Last Alliance, it seems strange that such great lore and experience does not arise in the narrative of the LotR. I agree that Legolas was porbably not in the war of the last Alliance, but their could very good reason for that: After all his father and Grandfather went to that daedly war. Some one has to be left behind as a steward to guard the realm and a hier of the throne is a probable choise for this. Especially if he knows as Legolas did for sure what so ever his former history has been, that the Elves were alowed to sail West and how and were this could be done.

It is true that Legolas does not come over as the very old and expirenced Elf all the time in LotR. But he as some other minor charachters in the book go through some development after wards. A very prominent excample of this is Celeborn. When the main body of the text was written he was clearly a Woodelven Lord who had never left his realm. His wife, one of the great of the noldor had come to him and he had kissed here to stay. In the Appendix he is already changed to one of the Sindarin rulers of Woodelven relams and a relativ of King Elwe Thingol. Later on Tolkien considered and even more drastical change to a Telerin Prince from Valinor.
Or take Galdor of the Havens, he is a meassenger of Círdan in the text and nothing more is said about him. Later on we hear in Tolkiens late writing that he was one and the same Galdor of the Tree, one of the greatest heros of the Fall of Gondolin.

Posted by Man-of-the-Wold:Nevertheless, it makes sense to nolderize and modify the earlier personage in order to avoid confusion or debates about reincarnations ala Glorfindel. Is it our aime to ripe readers of our text of this confusion and debates that we so much enjoy? I don't think so! If our sources by our best judgement hold still the potential for such confusion and debate it is our task to preserve it. Christopher Tolkien had set in his work all this things straight. But that lead to a thiner book and to the wish of a 'Rivised Silmarillion'.

I see this a point were in the end we have to say, 'we do not know for sure'. And in such a case our text should not strenghten one side or the other.

Therefore I would vote for keping Legolas as it is, if the voting would be reoppend. But as I said before the change {Legolas}[Laegols] is acceptable for me, even so it is on the boundary.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Legolas1]

I say keep legolas because hes my hero and its my screen name!

[aravanessë]

You are not serious ? :eek: ;) Anyway, is the project dead ? Or is it perpetuating on a hidden forum ?

aravanessë

[Findegil]

When do you consider a project dead, aravanessë?

There is nothing going on in members only forum. So yes, it is a very long time since the last real discussion had brought the project any step forward.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

I would say the project is in one of its many long periods of hibernation.

[aravanessë]

Ok, I am relieved ! :) Good luck !

aravanessë