The Problem of Rog

[lindil]

This Thread was initially titled: Rog - canonical elvish or no? but was retitled upon realising the perfect name was waiting for it all along.]

So as not to clutter up the other threads...

There is of course no 'right or wrong' opinion here. Just preferences and more or less educated points of view. smilies/wink.gif

As most here know, I see Rog as a the last major euphonically untenable element in the Q30, Most things like this did not survive the Lost Tales.

I base my position entirely on CJRT's 2nd footnote in HoM-E II p. 211{HB} CJRT says: It is absolutely certain that my father would not have retained this name as a lord of Gondolin.
CJRT does not elaborate why, but I am not aware of any seriuos counter to the argument that it simply sounds like no other name of an elf in any dialect recorded in the LotR and on.

Now our principles formulated by Aiwendil and myself [with initial input from Jallanite], deliberatly left vague what to do about a Rog-like situation. It was in fact a sticking point which occupied Aiwendil and myself for quite some time.

We finally formulated the principles in such a way as to neccesitate a vote, or I suppose to force one side of the debate to muster overwhelming evidence [as evidenced by a clear majority voicing their opinion].

So here we are with Rog's name needing to be dedcided in order to know what our remaining options are in terms of his company, captainship, the fate of the Balrog etc...

The options I am aware of are:

Rog's function/captaincy are retained but we state in a footnote'that his name was lost to the passing of so many elves into the west' or some similar literary device. I tend to favor this, as it addresses the problem squarely. It is his name alone that CJRT is 100% confident would not have survived a final revision.

Polwe, I have heard this mentioned but have forgotten he source. Any help?

The whole scene -with all of it's complexities [ Balrog[s] die or not, Rog there or not, with his name or not - is deleted or compressed to near nothingness.

Rog is eliminated but his people of the 'hammer of wrath' do whatever is seemly for them to do.



A firther note to point #1 which I favor [assuming the other balrog issues do not prove so intractable as to leave little choice but to loose the entire scene],
CJRT is rarely if ever this confident in making an assertion, and I think the burden of proof needs to be on those who wish to retain the name. What argument can be made to set against his absolute conviction in the matter ?

I hope to provide a option 1 text later today after responding to the many other prior points that have been raised.

[ August 14, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Maédhros]

A Former discussion about Rog:
Originally posted by Aiwendil:

Regarding Rog: The problem isn't that 'Rog' is unsuitable in later Quenya or Sindarin; on the contrary, it's found in the Sindarin compound 'balrog'. The problem is that it has a fairly clear meaning in modern Sindarin - 'Demon'. The Etymologies give RUK- as the root, with Q ranko and N rhaug. I think we can all agree such a name is unsuitable for an elf. The Gnomish lexicon gives 'rog' as 'doughty, strong', though CRT notes in BolT that it probably also meant 'fleet, swift'. Since 'strong' is the gloss that JRRT gives, however, I'd be inclined to think that Rog in FoG means 'strong'. Later Quenya for 'strong' might be *polda - at least, this is given in the Etym. (with stem POL-, POLOD- ) and is nowhere contradicted. Possible names from this stem might be Poldon (cf. saura, Sauron), Polwë (cf. Elwë, Finwë, Voronwë, etc.), or perhaps just Polda. Of these, my first choice would be to go with Poldon; the -wë suffix seems to have been used mostly in older names (the notable exception being Voronwë).

Originally posted by jallanite:

In "The Etymologies" under RUK- the N ( = Sindarin) form is rhaug, not rog. That is significant. If the form is thought to exist in Sindarin it is probably not from RUK-. Of course for rhaug or * raug the au diphthong will and does resolve to o in compounds such as Balrog, and will fall together with rog, which would encourage the disappearance of rog words whatever stem they come from. (If it meant "strong" and merged with RUK- it would increasingly be understood as brutish strength, as monstrous strength, and then as simply a variant of rhaug).

Admittedly there is no obvious stem choice in "The Etymologies". (Maybe RAW- 'lion'?) But "The Etymologies" does not contain every stem.

I would certainly change Rog if an obvious choice came up, but am bothered at the idea of substituting any names or forms without solid justification for that form.

For example, on the basis of Bronweg to Bronwë we could change Rog to Rô (with lengthening of vowel to compensate for loss of final consonant in a monosyllable). This would assume that Noldorin/Sindarin rog does not derive from an earler form * rok in which case the final g would probably remain.

But to change Rog to Rô is just as arbitrary as to change Rog to Poldon or to Polwë. I am sure there are many other possible forms we could postulate. Unforunately many would be equally acceptable. This becomes linguistic fan fiction.

We know Rog is probably wrong, that Tolkien would probably have changed it, but can we change it?

Originally posted by Aiwendil:

I don't see a problem with the name 'Rog' as such - it is likely he would have changed it, but we do have examples of other primitive names that remained, e.g., Eöl. And we have Sindarin names that end in -g (Forwëg, for instance). Perhaps, then, we should leave it as it is, under the supposition that there is another root it's based on (though I have trouble imagining what root this might be; ROK- is given as 'horse').

[Aiwendil]

The problem with Rog as I see it now is this: Christopher Tolkien states rather strongly that it is no good in the later mythology, and there is certainly something (at the very least) a bit different or odd about the name. On the other hand, there is no actual evidence against the name, nor is there any identifiable phonological problem with it. The evidence against it is (curiously) both authoritative and baseless.

Ideally, we would make our decision concerning whether or not the name is to be retained independently of any practical difficulties. But I'm afraid we cannot ignore the fact that if we eliminate the name we are left in rather a bad position.

One option that has been mentioned frequently is that we update or change the name. But I am of the opinion that this is impossible. "Polwe", "Poldon", "Poldion", etc. are all reasonable Quenya names with the meaning "strength". But they are, as Jallanite said, "linguistic fan fiction". Another possibility is to drop the "g" and put a circumflex on the "o". This is slightly better than the "Pol-" possibilities, but still rather arbitrary.

It of course be a shame to lose the entire scene with Rog (especially after so much work has been put into the Balrog problem!) It would also present a host of new textual problems, since we could never simply make a clean cut - Rog's attack is not just a little vignette; it's an essential part of the plot and course of the battle. Eliminating it would cause problems for the big picture of the whole narrative.

Eliminating either his character or his name seems very artificial. All the other captains are named - moreover, each of the captains in the original tale is a full-fledged character. Amid all the splendour and heraldry of the narrative it would feel very jarring either to omit Rog entirely or to explain that his name is not known (even in a footnote). Worse, it would be fan fiction to claim that his name was lost - and an unlikely fan fiction at that. We have no reason to think that such a vital detail of the Narn e dant Gondolin would have been forgotten, especially when the rest of the tale was so completely preserved.

So yet again we have quite a few options, none of which appears to be any good.

Personally, I favor retaining the name "Rog". I certainly don't think that this is anything like a perfect solution, but in my opinion it's the best we can do.

[lindil]

Worse, it would be fan fiction to claim that his name was lost - and an unlikely fan fiction at that.

IMO,this is not the case.
If [ and I am not saying anyone else does]we agree w/ CJRT that Rog can not as a name exist in the canononical legendarium, then we really have lost the name, in the same spirit as JRRT writes the 1st chapter of the Hobbit and the prolouge of the LotR, that this is translated history.

I do not find using a footnote to explain a lost name any differet [in essence] from our decision to change Legolas --> Laegolas.

Fronm CJRT's pov the evolution of the Legendarium rendered Rog's name unusable in the Silm, just as Legolas in the LotR rendered Legolas' name unusable in the FOG.

Aiwendil, I noticed seemingly contradictory positions in the long list of support quotes Maedhros gave for Rog.

If you would not mind clarifying or correcting the following:


Regarding Rog: The problem isn't that 'Rog' is unsuitable in later Quenya or Sindarin; on the contrary, it's found in the Sindarin compound 'balrog'. The problem is that it has a fairly clear meaning in modern Sindarin - 'Demon'. The Etymologies give RUK- as the root, with Q ranko and N rhaug. I think we can all agree such a name is unsuitable for an elf. The Gnomish lexicon gives 'rog' as 'doughty, strong', though CRT notes in BolT that it probably also meant 'fleet, swift'. Since 'strong' is the gloss that JRRT gives, however, I'd be inclined to think that Rog in FoG means 'strong'. Later Quenya for 'strong' might be ...

In the above, I am cheifly confused by the -rog [cognate - is it? smilies/wink.gif] and the


Jallanite said: We know Rog is probably wrong, that Tolkien would probably have changed it, but can we change it?

I would rephrase it to say 'can we keep it?'

If -rog means demon, then can not have an elf named such in Gondolin ?

I do not wish to excise any part of the battle [or story] that can stay, but better to loose a large chunk, than keep it with it's central character's name being to my mind clearly uncanonical. Yes the choices all have problems, but I would hate to see us keep Rog, just because we reached agreement on how to deal with his Balrog. I being the laziest amongst us hate wasted effort the most!

[lindil]

Worse, it would be fan fiction to claim that his name was lost - and an unlikely fan fiction at that.

IMO,this is not the case.
If [ and I am not saying anyone else does]we agree w/ CJRT that Rog can not as a name exist in the canononical legendarium, then we really have lost the name, in the same spirit as JRRT writes the 1st chapter of the Hobbit [ as real beings still in our world today, but rare and hiding] and the prolouge of the LotR, that this the LotR translated history. So from this pov if you accept that Rog is almost certainly outdated Sindarin/gnomish then his name being lost to time, archaic alphabets, changing dialects, poor manuscripts, etc seems a possible if not perfect alternative to postulate in a footnote. meaning we can say in our footnote that " alone of the captains of Gondolin the name of the captain of the hammer of Wrath' has been lost to time, whether through archaic alphabets, changing dialects, poor manuscripts or someother reason, we can not longer say...but had the primary translator of theses tales lived to complete the Fall of Gondolin he may well have been able to fill in this lost bit of Lore from the Elder Days'."

So yes we have invented a scenario of exscuses for a real lacuna, not claimed anything happened in M-E other than what did happen, the 'real name' of the captain of the hammer of Wrath is lost.

I do not find using a footnote to explain a lost name any differet [in essence] from our decision to change Legolas --> Laegolas.

Fronm CJRT's pov the evolution of the Legendarium rendered Rog's name unusable in the Silm, just as Legolas in the LotR rendered Legolas' name unusable in the FOG.

If you would not mind clarifying or correcting the following:


Regarding Rog: The problem isn't that 'Rog' is unsuitable in later Quenya or Sindarin; on the contrary, it's found in the Sindarin compound 'balrog'. The problem is that it has a fairly clear meaning in modern Sindarin - 'Demon'. The Etymologies give RUK- as the root, with Q ranko and N rhaug. I think we can all agree such a name is unsuitable for an elf. The Gnomish lexicon gives 'rog' as 'doughty, strong', though CRT notes in BolT that it probably also meant 'fleet, swift'. Since 'strong' is the gloss that JRRT gives, however, I'd be inclined to think that Rog in FoG means 'strong'. Later Quenya for 'strong' might be ...

In the above, I am cheifly confused by the -rog [cognate - is it? smilies/wink.gif] being called modern Sindarin, and the later -rhaug.


Jallanite said: We know Rog is probably wrong, that Tolkien would probably have changed it, but can we change it?

I would rephrase it to say 'can we keep it?'

If -rog means demon, then can not have an elf named such in Gondolin ?

I do not wish to excise any part of the battle [or story] that can stay, but better to loose a large chunk, than keep it with it's central character's name being to my mind clearly uncanonical. Yes the choices all have problems, but I would hate to see us keep Rog, just because we reached agreement on how to deal with his Balrog. I being the laziest amongst us hate wasted effort the most!

Again my apology for delay on the many other points pending. Hopefully in the next couple of days...

[Rumil]

(Rumil gingerly dips a toe into the rarified waters of 'Translations')

While I always liked Rog, I think that his name does 'sound wrong' for an elf on general principles and if it can be construed as 'demon' causes rather a problem.

Could one perhaps assume that Rog was a sort of nickname or given name (as I believe is the case for Ereinion Gil-Galad)? If so, then could you simply describe him in English? Something like; the Captain of the Folk of the Hammer of Wrath, known as the "mighty one". Perhaps 'swiftsure', 'strongarm' or 'valiant',could be alternatives though I'm sure someone could come up with something better!

[ August 19, 2003: Message edited by: Rumil ]

[Aiwendil]

Lindil wrote:
If [ and I am not saying anyone else does]we agree w/ CJRT that Rog can not as a name exist in the canononical legendarium, then we really have lost the name, in the same spirit as JRRT writes the 1st chapter of the Hobbit and the prolouge of the LotR, that this is translated history.


I must disagree. Tempting as it is, we cannot think of the extant writings of Tolkien that we have as being the same as the extant writings within Middle-earth, available to the loremasters. Our situation is that the name Rog, used in an early version of the story, may not fit in with the later versions. A problem like this cannot be imagined to come up for the loremasters of Middle-earth. They have no "old versions" nor "new versions" to try and fit them with. One could not imagine Bilbo reading the name "Rog" in one of the accounts available to him and trying to figure out whether this Gnomish name fits into later Sindarin!

Legolas > Laegolas is a different situation; it is merely an update of the old name Legolas into later Sindarin. We would do this with Rog if we could - but of course we can't. As far as I see it at least, our decision to change Legolas to Laegolas had nothing whatsoever to do with the character in LotR; it is strictly a linguistic change.

So I'm afraid I still see a note to the effect that Rog's name was lost as fan fiction.

Aiwendil, I noticed seemingly contradictory positions in the long list of support quotes Maedhros gave for Rog.

This is because my view has changed. I now realize that I was a bit mistaken in my earlier view.

I thought that "Rog" was unsuitable because it later meant "Demon". This is mistaken for two reasons: 1. Even in the old tale, "Balrog" exists alongside "Rog" = "Strength", so clearly the two can coexist; 2. As jallanite pointed out, the word for demon is not "rog" but rather "rhaug", which becomes "-rog" in "Balrog". So there is no conflict at all.

In short, I can find no identifiable fault with the name Rog, save Christopher's word. I am, of course, not saying that Christopher's word carries no weight. But the fact is that if it were not for his rather vague footnote, we would literally have no evidence against "Rog".

Another small point: even if we accept Christopher's statement without question, a case could be made for retaining the name. That Tolkien would have changed something does not necessarily mean that we must, or even can, change it. Tolkien certainly would have eliminated the old flat world cosmology, but we are retaining it. In the end the question is not what Tolkien would have done but rather what we can do.

Rumil wrote:
While I always liked Rog, I think that his name does 'sound wrong' for an elf on general principles and if it can be construed as 'demon' causes rather a problem.

I agree that it sort of 'sounds wrong', or rather 'sounds different'. But this is simply not enough. And there are other names that survive in the later tales that to me sound a little odd or out of place - so there's nothing absolutely wrong about that.

As I explained above, I don't now see a conflict with "rhaug" = "demon".

[ August 19, 2003: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Maédhros]

Originally posted by Aiwendil
In short, I can find no identifiable fault with the name Rog, save Christopher's word. I am, of course, not saying that Christopher's word carries no weight. But the fact is that if it were not for his rather vague footnote, we would literally have no evidence against "Rog".
With all the evidence that you and jallanite have put foward, I see no reason as to why the name Rog should be rejected in our version. And if I may add, the name Rog does indeed appears in the Quenta Noldorinwa too.

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Indeed it is, but CRT refers back to his original citation and conclusion about his father not retaining that name. He undoubtedly has his reasons for saying this, which certainly refers to the "word" itself being out of step with his father's ever evolving creation of names. Clearly, though, the character was recalled by JRRT after more than decade, without necessarily having the original work.

Had JRRT ever gotten to fleshing out the final chapters of the Eldar Days, he would thus have quite probably retained a role for this character that necessitates, as opposed to a reference. What name he would have devised is unknowable. We can be certain, though, that for better or worse, it would not have been "Rog."

Nevertheless, the Revised Silmarillion may have no choice but to use it, perhaps, with the sleight that he was merely known as Rog, so as to suggest that a more formal name existed.

I wonder how JRRT's later "Quenya" [equivalent to BoLT's gnomish] might have rendered a male name meaning "strong, doughty" and/or "swift".

[Aiwendil]

Man-of-the-Wold wrote:

Indeed it is, but CRT refers back to his original citation and conclusion about his father not retaining that name. He undoubtedly has his reasons for saying this, which certainly refers to the "word" itself being out of step with his father's ever evolving creation of names.

If he had solid etymological or phonological reasons, why did he not name them? And if there are such reasons, why can we not discover them?

I think that Christopher's statement was not based on solid evidence but rather on a sort of intuitive feeling about the sound of the name. Note that I agree with this. I think it very probable that if Tolkien had finished the later 'Tuor', there would be no character named 'Rog'.

But we are not Tolkien, and the Silmarillion we are constructing is not the one Tolkien would have constructed, had he ever finished it. Since we have no suitable replacement for Rog, and since there is no substantial etymological or phonological argument against it, I think we should let it stand.

Nevertheless, the Revised Silmarillion may have no choice but to use it, perhaps, with the sleight that he was merely known as Rog, so as to suggest that a more formal name existed.

I agree with the general sentiment, but I fear that if 'Rog' were unsuitable as a real name it would be unsuitable as an epithet or epesse also. In other words, if there is a problem, this trick would not solve it; if there is no problem, the trick is unnecessary.

I wonder how JRRT's later "Quenya" [equivalent to BoLT's gnomish] might have rendered a male name meaning "strong, doughty" and/or "swift".

Actually, it's later Sindarin that is equivelant to the old "Gnomish". I'd also be very interested to see what JRRT would have done with such a name in later Sindarin. We really have no way of even guessing.

[Mithadan]

It seems to me that the addition of a footnote about the "loss" of the name for the captain of the host of the Hammer of Wrath is as much a "fan fiction" as making up a new name is.

I agree that "Rog" does not "sound" right. Similarly, the use of a word meaning "demon" might appear to be inappropriate for an Elf. I use the phrase "might appear" purposefully, however.

If we are to resort to some form of editorial action here, I might advocate keeping the name "Rog" with a different footnote along the lines of: "Rog" appears to derive from the Sindarin root "Raugh" which signifies "demon". The name "Rog" is likely a nickname given to the Captain of the Host of the Hammer of Wrath based upon his great deeds as told herein, rather than being his given name."

Deleting the character altogether would, to me, be an unforgiveable intrusion into Tolkien's Legendarium.

[Aiwendil]

Mithadan wrote:
It seems to me that the addition of a footnote about the "loss" of the name for the captain of the host of the Hammer of Wrath is as much a "fan fiction" as making up a new name is.

That's true. As I think about it, a footnote seems less and less of an option.

I agree that "Rog" does not "sound" right. Similarly, the use of a word meaning "demon" might appear to be inappropriate for an Elf. I use the phrase "might appear" purposefully, however.

I no longer think we need to worry at all about a possible conflict with "demon". Clearly, "Rog" does not come from the same root; also (as jallanite pointed out) the true Sindarin form of the word "demon" would be "rhaug", not "rog". Moreover, the "demon" stem was already in place in BoLT, where "Rog" is in fact the name of the Elf - if there was no conflict there, why should there be now?

[Finwe]

Based on what I've read, I think we've got two possiblities:

1.) We retain Rog as a nickname, and say that his real name was lost to the sands of time, or something else like that. That way, we still keep the name, but make it a nickname, which would be a lot more liberal. That way, an Elf could be nicknamed "Demon" (if we stick with the theory that "-rog" means "demon").

2.) We slap a circumflex on the "o" and turn "Rog" into "Rôg," and a little more Elvish-sounding.

[Aiwendil]

1.) We retain Rog as a nickname, and say that his real name was lost to the sands of time, or something else like that. That way, we still keep the name, but make it a nickname, which would be a lot more liberal. That way, an Elf could be nicknamed "Demon" (if we stick with the theory that "-rog" means "demon").

Again, I don't see the point of doing this. "Rog" does not mean "Demon". But even if it did, the name "Rog" from FoG has a different etymology, meaning something along the lines of "strength". There is no conflict between the two roots.

As I understand it, Christopher's claim that the name would have disappeared is not based on etymology but rather on the mere look and sound of the word. With regard to this problem, making it a a nickname would serve no purpose.

We slap a circumflex on the "o" and turn "Rog" into "Rôg," and a little more Elvish-sounding.

I agree that the name with a circumflex has less of that "out of place" feeling than the original name. But the addition of a circumflex is somewhat arbitrary. There are any number of more aesthetically fitting (in terms of later Sindarin and Quenya) names we could construct - but as jallanite pointed out, this would be invention and would be arbitrary.

I still vote for leaving "Rog".

[Findegil]

I am far from a specialist in linguistical matters, so I can not really judge about Rog and the suitebility of the name in the later tongues. But as far as I have followed the discussion I will give my oppions about what was said:

To loss the charachter, only because we feel not hapy with the name would be a shame. Clearly we already reduced the role he plays be taking out the death of so many Balrogs. But to take the brave and partily successful counteratack out is something quite diffrent. And to skip only the leader and let the house of the Hammer fight with out him would also not fit since all other houses have named leaders.
Aiwendil has found that the name has a conection to power, but that he was naot able to find in the more up to date etymolgies anything to replace Rog.

So I am obliged to follow Aiwendils argument: We have nothing other than fan-fic to replace the name. The change might have been planed already by JRR Tolkien or not, but however that is, we can't find any way to work it into the text. So we must live with Rog as it stands or loss the charachter or the name. Since I am strongly against both later courses I vote for "Rog".

Respectfully
Findegil

[lindil]

My last opine on the matter:

Findegil, I can understand not wanting to lose a serious chunk of text due to an outdated word, but from the start, the goal with the FOG was to keep in as much as could be adapted to the canon - and eliminate that which can not.

I can think of no clearer case of something that siomply can not truly fit in a post LotR Silm.

As I am in the obvious minority I sill say no more. the circumflex over the 'o' is seemingly a little better, if the majority feels Rog must be included no matter what the cost of the strain of canonicity.


--------------

an addendum:

great to see you here Mithadan!

unfortunately I must beg to differ with you on the footnote possibility.

It seems to me that the addition of a footnote about the "loss" of the name for the captain of the host of the Hammer of Wrath is as much a "fan fiction" as making up a new name is.

As I see it, the name was lost. The legendarium and the languages in particular evolved, and Rog did not. His name [not to mention the hordes of Balrogs] is a fossil imbedded in an archaic text.

So as I see it, the story, and Rog's name, survived into Q30. The surrounding Legendarium and languages shifted and changed leaving Rog's company fifhting an enemy 'host' that could no longer exist, and captained by an Elf with a name that could not be [as anything other than a nickname].

We all want to keep as much as possible, and I can see bending so much as to keep 1 balrog
being slain by Rog and co. [though it is dubious] but to me the name is the straw that should break the camel's back. Rog and his conmpany I am know thinking should go. There is just to much 'editing' needed at every turn, capped off with the name that CJRT is 100% confident [which as HoM-E foot note/Commentary readers no is a pretty rare assertion] Rog would not have made the cut.

I have repeated myself more than enough on this point, and seemingly have won no converts so unless the winds shift in this regard I shall observe Rog and his battle from the sidelines.
Good luck!
smilies/rolleyes.gif smilies/wink.gif

[ September 05, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

It's most unfortunate that we can't seem to come to an agreement (or anywhere near one) on this matter. I would certainly be very sorry to see you simply shouted down by the majority.

As for myself, I am still far from certain about what I think should be done. My oft repeated vote to keep "Rog" is one made reluctantly, after great hesitation.

There is certainly little good in repeating the same arguments over and over. But I think some clarification of my views is in order.

Findegil, I can understand not wanting to lose a serious chunk of text due to an outdated word, but from the start, the goal with the FOG was to keep in as much as could be adapted to the canon - and eliminate that which can not.

I agree with this completely. Losing a large chunk of the story ought not to be one of the things to consider with regard to keeping or rejecting "Rog". It certainly is true that losing this chunk leads to serious textual problems and throws much of the story into disarray. This would prove rather inconvenient. But if we exercise self-discipline we should not consider this, a merely textual difficulty, in dealing with an issue that should be abstract and independent of any specific text.

I can think of no clearer case of something that simply can not truly fit in a post LotR Silm.

I must say that I know what you mean. At least, I feel like I know what you mean. But when I ask myself what it is about "Rog" that makes it not fit in a post-LotR Silmarillion, I can't identify any specific reason. There is nothing about the later Legendarium that makes it impossible for a character named "Rog" to exist.

As I see it, the name was lost. The legendarium and the languages in particular evolved, and Rog did not. His name [not to mention the hordes of Balrogs] is a fossil imbedded in an archaic text.

I think we need to be very clear here about the distinction between the internal texts and the external texts. Externally (in the real world and in the real texts of JRRT), Rog's name was, in your sense, lost. But this does not say anything about whether internally, in the tradition passed from Pengolodh to Rivendell to Bilbo, etc., the name was lost. Regardless of whether Rog was lost from Tolkien's texts, it is fan fiction to say that he was lost from Numenor's texts.

There is just to much 'editing' needed at every turn

Again, I agree with the sentiment. But if we are to concern ourselves with the amount of editing needed, then we run into even greater difficulties if we remove a vital segment of the plot.

capped off with the name that CJRT is 100% confident [which as HoM-E foot note/Commentary readers no is a pretty rare assertion] Rog would not have made the cut.

This is, for me, the real difficulty. I essentially agree with Christopher Tolkien about this. But another distinction is needed here. The question of what Tolkien would have done is very different from the question of what we ought to do. Tolkien would, for example, have rewritten the mythology with a round earth cosmology; we are not doing that. So Christopher Tolkien's conviction, even if it is absolutely unquestioned does not necessitate the elimination of the name.

I am not so foolishly optimistic as to think that these arguments will bring us closer to an agreement. But I wanted to make sure, if we are going to be left with a disagreement, that it not involve a misapprehension of anyone's views.

I am still far from satisfied with the situation. Perhaps it would be best to accept the name Rog for now, with the provision that we will at some point in the future come back and look at it again. This may seem like a mere delay that will accomplish nothing, but I have certainly found in other matters relating to the project that the passage of time has given me a new perspective or different view.

[lindil]

I think we need to be very clear here about the distinction between the internal texts and the external texts. Externally (in the real world and in the real texts of JRRT), Rog's name was, in your sense, lost. But this does not say anything about whether internally, in the tradition passed from Pengolodh to Rivendell to Bilbo, etc., the name was lost. Regardless of whether Rog was lost from Tolkien's texts, it is fan fiction to say that he was lost from Numenor's texts.

Well, JRRT himself treats fictional 'Red Books' and such as history. So if the Red book was able to be translated by JRRT, then I find it acceptable to postulate that anything not finished by him, or left in disarray, [i]is[/] in disarray, as regards to fictional LEgendarium source documents.

I said earlier: Rog and his conmpany I am now thinking should go. There is just to much 'editing' needed at every turn,

Aiwendil disagreed asserting [if I understood aright] that this was the flip side of I can understand not wanting to lose a serious chunk of text due to an outdated word, but from the start, the goal with the FOG was to keep in as much as could be adapted to the canon - and eliminate that which can not.

The difference to my mind is that overediting or awkward editing can ruin or damage the story, thus obviating the whole attempt. Aesthetics again raises it's subjective head...

smilies/wink.gif

[Aiwendil]

Well, JRRT himself treats fictional 'Red Books' and such as history. So if the Red book was able to be translated by JRRT, then I find it acceptable to postulate that anything not finished by him, or left in disarray, is in disarray, as regards to fictional LEgendarium source documents.

Well, I suppose I'm unlikely to convince you of my point of view. But I remain firmly convinced that the specific series of texts left by Tolkien (in which can be seen the conscious development of a Legendarium) is quite unlike anything that might have naturally developed through the various translations, transcriptions, and retellings of the people of Middle-earth.

So, alas, I must continue to regard such a suggestion as fan fiction.

[lindil]

The specific series of texts left by Tolkien (in which can be seen the conscious development of a Legendarium) is quite unlike anything that might have naturally developed through the various translations, transcriptions, and retellings of the people of Middle-earth.

I agree that this is literally true, however as we are dealing with multiple levels of fiction, and as 'development' of history, language of M-E [as far as our project is concerned] etc has [almost] reached an end point, I believe the use of chaotic and unfinished texts and notes can represent a continuation of the fiction begun by JRRT.

What else could they be from the point of view within the Legendarium?

From within the Legendarium, piles of contradictory and 'developing' texts can only be seen as other peoples's versions of 'true history' or as garbled rescensions of true lines of translation and transmission.

So for the moment, I see no gerater leeway being taken by using a 'textual lacunae' scenario for Rog's name than turning mechanical dragons into something else, or one type of dragon into something else, or having a company and Rog slay one balrog instead of a score.

In one sense my proposal is at least grounded in the physical reality of the textual dissaray.


but as you aptly said, 'I am not likely to convince... smilies/smile.gif

lindil out

[Man-of-the-Wold]

Lindil, this is definitely a frustrating one. Maybe it should be changed into Rogue, or Roger.

Nevertheless, this issue contrasts with the necessity of limiting the number of Balrogs or omitting the exotic mechanical monsters. There is sound reason for saying that JRRT's conception abandoned the notion of countless Balrogs and so forth. These earlier conceptions substantively clash with what we find in LoTR and all of the rest. They just don't fit.

But "Rog" is just a name. A clinker to be sure, and an imperfection, but I think it should be lived with, for the sake of retaining the fuller image of Gondolin with its diverse noble houses and actors.

I also feel that the circumflex is an appropriate and helpful thing, too, even if a conceit. So, the first introduction might be as follows: "The Lord of the people of the Hammer of Wrath, commonly remembered as Rôg, ..." or "The people of the Hammer of Wrath, led by one called Rôg, did ..." Subtle, no footnote, move on to JRRT's storyline.

Also, its worth noting that "Rog" was in Bolt also an orc name for Egnor, an early sire of Beren. Perhaps, that could be argued as a direct that JRRT might have taken here, too.

[lindil]

I recognize that I am in a distinct minority [of one it would seem].

So I offer no further points against the Rog issue.

[ September 08, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Findegil]

As Aiwendil, I am not happy with the situation that we can not find a agrement on Rog. As far as I see we have not even come to the agrement that the charachter of rog and his role in Fog should be retained!
That is alarming to me. At least in the case of the counterattack we should find some agrement, before we decied on anything.
In this respect I will trie to answer some obvious questions:
What would it mean to eliminate the role?
The counterattack led to a stay in the advance of the attackers. The attackers decided to wait for the dragons of fire to come into the city. We cannot put forth any other good reason for that with out Rog's role. Further and by deeper insight the relative succsess of Rog excrusion demonstartes that Maeglin had done what he promised to Morgoth: He had undermined the defence from whithin. With out Maeglin the Gondolindrim would have made a big excrusion with all the people much earlyer. And seeing what a singel company had done so late in the battle, we might expect that the big early exrusion would have been much more effetiv and might have been rescued much more of the Gondolindrim.
In my view we will not only lose a bit of detail by taking the counterattack out but also a bit of the deeper meanning.

Have we any avidance that the role Rog plays in Fog was later scipt all together?
I don't think so. We clearly cannot let him kill an host of Balrogs. But in Q30 we see him still make an excursion and die with his people outside the walls. So that at least is the role he (however we name him) should play in our FoG.

The only Reasons we have to even think abaout eliminating him and his role are our feeling that the name dooes not sweet later sindarin and the footnote of Christopher Tolkien that the Name would have been surely changed.
That mean we have not a problem with the role but with the name. What ever we do with the name, it should not ruin the role. In the case of Legolas you would have an very easy option to eliminate the role at all. But again the problem was with the name not with the role. So you did change the name (a bit, it is nonsens when Aiwendil said that this change was independend of the fact that Legolas is the name of a charachter in the LotR. Without Legoals of Mirkwood you would not even question the Name).

Aiwendil wrote: I agree that the name with a circumflex has less of that "out of place" feeling than the original name. But the addition of a circumflex is somewhat arbitrary. There are any number of more aesthetically fitting (in terms of later Sindarin and Quenya) names we could construct - but as jallanite pointed out, this would be invention and would be arbitrary.If it is true that "Rôg" fits the later Sindarin more than "Rog", than we might find therein a brige over which we all can go: I had worked on the textual history of FoG and found that "Rog" was a change in the course of the compositian of Tuor B from original "Rôg". That means "Rôg" is not purely fan-fiction.
The lose of the circumflex could have had only linguistcal reasons. If we now can say that for any linguistical reason a circumflex would be better, I think we could go back to the original name "Rôg".

Respectfully
Findegil

[lindil]

But "Rog" is just a name. A clinker to be sure, and an imperfection, but I think it should be lived with, for the sake of retaining the fuller image of Gondolin with its diverse noble houses and actors.

I also feel that the circumflex is an appropriate and helpful thing, too, even if a conceit. So, the first introduction might be as follows: "The Lord of the people of the Hammer of Wrath, commonly remembered as Rôg, ..." or "The people of the Hammer of Wrath, led by one called Rôg, did ..." Subtle, no footnote, move on to JRRT's storyline.

After reviewing some of the above posts, I sense that MotW's suggestion is probaly as far as I can lean in the direction of keeping Rôg. I know none of us are excited about glosses or footnotes, but something on the order of the above suggestions is the minimum I think necessary to justify inclusion of the name Rôg.

Apologies that I did not see your reply sooner Man of the Wold.

[lindil]

Possibly good news. I just noticed the Out of Print Qenya dictionary (http://www.eldalamberon.com/parma12.html) vol 12 of PE has been reprinted. Perhaps [but not likely] there is a Rog alternative lurking within.

I hope to get a copy in the next month or so.

[ October 15, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Mithadan]

To the extent that it might be helpful, I have the 2001 Sindarin Lexicon published by The Tolkien Society. There, Rog is of course defined as "demon". Ro- is, however, defined as "high". Gae- and goe- are defined as fear or terror. Gol (circumflex over the o) is wise or magical and goll is wise. One definition for gur (circumflex over the u) is heart.

I don't have BoLT 2 with me and I can't recall the nature of Rog or his people. Were they not smiths or miners? If so Raud raises a possibility as it is defined as "metal" (sometimes modified in names to rod).

I recognize everyone's resistance to "creating" a new name for Rog or even devising an explanation for his name. But I would hate to leave out Rog (the character) simply because we don't feel his name is proper Elvish.

[Mithadan]

Worthy of note on this issue is a webpage called Tyalie Tyelellieva maintained by a Tolkien Language group which split off from the "Elfconners". This page, which contains substantive materials (and is critical of the "secretive" Elfconners) includes a list of unpublished materials. One of the entries is as follows:

§33. Name-list to the Fall of Gondolin, described and quoted from in Lost Tales, but only part of it was quoted in publication.

This list is said to be in the possession of Carl Hostetter and was copied at the Bodleian Library. I have no personal experience with Mr. Hostetter. The webpage claims that he and his colleagues do not share unpublished materials with others (and is highly critical of these persons). I do not know if this is true. However, research at the Tolklang list might achieve some results (if this hasn't already been done).

[Aiwendil]

Unfortunately, I don't think any of these linguistic resources are going to help. The only discovery that could be made that would solve the problem would be the discovery of some later version of the name "Rog" or of precisely the root from which "Rog" was formed.

Mithadan wrote:
This list is said to be in the possession of Carl Hostetter and was copied at the Bodleian Library. I have no personal experience with Mr. Hostetter. The webpage claims that he and his colleagues do not share unpublished materials with others (and is highly critical of these persons). I do not know if this is true.

Alas, it is. The story is that Hostetter showed some unpublished documents to certain fellow Tolkienian linguists and that these latter then published analyses of those texts (which included the unpublished texts themselves). And henceforth the policy has been total secrecy.

Lindil wrote:
After reviewing some of the above posts, I sense that MotW's suggestion is probaly as far as I can lean in the direction of keeping Rôg.

Just to be clear: is the proposal you are talking about just the addition of the circumflex? Or did you mean that we must make "Rog" merely a nickname or epithet?

If it is the latter, as I suspect, then I simply cannot agree.

This is a situation we have run into once or twice before. If there is a problem with the name it must be a contradiction between "Rog" and later Sindarin; in this case changing it to an epithet does nothing to solve the problem. And if there isn't a problem with the name, then there is no reason whatsoever to change it to an epithet.

[lindil]

"The Lord of the people of the Hammer of Wrath, commonly remembered as Rôg, ..." or "The people of the Hammer of Wrath, led by one called Rôg,..."


I had in mind something like the last. Which IO suppose is an epithet. To my mind it does do 2 things to solve the problem.

1- it keeps the unarguably questionable name.
2- it reduces it from the role of 'proper' name to something like a nickname.

As to whether anyone else agrees or not, I am really beyond much concern. My primary views
on the Rog dilemna are quite different than everyone else's as has already been covered.

So whatever the active group thinks needs to be done...

[Aiwendil]

Lindil wrote:
1- it keeps the unarguably questionable name.

To me, this would appear to be a disadvantage.

2- it reduces it from the role of 'proper' name to something like a nickname.


Yes, but I don't see how it makes any difference what sort of a name it is. The trouble, if there is any, is with the word itself. And that means that, if this concern is indeed completely valid, then no solution addresses it save the complete removal of "Rog". The Elves did not use one kind of Sindarin for their true names and a different kind for their epithets.

If I am somehow misunderstanding your objection to Rog after all this time, please tell me.

I have just had a little PM exchange with Numenorean, who has been following our project closely though - alas - has never posted here. He asked the very good question of whether the name "Androg" could be of any assistance in this case. I have (characteristically) lost the reply I sent. But the points I made were these.

The best case would be that Androg throws light on the etymological situation of "Rog" in later Sindarin. Unfortunately, I can find no etymology for Androg. It seems likely, but of course, there's no way to tell, that the first element is from ANDA-, meaning "long". The second could be "-drog" or "-rog"; in neither case is their a likely looking root in the Etymologies. If the second element were "rog", it could either have a new meaning or retain the meaning "strength". Perhaps "Androg" means "long strength".

But at the very least, Androg (and also other words, particularly "Balrog") tell us something important about phonology. That is: there is no general rule in Sindarin against -og endings, or against the combination -rog-. And it is hard to think of a reasonable set of criteria that would allow Androg and Balrog but not allow Rog.

If it sounds like I'm beating this into the ground, I apologize. But I am not trying to advocate some particular course of action for "Rog" - I am really, honestly just trying to figure out what ought to be done. And for me, this line of reasoning seems to provide just enough justification to retain the name.

I know Lindil will disagree. And I am rather disheartened by this fact, for I certainly don't wish to force this through by virtue of the majority - particularly when I am also quite hesitant about it. But I don't know what else can be done.

[Findegil]

Is not Felagund an example for a nickname adapted from an foring language? Khûzdul when I remeber rightly. So what Lindil suggested, is to provide such a way around the bad-feeling about Rog without stating it explicit.
But if that may be justified I am at a lose to say. I have never felt Rog so much out of sound in Sindarin. But as I said before, I am fare from being an expert in linguistical matters.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Man-of-the-Wold]

To be clear my suggestion was to be unclear. I'd use Rôg in passing in someway that is not definitively stated or implied one way or another, whether it is the actual, formal name of that personage or some sort of less formal nom de guerre or legendary apellation. Just "gloss" over the nature of "name," since there is obviously no satisfying answer, but not the character or role, which even with a reduced number of Balrog combatants is significant. It isn't necessarily that important.

If a good substitute arises, such as Androg (I'm no Middle-Earth Etymologist), then use it, but Rog is all we got from JRRT, and CRT states the obvious, that JRRT would have changed it. True to form, he would have changed many other names, many times, before he had ever finalized The Quenta Silmarillion.

The goal of this project I might paraphrase as cleanly putting together as much of JRRTs stories and details in one full compendium that provides a satisfying spread of everything. The learned reader might wander about "Rog," as well as other questions that cannot be answered for the sake of avoiding contradiction must remain ambiguous.

Names and words and other productions of language were JRRT's joy and inspiration, and one of the things that bogged down his efforts. I wouldn't attempt to resolve his never-ending constructions of tongues.

[Aiwendil]

Man of the Wold wrote:
To be clear my suggestion was to be unclear. I'd use Rôg in passing in someway that is not definitively stated or implied one way or another, whether it is the actual, formal name of that personage or some sort of less formal nom de guerre or legendary apellation.

I can but repeat myself:

I don't see how it makes any difference what sort of a name it is. The trouble, if there is any, is with the word itself. And that means that, if this concern is indeed completely valid, then no solution addresses it save the complete removal of "Rog". The Elves did not use one kind of Sindarin for their true names and a different kind for their epithets.

On the surface your idea seems to have some promise, but when you stop to think about it, it's logic falls apart.

Findegil wrote:
Is not Felagund an example for a nickname adapted from an foring language? Khûzdul when I remeber rightly. So what Lindil suggested, is to provide such a way around the bad-feeling about Rog without stating it explicit.


Interesting. If this is what Lindil and Man of the Wold meant, I apologize for misconstruing them.

Could we re-interpret "Rog" as a name in some non-Elvish language (even implicitly)? The first question is what language it could be. We know little about the Edainic languages; I suppose it could be from one of them. Khuzdul I'm not sure about (being not quite the linguistic expert some seem to think, alas).

But it is a much more difficult matter to come up with reasons for this Elf of Gondolin to have a Beorian, or Halethian, or Marachian, or Khuzdul name. The explanation of Felagund is clear. But Gondolin is the one place you'd expect people not to have such nicknames. No Dwarves ever visited it; nor did any humans save three.

Of course, one could conjure up some fan fiction. Perhaps "Rog" is from one of the Edainic languages known to Hurin, Huor, or Tuor, and was given to the captain of the Folk of the Hammer by one of them.

This is, of course, really stretching things. But even if it were acceptable, it ought to do nothing to the text. Lots of people are known by their epithets; we don't need a footnote telling us that "Felagund" is a nickname to excuse it's appearance in the narrative. In other words, if "Rog" were a proper Marachian name (for instance) it's appearance in the text, without footnote and without comment, would be perfectly justified.

So again: if you can justify such a footnote/comment (which I'm fairly sure you can't), that very justification makes the footnote/comment superfluous.

[Man-of-the-Wold]

In response to Aiwendel, I might note that I was purpounding no particular logic, beyond a practical one.

I likewise am at a loss to decide "how it makes any difference what sort of a name it is." So, why not use the name Rôg, as the only one we have for a truly great character that otherwise deserves to be retained?

This Project in many ways needs to do what JRRT and CRT were either unable or unwilling to do, which is take all that there is and put it together as best as possible, and not sweat details that do not create any substantive and irresolvable conflict.

The problem as discussed here is perfectly valid, but is it all that meaningful?

In other words, "so what" if we can't really explain how Rôg fits in ... as a name?

This matter seems comparable to any variety of ambiguities, which will arise, and that should be treated lightly and appropriately, so that the uncertainty that underlies them is subtly implied. Also, avoid dwelling on the matter too much, so not to boorishly belabour it. In such cases, paring back on the actual matter that is ambiguous might be sensible (eg: Rôg appears in the BoLT text maybe 6 to 8 times, try to avoid naming him per se for half of those instances).

(For an entirely different situation, a footnote might be useful to provide alternative or ancillary information from JRRT, which is itself neither more or less certain, perhaps, than the text to which it relates)

What is stricken would be material, characters, events and so forth that directly contradict substantive facts to be maintained elsewhere in the RS, or something such as the multitude of Balrogs that plainly clashes or is nonsensical in the overall context of JRRTs published works or his more or less final writings.

To return to the specific question at hand, I find it a bit rich to suggest that we know everything about Sindarian or how it was used by its speakers.

My understanding is that JRRT never finalized his ever-changing tinkering with the Elven tongues, and that even for these, with which he played the longest, he could never come close to exhaustively charterizing them in the naturalistic way to which he aspired.

I do not think it is this Project's objective to resolve his linquistic avocations. As long as we maintain the meanings of words as we know them to be, that is enough. If some meanings or uses of words are not fully explanable or consistent with generally commone patterns, then so be it.

Bottom-line, we don't know everything about Sindarin, and there is no reason to suggest that we can or should.

To suggest that Rôg is Mannish or Dwarvish in origin is (I agree) implausible, given that Gondolin's isolation began early during the Siege of Angband. Although if Rôg was a leader of great craftmen, he might have sought out interaction with the Naugrim very early on. (I also see where JRRT used the acute circumflex at times)

The people of Gondolin, of course, were not all Noldor. There would have been the odd spouse or other relation from another kindred that had joined the Exiles. And, Turgon's people from Nevrast had been in large part Grey-elves, and perhaps even some Green-elves. When this issue first arose, and I had not read BoLT for some while, I thought Rôg could be more from among these Sindarin elements.

But clearly, given the nature of the people he led, he was a true, blue Noldor, and perhaps in that lies not so much an explanation, but a reason to be comfortable with ignorance.

Even as I try to work through HoME X-XII (somewhat simultaneously), I wonder if Quenya was not already an Elf-Latin in Eldamar. I see that JRRT switched to Sindarin as the language adopted by the Noldor (for the most part), and as the main Elven language for later ages, and even on Tol Eressëa, rather than the Exiles' vernacular of "Noldorin."

But might he have retained the idea of "Noldorin" (in abeyance per CRT) as the Exiles' common tougue before Sindarin, and that even for the Noldor, Quenya was already a rarefied language of lore and special occasion?

Perhaps, Rôg could be attributed as a form of "Noldorin" that was favored for reference to that (very Noldorian) person. Why? ... who knows? What does it means? I wish I knew, but "Oh Well."

I understand that the names that come down to us are in Sindarin form. But in terms of this rule, I'm not sure if there are not or could not be exceptions.

These exceptions would not need to be accounted for in their entirety, merely accepted as conceivable.

[lindil]

I will try and address a few points which seem to have gone unnoticed or have been forgotten.

1- Findegil, I am no linguist either, I object to Rog on 2 points. CJRT's oft quoted statement that ROG would NOT have made the cut, due presumably, to it's simply not fitting aestheically with Mature Sindarin.
My other point is that I too find it like nails on a chalkboard as a mother/father given name.

Others may not have a problem, I completely concede that I am basing my second point on my personal aesthetic 'understanding' or better stated, sensibilities, of Sindarin and I give it no greater weight than anyone else's. It is CJRT's authority we need to overcome here in order to justifying keeping Rog as a name.

2-
MotW stated: Rog is all we got from JRRT, and CRT states the obvious, that JRRT would have changed it. True to form, he would have changed many other names, many times, before he had ever finalized The Quenta Silmarillion.

The big difference here is that no other name that may make it into the TftE was left in such an archaic form. No other name is singled out for comment and indeed excising from CRT's QS77/00. He states, I believe that he left out the mention of ' the account of the death of Rog outside the walls' or somesuch from the Q30 source text which he used as the base text for his Silmarillion account of the Fall of Gondilin. He did it not because of concerns over Rog and co. slaying too many Balrog's but because of the euphony of the name as unsuitable [as a given, or mother/father name I would say].


3- Yes, but I don't see how it makes any difference what sort of a name it is.

Nicknames can often be coarser or jesting names or words that are not used as given names. 'Bull' being an english example or 'Shorty', 'Slim' . Basically things that are desriptive and somewhat uncultured, but stick as monikers. Rog seems a perfect candidate for this. Editorial justification of inserting a gloss or footnote explaining Rog as a nickname is, I admit, another matter.

Aiwendil stated: I don't see how it makes any difference what sort of a name it is. The trouble, if there is any, is with the word itself. And that means that, if this concern is indeed completely valid, then no solution addresses it save the complete removal of "Rog". The Elves did not use one kind of Sindarin for their true names and a different kind for their epithets.

It is not a case of differing Sindarins, although i think I understand your point. I hope I have in an intelligent way addressed this point above. If not...

------------------------------------------

further opints:

A- Aiwendil again: Lots of people are known by their epithets; we don't need a footnote telling us that "Felagund" is a nickname to excuse it's appearance in the narrative. In other words, if "Rog" were a proper Marachian name (for instance) it's appearance in the text, without footnote and without comment, would be perfectly justified.

We do need a footnote [or minor textual addtion] if we accept CJRT's authority [and his own editarial decision in the Silm] as overriding our personal opinions and understanding of Rog.

B-MotW again: This Project in many ways needs to do what JRRT and CRT were either unable or unwilling to do, which is take all that there is and put it together as best as possible, and not sweat details that do not create any substantive and irresolvable conflict.

'As best as possible' is of course subjective, we all have differing standards, I do[obviously] consider Rog, concretely substansive, as did CJRT, not however, really irreconcilable, for as I stated earlier, I am willing to bow out of the topic. It does however seem at least prudent to see this particular possibility through to the end.

A further note on Felagund. We are given, beacause it was so unusual, an explanation of it. Not that I am suggesting Rog be considered [or turned into]Dwarvish [or any other lang] but that it be explained as:

...a nickname, whose exact meaning is lost but possibly meaning 'strong' or even 'demon' indicating a near dibolical level of strength, rare even amongst Noldorin smiths.

[Aiwendil]

I realize this discussion seems to be turning into the old beating of that proverbial dead horse; but I'd rather carry on the discussion too long than cut it off too soon and miss a possible resolution. So:

Man-of-the-Wold wrote:
This Project in many ways needs to do what JRRT and CRT were either unable or unwilling to do, which is take all that there is and put it together as best as possible, and not sweat details that do not create any substantive and irresolvable conflict.

These may indeed be words of wisdom. But we are far beyond the point where we can opt not to sweat details. In the end, I think it will prove good that we have been meticulous.

What is stricken would be material, characters, events and so forth that directly contradict substantive facts to be maintained elsewhere in the RS, or something such as the multitude of Balrogs that plainly clashes or is nonsensical in the overall context of JRRTs published works or his more or less final writings.

I agree; and from this point of view it certaily does look silly to worry so much about a name that only appears a few times. There is a strong intuition that this shouldn't be much of a problem at all, that there should be some trivial solution. But alas - that intuition doesn't tell us what the trivial solution is.

To return to the specific question at hand, I find it a bit rich to suggest that we know everything about Sindarian or how it was used by its speakers.

But clearly we do know some things about Sindarin. If we were confronted with a name that the phonology of which was unlike anything in later Sindarin, we would have very good reason to discard it. Is "Rog" such a name? That's a tricky question. On the one hand, both Christopher Tolkien and a kind of vague intuition tell us that it is an old Gnomish name not suited to Sindarin. On the other hand, it's almost impossible to formulate a phonological justification to back up that intuition; again, how could "Balrog" be valid and "Rog" not be?

But might he have retained the idea of "Noldorin" (in abeyance per CRT) as the Exiles' common tougue before Sindarin, and that even for the Noldor, Quenya was already a rarefied language of lore and special occasion?

The language called "Noldorin" is simply an earlier stage (in external, real world time) of the language called "Sindarin" (and "Gnomish" is likewise the precursor of "Noldorin"). "Noldorin" cannot have been retained in abeyance for it was in fact retained as Sindarin.

Lindil wrote:
Nicknames can often be coarser or jesting names or words that are not used as given names. 'Bull' being an english example or 'Shorty', 'Slim' . Basically things that are desriptive and somewhat uncultured, but stick as monikers. Rog seems a perfect candidate for this.

I think this is a bit of a stretch. We have no other examples of Elves having nicknames that were in coarser or less cultured language. Indeed, we have no examples of Elves having nicknames that would have been unsuitable as real names (aside from the fact that certain epithets were given in memory of deeds) - the only exception is "Felagund", which of course is a different story.

We do need a footnote [or minor textual addtion] if we accept CJRT's authority [and his own editarial decision in the Silm] as overriding our personal opinions and understanding of Rog.

I don't quite follow you here. What do you mean? Maybe it's just me - I was up rather late last night struggling with Hermite polynomials and Legendre's equation . . .

...a nickname, whose exact meaning is lost but possibly meaning 'strong' or even 'demon' indicating a near dibolical level of strength, rare even amongst Noldorin smiths.

It's a nice idea. But unfortunately, in my book it still steps over the line into fan fiction. We've been through this before though, and I'm sure there's little more to be said.

Suffice it to say that I am opposed to making "Rog" a nickname or claiming that his name was lost, or anything of that sort. To me, such a solution seems quite artificial and also insufficient for dealing with the possible problem.

As far as I'm concerned our options are:

1. Leave "Rog".

2. Replace it with some attempted update into later Sindarin. There was, way back, some talk about adding a circumflex and maybe dropping the "g". Jallanite rightly pointed out that this was quite arbitrary and unjustified. But I think I may have been too hasty above when I discounted any possibility of an etymological/phonological solution being found. But don't hold your breath.

3. Drop the name but not the character. This would obviously be very tricky. It might be viable, but it's hard to judge how contrived and lacking the resulting narrative would be.

4. Drop the character. This has major implications for the continuity of the narrative, as Rog plays a critical role in the plot.

Believe me, it is only after looking at these four options and the major difficulties with each that retaining "Rog" begins to sound like a good idea to me.

Lindil, earlier your agreement with the footnote/nickname idea sounded reluctant. What other option for eliminating the name were you thinking of? What do you think of option 3 vs. 4?

I would make an effort to investigate the possibility of 2, but I don't have access to all the linguistic resources. I will see whether there is anything I can find, however.

[lindil]

A.: But we are far beyond the point where we can opt not to sweat details. In the end, I think it will prove good that we have been meticulous.
Agreed, the details [and the devil << or Rog smilies/wink.gif >> in them must be, it seems, labored over as much as JRRT or CJRT have done. We can't be perfect, given the gaps in: texts, understanding and ability, but we must do our best to be thorough.

Again from A.: I think this is a bit of a stretch. We have no other examples of Elves having nicknames that were in coarser or less cultured language. Indeed, we have no examples of Elves having nicknames that would have been unsuitable as real names

I admit it is a bit of a stretch, as are all other options. I however feel [at the moment at least] it is the more plausible and most consistent stretch.

I am extremely loath to countenance an obsolete Elvish name. If all are opposed, I must live with it, nothing new here, but as you point out, simple solutions elude us, so we must stretch one way or another. I will address your other options below.

a prior quote from myself cited by A.: ~~~ "We do need a footnote [or minor textual addtion] if we accept CJRT's authority [and his own editarial decision in the Silm] as overriding our personal opinions and understanding of Rog." ~~~

A's comment: 'I don't quite follow you here. What do you mean? ... .

Essentially that I feel [or, IMO] if we keep Rog we must somehow justify it in the text.
OF course this seems to also a minority opinion also, although some have spoken up in favor of something along these lines.

A.: Lindil, earlier your agreement with the footnote/nickname idea sounded reluctant. What other option for eliminating the name were you thinking of? What do you think of option 3 vs. 4?

As far as I'm concerned our options are:

[QUOTE]1. Leave "Rog".
To my understanding of our principles this is out of the question as per CJRT's altogether unique and express POV that Rog is not mature [read that canonical] Sindarin. It may not have been replaced or updated and it's cognate may even linger in Balrog, but that is not an Elvish proper name. Androg is quite possibly an untranslated Edainish name, whatever it is, it's translation is unattested.

2. Replace it with some attempted update into later Sindarin. There was, way back, some talk about adding a circumflex and maybe dropping the "g". Jallanite rightly pointed out that this was quite arbitrary and unjustified. But I think I may have been too hasty above when I discounted any possibility of an etymological/phonological solution being found. But don't hold your breath.

Of course any legitimate 'etymological/phonological solution' would be most welcome. So far none seem to have surfaced.

Aiwendil, do you want to, assuming you have not recently, try a specific Rog query to Elfling and the new Hostetter board?

3. Drop the name but not the character. This would obviously be very tricky. It might be viable, but it's hard to judge how contrived and lacking the resulting narrative would be.

This is a viable idea, as stated it may not work in practice, but as an idea I see no grounds to reject it. It is Rog's name, not his character or actions as a character that are the stumbling block. I suppose if I am most in favor of this I must come up with something. Personally I see any attempt as likely to be far more tortured than an editorial justification of Rog [such as the nickname solution], but it [along with #4] may be the only compromise that is considered worth pursuing.

4. Drop the character. This has major implications for the continuity of the narrative, as Rog plays a critical role in the plot.

In reality, while I am willing to make a stab at #3 I am more likely to lean towards #4, just because as stated above if it is very difficult to see leaving the name out
without stating that the name was lost, but the actions of the character remain*[see below]. If we can not update, explain away [ the nickname solution] or otherwise justify within the text the archaic name of Rog it should go, as hard a decision as that may be, that is how our principles were designed to work, and indeed that is the very choice [elimination] that CJRT was forced [or chose]
to use in the Silmarillion, even though Rog was retained by his father in Q30.

A.'s final comment: "I would make an effort to investigate the possibility of 2, but I don't have access to all the linguistic resources. I will see whether there is anything I can find, however."

I did receive the Qenya lexicon, and it had noting I could find re: Rog, nor did I expect it too as anything directly relating to named characters was said to be included in BoLT itself.

In conclusion I have no fear of the damage that a missing Rog scene would do to TftE, many wonderful, rare and fascinating things will not make the cut.
*Turin at Dagor Dagoreth
*Aelfwine [and Dirhavel?]
*Boldog's
*Rumil [or was it Pengolodh?] seeing Yavanna standing as a Tree.
*maybe even CJRT's excellent, organic and logical solution to the RoD problem.

For one reason or another the above [assuming I have not erred] and many other wonderful bits of Lore just don't fit, we should not be to attached to anyone part that can [ I think Rog certainly has that potential] damage the whole.

The question of future publishing came up again, and not that we should make ourdecisions based on it, but a TftE that includes Rog would certainly be a Red Herring to many.
Others?

___________________________________

* re: the 'lost name theory, this is seemingly impossible to justify if we are positing Bilbo as the source, as the very place of editaorial assembly was home to Elrond son of Earendil who doubtless new the tale of the escape and scak of Gondolin by heart as it happened when he was at the very impressionable age of 7. We would need to posit textual deterioration or somesuch to justify the name loss, and this is exactly the kind of thing Aiwendil is completely against.

[ November 12, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Mithadan]

I feel that we must certainly keep the character Rog as he adds richness and detail to the tale. Of Aiwendil's options, I reluctantly favor #1, keeping Rog's name as is.

However, rather than suggesting it is a nickname or attempting to create a meaning for it (which is suggested to be too close to being fan fiction) I would favor a footnote, vanilla in favor, reading along the following lines: "The name "Rog" appears to not be of proper Sindarin origin. However, it is the only name for this Elf passed down through these traditions [cites]."

[Aiwendil]

Lindil wrote:
I admit it is a bit of a stretch, as are all other options. I however feel [at the moment at least] it is the more plausible and most consistent stretch.

I am extremely loath to countenance an obsolete Elvish name. If all are opposed, I must live with it, nothing new here, but as you point out, simple solutions elude us, so we must stretch one way or another. I will address your other options below.

You are right. There is trouble whithersoever we turn. But I think that the dubious nature of this particular idea (that "Rog" was a coarser or less cultured nickname) makes it unsuitable as justification for saying that Rog was merely a nickname or epithet. If the best justification that we have for a change is something as artificial as this, then the change should not be made.

Essentially that I feel [or, IMO] if we keep Rog we must somehow justify it in the text.

Ah. I understand now; thank you. So you would not consider leaving the text as it is on the implicit assumption that "Rog" may have been a nickname? For this option, as flawed as it is, struck me as a possibility recently. What I mean is that if "Rog" were simply a nickname (as I don't think it would be, but as others suggest) would this necessarily be stated in the text? It is quite common for characters to be referred to by their after-names with no explanation. But I take it that for you there is a problem with the jarring effect of "Rog" on a reader, one that could not be solved save by altering the text (i.e., it could merely be explained away).

To my understanding of our principles this is out of the question as per CJRT's altogether unique and express POV that Rog is not mature [read that canonical] Sindarin.

I must remain adamant on one point: it is not "out of the question" in light of our principles. There are arguments for it and against it; I don't think that our principles trivially or obviously necessitate the removal of the name.

There are a couple of subtleties that have been gone over before but that I think could stand to be reiterated. First of all, evidence that JRRT would have changed something is by itself not enough to require us to change it. Think of Myths Transformed, for example. What we need are texts of greater precedence contradicting, explicitly or implicitly, texts of lesser precedence, without introducing irreconcilable contradictions into the Legendarium.

Do we have that? Possibly. The evidence against "Rog" is that Christopher Tolkien thinks it does not fit with later Sindarin. If it could be clearly shown that this is true, there would be no question at all - "Rog" would have to go. As things actually stand, I think there is a very strong argument against "Rog". But I think that since we cannot actually explain how the name fails to fit with later Sindarin, we can at least entertain the possibility of retaining the name.

It may not have been replaced or updated and it's cognate may even linger in Balrog, but that is not an Elvish proper name.

The "-rog" in "Balrog" is not the cognate of the LT "Rog". I fear I set wrecked havoc on this whole inquiry when (two years ago or more?) I made a great fuss over a supposed connection between them. There is none, save the obvious phonological resemblance.

I should point out that nowhere (as far as I can tell) do we see anything suggesting that there were certain words or elements in Sindarin that were not suitable for proper Elvish names.

Aiwendil, do you want to, assuming you have not recently, try a specific Rog query to Elfling and the new Hostetter board?

I actually just thought of this as well. Last time I tried to get FoG name help on Elfling it was fruitless. But I'll give it another try.

Personally I see any attempt as likely to be far more tortured than an editorial justification of Rog [such as the nickname solution]

Yes, but in eliminating the name we are on far safer ground canonically.

I did receive the Qenya lexicon, and it had noting I could find re: Rog, nor did I expect it too as anything directly relating to named characters was said to be included in BoLT itself.

As I suspected. Is there anything with the sense of "strong" besides the "pol-" and "tulc-" words?

In conclusion I have no fear of the damage that a missing Rog scene would do to TftE, many wonderful, rare and fascinating things will not make the cut.
*Turin at Dagor Dagoreth

I wouldn't count that one out quite yet.

But I think you may be underestimating the damage cutting the Rog scene could do. The trouble is not only that we would lose some nice detail, but that we would have a gap in the plot of the Tale. Rog's attack plays a critical role in the course of the narrative as it now stands.

re: the 'lost name theory, this is seemingly impossible to justify if we are positing Bilbo as the source, as the very place of editaorial assembly was home to Elrond son of Earendil who doubtless new the tale of the escape and scak of Gondolin by heart as it happened when he was at the very impressionable age of 7. We would need to posit textual deterioration or somesuch to justify the name loss, and this is exactly the kind of thing Aiwendil is completely against.

Exactly (alas, for it is such an elegant proposal). I would class the lost name solution with the nickname solution. Both seem to me simply to require too much justification, too much of a stretch in believability, to be tenable.

Mithadan wrote:
However, rather than suggesting it is a nickname or attempting to create a meaning for it (which is suggested to be too close to being fan fiction) I would favor a footnote, vanilla in favor, reading along the following lines: "The name "Rog" appears to not be of proper Sindarin origin. However, it is the only name for this Elf passed down through these traditions [cites]."

Again, I see the allure of this idea (not least because it would involve so little editing). But it would still require us to posit very specific textual deterioration and such, which I do not think we can do.

[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[lindil]

Reading my copy of the recently [and gratefully] acquired Tolkien's Legendarium[p.24] I came across the oft seen but never digested quote of the professor's:

The legends have to be worked over...[elipsis in the quote] and made consistent; and they have to be integrated with [The Lord of the Rings] and they have to be given some progessive shape.

This of course is more or less our stated aim, but I wonder if we have, for the sake of a completely understandable conservatism in regards the texts, drawn our parameters, our freedom of editing too closely to acheive the initial goal of JRRT.

This all treally belongs in another thread and I will copy and paste it to a new one in the public forum I think [once I look over the principles again], but I think it is germaine to Rog, in that it is in a sense become a [very] miniature Ruin of Doriath for us.

It is of course good that we explore every conservative option before reaching for the more creative one's since after all we are trying to preserve as much of the pre-LotR Legendarium into one Tale as possible, to fill in CJRT's Silm. gaps not JRRT's.

anyway, there is my 3-4 am musing for the day, if I develop it into more concrete suggestions, this forum will be the first to know smilies/wink.gif.

Response to Mithadan and Aiwendil:

btw Aiwendil, your last quote in the preceding post contained a repeat of your second to last quote. Mithadan's words were lost in the last one.

A.: If the best justification that we have for a change is something as artificial as this{the nickname idea}, then the change should not be made.

Hmm, that is of course working from a position where keeping Rog is seen as a possibility. I do not work from there.

_____________________________________

L. quoted by A::Essentially that I feel [or, IMO] if we keep Rog we must somehow justify it in the text.

[qoute]A.'s reply: Ah. I understand now; thank you. So you would not consider leaving the text as it is on the implicit assumption that "Rog" may have been a nickname? For this option, as flawed as it is, struck me as a possibility recently. What I mean is that if "Rog" were simply a nickname (as I don't think it would be, but as others suggest) would this necessarily be stated in the text? It is quite common for characters to be referred to by their after-names with no explanation. But I take it that for you there is a problem with the jarring effect of "Rog" on a reader, one that could not be solved save by altering the text (i.e., it could merely be explained away).[/quote]

My understanding of the Rog dilemna [ 'The problem of Rog'- actually I will have to rename the thread that - too apropos to pass up.] does not leave room for an implicit but an applied solution, for that still leaves the reader encountering the name 'unassisted' which is the very thing pretty much all of us agree would NOT have happened in any JRRT revision.

That is why for me a footnote explaining as per Mithadan's last suggestion it's archaic nature, or a foornote or textual gloss explaining it away as a nickname not a proper name is the [far and away] preferred solution. I will admit that leaving it and admitting it doesn't fit is somewhat bizarre, but I think we need to consider unusual one-off solutions, to what will almost certainly be [hopefully!] a one-off stlye problem.


I must remain adamant on one point: it is not "out of the question" in light of our principles. There are arguments for it and against it; I don't think that our principles trivially or obviously necessitate the removal of the name.

I carefully prefaced my statement to which the above quote is a response with: 'to my understanding of our Principles...'
I recall all to well, that the Principles were finalized with this very Rog question left open to later debate.

Of course their was no satisfactory way to word them any more concretly at the time, in order to leave room for this very debate.


There are a couple of subtleties that have been gone over before but that I think could stand to be reiterated. First of all, evidence that JRRT would have changed something is by itself not enough to require us to change it. Think of Myths Transformed, for example. What we need are texts of greater precedence contradicting, explicitly or implicitly, texts of lesser precedence, without introducing irreconcilable contradictions into the Legendarium.

MT is only partially analagous to our Rog dilemna. MT contradicts even itself, it is in a sense a record of brainstorming sessions, so our principles clearly do not require us to edit the Silm based on such. This is essentially a 'How much do we incorporate from later ideas' question. Rog is the other end of the scale, a 'how far do we bend to accomadate obsolete aspects of the Lost Tales and early Q phase.

With every other name in Lost Tales we were able to update or eliminate. Rog I think must be viewed with the same to options.

... The evidence against "Rog" is that Christopher Tolkien thinks it does not fit with later Sindarin. If it could be clearly shown that this is true, there would be no question at all - "Rog" would have to go. As things actually stand, I think there is a very strong argument against "Rog". But I think that since we cannot actually explain how the name fails to fit with later Sindarin, we can at least entertain the possibility of retaining the name.

Yes the crux of our dilemna.
First off CJRT'thinks' it is obsolete is imo far too light of a description, he did that which I do not recall him doing anywhere else in the HoM-E, he stated flat out it would not have survived, no doubts. He is, as we know etremely careful with his words and how he characterises every nuance of change within HoM-E. Since neither he [as far as he has let on, and he is always willing to make reference to a source, even when he does not provide it] nor can we, I have always boiled it down to plain, 'not sounding right' - aesthetics. Imo, not one whit less important than fidelity of the whole than anything else.

The "-rog" in "Balrog" is not the cognate of the LT "Rog". I fear I set wrecked havoc on this whole inquiry when (two years ago or more?) I made a great fuss over a supposed connection between them. There is none, save the obvious phonological resemblance.

I should point out that nowhere (as far as I can tell) do we see anything suggesting that there were certain words or elements in Sindarin that were not suitable for proper Elvish names.

Thanks for the clarification on the -rog point. Sorry for not catching that along time ago.

As for the unsuitable words or elements, I was considering Rog unsuitable on 2 possible grounds, one of which you cleared up [rog=demon] the other has no clearing up, as it sees Rog as no longer Sindarin. The -goth element seems exscusvvily used or bestowed upon evil beings though. Morgoth, and Gothmog.
I was about to say Mor- = dark, but remembered Turin's Mormegil nickname [hey!] and his mother Morwen.


A.: Is there anything with the sense of "strong" besides the "pol-" and "tulc-" words?

Still looking. Do you have the Goldogrin/Gnomish Lexicon?

A.: I wouldn't count that one [refering to Turin at the Dagor Dagoreth-L] out quite yet.

Good! Glad I might be wrong on that one. I suppose to speak more exactly I should have said Turin as a Vala.

A.: But I think you may be underestimating the damage cutting the Rog scene could do. The trouble is not only that we would lose some nice detail, but that we would have a gap in the plot of the Tale. Rog's attack plays a critical role in the course of the narrative as it now stands. I am sure we could if needed bridge the longer detailed account with a one or 2 line condensation that leaves Rog out, but his and his companies actions in. Indeed, this goes back to the old recommendation of 'Keep the company of the Hammer of Wrath' but loose it's captain suggestion. If others are as concerned about consensus as Aiwendil is, that may be the closest we come, and I must say is looking more attractive by the hour.


Well I am willing to come up work on editing a 'Rogless' battle scene, if in theory there are no absolute rejections of the very possibility from the get go.

I may also email jallanite just to see what his take on all this is. He was extremely disturbed to see the Legolas question reduced to a vote, so perhaps he would be encouraged by [at Aiwendil's persistent effort] the attempt at consensus here, however contracted it may be.

[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

Lindil wrote:
This of course is more or less our stated aim, but I wonder if we have, for the sake of a completely understandable conservatism in regards the texts, drawn our parameters, our freedom of editing too closely to acheive the initial goal of JRRT.

You are right that this is a separate discussion. If you want to open a new thread (or reopen the infamous "Principles"), I'll certainly closely consider any proposal.

But I am very hesitant to tear down any of the principles/goals decisions that we have made thus far - for several reasons. One is simply that they have proved good so far. Certainly we could come up with less rigorous principles that would allow us to bypass some of the difficult issues we are coming up against. But I think that in the long run the project is better off for rigorously facing those issues. Also it seems to me that the introduction of greater leeway would only worsen the debates. If, for example, we were to allow some of the strict principles to be overriden in difficult cases like "Rog", I take it you would either add a footnote or explanation for his name, or change the name, or delete him. In the same scenario, I would take the greater leeway as justification for keeping the name. We would reach the same impasse but with even fewer resources to try to get past it.

A final note - I think that our project is actually very different from the revision Tolkien began and intended to carry through. Undoubtedly there are many, many things that he would have changed but that we simply cannot change. He would have been revising the the very structure of the legendarium; we are, intentionally, leaving that structure as unchanged as possible.

btw Aiwendil, your last quote in the preceding post contained a repeat of your second to last quote. Mithadan's words were lost in the last one.

Thanks. Fixed.

My understanding of the Rog dilemna [ 'The problem of Rog'- actually I will have to rename the thread that - too apropos to pass up.] does not leave room for an implicit but an applied solution, for that still leaves the reader encountering the name 'unassisted' which is the very thing pretty much all of us agree would NOT have happened in any JRRT revision.

Brilliant name, by the way.

I think we approaching this whole thing from two slightly different perspectives: you from a reader's perspective and I from a canonical perspective. Perhaps this is for the best, since it covers more angles. Anyway, if the implicit solution is not to your liking (i.e., if to you it is no better than the "leave Rog" solution - which I admit it probably isn't) then there's no need to pursue it.

MT is only partially analagous to our Rog dilemna. MT contradicts even itself, it is in a sense a record of brainstorming sessions, so our principles clearly do not require us to edit the Silm based on such. This is essentially a 'How much do we incorporate from later ideas' question. Rog is the other end of the scale, a 'how far do we bend to accomadate obsolete aspects of the Lost Tales and early Q phase.

Yes, the MT analogy breaks down very quickly. But my point was that we are not trying (for we cannot try) to produce what JRRT would have produced. "JRRT would have changed it" is not enough to force us to change something (though it is enough to force us to consider changing it).

I don't, by the way, think that our rejection of MT is based primarily on its internal inconsistencies (which it certainly has, though I think they could be worked out). In my view, MT was rejected because it was merely a proposed change with no clear indication of what specific changes we would have had to make to implement it.

First off CJRT'thinks' it is obsolete is imo far too light of a description, he did that which I do not recall him doing anywhere else in the HoM-E, he stated flat out it would not have survived, no doubts.

Fair enough. I see this point as the collision of two very compelling arguments. On the one hand, Christopher is certain that it would have been changed. On the other hand, we have not one shred of actual evidence for that conclusion. I agree that Christopher's claim makes a strong case, but bear in mind that if he had not written that one sentence, we would have left "Rog" in without a second thought.

The -goth element seems exscusvvily used or bestowed upon evil beings though. Morgoth, and Gothmog.

I see the force your point would have had if "Rog" were indeed related to "-rog" in "Balrog". But (of course) "-goth" was used only in names for evil things simply because it means "enemy".

Do you have the Goldogrin/Gnomish Lexicon?

No, alas.

I am sure we could if needed bridge the longer detailed account with a one or 2 line condensation that leaves Rog out, but his and his companies actions in. Indeed, this goes back to the old recommendation of 'Keep the company of the Hammer of Wrath' but loose it's captain suggestion. If others are as concerned about consensus as Aiwendil is, that may be the closest we come, and I must say is looking more attractive by the hour.

This may be the only viable compromise solution.

[Man-of-the-Wold]

This is no doubt a worthy thread. When I first read BoLT that name was curious then.

Nevertheless, I recommend Aiwendel's number 1 above. Minimize use of the name, but simply say Rôg when it can't be avoided. I'd vote against any footnote or explicit explanation, which I think would only add to the awkwardness (footnotes should fit within the flow). I'd suggest only that the first mention of the name have some sort of subtle gloss to imply that this may not be the guy's true or only name, however, unusual that might be.

My phrase, "don't sweat the details" was unfortunate. I did not mean, ignore the details or not be extremely thorough and meticulous, but there will be limits to how fastidious the final result will be. We just don't have all of the data.

So, what I meant is that in the end there may be imperfections, which will need to be accepted, and folks will need to step back, look at the big picture, and not fret over it, after they've done their best.

I think this question of Rôg is such a case. It is highly problematic, but the best solution seems to be to live with it. Not only do I feel that the reader gains more by having this person mentioned, however odd the name, but that canonically, the question boils down to one of preserving maximum story structure vs. linquistic purity. I think the former should trump the latter.

As for my Noldorin/Sindarin remark, I think I understand how Sindarin replaced Noldorin, as the common Elvish tongue of later ages, but Sindarin arose from an entirely different conception, and it was actually a reflection of the increased majesty of Thingol and sophistication of the former Doriath-Ilkorins. It also was ultimately decided by The Lord of the Rings, where the High Elves were increasing depicted as much rarer than Grey-Elves, who were no slouches themselves. Note, the word "Sindarin" does not appear anywhere except in the Appendices.

What you had previously was a matter of Quenya and Noldorin, which was ultimately influenced by the Ilkorin tongues in Toleressea, as well.

One might assume with this new formulation that the Noldor are supposed to have spoken Quenya as any everyday language, too, until most of them in Beleriand adopted Sindarin, and it was at that point that Quenya became relegated to lore and ceremony. But it doesn't seem as if Tolkien ever really describes the process in that exact way.

Actually, I think that he's curiously vague about the exact relationships, and in many ways tries to simplify the whole matter of what had been a multitude of Elven languages, without actually reducing them.

So, is it not possible that Quenya was in a cultivated role, already, as a type of Book Latin, and that the Noldor still used something like the formerly conceived "Noldorin" as a vernacular, until it was supplanted by Sindarin?

In this sense, Rôg might be attributed to that little known vernacular.

[ November 16, 2003: Message edited by: Man-of-the-Wold ]

[lindil]

Was just perusing The Lost Road and the AB2,[the Annal for 307 (later emmended to [507]) when I noticed CJRT saying that the LAter annals of Valinor and Beleriand were found after the publication of the QS 77/99.

What makes this of some interest to our debate is that in the Synopsis which is similar to Q30 in depth one important detail is missing re: the Battle.

We do read of Ecthelion, Glorfindel's and Turgon's death [all from Q 30 also] but our dear friend Rog is not to be found.

OF course I hardly expect this to be much of a straw on a camels back for anyone but it deserves to be noted, as the fact that Rog was in the (previously and erroneously spoken of as final) Q30 version of the FoG as still surviving.

[ 4:17 PM November 27, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

Yes - that is worth noting. But I ought to make two points:

1. Obviously, quite a bit was left out of AB. Q30 gives a much fuller account in all regards. It is also worth noting that Rog's death is also left out of AB 1, which (if I recall correctly) is roughly contemporary with Q30. We simply cannot reliably infer anything about the presence or absence of Rog from the compressed AB 2 account.

2. The difficulty we have been concerned with is Rog's name. There has been no indication that the story of Rog was to be altered. But if we are to interpret his absence from AB 2 as significant, it must be that the story was changed - for if Tolkien had decided the name was bad, all he need have done was to change the name. So in any event, Rog's absence of AB 2 cannot really have bearing on our debate, which is a debate not about the character but about the name.

[aravanessë]

I don't know if your are interested in or if you have already talked about this, but I have Parma Eldalambron XIII and this issue deals with the early writings of Tolkien and also a (too?) little bit about the etymology chiefs of the house of Gondolin like Rog : it provides us the qenya forms of their names and the names in gnomish and qenya of their houses.
Could it be helpful for you ?
I must admit that I don(t like the circumflex solution because of the persistence of names in -rog as Torog and gorog. Moreover the Noldorin World-list gives the entries rhó 'to arise' and rhôg 'strength' ; if we choose *Rô, it could be ambiguous.


Can I have please the link to the topic about the change Legolas in Laegolas, I think I won't agree with this solution too, so I want to know the arguments in favor of this decision. :)

aravanessë

[Aiwendil]

Thank you for the note, Aravanesse. I do not have Parma Eldalamberon XIII, nor am I familiar with its contents. Does it give any further information on the name "Rog"?

My inclination remains to allow "Rog" to stand, but I'd be interested to learn of any additional evidence to be considered.

The Legolas/Laegolas discussion is here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=123862&).

[aravanessë]

Thank you for the link. :)

Rog eldarissa name is said to be Rōka. It is also said that he is 'lord of thlim gothodrum', traduced by eldarissa Kosartami.

We must notice that in the Early Chart of Names (seemingly contemporary) appear : RAUK(I) demons Rôg(i)
MALKARAUKI fire-demons Balrogs
The qenya forms tend to show elements rôg and rog are not connected etymologically (or at least not closely).
Moreover, in the Gnomish Lexicon, in addition of the entry rôg 'doughty, strong', there is en unglossed entry rog. And in the early noldorin compositions (word-lists, texts, grammars…) forms in –(r)og (or more generally in –g) are omnipresent (and are still present in later sindarin : gorog in Q&E).

I am a fervent upholder of the absolute respect of Tolkien invented languages (some say I am rigid and obdurate ^^).

aravanessë

[Findegil]

I think that we should concentrat the discussion about Rog here. Therefore I have copied the posts from here: Reload this Page * * Revised Fall of Gondolin pt.4 -- >end [the remaining sections] * * (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=508435#post508435)

posted by mhagian: Concerning Rog

Just been reading the Problem of Rog thread, and by coincidence have also been re-reading the Maeglin chapter in HoME 11.

It's pretty obvious that Rog will not do, and the precedent - in JRRT's own words - is set by his handling of "Isfin", "Ecthelion" and "Egalmoth", which is clearly outlined in the commentary to Maeglin 1 and 4.

Now, Ecthelion and Egalmoth were retained, and we have an indication of JRRT's own aesthetics when it comes to names: "These names are also derived from primitive FG, but are well-sounding".

Both Es were used as the names of Ruling Stewards in Gondor, so if replacing the name of Rog is deemed acceptable, going to that source for a replacement may well be appropriate. It does not stretch things too far, and it follows the pattern of certain Ruling Stewards being named after heroes of Gondolin.

I favour Belecthor, if it's not already used. It's in sequence with the 2 Es (only Orodreth comes between) which may strengthen it's case. Posted by myself:Welcome to this slow part of the Downs mhagain!
It is really nice to see someone interested in our project. I would have given you an warm welcome early, but I found it more important to make an elaborate answere to your post, which took some time.

On topic: The problem we have with Rog is exactly that we all feel that Rog might be out of place in the later languages but that we have no hard statement of JRR Tolkien to that fact.
The statements in the "Maeglin" chapter are telling of course, but they do not address Rog. And still it is matter of personal taste if Rog is fitting in later elvish or not. And as long as we have no quote from JRR Tolkien to go with, we can not be sure about Rog.

And even if we had such a statement, as long as we would not have the name actually planed for that character it would be possible within our system of rules that we would consider the change of the name Rog a plan of JRR Tolkien that is not feasible for use due to the lack of information about it (a agree that this would be unlikely in this case).

The idea to chose a replacement name for Rog from the line of the stewards of Gondor is a good one. And I personally would also go in that direction instate of searching a linguistically invention to fit the meaning of Rog in the later language. But here again we get a problem: There are a lot of names of the stewards of Gondor that are not (jet) used in the earlier legends:

Pelendur
Vorondil
Mardil
Eradan
Herion
Belegorn
Cirion
Hallas
Belecthor
Beregond
Thorondir

How do we chose the right one, and isn't any choice we make a kind of fan-fiction?
A first reduction could be argued by the linguistical evidence:
The Gnomish lexicon gives 'rog' as 'doughty, strong'.
In the "Etymologies" we find:
"BEL- strong. Cf. BAL(?). Stem not found in Q. T belle (physical) strength; belda strong. Ilk. bel (*belē) strength; Beleg the Strong, name of Ilkorin bowman of Doriath. *bélek, *béleka, ON beleka mighty, huge, great; EN beleg great (n.b. this word is distinct in form from though related to Ilk. name Beleg); cf. EN Beleg-ol [GAWA] = Q Aule; Belegoer Great Sea [AY], name of sea between Middle-earth and the West; Belegost Great City [os], name of one of the chief places of the Dwarves. T belka 'excessive' is possibly from ON; ON belda strong, belle strength (EN belt strong in body, bellas bodily strength) are possibly from T. Cf. name Belthronding of Beleg's yew-bow: see STAR, DING."

Thus a name with the first element of Beleg[c]- is near to the earlier Rog in meaning. But this leaves us still with:
Belegorn and Belecthor

I agree that Belecthor is the more likely since -orn means 'tree' and I can't see any good connection between the character of Rog and a tree (beside his wooden club maybe ). In the "Etymologies" we find for -thor:
"THOR-, THORON- Q soron (and sorne), pl. sorni eagle; N thor and thoron, pl. therein - thoron is properly old gen. sg. = ON thoronen, Q sernen, appearing in names as Cil-thoron, or Cil-thorondor [KIL]. Ilk. thorn, pl. thurin. Q Sorontar (name of) King of Eagles, N Thorondor, Ilk. Thorntor = Torthurnion. [Added:] Cf. name Elthor(o)n = eagle of sky.
[The following was added in hastily above the entry THOR, THORON:
'THOR- = come swooping down; cf. Brilthor. Adj. thôr swooping, leaping down; thórod torrent.' I take this to be an indication of the root-sense of THOR eagle.]“

Thus the second element „-thor“ could be connected to the action Rog did in the battle – swooping down on the Balrogs.

All this is very nice, but does it convince us that we have found the replacement for Rog that JRR Tolkien had in mind? I hesitate to answer this questions with „yes“. At least I would like to hear other minds comment on this.

Aiwendil, you had been most adamant on not changing Rog with an invented name. Does Belecthor suit you more?

Respectfully
Findegil Posted by Aiwendil:It's good to see that you're interested in the project, mhagain.

Using the name of a steward for Rog is an interesting and novel idea. It's my opinion, though, that this would constitute too major and too arbitrary a change to be justifiable within the scope of our project. If we rename "Rog" as "Belecthor", we are inventing a fact in JRRT's fictional world.

The chief problem with almost any alteration of the name "Rog" is, as I see it, the arbitrariness of any replacement. Even if we had indisputable evidence that "Rog" would have been rejected, we could not replace it unless we had some clear indication of what name Tolkien would have used to replace it. Guesswork, however ingenious, remains guesswork.

So my view remains this: we should either keep "Rog" (as is done in the current version of FoG) or alter the narrative in such a way as to eliminate the name entirely.

[Findegil]

After a frustating search that didn't brought up what I wanted, I am to pharaphrase what I wanted in quote.

"Rôg" (with a circumflex) was an idea I brought up after reading some parts in Parma Eldalamberon. I argued that it would only be a return to an older name. But the idea did neither suit the fraction that were agianst "Rog" as a name of an Elf of Gondolin nor the fraction that argued that we have no reason good enough to justify the change of the name.

As fare as I am aware of the stand of the discussion - and as the one that is in the moment building the physical body of the text, I try to keep upto date with it - the decision was not to change the name Rog as all.

Respectfully
Findegil

[mhagain]

A good idea to copy the posts across. We should probably also delete them from the Gondolin thread so as not to confuse matters.

Back to Rog, I would be personally inclined to agree with CT's assessment on the name. Nobody was so in tune with his fathers work - while his father was alive and actively working on it - as CT, and if we are to view his opinion as holding little authority, then surely our's must hold even less. In fact, we have one recorded instance of JRRT actually deferring to CT over a name - i.e. "Gamgee" (which CT wanted kept) vs. "Goodchild" (which JRRT wanted to change it to) - see Letters.

Apologies in advance if this next bit has been discussed in detail elsewhere, but it does form my own argument in favour of replacing the name, so here we go...

Now, it seems plain that the old element "Rog" actually was the same "rog" that eventually transformed into the second part of "Balrog". The original etymology of "Balrog" was quite different, but "rog" appears to have remained the same as the languages developed - the entry for "Rog" in the LT II list of names gives a Q(u)enya equivalent "arauka", which is obviously the same word.

In the transformed "Balrog" etymology, "Rauko" (Sindarin "Raug", "Rog") is "Demon" (published Silmarillion Appendix), whereas the "Bal" element (originally "anguish") has come to be derived from "Val-/Bal-": "power" (ditto). "Raug" is in fact given as a variant of "Rog" in LT II, strengthening the evidential position, and providing 3 points on which one can form an argument that they are the same word (rog/raug/arauka|rauko), and that the meaning of this word has changed since LT was written. To form an argument for the retention of "Rog", where the then-current linguistic element has been totally superseded seems to me to be similar (in scope, if not in actual detail) to arguing for the retention of the original story of the construction of the Lamps.

Our choices are:


Accept an Eldarin lord who's name means "Demon".
Argue that "Rog" is actually Quenya in form, and have a single Eldarin lord with a Quenya-formed name where the rest are Sindarin in form.
Drop the whole "Rog" element from the Tale.
Change the name.
Now, leaving aside the question of whether or not one objects to the "sound" of the name "Rog", of these, (1) is totally absurd, and (2) smacks of being a cop-out. (3) would be a pity, and would be also a clear case of what CT himself has condemned in his own Silmarillion editorial work - being "too ready to deal with 'difficulties' by eliminating them." (HoME X, "Valaquenta".)

That leaves us with (4), which unfortunately there are very valid arguments against, not least that it's another case of something CT condemns in his own work - overstepping the bounds of the editorial role.

But need it be?

We have a translation of "Rog" in the old GL, as "doughty, strong", so is the substition of it with another name that means the same thing, but is linguistically viable really such a crime?

[Aiwendil]

mhagain - you make a good argument. However, I am far from convinced of this:

that they are the same word (rog/raug/arauka|rauko), and that the meaning of this word has changed since LT was written.

I do agree that the whole linguistic part of the debate hinges on this. If the name 'Rog' and the element '-rog' in 'Balrog' are identical, then the later meaning of that word ('demon') makes it inappropriate for an Eldarin lord. However, if the two elements are different, then the word 'rog' meaning 'demon' cannot be taken as evidence for the unsuitability of the name 'Rog' in FoG.

I was once of the former opinion, but prior to our completion of the FoG draft, I changed my mind.

Let me set out the linguistic evidence.

From 'Names in the Lost Tales part 2' (HoMe II):
Rog GL gives an adjective r^og, rog 'doughty, strong'. But with the Orcs' name for Egnor Beren's father, Rog the Fleet, cf. arog 'swift, rushing', and raug of the same meaning; Qenya arauka.

From this it is clear that we have, at the Lost Tales stage:

1. An element 'rog' = 'doughty, strong' (explicitly in GL)
2. An element 'rog'/'raug', Q. form 'arauka' = 'swift, rushing' (surmised by CRT based on very strong evidence).

In 'Names in the Lost Tales part 1' (I) we have:
Balrog [. . . ] Separate entries give bal 'anguish (original initial consonant mb-), balc 'cruel'; and graug 'demon'. Qenya forms are mentioned: arauke and Malkarauke.

We have also, then:

3. An element 'graug' = 'demon' (explicitly in GL).

The evidence for 1 and 3 comes from a single source, GL. The evidence for 2 is partially in GL, partially in QL, and partially in the 'Tale of Tinuviel'. It is clear, then, that, unless we posit some rather intricate and baroque developments during the writing of GL, these three elements coexisted simultaneously. We have, then, not one or even two distinct words but three.

Now, after the LT stage, elements 1 and 2 are not given in any etymological discussion. Element 3 retains its meaning but is altered slightly in form in the Etymologies (V):

RUK- demon. Q ranko demon, malarauko (*ngwalarauko, cf. NGWAL); N. rhaug, Balrog.

So Gnomish 'graug' becomes Noldorin 'rhaug'. At both stages, the 'au' diphthong appears to be resolved to an 'o' in compounds.

It is worth noting, also, that the character Rog of Gondolin still appears in the 1930 Q (IV):

Of the deeds of desperate valour there done, by the chieftains of the noble houses and their warriors, and not least by Tuor, is much told in The Fall of Gondolin; of the death of Rog without the walls; and of the battle of Ecthelion of the Fountain with Gothmog lord of Balrogs in the very square of the king . . .

Taken together, I think that all this makes it quite clear that the elements 'rog' in 'Rog' and 'graug/rhaug' in 'Balrog' were distinct from the beginning. This in itself is enough to take the force out of the argument to the effect that the name 'Rog' is impermissible because it must mean 'demon'. We can further demonstrate that, as late as 1930, the elements remained distinct; otherwise the name 'Rog' would not appear in Q.

So, all evidence points to 'rog' = strength and 'rhaug' = demon being unrelated elements; there is no indication anywhere that this situation was ever altered.

[mhagain]

Thank you. You make a very compelling argument against, and are coming close to convincing me. (But not quite... :p)

Anyway, I'm personally inclined to give more weight to linguistic evidence post-LoTR than to linguistic evidence of even the 1930s. For starters, it's actually quite obvious from LT I that "some rather intricate and baroque developments during the writing of GL" did in fact occur:

... the intensity with which my father used this diminutive book, emending, rejecting, adding, in layer upon layer ... the stages of a rapidly expanding linguistic conception ... GL in particular closely accompanied the actual composition of the Tales ... the languages changed even while the first 'layer' was being entered in GL ...Now, FG being the first Tale composed means that "Rog" belongs to the first 'layer'. So already the GL entry for "Rog" must be in some measure of doubt. As Element 2 ('rog'/'raug'/Q. 'arauka') evidently came later than FG, we have further doubt that "Rog = strong, doughty" (as in FG) remains valid.

Retention of the distinct element "rog" in 1930 does not imply retention at a later date. Nor does it imply that it would not be retained. So in view of the situation, use of either argument would not be evidential. The only real "hard" evidence we have for any form of "rog", which is ultimately the only thing it can stand or fall by if we are to take a strictly authorative viewpoint, is "Balrog".

The stages of development I propose are:


Rog = "strong, doughty",
Rog = "swift, rushing",
Rog = "demon".
I also propose that these were successive stages, and that each supplanted the previous (with a possibility of undocumented intermediate stages).

To support this:

The GL definition came first, and the FG entires were the first made in it (evidential)
The languages developed as the tales were composed, and even as the first 'layer' in GL was composed (evidential)
The Tale of Tinuviel was the second composed (evidential) by which point the meaning of "Rog" had changed (I would claim this as evidential, based on (4) below, and this is what the whole thing will hinge on)
There is no other major word for which two concurrent but completely different meanings exist in the same language in GL or QL (evidential)
By 1930 we had both Rog and Balrog, but there is no evidence either way to indicate that the "rog" element was the same or different in both at this time (evidential)
By 1937 we had "rog" derived from the stem "RUK-", meaning "demon" (evidential)
There is no evidence to support (or reject) the retention of "Rog" in the Gondolin material by this time (evidential)
In the latter (authorative) conception, we have "Balrog" where the "rog" element is "demon", and this is the sole authorative definition of "rog" that we have (evidential)
To my mind, the argument for "Rog" being retained as the name of an Elf of Gondolin rests entirely on lack of evidence, whereas the argument for "Rog" not being retained is based on actual evidence of linguistic development in successive stages, and this makes the argument for retention weaker.

[Findegil]

Mmh, seeing your second argument, I ask if this does not mean, that in the 1930 version of FoG we have an Elve named Rog with the meaning 'Demon'. And if that is the case then why was it accaptable in 1930 and should be no longer now?

Anyway I think we all agree that JRR Tolkien would probably have changed the name, had he ever worked again on FoG. But alas he has not. And so even if we had hard evidence that he proposed to change the name, this might be a case were we can not make the change because we do not know how.

Respectfully
Findegil

[aravanessë]

Argue that "Rog" is actually Quenya in form, and have a single Eldarin lord with a Quenya-formed name where the rest are Sindarin in form.
Rog can't be q(u)enya, single 'g' doesn't exist in q(u)enya. Changing the name is an unacceptable solution for me, and droping this name too. So the first solution seems to be the only possibility; but I think you don't consider all the parameters: for me, Rog doesn't mean 'demon', and I think you will be convinced after this, I have found a new element in QL.
Firstly, you assert 'rog' means 'dought, strong', but it is 'rôg'. The term 'rog' is unglossed in GL, it's a CT error. That's why (partly) I don't think CT's opinion having more authority than mine.

Secondly 'arog' is 'raug' with a- prefixed. a- is, according to GL a "prefix used in forming number of ajs and occasionally nouns – unaccented and probably of various origin". It is the 'a-' that causes the change of 'au' into 'o', there is no (established) connection between 'rog' and 'arog'. But we know Rog the Fleet, so we can think the two words are connected etymologically (but at which degree?), but with a meaning a little distinct.

But, according to QL, I quote: "ARAUKE pl. –i demon (Not really connected with arauka or rauka swift. These = Gn. raug[<<râg]) Gn. grôg." Beyond any doubts, there is no link between raug/arog (q. arauka) and rôg/grôg/graug (q. arauke).

Silmarillion appendix is made by Christopher, no? So I look it askance. Where is the term 'rog' as 'demon' attested in J.R.R. Tolkien work?
Moreover quenya 'ō' and 'au' are not connected etymologically, so Rōka and Rauk(i) are not connected.

aravanessë

[lindil]

same as it ever was I see....ubb/wink.gif

Welcome to the new folks!

Now, Ecthelion and Egalmoth were retained, and we have an indication of JRRT's own aesthetics when it comes to names: "These names are also derived from primitive FG, but are well-sounding".
that 'well-sounding' bit still weighs heavy on my soul as per Rog.

THe steward idea is extremely clever, but I will offer my 2 cents and agree that now matter how clever the substitution, it is as, alas, Aiwendil said, fan-fiction.

As for eliminating it due to it being irreconcilable w/ the later Silm, that very criteria has been used probably on every text worked on. Tuor's bearskin comes right to mind.

Ultimately Rog is a detail [connected to a part of the FoG that no one wants to lose] that could easily be grounds for exclusion. I would not rule it out a priori [I looked for who said that eliminating it was not an option for them but did not see it again on review :rolleyes: - but I would encourage an open mind as to whether or not keeping it is mandatory w/out a replacement.

Awesome scholarship boys - keep at it!

[Elmo]

(Rôg, according to the original version; but the name seems 'unelvish'. Furthermore, in the Unfinished Tales account of the creation of the Elessar, the master craftsman of Gondolin is not Rôg but Enerdhil: so he may be a more likely candidate for this position)

Found on wikipedia just adding my tuppence to a debate I know little about...