Name Changes?

[Inderjit Sanghera]

Just like to discuss a few name changes, if I may.

First of all 'Mahtan' as the name of Nerdanel's father. This is encountered in LQ II. (This, is I think, though I cant be bothered to check the first time we encounter 'Mahtan'. Nerdanel first appeard in LQ I as Istarnië.)

In notes that accompany the 'Shibboleth of Fëanor' we read that Nerdanel's fathers name was what C.T thinks reads 'Sarmo' and his Epessë 'Urundil', which was more widely known. (Like 'Ereinion' was widely known by his epessë 'Gil-Galad'). Could we call him 'Urundil' or 'Sarmo Urundil' or make a note that his name was Sarmo but he was widely known as Urundil because of the copper circlet he wore on his head or just retain 'Mahtan' to avoid confusion?

'Maedhros/Maedros'-In the 'Problem of Ros' we find out that Tolkien wanted to change his name to MaedRON due to the difficulties in incorporating 'rus'-'ros' as a refernce to his red-brown hair. 'Maedros' is a combination of his mother name and nick-name, Maitimo and Russandol.

Also, the tendency of the Fëanorians in translating their mother-names, wouldn't it be better to call him Amarthan ('Fated one') then Amrod ,the Sindarin form of 'exalted'.(Of course in the Pub.Sil the twins are called Amrod (The Elder) and Amras (The Younger.)Tolkien comments on the use of Amarthan, saying 'whenever encountered' that was what was used, but what 'encountered' means I do not know, I assume it means spoken of?

Should we give their Quenya names too? I feel it would be interesting, it would also give people info. on their characters.

That is all for now.

smilies/smile.gif

[Aiwendil]

It's good to see you here again, Inderjit.

In notes that accompany the 'Shibboleth of Fëanor' we read that Nerdanel's fathers name was what C.T thinks reads 'Sarmo' and his Epessë 'Urundil', which was more widely known. (Like 'Ereinion' was widely known by his epessë 'Gil-Galad'). Could we call him 'Urundil' or 'Sarmo Urundil' or make a note that his name was Sarmo but he was widely known as Urundil because of the copper circlet he wore on his head or just retain 'Mahtan' to avoid confusion?

Well. I had never noticed that "Mahtan" was discarded. I must say I rather liked the name - but of course that's irrelevant. It looks to me like "Sarmo" replaced it; so we'll have to go with "Sarmo Urundil". We can probably insert the information on his epesse from Shibboleth.

'Maedhros/Maedros'-In the 'Problem of Ros' we find out that Tolkien wanted to change his name to MaedRON due to the difficulties in incorporating 'rus'-'ros' as a refernce to his red-brown hair. 'Maedros' is a combination of his mother name and nick-name, Maitimo and Russandol.

But - and correct me if I'm wrong, which I may well be - wasn't the change to "Maedron" only considered in light of the new proposal for "rus-","ros-", a proposal which failed due to Cair Andros? If so, then it must be considered rejected.

Tolkien comments on the use of Amarthan, saying 'whenever encountered' that was what was used, but what 'encountered' means I do not know, I assume it means spoken of?

Where is this found?

Since "Amrod" was retained in the Shibboleth, I'd rather stick with it, unless there's something I'm missing. And I always presumed that "Amrod" was translated not from "Umbarto" but from "Ambarto". But I guess there's no real evidence for or against this.

Should we give their Quenya names too? I feel it would be interesting, it would also give people info. on their characters.

I think it would be nice to insert this (and more) information from the Shibboleth.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

But - and correct me if I'm wrong, which I may well be - wasn't the change to "Maedron" only considered in light of the new proposal for "rus-","ros-", a proposal which failed due to Cair Andros? If so, then it must be considered rejected.

In the 'Shibboleth of Fëanor' Tolkien was looking at the 'translations' of the Quenya names of the Finwëans into the Sindarin names. He concluded that 'Maedros' was a combination of Maedros's mother-name, Maitimo and Russandol. (Maiti-> Northern Sindarin Maed=shapely; Russ->Ros(s)=Red-haired. (Of course here I give the meanings of the 'names' not the actual words from which they were derived from, which naturally were altered in the making of the names.) So the 'Ros' that was intended in 'Maedros' to be a reference to his red-brown hair cannot be so, since in the Appendix Tolkien states the Isle of Cair Andros means 'Ship of Long foam' and so the arguments on the Bëorian elements of 'ros' go out the window as well. Tolkien states that he would use 'Maedron' from 'now on' but he didn't get much of a chance since he was nearing the end of his life. (This was written sometime in 1968, he died in 1973.)

Where is this found? Since "Amrod" was retained in the Shibboleth, I'd rather stick with it, unless there's something I'm missing. And I always presumed that "Amrod" was translated not from "Umbarto" but from "Ambarto". But I guess there's no real evidence for or against this

[QUOTE]Amros(1) Sindarin for Ambarussa. Had Amros(2) Ambarto lived, it [i.e. the name Ambarto] would probably have been [Sindarized] as Amrod, but when [?encountered] at all in Sindarin form it was [?] Amarthan Fated One. S. ambart- > ammarth, amarth fate = Umbarto.
Maedros, Maglor, Celegorm, Curufin, Caranthir, Amros, Amarthan./QUOTE]

These are the notes on the translation on the Sindarin names of the sons of Fëanor, which C.T stated were too illegible for him to print there. They are found in 'Vinyar Tengwar 39'.

[Aiwendil]

So the 'Ros' that was intended in 'Maedros' to be a reference to his red-brown hair cannot be so, since in the Appendix Tolkien states the Isle of Cair Andros means 'Ship of Long foam' and so the arguments on the Bëorian elements of 'ros' go out the window as well.

But "Maedhros" was not intended to have a Beorian etymology (obviously). The change to "Maedron" appears to be in light of the change (which failed) of "ros-" to a Beorian stem.

In other words, the original situation, the one that was preserved by the failure of the "Ros" idea, is that there are two distinct stems, one meaning "red-brown" and the other meaning "foam". Tolkien wanted to alter this so that the single meaning was "foam", and this was Beorian. But "Cair Andros" is a sindarin name, so the solution change was no good.

In other words, I think that "Maedron" is dependent on the abandoned idea, and should thus not be used.

Regarding "Amrod": the sense I get from the quote is that "Amrod" is the form to be used. It is difficult to judge what he means by "whenever encountered" (if that's even what he wrote). But it is clear that "Amrod" would have been the Sindarization of the name actually used. The difference comes down to a translation of "Ambarto" vs. a translation of "Umbarto".

Of course, this situation is different from most name decisions because in fact both names are certainly valid and the decision is not which to take as canonical but which to use when he must be referred to.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

“But "Maedhros" was not intended to have a Beorian etymology (obviously). The change to "Maedron" appears to be in light of the change (which failed) of "ros-" to a Beorian stem.
In other words, the original situation, the one that was preserved by the failure of the "Ros" idea, is that there are two distinct stems, one meaning "red-brown" and the other meaning "foam". Tolkien wanted to alter this so that the single meaning was "foam", and this was Beorian. But "Cair Andros" is a Sindarin name, so the solution change was no good.”

The change from ‘ros’ to ‘ron’ was not in light of the change of ‘ros’ from Sindarin to Bëorian (Well, not fully so) but the Sindarin meaning of ‘Ros’ as “spray; spindrift” which had been fixed by Tolkien to mean in Sindarin ‘spray/spindrift’ and hence it would have nothing to do with Maedros’s name and the element of “ros” which is meant to be a reference to his reddish-brown hair.

Of course there are several conclusions that we can reach from this. We can comment on the often ‘incorrect’ Sindarinization (If there is such a word) of the names of the Etyañgoldi (Such as say Aegnor) and so when translating his name and trying to find a Sindarin alternative, or the nearest Sindarin alternative to Ñoldorin and Telerin Quenya urus=RUSSandol, he stumbled upon or made up ‘Ros’ But this is unsatisfactory. The Sindarin form of “ros”=spray has nothing to do with the colour red and thus the two cannot be linked. Surely a Ñoldo would not make such a calamitous phonetic error especially in regards to his name? We do hear that with the exception of Maglor and Curufin the sons of Fëanor weren’t very semantically inclined but such a blunder is perplexing in my mind.

Another theory that we can come up with is the form of ’ros’ in Cair AndROS can be seen as ‘incorrect’ since in ‘Rivers and Beacon Hills of Gondor’ we hear;
his
“He points out that Sindarin was not well-known to many of the settlers who gave the names, mariners, soldiers, and emigrants, though all aspired to have some knowledge of it. Gondor was certainly occupied from its beginning by the Faithful, men of the Elf-friend party and their followers; and these in revolt against the ‘Adunaic' Kings who forbade the use of the Elvish tongues gave all new names in the new realm in Sindarin, or adapted older names to the manner of Sindarin. They also renewed and encouraged the study of Quenya, in which important documents, titles, and formulas were composed. But mistakes were likely to be made”

If we say that the settlers named ‘Cair Andros’ we can of course say that the ‘Ros’ stem was a mistake, perhaps stemming from the meaning of ‘Ros’ in Adûnaic (Though they had ‘revolted’ against it they may have been confused over some words or used some) or that it was a simple mis-interpretation of Sindarin Ros. Of course such a blunder is unlikely but it is more likely to come from Men of the Second/Third Age then a Ñoldorin prince. So we can keep the idea that the ’ros’ in Elros etc was a Bëorian word, and that Sindarin form of ‘ros’ meant red, and we could now if you want keep Maedros and the name would make sense. Though of course whether such a catastrophic change is possible is questionable.

Of course, this situation is different from most name decisions because in fact both names are certainly valid and the decision is not which to take as canonical but which to use when he must be referred to

Certainly, but aren’t you a firm advocate against personal opinions in regards to a Re-published Silmarillion. (I.E it shouldn’t be what you “like” better”). But ‘Amarthan’ would to me be the more ‘famous’ of the two names in consideration of his fate plus in general the sons of Fëanor tended to Sindarinize their mother names.

Of course any change of the ‘ros’ form would effect the name ‘Amros’ derived from his mother-name Ambarussa.
But I think the easiest solution could be to simply record ‘ros’ as a addition by the Ñoldor for the colour red, derived from russa.
his

[Aiwendil]

I still disagree about "Maedron". But I'm home for the weekend and so, alas, without HoMe XII; and I don't want to venture into an analysis of "Ros" without having it in front of me. So I'll get back to you regarding this whole business sometime late Tuesday or Wednesday.

And, by the way, thanks for pointing out these issues. All three (Mahtan, Maedhros, and Amrod) had escaped me completely.

[ October 31, 2003: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Aiwendil]

Okay, I've been reunited with my books.

The change from ‘ros’ to ‘ron’ was not in light of the change of ‘ros’ from Sindarin to Bëorian (Well, not fully so) but the Sindarin meaning of ‘Ros’ as “spray; spindrift” which had been fixed by Tolkien to mean in Sindarin ‘spray/spindrift’ and hence it would have nothing to do with Maedros’s name and the element of “ros” which is meant to be a reference to his reddish-brown hair.

My understanding is this. Originally there were to be two separate Eldarin stems, one meaning "reddish-brown" and the other meaning "spray/spindrift". The change proposed in "Ros" is that there is only one stem, meaning "spray", and that this is Beorian. But this had to be dropped because of "Cair Andros".

So as I see it the change of "Maedhros" to "Maedron" does depend on the change in "The Problem of Ros".

If we decide to use "Maedron" we are essentially electing to keep half of the change. But my impression is that the whole idea was rejected.

Nonetheless it's an interesting question and I'm eager to hear what others have to say.

Certainly, but aren’t you a firm advocate against personal opinions in regards to a Re-published Silmarillion. (I.E it shouldn’t be what you “like” better”).

Quite so. My point was just that, whether we call him "Amarthan" or "Amrod", we are in no case violating the "true" or canonical pseudo-history. It's more a matter of style than of canon. Of course that doesn't mean we can ignore it. You're right that the sons of Feanor tended to Sindarinize their mother-names, but in a sense, "Amrod" is a Sindarinization of his mother-name. For "Ambarto" was the mother-name he was actually known by prior to his death, "Umbarto" being the true but unused form.

That note is really quite mystifying, though - what could be meant by "when encountered at all"? Does it mean that the Noldor called him "Amarthan" after his death? Or does it mean that texts call him "Amarthan"?

Do you know roughly when that note was written?

All this may be somewhat moot, though; there will not be so very many occasions to refer to Amrod other than at his birth and at his death, in both of which cases his names will play a central role (and hence they will not necessitate a simple Amrod/Amarthan decision).

[Inderjit Sanghera]

My understanding is this. Originally there were to be two separate Eldarin stems, one meaning "reddish-brown" and the other meaning "spray/spindrift". The change proposed in "Ros" is that there is only one stem, meaning "spray", and that this is Beorian. But this had to be dropped because of "Cair Andros".

Yes-but one wonders why the word -ros has two entirely different meanings? Tolkien comments on this in the Problem or Ros.

Of course we could just say that -ros had two unconnected meanings, regardless of whether or not this makes any sense, claim as is said in 'Of Dwarves and Men' and 'Rivers and Beacon Hills of Gondor' that the rendering of the names within Gondor was inncaurate because of the inadequate knowledge of Sindarin of the people who named the places in Gondor and so and so keep -ros as a word for the colour red, and -ros also as a Bëorian word for spray/spindrift.

Nonetheless it's an interesting question and I'm eager to hear what others have to say.

As am I. It would be helpful if a language expert interjected, or anyone from this forum, it would be nice for other opinions, beside mine and yours.

You're right that the sons of Feanor tended to Sindarinize their mother-names, but in a sense, "Amrod" is a Sindarinization of his mother-name. For "Ambarto" was the mother-name he was actually known by prior to his death, "Umbarto" being the true but unused form

No one really called him A/Umbarto. They called each other Ambarussa, and everyone else called them Minyarussa and Atyarussa. Fëanor of course would have adress them by their father names. Maybe when they went to Formenos, they were adress by their father names, a large part of that host being wholly loyal to Fëanor and thus adopt his cutoms?

Of course, one can see the sensibility of adopting 'Amrod' rather then 'Amarthan', since it was his 'proper' name, but I think Amarthan would have been the one that was remembered because of his fate.

Does it mean that the Noldor called him "Amarthan" after his death? Or does it mean that texts call him "Amarthan"?

I think it does means both. If he was called Amarthan then surely it would have been written so, by the Ñoldorin scribes or the Númenóreans.

Do you know roughly when that note was written?

Same time as the Shibboleth, c.1968.

[Aiwendil]

Of course we could just say that -ros had two unconnected meanings, regardless of whether or not this makes any sense, claim as is said in 'Of Dwarves and Men' and 'Rivers and Beacon Hills of Gondor' that the rendering of the names within Gondor was inncaurate because of the inadequate knowledge of Sindarin of the people who named the places in Gondor and so and so keep -ros as a word for the colour red, and -ros also as a Bëorian word for spray/spindrift.

You seem to be assuming (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that if "ros" has two distinct meanings, then one must be from Beorian and one from Sindarin.

But prior to the writing of "The Problem of Ros", it had two distinct meanings, both in Sindarin; and in fact these two senses, according to the Etymologies, are from different stems. One is ROS- and the other RUS-. In fact, Etymologies even has some instances of the same stem bearing two distinct meanings; there is, for example, another ROS- meaning "plain".

So what I had been assuming, in light of the rejection of the revised "Ros" idea, is that we would return to the situation where ROS- refers to "spray/spindrift" and RUS- to "reddish-brown, copper". In this case, "Maedhros", "Russandol", "Ambarussa", and so on, can all be retained alongside "Cair Andros", "Elros", etc.

The other option is to eliminate the RUS- stem and leave ROS- as it is. But it is perhaps significant that this solution (which would seem the simplest) was never proposed by Tolkien. It would also leave us in a difficult spot with regard to other names and words derived from RUS-. For "Maedhros" we have a possible replacement, but not for "Russandol", "Ambarussa", or anything else.

As am I. It would be helpful if a language expert interjected, or anyone from this forum, it would be nice for other opinions, beside mine and yours.

Alas that Jallanite lost interest in the project!

No one really called him A/Umbarto. They called each other Ambarussa, and everyone else called them Minyarussa and Atyarussa. Fëanor of course would have adress them by their father names.

I think it's possible that he was referred to by his mother-name sometimes in Valinor. Would not Nerdanel have called him by it? Also, it seems unlikely that the sons of Feanor would Sindarize their mother-names rather than their father-names if the former had never been used.

[Arothir]

Just a thought no one's mentioned, but Orodreth should be changed to Arothir, and he is the son of angrod, not finarfin. I can't find where it says this, but it's in the note on Gil-galad's parentage in PoME.

[Findegil]

Arothir is one of his names. But Orodreth is still valid when we follow "The decendents of Finwë" in "The shibboleth of Fëanor" where Arothir is given.

In the case of his parentage you are clearly right.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Arothir]

Yes, but Tolkien in one of his notes to shibboleth refers to Gil-galad being the son of Arothir, who is said to be Felagund's nephew and steward.

[Arothir]

Forgive that last post, I was missing the point. Orodreth is not a valid name. In genealogies around the time but perhaps before the Shibboleth, he is called in Quenya Artaresto and in Sindarin Orodreth. This later becomes in Quenya Artaher and in Sindarin Arothir. This can be found in the note on Gilgalad's parentage in POME

[Aiwendil]

I thought that "Arothir" was his proper Sindarin name and "Orodreth" an epesse given due to his love for the mountains. I am inclined to think that "Orodreth" is still valid. But I may be wrong. I will have to look at Shibboleth again.

[Arothir]

You are thinking of his name Artaresto, which in Sindarin is Rodreth which became Orodreth for his love of the mountains.

[Maédhros]

From The Peoples of ME: The Shibboleth of Fëanor
The names of Sindarin form by which they were usually called in later song and legend were Finrod, Angrod (with wife Eðellos and son Arothir), Aegnor, and Galadriel.
In names however that ended in old words referring to status, rank, profession, race or kindred and so on the adjectival element still in Sindarin, following ancient models, might be placed first. Quenya Artaher (stem artahēr-) 'noble lord' was correctly Sindarized as Arothir.
The name of Angrod's son (still retaining the identity of 'Orodreth') was then changed from Artanáro to Artaresto. In an isolated note found with the genealogies, scribbled at great speed but nonetheless dated, August 1965, my father suggested that the best solution to the problem of Gil-galad's parentage was to find him in 'the son of Orodreth', who is here given the Quenya name of Artaresto, and continued:
Finrod left his wife in Valinor and had no children in exile. Angrod's son was Artaresto, who was beloved by Finrod and escaped when Angrod was slain, and dwelt with Finrod. Finrod made him his 'steward' and he succeeded him in Nargothrond. His Sindarin name was Rodreth (altered to Orodreth because of his love of the mountains .. ..... His children were Finduilas and Artanáro = Rodnor later called Gil-galad. (Their mother was a Sindarin lady of the North. She called her son Gil-galad.) Rodnor Gil-galad escaped and eventually came to Sirion's Mouth and was King of the Ñoldor there.
The words that I cannot read contain apparently a preposition and a proper name, and this latter could be faroth (the High Faroth west of the river Narog). - In the last of the genealogical tables Artanaro (Rodnor) called Gil-galad appears, with the note that 'he escaped and dwelt at Sirion's Mouth'. The only further change was the rejection of the name Artaresto and its replacement by Artaher, Sindarin Arothir; and thus in the excursus (note 23) Arothir [Orodreth] is named as Finrod's 'kinsman and steward', and (note 47) Gil-galad is 'the son of Arothir, nephew of Finrod'.

It seems that as Arothir suggests, the Sindarized name of Orodreth is indeed Arothir and that Orodreth is not an epessë, leaving therefore Orodreth as an invalid name.
By some strange reason I find myself liking the name Orodreth, so if I'm mistaken please let me know.

[Arothir]

I prefer Arothir. It sounds more noble and almost Quenya like. Has the spelling of Maedros been discussed? As in the dh or d?

[Arothir]

What about Maelor, that was a change that Tolkien sometimes made to Maglor.

[Inderjit Sanghera]

'Maelor' was used in the LQI (HoME 10) and in some notes which deal with Celebrimbor's lineage, which was given in the appendix to 'Of Dwarves and Men'. Both pre-date 'The Shibboleth of Fëanor (HoME 12), in which the name Maglor became fixed as his proper name.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 1:39 PM December 24, 2003: Message edited by: Inderjit Sanghera ]

[Maédhros]

Regarding Orodreth/Artaresto/Artaher. It seems that the correct sindarized named of Artaher is Arothir, instead of the Rodreth - Orodreth name.
But does that mean necessarily that [Orodreth] would use the correct sindarized name Arothir? Lets suppose for a moment that we should use Arothir for the name of [Orodreth]. How then can we explain the use of the name Orodreth from the Ruling Stewards of Gondor?
From The Lord of the Rings: Appendix A
Hallas 2605, Húrin II 2628, Belecthor I 2655, Orodreth 2685, Ecthelion I 2698, Egalmoth 2743, Beren 2763, Beregond 2811, Belecthor II 2872, Thorondir 2882, Túrin II 2914, Turgon 2953, Ecthelion II 2984, Denethor II. He was the last of the Ruling Stewards, and was followed by his second son Faramir, Lord of Emyn Arnen, Steward to King Elessar, F.A. 82.

[Aiwendil]

That is an excellent point that I never would have caught.

One could argue that the presence of the name "Orodreth" in LotR makes the change to "Arothir" a violation of principle 1 - that the texts published in Tolkien's lifetime are given first priority. That argument relies on the claim that there is a contradiction between the "Arothir" change and the name "Orodreth" in LotR.

So we must decide whether there is such a contradiction.

One could argue that "Orodreth" is a perfectly valid name for a steward of Gondor whether or not there was a First Age Orodreth. But clearly when the Appendix was written, Orodreth the Steward was intended to be named after Orodreth of Nargothrond.

I'm not yet sure what to make of all this.

[Maédhros]

A further note to take of is this:
From the Shibboleth of Fëanor
The Sindarizing of these names as Fingon and Turgon shows knowledge of the sound-changes distinguishing Sindarin from Telerin, but disregards meaning. If these names had actually been ancient Sindarin names they would at the time of the coming of the Exiles have taken the forms Fingon and Turgon, but they would not have had their Quenya meanings, if interpretable at all. Possibly they would have conveyed 'Hair-shout' and 'Master-shout' [see note 36]. But this did not matter much since old Sindarin names had by that time frequently become obscured by sound-changes and were taken as names and not analysed.
This can be interpreted to mean that while Arothir is the correct sindarized name of [Orodreth], that does not mean that it was the one that was used, because as said in the previous quote, some of the old Sindarin names had been obscured by sound-changes and were taken as name and not analysed.
Plus the fact posted by Aiwendil that Orodreth the Steward of Gondor had that name because of [Orodreth] the King of Nargothrond.

[Aiwendil]

Re-reading this thread I noticed something - in note 65 to the "Shibboleth", it is stated that in a note associated with the text, the Sindarization of "Ambarussa" is given as "Amros" rather than "Amras".

Does this mean that we should be implementing a general change Amras > Amros? Or is there a later instance of "Amras" that nullifies the change?

[aravanessë]

I think Amros to be better: it appears in The Shibboleth (c. 1968) whereas the LQ2 (where Amras is attested) is dated from about 1958 (Compare also with rhosc ‘brown’ in the Etymologies).

aravanessë

[Aiwendil]

Welcome to the project, aravanesse!

I think you are right - in any case, the Shibboleth is certainly later than LQ2. Unless we can find another instance of the name 'Amras' in the late writings, I think we will have to implement a change to 'Amros'.

[aravanessë]

Thank you. :)

Amros is also attested in a text dated from 1968 or later (in any cases, after the Shibboleth of Fëqnor), cf. The Problem of ROS.
I have not found another references of Amras in HoMe X, XI and XII that don't belong to LQ2 or to a later text.
(Moreover, what do you think about the 'five sons of Fëanor' mentioned in HoMe XI p. 329 ?)

aravanessë

[Findegil]

A warm welcome to the project aravanessë from my side as well.

Concerning Amros: A good catch by you, Aiwendil. I could alos not find any later reference to Amras, so I will take up the general change: {Díriel}[Amros] and {Amras}[Amros].

About the 5 sons of Fëanor: This is one of the hard puzzels. My take at it would be that he meant the five cheifs of realms in exil which were:
Marches of Maeðros
Maelors Gap
Himlad and the Pass of Aglon -> Celegorm
Dor Caranthir
Plian of East Beleriand -> Amros

We see Curufin only together with his older brother Celegorm, so he might be missing from thelist of rulers.

On the other hand Amros could be missing because I Ever have the feeling that East Beleriand was not realy a realm. But nor a hunting ground for the youngest of Fëanors sons.

Respectfully
Findegil

[aravanessë]

About the 5 sons of Fëanor: This is one of the hard puzzels. My take at it would be that he meant the five cheifs of realms in exil which were:
Marches of Maeðros
Maelors Gap
Himlad and the Pass of Aglon -> Celegorm
Dor Caranthir
Plian of East Beleriand -> Amros

We see Curufin only together with his older brother Celegorm, so he might be missing from thelist of rulers.

Yea, it is not stupid, all the more so in the text Curufin seems to take the main part and seems to contrast to his brother. Merci beaucoup.

aravanessë

[Galin]

My understanding is this. Originally there were to be two separate Eldarin stems, one meaning "reddish-brown" and the other meaning "spray/spindrift".

Yes, two are involved.

The change proposed in "Ros" is that there is only one stem, meaning "spray", and that this is Beorian. But this had to be dropped because of "Cair Andros".

I think that the proposed change was to lift ros 'spray, spindrift' from an Eldarin context -- leaving the other word in an Eldarin context however. Tolkien wrote that it was difficult to accept these two homophonic elements, and so I think he wanted to alter one while leaving the other. In other words, if one is lifted, Tolkien's proposed difficulty of accepting the two homophonic elements is solved.

So as I see it the change of "Maedhros" to "Maedron" does depend on the change in "The Problem of Ros". If we decide to use "Maedron" we are essentially electing to keep half of the change. But my impression is that the whole idea was rejected. Nonetheless it's an interesting question and I'm eager to hear what others have to say.

I think this change is unconnected rather -- at least specifically with respect to the failure of the essay I mean. We are given no detailed context concerning the intended change Maedros to Maedron (despite its implications) and it may be that CJRT found this a convenient place to note the change -- especially considering the first part of note 2 to The Problem of ROS, as we know that the first sentence was added by JRRT to the essay proper:

[added in the Margin: 'Though Maedros is now so long established that it would be difficult to alter'. In a later note, however, my father declared that he would change Maedros to Maedron.]

Even if this later note was attached specifically to this essay in some way, for example, the use of 'later' implies to my mind that this change was originally not connected to the specific thrust of the (failed) solution.

And if it was, I can't think why Tolkien would need to deal with both of the 'two' to solve his problem. It looks to me as if the proposed solution rather centered on a Beorian ros 'foam, white crest of waves', which could further connect to the Ship-name Rothinzil. But Andros had already been published

[Galin]

Regarding "Amrod": the sense I get from the quote is that "Amrod" is the form to be used. It is difficult to judge what he means by "whenever encountered" (if that's even what he wrote). But it is clear that "Amrod" would have been the Sindarization of the name actually used. The difference comes down to a translation of "Ambarto" vs. a translation of "Umbarto".

I guess I'll add my (unasked for) opinion here too :D

This is how I take the meaning of the VT description: had Ambarto lived this name probably would have been Sindarized as Amrod -- but the key thing here is 'had' he lived -- because since he died, in practice no one in Middle-earth who spoke Sindarin (as the Noldor would do later) would call Ambarussa Ambarto 'Amros Amrod'.

But even though he died, he would still need to be referred to by some name, and in Sindarin contexts he would be known as Amarthan... again because he truly 'became' (by his death) the 'fated one' and became known as such.

In the story it was said that Feanaro either thought Nerdanel had said Ambarto, or that Feanaro changed the name himself. But Amarthan became his name in Sindarin contexts, which in a sense nicely echoes that 'rightly' he was called, or 'should' have been called, Umbarto -- as Ambarussa his brother notes in the tale proper.

That's my take on these changes anyway.

I note that Tolkien decided that 'Finrod' (Finarfin) should not have a Sindarin name because he never came to Middle-earth with his son Inglor Felagund (according to Words, Phrases and Passages this seemed to be the problem at the time). But oddly enough, in the end JRRT retained Sindarized Finarfin even though he hadn't left Aman. Tolkien still felt the need to explain this internally, being yet aware that Finwe Arafinwe would hardly be called 'Finarfin' among Quenya speakers in Aman, and he was not himself in Middle-earth as well.

[Galin]

(...) Has the spelling of Maedros been discussed? As in the dh or d?

I found a discussion of 'ð' versus 'dh' anyway, where Aiwendil noted within this discussion '(...) I think the 'dh' issue is the same, and we must revert to 'Maedhros', etc.' In full context, here:

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=12834


So far I'm not sure dh or d has been discussed. Anyway, there are enough instances where d seems an anglicization, however, as far as I know, basically it's not an anglicization in The Shibboleth of Feanor.

Maedron may actually be the latest form, but this change might raise questions concerning the form Amros, and even possibly some Quenya forms depending on the details relating to this change.

[Aiwendil]

There are really three distinct issues with respect to the name 'Maedhros':

1. dh vs. ð - This is entirely an orthographic issue, and it was this that we discussed in the General Changes thread. At one point we had decided to prefer 'ð' to 'dh', but the use of 'dh' in LotR eventually convinced us to use this instead. I had thought that this issue was settled, but looking back at that thread now I'm not sure whether Findegil ever actually agreed to it. What sayst thou, Findegil?

2. dh/ð vs. d - It's not clear to me whether this is merely an issue of Anglicization or a veritable linguistic one. I'm inclined to think it's the latter, however, as normally (as far as I can remember) Tolkien does not Anglicize Sindarin 'dh' to 'd'. If it is merely an Anglicization issue, then it seems to me that we're obliged to use 'dh' since this transliteration is established in LotR. However, if it represents a real change to the Sindarin name, we must go with whatever is latest, as long as it's linguistically tenable. As far as I can tell, the form with 'd' is the later one. Note that if we adopt this, then issue 1 becomes moot.

3. -ros vs. -ron - The issue here is definitely linguistic. My understanding from XII (I don't know if any of the VT texts bear on this issue) is that "-ron" is the form that appears latest. The question, then, is whether the change from "-ros" to "-ron" is associated with the projected stem changes in "The Problem of Ros", which we must reject because of the name "Cair Andros".

Galin argued that the -ros > -ron change does not depend on the rejected points of "The Problem of Ros", but I'm not sure I agree. For one thing, the introductory statement to "The Problem of Ros" says:

The best solution of the difficulty presented by the name Elros, fixed by mention in The Lord of the Rings, and the names of the sons of Feanor: Maedros, the eldest, and Amros, now proposed as the name of both the twins (sixth and seventh) - to which a story is attached that it is desirable to retain.

So the name "Maedros" is associated with the projected changes of "Ros" by Tolkien himself. Also, Tolkien's marginal note that "Maedros" was so long established that it would be difficult to alter implies that altering "Maedros" would be a necessary consequence of adopting the projected stem changes, and it seems at least highly plausible that these changes were the one and only reason for the name change. True, Christopher Tolkien does not say where the subsequent note that did indeed adopt "Maedron" is found. However, it seems to me that this note would provide us evidence in favor of keeping "Maedron" while rejecting the "Ros" stem changes only if it definitely derives from after Tolkien noticed "Cair Andros" and rejected the proposed changes.

My preference, then, is to go with "Maedros".

[Galin]

(...) 2. dh/ð vs. d - It's not clear to me whether this is merely an issue of Anglicization or a veritable linguistic one. I'm inclined to think it's the latter, however, as normally (as far as I can remember) Tolkien does not Anglicize Sindarin 'dh' to 'd'. If it is merely an Anglicization issue, then it seems to me that we're obliged to use 'dh' since this transliteration is established in LotR. However, if it represents a real change to the Sindarin name, we must go with whatever is latest, as long as it's linguistically tenable. As far as I can tell, the form with 'd' is the later one. Note that if we adopt this, then issue 1 becomes moot.

I think some confusion might stem from Tolkien anglicizing even the name Maidhros/Maidros. In Etymologies for example:

'N meið, maið, hence Maidhros (anglicized Maidros) = pale glitter [RUS]'

Here the Noldorin words involved end in ð, but this is no longer the derivation of the name in the Shibboleth of course.

'Maedros combines elements of Nelyafinwe's mother name Maiti- (Common Eldarin magiti- shapely, Sindarin maed) and of the epesse Russandol (C. E. russá, Sindarin ross).' Vinyar Tengwar 41

The word appears to be maed not *maedh here. I'm no expert, but generally speaking I think a voiced t (d) here makes enough sense with respect to Sindarin phonology (looking at note 15 we can see a revision of Maedhros to Maedros, but we can't know if this was but a slip, changed in light of the new concept).

3. -ros vs. -ron - The issue here is definitely linguistic. My understanding from XII (I don't know if any of the VT texts bear on this issue) is that "-ron" is the form that appears latest. The question, then, is whether the change from "-ros" to "-ron" is associated with the projected stem changes in "The Problem of Ros", which we must reject because of the name "Cair Andros".

Galin argued that the -ros > -ron change does not depend on the rejected points of "The Problem of Ros", but I'm not sure I agree. For one thing, the introductory statement to "The Problem of Ros" says: (...) So the name "Maedros" is associated with the projected changes of "Ros" by Tolkien himself.

Yes but I would say it is associated simply because the name contains one of the two Eldarin homophones that Tolkien thinks are difficult to accept.

To my mind the -ros in Maedros, outside of being the same word in form and sound, has nothing really to do with the ros in Elros, or the connection to Rothinzil or Elwing, or to Cair Andros being the reason the solution failed (in this idea Beorian ros had an older form roth, and Elros is called Elroth at one point).

This is all the 'foam, spray' side of a solution, and I think Tolkien needed to deal with only one of these words to solve his problem.


Also, Tolkien's marginal note that "Maedros" was so long established that it would be difficult to alter implies that altering "Maedros" would be a necessary consequence of adopting the projected stem changes, and it seems at least highly plausible that these changes were the one and only reason for the name change.

I would agree that Tolkien mused (at least briefly) about altering Maedros as a possible solution. We can note that Elros is not altered by the proposed solution, as that can't be altered aside from giving it an older form Elroth.

But to me, although it's still a 'stem change' in general, it's very much about a reassignment of languages:

'But instead of deriving them [ros, wing] from the Nandorin (or Green Elvish) of Ossiriand, it would be an improvement to derive them from the Mannish tongues: the language of Beren father of Dior; both *ros and *wing could thus be removed from Eldarin.' JRRT, The Problem of Ros

Altering Maedros is a solution that might have worked -- had Tolkien, at this point, thought it would not be difficult to alter the name -- but he did not take this path in the subsequent essay, which doesn't seem to be really concerned with anything that would necessitate altering Maedros. There should be no need to change Maedros if the solution had worked, as then these two words would not constitute Eldarin homophones.

True, Christopher Tolkien does not say where the subsequent note that did indeed adopt "Maedron" is found. However, it seems to me that this note would provide us evidence in favor of keeping "Maedron" while rejecting the "Ros" stem changes only if it definitely derives from after Tolkien noticed "Cair Andros" and rejected the proposed changes.

Yes there's a misty element here. I agree it's certainly possible and plausible that, having failed to characterize ros 'spray, foam' as Beorian, Tolkien later attempted to solve the very same problem in a different way, by eliminating the 'red-brown' word. Incidentally, in other forums I have asked if the issue of these homophones is really necessarily that problematic, and so far have received a very limited response.

In Sindarin Maedron may simply mean *shapely one. Tolkien might have just liked this better at some point, but if he was still trying to solve the problem of the Eldarin homophones (again, not unlikely I admit), then it seems that we, or at least I, can't really know how far reaching this change might be.

I think Maedron raises questions, but we know Maedros is paired with Amros at least, even if Maedron might be later. As I say, concerning this 'later note', the simple declaration of a change Maedros to Maedron doesn't seem much to go on. CJRT noted this in a somewhat appropriate place -- appropriate here because it shows that Tolkien changed his mind despite the earlier note that Maedros would be difficult to alter.

By the way, I hope this isn't too repetitive or annoying, but having thought about this essay and the name Maedhros for a while now, it's fun to bounce my opinions off of knowledgeable Tolkien readers in some detail.

___________________

Just for fun speculation: there's a stem RUN 'red, glowing' for example, and noting URUN 'copper' (note 61, The Shibboleth of Feanor).


Maedros was said to have worn a copper circlet and to have had red-brown hair. Again I'm no expert, but I think a C. E. *runná could yield -ron in Sindarin as well. Could part of Maedron similarly refer to hair, at least in some loose way?

But would we then also have *Ambarunna and *Runnandol? and Sindarin Maedron, Amron? or might we have some other linguistic scenario which retained certain 'russa, ros names' except for (for some reason) Maedros?

[Findegil]

1. ð vs. dh:
Even so I did not formaly declared it, I did agree to the change back from ð to dh.
I doing so I thought more about readability then anything else. For ð only a few experts will have an idea how to pronauce it correctly. For dh that is a bit better.

2. dh/ð vs. d:
If this is angelisation I am totally against it. That is for the same reason I was for dh. If we would put a simple d near to nobody would get the pronauciation right.

But if it is an linguistical issue and d is the later we should use it.

3. ros vs. ron:
This is dificult since Tolkien seems to have been switched back ward and forward. I would have to read deeper into this issu to make up my mind.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

I'll try a short version, based on Findegil's post, and perhaps it will help with clarity regarding my long-winded response above!


1. ð vs. dh:

This is a matter of orthography and I would go with dh as well (Galadhrim, Caras Galadhon).

2. dh/ð vs. d:

I belive this is anglicization in the 1930s -- 1950s, but by the time of The Shibboleth of Feanor we have maed 'shapely' and a Sindarization of a name. At this point I believe the d is simply d not anglicized dh (and the old meaning of this character's name is here certainly changed from 'pale glitter').

3. ros vs. ron:

A late change to -ron but one that raises questions as to the status of other 'russa, ros' names from The Shibboleth of Feanor (I'm not aware that Tolkien went back and forth here, as Findegil noted).


The problem of ros

JRRT thought that it was difficult to accept the two homophones occuring in the Eldarin tongues, since they were unconnected in meaning.

Tolkien's solution: characterize the ros of Elros ('foam, spray') as Beorian, leaving the other ros as in Maedros ('red-brown') as Eldarin. This failed because Cair Andros had already been published as meaning 'Ship of Long Foam' in a Sindarin (thus Eldarin) context.

Tolkien's 'later' declaration concerning a change to Maedron might be another solution to this, but the note, at least as commented on, is sparse on detail.

[Findegil]

Okay it is a long time since, but still I think we have the open question of

Maedros vs. Maedron
Posted by me:This is dificult since Tolkien seems to have been switched back ward and forward.That was a lose interpretation of mine. It would be true if we could prove that the note in which Tolkien change the name to Maedron was NOT the last time he wrote about that charachter. But since we have no idea when these 'later note' was written and the basis of 'later' is the already late The Problem of ROS it is absolutly possible that he wrote in that note for the last time about Maedron.

Galin, if I understand you rightly, you think that after Tolkien saw that the elegant solution of the problem of ROS that was supposed in that essay failed due to Cair Andros, he solved the problem by altering the other stem ROS, beeing 'a colour word, referring to the red, red-brown hair of the first, sixth, and seventh sons of Feanor' to RUN 'red, glowing' with the word urun meaning 'copper'.
In that way you think 'Maitimo *Runnandol' sindarized his name to 'Maedron'. Therefore and since Tolkien did not provide a fitting sindarization you supposd '*Ambarunna' to become '*Amron'.

That is also a very elagant solution, but I am not so sure Tolkien did think about it in the way you do.
Let's talk about the Quenya names first: I agree that the later mentioning of the stem RUN and word urun would replace ROS and would make the names Rusco[i/], [I]Russandol and Ambarussa unusable. For Rusco 'fox' as an eppesse of Nerdanels father we have the replacement Urundil 'copper-lover'. That said the new form for older Russandol 'copper-top' should be *Urundol, I think. And for old Ambarussa I would think we should get *Ambarun

Now lets go to Sindarin: What I miss is a prove that Maedron still had the same meaning as Maedros. Okay, Maedros might have had no proper meaning because it is an sindarized mix of Maitimo and Russandol. But it would still mean somthing like 'well-shaped copper' or less litarily 'well-shaped red one'. Does Maedron mean the same? I don't think so. I would rather think that it is a translation of Maitimo thus meaning 'well-shaped one' as in Sauron 'adhorred one' or in (Aran) Tauron 'the (king) forester'. Further names with that ending are Daeron and Gethron, but I did not check the meaning of these (if they are given at all). Thus we do neither know the proper Mothername of the twins nor the translation for it into Sindarin.

Thus Aiwendil is in a sense right: If we change Maedros to Maedron but keep Russandol, Ambarussa and Amros we do not solve the problem of ROS at all.
But I do not see how we can do better, without violating our rules.

The simple question is then: Do we consider the Maedron note to be Tolkiens last idea? (It is clearly not a case of an idea that can not be integrate, since it is easy to make and even so it does not effectly amend the problem of ROS, it does also not make it worth.)

What remains in addition are the names Russandol and Ambarussa. Do we consider them outdated with the note about the stem RUN 'red, glowing'?
Russandol we could simply skip but for Ambarussa we would need a replacment.
Any ideas?

One further point found in this thread posted by Inderjit Sanghera:'Maelor' was used in the LQI (HoME 10) and in some notes which deal with Celebrimbor's lineage, which was given in the appendix to 'Of Dwarves and Men'. Both pre-date 'The Shibboleth of Fëanor (HoME 12), in which the name Maglor became fixed as his proper name. That Maglor is fixed in The shibboleth of Fëanor, seems a bit overestimated. The name is only once mentioned and that is in a footnote to the text proper. Maelor was also used in the Later lay of Leithian but that does predate the Shibboleth as well. In LQ2 we have again Maglor. But in a Note written into the second edition of The Lord of the Rings Tolkien used again Maelor. The note is of course of unknown date but it is later then 1966. So Maelor was at leat not as short lifed as one could think from what Inderjit wrote.
Up to now we have adopted Maelor. Due we stick to this?

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

(...) Galin, if I understand you rightly, you think that after Tolkien saw that the elegant solution of the problem of ROS that was supposed in that essay failed due to Cair Andros, he solved the problem by altering the other stem ROS, beeing 'a colour word, referring to the red, red-brown hair of the first, sixth, and seventh sons of Feanor' to RUN 'red, glowing' with the word urun meaning 'copper'. In that way you think 'Maitimo *Runnandol' sindarized his name to 'Maedron'. Therefore and since Tolkien did not provide a fitting sindarization you supposd '*Ambarunna' to become '*Amron'.

That is also a very elagant solution, but I am not so sure Tolkien did think about it in the way you do.

I don't think Tolkien himself necessarily thought of it this way either :)

I would stress that my theories concerning RUN in a previous post were for fun speculation.

Let's talk about the Quenya names first: I agree that the later mentioning of the stem RUN and word urun would replace ROS and would make the names Rusco, Russandol and Ambarussa unusable. For Rusco 'fox' as an eppesse of Nerdanels father we have the replacement Urundil 'copper-lover'. That said the new form for older Russandol 'copper-top' should be *Urundol, I think.

The name *Runnandol is based on an adjectival *runná (I'm not positive but I think russa hails from older adjectival *rusná). *Urundol also seems an arguable construction to me, I was just echoing the existing name.

And for old Ambarussa I would think we should get *Ambarun

That echoes my hypothetical *Ambarunna, cut shorter of course :D

Again I was trying to echo Ambarussa. And just to note it, the shorter version alters the primary stress.

Now lets go to Sindarin: What I miss is a prove that Maedron still had the same meaning as Maedros. Okay, Maedros might have had no proper meaning because it is an sindarized mix of Maitimo and Russandol. But it would still mean somthing like 'well-shaped copper' or less litarily 'well-shaped red one'. Does Maedron mean the same? I don't think so. I would rather think that it is a translation of Maitimo thus meaning 'well-shaped one' as in (...)

Yes, it could certainly mean that. Roman Rausch suggested this to me last year, but in any case I certainly have no proof whatsover that Maedron still carries a 'copper related' sense. Again that was pure speculation. The problem is the brevity of this late note.

Thus Aiwendil is in a sense right: If we change Maedros to Maedron but keep Russandol, Ambarussa and Amros we do not solve the problem of ROS at all. But I do not see how we can do better, without violating our rules.

It still seems possible, at least, that Maedros becomes Maedron and all the other 'ros' related names (Quenya and Sindarin) remain unchanged -- in other words, it's possible that Tolkien was not here thinking of solving his problem, but simply liked Maedron better and desired it to mean basically the same as Maitimo.


The speculation goes on! ;)

The simple question is then: Do we consider the Maedron note to be Tolkiens last idea? (It is clearly not a case of an idea that can not be integrate, since it is easy to make and even so it does not effectly amend the problem of ROS, it does also not make it worth.)

As for the question of dating...

2 [Added in the Margin: 'Though Maedros is now so long established that it would be difficult to alter'. In a later note, however, my father declared that he would change Maedros to Maedron.'] JRRT, CJRT The Problem of ROS

For myself, I find it unlikely -- or less likely at least -- that CJRT is here simply explaining that the 'Maedron note' is another later note in general; that is, not necessarily later than the note he quotes here, which appears to date at the time of the essay proper.

The early forms have -ros going way back, and Tolkien seems to think a name with -ros has been too established at this point. I think that CJRT would have noted something like: 'In another late note, however...' if he was uncertain as to which statement followed the other.

So I read it as: a 'later' note than even the late note to the Shibboleth.

[Findegil]

About the dating of the note to change Maedros to Maedron: It seems I was not clear enough in my last post. I have no doubt, that the note is later then the text of Shibboleth. So the fact we can be sure of is that the note was later then 1968 when the Shibboleth was written. But that does not make it necessarly the last mention of the charachter of Feanors eldest son.
Anyway, we have other examples were Tolkien needed some time to addapt to a name change, so even if we could find a later mentioning of Maedros we could consider it as a slip of the pen.

Since it corrospondce nicely to establishment of the new stem RUN, I would think Maedron is the right choice.

What do other think about it?

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

Ah, I see what you mean now Findegil. And later than the Shibboleth still isn't specific, so even an arguably later (than the Shibboleth) occurance of Maedros leaves one up in the air a bit.

This touches upon Maelor: both Maedros and Maelor appear in the note published (in the notes to) Of Dwarves And Men -- along with the idea that one of the Amros twins was burned in the ships -- and CJRT suggests that the sinister story arose during the composition of the text noted in The Shibboleth of Feanor -- that is, in the text The names of the Sons of Feanor with the legend of the fate of Amrod and so on.

Hmmm.

[Findegil]

Okay, to spare you a long windig search: In post #3 Inderjit Sanghera gave a quote from On Sindarizing of the names [of the sons of Fëanor]. He said that it came from Vinyar Tengwar 39. Since I wanted to read that in full context, I searched for it and found it at last in [Vinyar Tengwar 41[/i]. Since I am sure we will need at least part of it later on in the project, I give the text here in full:Immediately following the legend of the fate of Amrod (XII:353-55) is a set of notes, labelled "On Sindarizing of the names", keyed to the numbered list of the names of the seven sons of Fëanor (XII:352-53). Cf. XII:366 n.65.

1) Maedros combines elements of Nelyafinwe's mother name Maiti- (Commen Eldarin magiti- shapely, Sindarin maed) and of the epesse russandol (C.E. russā, S. ross).
2) Makalaure was converted simply phonetically to S. maglaur > maglor. Its pure Sindarin [development] would have been [deleted: maka-glawar] maka-glaur-. In S. glaware > glawar = Q. laure but as second element in compound glaware > glaur. magalor-.
3) S. celeg (*kelekā) = Q. tyelka. The form was celeg-orm because in North Sindarin medial m was not opened [to v] as in [?Western] Sindarin.
4) Curufin so usually written = Kurufinwe. C.E. kuru- skill, especially in artifices and devices. Q. kuro (kuru-) a skilful [?device]. Kurwe skill of the hand. Sindarin [i]kurwē > curu-. Finwe would in fact have given S. Fim but the Noldor Sindarized it as -fin.
5) Sindarin [i]carani- > caran + þîr face (< stīrē) [?substituted] for Q. car'ni-stîr(e). So Caranthir. [Mariginal note: Carastir?]
6) Amros(1) Sindarin for Ambarussa. Had Amros(2) Ambarto lived, it [i.e. the name Ambarto] would probably have been [Sindarized] as Amrod, but when [?encountered] at all in Sindarin form it was [?] Amarthan Fated One. S. ambart- > ammarth, amarth fate = Umbarto.
Maedros, Maglor, Celegorm, Curufin, Caranthir, Amros, Amarthan.

Finally, a note about the twin sons of Fëanor, who called each other Ambarussa, is quoted in full on XII:355, excepting its final sentence, which reads: "Others called them Minyarussa and Atyarussa"; i.e. 'First-russa' and 'Second-russa'Having read this part of The shibboleth of Fëanor I also must say that Maglor really is established here as the name of Fëanors second son. So I think now that Maelor was passing idea, and that Tolkien change his mind and came back to Maglor. What do other say about that matter?

Respectfuly
Findegil

[gondowe]

Hello everybody,
in my humble oppinion there so much complicate thougths about the matter of Maedhros. I think that doubt to the relation of names, if Maedhros is changed for Maedron so it must be changed Amros to Amron. But for me Maedhros (Maedros) is right here.

I am confused about Maelor, is it the last form?, correct me but i remember it only appears in the lay reccomenced, written in 1950, and for example in TSOF appears Maglor. Why do you name him so?

Greetings

[Findegil]

About Maelor: There is also a note written by Tolkien into a copy of the second edition of The Lord of the Rings that names the second son of Fëanor Maelor. Since the second edition was printed in 1966 the note must be later. But The Shibboleth of Fëanor is from 1968. So I agree to you that the natural interpretation of the evidence we have is, that Maelor was a change that Tolkien later skipt. But up to now we thought that Maelro was the last idea of Tolkien and therefore used it in our version. The change back to Maglor is not yet aproved, but I think it most likely.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

Now I'm confused (again) :)

The note with Maedros and Maelor in Tolkien's Return of the King includes a reference to Umbarto being burned, and if it's the case, as CJRT thinks, that this idea (of Umbarto dying) arose in the course of Tolkien's notes on the names of the sons of Feanor (given at the end of The Shibboleth of Feanor) -- does this not open up the possibility, at least, that the 'Maelor note' (RK note) follows The Shibboleth?

I'm not trying to muddy the waters again but I thought that was part of the point Findegil made to me earlier concerning Maedros, when he wrote (about the Maedron note): 'But that does not make it necessarly the last mention of the charachter of Feanors eldest son.'

In other words, now we don't know which is the latest (the Shibboleth is technically 1968 or later according to Hammond and Scull) of the following:

A) The Shibboleth of Feanor and notes on the names of Feanor's sons: Maedros, Maglor

B) The Maedron note (given in notes to TPOR): Maedron (arguably later than Shibboleth at least)

C) Or The Return of the King note: Maedros and Maelor


And if so, some other criterion might need to be raised, in order to choose. And I want to stress again that the change Maedros to Maedron doesn't necessarily mean Amros must become Amron. This is just a further idea that I think is merely one possibilty among others.

If pressed to choose I would choose Maedros because of the doubt involved with the dating, but also because one could then bring along all the other '-russa, -ros' names that certainly agree with this conception, if you take my meaning.

As for Maglor, I like it better, it agrees with the published Silmarillion (not that that's necessarily a factor here) and it also hails from the conception in which Maedros and Amros appear -- and in a text in which the names are certainly considered from a linguistic standpoint (thus certainly focused on in some measure).

But I am biased simply because I like Maglor and its meaning... and I'm not constructing a Silmarillion, merely rambling on about a subject I'm interested in.

:)

[Findegil]

The note with Maedros and Maelor in Tolkien's Return of the King includes a reference to Umbarto being burnedI didn't observed that! But you are right it means we have an additional info on the timing. We have (not considering the the order of writing by JRR Tolkien):

- a) The Lay of Leithian Recommenced (certainly post-1955 probably much later): Both, Maglor and Maelor, used but finally settled on Maelor

- b) Late change to Later Quenta Silmarillion 2: Maglor changed to Maelor

- c) The Shibboleth of Feanor and notes on the names of Feanor's sons: Maedros, Maglor

- d) The Return of the King note: Maedros and Maelor

- e) The Maedron note (given in notes to TPOR): Maedron

From the names only I would orer these text d), c), a) & b) and last e). That is possible but does not ring true to me entirely. I rather think that Tolkien changed his mind (probaly more than once) about Maelor and returned in the end to Maglor. But then this is based on no fact.

And I want to stress again that the change Maedros to Maedron doesn't necessarily mean Amros must become Amron.I agree to this. We can for sure use Maedron beside Amros. If we chose Maedron we might be forced to do so because I do not see an alternative for Amors that was given by Tolkien. Beside that, Maedron is not equivalent to Maedros in my oppioin as explained above.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

I wanted to bring this thread back up because it seems to me that the names of Feanor's two eldest sons were never resolved.

For my part, I am still inclined, as I was a few years ago, to go with 'Maedros' and 'Maglor'.

As to the first, I am still quite convinced that the change to 'Maedron' was associated with the proposal in 'The Problem of Ros', which was rejected. It seems clear to me that the motivation for the change was elimination of the RUS- stem. Though this half of the proposal does not run afoul of 'Cair Androst', I think that without suitable replacements for the other RUS- names (e.g. Ambarussa/Amros, Russandol), it must be considered a projected change that cannot be implemented. It is true that if we were to adopt 'Maedron', we wouldn't be forced to alter 'Amros' - but if we can't alter 'Amros', then as I see it, the entire reason for the change to 'Maedron' (i.e. getting rid of RUS-) is invalidated.

'Maglor' vs. 'Maelor' is a less complex problem. Here we simply cannot ascertain with any certainty which form was later. In such a case, I would prefer to be conservative and use the better-attested form 'Maglor'.

[Findegil]

As already written above, I agree that we should use Maglor, because I consider Maelor to be a change later skipt by Tolkien as atested in On Sindarizing of the names.

On Maedros/ Maedron: I don't think that the changes is directly conected to The problem of ROS. Since we have some names ending in -ron elements: Sauron, Daeron and changes that lead to similar names Tauros/Tauron, Bauglir/Baugron, I would use Maedron.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

On Maedros/ Maedron: I don't think that the changes is directly conected to The problem of ROS. Since we have some names ending in -ron elements: Sauron, Daeron and changes that lead to similar names Tauros/Tauron, Bauglir/Baugron, I would use Maedron.

I don't deny that 'Maedron' is valid Sindarin (as is shown by the names you quote). Rather, the twofold question is:

1. Was the change of 'Maedros' to 'Maedron' motivated by the elimination of the RUS- stem?

2. Are there instances of 'Maedros' that post-date the 'Maedron' note?

If the answer to either of these is 'yes', then we must stick with 'Maedros'. And while I don't think we can be absolutely certain about either question, it seems to me fairly likely that the answer to 1 is yes, and quite possible that the answer to 2 is yes (as Galin pointed out earlier, we have no good way of dating the Maedron note vs. the Return of the King note).

Perhaps I haven't fully explained why I think the change to 'Maedron' is likely to have been motivated by deletion of the RUS- stem. As I see it, we have the following evidence:

1. In 'The Problem of Ros', Tolkien expresses dissatisfaction with both the ROS- and RUS- stems (noting not only the homophony as a problem, but also the similarity of RUS- to Indo-European 'red' words)

2. Although the proposal in 'The Problem of Ros' (of changing ROS- to a Beorian stem) does not in itself necessitate changes to the RUS- words, the fact that he wrote 'Though Maedros is now so long established that it would be difficult to alter' in the margin indicates that he considered a change of 'Maedros' to be part of the solution.

3. 'Maedron' occurs in a note post-dating 'The Problem of Ros'.

It is at the very least easy enough to read this evidence, taken together, as Tolkien reluctantly changing 'Maedros' to 'Maedron' in order to eliminate the 'RUS' stem.

[Findegil]

I am seperated from my books right now, but wasn't it JRR Tolkien himself, who noted at the end of writing that essay that the solution failed because of Cair Andros?

If that would be the case, then the change of Maedros to Maedron seems rather coneted to the other changes of male names making them end on -ron , then to the problem of ros.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

I am seperated from my books right now, but wasn't it JRR Tolkien himself, who noted at the end of writing that essay that the solution failed because of Cair Andros?

If that would be the case, then the change of Maedros to Maedron seems rather coneted to the other changes of male names making them end on -ron , then to the problem of ros.

Yes but the failure there had to do with the "other ros" (the ros in andros) being Beorian, so Aiwendil is suggesting (as I read it) that since that failed, at some point Tolkien took up his thought -- his thought in the note that goes with The Problem of ROS -- that perhaps the other ros (red-brown haired) could be dealt with...

... thus the later Maedron note.

While it is possible that Maedron reflects the loss of -russa/-ros (red-brown haired), we can't be sure. The note merely seems to say that JRRT "now" will alter Maedros to Maedron, but we have no further information there, and are left with what this might mean, if anything, concerning the Amros brothers.


It's also possible that the same note (the Problem of ROS note) in which Tolkien thinks that Maedros is so long established that it would be difficult to alter, plays some part in his "returning" to Maedros in the note in a copy of The Lord of the Rings.

If that's what Tolkien did, that is :)


My thought is that a choice of Maedron comes with a number of questions... while the choice of Maedros provides the Quenya and Sindarin names for all three brothers, as well as the detail behind these names, that these brothers had a measure of red-brown, or coppery coloured hair.

So far it doesn't look like there is any way to date which is later, Maedron or Maedros, but my point earlier is that choosing Maedros gives you the rest of the scenario, as attested, with Russandol, Ambarussa and Amros and so on.

Not that you are necessarily going to use all of this information for this reconstructed Silmarillion! But anyway, if one is forced to choose, I mean.

Although obviously that's just one way of looking at the scenario.

[Aiwendil]

I am seperated from my books right now, but wasn't it JRR Tolkien himself, who noted at the end of writing that essay that the solution failed because of Cair Andros?

If that would be the case, then the change of Maedros to Maedron seems rather coneted to the other changes of male names making them end on -ron , then to the problem of ros.

Well, we don't know when Tolkien wrote the 'Maedron' note; nor do we know when he wrote, 'Most of this fails' on the manuscript of 'Ros'. It seems to me perfectly plausible that the 'Maedron' note pre-dated the realization that the proposed 'Ros' solution would not work, even if it apparently post-dated 'The Problem of Ros' itself (which Christopher Tolkien presents no actual evidence for, though I grant that he is probably right).

But, as Galin points out, the fact that Tolkien rejected the idea to make ROS- a Beorian stem doesn't necessarily mean that he no longer wanted to get rid of RUS-.

Apart from these considerations, though, I think Galin is right:

So far it doesn't look like there is any way to date which is later, Maedron or Maedros, but my point earlier is that choosing Maedros gives you the rest of the scenario, as attested, with Russandol, Ambarussa and Amros and so on.

We don't know which was later. (I don't think the analogy to other '-on' names is conclusive evidence that 'Maedron' is later; after all, we have 'Maedros' as late as 1969 or 1970, while for example 'Tauros' had already become 'Tauron' as early as the early 1950s.) And given that we don't know, I think 'Maedros' is preferable.

[Findegil]

So in the end we settle down on Maedros and Maglor.

I will work that back into our texts.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

Glad we're agreed. If I get a chance tomorrow I'll go through and update the list of names we're using in the 'General Changes in TftE' thread.

[Aiwendil]

Here's a revised list of general changes, arranged alphabetically. For ease of reading, I've removed the quotes from the discussions about those changes, instead supplying links to the relevant threads. One thing I realized as I was doing this is that we never actually came to a decision about the name 'Gwarestrin'.

{Amon Gwareth}[Amon Gwared] per LQ2 (HoMe XI)

{Amras}[Amros] per Shibboleth and Ros. Discussed in Name Changes? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=4479)

{Angamandi}[Angband] per Q30.

{Artanaro}[Ereinion] per the ‘Shibboleth’. Discussed in this thread.

{Artanor}[Doriath] per Q30.

{Auredhir}[Eluréd and Elurín] per QS77

{Avranc}[Daruin] per WH note 55.

{Bad Uthwen}[Way of Escape], decided in Bad Uthwen vote (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=123953) after discussion here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=124035&highlight=uthwen#post124035)

Battle of Sudden {Fire}[Flame] per QS77

{Bansil}[Belthil] per QS77

{Belthil}[Silpion] when it refers to the tree in Valinor, per QS77.

{Bëor}[Bregor] when referring to the Father of Barahir per HoME XI

{Bladorion}[Ard-galen] per HoME XI

{Bronweg}[Voronwë] per QS77and late 'Tuor'

{Celegorn}[Celegorm] per QS77

{Celon}[Limhir] per 'Of Maeglin'

{Côr} [Túna] or [Tirion] per QS77. In BoLT Kor corresponds to both the later Tirion and Túna, being the name of both the City and the hill on which it stands. It should be changed to 'Tirion' when it refers to the city and 'Tuna' when it refers to the hill.


{Cranthir}[Caranthir]

{Cranthor}[Caranthir] per QS77

{Crisaegrim}[Crissaegrim] per QS77

{Cristhorn}[Cirith Thoronath] per QS77

{Cûm an-Idrisaith}[Cûm-nan-Arasaith] (Mound of Avarice) per Q30. This may need linguistic revision.

Dagor {Vreged-sir}[Bragollach] per QS77

{Dairon}[Daeron] per QS77

{Damrod}[Amrod] per QS77.

{Díriel}[Amros] per Shibboleth and Ros

{Dorlas}[Darlas] per WH note 55.

{Dorlomin}[Dor-Lómin] for consistency with UT and QS77

{Dor-na-Fauglith}[Dor-nu-Fauglith] per QS77

{dragon-helm}[Dragon-helm] just for consistency.

{dwarfen}[dwarven] per Tolkiens general use of the old plural when refering to Dwarves.

{Eärendel}[Eärendil] per QS77and LR.

{Egnor}[Aegnor] per QS77 (except where it refers to Beren's father)

{Egnor}[Barahir] per QS77 when it refers to Beren’s father.

{Elfinesse}[Elvenesse] per Tolkien's general change of Elfin to Elven from earlier to later writings.

{Erchamion}[Erchamon] per ‘Eldarin Hands, Fingers, and Numerals’. Decided in this thread.

Ereinion: No change.

{Ermabwed}[Erchamon] per ‘Eldarin Hands, Fingers, and Numerals’.

{Finellach}[Ereinion] per the ‘Shibboleth’. Discussed in this thread.

{Finrod}[Finarfin] per QS77 when it refers to Felagund's father.

{Flinding go-Fuilin}[Gwindor, Guilin’s son] this seems to be covered by the two entries 'Flinding' and 'Fuilin' but since in alliterative verse Flinding and Fuilin are both in the alliteration it is here surely necessary to change the alliteration.

{Flinding}[Gwindor] per QS77 but this change does only occur in the verse and Flinding is often used in the alliteration. Thus each line needs some special solution.

{Fuilin}[Guilin] per QS77 but this change does only occur in the verse and Fuilin is often used in the alliteration. Thus each line needs some special solution.

{Galion}[Galdor] per HoME XI

{Galweg}[Orodreth] per QS77.

{Gar Ainion}[Place of the Ainur], decided here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=124035&highlight=ainion#post124035)

{Gar Thurian}[Gar Thoren] per 'Etymologies': under 3AR-, section GARAT-. Decided here ( http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=124035&#post124035)

{Gelion} and {River Gelion} [Duin Daer] per 'Of Maeglin'.

{Gelmir}[Faramir] when referring to the companion of Arminas, per Narn plot synopses. Discussed in this thread.

{Glingal}[Laurelin] when it refers to the tree in Valinor per QS77

{Glingol}[Glingal] per QS77.

{Glommweaver}[Ungoliant] and {Ungoliantë}[Ungoliant] per QS77

{Glorund}[Glaurung] per Wanderings of Húrin.

{Gnome}[Elf] or [Noldo] and {Gnomes}[Elves] or [Noldor]. “Gnomes” was dropped by Tolkien in LR and later writings, often replaced by Noldor. It would be better artistically to retain the original variation Gnome/Gnomes and Noldo/Noldli which can be best done by replacing Gnome/Gnomes by Elf/Elves except where a general reference to Elves would not fit, as in “the Gnomes were exiles at heart, haunted with a desire for their ancient home that faded not.” Then use Noldor.

{Gochressiel} [Crissaegrim] per QS77

{Gondothlim}[Gondolindrim] per QS77

{Gondothlimbar}[Gondothrimbar] per 'Etymologies'; under GOND-. Discussed here ( http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=124035&#post124035)

{Gods}[Valar] Tolkien almost entirely drops "Gods" as a English translation in later writings.

{Gorthu}[Sauron] or [Gorthaur] per LR.

{Gumlin}[Galdor] per HoME XI

Gwarestrin:

{Gwendelin} [Melian] per QS77.

{Gwenniel}[Melian] per Q30.

{Gyrth-I-Guinar}[Dor Firn-i-Guinar] per QS77

{Haladin}[Halethrim] when referring to the general populace of Haleth’s people, per ‘The Wanderings of Hurin’.

{Haleth}[Halmir] when it refers to Haleth the Hunter per LQ

{Haud-in-Nengin}[Haudh-en-Nirnaeth] per QS77

{Hisilómë}[Hithlum] per S.

{House of the Swan}[House of Hador] when it refers to Tuor’s ancestry. The sign of Annael remains the Swan.

{Hundar}[Haldir] per LQ when it refers to Halmir's son.

{Hundor}[Haldir] per LQ.

{i•Guilwarthon}[Dor Firn-i-Guinar] per QS77.

{Ing}[Ingwë] per QS77

{Inglor}[Finrod] or [Felagund] per LR

{Inwe}[Ingwë] per QS77

{Indrafangs}[dwarves of Belegost] when not referring to the dwarves of Moria per QS77

{Isfin}[Aredhel] per QS77

{Karkaras} (Knife-fang)}[Carcharoth ('the Red Maw')] per QS77.

{Kôr} [Túna] or [Tirion] per QS77. In BoLT Kor corresponds to both the later Tirion and Túna, being the name of both the City and the hill on which it stands. It should be changed to 'Tirion' when it refers to the city and 'Tuna' when it refers to the hill.

{Lalaith}[Lalaeth] per genealogical tables associated with LQ2. Discussed in this thread.

{Legolas Greenleaf}[Laegolas], discussed here ( http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=124035) and decided here ( http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=4401).

{Lhandroval}[Landroval] per LR

{Lothengriol}[Loth-a-ladwen] per 'The Lay of the Fall of Gondolin' (in 'Poems Early Abandoned, HoMe III).

{Lothlim}[Lothrim] This latter is the probable correct Sindarin form.

Maglor: No change. Discussed in this thread.

{Mahtan}[Sarmo] per Shibboleth, discussed in Name (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=4479) Changes?[/url]

{Maidros} [Maedros] per the ‘Shibboleth’. Discussed in this thread.

{Malkarauki}[Valaraukar] per Valaquenta published with QS77.

{Mavwin}[Morwen] per QS77.

{Meglin}[Maeglin] per QS77.

{Melko}[Morgoth] per QS77. After BoLT Tolkien almost never uses Melkor in narration of events following Fëanor’s invention of the name Morgoth, except in a back-reference to ancient times.

{Minnastirith}[Minas Tirith] per QS77

{Nan-Tathrin}[Nan-Tathren] per QS77

{Nauglafring}[Nauglamír] per QS77.

{Nauglath}[dwarves of Nogrod] or [Naugrim] per QS77

{Nienóri}[Nienor] per UT.

{Noldoli}[Noldor] per QS77. Noldoli, though possibly still a valid form, is not used at all in QS77or late Tolkien writings.

{Noldorin}[Sindarin] per HoME XI

Nost-na-Lothion: No change. Discussed here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=124035)

{Nivrost}[Nevrast] per QS77.

{Palúrien}[Kementári] per LQ2 and Valaquenta.

{Peleg}[Huor] per QS77and “Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin”.

{Pengolodh}[Pengoloð] per ‘Eldarin Hands, Fingers, and Numerals’. Discussed in this thread.

{Place of the Gods}[Place of the Ainur], decided here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=124035&highlight=ainion#post124035)

{Rodnor}[Ereinion] per the ‘Shibboleth’. Discussed in this thread.

{Rodothlim}[Elves of Nargothrond] per QS77.

{Saeros}[Orgol] per CoH

{Salgant}[Talagand] per “The Eytmologies”, decided here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=124035&#post124035)

{Sorontur}[Sorontar] per “The Etymologies” (under THOR-, THORON-) and “The Wanderings of Húrin” in The War of the Jewels (HoME 11).

{Sarn Athrad} and {Sarnathrod}[Athrad Daer] per 'Of Maeglin'.

{Silver Bowl}[Dimrost] per QS77.

{Tarin Austa}[Gates of Summer], decided here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=124035&#post124035)

{Taur-na-Fuin}[Taur-nu-Fuin] per QS77

{Tauros}[Tauron] per LQ

{Tavros} [Tauron] per LQ

{Teiglin}[Taeglin] per WH note 55.

{Tengwethil}[Taniquetil] per QS77

{Thargelion}[Talath Rhúnen] or [Dor-Caranthir] per HoME XI

{Thingódhel}[Pengoloð] per ‘Eldarin Hands, Fingers, and Numerals’. Discussed in this thread.

{Thorn Sir}[Sîr Thoron], discussed here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=124035&#post124035) and here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=592577&highlight=thorn#post592577)

{Thornhoth}[Thoronhoth] This latter is the probable correct Sindarin form.

{Throndor}[Thorondor] per QS77and LR.

{Thu} [Sauron] or [Gorthaur] per LR.

{Tinwelint}[Thingol] per LR.

{Tower of Ingildon}[Tower of Nimras] per QS77.

{Tumladin}[Tumladen] per QS77.

{Tun}[Túna] per QS77

{Umboth-Muilin}[Aelin-uial] per QS77 and UT

{Úrin}[Húrin] per LR.

{Valmar}[Valimar] per LR

{Ylmir}[Ulmo] per QS77

[gondowe]

Hello. Regarding TNoME Part II, IV. Could we consider Finwain as the last name of Gil-Galad?

Greetings

[Findegil]

Yes, I think the late source given by gondowe does mean that the father-name of the Elve mostly known by his epesse 'Gil-galad' was 'Finwain'.

I will have to search our text to see which older alternatives 'Finwain' has to replace.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Huinesoron]

Not my region of the forum (I haven't the patience!), but I wanted to drop in and mention that NoME might also change your conclusions on Maelor: 3.VII Manwe's Ban uses that form of the name, and is written on papers from 1970. It's also linked by CH to PoME XII.1 Glorfindel II, which CT implies dates from late 1972.

The timeline of the Maelor texts would thus be:

-1955+: The Lay of Leithian Recommenced. Both Maglor & Maelor as written, the latter ultimately being preferred
-1958+: Late change to Later Quenta Silmarillion 2. Maglor > Maelor
-1966+: Return of the King note. Maelor
-1968+: Shibboleth of Feanor [1 footnote + VT41 'Sindarizing']. Maglor
-1972: Manwe's Ban. Maelor

Galin noted back in 2011 that CT implies the story of Amrod being burnt only arose during the writing of the Shibboleth; as the RotK note makes mention of that story, it would seem to be post-Shibboleth.

hS

[Findegil]

Since the decision in the case of Maglor/Maelor was taken due to timing consideartions, I agree that with the new information from NoME we have to switch again back to Maelor.

But before I undertake that work in my working copy, I would like to hear an agreement from at least some members.

Respectfully
Findegil

[gondowe]

For my part I agree with the the two name changes. Besides I think they are of better logical.
MAEdros with MAElor and Finwain closer to Finellach in Aldarion.

Greetings

Editing. Now I have been thinking when revising my glossary. If the mother name of Maelor is Makalaure per the Shibboleth, I am not sure if Maelor could derive in Sindarin from Makalaure. But Maglor fits well independently of timing. I woldl like an autorithative opinion of someone expert on language.

[gondowe]

A simple question. Ambar or Imbar?, or both are valid?
Speaking of the last Tolkien idea of course.

Greetings

[Findegil]

Up to now we used 'Ambar'. But without any discussion and 'Imbar' never came up in our source texts used so far.

A quick search gave the following clear statemnet from Myths Transformed; Text II:There are features in the present text that clearly associate it with
the Commentary on the Athrabeth (see notes 2 and 3 below), among them the use of the name Arda to mean the Solar System; but while the Earth itself is in the Commentary named Imbar it has here the older name Ambar.So it should be 'Imbar' throught out our whole text. We used it so far only once and in the compound 'Ambarcanta' but it is on the Maps and Diagrams.

Thank you gondowe for catching this!

Respectfully
Findegil

[ArcusCalion]

I am not sure we should adopt the switch. We have extensive linguistic attestation for the development and process of producing Ambar, but none for Imbar. In the text itself, he still uses Ambar, and Imbar only appears here as far as I am aware. It may be a valid alternative to Ambar, but I do not see the need or the reason to change all Ambar to Imbar.

But if we only use it once as Fin said, it may be not much of an issue. However, there is more use of it in the Volume 3 texts.

[Arvegil145]

Shouldn't Sador be changed to Sadog, as per 'Of Dwarves and Men' (c. 1969) from The Peoples of Middle-earth, p. 309? (Also, shouldn't he be a Druadan according to the same text?)

Additionally, there is strong evidence that the characters of 'Magor' and 'Hador' should switch places, in that Hador becomes the grandfather of Magor, and not the other way around as it has been presented in most writings. This is largely because Tolkien wanted Hador to become the Lord of Dor-lomin earlier than in the published Silmarillion. This information comes from 'Of the Kindreds and Houses of the Edain' from the 'later Quenta' - namely, from some of the later revisions to it, found in The War of the Jewels, pp. 225-6.

Here is a quote from 'The House of Hador' genealogy commentary by CT:

In hasty pencillings on Hador table II the note saying that Magor and Hathol served no Elf-lord but dwelt near the sources of Teiglin, and that Hador was the first lord of Dor-lómin, was struck out; while at the same time Hador Lorindol first lord of Dorlómin was written above Magor (the Sword), and Magor Dagorlind the Sword singer in battle above Hador Lorindol. This reversal has been seen already in emendations made to the carbon copy only of the text of the chapter (pp. 225-6, §§16, 31-2 - where my father changed Glorindol, not to Lorindol, but to Glorindal). That this was not an ephemeral change is seen from the Athrabeth, where Adanel is the sister of Hador Lorindol, not of Magor.

This note, I believe, dates from c. 1959/1960.

[Findegil]

Hello Arvegil,

the change of Sador to Drûg we discussed once upon a time. In the end we deciseded that for us this planed change was unworkable. The argument was twofold: On the one hand we did not see how to integreate the background story why in th ehousehold of Húrin a Drûg would be found. And even more improtant we were sure that with the change to a Drûg the charachter backgriund would have changed. Sure enough a Drûg would be a good woodcarver, but would he have still maintained the krippling in youth by a missed blow of an axe? Probabaly not because being and Drûg already meant having a mis-shapened body in the eyes of the surounding comunity. And being so special meant that the Drûg that came with Hareth would probably always stay as house carls by her and her famaly and never go as carpenters into the woods. And would he survive into the service of Brodda? Dificult as we know that the Orks that terrorised the land after the incomming of the Easterlings hated the Drûg. And the Drûg were short lifed, so either Sadog might life up to Túrins return or he might have fought the Bagorlach.
In the end we had too many unanswered questions to work out that change. And in that vein I think we decisede against the name change {Sador}[Sadog] because we thought that it was connected to the charachter change.

{Hador Lorindol}[Magor Dagorlind the Swordsinger] & {Magor the Sword}[Hador Glorindal} is quiet a diffrent kettle of fish. I think what stayed our hand their was that Hador is named 3 times in LotR. But looking deeper into this, it does not prevent the change: He is named as one of 'the mighty elf-friends of old' as 'the Goldenhaired' and as the head and name giver of 'the Third House of the Edain'. But all that he can still be even if he switched the position in the genealogy with Magor.

It would switch Hador to the same generation as Haleth, which might be considered a pro argument since it means the Second and Third House are named at roughly the same time. But for sure Hador would keep his role to collect the House in Dor-Lomin and with that we would skip the settekemnt in the south of Ered Wethrin - not bad, since who later ever journey throught that region (Turin four times, Tour) never found any sign of that settelment.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

So, how about we change Hador with Magor already?

Lol, I know this forum generally has the speed of a 100 year old snail, but still - no post for almost a year?!

Are you folks ok? (says a guy who hasn't posted on the downs for 7 years...)


Also, Hiril, Beren's sister mentioned only once in a late Edain genealogy is 'canon' (lord, I hate that word :()

[Arvegil145]

Speaking of genealogies - will they appear at some point in the finished work?

Because I'd gladly volunteer to make them: ALL of them - I love making family trees! Spent years meticulously, painstakingly getting them right, to the point of borderline obsession.

[Arvegil145]

Also, you should change Ingwion to Ingwil - according to 'The Nature of Middle-earth': the text that mentions the name 'Ingwil' is from c. 1959, while the one in 'The War of the Jewels' that mentions 'Ingwion' is from c. 1957/1958.

[Findegil]

Does it only look like that or do the others avoid this thread?

{Hador Lorindol}[Magor Dagorlind the Swordsinger] & {Magor the Sword}[Hador Glorindal} I already hasitating agreed to this change, but I would like some other opinions here as well.

{Ingwion}[Ingwil] Agreed, good catch.

About genealogies: We have a chapter for them in volume III. But so fare we (as a group) have only worked on the content list in that part. I do not know what ArcusCalion has done on them already.

But I would like to add a warning here: The project tries to eddit Tolkiens work not to perfectionat it. I have my self made genealogies spanning from the first generation of Men to Eldarion and his unnamed sistern, but since Tolkien never made anything alike that, they clearly do not fit here.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Aiwendil]

I agree about {Ingwion}[Ingwil].

The Hador/Magor issue is a big change, and I'd like to personally scour HoMe a little bit to satisfy myself about it. I agree, however, that the mentions of Hador in LotR are not a problem.

[Arvegil145]

I agree about {Ingwion}[Ingwil].

The Hador/Magor issue is a big change, and I'd like to personally scour HoMe a little bit to satisfy myself about it. I agree, however, that the mentions of Hador in LotR are not a problem.

IMO, the only significant change to Hador/Magor swap is that Tolkien never provided the exact date that Hador became the Lord of Dor-lomin in the later conception (in the earlier one, it was in FA 416, I think).

But, assuming that the dates of the Hador/Magor swap remained the same, that would place the establishment of the Lordship of Dor-lomin in FA 367 (since in the earlier conception Hador became the Lord at age 26 in FA 416, and in the later conception he is essentially given Magor's date of birth: FA 341).

I hope all of this made sense...

[gondowe]

Hello everybody. How are you folks? I've out of this web since the Concerning...the Hoard revolution. But I read this updates now and only want to make my opinion about this name changes.

Of course I agreed about Inngwil but... this is a fast thinking.

In its time I considered the matter of Magor/Hador change, but, refresh me if I'm wrong: as I include a Tale of years of first age, the change of this names, wouldn't mean a reinvent of born years and year lines?, in spite of possibly the last known desire of Tolkien but never developed in narrative that feed the change.
Well, I possibly must re-study the texts but, a priori, I'm not agreed with this.

Greetings

[Arvegil145]

Hello everybody. How are you folks? I've out of this web since the Concerning...the Hoard revolution. But I read this updates now and only want to make my opinion about this name changes.

Of course I agreed about Inngwil but... this is a fast thinking.

In its time I considered the matter of Magor/Hador change, but, refresh me if I'm wrong: as I include a Tale of years of first age, the change of this names, wouldn't mean a reinvent of born years and year lines?, in spite of possibly the last known desire of Tolkien but never developed in narrative that feed the change.
Well, I possibly must re-study the texts but, a priori, I'm not agreed with this.

Greetings


1) Earlier idea:

- Magor (born in 341)
- Hathol his son (born in 365)
- Hador Lorindol, Hathol's son (born in 390; became the Lord of Dor-lomin in 416; died in Dagor Bragollach in 455; husband of Gildis and the father of Gloredhel, Galdor and Gundor)


2) Later idea:

- Hador Lorindol (born in 341; and at some undisclosed date becomes the Lord of Dor-lomin*; he also receives the Dragon-helm at a much earlier date)
- Hathol, Hador's son (born in 365)
- Magor Dagorlind, "the sword-singer in battle", Hathol's son (born in 390; became the Lord of Dor-lomin after his father Hathol's unknown date of death; died in Dagor Bragollach in 455; husband of Gildis and the father of Gloredhel, Galdor and Gundor)


In other words, Tolkien simply switched the names 'Magor' and 'Hador' in the genealogical table of the 'House of Hador': i.e. he gave Hador's dates and deeds to Magor, and vice versa (except the Lordship of Dor-lomin!) - it's really not a monumental change.





*footnote - if going by the age at which Hador became the Lord of Dor-lomin in the earlier conception (aged 26), Hador should become the Lord of Dor-lomin in 367 (i.e. 341 + 26 = 367) in the later conception - but this is just speculation


P.S. It also makes far more sense for Hador, the original Lord of Dor-lomin, to be the son of Malach Aradan, who spent much of his life serving Elven lords: to the point of adopting an Elvish name ('Aradan') and naming his children in Elven tongue ('Adanel' and 'Hador').

[gondowe]

I was reviewing the texts and I am going to try to explain my line of thought. But correct me if I'm mistaken in points.

For some time now, I tend to emphasize the dates on which the texts and corrections and notes are supposedly written. I suppose you will agree with me that many of these situations are undatatable and more so after the publication of TNoME in which other dates are given by Hostteter to some texts.

With respect to the Hador/Magor matter, we are supposed to be talking about this reversal of history as contained in hasty pencil notes to a c.1959 text, (WJ, 229, 233), and corrections to these notes we cannot know when they were made.

We also know from experience that Tolkien tended to vary his views frequently in later years, or to forget some changes that occurred to him at another time. The thing is, while Tolkien probably intended to swap Magor for Hador, he too probably forgot or changed his mind again.

An example, in my opinion, is Of Dwarves and Men (c.1967-1970, because, as CT said, the fact that the texts were written on 1968 calendars is not a terminus a quo, but rather means that they were written from that date onwards) in POME, 307 where "Hador... the chieftain who commanded... when first entered Beleriand". That is to say, that here he returns to the initial conception (or in other words, it could be said that Hador was Marach).

Another example would be TNoME, 323 where in a text from c.1965 it says that "... Eärendil (son of Tuor, the great-great-grandson of Hador)" where if this g-g-gs refers to Eärendil the genealogy is the habitual, and if he refers to Tuor, Hador I think he would be in the position of Hathol, not Magor (probably a mistake of the Professor so common in him, although we do not know if by default or excess).

What I want to say with all this is that, in my humble opinion, in a case with as much tradition as this and there being a "finished" narrative that implies, in addition to the QS, the Narn, the Tale of Years and the Athrabeth, the data about the supposed dates of the texts make us be, at least a little prudent. But it's just my opinion.

By the way, I've not found in this forum (correct me again if I'm mistaken) a proposal change in two names:

Dor Daedeloth> Dor-na-Daerachas per WJ, 183, 187, 338-9
Dor Firn i guinar > Dor Gyrth i chuinar per Letters no 332.

Greetings

[Arvegil145]

I was reviewing the texts and I am going to try to explain my line of thought. But correct me if I'm mistaken in points.

For some time now, I tend to emphasize the dates on which the texts and corrections and notes are supposedly written. I suppose you will agree with me that many of these situations are undatatable and more so after the publication of TNoME in which other dates are given by Hostteter to some texts.

With respect to the Hador/Magor matter, we are supposed to be talking about this reversal of history as contained in hasty pencil notes to a c.1959 text, (WJ, 229, 233), and corrections to these notes we cannot know when they were made.

We also know from experience that Tolkien tended to vary his views frequently in later years, or to forget some changes that occurred to him at another time. The thing is, while Tolkien probably intended to swap Magor for Hador, he too probably forgot or changed his mind again.


I should have mentioned this in my last post, but I forgot: the decision to swap Magor with Hador is incorporated into the Athrabeth. As CT says:

In hasty pencillings on Hador table II the note saying that Magor and Hathol served no Elf-lord but dwelt near the sources of Teiglin, and that Hador was the first lord of Dor-lomin, was struck out; while at the same time Hador Lorindol first lord of Dorlómin was written above 'Magor (the Sword)', and "Magor Dagorlind the Sword singer in battle" above 'Hador Lorindol'. This reversal has been seen already in emendations made to the carbon copy only of the text of the chapter (pp. 225-6, §§16, 31-2 - where my father changed 'Glorindol', not to 'Lorindol', but to 'Glorindal'). That this was not an ephemeral change is seen from the 'Athrabeth', where Adanel is the sister of Hador Lorindol, not of Magor.

[gondowe]

Yes, I know. But, still in my opinion, as the Athrabeth is of the same time, it could only reveal that the swap is a thought of this years 1958-59 (or the unknown date of the pencilled notes) and that perhaps later was forgotten or rethought.

Greetings

[Arvegil145]

Yes, I know. But, still in my opinion, as the Athrabeth is of the same time, it could only reveal that the swap is a thought of this years 1958-59 (or the unknown date of the pencilled notes) and that perhaps later was forgotten or rethought.

Greetings

A lot of 'ifs', 'coulds', 'maybes'...

Do I think that it's possible that Tolkien changed his mind later on? Certainly. But you can make the same argument about half of the stuff that we included in 'The New Silmarillion' - especially the names: Tolkien kept changing those all the time as if he was changing his socks!

Also, I'm quite aware that Tolkien in his late years had a habit of just inexplicably changing some elements of the story, the most egregious example of it being IMO the fact that he seems to have totally forgotten about the existence of Fingolfin in the notes to the 'Maeglin' text!


However, in the absence of any concrete, textual proof that he reverted back to the older idea, the evidence is pretty clear: the latest texts dealing with the subject of Hador's family tree have him as the son of Malach Aradan and brother to Adanel.

[Findegil]

Arvegil145 you convinced me at least. I suport the change. It will make same toilsome reading to bring to trough, but as you siad, we addopted changes with less clear evidence.

Respectfully
Findegil

[gondowe]

Ok. The ifs, coulds and maybes are only in order to be prudent. With the years I learned to be so.
I only wanted to share my opinion.
I do think that there are proofs that it was not his last idea about the matter as wrote in my previous post. But if you are convinced it's ok, go on.

Greetings.

[gondowe]

By the way. About Dor-na-Daerachas and Dor-Gyrth-i-chuinar. Were they discussed? If not, what do you think?

Greetings

[Arvegil145]

By the way. About Dor-na-Daerachas and Dor-Gyrth-i-chuinar. Were they discussed? If not, what do you think?

Greetings

I just checked both, and I agree. They are from very late sources (1970 + ), and I can't find any examples where he reverted back to the other forms.

[Findegil]

Dor-na-Daerachas and Dor-Gyrth-i-chuinar: Could one of you give us a bit more of context here. What is the source for these changes? Of course we all have a bundle of source text that we could search to find out, but I at least have some other work at hand (some even for this project). And since you Gondowe has brought them up, you could have given the information without any work more than writing a few lines here. And you Arvegil145 seems to have looked them up anyhow. So why not charing a bit more than only the final result and making life easier for all other participants?

Respectfully
Findegil

[Arvegil145]

Dor-na-Daerachas and Dor-Gyrth-i-chuinar: Could one of you give us a bit more of context here. What is the source for these changes? Of course we all have a bundle of source text that we could search to find out, but I at least have some other work at hand (some even for this project). And since you Gondowe has brought them up, you could have given the information without any work more than writing a few lines here. And you Arvegil145 seems to have looked them up anyhow. So why not charing a bit more than only the final result and making life easier for all other participants?

Respectfully
Findegil

I apologize, I was busy with other stuff too when I posted my reply to gondowe.

1) 'Dor Gyrth i chuinar' comes from the 'Letter 332' (just at the end) written in January of 1972:

But now she has gone before Beren, leaving him indeed one-handed, but he has no power to move the inexorable Mandos, and there is no Dor Gyrth i chuinar, the Land of the Dead that Live, in this Fallen Kingdom of Arda, where the servants of Morgoth are worshipped. . . . .


2) 'Dor-na-Daerachas' comes from The War of the Jewels, 'Of Beleriand and Its Realms', Note 30 to the 'North-eastern' section of the map of Beleriand, p. 187:

B 12 to A 13 'read (71) Dor-na-Daerachas': the number 71 oddly but certainly refers to the year 1971; the addition is very late, since it does not appear on the photocopy of the map used by my father c.1970 (see p. 330 and note 1, also p. 191, after §74).

[gondowe]

Findegil. In my previous post I had given the sources. The same as Arvegil.

Greetings

[Arvegil145]

Findegil. In my previous post I had given the sources. The same as Arvegil.

Greetings

I think Findegil wanted to see the actual quotes from these texts, and not just the references, but maybe I'm wrong.

[gondowe]

If it is so. I must apologize.
I'm also very busy and I usually write in the forum from my work when I have time. And in that posts I had only the notes taken from my books and waiting for a moment of inactivity to write.
So sorry from my part.

Greetings

[Findegil]

Oops, gondowe, sorry I didn't look back at your previous posts, other wise I wouldn't have asked for more info, but I appriate the qoutes nonetheless, so thank you Arvegil145.

Having that setteld: I agree to both changes and it will now be an easy task to take them up into the list and work them out through every text in my working copy to get them in any future posting.

Respectfully
Findegil