I think (and I suspect that you agree) that this is not the place for in-depth arguments on Rog, Legolas, and mechanical dragons. Nor do the specific arguments in each case have much bearing on the present issue.
I think that we are in complete agreement on the fundamental point: there are certain pieces of implicit or soft evidence that should be considered in making our choices - like Christopher's statement about Rog and the fact that Legolas appears in LotR. I want to emphasize that I completely agree with you on this (though on how to interpret that evidence, and on what our choices should ultimately be, we of course may disagree).
I think that you, perhaps, still misunderstand me in one regard. Allow me to clarify a statement that I made earlier:
Quote:
|
That is, he [Christopher] did not simply decide that "Rog" was a bad name. He decided that it did not fit into later Sindarin.
|
I do not mean by this that he necessarily had hard evidence that "Rog" was unsuitable as later Sindarin. It may be that he simply felt the name was out of keeping with the sound of later names. This still entails an implied contradiction with later Sindarin. And I agree that in such a situation we are perfectly justified in making an argument (as Christopher does) based on such implied evidence. But we must not lose sight of the fundamental reason for the argument: a contradiction (even if not a direct one) with a text or texts of greater precedence.
I think that all three of the controversial changes fall under principles 1 and 2. "Rog" may be unsuitable because priority is to be given to the latest ideas found in Tolkien's writings - so later Sindarin takes precedence over Gnomish (#2). "Legolas" may be no good because first priority is given to published works (#1). Mechanical dragons may be unsuitable because they are not present in later works (#2).
The problem that I think you have with this, and one that I am sympathetic to, it that in none of those three cases is there
explicit contradiction with later, or with published, works. Both of our proposed principles solve this problem, and allow us to use implied evidence.
A small side-note: I don't think that we "danced around with Sindarin" in discussing Legolas. There was a completely separate Legolas>Laegolas substitution that had nothing to do with the main issue; but the main argument was whether the appearance of "Legolas" in LotR implied the disappearance of "Laegolas" from FoG.
Again, if when you return you could look at my proposal and express any specific objections to it, I would appreciate that. I favor it only because it spells out the point in greater detail, and forbids both making and rejecting changes with no reason at all. I know that this group is very careful and rational about all things, but that's no reason not to also be careful and precise in the principles.
I wonder if anyone else has had the endurance to put up with this debate? If so, comments or questions would be most appreciated.