View Single Post
Old 08-17-2003, 12:47 AM   #2
Maédhros
The Kinslayer
 
Maédhros's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Formenos
Posts: 658
Maédhros has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via MSN to Maédhros
Tolkien

A Former discussion about Rog:
Originally posted by Aiwendil:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We know Rog is probably wrong, that Tolkien would probably have changed it, but can we change it?
Originally posted by Aiwendil:

Quote:
I don't see a problem with the name 'Rog' as such - it is likely he would have changed it, but we do have examples of other primitive names that remained, e.g., Eöl. And we have Sindarin names that end in -g (Forwëg, for instance). Perhaps, then, we should leave it as it is, under the supposition that there is another root it's based on (though I have trouble imagining what root this might be; ROK- is given as 'horse').
__________________
"Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy."
Maédhros is offline   Reply With Quote