[Aiwendil]

Man-of-the-Wold wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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