[lindil]

A.:

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

Agreed, the details [and the devil << or Rog [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] >> in them must be, it seems, labored over as much as JRRT or CJRT have done. We can't be perfect, given the gaps in: texts, understanding and ability, but we must do our best to be thorough.

Again from A.:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as I'm concerned our options are:

1. Leave "Rog".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________

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

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