Quote:
Originally Posted by Puddleglum
Don't be so literal - Tolkien was a Philologist, not a Lawyer.
|
Exactly. Tolkien was a philologist. He knew the power of words, he knew the meaning of words, and he was very careful in his choice of words. I have trouble believe that a man who invented his own usable languages and wrote a guide to translating his books, would carelessly use the word "only" if it wasn't true. Everywhere else, he was careful to list if there were exception. And yet, he didn't do it in this case, which leads me to believe that Thingol was the only Calaquendi in Doriath.
Quote:
|
In Luthien's case, being the daughter of a Maia and a Caliquendi could have included her in the Elves-of-Light designation. But, even if not, it doesn't reduce who she was.
|
Where did I say that it did? The only thing I said was that she wasn't Calaquendi, and quite frankly, I don't think that lessens who she is. There's plenty of Calaquendi in the books, that I would judge to be worth far less then many of the Moriquendi. If somebody is judging a character on whether or not they are Calaquendi, then I'm not going to agree with them. Why is it important that some character be an Elda or one of the Calaquendi? Does anybody believe that the characters automatically become a lesser being for not being such?
Quote:
|
As far as Descendents are concerned, I'm not so sure that descendents of Caliquendi aren't also considered Caliquendi - is it said anywhere that (for ex) Erenion Gil-galad was not a Caliquendi (being son of Fingon)??
|
One - Gil-galad's parentage was likely not intended to be Fingon. Christopher Tolkien has admitted this was a mistake. Secondly, is it stated that he was? The definition states one thing, that they had to live in Valinor, and without evidence to the contrary, such as a line stating that so-and-so who didn't live in Valinor was one, I have to hold to the definition.