Everything I do not respond to I agree with.
EPE-EX-021.05: If the Noldor simply made Sindarin versions of their names then that would contradict what is said a sentence before the excerpt I gave:
Quote:
|
Thus the names of the Valar which they had devised in Valinor were not as a rule changed, whether they fitted Sindarin style or not.
|
This would mean that these Sindarin names are in origin from the Sindar themselves. On another note, whether the other names are considered no longer valid or not, how can the Sindar be said to know nothing of Ulmo, when he is said to have visited Nevrast often, and to have drawn the island with the elves (the people of Thingol chose to stay, so they saw him)? As for the sources for these names:
Ulmo = I could not find a source for these names, but he is given others in the Etymologies.
Aule = I actually cannot find a source for his, but I found other names in the Etymologies.
Yavanna = This name comes from the Etymologies, but is attested in the latest of writings, in "Of Lembas" in the compound:
Ivonwin: Maidens of Yavanna, as well as the Sindarin name for the month of Yavannie:
Ivanneth.
Mandos = This name comes from the Etymologies as the Sindarin equivalent.
Lorien = This name comes from an early essay on the Gnomish language found in Parma Eldalamberon.
Este = This name comes from Quendi and the Eldar in the Note on the Language of the Valar.
Tulkas = This name is from the Gnomish Lexicon, so it is quite old.
Vaire = This name comes from the Etymologies
Nessa = This name comes from the Etymologies
Of course, many of these names are not sourced from up-to-date texts, but the fact that the name of Yavanna occurs in a very very late writing and in the Lord of the Rings itself, along with the logical error that they would have no name for Ulmo, and the fact that Este is given a name in the late writing of Quendi and the Eldar all point to the fact that Tolkien had forgotten some facts about what he had published or what he had in mind changed back to its original state.
Thus, since this passage clearly cannot be said to be true, I suggest we revise it. Here is my suggestion:
Quote:
|
The Sindar knew little of the Valar EPE-EX-21.05 {and}[but] had {no} names for {any}[all] of them, editorial addition{save} [the most common of which were] Oromë (whom all the Eldar had seen and known); and Manwë and Varda of whose eminence they had been instructed by Oromë; and the Great Enemy whom the Noldor called Melkor. For Oromë a name had been made in Primitive Eldarin {(recalling the sound of his great horn)} of which Oromë was .....
|
I know this editorial addition is risky, and if you have a better suggestion I would love to hear it, as this seems like a clumsy solution.
EPE-EX-23.2: why was this reference needed? was it given in the base text? Either way I would remove it, as we have no other instances of this type of thing.
EPE-EX-3.1: All I could find was its use in a footnote (also in Shibboleth) but nowhere else in the HoME texts. I do not own Vinyar Tengwar or Parma Eldalamberon, so I cannot search those documents to see if they contain it. However, I would stick to Maiar if no actual etymology can be found for the later form,as Maiar has a developed etymology, and a clear meaning, whereas the later form is ambiguous.