[aravanessë]

Positive arguments? What is it? Arguments in favour of Legolas (not against the other suggestions) ?

My reason for this is not linguistcal but purely for reasons of possible interpretetion, which we should not contradict: I am not as sure as other members in the forum that Legolas of Gondolin and Legolas of Grennwood are diffrent elves. That is not saying that I am absoltue sure that they are one and the same, but I see a possibilty that they could be (and a chance much greater than one to a billion, which Lindil once mentioned). Therefore I think our text should be ambigious in this matter. That would allow a linguistcal change like {Legolas}[Laegolas] but nothing more.

I agree with the development, but more categorical in my conclusion. As you say, the two Legolas could be the same (even though the possibility is tenuous), it seems to me logical that they bear the same name, not a variant. The respect of the name in the elvish society is very important (See the ire of Fëanor against the change of Therindë/Serindë, or his jests about Hwëanáro/Hwinwë which should stand in vanyarin, or the ceremonies about names-attribution).
Moreover, a same name for two different persons is not so uncommon : Galdor seems to be in this case, but the name Ingoldo also, and a lot of Stewards (with heroes of First Age), Míriel, Ambarussa, Finwë, Maidros, Gildor, Haldir, Rúmil,… So why changing the name chosen by Tolkien ? And Oropher is from sindarin ascendancy and was born before the destruction of Beleriand (if my memory is good), he must know the story of Gondolin and Thranduil too, it could be reasonable to imagine him giving the name of this well-known hero to his son.

As an aside not: Is {Legolas}[Laegolas] a change in the spelling in the elvish script at all or is it just a change of pronounciation?

'Just' a change of pronunciation ? It is too much for me. And /ae/ and /e/ are written differently in tengwar, see the King's Letters. It is a change of the substance of the name, not only of the outside.

aravanessë, I did understand your argument agianst pure Sindarin, but I do not quiet agree to it. Noldorin as it was when The Fall of Gondolin was written, is clearly not the language JRR Tolkien later in his life envisaged for the Noldor in Beleriand to have ever spoken. Such a speech existed probably in Tolkiens mind, but it was not the earlier Noldorin of The Lost Tales. Any way it would be help full to hear your positive arguments for the change or no change for the name Legolas.

I'm not sure to understand… You want to say gnomish is not the language Tolkien envisage for the Noldor in the later texts? If it is this, I think it isn't a problem, we know gnomish and sindarin dialects, the languages adopted by the Noldor in Exil in later phases of composition, are close linked as for vocabulary, and we know Legolas is attested in gnomish and in sindarin.

It is long and difficult to speak English, and I can't express exactly what I want to say. Rhhhh !

aravanessë