What makes the idea of an fottnote more bearable to me in these particular text ist the fact that we have a footnote in the original text, which does do exactly what we want do do with the remark about Yavanna seen as a tree: it provides a quote from Pengolodh.
But I am not all for a footnote here. I only wanted to make a clear statment that this obserfation came from Pengolodh and was not part of the text as given by Rumil.
If we all want to hold that nice pice of discription than I don't think we should so soon say there is no way. We are not in hurry, are we? So take it easy and think about it may be someone will come up with an emedation of the text that all are happy with.
Respectfully
Findegil
|