Quote:
Originally Posted by jallanite
You posted: However, I am not aware of any text in which Aelfwine* appears that postdates the 1950s, probably the first half of the decade (that is, before the publication of the Lord of the Rings), …
The Lord of the Rings was published in three volumes over the course of a year from 29 July 1954 to 20 October 1955. Christopher Tolkien dates all the material in the sections headed “The Later QUENTA SILMARILLION (I)” and “The Later QUENTA SILMARILLION (II)” as following this, not “before the publication of The Lord of the Rings.”
I recognize and agree with your intended “point”, but that was not what you posted. |
Yes, it is. I have no reason why you are being not only hostile, but hostile over your incorrect parsing not my error. Setting aside the reference in Laws and Customs, which I had overlooked, all of the A/P references after the writing of the Lord of the Rings are to be found in those writings dating from Tolkien's renewed work on the Elder days following the writing of the LR circa 1950-52* (which includes, contra your assertion, the material titled by CT "The Later Quenta Silmarillion I"), with the exception of Dangweth Pengolodh, which CT is "inclined" to place "earlier in the decade rather than later," and the aborted preface to the Narn, of uncertain date but seemingly related to the Grey Annals.
In other words, there is simply no basis for your complaint; there are no known Aelfwines after the 1950s, and all of those (but for the exception you raised) can either be firmly dated to the period before 1954, or probably date from that period.
* In fact, there are no A/P refs in GA; those few found in QS are "quoth Aelfwines" incorporated in the 1951 LQ1 typescript. A single "quoth" note in the AAm manuscript was struck out before the typescript was made. Ainulindale D is no later than 1951.
Quote:
Gee whiz, I was only talking about one code, for ‘Æ’. And one hardly needs to hunt through tens of thousands of available codes, but only the codes used for producing the Latin script. Just look up ’Latin’ at http://www.unicode.org/charts/ or look up http://unicode.org/charts/collation/ for the characters in more-or-less normal order or look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_script_in_Unicode or many other sites.
[...]
You are trying to make it seem hard to code ‘Æ’ and naturally failing when Arvegil145 seems to have no problems finding the vowels with diacritics. Nor do you. But you now think it smart to show that you could use Unicode but refuse to do so.
it
|
Not
hard, but
inconvenient. You yourself admit one has to "look it up," even if it's not "hard" to do it.
It's not on the keyboard, and thus for me (and the majority of others) a PITA for casual posting. Your presuming to insult another's intelligence or knowledge on that basis is the sort of thing that gives "pedantry" a bad name.
While you're at it, do you plan to jump on the Tolkiens père et fils for writing
Hrothgar rather than
Hroðgar?