[jallanite]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Yes, it is. I have no reason why you are being not only hostile, but hostile over your incorrect parsing not my error.

I pointed out what you posted. I will do so again:

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), …

See http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...9&postcount=30.

First, the “the publication of The Lord of the Rings" occurred from 29 July 1954 to 20 October 1955. Your statement “probably the first half of the decade (that is, before the publication of the Lord of the Rings)” doesn’t even make sense in respect to the rest of your sentence.

But if I interpret your statement to mean that Ælfwine does not appear in any text postdating the publication of The Lord of the Rings, then the statement is simply wrong.

Setting aside the reference in Laws and Customs, which I had overlooked, …

One example of where you were wrong in your original post.

… 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.

I am aware of no “assertion” by me that is incorrect.

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.

On page 47 of Morgoth’s Ring Christopher Tolkien states:

This work [the Annals of Aman] undoubtedly belongs with the large development and recasting of the Matter of the Elder Days that my father undertook when The Lord of the Rings was finished (see p. 3).

On page 110 “Quoth Ælfwine” occurs. Christopher Tolkien notes on page 121:

This passage, from ‘But indeed a darker tale . . .’ and including the footnote, was struck out at a later time than the changes given in notes 5–7 and perhaps in revision of the text before the making of the typescript, in which it does not appear. The whole addition by Ælfwine is enclosed within brackets as originally written.

The removal of “Quoth Ælfwine” occurred in a later typescript and is discussed by Christopher Tolkien on page 127 §127.

On page 130 occurs the footnote: “* Marginal notes against Arien and Tilion: ‘dægred Æ’ and ‘hyrned Æ’.” I assume that “Æ” stands for Ælfwine and so does Christopher Tolkien on page 136 §172. Who else could be meant?

For “The Later Quenta Silmarillion (I)” Christopher Tolkien comments on page 191 his doubts on whether for the last three chapters of the Quenta Silmarillion his father was drawing on the Annals of Aman for the Quenta Silmarillion, or vice versa, and comes to the conclusion that all that can be proved is that they “were closely contemporary.” That is, these last chapters the Quenta Silmarillion was also being written following the publication of The Lord of the Rings. In chapter 6 occurs a footnote by Ælfwine mentioning Byrde Míriel.

* In fact, there are no A/P refs in GA; those few found in QS are "quoth Aelfwines" incorporated in the 1951 LQ1 typescript.

In fact, the last three chapters published in “The Later Quenta Silmarillion (I)” were not part of the 1951 typescript, but a later continuation of it in Tolkien’s handwriting, probably written about the same tine as The Annals of Aman. See page 184. I guess you missed that. Are you hoping that those reading will not recall the other examples I gave of the presence of Ælfwine in the chapter with the page heading “The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II)”?

A single "quoth" note in the AAm manuscript was struck out before the typescript was made.

Christopher Tolkien imagines this passage was struck out because his father changed his mind about the validity of this version of the origin of Elves. See page 123 §127. Since a footnote is later attributed to Æ and Ælfwine occurs in later texts, I very much don’t believe that the removal was, at this time, because Tolkien intended to remove Ælfwine from his mythology. I don’t see that this matters, as he still obviously did at least for a time consider Ælfwine valid following The Lord of the Rings, and following this removal.

Ainulindale D is no later than 1951.

Very true, but that has no relevance that I see. I never mentioned Ainulindale D in this thread.

What I originally posted at http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...6&postcount=31 was the following:

You are aware that Dangweth Pengolodh is dated by Christopher Tolkien as “cannot be later than the end of 1959,” that is, possibly written after “the first half of the decade.” And in The War of The Jewels (HoME 11) Ælfwine appears prominently in “The Annals of Aman”, “The Later Quenta Silmarillion (I)”, and “The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II)”, only the first of which Christoopher Tolkien dates even to the period before The Lord of the Riings was even fully published.

I admit the my mention of a year’s difference in dating for Dangweth Pengolodh was not worth mentioning but I still stand behind it and the rest of my statement, other than that my use of the word “prominently” is questionable. And I should have written “beginning of the first” instead of simply “first”and spelled Christoopher as Christopher.

Not hard, but inconvenient. You yourself admit one has to "look it up," even if it's not "hard" to do it.

Yes. And one may find oneself looking for a keyboard key that one seldom uses. I don’t see any difference. I do see that modern computers do not limit me to just the keyboard characters, so I choose not to be so limited. I find the vast number of characters I can use a delight, not an inconvenience.

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.

Can you prove your word ‘majority’? No don’t bother. It doesn’t matter to me and I suspect doesn’t matter to anyone here who chooses to use diacritics which the forum ediitor allows, or chooses not to. Might as well think that anyone will be swayed in their spelling if someone could prove that either colour or color was the preferred spelling of the majority.

See near the end of this post, http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...ostcount=1post, for an example where Mister Underhill assumes that listing one method of producing non-keyboard characters will be an aid to users. You might post your own diatribe that anyone who uses non-keyboard characters is being stupid. Trouble is, that would make you look stupid. Those who use non-keyboard characters don’t find using non-keyboard characters stupid or we wouldn’t be doing it.

Of course Mister Underhill’s example assumes that the user is using a Windows keyboard set for English, and his examples will not necessarily work for other languages, nor will they work for those using a Macintosh or Linux machine. I also find this Alt-key method over-complex for my taste.

I have in the past used several methods at different times. The user can switch to different virtual keyboards. The user may customize any keyboard to behave as they wish it to behave. The user may use a utility which replaces output values to two or more values with one new wished-for extra value. See http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/utilities.html for a list of various utilities.

Currently I usually use a free program WinCompose. See http://www.freewarefiles.com/WinComp...ram_98325.html. To include Æ one types ComposeKey A E. To include á one types ComposeKey a '. The ComposeKey is by default assigned to the right-Alt key.

It really does seem to bother you that I use utilities to type non-keyboard characters. That is not enough to make me stop. It bothers me that you don’t see that I was quite right in the presence of Ælfwine in three chapters in Morgoth’s Rings, but the mentions are there in the text, despite your attempts to claim that they aren’t. I did apologize for the presumed insult to Arvegil145. I do so again. I apologize to Arvegil145 for blaming him for not using an uppercase Æ in his spelling of Ælfwine.

But, I will not apologize for accurate statements. False claims that the forms aren’t there or were written earlier won’t make the forms go away.

While you're at it, do you plan to jump on the Tolkiens père et fils for writing Hrothgar rather than Hroðgar?

Certainly not! Why would I? That would be absurd, unless I were quoting a passage in which they themselves or someone else were using the form Hroðgar I probably wouldn’t use that form. Similarly I would not normally use the spelling Hꞃōðᵹāꞃ with real insular letters. Christopher Tolkien uses the spelling Ælfwine throughout and so I do. It seems to me to be silly not to do the same when the computer system allows it and it is so easy. And in real Old English æ and ae have different sounds, which is, I assume, why Christopher Tolkien, and I presume, his father, followed this distinction. Old English [æ] is pronounced as in Modern English cat. To pronounce the Old English ae as a diphthong I guess you would start with the [a] in father and end with the [ɛ] in let. But I’m no expert in Old English.

When typing ‘Ælfwine’, I suppose, unless Tolkien was using a special Varityper machine, he would have typed ‘AElfwine’.