View Single Post
Old 08-19-2017, 11:32 AM   #13
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,301
Findegil is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
About the change Finarfin -> Arfin: We have no hint that Tolkien would have made such a change in the course of such a long text. On the conteray, if consequently made, we would have to use in the Valinorien part of The Translation from the Elvish the Quenya names and after the anouncement of Thingol that his poeple should not answer to anyone using Quenya we would have to change them all to the Sindarin names. But again nothing of that is seen in the slightes way in all the texts we have. It is in the linguistical texts that Tolkien does explain such things. That is were they belong and in such I would also include them in our work. The sole exceptions that comes to mind are Melkor/Morgoth or Nienor/Niniel. And of these Nienor/Nieniel is a special case since it is only in a relativly short text where she is one of the main charachters. Melkor/Morgoth remains as the sole example, but he is again a main charachter and his name is omnipresent in the texts. Therefore that change is by no means detoriating the readability. Or let's say the reader will easily recognise the charachter before and after the change being very soon used to both names. That definitly would be different with Arfin. And an editorial note explaining to the reader a dificulty that we put ourself into the text is completly unaccatable in my understanding of the rules this project has given itself.

And there comes to mind this passge from the Shibboleth: '... FŽanor is the form nearly always used in histories and legends, but is as it stands only half Sindarized: the genuine Sindarin form was Faenor; the form FŽanor (the Ž is only a device of transcription, not needed in the original) probably arose through scribal confusion, especially in documents written in Quenya, in which ea was frequent but ae did not normally occur.[/quote]If we follow Arvegil145's call for consitency, would that mean to change 'FŽanor' in the Valinorian part to 'FŽanaro' and afterwards to 'Faenor'. But than consitancy is lost instade of gained since 'FŽanor' is included three times in The Lord of the Rings where we can not change it. But was only to amphasis what I said before.
I realy quoted that passages because it shows the key argument why this change is unnessesary: 'the form always used in histories and legends' What we work on equaly if we allowed it an feign existance in Middle-earth or not, is such a 'historie or legend'. Therefore (at least in my view) it would even be possible to use the phrase 'the House of Hador' to describe a member of the leading family of the second clan that was born befor Hador.

But on that special cases of AFA-14 and AFA-15 I am willing to accept a change. What about 'from the People of Marach'? That phrase is used already at the begining of the Athrabeth, so it is a bit less specific since it is not restriced to the leading family to which Adanel belonged.

Findegil is offline   Reply With Quote