Quote:
|
I would ask this of Eruhen and Aiwendil and any others that feel competent to answer - I recall CRT saying that Eytm was updated through the early phases of the LotR. So that being the case, how obsolete are many of the entries when compared to LotR/ RGEO Elvish?
|
I feel only minimally competent to answer, but I'll try.
This is (of course) not a simple question. The Etymologies were apparently begun around 1937, making them roughly contemporary with
QS. They were evidently worked on through 1938 but with decreasing frequency; some work was done simultaneously with the few chapters of LotR, but by a year or two later they had been abandoned.
The question of the date is of course not the only one that needs to be considered. I think it is reasonable to say that Tolkien's languages changed less between 1937 and 1973 than they did between 1914 and 1937. The real question is: how closely does the Elvish given in the Etymologies resemble that of the LotR-era (when bits of Elvish were first put into print, and therefore "fixed")? To give a short answer to a long question: there is a fairly close resemblance. There are, of course, significant differences. I'm not an expert and I cannot provide a catalogue of these differences. Things like grammar were constantly fluctuating.
However, in two more important ways (for us), Etymologies-era Elvish was, I think, quite similar to later Quenya and Sindarin. These are phonology and etymology. Most of the Noldorin words given in Etym. are perfectly valid later Sindarin from a phonological viewpoint. Of course, this can only be asserted as far as we know the rules of later Sindarin phonology! There are, though, few definite phonological differences. The other close resemblance (though perhaps a little less close) is in etymology. Most of the roots given in Etym. appear to be valid later on. Working in the other direction, I'd say at least a good 50 percent of attested later Quenya or Sindarin words appear to come from roots given in Etym.
I am, as I have said, not an expert. I may have erred in my above assessment. If so, I welcome correction.
So, what does this mean for
Bad Uthwen? In my opinion, it makes
Bad (with circumflex) about 95 percent valid. The question is
Uthwen, which does not appear in the Etym. This does not mean that it had ceased to exist in 1937; Etym. is nowhere near a comprehensive etymological dictionary. It does mean, however, that we have no evidence for the existence of a word
uthwen later than the Lost Tales. On the other hand, there is, as far as I know, nothing to suggest that it was not valid later.
The question then is this: in the absence of later evidence, do we consider Lost Tales era word valid or invalid (unless someone can provide evidence against "uthwen")? It is my opinion that we should let it stand. That is, after all, what we have provisionally decided to do with, for instance,
Gwarestrin. I could see a case being made, though, that we should err on the side of not erring (if you take my meaning). That is, in questionable situations we should drop the term rather than including a word that may be questionable.
The answer then: undecided (as usual).
[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]