View Single Post
Old 10-09-2005, 04:54 PM   #7
Aiwendil
Late Istar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
Aiwendil is a guest at the Prancing Pony.Aiwendil is a guest at the Prancing Pony.
Comments up to NA-RG-37 and discussion


NA-RG-25, -26, -27: These are rather problematic. For the first, we might try:

Quote:
Flight he sought not at NA-RG-25{Flinding}[the Noldo] leaping
Though I think "Noldo" sounds a bit awkward in that context.

But for NA-RG-26 and -27 I'm completely at loss. If I stare at them long enough, I suppose I might come up with something.

NA-RG-29:
Quote:
Though NA-RG-29{Flinding}[the Freind] shook him, he felt it not:
"Friend" has no apparent referent here, since Beleg is dead, and Gwindor is not yet Turin's friend. Maybe:

Quote:
Though NA-RG-29{Flinding}[the Noldo] shook him, he {felt} knew it not:
NA-RG-30: Maybe:
Quote:
NA-RG-30{Flinding}[Gwindor] {go-Fuilin}[son of Guilin] with {fear} [grief] speechless

NA-RG-31: Maybe:
Quote:
NA-RG-31{Flinding}[Gwindor] {go-Fuilin} the faithful{-hearted}, Guilin's son
NA-RG-32:
Quote:
NA-RG-32{Flinding}[Fierce] answered he, and fear left him
I think this is good, but it might be better phrased thus:

Quote:
NA-RG-32{Flinding}[Fierce] he, answered and fear left him
NA-RG-32.5: I think I'd make this:
Quote:
Fainting NA-RG-32.5{Flinding}[Gwindor] there fought with him,
. . . leaving simple alliteration.

NA-RG-33: I think we could use:
Quote:
did NA-RG-33{Flinding}[Gwindor] fashion; where he fell sadly {1400}
That is, if I'm correct about X A A X lines being acceptable. If not, we could simply rearrange it:

Quote:
{did} NA-RG-33{Flinding}[Gwindor] fashioned; where he fell sadly {1400}
NA-EX-47.5:
Quote:
NA-EX-47.5{His bow laid he black beside him,}[Belthronding his bow laid he black beside him]
Now I'm going to show my ignorance of Sindarin (Quenya's more my thing) - I'm not sure whether "Belthronding" is stressed on the first or the second syllable. If it's on the second, and if I'm wrong about X A A X lines being permissible, then we'd have to rearrange it thus:

Quote:
NA-EX-47.5{His bow laid he black beside him,}[His bow Belthronding laid he black beside him]
NA-RG-35: I agree that "Great" is clear here, and is better than Valar since it retains the crossed alliteration.

NA-RG-36: If we follow my earlier suggestions then we can simply un-capitalize "friend" here:
Quote:
but for NA-RG-36{Flinding }the faithful [friend] he had fared to death,
NA-RG-37: Here I'm tempted to use "Elf" rather than Noldo, and accept simple alliteration:
Quote:
Renewed in that NA-RG-37{Gnome}[Elf] of Nargothrond {1425}
On to the old discussion:

Findegil wrote:
Quote:
This was before my time here, but I have of course read it. I have some concerns about it: I agree that it is nice "artistically to retain the original variation Gnome/Gnomes and Noldo/Noldoli". But I don't think Elves is a good replacment for Gnomes. The beter choice would as a replacment for "Gnomes" would be "Displaced Noldor" or "Exiled Noldor" (would a valid short form for thsi bei "Exiles"?) and not "Elves". The Gnomes were a subgroupe of the Noldor. Thus what was done so far was to change a refference from a very special subgroupe to a very common overgroupe.
As jet the discussion had never again comeback to that issue but now I think we should think about it again.
"Exiled Nodor" could not often be used, since it is to blocky, but we should check it some times as a perfect replacment in sense.
Yes, "Elf" does not mean the same thing as "Gnome". But I think I agree with jallanite on this. "Noldo" and "Gnome" are different kinds of words; "Noldo" is a more formal, pedantic kind of term. In ordinary discourse it seems not to be used casually or colloquially, as a means of referring to a person. More often than not, the particular sense of "Gnome" (i.e. its literal meaning = exiled Noldo") is not relevant to the passage.

So I think that, while a sentence like "The Gnomes are exiles" must of course be rendered "The Noldor are exiles", a sentence like "The Gnome drew his sword" would be better rendered: "The Elf drew his sword."

Your suggestion of "Exile(s)" is an excellent one and I think it could be used in place of "Noldo(r)" in many cases of the former kind, and perhaps even in place of "Elf"/"Elves" in many cases of the latter.

NA-RG-02: Findegil wrote:
Quote:
I do not know if "Greats" was ever used for all the Valar. But here the reference is changed from a larger group to a subgroup of the fromer.
Reading this I'm not sure whether you agree with my preference for "Valar" here or not.

NA-SL-03:
Quote:
Is "Doriath" any better then "Thingol"?
I think "Thingol" is probably better, since "Doriath" introduces two extra syllables and "Thingol" only one.

NA-RG-07:
Quote:
of NA-RG-07{Flinding}[Guilin's son]{ go-Fuilin}? Shall free-born NA-RG-07.5{Gnome}[Gwindor]
The problem with this is that the alliteration is then A X X A. I'm fairly sure that simple alliteration with the last stress alliterating is not permissible. I could be wrong, though.

NA-SL-04: Sorry; I read this too quickly and thought for a moment it was describing their passage through the forest, not their journey to the forest in retrospect.

NA-TI-23: Again, sorry; I don't know what I was thinking when I read this before. You're right that we should delete the sentence since we just said the same thing.

About the spell names: It's difficult to know whether the Elvish is still valid, since we don't know what the names are supposed to mean. I'm not an expert on Sindarin phonology, but I suspect that "Ogbar" at least may be obselete. I will have to do some research.

But another point gives me some doubt about Beleg's spell. In the Lay he sings the spell because Turin's bonds cannot be cut by normal weapons. And it is by reason of the might of the spell that his sword cuts so easily through the fetters. But in our version his sword is Anglachel, already a mighty blade with strange powers. I cannot recall whether it is explicitly said that Anglachel and Anguirel are capable of cleaving iron, but considering the absence of the spell from later versions, it seems likely that the special nature of Beleg's sword was considered sufficient for the severing of the bonds.

I wish we had an expert in alliterative verse to help us with these sections. Two questions we must resolve are whether X A A X and A X X A alliteration are permissible. I can do some research on this, though I am at the moment separated from the one book I own that might have the answers.
Aiwendil is offline   Reply With Quote