[jallanite]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

LQII (if there is an Aelfwine reference in it; I can't find one) refers specifically to an amanuensis typescript which reflects the status of QS as emended between the earlier typescript and 1958- so, yes, that range extends past 1955, fine and so what. Nothing in "postdates the 1950s, probably the first half of the decade... and in no event later than, at the extreme, January 1960" is self-contradictory or in disagreement with what is known or deduced of the chronology, and certainly is in full accord with my point that there is no mention of Aelfwine which can be dated after or even within five years of the LR 2d Ed... and none which can with certainty be dated even to within a decade of it.

See pages 208–09 for the mention of Ælfwine in Laws and Customs Among the Eldar which is in the chapter with the page heading “The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II)”. On page 225 occurs the notation, “So spoke Ælfwine.” On page 257 Tolkien in another later essay under the same page heading includes a footnote from Ælfwine about Míriel Sirende.

These references to Ælfwine are also written following publication of The Lord of the Rings and are what I was talking about.

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.

Ligatures. Brain-poot. Sheesh!

Yes, Unicode is available; it's also a PITA for what is after all just casual messaging, not a matter for your professional publishers, past or present.

You ignore why Unicode is today essentially the sole set of protocols for language posting, universally. Casual messaging is hardly to be involved with numerous dead languages and minority languages, except in the sense that Unicode intends, in the future, to allow any language, no matter how much used or little-used it may be, to be printed.

It frankly was a bit pompous for you to insult a poster's command of English simply because he's not pedantic enough to go hunt down U+00C6 or Alt-0198 amongst all those tens of thopusands of available codes.

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.

If one realizes that ‘Æ’ and ‘æ’ were part of both the old MS-DOS Character set and the so-called Microsoft ANSI character set for Western Europe, and the original Apple-Macintosh character set one would realize that these two codes will be found early in the Unicode character set: so see http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0000.pdf and http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0080.pdf.

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.

I find it even more inexplicable that you would jump all over my post made in support of your contention!

I found your post inaccurate for reasons I have explained. You believed that your post supported my contention, but it did not. What you posted was not in agreement with my contention.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Come, come, jallanite, no one is asking you to give it up, but there probably isn't the need to correct people who may not be aware of or familiar with Unicode, or simply aren't sufficiently interested in going to the trouble of using it.

I normally do not remark on such things, when I even notice them.

However Arvegil145 in other places uses Tolkien’s diacritics properly, so it looks like he normally knows what he is doing in that area. As do most posters on this forum. I thought it somewhat amusing that a poster so concerned with what is proper Elvish should make such a silly error in Old English. I am sorry now that I commented on it