|
So when I understand rightly what was said so far, than
- we all want to hold the discription of Yavanna as a tree, if we can find a good way to do so.
- we know that the passage under discussion is not a footnote but a verbal aside from Pengoloð to Ælfwine.
- we agree that Ælfwine is to be deleted and that therefore the passage can not stand as it is.
- we also agree that in the Ainulindale as we created it, is a footnote to §19 (not directly connected to the passage under discussion) that is asigned "Quoth Pengoloð."
With so much in common we should find a way out of our problem.
Aiwendil and Maedhros suggested to incooperat the passage into the text, by deleting the indications of the spoken communication. This would mean to make the observer of scene unkown and to give the actuel wording to Rumil. The advantage is that we hold the passage as a part of the text.
Antoine and I suggested to move the passage into a footnote. The advantage is that we could leave the passage in the mouth of Pengoloð without to much emendations in the passage itself. The disadvantage is that we lift a spoken word of Pengoloð to a writen word a scribed to or written by Pengoloð and that we creat a textual footnote (in contrast to editorial footnotes) which we have avioded so fare.
As I read the latest devolopments in the discussion, it seems to me that Aiwendil is now fighting against the use of the passage at all. I think that we should not do that. We are not dealing (as we often did within FoG) with an editorial additon from some old text. We are talking about Tolkiens last version of the Ainulindale written in a time when the Lord of the Rings was published (if I am not mistaken). So he left that passage and we should try the same.
I have no conclusion that would deliver that "gordicknot" put I would like here some more arguments why it is better to change the source of the passage than to move it. I am as jet not able to understand fully Aiwendils point of view.
Respectfully
Findegil
|