Quote:
|
I wonder, do we have any other major point of conflict with the storyline?
|
I don't think so. So we will use option [b]c[{b]:
Quote:
|
Therefore gathering new forces in Nogrod FD-SL-18{and in Belegost} they returned at length, FD-SL-20c{ and aided by the treachery of certain Elves on whom the lust of the accursed treasure had fallen} they FD-SL-21a{passed into Doriath secretly. There they} surprised Thingol upon a hunt with but small company of arms and {Thingol was slain} < HoME11; [i]The Tale of The Years[i] {Somehow it must be}[somehow they] contrived [it] that Thingol {is}[was] lured outside {or induced to go to war beyond} his borders and {is}[was] there slain by the Dwarves. Then Melian {departs}[departed], and the girdle being removed Doriath {is}[was] ravaged by the Dwarves.>
|
RD-16 &
RD-17
Quote:
|
Yes, as I have read it now it is ambiguous as to which is which so I think that I would rather say dwarves of Nogrod.
|
Agreed. We can finde arguments for both, so we must let it ambiguous.
RD-21 Sarnathrod & Sarn Athrad to Harathrad
Agreed
RD-22 Lamp of Faëry to Silmaril (jewel of Fëanor) per Bolt II.
The blue lamps of the Noldor were discribed later when Beleg meets Gwindor and when Tour meets Arminas and Gelmir. Thus "Lamp of Eldamar" which is an proper update for "Lamp of Faëry" would be missleding in my view. But I am not sure if the phrase is still part of the (pruposed) text. Thus I can not look up the circumstances of its use, which I would like to know before we prupose a change. I am sure that the phrase was not often used even in
TN. Thus I don't think it is wourth a discussion about a general change.
RD-38 Agreed. (But it seems I have missed
RD-37.)
Respectfully
Findegil