|
Morthoron
Hmm ... as to your comment below - you haven't looked hard enough:
"And for the record, Tolkien never mentioned his Trolls spoke Cockney; in fact, in perusing Tolkien's work I can't find him using the term "Cockney" in any manifestation. Never. Ever."
Obviously you are unfamiliar with one of Tolkien's works. Take a look below at an extract from Tolkien Studies 5 and my underlining and bolding.
Chaucer as a Philologist:*The Reeve’s Tale*†
J.R.R. TOLKIEN
[Read at a meeting of the Philological Society in Oxford*on Saturday,*16th May,
1931.]
" ... Plowman, where the meaning is “a small egg”. Later this word was especially
associated with London (or Londoners); but as it is never complimentary
in its application, one would naturally suppose that this use did
not develop in London, but in the East of England, which had the closest
connexion with the capital. The word can hardly be true to the dialect of
the “far North”, except as a loan, even apart from the fact that the North
used Scandinavian*egg*for English*eye,*aye.89*But Chaucer quite justly puts
it into the mouth of the Cambridge clerk. He does not wish when he gets
back to college to be called a daff, a cockney—he is, as it were, glossing
his more rustic*daff*with*cockenai, the sort of word he would easily pick up
in Cambridge; and it would be just the sort of criticism that a*testif and
lusty*north-countryman would most resent, to be called a “soft townee”."
It's a shame you're bowing out. From my part – I look forward to engaging in conversation despite your brusque demeanor.
Your seeming obsession with who I am is a little disappointing. Really it has no relevance to the debating material – namely Ms. Seth's literary articles. Whether I am a friend of Ms. Seth's or related to her shouldn't really matter. Frankly I have no interest in who you really are, but I'm kind of intrigued by the way you're fascinated with the:
'Don't you know my name' thing.
I have already stated that I proof-read her articles and also you might well guess I also engage in scholarly debate with her on the merit of her propositions. But what difference does that really make?
Anyhow – there are only c. half a dozen more articles on Ms. Seth's part to come. I had hoped that even if you didn't agree with some of her stuff – you would have understood the originality of her work. And acknowledged it too. And looked forward to the articles to come.
Can you imagine – if what she has written is mainly true – then how you, I & all the rest of Tolkien's fan base have failed to understand a large portion of the plot. How we have all failed to understand the academic foundations of some of the book's most fascinating chapters.
Those thoughts are somewhat humbling!
Perhaps an acknowledgement of how little we really know is too disconcerting and uncomfortable an admission for some of our egos to bear!
|