View Single Post
Old 06-18-2001, 11:16 AM   #35
Aiwendil
Late Istar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,129
Aiwendil has been trapped in the Barrow!
Ring

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 29
</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

Regarding Rog: The problem isn't that 'Rog' is unsuitable in later Quenya or Sindarin; on the contrary, it's found in the Sindarin compound 'balrog'. The problem is that it has a fairly clear meaning in modern Sindarin - 'Demon'. The Etymologies give RUK- as the root, with Q ranko and N rhaug. I think we can all agree such a name is unsuitable for an elf. The Gnomish lexicon gives 'rog' as 'doughty, strong', though CRT notes in BolT that it probably also meant 'fleet, swift'. Since 'strong' is the gloss that JRRT gives, however, I'd be inclined to think that Rog in FoG means 'strong'. Later Quenya for 'strong' might be *polda - at least, this is given in the Etym. (with stem POL-, POLOD- ) and is nowhere contradicted. Possible names from this stem might be Poldon (cf. saura, Sauron), Polwe (cf. Elwe, Finwe, Voronwe, etc.), or perhaps just Polda. Of these, my first choice would be to go with Poldon; the -we suffix seems to have been used mostly in older names (the notable exception being Voronwe).

Re: adding things from FoG to the 'later Tuor': I think there's a difference between adding things here and adding things to DoV, etc. The later Darkening of Valinor was considered by Tolkien merely part of the QS; there are thus many details that were left out that in a longer account would have been put in. With Tuor, we actually have what JRRT would have considered the detailed, full, account. I don't know if we should add details that he chose to leave out. Having said that, I agree in this instance that the detail would enhance the narrative - but on principle, I'm not sure if we should add it.

Quothe Lindil: I would prefere Quenya , an innovation i know but one that solves what i perceive as a problem w/ the least fuss, and it has precedent w/ Voronwe.

Aiwendil: It's definitely possible that the Legolas of FoG could have had a Quenya name in the later tale - however, this wouldn't solve the problem. It's the same name, whether its in Sindarin or Quenya, and if Thranduil cared enough not to name his son directly after someone from Gondolin, I don't think he would have been satisfied merely to translate the name into his own language. But I don't see a problem with reusing Legolas. Thranduil may have cared - but he may not have. And among Elves, I don't think the repetition of a name is necessarily meant as a tribute to the first person with that name, as it is among humans. We have Galdor repeated, without any indication that the 2nd was named for the 1st. Same thing for Gildor.

Re balrog numbers: I'm still not so sure that JRRT's note about 7 balrogs is valid. Even if we assume that only 2 died in the first age before the War of Wrath, leaving only 4 to die at Thangorodrim and 1 to escape to Moria, we still have a problem. The note says that probably no more than 7 ever existed - but then we have none to have been killed by the Valar in the War of the Powers. I think the 7 balrog note is a little like the one making Gil-Galad Fingon's son; it was no more than a passing thought. While it's true that there's nothing later to specifically contradict it, I don't think it can be taken without a grain of salt.

</p>
Aiwendil is offline   Reply With Quote