View Single Post
Old 10-10-2017, 11:43 AM   #11
Findegil
King's Writer
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,340
Findegil is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
This comparision is a difficult task. I will try to order the differences by occurrence and give some editing mark or some such as reference, so that the discussion might be at least easier to follow.

Happyly we both have chosen in this case the same basic text found in Sil77 page 16-17.

DE-SC-01 / AD-01: we added both these opening back in, but you toke up a bit too much. In your Version ‘It is told that in their beginning the Dwarves were made by Aule in the darkness of Middle-earth; for so greatly did Aule desire the coming of the Children, to have learners to whom he could teach his lore and his crafts, that he was unwilling to await the fulfilment of the designs of Iluvatar.’ is redundant.

AD-02 to AD-05: I was not so clear about this changes. Was it really all instances that Tolkien changed? If you think so, we can take these changes up into our common version.

DE-EX-01 to DE-EX-07: All these expansions of my draft Aiwendil did decised against or did not consider.

AD-06: The change reporte here is done in Sil77. Therefore I did not mention it.

AD-07: In my version I created a much fuller account of the rebirth of the fathers with DE-EX-10 to DE-EX-12. But I positioned it differently.

In the darkness of Arda already the Naugrim wrought great works, …: This passages I did not take up into this chapter. I tried to use as small a portion of ‘Concerning the Dwarves’ to use it later in its proper place.

DE-EX-07 / The Naugrim were ever, as they still remain, ...: This paragraph from AD both have taken up into the draft.

The father-tongue of the Dwarves Aulë himself devised for them, ...: This passages I did not take up into this chapter. I tried to use as small a portion of ‘Concerning the Dwarves’ to use it later in its proper place.

In their own tongue the Dwarves name themselves Khazâd; ...: This passages I did not take up into this chapter. I tried to use as small a portion of ‘Concerning the Dwarves’ to use it later in its proper place.

AD-08: I did a change in this passage of course, but quite differently. See the thread about ‘The Siege of Angband’.

AD-09: I did not take up this reference to Pengolod, but we might consider it. BY the way was {Pengolod}[Thingódhel] a decision taken by the project? I can’t remember.

DE-EX-09 to DE-EX-12: All these expansions of my draft Aiwendil did decised against or did not consider.

Sub-title: Aiwendil used the English title first and the Elvish second, while I did it the other way around. Since both were written of difrent amanuensis typescripts, we are completly free to chose, or was an other idea beyond your choice, Aiwendil?

DE-SC-04 / EE-01: These change was done in both versions. So I assume we agree on it.

DE-SC-05: this footnote found in HoMe 11 explaining ‘kelvar’ was not taken up by Aiwendil into his draft.

EE-02: This change from Iluvatar to Eru I missed in my Version, so I agree that it should be made.

DE-SC-06: This halfsentence was omitted from Sil778 because Christopher Tolkien thought it might imply that the sun was already in existence when Manwë thought about the Ents. This might have been Aiwendils reason not to include it as well. But since that vision is anyway a look into the future, I don’t think the omission is necessary. By the way I wrongly dedicated the source here as HoMe 12, as a matter of fact it is HoMe 11.

DE-SC-07 / EE-03: These change was done in both versions. So I assume we agree on it.

DE-SC-08: This passage was marked by Tolkien for exclusion, but Christopher Tolkien toke it nonetheless up into Sil77. In my draft I skipt it, Aiwendil kept it. I am open to both. In the event it is staing the fact of Middle-earth history that the Ents were doomed to die out in the Fourth Age and the dominion of Men.

Respectfully
Findegil
Findegil is offline   Reply With Quote