<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Moderator
Posts: 45</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Principles of editing the Silmarillion
I have an addition to point 4 that seems to belong as it covers exactly the same permissions as to when to change and when not to change:<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> 4. No new names <u>and no new expressions in Elvish or in any of J.R.R. Tolkien's special languages</u> may be introduced; all names <u>or expressions in J.R.R. Tolkien's special languages</u> that are <u>updated</u> must be changed either in accordance with a universal change by Tolkien or with a logical reason and a sound etymology.<hr></blockquote>As to
Legolas, I would say this point
allows the possibility of using
Laegolas instead of
Legolas in the fall of Gondolin material, as JRRT does give the former form as standard Sindarin and the latter form as "a woodland name*** a dialectical form of pure Sindarin
laegolas". I'm willing to accept that JRRT just might know what he is talking about!
It could be used as an example of what might be allowed if other criteria permit.
But the two forms still seem to me just variants of the same name, something like
Shakespeare and
Shakspere or
Teresa and
Theresa or
Johnny and
Johnnie or
Connor and
Conor or even
Jacques and
Jakes. (My seventh grade teacher was Mrs. Jacques, the name being pronounced as through spelled
Jakes.) It doesn't
necessarily distinguish Laegolas of Gondolin from Legolas of Mirkwood.
To further confuse are some notes by JRRT on the forms of names in his texts. From
The War of Jewels (HoME 11), "Maeglin", §4, on
Egalmoth and
Ecthelion:<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> They are later popular forms of archaic
Ægamloth,
Ægthelion. Note
amloth is said (where?) to be probably not S[indarin].<hr></blockquote>So here also we have names not in accord with perfect standard Sindarin, and one of which probably contains a non-Sindarin element. Then there is the
SF explanation of
Fëanor:<blockquote>
Quote:<hr>
Fëanor is the form nearly always used in histories and legends, but is as it stands only half Sindarized: the genuine Sindarin form was
Faenor; the form
Feanor (the
ë is only a device of transcription, not needed in the original) probably arose through scribal confusion, especially in documents written in Quenya, in which
ea was frequent but
ae did not occur.<hr></blockquote>We have familiar forms of names and even incorrect forms of names being used. As is often the practise of translators and historians, Bilbo (and probably many of his sources) would generally use the form of the name most familiar to the readers, which is not necessarily the pedantically accurate form. This would partly be comparable to popular use of
Hercules for
Heraklês,
James in the New Testment for Greek
Iakabos for Hebrew
Ya`áqôb ('Jacob'),
Jesus for
Yéshûa`,
William the Conqueror for
Guillaume,
Henry for various German kings named
Heinrich,
Mark Anthony for
Marcus Antonius, St. Columba's island of
Iona for proper
Ioua and so forth.
So, though
Legolas be dialectical, it does not
need correcting into a
theoretically proper form.
From the material in
Letters the proper Quenya form would seem to be *
Laicolassië as opposed to the Qenya form
Laiqalassë in
BoLT*2. But again,
Legolas would be the same name as *
Laicolassië, just as
John for
Ioannes,
Jerome for
Hieronymos,
Austin for
Augustinus,
Mary for
Maria,
Maudlin for
Magdalene,
Jeff(e)r(e)y for
Galfridus (via
Geoffrey) and so forth.
Example for changing a name occurs in
Fragment of an alliterative Lay of Eärendil where
Thornsir is to be changed to
Thoronhir on the bases that
thorn 'eagle' in Tolkien's early texts univerally becomes
thoron in later texts both standing alone and in compounds and that
sîr 'stream' is lenited to
-hir following general established rules of Sindarin and the example
Minhiraith meaning 'Between the Rivers' (per the index to
UT) and the example
Limhir/
Limhîr from
lim 'clear' +
sîr 'stream' as found in
The War of the Jewels (HoME 11) (see references in index).
Example of when a name cannot be changed:
Tarnin Austa is given in
FG as the Gnomish name for the feast called Gates of Summer, but in later Sindarin neither
tarn 'gate' nor
austa 'summer' is found, nor a stem from which
tarn might derive. It may therefore be dropped as probably no longer valid or (more dubiously) kept as possibly valid but using rare forms; but a new Sindarin name for 'Gates of Summer' such as
Ennyn Iavas, which translates the English literally, may not be invented as there would likely be more than one valid way to render 'Gates of Summer' into Sindarin and it cannot be shown that any particular Sindarin translation of the English words is necessarily the proper form for the name of the feast.
On point 7, I agree with Aiwendil that, if neither of the possible chronologies seems more likely, than it does come down to aesthetics: which one do you
like most. At the moment I incline to follow Lindir for the reason he gave: I like the mention of spring in connection with the time of the festival and so am willing to accept the wandering as simply "long".
One point 6*e: The addition of "thwarting mazes" made in the Eärendel fragment was totally in agreement with the story in all versions, though of different meaning than the words "thirty moons" which were removed. With verse we have the additional constraints of metre and either rhyme or alliteration or both to observe, and can't just drop words as in prose. In this case, if no suitable replacement can be found, it would be only one line dropped, but it might be an entire stanza in rhyming verse.
But I am willing to accept the constraint that replacement material must stand as a correction of the original text, not any replacement material that fits and agrees with the larger story.
If we accept the wandering of just over a year we can certainly change "Of the thirst and hunger****of the thirty moons" to "Of the thirst and hunger****of the thirt<u>een</u> moons". That works perfectly, and it is indeed possible that the original
thirty was a slip-of-the-pen for
thirteen: two and a half years of wandering seems most unlikely.
If it is not a slip of the pen, then it must take priority over the earlier wandering of somewhat over a year, and since two and a half years is impossible to fit into any of the annal texts, either Tolkien later restored the original time of wandering from
FG or had some other replacement in his mind, possibly now accepting the spring date for the festival.
If the short chronology of the wandering is accepted, eight months at the very most (to leave some time to rest in Nan-tathren), let's change the alliteration letter from
th to
h and try "Of the thirst and hunger****of the <u>long, hard</u> moons", or better "Of the <u>hunger and thirst</u>****of the <u>long, hard</u> moons" to put the alliterating word first. Or maybe "unhasty moons"? Or "unhurrying moons"? Or "wheeling moons" (
wheeling sounded as
hweeling as in some current English dialects and in older English speech everywhere)?
Or try
m as the letter of alliteration and we can go with "Of <u>much</u> thirst and hunger****of the <u>many</u> moons". I think I like this one best in that it changes meaning least though slightly disturbing the metre, and manages to include three words in the line beginning with the alliteration letter.
If some of these seem acceptable, than put in my original "thwarting mazes" as an example of a change that would not be allowed and one or more of the acceptable changes as allowable changes, not including just the change of "thirty" to "thirteen" which is too obviously alllowed as a simple change of a word to agree with another version of the tale.
</p>
Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000212>jallanit e</A> at: 7/15/01 11:28:55 pm