Results from the Poll re: the name ' Laegolas' in the Fall of Gondolin - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

aravanessë · 02-03-2007, 05:54 AM

According to PE XIII, the noldorissa form is Legolas, and the eldarissa Laiqalasse. In parentheses appear translation 'Green Leaf' and the form Leiqualassë.
There is no occurrence of an additional meaning, or of another form, or of a mix of two names, so Legolast and Laigolas may be rejected. A qenya form would be unsuited, but a pure sindarin form would be too. Legolas is said from the House of Tree, is a goldogrin name, and in the context of the composition of the Lost Tales, we must assume he is of gnomish origin. But we know, in the later phases of composition, that the sindarin names of Exiles, are not pure but are 'sindarization' from quenya or amanya telerin ; choosing a pure sindarin form like Laegolas doesn't seem to me to be good solution, all the more the Sindar of Gondolin are form Nevrast, they must speak the north sindarin, not the traditional speech.

aravanessë

Findegil · 02-11-2007, 03:56 PM

I was not jet a member of teh forum when the discussion was fought out. But I have certainly read it and made my mind up about the problem of {Legolas}[Laegolas]. Since this seems to come up know I will add my two cent to the discussion.

{Legolas}[Laegolas] is a acceptable change for me, especially since it is linguistcally argued. A more substantial change would not have found my approval. I would have tried to change the group decision earlier if the vote had been for a more substantial change.
My reason for this is not linguistcal but purely for reasons of possible interpretetion, which we should not contradict: I am not as sure as other members in the forum that Legolas of Gondolin and Legolas of Grennwood are diffrent elves. That is not saying that I am absoltue sure that they are one and the same, but I see a possibilty that they could be (and a chance much greater than one to a billion, which Lindil once mentioned). Therefore I think our text should be ambigious in this matter. That would allow a linguistcal change like {Legolas}[Laegolas] but nothing more.

As an aside not: Is {Legolas}[Laegolas] a change in the spelling in the elvish script at all or is it just a change of pronounciation?

aravanessë, I did understand your argument agianst pure Sindarin, but I do not quiet agree to it. Noldorin as it was when The Fall of Gondolin was written, is clearly not the language JRR Tolkien later in his life envisaged for the Noldor in Beleriand to have ever spoken. Such a speech existed probably in Tolkiens mind, but it was not the earlier Noldorin of The Lost Tales. Any way it would be help full to hear your positive arguments for the change or no change for the name Legolas.

Respectfully
Findegil

aravanessë · 02-12-2007, 03:05 PM

Positive arguments? What is it? Arguments in favour of Legolas (not against the other suggestions) ?

Quote:

My reason for this is not linguistcal but purely for reasons of possible interpretetion, which we should not contradict: I am not as sure as other members in the forum that Legolas of Gondolin and Legolas of Grennwood are diffrent elves. That is not saying that I am absoltue sure that they are one and the same, but I see a possibilty that they could be (and a chance much greater than one to a billion, which Lindil once mentioned). Therefore I think our text should be ambigious in this matter. That would allow a linguistcal change like {Legolas}[Laegolas] but nothing more.

I agree with the development, but more categorical in my conclusion. As you say, the two Legolas could be the same (even though the possibility is tenuous), it seems to me logical that they bear the same name, not a variant. The respect of the name in the elvish society is very important (See the ire of Fëanor against the change of Therindë/Serindë, or his jests about Hwëanáro/Hwinwë which should stand in vanyarin, or the ceremonies about names-attribution).
Moreover, a same name for two different persons is not so uncommon : Galdor seems to be in this case, but the name Ingoldo also, and a lot of Stewards (with heroes of First Age), Míriel, Ambarussa, Finwë, Maidros, Gildor, Haldir, Rúmil,… So why changing the name chosen by Tolkien ? And Oropher is from sindarin ascendancy and was born before the destruction of Beleriand (if my memory is good), he must know the story of Gondolin and Thranduil too, it could be reasonable to imagine him giving the name of this well-known hero to his son.

Quote:

As an aside not: Is {Legolas}[Laegolas] a change in the spelling in the elvish script at all or is it just a change of pronounciation?

'Just' a change of pronunciation ? It is too much for me.

And /ae/ and /e/ are written differently in tengwar, see the King's Letters. It is a change of the substance of the name, not only of the outside.

Quote:

aravanessë, I did understand your argument agianst pure Sindarin, but I do not quiet agree to it. Noldorin as it was when The Fall of Gondolin was written, is clearly not the language JRR Tolkien later in his life envisaged for the Noldor in Beleriand to have ever spoken. Such a speech existed probably in Tolkiens mind, but it was not the earlier Noldorin of The Lost Tales. Any way it would be help full to hear your positive arguments for the change or no change for the name Legolas.

I'm not sure to understand… You want to say gnomish is not the language Tolkien envisage for the Noldor in the later texts? If it is this, I think it isn't a problem, we know gnomish and sindarin dialects, the languages adopted by the Noldor in Exil in later phases of composition, are close linked as for vocabulary, and we know Legolas is attested in gnomish and in sindarin.

It is long and difficult to speak English, and I can't express exactly what I want to say. Rhhhh !

aravanessë

Findegil · 02-13-2007, 01:43 AM

Quote:

It is long and difficult to speech English, and I can't express exactly what I want to say. Rhhhh !

This is at least a problem we share.

About pronunciation: Ma own name does never change in spelling, but when I move to a country speaking a different language, even one in the same group of languages e.g. English, the pronunciation will change.

If we now consider for a moment that the two Legolas' were one and the same, then we see him move from a country speaking a northern dialect of Sindarin enriched by Quenya words (Gondolin) to a country of speaking a fare removed Silvian dialect which is slowly sindarizied by the influence of his father and grandfather and the contact with other communities over a time span of 3000 years.

Under such circumstances I think that a slight change in the pronunciation is at least possible if not probable. Since we also can consider that in Gondolin the Fëanorien Tengwar was used and in Mircwood the elves tended rather to the Cirth a appropriate change of spelling seems possible as well.

That is not to say that I would not argue for not changing the name if we really reopen that choice, put I am a bit reluctant to through away the old decision, since many of the old members which discussed and voted on this one are no longer active and will not take part in a new discussion. So what I do really is teasing you to bring forth your arguments as compelling as possible to turn at least all the active members over to your side not only me.

Respectfully
Findegil

aravanessë · 02-13-2007, 07:30 AM

Oh! From which country do yo come from ?
I agree with you, but who/where are the active members I have to convince? I will take a malicious delight in it.

Quote:

About pronunciation: Ma own name does never change in spelling, but when I move to a country speaking a different language, even one in the same group of languages e.g. English, the pronunciation will change.

If we now consider for a moment that the two Legolas' were one and the same, then we see him move from a country speaking a northern dialect of Sindarin enriched by Quenya words (Gondolin) to a country of speaking a fare removed Silvian dialect which is slowly sindarizied by the influence of his father and grandfather and the contact with other communities over a time span of 3000 years.
Under such circumstances I think that a slight change in the pronunciation is at least possible if not probable. Since we also can consider that in Gondolin the Fëanorien Tengwar was used and in Mircwood the elves tended rather to the Cirth a appropriate change of spelling seems possible as well.

Yeah I had not thought about this possibility.
Personally, I respect the pronunciation of 'Julian' in Deutsch when my correspondant come at home. But it is my own experience, not a generality, I concede.
In Gondolin, 'gondolinic runes' were used according to Tolkien-compositions from 1920-30. And the difference is made between /e/ and /ae/ in both systems (gondolinic and runic).
Oropher, the grand-father, is one of the iathrim, I think he speaks a good sindarin, and continue to call his grand-son by his right name if the others Tawarwaith dont do so.

aravanessë

Findegil · 02-14-2007, 06:24 AM

I am from Germany and have to travel in my job regularly to France, and the USA. I also have visited Scotland, Brazil, the Netherlands and Denmark. The Brazilians were as a rule not able to pronounce my first Name “Ralf” in any recognisable way (to safe the day for the Brazilians, I did meet there a lot of people that had some knowledge of German and spoke it fluent alongside a good pronunciation of my name, but many of them had German ancestors). The Danish and Netherlands have no problem with “Ralf” but the native English speakers tend to change the sound of the vocal. But as you do with the German pronunciation of Julian, I accept the English pronunciation of “Ralf”. It is hard for people to change their habit of speaking and would only lead to lesser flow in communication. I think that this is quiet common, but who knows?

As an example of even greater changes take the names Charles and Henry corresponding to German Karl and Heinrich.

Respectfully
Findegil

P.S.: As fare as I can see the active members in the moment are Aiwendil, Maédhros, you and me. But if you look at this thread you will find a lot more names who had all taken part in the first round of discussion and many of them had also voted. In all the time I am at the project we never had a vote, but voting was more common at the start of the project, when much more members were active and an agreement of all was much harder to reach. Some time Aiwendil Maédhros and I discussed about the old votes and what we would do if we would reach a point were the result of such an old vote becomes doubt full. But I am not sure if we had come to a conclusion.

**lindil** · 02-19-2007, 11:59 PM

I do not at all see how Legolas [LotR] could be one and the same unless you discount everything said in UT about Thranduil being the son of Orophir and thus Kin to the SIndarin Celeborn.

Legolas in LotR simply never lived in Beleriand [unlike Glorfindel - who could have and I think in XII does, but w/ small reservations on JRRT's part], does he not say somewhere in XII, ok I went out to the garage to get XII.

On p. 379:

Quote:

and if [glorfindel] was a cheiftan of the City he must have been a noldo

Also we have the Orophir being painted as a very partisan and grudge holding Doriathrim. SO much so that seemingly Thranduil his son cuts off contact w/ Lorien because of the Noldorin taint!

So unless we disregard UT [all late writings] and XII's 'late writings' Legolas as Gondolinite is 100% out. I am sure someone here can come up a better case than that [if need be].

02-03-2007, 05:54 AM	#1
aravanessë Pile O'Bones Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Bourg-en-Bresse, Ain, France Posts: 14	According to PE XIII, the noldorissa form is Legolas, and the eldarissa Laiqalasse. In parentheses appear translation 'Green Leaf' and the form Leiqualassë. There is no occurrence of an additional meaning, or of another form, or of a mix of two names, so Legolast and Laigolas may be rejected. A qenya form would be unsuited, but a pure sindarin form would be too. Legolas is said from the House of Tree, is a goldogrin name, and in the context of the composition of the Lost Tales, we must assume he is of gnomish origin. But we know, in the later phases of composition, that the sindarin names of Exiles, are not pure but are 'sindarization' from quenya or amanya telerin ; choosing a pure sindarin form like Laegolas doesn't seem to me to be good solution, all the more the Sindar of Gondolin are form Nevrast, they must speak the north sindarin, not the traditional speech. aravanessë Last edited by aravanessë; 02-03-2007 at 06:08 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-11-2007, 03:56 PM	#2
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,721	I was not jet a member of teh forum when the discussion was fought out. But I have certainly read it and made my mind up about the problem of {Legolas}[Laegolas]. Since this seems to come up know I will add my two cent to the discussion. {Legolas}[Laegolas] is a acceptable change for me, especially since it is linguistcally argued. A more substantial change would not have found my approval. I would have tried to change the group decision earlier if the vote had been for a more substantial change. My reason for this is not linguistcal but purely for reasons of possible interpretetion, which we should not contradict: I am not as sure as other members in the forum that Legolas of Gondolin and Legolas of Grennwood are diffrent elves. That is not saying that I am absoltue sure that they are one and the same, but I see a possibilty that they could be (and a chance much greater than one to a billion, which Lindil once mentioned). Therefore I think our text should be ambigious in this matter. That would allow a linguistcal change like {Legolas}[Laegolas] but nothing more. As an aside not: Is {Legolas}[Laegolas] a change in the spelling in the elvish script at all or is it just a change of pronounciation? aravanessë, I did understand your argument agianst pure Sindarin, but I do not quiet agree to it. Noldorin as it was when The Fall of Gondolin was written, is clearly not the language JRR Tolkien later in his life envisaged for the Noldor in Beleriand to have ever spoken. Such a speech existed probably in Tolkiens mind, but it was not the earlier Noldorin of The Lost Tales. Any way it would be help full to hear your positive arguments for the change or no change for the name Legolas. Respectfully Findegil

02-14-2007, 06:24 AM	#6
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,721	I am from Germany and have to travel in my job regularly to France, and the USA. I also have visited Scotland, Brazil, the Netherlands and Denmark. The Brazilians were as a rule not able to pronounce my first Name “Ralf” in any recognisable way (to safe the day for the Brazilians, I did meet there a lot of people that had some knowledge of German and spoke it fluent alongside a good pronunciation of my name, but many of them had German ancestors). The Danish and Netherlands have no problem with “Ralf” but the native English speakers tend to change the sound of the vocal. But as you do with the German pronunciation of Julian, I accept the English pronunciation of “Ralf”. It is hard for people to change their habit of speaking and would only lead to lesser flow in communication. I think that this is quiet common, but who knows? As an example of even greater changes take the names Charles and Henry corresponding to German Karl and Heinrich. Respectfully Findegil P.S.: As fare as I can see the active members in the moment are Aiwendil, Maédhros, you and me. But if you look at this thread you will find a lot more names who had all taken part in the first round of discussion and many of them had also voted. In all the time I am at the project we never had a vote, but voting was more common at the start of the project, when much more members were active and an agreement of all was much harder to reach. Some time Aiwendil Maédhros and I discussed about the old votes and what we would do if we would reach a point were the result of such an old vote becomes doubt full. But I am not sure if we had come to a conclusion.