A word by any other name ...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

*Note that, as an 'Merican, the reference to and the exist of the Oxford English Dictionary, noted here, sends chills up my spine like no undead ever could...

Puff n stuff, alatar. The ever so distinguished Mr. R.W. Burchfield, of OED and Fowler's fame, could lecture quite humourously on the number of definitions which American dictionaries blatently pilfered from the OED. Oh, lexicography makes a great lair for a larcenist's license, it does. Mr. Baggins would have made a right proper lexicographer and probably did once he sailed West.

Squatter makes an eloquent plea for the heroic formulation of Tolkien's languages and the impecable scholarship (although not quite science) of philology. Yet, sadly, I am also reminded of the famous observations on words by one of Lewis Carroll's characters:

Originally Posted by Humpty

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'

And before you declaim that it is the reader who is playing Humpty, let me hasten to add that there are many ways through which words are created and readers of LotR who may not have access to what is now an arcane academic discipline, splintered even afar off from linguistics, are within their rights as speakers of their tonque, to apply whatever forms of word meaning and derivation they have learnt when faced with a newly coined word. And it would absolutely amaze me if The Professor was ignorant of the various ways in which words are formed, in addition to their development from historical origins.

Oh, and, as an aside, the Seige of Mafeking led to the use of the verb maffick, as a back-formation from Mafeking, meaning to celebrate publicly. Well, according to the OED. People are always making up new words and can hardly be faulted for trying out comparisons when faced with what at first might appear to be a portmanteau word--the gullible nasties who fell prey to Annatar. After all, Smaug sounds so much like smoke and fog, eh? Who's to say that a fire breathing dragon ain't going to produce pollution? It's only us devious Tolkien fans who know the little joke there.

[davem]

And its all very well dismissing a reader who reacts to the word 'Nazgul' by conjuring up connections with 'Nazis', but some words beg such connections, & they are perfectly understandable - in the context of that particular reader. Tolkien may or may not have noticed the similarity in appearance between the words, but many readers cannot help but do so. Some unintended/unwished for 'connections' will happen in the reader's mind & there is nothing the author or reader can do about it. No English speaker encountering the Telerin version of Celeborn's name for the first time can avoid a smirk without a great effort of will.

[Aiwendil]

Oh my. Are my eyes deceiving me or is davem arguing for the primacy of the reader's individual experience over the authority of the author?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Oh my. Are my eyes deceiving me or is davem arguing for the primacy of the reader's individual experience over the authority of the author?

No - he's merely pointing out that it happens. One struggles against it. The 'Tele*****' thing is a good example. We all have to supress the smirk first time, because we inevitably make the 'connection'. No difference with a reader seeing 'Nazgul' for the first time & thinking 'Nazi'. Its just the way the mind works. To then run off with the idea that LotR is an allegory of WWII (or that Celeborn was the M-e equivalent of Hugh Heffner) is where the reader would go wrong.

[Bêthberry]

In addition to all these variations of pronunciation mentioned by Legate and alatar, Squatter has mentioned Moria and Morīah, and Gollum and Golem, and davem brings Tele***** into the question. Then there are the Púkel-men, a name which Thenamir has not exactly confused, but rather parodied in REB. In fact, any quick perusal of REB will suggest how fraight is Tolkien's language with these other associations.

Given what seems to be an ever-increasing list of words which suggest associations which apparently are irrelevant, I suppose it can be explained, in keeping with Tolkien's own insistance that these are not intentional, as a clear sign that his sub-creation is independent of the Primary World. It can be said, then, that Middle-earth's language shows Middle-earth to be a parallel or alternate universe, with strikingly different derivations and etymologies of even words which seem most familiar. This would work against the idea that The Silm, TH, and LotR are simply set in an earlier age of our own world.

[Aiwendil]

Bethberry wrote:

This would work against the idea that The Silm, TH, and LotR are simply set in an earlier age of our own world.

Not necessarily. If Tolkien's Legendarium is purportedly our own world, it is our own world some 6,000 years ago (by his estimate in Letter 211). This would put the fall of Barad-dur somewhere around 4000 B.C.E., which is just about at the furthest extreme of our knowledge of European language. Quenya, Sindarin, Westron, and so forth as presented in LotR would have been (very roughly) contemporary with proto-Indo-European. So one can in fact self-consistently pretend that these languages existed in our distant past but are, largely or entirely, unrelated etymologically to any modern language.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

So one can in fact self-consistently pretend that these languages existed in our distant past but are, largely or entirely, unrelated etymologically to any modern language.

This would be one of the gaps then in the Legendarium. We could thus posit some sort of Babel myth in the Legendarium to explain why the languages are unrelated, although clearly this would impact on the Translator Conceit discussed in an earlier thread. That might involve a Rosetta Stone story.

The fan fiction or RPG possibilities expand.

[Child of the 7th Age]

We could thus posit some sort of Babel myth in the Legendarium to explain why the languages are unrelated, although clearly this would impact on the Translator Conceit discussed in an earlier thread. That might involve a Rosetta Stone story.

Bethberry - Regarding Babel....you are closer to the truth than you know. On at least one occasion, Tolkien expressed a fondness for the debacle of Babel and the resulting dispersal of tongues. In Angles and Britons, the O'Donnel Lectures (published in 1963), while discussing English and Welsh, Tolkien praised the diversity of language with this comment: O felix peccatum Babel (Oh, lucky sin of Babel). I think he would have been delighted to see the conundrum we've got here!

You guys are impressive. And I thought I was the only one. But now that I'm in your company, I want to take a different strategy.
The mythology of the Silmarillion and of the War of the Ring is bigger than Tolkien.
Pray for the Spirit of Truth to reveal these Questions to you. I cannot support many of my opinions and I can't deny some of my opinions are contrary to the man himself. Does this disqualify me? I dare say, no. I read in this thread; and I became interested in ent-o-mology after reading Tolkiens bio, that Tolkien wrote in some letter that his world was around four thousand B.C. [I hate that B.C.E. cr##, leave it the way it is/was] but Tolkiens world is many millennium. So we must assume that the 4000 B.C. sighted was, what? end of third age, right? Come on people. Of certainty the Tolkien languages are related, to the european langauges, even down to the dialetic regional variations of some ten square miles of soil, geographically and temporally isolated, whether or not there exist phonetic simularity. I believe; as strongly as any martyred protestant; that Tolkiens revelation was historical. Far beyond ancient. An spiritual echo, of something . . . distant and yet so present, all around me, and yet . . . unreachable.
I am not jewish.
I am not a chosen son of God
I am a European American.
This is my religion.