Gandalf is a fraud?!

[Lord Tataraus]

Originally Posted by Groin Redbeard

This guy’s theory about how Gandalf obtained Narya is absurd! Cirdan gave it to him out of his own free will. I'm not sure if this guy is implying that Cirdan was leaving when he gave Gandalf the ring because he clearly wasn’t, he said that he would remain in Middle Earth as long as Gandalf stayed.

As for why Gandalf never used the ring it is quite simple: hide the rings of power from Sauron. All of the ring bearers did this, even the dwarves.

Also, this guy needs to learn how to spell Cirdan and Thraundil.

I have a feeling he did not read the appendices or any books beyond The Hobbit and the LotR Trilogy. I knew his theory was flawed, I justed wanted see it debunked. I find it quite humorous actually to think of Gandalf that way because it is so unexpected.

As a side note, please don't use the term "Maiaric" it should probably be "Maiara" possibly "Maiarin" (adjectives are commonly ended with an 'a') adding "ic" is just trying to make a Quenya word with English rules, it makes me cringe.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lord Tataraus

As a side note, please don't use the term "Maiaric" it should probably be "Maiara" possibly "Maiarin" (adjectives are commonly ended with an 'a') adding "ic" is just trying to make a quenya word with english rules, it makes me cringe.

The descriptor 'Maiaric' has been used in Tolkien scholarship for many years (refer to Michael Martinez's www.suite101.com as the most accessible example), although 'Maiarin' is certainly acceptable as well. A problem arises, however, when one is talking to a group with varying degrees of fluency in the subject; using the '-ic' suffix is far more recognizable as meaning 'pertaining to' for a wider audience than inserting '-in'. It makes me cringe when folks do not capitalize proper nouns, like languages for instance. *shrugs*

[Lord Tataraus]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The descriptor 'Maiaric' has been used in Tolkien scholarship for many years (refer to Michael Martinez's www.suite101.com as the most accessible example), although 'Maiarin' is certainly acceptable as well. A problem arises, however, when one is talking to a group with varying degrees of fluency in the subject; using the '-ic' suffix is far more recognizable as meaning 'pertaining to' for a wider audience than inserting '-in'. It makes me cringe when folks do not capitalize proper nouns, like languages for instance. *shrugs*

Touché, I usually do capitalize language names (...and proper nouns of course), figures that's the one time I don't.
I don't claim to be much of a scholar, but I have a decent grasp of the language's workings and it just seems so wrong to have "-ic" used as such in Quenya.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Lord Tataraus

Touché, I usually do capitalize language names (...and proper nouns of course), figures that's the one time I don't.
I don't claim to be much of a scholar, but I have a decent grasp of the language's workings and it just seems so wrong to have "-ic" used as such in Quenya.

The use of 'Maiaric' is much like the use of the word 'Rohirric', another common descriptor long used when discussing Middle-earth. Again, I suppose 'Rohirian' or 'Rohanese' would be equally or more acceptable, but they do not flow off the tongue.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The descriptor 'Maiaric' has been used in Tolkien scholarship for many years (refer to Michael Martinez's www.suite101.com as the most accessible example), although 'Maiarin' is certainly acceptable as well. A problem arises, however, when one is talking to a group with varying degrees of fluency in the subject; using the '-ic' suffix is far more recognizable as meaning 'pertaining to' for a wider audience than inserting '-in'. It makes me cringe when folks do not capitalize proper nouns, like languages for instance. *shrugs*

I believe that, in the dim and dusty recesses of the Barrow Downs' past, there was some kind of dust-up between Downers and said MM. I was told when I first arrived that he is not accounted much of an authority in this here Dodge City--by none other than Mithadan the Admin. (His comments can be found in a reference thread deep in the dark archives of the rpg forums--er, fora.)

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The use of 'Maiaric' is much like the use of the word 'Rohirric', another common descriptor long used when discussing Middle-earth. Again, I suppose 'Rohirian' or 'Rohanese' would be equally or more acceptable, but they do not flow off the tongue.

And what is wrong with Rohirrim?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I believe that, in the dim and dusty recesses of the Barrow Downs' past, there was some kind of dust-up between Downers and said MM. I was told when I first arrived that he is not accounted much of an authority in this here Dodge City--by none other than Mithadan the Admin. (His comments can be found in a reference thread deep in the dark archives of the rpg forums--er, fora.)



And what is wrong with Rohirrim?

Rohirrim is Sindarin, and is the plural of "rohir", or "knight". It does not function as an adjective, and so another term is required to modify nouns so as to make them more "Rohanian". "Rohirric", in my opinion, in the most Tolkien-like option.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Rohirrim is Sindarin, and is the plural of "rohir", or "knight". It does not function as an adjective, and so another term is required to modify nouns so as to make them more "Rohanian". "Rohirric", in my opinion, in the most Tolkien-like option.

You are absolutely correct that Rohirrim is of course a substantive, but all grammars leak and some require a bit more bailing than others. When Gandalf says of the People of The Mark, "the Rohirrim, the Horse-lords, do not sleep," is he being descriptive or derivative?

As for this Quenyan/Sindarin thing, would it be a tad too post-modern to suggest that a possible course would be to import the most common name into all the languages? Yes, I know this flies in the face of Tolkien's delight in many-named things, but such a habit has an etymological pedigree. After all, the English language gobbled up many a word from other languages and did English them and in doing so could overlook inflection. And while English took Eskimo from French and Spanish, at least in official Canadian English that word is now eschewed in favour of the Native People's own word for themselves, Inuit. Other countries may, however, lag behind in this recognition. We could perhaps go with Markist I suppose or Markic or even Riddermarket.

Or would that be Eorlingian?

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Nothing at all. Why do you ask?

You could say I delight in stirring the melting pot of language.

[Eönwë]

I think the reason thr rings were given to Cirdan, Galadriel and Elrond, was because they were probably the wisest elves left in middle-earth (Anyone who has survived 15,000 and gets messages from Ulmo must be a good choice; a powerful ruler like Galadriel, who also happens to be wise, though slightly headstrong is good; and Elrond, well, Elrond is just simply wise).

And as for why not Celeborn. Would you trust anyone whose name is Teleporno?

[CSteefel]

What a stupid set of posts at the beginning...

I am surprised you would bother to copy them here, but then I have to be stupid to be responding even with this short of a post...

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I believe that, in the dim and dusty recesses of the Barrow Downs' past, there was some kind of dust-up between Downers and said MM. I was told when I first arrived that he is not accounted much of an authority in this here Dodge City--by none other than Mithadan the Admin. (His comments can be found in a reference thread deep in the dark archives of the rpg forums--er, fora.)

Oh, I've had some rather violent disagreements with Mr. Martinez elsewhere on the net. I don't necessarily agree with all his postulations, but he can be very thought provoking (I mean, after all, he's not as bad as David Day). I merely invoked his name as a more accessible scholar, as most of his material resides on the internet.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And what is wrong with Rohirrim?

Nothing at all. Why do you ask?

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Gandalf wasn't maybe lying about his encounter with the balrog - that has been proved unprobable already - but can we take all what Tolkien's characters say as true? This was discussed somewhere some time ago, but it is a very intriguing topic. Tolkien fans are probably the least critic fans in the world when it comes to evaluating whether the heroes of the story are being completely honest or not.

Strangely enough, it seems Tolkien could not always vouch for the veracity of his own written material, as if the books had taken on a life of their own. Cases in point would be the origin of Orcs and the fate of the Blue Wizards.

I suppose one could say that LotR and the Silmarillion are legends and fables of a long-vanished Middle-earth, not unlike one could argue the historical fine points of the Bible, or dismiss it utterly (and thus one becomes an Ardan agnostic or atheist). Or one could say that The Hobbit and LotR were written by the 'winners' of the war, and therefore the true story of the losing side was buried under a great, mouldering pile of propaganda. Thus, one could say that the Dunlanders were a people oppressed by a more powerful neighbor (like the English of the Normans, or the Irish of the English), and that the National People's Front of Dunland was merely seeking their rightful independence from subjugators and usurpers.

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Also, LotR is, although in arguable fashion, written by Frodo Baggins so basically it's from his perspective. He might have exaggerated things or simply not remembered them totally correctly. Nevertheless, we can expect quite high accuracy from it as Frodo is a first-hand narrator in many cases, and we can consider his nature quite honest.

Interesting that both Bilbo and Frodo should have written (ostensibly) their memoirs in third person narrative (whether third person omniscient or limited could be argued), rather than in first person narrative, which is the case for most autobiographies. I suppose it would be considered a limited third person narrative, in that we know far more of the Hobbits' thought processes; however, that is not always the case.

[Nerwen]

What I can't work out is whether the original poster, this Lord Kimboat fellow, is joking or not. I mean, his argument sounds deliberately far-fetched, the sort of thing alatar comes up with. I thought that he was being tongue-in-cheek with the bit about Gandalf hardly using magic ... but as some people have suggested, maybe the guy really does think D&D is universal.

Is he just an idiot? Or has he successfully pulled our collective leg?*




*so to speak.

[Lord Tataraus]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

What I can't work out is whether the original poster, this Lord Kimboat fellow, is joking or not. I mean, his argument sounds deliberately far-fetched, the sort of thing alatar comes up with. I thought that he was being tongue-in-cheek with the bit about Gandalf hardly using magic ... but as some people have suggested, maybe the guy really does think D&D is universal.

Is he just an idiot? Or has he successfully pulled our collective leg?*




*so to speak.

He is not joking, with all rebuttals and challenges to his theory he hasn't yet retracted it and its been a couple days now. Anyone (at least on that forum) who puts up jokes and far-fetched theories is found out and admitts to it with the first day usually.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Lord Tataraus

He is not joking, with all rebuttals and challenges to his theory he hasn't yet retracted it and its been a couple days now. Anyone (at least on that forum) who puts up jokes and far-fetched theories is found out and admitts to it with the first day usually.

Oh dear. *shakes head sadly*

[The Sixth Wizard]

and thus one becomes an Ardan agnostic or atheist

I can be an Ardan agnostic? Sweet.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

What I can't work out is whether the original poster, this Lord Kimboat fellow, is joking or not. I mean, his argument sounds deliberately far-fetched, the sort of thing alatar comes up with.

Huh? I really must work on my reputation.

Is he just an idiot? Or has he successfully pulled our collective leg?

Or, like some here, is he stirring the pot, winding up those of us who will fanatically defend Tolkien at all costs, regardless of the silly statements we have to make (at times) in order to do so?

What better fun than to see a straw man thrown into a hornet's nest?