General changes in TftE - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Findegil · 04-18-2009, 01:43 AM

I personally would jump at this last idea that Atanaro was his father-name natrually given in Quenya which would have yielded Rodnor in Sindarin. But Ereinion was his mother-name given in Sindarin, since his mother was a Sinda of Dorthonion. Later he got the epesse Gil-galad (natrually in Sindarin, since that was the dayly speech of the time).

Respectfully
Findegil

Aran e-Godhellim · 06-03-2009, 07:07 PM

I realized there's another change we didn't note: Bauglir < Baugron as per a note to the later versions of the Valaquenta.

Aiwendil · 06-04-2009, 10:15 AM

Good catch; however, there is an occurrence of 'Bauglir' in the first part of the Narn, and we know that this cannot have been an editorial change by CRT from 'Baugron' because he says in X that 'Baugron' occurs nowhere else. Vq 2 and the first portions of the 'Narn' both date from the late 1950s, so it's difficult to say which is the later occurrence.

This is a somewhat ambiguous case, but my inclination is to take 'Bauglir' as the more conservative choice, since 'Baugron' occurs only once and may have been a mere passing idea. Better, in my view, to be conservative and not accept a late name change than to inadvertantly accept a rejected one.

Aran e-Godhellim · 06-04-2009, 10:53 AM

I'm not so sure. I think this alteration is not a "change," per se, but rather an update. "Bauglir" is a Gnomish name; there is no Sindarin ending "-lir." "Baugron," however, matches then Sindarin masculine ending seen in Sauron and Daeron, from older "-ondo."

I think the Bauglir < Baugron note came from a time where the Professor was updating old names to match the new styles, but he later forgot it and wrote the form he was used to writing. In fact, isn't the Valaquenta the same document which saw the change Tavros < Tauron, which is a change of the same form?

gondowe · 06-08-2009, 03:30 PM

Like many other names, it's difficult and hard to think change one that have so much tradition, perhaps the same professor would think the same. But if linguistically it's updated I think we must change it.

Greetings

Findegil · 06-13-2009, 03:56 PM

We have changed names even without having a replacement from Tolkien for the reason that their Sindarin was outdated. In this case we have a replacment and even so it only appears once when we deailing with a late change that is so much to be wondered. Even if Tolkien used the name 'Bauglir' at a later occasion (which is not sure) we have precedents of such backward and forward changes before he was used to the changed form.

In short: I think 'Baugron' is to be taken.

I have looked up all occassions were 'Bauglir is used in our text adn the change would not creat any problem in rhyming couples (in aliteration both seem near enough to be exchangeable any way, but Bauglir was never used in that either in our text).

Respectfully
Findegil

Aiwendil · 06-13-2009, 07:32 PM

I'm still not convinced about 'Baugron'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's no known reason that 'Bauglir' would be invalid in later Sindarin. We have, anyway, other names ending in '-ir' (e.g. Gwaihir, Amdir).

My reasoning on which to use is more or less this:

If we knew that the relevant part of the Narn was written before Vq 2, then it would be clear that we should take 'Baugron'. On the other hand, I would say that if we knew that it was written after Vq 2, we would have to take 'Bauglir'. Our principles would allow us to disregard a later occurrence of 'Bauglir' only if it was either unworkable (which it isn't) or a clear case of a mere error on Tolkien's part (which I don't think we can establish). So the 'correct' choice comes down to the matter of which was written first, Vq 2 or the relevant passage in the Narn.

We have no way, that I can see, to figure out this question of chronology, and thus no indication which name is 'correct'. In the situation where the question rests on another, undecidable, question, my inclination is to be conservative and go with the name that is well established rather than the one that only appears once.

That's my logic and, as you can see, it leads me to favour 'Bauglir'. I'm not dogmatic about it, though, and I could perhaps be persuaded.

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

04-18-2009, 01:43 AM	#1
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,721	I personally would jump at this last idea that Atanaro was his father-name natrually given in Quenya which would have yielded Rodnor in Sindarin. But Ereinion was his mother-name given in Sindarin, since his mother was a Sinda of Dorthonion. Later he got the epesse Gil-galad (natrually in Sindarin, since that was the dayly speech of the time). Respectfully Findegil

06-03-2009, 07:07 PM	#2
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	I realized there's another change we didn't note: Bauglir < Baugron as per a note to the later versions of the Valaquenta.

06-04-2009, 10:15 AM	#3
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	Good catch; however, there is an occurrence of 'Bauglir' in the first part of the Narn, and we know that this cannot have been an editorial change by CRT from 'Baugron' because he says in X that 'Baugron' occurs nowhere else. Vq 2 and the first portions of the 'Narn' both date from the late 1950s, so it's difficult to say which is the later occurrence. This is a somewhat ambiguous case, but my inclination is to take 'Bauglir' as the more conservative choice, since 'Baugron' occurs only once and may have been a mere passing idea. Better, in my view, to be conservative and not accept a late name change than to inadvertantly accept a rejected one.

06-04-2009, 10:53 AM	#4
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	I'm not so sure. I think this alteration is not a "change," per se, but rather an update. "Bauglir" is a Gnomish name; there is no Sindarin ending "-lir." "Baugron," however, matches then Sindarin masculine ending seen in Sauron and Daeron, from older "-ondo." I think the Bauglir < Baugron note came from a time where the Professor was updating old names to match the new styles, but he later forgot it and wrote the form he was used to writing. In fact, isn't the Valaquenta the same document which saw the change Tavros < Tauron, which is a change of the same form?

06-08-2009, 03:30 PM	#5
gondowe Wight Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 247	Like many other names, it's difficult and hard to think change one that have so much tradition, perhaps the same professor would think the same. But if linguistically it's updated I think we must change it. Greetings

06-13-2009, 03:56 PM	#6
Findegil King's Writer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,721	We have changed names even without having a replacement from Tolkien for the reason that their Sindarin was outdated. In this case we have a replacment and even so it only appears once when we deailing with a late change that is so much to be wondered. Even if Tolkien used the name 'Bauglir' at a later occasion (which is not sure) we have precedents of such backward and forward changes before he was used to the changed form. In short: I think 'Baugron' is to be taken. I have looked up all occassions were 'Bauglir is used in our text adn the change would not creat any problem in rhyming couples (in aliteration both seem near enough to be exchangeable any way, but Bauglir was never used in that either in our text). Respectfully Findegil

06-13-2009, 07:32 PM	#7
Aiwendil Late Istar Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,224	I'm still not convinced about 'Baugron'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's no known reason that 'Bauglir' would be invalid in later Sindarin. We have, anyway, other names ending in '-ir' (e.g. Gwaihir, Amdir). My reasoning on which to use is more or less this: If we knew that the relevant part of the Narn was written before Vq 2, then it would be clear that we should take 'Baugron'. On the other hand, I would say that if we knew that it was written after Vq 2, we would have to take 'Bauglir'. Our principles would allow us to disregard a later occurrence of 'Bauglir' only if it was either unworkable (which it isn't) or a clear case of a mere error on Tolkien's part (which I don't think we can establish). So the 'correct' choice comes down to the matter of which was written first, Vq 2 or the relevant passage in the Narn. We have no way, that I can see, to figure out this question of chronology, and thus no indication which name is 'correct'. In the situation where the question rests on another, undecidable, question, my inclination is to be conservative and go with the name that is well established rather than the one that only appears once. That's my logic and, as you can see, it leads me to favour 'Bauglir'. I'm not dogmatic about it, though, and I could perhaps be persuaded.