![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#4 | |||
Seeker of the Straight Path
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: a hidden fastness in Big Valley nor cal
Posts: 1,680
![]() |
![]() Quote:
If [ and I am not saying anyone else does]we agree w/ CJRT that Rog can not as a name exist in the canononical legendarium, then we really have lost the name, in the same spirit as JRRT writes the 1st chapter of the Hobbit and the prolouge of the LotR, that this is translated history. I do not find using a footnote to explain a lost name any differet [in essence] from our decision to change Legolas --> Laegolas. Fronm CJRT's pov the evolution of the Legendarium rendered Rog's name unusable in the Silm, just as Legolas in the LotR rendered Legolas' name unusable in the FOG. Aiwendil, I noticed seemingly contradictory positions in the long list of support quotes Maedhros gave for Rog. If you would not mind clarifying or correcting the following: Quote:
Jallanite said: Quote:
If -rog means demon, then can not have an elf named such in Gondolin ? I do not wish to excise any part of the battle [or story] that can stay, but better to loose a large chunk, than keep it with it's central character's name being to my mind clearly uncanonical. Yes the choices all have problems, but I would hate to see us keep Rog, just because we reached agreement on how to deal with his Balrog. I being the laziest amongst us hate wasted effort the most!
__________________
The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night exchanging lore & wisdom such as they still possessed that they should not fall back into the mean estate of those who never knew or indeed rebelled against the Light.
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |