The Problem of Rog

[Aiwendil]

Lindil wrote:

1- it keeps the unarguably questionable name.

To me, this would appear to be a disadvantage.

2- it reduces it from the role of 'proper' name to something like a nickname.

Yes, but I don't see how it makes any difference what sort of a name it is. The trouble, if there is any, is with the word itself. And that means that, if this concern is indeed completely valid, then no solution addresses it save the complete removal of "Rog". The Elves did not use one kind of Sindarin for their true names and a different kind for their epithets.

If I am somehow misunderstanding your objection to Rog after all this time, please tell me.

I have just had a little PM exchange with Numenorean, who has been following our project closely though - alas - has never posted here. He asked the very good question of whether the name "Androg" could be of any assistance in this case. I have (characteristically) lost the reply I sent. But the points I made were these.

The best case would be that Androg throws light on the etymological situation of "Rog" in later Sindarin. Unfortunately, I can find no etymology for Androg. It seems likely, but of course, there's no way to tell, that the first element is from ANDA-, meaning "long". The second could be "-drog" or "-rog"; in neither case is their a likely looking root in the Etymologies. If the second element were "rog", it could either have a new meaning or retain the meaning "strength". Perhaps "Androg" means "long strength".

But at the very least, Androg (and also other words, particularly "Balrog") tell us something important about phonology. That is: there is no general rule in Sindarin against -og endings, or against the combination -rog-. And it is hard to think of a reasonable set of criteria that would allow Androg and Balrog but not allow Rog.

If it sounds like I'm beating this into the ground, I apologize. But I am not trying to advocate some particular course of action for "Rog" - I am really, honestly just trying to figure out what ought to be done. And for me, this line of reasoning seems to provide just enough justification to retain the name.

I know Lindil will disagree. And I am rather disheartened by this fact, for I certainly don't wish to force this through by virtue of the majority - particularly when I am also quite hesitant about it. But I don't know what else can be done.