General changes in TftE - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

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We have changed names even without having a replacement from Tolkien for the reason that their Sindarin was outdated.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.

gondowe · 06-14-2009, 05:15 AM

I am a nostalgic and I would like to keep Bauglir.
But Tolkien wrote even one only time Baugron.
We know that the last one is a Sindarin updated.
It's true that the dates are a mistery, but The Narn possibly was written before Vq2 (I say this by memory, but the Narn was started more or less in 1951, and the Second revission of QS about 1958, isn't it?) If is so, seven years to write all the portions of the narn are enough.
So I vote for Baugron.

Greetings.

Aiwendil · 06-14-2009, 09:18 AM

Quote:

We know that the last one is a Sindarin updated.

Sorry to belabour the point, but I don't think we know this. I could be wrong, but I don't know of a reason that 'Bauglir' is not valid in mature Sindarin.

Quote:

It's true that the dates are a mistery, but The Narn possibly was written before Vq2 (I say this by memory, but the Narn was started more or less in 1951, and the Second revission of QS about 1958, isn't it?)

The end of the Narn was written in 1950-1951, but the first part was, I believe, written in the late 1950s.

gondowe · 06-15-2009, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

...I don't know of a reason that 'Bauglir' is not valid in mature Sindarin.

I'm not a specialist in language (even in my Spanish)..

I was trying to find in the review of words in Sindarin in MR made in VT and Baugron is not reckoned lamentably.

Greetings

Aran e-Godhellim · 06-15-2009, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

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).

Sorry, that doesn't hold up. The ending is not "-ir" in any of those cases. In Gwaihir, the ending is -hir, meaning "lord," thus "Wind-lord." In Amdir, the ending is -dir. This is, by context, a Silvan - not Sindarin - name, so the second element is uncertain, but the first is certainly related to am-, meaning "up, uprising". Finally, as I stated before, the ending in Bauglir is probably -lir, which is unattested in mature Sindarin.

The name comes from the word "baug," meaning "oppression," which is the same root found in Balrog. This shows that it does have an associated consonant "l," so it is possible the ending really is -ir, but I still don't think that gets you out of trouble. Bauglir doesn't look like Sindarin (it looks like a "plural" partitive plural in Quenya, but that is of course absurd), and given later patterns we should expect "Oppressive One" to come out Baugron, just like Daeron (Shadowy One) and Sauron (Putrid One).

gondowe · 09-23-2009, 03:28 PM

This was a long time without knowing about you.

I would like to retake conversation proposing {Ered}[Eryd] as is stated by the Professor in Words, Phrases and Passages in various Tongues in TLOTR. He wrote that both plurals are valid in Sindarin but in Silmarillion must use the second.

Greetings

Aran e-Godhellim · 10-02-2009, 06:16 AM

Actually, since the Silmarillion is more archaic, it makes sense to use the non-analogical original form.

09-23-2009, 03:28 PM	#9
gondowe Wight Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 247	Hello again fellows This was a long time without knowing about you. I would like to retake conversation proposing {Ered}[Eryd] as is stated by the Professor in Words, Phrases and Passages in various Tongues in TLOTR. He wrote that both plurals are valid in Sindarin but in Silmarillion must use the second. Greetings

06-04-2009, 10:53 AM	#1
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	#2
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	#3
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	#4
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.

06-14-2009, 05:15 AM	#5
gondowe Wight Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 247	I am a nostalgic and I would like to keep Bauglir. But Tolkien wrote even one only time Baugron. We know that the last one is a Sindarin updated. It's true that the dates are a mistery, but The Narn possibly was written before Vq2 (I say this by memory, but the Narn was started more or less in 1951, and the Second revission of QS about 1958, isn't it?) If is so, seven years to write all the portions of the narn are enough. So I vote for Baugron. Greetings.

10-02-2009, 06:16 AM	#10
Aran e-Godhellim Haunting Spirit Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: The Halls of Mandos Posts: 86	Actually, since the Silmarillion is more archaic, it makes sense to use the non-analogical original form.