![]() |
|
|
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
|
|
|
#1 | |||
|
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
RB-DF-03.5: Ekimeniso's argument about which 'silver' to retain is persuasive, so let's keep the first 'silver' and remove the second.
RB-DF-04: Actually, I don't think that the mixed metaphor (tower vs. storm) in itself is a problem, since Tolkien himself uses both of these images in QS. However, I don't think that adding the detail of Fingolfin as a lonely tree to the storm-metaphor is adequate justification for editing Tolkien's prose on so fine a level. I say pick either the QS or GA version of the passage and use that - and my inclination is to use QS since it is the fuller account and the base text for the sentences immediately before and after. RB-DF-04.5: I have no problem with adding the detail of the echo from GA. Findegil proposes: Quote:
Quote:
RB-DF-09: In QS, the flight of the Beorians and the situation of Barahir and his twelve companions is told (QS §138-139) just after the rescue of Felagund, significantly before the account of Fingolfin's death. In GA, the narrative turns away from Barahir after the rescue of Felagund and only comes back to him and his people after telling of Fingolfin's death (in GA §158-159). The solution adopted in Findegil's text is to retain QS §138 where it stands, remove §139, and then insert GA §158-159 after the death of Fingolfin. This seems to me to be problematic. Even though we have deleted QS §139, there is still redundancy between §138 and GA §158-159; the flight of most of Barahir's people and the transformation of the highland forest into the dreadful Taur-nu-Fuin are both repeated. I think we should pick one place or the other and put all the material about Barahir there - so either remove QS §138-139 or remove GA §158-159, and make any appropriate additions to the retained version from the removed version. I would propose to remove QS §138-139 and use GA §158-159 after the death of Fingolfin: Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |||
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
RB-DF-03.5: Agreed.
RB-DF-04: Well, metaphors are a stylistic devices, therefor this change is one for style and not for any substance. RB-DF-04.2: Agreed. RB-DF-07.5: Okay, so what about this: Quote:
About The Shibboleth and how we deal with it: I do not remember that we ever discussed some of the matters that Ekimeniso brought up. When ever we made use of that work, we used the ideas given their (like the death of Amras in the burning ship). 'The rule of thump' (is this really an english proverb? it sounds very de{utssch-e}nglish to me) is rule 2.b): Quote:
For the case of the high-kingship i would suggest: Quote:
I think that this story was rejected by JRR Tolkien. But I have to look that up. Respectfuly Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 01-24-2011 at 03:09 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
Thorondor on Thangorodrim:
The former discussion on this point was very brief but it took place in this the thread about Tuor and his coming to Gondolin. The conclusion was to keep the dwelling on Thangorodrim but to be ambigiuse about time and reason for the remove to Crisseagrim. This decission was take especilly because of the passage after the fall of Fingolfin in LQS, were Thorondor comes from Crisseagrim. Respectfuly Findegil |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | ||||
|
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
RB-DF-07.5: Hmm, I think some of my previous post got lost somehow - I meant to propose this emendation:
Quote:
Or we could take the same approach but move the sentence about Gondolin to the point Findegil suggests. I think that rather than changing 'Gondolin' to 'Tumladen', however, we could just remove the second 'Gondolin': Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
RB-DF-07.5: 'There was lamentation there when ...' is not very good. I think we can simply skip the second 'there'. Otherwise I like your second suggestion.
About the Shibboleth: It seems to be a given that we will have to discuss this issue when we came agian to DoV. But for the moment we only have to make up our mind about the case of the high-kingship of the Noldor. And in my oppinion the change in Fingolfins behavior during the march is so significant that it can not be an oversight. Also it is connected to the core issue of the essay: the sindarin names of the decendence of Finwe. Respectfuly Findegil |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Newly Deceased
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 10
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
'rule of thumb': Okay, what tricked me here was, that at least in my idiom of German their exists beside "Faustregel" also "Daumenregel", with slightly but sigificant diffrences. While a "Faustregel" is a reliable and approved approximation that does shorten the calculation significantly, a "Daumenregel" is just the utterance of the feeling someone has on the subject under investigation. So while a "Faustregel might be a bit beside the real result it does point into the right direction for sure, in contrast a "Daumenregel" might be complitly of track.
Respectfuly Findegil |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | ||
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
Okay, I have gone through this thread to see were we are. As fare as I can say Aiwendil has commented to the Text up to §149. But I am not quite sure where he ended with his comments. The first possible place is just before RB-DF-10.
What is left as open point in the rest of the discussion is from my point of view: RB-DF-07.5: What about this to avoid the double Gondolin: Quote:
RB-DF-07 and RB-DF-07.7: I have given the number 07.7 to the proposed addition about the prefexion of Arfin to Finarfin: Quote:
Findegil |
||
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
|
|