Question for the Sindarin experts: is Meril still valid?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Surely, Littleheart was not a companion of Eärendil, but that doesn't mean that he should have been jettisoned so lightly.

Littleheart in Tolkien’s writing is, true, not mentioned under that name in anything published outside of The Book of Lost Tales. So Littleheart still existed, unmentioned under that name, in Tolkien’s conception, or he had been written out in Tolkien’s conception.

If Littleheart still existed in Tolkien’s conception, and his role was somewhat the same, then obviously in the published Simarillion he is one of Eärendil’s three mariner companions on his voyage to Tirion in Vingilot, that is he is Falathar, or Erellont, or Aerandir. Or possibly Tolkien for some reason just dropped the character altogether. But your assumption that Littleheart was just “jettisoned” is only an unverified assumption, and I am not going to argue any unverified assumptions, for or against.

And even if Voronwë made to Aman at last, and had a son there, why should his son dwell now in Tol Eressëa?

Well, if Littleheart existed in Tolkien’s conception, then he would have to dwell somewhere. Tolkien in The Book of Lost Tales puts him in as the gong-warden in the Cottage of Lost Play in Tol Eressëa. However Tolkien says nothing about when exactly Littleheart was fathered, though Voronwë says nothing to Tuor about having a wife when he guides Tuor to Gondolin. It is only another unverified assumption by you that Voronwë later married and fathered Littleheart in Aman. Yet considering that Voronwë in Tolkien's later conception was a mature Elf, though still somewhat young, and had been born in Middle-earth, and that no Elf had gone from Middle-Earth to Aman for ages before Eärendil and Littleheart and perhaps other companions did so, I imagine that Tolkien imagined that Littleheart was born shortly after Tuor and Voronwë came to Gondolin. Presumably Voronwë married then.

Tolkien could imagine that his Littleheart was born at a time that he might have been of age to be a mariner who accompanied Eärendel to Kôr. I see nothing that speaks against Tolkien’s imagining.

Nor do I see anything in your revised fan-fiction that would cause any difficulty.

And all of Littleheart's elven names strike me a bit odd - naturally - and I cannot make my mind whether to keep him in my revised version.

A poor reason to use by someone who is concerned only that his Elvish names make sense phonetically in Quenya or Sindarin. Personally, I see nothing wrong with any of the Elvish forms given.

I am NOT talking about Ottor from Angeln - I am talking about Aelfwine from England and his stay at Eressëa - with needed emendations of course.

You mean Ælfwine, not Aelfwine, of course. Your English is as bad as your Elvish. And up until now you were not talking about this at all, only about your wish to produce a new version of “The Cottage of Lost Play.”

I admit, such a project needs a lot of tinkering with the texts, but I am COMPLETELY hellbent on keeping Aelfwine and his stor(y)ies.

The sheer abundancy of the mentions of Aelfwine and his teaching in the late writings, brings your claim to naught (at least in my opinion).

Not in my opinion. Not a surprise.

And wouldn't it be more likely that a script written in Old English would be preserved (if somewhat in a fragmentary form) all the way up to Tolkien's time than a book written 7000 years ago (also in a language and script completely unknown in later times - it would take a Champollion to decipher it - referring, of course, to Bilbo's books and the writing system in which they were written - Tengwar).

Yes, in theory that would seem to be more likely. But in fact your story is pure fiction, just as Tolkien’s The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings is pure fiction, as is Robert E. Howard’s story series about Conan the Barbarian. The backstory behind how the books came to be, as set forth by implication in the books themselves, is obviously phony, and the resultant works are none the worse for that. People expect fantasy fiction to be fictional.

I first encountered the Bilbo Baggins theory in a fanzine article soon after the Ballantine edition was first printed. I don’t recall which fanzine but I believe someone was quoting Tolkien. That the published Silmarillion was supposedly adapted from Bilbo Baggins’ Translations from the Elvish is put forth in various modern articles, not seriously of course.

Please think before you respond and see if what you want to post makes sense.

[Galin]

In his Foreword to The Book of Lost Tales Christopher Tolkien assumes the same thing that Robert Foster had published in his Complete Guide to Middle-earth, that Quenta Silmarillion was no doubt one of Bilbo's translations.

"So also I have assumed: the 'books of lore' that Bilbo gave to Frodo provided in the end the solution: they were "The Silmarillion". But apart from the evidence cited here, there is, so far as I know, no other statement on this matter anywhere in my father's writings; and (wrongly, as I think now) I was reluctant to step into the breach and make definite what I only surmised."

Christopher Tolkien, Foreword, The Book Of Lost Tales volume I

Richard Plotz talked with Tolkien on November 1, 1966, just after the second, revised edition (Allen and Unwin) had been published in October, after the Ballantine Books revised edition had been published as well.

Tolkien tells him that one of the snags delaying publication of The Silmarillion is its quasi-biblical stle, which Tolkien considers "his best, but his publishers disagree. Another problem is that of finding a story line to connect all the parts. At the moment, Professor Tolkien is considering making use of Bilbo again ... perhaps the Silmarillion will appear as his research in Rivendell."

Hammond And Scull, Chronology

I find his phrasing interesting, as it looks like Tolkien had already added his Note On The Shire Records (revised edition), which included that Bilbo's Translations From The Elvish were "almost entirely concerned with the Elder Days". And JRRT had added in Appendix A (revised edition) that the ancient legends of the First Age were Bilbo's chief interest.

Admittedly Quenta Silmarillion is not specifically noted in either of these descriptions from the second edition, but in any case this is how Plotz put it.

[jallanite]

Since the second edition of the Lord of the Rings was first published by Ballantine in 1965 while Plotz’s interview with Tolkien occurred on November 1, 1966, indeed it more than “looks like Tolkien had already added his Note On The Shire Records (revised edition), which included that Bilbo’s Translations From The Elvish were ‘almost entirely concerned with the Elder Days’.”

Thanks for verifying that this was not just my theory.

Tolkien does refer to Ælfwine still in some texts written following The Lord of the Rings and so Tolkien did at least for a time consider some version of his Ælfwine story as still valid. Possibly he considered that Ælfwine was given the complete Thain’s Book version of the Red Book of Westmarch by Pengolodh in Tol Eressëa. (Also possibly not.)

Tolkien also in some writing imagines himself as in contact with present-day Hobbits. For example in the FOREWARD to the first edition, Tolkien writes:

To complete it some maps are given, including one of the Shire that has been approved as reasonably correct by those Hobbits that still concern themselves with ancient history.

The complications of a tale that required both Ælfwine and present-day Hobbits may be sufficient to explain Christopher Tolkien’s remarks on page 5 of The Book of Lost Tales Part I (HoME 1):

The original mode, that of The Book of Lost Tales, that in which a Man, Eriol, comes after a great voyage over the ocean to the island where the Elves dwell and learns their history from their own lips, had (by degrees) fallen away. […] I think that in the end he concluded that nothing would serve, and no more would be said beyond an explanation of how (within the imagined world) it came to be recorded.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The sheer abundancy of the mentions of Aelfwine and his teaching in the late writings, brings your claim to naught.

However, I am not aware of any text in which Aelfwine* appears that postdates the 1950s, probably the first half of the decade (that is, before the publication of the Lord of the Rings), and in no event later than, at the extreme, January 1960,** still well before the Revised Edition in 1965.


-----------------
*Sorry, JA, but for forum posts, chasing down off-keyboard lenitions isn't worth the bother

**The latest possible date for Dangweth Pengolodh

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

However, I am not aware of any text in which Aelfwine* appears that postdates the 1950s, probably the first half of the decade (that is, before the publication of the Lord of the Rings), and in no event later than, at the extreme, January 1960,** still well before the Revised Edition in 1965.

You are aware that Dangweth Pengolodh is dated by Christopher Tolkien as “cannot be later than the end of 1959,” that is, possibly written after “the first half of the decade.” And in The War of The Jewels (HoME 11) Ælfwine appears prominently in “The Annals of Aman”, “The Later Quenta Silmarillion (I)”, and “The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II)”, only the first of which Christoopher Tolkien dates even to the period before The Lord of the Riings was even fully published. Nothing you have put forward here disagrees with anything that either I or Arvegil145 has posted and it is inconsistent with itself.

*Sorry, JA, but for forum posts, chasing down off-keyboard lenitions isn't worth the bother

Lenitions‽ Do you even know what the word means? Apparently not. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenition.

Almost all forums available on the web allow access to Unicode which currently contains 120,520 graphic characters, more characters than were available to most professional publishers even 15 years ago. I very much enjoy this access and will ɴᴏᴛ give it up only because another poster feels it “isn’t worth the bother.”

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Almost all forums available on the web allow access to Unicode which currently contains 120,520 graphic characters, more characters than were available to most professional publishers even 15 years ago. I very much enjoy this access and will ɴᴏᴛ give it up only because another poster feels it “isn’t worth the bother.”

Come, come, jallanite, no one is asking you to give it up, but there probably isn't the need to correct people who may not be aware of or familiar with Unicode, or simply aren't sufficiently interested in going to the trouble of using it. It is fairly standard on this forum, I believe, for people to not always include Professor Tolkien's exact use of accent marks, for instance. I use them myself, but I can understand that many posters lack the inclination to use them.

I agree with you, however, that I personally do not see a role for Ælfwine later in the story in Professor Tolkien's later conceptions, for thematic reasons if nothing else. I like the idea to an extent, but I also feel like it makes the connection between the Primary and Secondary Worlds a little too strong.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

CT can date Dangweth Pengolodh no more precisely than to the 50s, not later than the Jan 1960 date of its newspaper wrapper, but thought it more probably from earlier in the decade than later. AAm and LQI both fall into the bracket 1950-53; LQII (if there is an Aelfwine reference in it; I can't find one) refers specifically to an amanuensis typescript which reflects the status of QS as emended between the earlier typescript and 1958- so, yes, that range extends past 1955, fine and so what. Nothing in "postdates the 1950s, probably the first half of the decade... and in no event later than, at the extreme, January 1960" is self-contradictory or in disagreement with what is known or deduced of the chronology, and certainly is in full accord with my point that there is no mention of Aelfwine which can be dated after or even within five years of the LR 2d Ed... and none which can with certainty be dated even to within a decade of it.

---------------------

Ligatures. Brain-poot. Sheesh!

Yes, Unicode is available; it's also a PITA for what is after all just casual messaging, not a matter for your professional publishers, past or present. It frankly was a bit pompous for you to insult a poster's command of English simply because he's not pedantic enough to go hunt down U+00C6 or Alt-0198 amongst all those tens of thopusands of available codes.

I find it even more inexplicable that you would jump all over my post made in support of your contention!

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

LQII (if there is an Aelfwine reference in it; I can't find one) refers specifically to an amanuensis typescript which reflects the status of QS as emended between the earlier typescript and 1958- so, yes, that range extends past 1955, fine and so what. Nothing in "postdates the 1950s, probably the first half of the decade... and in no event later than, at the extreme, January 1960" is self-contradictory or in disagreement with what is known or deduced of the chronology, and certainly is in full accord with my point that there is no mention of Aelfwine which can be dated after or even within five years of the LR 2d Ed... and none which can with certainty be dated even to within a decade of it.

See pages 208–09 for the mention of Ælfwine in Laws and Customs Among the Eldar which is in the chapter with the page heading “The Later Quenta Silmarillion (II)”. On page 225 occurs the notation, “So spoke Ælfwine.” On page 257 Tolkien in another later essay under the same page heading includes a footnote from Ælfwine about Míriel Sirende.

These references to Ælfwine are also written following publication of The Lord of the Rings and are what I was talking about.

You posted:

However, I am not aware of any text in which Aelfwine* appears that postdates the 1950s, probably the first half of the decade (that is, before the publication of the Lord of the Rings), …

The Lord of the Rings was published in three volumes over the course of a year from 29 July 1954 to 20 October 1955. Christopher Tolkien dates all the material in the sections headed “The Later QUENTA SILMARILLION (I)” and “The Later QUENTA SILMARILLION (II)” as following this, not “before the publication of The Lord of the Rings.”

I recognize and agree with your intended “point”, but that was not what you posted.

Ligatures. Brain-poot. Sheesh!

Yes, Unicode is available; it's also a PITA for what is after all just casual messaging, not a matter for your professional publishers, past or present.

You ignore why Unicode is today essentially the sole set of protocols for language posting, universally. Casual messaging is hardly to be involved with numerous dead languages and minority languages, except in the sense that Unicode intends, in the future, to allow any language, no matter how much used or little-used it may be, to be printed.

It frankly was a bit pompous for you to insult a poster's command of English simply because he's not pedantic enough to go hunt down U+00C6 or Alt-0198 amongst all those tens of thopusands of available codes.

Gee whiz, I was only talking about one code, for ‘Æ’. And one hardly needs to hunt through tens of thousands of available codes, but only the codes used for producing the Latin script. Just look up ’Latin’ at http://www.unicode.org/charts/ or look up http://unicode.org/charts/collation/ for the characters in more-or-less normal order or look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_script_in_Unicode or many other sites.

If one realizes that ‘Æ’ and ‘æ’ were part of both the old MS-DOS Character set and the so-called Microsoft ANSI character set for Western Europe, and the original Apple-Macintosh character set one would realize that these two codes will be found early in the Unicode character set: so see http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0000.pdf and http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0080.pdf.

You are trying to make it seem hard to code ‘Æ’ and naturally failing when Arvegil145 seems to have no problems finding the vowels with diacritics. Nor do you. But you now think it smart to show that you could use Unicode but refuse to do so.

I find it even more inexplicable that you would jump all over my post made in support of your contention!

I found your post inaccurate for reasons I have explained. You believed that your post supported my contention, but it did not. What you posted was not in agreement with my contention.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Come, come, jallanite, no one is asking you to give it up, but there probably isn't the need to correct people who may not be aware of or familiar with Unicode, or simply aren't sufficiently interested in going to the trouble of using it.

I normally do not remark on such things, when I even notice them.

However Arvegil145 in other places uses Tolkien’s diacritics properly, so it looks like he normally knows what he is doing in that area. As do most posters on this forum. I thought it somewhat amusing that a poster so concerned with what is proper Elvish should make such a silly error in Old English. I am sorry now that I commented on it