![]() |
|
|
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
|
|
|
#1 | |||||||||||||||
|
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
This is a very long and difficult chapter, especially because of the Lost Road addition, which has quite a few issues in terms of modern canon. I anticipate that we may run into some disagreements along the way, but I will here lay out my comments. It will be rather long, so I beg pardon.
BY-HL-16: Because we know (from Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age) that the 'Akallabeth' is an in-universe document like the Valaquenta and Ainulindale, I hesitate to use this title for this chapter. I think we have taken too much from the actual document, and so I think it would be better to use the original title The Fall of Númenor. AK-HA-01: What is this marker referencing? AK-HA-03: Why was this changed in the published version? I can't seem to find the info, and I'm curious. Just want to make sure there arent any contradictions. AK-SL-02: This is fine, but we should leave out the initial 'For' since it isn't in reference to anything in this new setting.The sentence should simply start with "Pharazôn son of Gimilkhâd ..." AK-SL-04: This is fine, but there are two missed {Zimrahil}[Zimraphel] changes. Also part of the treatment of the outline I think should be changed slightly thus: Quote:
AK-SL-05: The initial 'but' should be changed to an 'And' because the 'but' no longer applies. AK-SL-06: There is one piece of info which is lost in yours from the base Akallabeth text, which I would like to add in: Quote:
AK-HA-09: What is this reference referring to? AK-SL-08: This is fine, but I want to add in the story of the coming of Sauron from the Lost Road here. In the Lost Road, Sauron is also brought as a captive, so it is the same as in our version, but here there is an added story that he rescued the fleet from a storm, as a sign of his power and the power of Melkor. I think this story actually helps us understand how he was able to convince the King to worship Melkor so easily. Tolkien never contradicted the story in any later writing, and therefore I see no reason to leave it out. Quote:
AK-HA-12: I fixed up the use of you/thou. Most of the later uses of 'you' are in the plural sense referring to Elendil and his sons, so I left them as 'you'. I moved the editing marker earlier to accommodate some other changes: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
AK-SL-10: This is fine, but following it are more changes needed due to the illegality of Elvish. Firstly this is a general change in the chapter. The original text has 'Tarkalion' throughout, and Fin changed it to 'Tar-Calion.' However, he would certainly never be known by his Elvish name, and thus should always be referred to as 'Ar-Pharazôn'. I call this first occurrence AK-SL-10.1. Later on, we have Elendur give him a title in Quenya: Quote:
AK-SL-12: This is a small grammatical change. The change should be "{but four}[less than two twelves]". 'Than' is for comparison, 'then' is for progression. AK-SL-13: This is fine, but some more Elvish changes: Quote:
AK-SL-14.1: I made a separate marker for this, but in the english translation of the song is the first occurrence of the name 'Alkar' for Melkor. I think we must change all these to Melkor, since the name is a fleeting idea of Tolkien's which he later rejected. CT says as much himself. The name occurs nowhere outside this text and makes no sense with everything else in the established canon. AK-SL-14.2: A little further on, there is a footnote after hón-maren. However, this footnote is not needed, since the definition of the word is given right in the body of the text. The footnote is merely CT referencing the relevant section of the etymologies. Therefore I say we remove the footnote entirely. AK-14.3: At the end of the first paragraph of Isildur's historical tale, there is an innacuracy: Quote:
AK-SL-15.1: This has no marker so I am giving it one. In the paragraph after AK-SL-15 there is an occurrence of 'Avallon' to refer to Eressea. This was an older idea of Tolkien's that he rejected, relegating Avallon to Avalone, a specific haven in Eressea. Therefore it should be changed thus: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
AK-SL-28.1: This is the discussion of the languages used by Sauron. It needs severe updating. I ended up having to remove most of it, since it no longer applied: Quote:
AK-SL-30: This is a shaky addition I found, and it may very well be impossible. I figured I would bring it up and discuss if it should be included: Quote:
Last edited by ArcusCalion; 06-10-2018 at 10:30 PM. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 248
![]() |
Only a fast thing. I know Alkar only appears in this text (or at least in this period of time, I think, I think remembering), but in my opinion could be used as an alternative name of Melkor in Númenor. Well...
And in my opinion the matter of the "flying ships" doesn't work, it should have been developed by the professor better. I agree with Arcuscalion on the inclusion of the arrival of Sauron in that way. Greetings Last edited by gondowe; 06-09-2018 at 12:11 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | ||
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
BY-HL-16: I agree to ArcusCalions argument. So we will change the title.
AK-HA-01: Okay, I forgot to mention the things that I did not develop back to the original text. But in this case their was only a remark about an earlier version. AK-HA-03: As far as I remember, one king was by accident left out of the Appendix A of LotR and Christopher felt bound to this. AK-SL-02: Agreed. AK-SL-04: Agreed. AK-SL-05: Agreed. AK-SL-06: Agreed. So I like to edit it by splitting the insert and not inserting part of the deleted text. AK-SL-07: I wanted the reasoning be named. So what about this: Quote:
Quote:
But to the use of ‘Tar-marion’ at this place I don’t agree. We might add it earlier when we speak about the things that the Númenoreans hear about Sauron. But in Númenor Sauron was never king, so the prefix ‘Tar-‘ is not appropriate. I think we should use ‘Marion’. AK-HA-12: I don’t think this is right. Tolkien wanted to make a difference between father addressing the son and son addressing the father. AK-SL-09: Is it not a bit inconsistent to include ‘Tar-marion’ but remove the Quenya from the speech of Isildur and Elendur? But however we are after the restoration of Tar-Palantir, so it might be that it was not before Sauron convinced Pharazôns to attack Valinor, that Quenya was again forbidden. AK-SL-12: Agreed. AK-SL-14: I agree that we should update the Quenya. AK-SL-14.1: I have to think a bit more about this. It is not impossible to use the name in this text only, but you might be right. AK-SL-14.2: Okay. AK-SL-14.3: Agreed. AK-SL-15.1: Agreed. AK-SL-23 through AK-SL-28: Agreed. AK-SL-28.1: See above. I think the discussion can more or less stand as it is. The reference might than not be to Andunaic but a some other language that Sauron promotes, that is even farther removed from the elvish influence. AK-SL-30: Even so it is risky, I like that addition. Respectfully Findegil |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
AK-SL-07: Agreed, I like this.
AK-HA-09: Ahh, ok. AK-SL-08: To the Tar-Mairon question, I see your point. I agree to use Mairon. AK-HA-12: Hmm this might be difficult then. I will give this more thought. AK-SL-09: I see that, but Sauron does not yet know the political status of Numenor, and we are told by Tolkien that Sauron referred to himself as Mairon. We therefore cannot use Sauron here, but we may debate if we wish to use the Adunaic name for him: Zigûr (given in the Drowning of Anadune). As to the Elvish, I had forgotten about Tar-Palantir, but I think with Pharazon being a complete continuation of the King's Men and the rule of his father and other anti-elvish peoples, we must assume that he reinstated their policies. It says that Tar-Palantir was the last to support the Faithful, and so I can hardly say that Pharazon would continue to allow the speaking of Quenya. AK-SL-14: I will then post my proposal for the edit: Quote:
AK-SL-28.1: This, for me, is impossible. The 'ancestral speech of Men' clearly means Adunaic, and to have it refer to some (hitherto unmentioned) speech seems to me to be a great liberty taken, and not to be what Tolkien intended. In this older story the situation is clearly different. In this version, there had been far fewer kings of Numenor, and Tarkalion was the first evil king. Therefore all the anti-elvish sentiment was still new and the languages of Men were unused and forgotten. However, in the newer version this is simply not true, and the Adunaic is spoken by the vast majority of Numenoreans as a daily speech. In fact, the use of Adunaic instead of elvish is seen as a sign of the King's Men, (since they took their regnal names in Adunaic) and so to revive some other unknown language would go counter to their goals and culture all along. Therefore I feel very strongly that we cannot use this discussion, due to its outdated and in-applicable nature. AK-SL-30: Gondowe expressed his concerns for this addition, but to me saying 'it should have been more developed' is not a reason for excluding something. We need a contradiction or an impossibility in order to get rid of something, and as this is new information not found elsewhere, I think it is worth including. Last edited by ArcusCalion; 06-10-2018 at 10:26 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 248
![]() |
What I wanted to mean is that it comes from a text older than the Akallabeth, not retaken later. And such remarkable "technology" must appear or have notice of that even in the Third Age, and that not happens, it is not "developed" so it seems very rare to have this paragraph here and then, what...? (IMHO).
As for Alkar I still think that is valid because we are agreed that this legends are mannish and it cuold be a name taken by the Numenoreans (or some of them) as an alternative name for the Ainu in his orinal form, but nevertheless it is not so important for the story itself. Greetings |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | ||||
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
AK-SL-09: Hmm, yes Pharazôns reverted the restoration of Palantir as soon as he had married Míriel. But that in the house of the lords of Andunië the knowledge of Quenya was maintained can not be doubted. And we have here Isildur one of the Leaders of the Faithful, raised during the restoration period and his son being one a secret visit in their own old home in an area of the land that must have been rather empty after the Faithfull had to move to Rómenna. Why shouldn’t they speak Quenya on such an occasion?
AK-SL-16.5: About Saurons name: I agree to use Mairon in AK-SL-09, but probably we should mention Zigûr as well. It is translated ‘wizard’. And therefore probably not suitable for Sauron to use it for himself. But we could add it in here; Quote:
AK-SL10.1: General change {Tarkalion}[Ar-Pharazôns]: Agreed. AK-SL-10.2: Here I think we have simply to remove Nuaran Númenóren. I think we can not use Adûnakhôr as that was the title of one of Pharazôns ancestors, an d I don’t think it would have been reused. AK-SL-13.4 & AK-SL-14: Okay, the version of Helge should be okay. I agree as well that in this special case Alkar should be replaced by Melkor in the Text of the poem and in the translation. AK-SL-14.1: ‘Alkar the Radiant’ reminded me of the following passages, One from Myths Transformed, Text II: Quote:
Quote:
AK-SL-28.1: I agree that the discussion cannot stand as it is, but I would try to remove only the contradiction: Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
AK-SL-09: I think a lot of the point of this story is that Elendur is much less knowledgable of the Faithful and how deep his family is into it. So I think he would not be speaking Quenya so openly. Also, later on, he is very scared that Sauron's servants will hear his father speaking ill of Sauron, and urges him to stop talking. If he thought they were being watched so closely, he would not speak Quenya out in the open.
AK-SL-16.5: Agreed, I like this very much! AK-SL-09.7: This is actually a very good point, and so I will agree to leave it. AK-SL-10.2: Agreed AK-SL-14.1: This seems to me to be a very risky thing to leave, but I suppose I cannot find reasons in our rules to change it, and so I suppose we can leave it in. However, I think we must equate Alkar with Melkor, since the first occurrence of the name is not explained. I think we should do it like this: Quote:
AK-SL-28.1: Agreed, this works. AK-SL-30: This is very very true. Last edited by ArcusCalion; 06-11-2018 at 07:04 PM. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
|
|