The Letter of the Law

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

That said, I believe the amazons only get a single passing mention, buried somewhere in a linguistic essay, so perhaps "they would have been mentioned" isn't necessarily true? .... It's entirely within reason that Tolkien would have restricted a description of Nazgul #5, the Sorceress of the Last Desert to an utterly unreadable scribble on the back of an envelope.

Not only is this entirely plausible, but I am now trying to wrap my head around the canonical implications of "Tolkien wrote this on a scrap of paper somewhere" but it is now lost. If it fills in a gap--or replaces some established element (say, the actual spelling isn't Maidros or Maedhros but McFeänos). Is the "true" canon the unknown fact or is it the textus receptus?

But that's really a question for another thread (this, to link but one)...