Results from the Poll re: the name ' Laegolas' in the Fall of Gondolin

[lindil]

Below is, as far as I know, is the essence of our discussion on Legolas.

the old comments on Legolas

lindil:looking legolas up in the name list on p.216 I
read:'named by the eldar there [in Tol Eressea]
Laiqalasse'
So he has already been given a 'Quenya' name by JRRT!
there is then a reference to an extended note in I
wherein we read CRT saying
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'the following Note is of
great interest' "Laigolas =green-leaf,......legolast
i.e.keen-sight...but perhaps both were his names as the
gnomes delighted to give similar sounding namesof
dissimilar meaning, legolas-the ordinary form is a
confusion of the 2."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So we are given 2 options that I can see [and I do not
excpect anyone to rely on me for linguistic skills!]

A 'quenya' - Laiqalasse'
or an uncorrupted 'sindarin' - Laigolas Legolast.
a third option could be just Laigolas -


Aiwendil:I don't think 'Laigolas' is usable, at least not if it is meant to represent a different word from 'Legolas'. It seems most probable to me that it was merely an alternate spelling. But anyway, if we accept the etymology of Legolas (as we must), then 'Laigolas' lacks an etymology entirely.

Tar Elenion :Actually there is an etymology of sorts.
"Legolas means 'green-leaves', a woodland name - dialetical form of pure Sindarin laegolas: *lasse [with overscore on the 'e'] (High-elven lasse, S. las(s)) 'leaf'; *gwa-lassa/*gwa-lassie 'collection of leaves, foliage' (H.E. olassie [w/ overscore on 'e'], S. golas, -olas); *laika 'green' - basis LAY as in laire 'summer' (H.E. laica, S. laeg (seldom used, usually replaced by calen), woodland leg)."
Quoted from Letter 211.
"'Technically' Legolas is a compound (according to rules) of S. laeg 'viridis fresh and green, and go-lass 'collection of leaves, foliage'."
Quoted from Letter 297.

'ae' and 'ai' are often interchangeable (eg Aeglos, Aiglos (Gil-galad's spear)).

Aiwendil:What I meant was that 'Laigolas' is really not a different name at all from 'Legolas'. However, 'Legolast' might be used, if it could still represent 'keen-sight' (I doubt if it could, but we might change it to a more suitable form).

lindil:Re: legolast /laigolas etc. I am for anything other than duplicating legolas /legolas greenleaf.
The others are such close variants that perhaps the Quenya version should be used despite it standing out.

Cian :

I'd go with Laegolas for the "pure Sindarin" that JRRT offers, in the letter quoted by Tar-Elenion.

Laica (LAY) is cognate with S. laeg ~ Helge F. prefers to also honor "older" word laiqua as a viable Quenya word as well. Laiqa shows old "Qenya" orthography.

Tolkien gave the next elements in both High and Grey Elven (S. golas, -olas Q. olassië) as denoting a collection of leaves. Cheers~

later Cian posted:
Re: keeping the form Legolas ~ remember that this form shows Silvan dialect.

Lindil, yes an "updated" situation can (may) be considered:

Quenya laiqua (LAYAK) Sindarin cognate *laeb (Noldorin lhoeb in Etym.)
Quenya laica (LAY) Sindarin cognate laeg (Cf. Q&E WotJ laegel, Laegrim)

The term Laiquendi "Greenelves" was likely originally conceived of as resulting from laiqua+quendi. But laica can also "fit" here, so to speak ~ according to Helge F., the first element may be a reduced form of _laica_ , or prefixed _lai_ may represent only the base itself (LAY), or maybe even laica+quendi > Laiquendi considering rocco+quén > roquen "knight".


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Cian posted :

I'd go with Laegolas for the "pure Sindarin" that JRRT offers, in the letter quoted by Tar-Elenion.

later Cian posted:
Re: keeping the form Legolas ~ remember that this form shows Silvan dialect.

Aiwendil on the 11th of October provided this excellent summary:


Legolas Options

Forgive the longwindedness instead of a simple vote, but I feel compelled to summarize the situation:

As I see it, we currently have the four following options with regard to the name "Legolas":

1. Retain "Legolas". The advantage to this is that we are making one less alteration to the words of JRRT. The possible disadvantages are these: a. "Legolas" appears in LotR as a (probably) Sivanized name, not pure Sindarin. The name in FoG should obviously not be Silvan. b. Elves do not tend to reuse names.

2. Change to Quenya ("Laiqualasse" or something like that). The possible justification is that some names originally given in Sindarin were changed to Quenya (e.g., Bronweg to Voronwe). On the other hand, it seems like this would be taking a little too much liberty with the name. Also, this does not solve the problem (if it is a problem) that the name is reused in LotR; it is the same name, whether it appears in the Sindarin or Quenya form.

3. Change to Laegolas. This would address problem 1a, replacing the perhaps-Silvanized name with a conjectural pure Sindarin form. The disadvantages are: a. we are changing a name (always a disadvantage, however minor) and b. it does not address problem 1b.

4. Change to Legolast or something similar. The idea here is to change the etymology from "Green-leaf" to "Keen-sight". This would nicely sidestep 1a and 1b. This is, unlike "Laicalasse" and "Laegolas", actually a different name from "Legolas". The justification for this is that BoLT I suggests that the name may have been "Laigolas Legolast". The disadvantage is that there is no evidence for the name "Legolast" being his only or primary name.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
what time frame should we give this Aiwendil and any one else?


2 weeks from today [ending monday october 21, 2002]?

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]
***as no one has suggested a time frame I put forth 3 weeks, unless anyone has objections/alt. suggestions and they are seconded]***

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Maédhros]

Laegolas. I'm not much of a language expert, so I will abide the judgement of Cian in this one.

[HerenIstarion]

Laegolas for me.

For it is stated that even for Noldor in Beleriand Quenya was become Latinlike dead language. Though Gondolin is purely noldorin realm of course.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: HerenIstarion ]

[Tirinvo]

I vote for Legolas (not Legolas Greenleaf), as to not contradict LotR. This is the same reason on my decision on the orc/k issue, but that is another topic. Unless we can otherwise provide background information on the change that is compatible with LotR being in the future. Newcomers to the Sil will think Laegolas and Legolas(in LotR) are two different people.

[lindil]

"newcomers will think that Legolas and Laegolas are 2 seperate people"

That is exactly mypoint, they are!

and so any justifiable adjustment of the name [ and JRRT provides several imo] will help to differentiate him from the 3rd age Elf wh is ason of thranduil and has maybe a 1 in million chance of being the same as the Laegolas of Gondolin.

I actually would go w/ quenya myself because a. we have other quenya named elves in Gondolin and b. JRRT provies one, and C. it even further disassociates him from Legolas of Mirkwood, but no one else in the group wants to countenance using Quenya names as substitues.

[Aiwendil]

Legolas Options

Forgive the longwindedness instead of a simple vote, but I feel compelled to summarize the situation:

As I see it, we currently have the four following options with regard to the name "Legolas":

1. Retain "Legolas". The advantage to this is that we are making one less alteration to the words of JRRT. The possible disadvantages are these: a. "Legolas" appears in LotR as a (probably) Silvanized name, not pure Sindarin. The name in FoG should obviously not be Silvan. b. Elves do not tend to reuse names.

2. Change to Quenya ("Laiqualasse" or something like that). The possible justification is that some names originally given in Sindarin were changed to Quenya (e.g., Bronweg to Voronwe). On the other hand, it seems like this would be taking a little too much liberty with the name. Also, this does not solve the problem (if it is a problem) that the name is reused in LotR; it is the same name, whether it appears in the Sindarin or Quenya form.

3. Change to Laegolas. This would address problem 1a, replacing the perhaps-Silvanized name with a conjectural pure Sindarin form. The disadvantages are: a. we are changing a name (always a disadvantage, however minor) and b. it does not address problem 1b.

4. Change to Legolast or something similar. The idea here is to change the etymology from "Green-leaf" to "Keen-sight". This would nicely sidestep 1a and 1b. This is, unlike "Laicalasse" and "Laegolas", actually a different name from "Legolas". The justification for this is that BoLT I suggests that the name may have been "Laigolas Legolast". The disadvantage is that there is no evidence for the name "Legolast" being his only or primary name.

I am not going to vote yet, as I'm not really sure which solution I currently favor. 2 and 3 are essentially the same type of change, using a different form of the same name, and I think that 3 is the stronger of those two. 4 is interesting and would be an excellent solution if it were a little better attested. I'm inclined not to go with 1, as 3 definitely seems superior to it.

So I guess I'm for either "Laegolas" or "Legolast". I will give it some thought and then vote.


[mod note: I liked this summary so much I am puting it up in the original post of the thread -lindil]

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[lindil]

Thank you for that objective and succinct summary Aiwendil, each poll should ideally begin w/ somthing like that.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[lindil]

OK I emended my the opening post in the thread to inculde Aiwendil's summary and extract my vote [ which I really knew I should keep seperate anyway].

OK I emended my the opening post in the thread to inculde Aiwendil's summary and extract my vote [ which I really knew I should keep seperate anyway].

my personal vote is for Laegolas

I am basing it on Cian's observations that the lotR form of the name is not one that would have existed in Gondolin.


Also I am in favour of distancing ourselves form the Legolas Greenleaf of the LotR.

Undoubtedly a different Elf altogether.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Tirinvo]

It is as it may seem; I do not agree with the Sindarin form of the Legolas name. Elves lived a loooonnngg time, so it is very possible that Legolas in LotR and Legolas in the Sil are the same person. I doubt this, but I base this on the fact that JRRT said that Elvish names don't recycle. Yet, I can 'go with the flow' and, be it as it may, I can go either way.

[Aiwendil]

it is very possible that Legolas in LotR and Legolas in the Sil are the same person.

I'm afraid this is not really possible. Legolas in FoG is an Elf of Gondolin, probably Noldorin (though possibly Sindarin). Legolas in LotR is the son of Thranduil, son of Oropher; Oropher is said to have been a Sindarin prince who came east to settle among the Silvan Elves. It is strongly suggested in UT that Legolas was not yet born when Oropher moved east.

[Eruhen]

Seeing as my earlier post is now null and void, I will submit a new vote, simply for Laegolas.

I agree with Lindil, in that we are not certain that Legolas in Gondolin and Legolas in Mirkwood are the same person. However, that possibility exists, so we should give him a name that can still be recognized by people who haven't read HoME.

However, we are all overlooking a possibility here. Is there any reason that Legolas of Gondolin wasn't killed in the Battle at Sirion's Mouth, and then, after an age of penance and contemplation in the Halls of Mandos, his soul was sent back to be born into Middle-earth again as the son of Thranduil? I feel that this may be a distinct possibility, however, I may not have all my facts straight. If I don't, feel free to correct me. So, in light of this, I think that we should all ponder whether Legolas of Gondolin and Legolas of Mirkwood aren't the same Elf.

That's just what I think, though.

[lindil]

What happened to your original post [?] Eruhen?

I apologize if I have said anything to create confusion, but I will try and state my Legolas position in its rawest form.

I do not think there is a chance in Udun that the 2 Legolas' are the same.

Zero zip nada.

I do not think there should be anything in our FoG that even suggests the possibility and I do not for a moment think JRRT would have either.

And here is why:

While Tolkien wrote/debated/corresponded rather exstensively on Glorfindel and his return or not, never once in HoME 6-9 [to my knowledge], the Letters or of course the LotR is Legolas [ of Gondolin] included in on this. The only realistic conclusion I can draw from this sfrom this is that JRRT never saw the 2 as identical.

The above coupled w/ the fact that legolas' name as it stands in LotR shows a 'sylvanization' that would no longer have been present in the Sindarin of Gondolin, leads me to conclude that while they share a similar name, to leave them identical against evidence is only the more likely to breed a confusion that need not exist.

Hope that clarifies my position at least.
as Aiwendil's stated

I'm afraid this is not really possible. Legolas in FoG is an Elf of Gondolin, probably Noldorin (though possibly Sindarin). Legolas in LotR is the son of Thranduil, son of Oropher; Oropher is said to have been a Sindarin prince who came east to settle among the Silvan Elves. It is strongly suggested in UT that Legolas was not yet born when Oropher moved east.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

we should give him a name that can still be recognized by people who haven't read HoME.

Putting aside for a moment the
(im)plausability of the LotR Legolas being the same as the FoG Legolas, I don't think our decisions, especially decisions such as this, should be made with respect to the confusion or lack thereof of a reader. The question is a canonical one, not a literary one.

Is there any reason that Legolas of Gondolin wasn't killed in the Battle at Sirion's Mouth, and then, after an age of penance and contemplation in the Halls of Mandos, his soul was sent back to be born into Middle-earth again as the son of Thranduil?

Elvish rebirth was rejected by Tolkien sometime during the 1950s, and replaced with reincarnation. In this latter version, the bodies of Elves are simply reformed by the Valar and reinhabited by their fear. Legolas is quite definitely the son of Thranduil, ruling out the possibility of reincarnation.

[Eruhen]

Okay, okay. I concede my position. However, I am still adamant on using Laegolas, for the same reason as Cian:

I'd go with Laegolas as the "pure Sindarin" that JRRT offers, in the letter qouted by Tar-Elenion.

Well, I told you to correct me if I was wrong and you guys have obviously taken that liberty. Seeing as I didn't have all my facts straight, I abandon my position and just withdraw from this debate altogether.

My vote stands as Laegolas.

[lindil]

I apologize Eruhen, if my tone was a bit hard [ and I think it was]. And please do not worry, I have been corrected and instructed in these forums many, many times. Why look at Aiwendil's last post [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] .


Actually there is still in my mind an unresolved issue amongst our 'principles' re: aesthetics and how to deal w/ contradictions between how we might perceive Tolkien's intention [ unfullfilled, that is as in the case of 'Laegolas'name ] and reconciling that w/ our other principles.

It has yet to ever be a direct clash, but I imagine we will have to vote on the very principles themselves, which have been a rather effective guiding point till now, rather soon. PRobably no later than Rog's entry into the story.

Anyway, the votes seem to be nearly all in, w/ the exception of Underhill and Mithadan who may not regard themselves as voters [although I hope they do!]

[Tirinvo]

I hate to do this, but in reading HoME and some other reasources, I found what lindil was talking about. The fact that Legolas of Gondolin was not (plausibly) the same as Legolas of Greenwood (Mirkwood).

So I therefore withdraw my origional vote. I must go with the Quenya, for it is closest to Noldorin that you can get, and there is no way, with that name, that you can confuse FoG Legolas with LotR Legolas. Laegolas and Laigolas seem really close, in spelling, to the Legolas of Mirkwood. That is so there is no confusion in the transition or comparison of the two.

[Tar Elenion]

Laegolas.

[antoine2]

Laegolas.

For me, it s the best choice.

[Aiwendil]

So I therefore withdraw my origional vote. I must go with the Quenya, for it is closest to Noldorin that you can get

I must point out that Quenya is not closest to Noldorin. What was originally Noldorin later became Sindarin. I'm not trying provoke an argument or alter anyone's vote; I merely think that we should have all such matters made clear so that no one votes under mistaken assumptions.

[Eruhen]

I'm not speaking for him, but what I think Tirinvo means is that Quenya is the closest to Noldorin, the Noldorin as in the language that the Noldor originally spoke. Don't take my word as the Gospel truth though; wait until he says what he means.

---------------------------------------------
Tally thus far:
Laegolas: 6
Laiqualassë: 1
Legolast: 0

[Tirinvo]

Thank you, Eruhen, that is what I mean.

[Aiwendil]

Ah. I understand. Thank you.

[Tirinvo]

You may also note some of my other reasons, such as the fact that Laegolas and Laigolas are one letter away from the origional, yet the Quenya is only similar in its begining. Some may think of the American 'armor' and the British 'armour'(both meaning the same) and make this link with 'Lelogas' and 'Laegolas'(both being different), seeing the two as the same character, just the latter having the more ancient name that later comformed to some standard. Thus, no confusion occurs with the Quenya.

[lindil]

I would go with the Quenya myself for just about every thorny name problem within FoG but there seems to be no support for that outside of ourselves, so I would just as soon not flog an almost dead horse.

[Eruhen]

Lindil, is that a vote for Laiqualassë or are you just complaining? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Tirinvo]

I'm with you there, lindil!

So where are we at:
Laegolas:6
Laigolas:0
Laiqualassë:1(2?)
Legolast:0
So, unless there is a miracle mind-changing turn-around, the vote seems to be as unanimous as it will ever be. Objections???
Otherwise I think this vote is decided.

[Aiwendil]

Not that it matters so much anymore, but my vote is: Laegolas.

[lindil]

You may recall Eruhen that there was a day or so when i had a convoluted post up trying to squeeze in a 1st and 2nd choice.
Upon further reflection I scrapped that post as I realized I was opening a can of worms.

So, no I am voting for the popular Laegolas, but under duress if you will [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

I think your vote was already in the tally Aiwendil. and it does matter! Every vote counts look at Florida! Well Ok every vote might count [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]


there - graemlined out.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

I think your vote was already I the tally Aiwendil.

Oh. I hadn't actually voted before; I wasn't decided 'twixt Laegolas and Legolast. Now I'm quite decided: Laegolas, a mere update of the Sindarin. Minimal tampering.

look at Florida!

Precisely the source of my cynicism.

[lindil]

Unless any one objects, as it is a runaway election for Laegolas, I will go ahead and close 'er up and move it over too the public forum for public consumption.

I originally said 2 weeks [ today] and then 3 but as no one commented on either, I will go with the original 2 week period.

[lindil]

While the Poll is closed and finished, folks [project members or not] are free to continue the discussion.

[Eruhen]

No need to keep talking, if the vote is over and done.

[Elendur]

1. Retain "Legolas". The advantage to this is that we are making one less alteration to the words of JRRT. The possible disadvantages are these: a. "Legolas" appears in LotR as a (probably) Sivanized name, not pure Sindarin. The name in FoG should obviously not be Silvan. b. Elves do not tend to reuse names.

In response to this.

a.) I thought there were Silvan elves living in the Mirkwood forest. I remember reading that there weren't many of them but they were leaders to the Sindarin elves in that area. So wouldn't a Silvanised name make sense because Legolas was a prince?

b.)Aren't Legolas and Laegolas pronounced the same? If that is the case, it doesn't seem to fit with the rule because only a spelling change to the name has been made.

Im sorry if my points dont make sense. I haven't read anything from HoME except for the first half of The Lost Tales. But I remember reading about Silvan elves in Mirkwood so I thought I would share my unkowledgable opinion. I would like to get a quote from the book, but I have no idea where I read that from. It is probably Unfinished Tales.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Elendur ]

[Aiwendil]

I thought there were Silvan elves living in the Mirkwood forest. I remember reading that there weren't many of them but they were leaders to the Sindarin elves in that area. So wouldn't a Silvanised name make sense because Legolas was a prince?

You're right; but (and there's no way you could have known this without reading BoLT II), the Legolas in question is a different one. Long before LotR was begun, there was a Legolas of Gondolin. He was, unfortunately, ommitted from the compressed later versions.

Aren't Legolas and Laegolas pronounced the same?

"Legolas" is, I believe, pronounced
le'-g^o-los (that's English phonetics, not international). "Laegolas" is l^i-g^o-los. The "ae" is a diphthong pronounced like the long "i" in, well, "I".

[lindil]

It was the Sindarin Elves [Doriathrin refugees and their descendants] who were the rulers of the Sylvan Elves according to UT's Galadriel and Celeborn.

[Aiwendil]

Looks like I need to read other people's posts a bit more carefully before I respond. Yes, "Legolas" is the Silvanized form, and yes this makes sense. This is not, however, because he is a prince (that would actually be a reason for his name not to be Silvanized).

[lindil]

Although the Mirkwood/Greenwood Sindar were rather anti-Noldor, I recall reading something on the lines of Thranduil or his father 'resenting the intrusions of Noldor' into sylvan realms. So from that point of view the sylvanization of his name makes sense.

I have often wondered if this resentment [ aimed particulary at Galadriel and Celeborn] was the cause of the lack of contact [mentioned by Celeborn in FotR] between the 2 communities of [predominantly] Sylvan Elves.

My personal guess [since I am on the subject [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ] is that the Elves of Dorwinion were fiercly anti-Noldor and that somehow this either rubbed off on many of Thranduil's kingdom and soured Lothlorien/Mirkwood relations or caused a sort of trade with them or us attitude.

All pure hypothesis put together from UT, Hobbit and Celeborn's words to the Fellowship.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Westerly Wizard]

I am curious what the actual argument for including Legolas (of any spelling) in the Fall of Gondolin story. The story with him in it is by far the most complete, but much of the stuff was abandoned either directly or idealogically in Tolkiens writings. Legolas has always seemed to me to be one of these, as there are no other major repititions of elvish names, besides Glorfindel which Tolkien explained with reincarnation . The two Legolases are clearly distinct in origin, so aren't the same, yet they are similar (e.g. keen-sighted). But it is doubtful that Thranduil, who was not too fond of the Noldor, would name his son after one. Ultimately, I think, as of now, that the accuracy of including Legolas in the Fall of Gondolin story is very doubtful.

[lindil]

I agree w/ you Westerly Wizard. But the project is run on a set of principles [ 95% not 100% worked out] that at times we have to weigh them against each other.

I and 1 other member favored to differing degrees using the quenya name Laiqulasse or a variant to distance the Elf from Legolas as far as possible. As we felt that as you said a 'Legolas ' would not appear. However we have a character whose actions are not incompatible. With the story and nothing he does is as we could say 'cause for dismissal'. So we need a name and no one wanted to manufacture one out of thin air when JRRT at one point did have name [names actually] for the character.

Rog is a similar point to my mind and in order to decide I rather suspect we shall have to get 100% on our principles.

CRT felt Rog's name because as he says 'it was absolutely certain that my father would not have retained this name as a Lord of Gondolin' was completely incompatible with the tone we could say of a later Silm.

So to my mind we must have a principle that states 'does this feel/sound/look like a story that would have made it into a LotR or later Silmarillion.

If we do not address these problems directly and with a principle of their own we will end up with a text that may not literally contradict anything from the Lost Road Era or later [by which time all of the legendarium's 'primitivisms' if you will have all been expunged] but does not meet the exceedingly lofty standards of story or euphony that JRRT demanded of the stories.

Thus the archaic speech peculiar to Lost Tales but absent in it's quaint form from the late 30's on, the name Rog and the idea of hordes of Balrogs and Mechanical Dragons all are things that one or more of the project members see as incongruent.

We are however. admittedly on a slippery slope that could descend into complete subjectivity which also is to be avoided.

So basically W. Wizard some of us saw your point more problematic than others but no one felt Legolas was so bad to stage a 'filibuster' if you will over it and go back to the 'principles' drawing board. but I suspect that time can not be long delayed.

I do hope you can take some visual comfort in 'Laegolas' and the fact that he is an altogether different Elf.

And as has been pointed out, we have 2 galdors [maybe] and 2 Rumil's [positively] and there may be other examples.
Tar elenion in particular has researched this.

Eruhen - and you wanted to close this thread ?
[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

Inquit Westerly Wizard:

Legolas has always seemed to me to be one of these, as there are no other major repititions of elvish names, besides Glorfindel which Tolkien explained with reincarnation .

Respondit Lindil:

And as has been pointed out, we have 2 galdors [maybe] and 2 Rumil's [positively] and there may be other examples.

Also two Gelmirs. I think it can be pretty well demonstrated that Elvish names are in fact repeated. Not that the point is completely lost, however; I think it should be reinterpreted thus: Elves are not named after namesakes (with the exception of patronymics). So Rumil of Lorien is not named after Rumil of Valinor; he was given the name independently as it were. I have no evidence at hand for this hypothesis, and it must be considered merely personal opinion. But it does explain, to some extent, the repetition of a few names.

Inquit Lindil:

I and 1 other member favored to differing degrees using the quenya name Laiqulasse or a variant to distance the Elf from Legolas as far as possible.

I feel I should set down my disagreement with this view. I would love to be able to get around the problem of name repetition - that's why I was tempted to vote for Legolast. I don't think Laegolas addresses the problem. But neither does Laiqualasse or any other Quenya form. Laiqualasse is just a different form of Laegolas, just as Legolas is a different form of it. In other words, Laiqualasse is as close to Legolas as is Laegolas. It might look more different, but to an educated Elf it isn't. So if what we want is to fool the readers, Quenya is a viable solution. If we want to deal with the fundamental problem of name repitition, it is not. That's my view, anyway; I know Lindil and I disagree on this rather vehemently.

Inquit Lindil:

CRT felt Rog's name because as he says 'it was absolutely certain that my father would not have retained this name as a Lord of Gondolin' was completely incompatible with the tone we could say of a later Silm.

I never understood why CRT felt this way; he provides no evidence. I don't see anything about Rog that makes it incompatible with later Sindarin. How is it different from Balrog? And it appears as late as the 1930 Quenta Noldorinwa.

I also think it might be useful to make the following distinction. There are many things that Tolkien would probably (or almost definitely) have changed. Of these there are

1. Some that we must change because they contradict other things - for example, the Tale of Years story that Dwarves invade Doriath must be altered because of the existence of the Girdle of Melian.

2. Others that we must change because Tolkien indicates that he was going to change them and indicates exactly how he was going to change them, and they can be changed without producing any problematic contradictions. This includes things like Gil-Galad being Orodreth's son instead of Fingon's.

3. Others that we cannot change because to do so would result in a contradiction: the round earth cosmology; the story that Celeborn was a Teler.

4. The tricky bit. Things that JRRT would probably/definitely have changed, but which do not present contradictions and also about which there is no authoritative note. That is, they do not fall under 1,2, or 3 above. This means things like Rog or Legolas (though for different reasons). My view is this: these things should either be retained as they are or dropped/made ambiguous. Even though we can be about 90% sure that JRRT would have changed them, we have no definitive note, no pressing reason to change them, and most importantly, no good idea of to what to change them.

This is, of course, not anything like a simple question, and my answer is inadequately simplistic. Nonetheless, I think our guiding principle in such cases should be minimal tampering wherever possible.

Note that the change Legolas -> Laegolas does not fall under 4; it is necessitated by changes in Sindarin.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]