View Single Post
Old 02-22-2019, 09:43 PM   #3
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
gandalf85 has just left Hobbiton.
Great job Arcus! Another great chapter!

LC-01: I agree with Fin in keeping "Preamble"

LC-02: I don't think this title is necessary. A line break clearly shows the end of the preamble.

LC-07: We might as well use Inglorion since that is a name we are sure of.

LC-11: I think we should keep this. I forget the chapter, but I remember we kept in a discussion of airplanes which clearly belonged to an age later than the fourth. This comment could be attributed to a more modern scribe.

LC-12: I do not understand the need for this change either. Just because they were "open to" direct instruction doesn't mean they absolutely have to follow it. They are still free to choose.

LC-14: It would be weird to suddenly pivot to a point about Dwarven re-birth. This section starts with "Now the Eldar hold that to each elf-child a new fa is given..." so it seems the following discussion would pertain to elf children. This sentence very clearly is referring to re-birth through children, so I vote we remove it. It also confuses the issue by using "re-birth" to refer to the old conception of re-birth through children while elsewhere the word is used to mean the newer conception of re-birth.

LC-16: If the long section from But after a while Ninna came to Manw ...’ to LC-28 was already used and must be removed, I think this is the right place to add this footnote.

LC-17: I agree this needs to be moved. How about:

...This the Eldar mean when they speak of their spirits consuming them; and they say that ere Arda ends all the Eldali on earth will have become as spirits invisible to mortal eyes, unless they will to be seen by some among Men into whose minds they may enter directly.
LC-17 {For i}It is plain that the provision of a bodily house for a fa, and the union of fa with {hrondo}[hra], was committed by Eru to the Children, to be achieved in the act of begetting.} Also the Eldar say that in the begetting, and still more in the bearing of children, greater share and strength of their being, in mind and in body, goes forth than in the making of mortal children. For these reasons it came to pass that the Eldar brought forth few children...
LC-18: Are we changing "re-birth" to "re-housing" everywhere? If so, there are a few examples were "re-birth" has not been changed (for example, the two paragraphs after LC-18). If we are not changing it everywhere, why are we changing it here?

LC-19 and LC-20: I think LC-19 is a great find by Arcus, and Fin's change is some pretty clever editing. However, I do not see why we have to remove "twice nourished". In this context, they are first nourished as a baby and then their soul is nourished in Mandos.

LC-27: I agree that this can still be used. Manwe's original judgment is that Miriel cannot return, but things change after Finwe dies; also, Nienna's insistence probably helped him change his mind. Manwe's statement that "her present body will simply wither and pass away" seems contradictory; in LC-15 it is stated "...the body, deserted by the spirit, was dissolved. This happened swiftly in Middle-earth. In Aman only was there no decay." It's possible Manwe is just wrong, but that seems unlikely. I haven't gotten to this part in my review of the First Age material yet, I will make a comment about it in my Word document for future discussion.

Some more typos in addition to Fin's:

wife and husband, albeit united, remain person’s individual
This should be "persons"

Moreover, some fear in grief or weariness gave up hope
"fear" should be "far"

To attempt to master them and to make them servants of one won’s will is wickedness.
"one won's" should be "one own's"

such a house in all particulars as it had ere, evil befell it.
There should not be a comma.

Two footnotes are missing a period at the end, these footnotes end with:

To no good purpose can such means be used, for they render all purposes evil
and even so they were not fully revealed to the Ainur
gandalf85 is offline   Reply With Quote