![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#81 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 217
![]() |
Okay. The only difference I was referring to about Thingol's death was that he should be forced or tricked out of the Girdle. Now we can "kill him" inside him, although also in the woods, despite the fact that "His halls were violated and he himself slain" is said.
Either way, I find it hard to handle the Girdle's loss of power explanation. But it is true that we can use to explain (sorry this is a copy/paste of yours old: §311 (§37b) RD-EX-60 Now {is}when the king was far in the woods with all his company, and the horns {grow}grew faint in the deep forest, {but }{Gwendelin}[Melian] {sits}sat in her bower {and}but foreboding {is}was in her heart and eyes. Then said an Elfmaid{, Nielthi}: ‘Wherefore, O Lady, art thou sorrowful at the hightide of the king?’ And {Gwendelin}[Melian] said: ‘Evil seeks our land, and my heart misgives me that my days in {Artanor}[Doriath] are speeding to their end, yet if I should lose {Tinwelint}[Thingol] then would I wish never to have wandered forth from Valinor.’ But {Nielthi}the Elfmaid said: ‘Nay, O Lady {Gwendelin}[Melian], hast thou not woven great magic all about us, so that we fear not?’ But the queen made answer: ‘Yet meseems editorial change{there is a rat that gnaws} the threads[ are riven] and all the web has come unwoven.’ In relation to what Arcuscalion says, therefore, my proposal was to combine the two concepts. The outlaws carrying the treasure, and Húrin carrying only the Nauglamír. Both throwing them at Thingol's feet and the Dwarves remaking the necklace. This follows the TN line of time but differs in only one (but important thing, the remaking, not the making of the Nauglamír. Sorry again, something like: §279 (§8) RD-SL-05 {And the curse came upon the possessors in this wise. Each one of Húrin's company died or was slain in quarrels upon the road; but Húrin went unto Thingol and sought his aid, and the folk of Thingol bore the treasure to the Thousand Caves.}<TT Now {Úrin}[Húrin] (From Sil77) entered in, and stayed a while in that dreadful place, where the treasures of Valinor lay strewn upon the floors in darkness and decay; but it is told that when Húrin came forth from the wreck of Nargothrond and stood again beneath the sky he bore with him out of all that great hoard but one thing only. and that was no lesser treasure than the Nauglamír, the Necklace of the Dwarves, that was made for Finrod Felagund long years before by the craftsmen of Nogrod and Belegost, most famed of all their works in the Elder Days, and prized by Finrod while he lived above all the treasures of Nargothrond. [And then ]caused his followers to bear this gold to the halls of {Tinwelint}[Thingol], and they murmured at that, but he said: ‘Are ye become as the drakes of {Melko}[Morgoth], that would lie and wallow in gold and seek no other joy? A sweeter life shall ye have in the court of that king of greed, an ye bear such treasury to him, than all the gold of Valinor can get you in the empty woods.’ … §284 (§12) Then Húrin bade cast it all at the feet of Thingol, RD-EX-15 <TT uncovering it so that all that court were dazzled and amazed – but {Úrin}[Húrin]'s men understood now what was forward and RD-EX-16 <editorial addition many> were little pleased. RD-EX-17 <QS77 (From Sil77) And Húrin cast {it} the Nauglamír at the feet of Thingol with wild and bitter words. 'Receive thou thy fee,' he cried, 'for thy fair keeping of my children and my wife! For this is the Nauglamír, whose name is known to many among Elves and Men; and I bring it to thee out of the darkness of Nargothrond, where Finrod thy kinsman left it behind him when he set forth with Beren son of Barahir to fulfil the errand of Thingol of Doriath!' And Húrin{and he} reproached the {Elfking}[Elvenking] with wild and bitter words. ‘Receive thou thy fee,' he cried, 'for thy fair keeping of my children and my wife! For this is the {Nauglamír}[the hoard of Glaurung], whose {name}[fame] is known to many among Elves and Men,> bought by the death of {Nienóri}[Niënor] with the blood of Túrin slayer of the worm. Take it, O craven king, and be glad that some Men be brave to win thee riches.'> Could that be an "overstepping the bounds of the editorial function"? By the way, I am also a very much combiner. Greetings |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#82 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,605
![]() |
With Arvegil145 posting his find of Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ we have to rethink many of our decisions. The greatest im pact has JRR Tolkiens removel of the fight of the Dwarvish smiths after they finished their work in Menegroth. With that Tolkien opened for him self the way back to the fight of the Húrin’s Outlaws against the Thanes of Thingol in Menegroth. As the fate of the outlaws was one of our main issues, this new source gives us a kind of a perfect solution.
But there remain some issues, nonetheless. I will give out first some arguments sorted by our editing marks if a number is missing here it means the decision take of old can stay: First a general change: Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ specifies that the Nauglamír was made from silver not from gold. I caried that change throught any mention of material in direct connection to the necklace. RD-SL-03.5: This is not new but an undecided issue: Was the Nauglamír made for Finrod Fealgund and brought to Menegroth by Húrin as a special item of the hoard and there the Dwarves ‘only’ put it together with the Silmaril or was it made by the Dwarves in Menegroth for Thingol specially as a framework for his Silamril? For me the text of Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ does play down the significance of the Silmaril in favor of the dragon-sickness and / or the curse of Mîm. The making of the “Neckless of the Dwarves” is only mentioned in passing, it is neither the object for which Thingol call upon the Dwarves nor in anyway the reason for the strife between Thingol and Dwarves. As we do not know if Text X was earlier or later than Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ we might follow a kind of ‘line of development’: - In Q30 the Nauglamír is Thingol’s special desire and reason to summon the Dwarves. - In Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ the Nauglamír is a by product of Thingols disere to have the unwroght metal of the Hoard used for works of Art. - In Text X the Nauglamír is pre-existing and the Dwarves only but together ‘greatest of the works of Elves and Dwarves’. That is why I have assume in my text the Nauglamír was pre-existing. But I am still hesitating about it and in the discussion in the books forum the majority seems to lean in the oposit direction or the Nauglamír made for Thingol. RD-SL-05: Do we use the quarrels on the road at all? I am open both ways here and included it with the necessary changes as an explanation why some (small) part of the hoard was lost on the road. But I am open to skip it completely. RD-SL-07: In generall there is no change necessary here, but the new source gives some details of the conversation that should be used. Most important may be the fact that Thingol does not send Húrin away. RD-SL-08: The fight between the Outlaws and the Tahnes of Thingol is now back. RD-SL-09 & RD-SL-10: The Outlaws are all killed, so there is no question of them taking any part of the Hoard from Menegroth. (I am sad for the Asgon part of the Outlaws – but well over all this is a tragedy, so some victims are to be expected.) RD-SL-11: Ufedhin is out, that is clear, but Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ gives some new details: Thingol stores the treasure for some time in his deep chamber, but it gnawed his mind – a time that would farther estrange him from his wife after he rejected her counsel to throw it away in the first place. RD-SL-12: Now we have the exact conditions of the angament: one tithe of the unwrought metals. This makes the statement about the Nauglamír a double edged sword: ‘Albeit a weight beyond belief of gold was used in the making, lightly it hung upon its wearer as a strand of flax …’ At first sight it is ony a praise for the handiwork of the Dwarven smiths, but in view of the ‘contract’ and the strife that developed around it, the Dwarves could have overstated the amount and if not straightforward steeling the overstated gold they could at least countup the promissed tithe. RD-SL-13: Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ is very compressed, but it does not seem to be Thingol demanding the Nauglamír. I would rather have the Dwarves asking for the bone of working with these two most beautyfull artfacts and Thingol agree to it with some reluctance. RD-SL-14 - RD-SL-16: In this part I think we should take Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ as our basic text and see what can be added from the other sources. (We might start with that process even earlier.) RD-SL-17: Now there is not only no battel, but the Dwarves leave Menegroth without payment by their owne choice – some stubbornness is clearly involved here: If we do not get what is our due, we will rather take nothing and come back in force to take the full payment. RD-SL-18: As the material in UT very late I think the exclusion of the Dwarves from Belegost is still valid. RD-SL-19: Mîm’s death reappears as an argument in Concerning … ‘The Hoard’, so it should be included. RD-SL-20: Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ does assist the view that no treachers Elves from Doriath were involved in the planning or actual attack. (Phu, we are lucky not to re-open that discussion!) RD-SL-21: Thingol is now neither ‘lured outside’ nor ‘induced to go to war beyond his borders’. Instead, the Girdle is simply ineffective due to the bead behavier of the Elves within or removed deliberately! by Melian. This leaves me with a lot of questions, but for our editing I would say we should take up that blank statement and leave it ambiguous which of the two things happen really (making both options opinions of the middle-earth reporters of this tale.) Anyhow we have to deal with Melian. She is not metioned again in Concerning … ‘The Hoard’, so she does not bring the news to Ossiriand, since that done by fugitives. I would even re-establish her talk to Naugladur in Menegroth and the unablility of the Dwarves to molest her in any way. RD-SL-22: The only detail given in Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ about Thingols death is that it is mentioned last even after the violation of his halls. If we don’t want the Dwarves to execute him after they made him a prisoner, I think Thingol has to be outside Menegroth, when it is attacked. And the way to archive that in the narrative is the celebrational hunt. Thus the details of Thingols death can stay. RD-SL-22.5: The discussion of the honesty of the Dwarves and going against that by taking the Nauglamír with the Silmaril has of course to be included. RD-SL-27: The discussion about the ford of the battle and over which river it leads is now settled, but in contrary to our former decision: Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ does tell us that its one of “Seven Rivers of Ossir”. And the Hoard is cast into that river and no other and that river is then re-named signifying “Golden-ded”. So the conclusion from that text is that the battle at the ford was at the Ascar not at the Duin Daer / Gelion. Which must mean we have Athrod Daer, the Great Ford, leading the Dwarve road over Duin Daer / Gelion into Talath Rhúnen above the confluence of Duin Daer and Ascar and a second ford nearer to the Erd Luin leading the road over Ascar into Ossiriand (probably it would only change the side of Ascar on which the road was build, since I beleife strongly that road followed that River into the mountains leading to the pass.) Farther question her: Do we name that second Ford Sarn Athrod, the Stony Ford? The name clearly fits the description of the place of that battle that we still use in our version and is free to be used since the ford over Duin Daer is now named differently. So I would use it. Let’s try to get a text done. The best process would probably be to go back to my story-line draft, edit that to the actual state of the discussion, then replace part of it by Concerning … ‘The Hoard’, then insert all story related changes we might feel necessary and last expand that text with insertion from older versions. But the story-line draft is from 14 years ago and the process does even in theory look rather long, so I took our latest version, look which part is to be replaced by Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ and then expand that part. For the posting here I stripe the text as much as possible. The editing markers are the old once as far as possible, so that the reference to our old discussions is not lost. I will add some comments to specific changes at the end. Quote:
RD-SL-00.5: This the place were I changed the basic text from Q30 to Concerning … ‘The Hoard’. I markd the full text replaced of Q30by Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ as taken out. It runs trough several paragraphs and ends at ‘and none know where their meeting shall be again.’ RD-SL-01 – RD-EX-11.5: Of course we expand the gathering of Húrins band, their dealing with Mîm and the transport to Doriath as we have done before. RD-EX-08: I am not sure if we discussed this before: In our old discussion I was in error to name Galweg the father of Flinding, but in TN he is the father of Failivrin. So we have to change {Galweg}[Orodreth]. RD-EX-11.5d: I rearanged the sequence of speaking, to let Húrin have the last word. As we have abopted that Mîm was killed by an arrow put trough his throat he can not speak the curse dyding. In my arrangement he utters it as a last try to desuade Húrin from killing him – and fails since Húrin would not take the hoard from himself and the curse will rather enhance his vengeance on Thingol. RD-EX-11.52 & RD-EX-11.53: If Húrin is to take the Nauglamír from the Hoard he must have a chance to inspect it by himself, but as we reinstalled the Outlaws in carrying the Hoard, he has to order them take it afterwards. RD-EX-11.54a & RD-EX-11.54b: Here I used for the first time a snippet from Concerning … ‘The Hoard’. That Húrin set the course of action was clear in all versions but is here made nicely explicit. RD-SL-05d: As said above, I am undecided about this. We could use it or we could skip. RD-EX-15b, RD-EX-17b, RD-EX-17d, RD-EX-15d & RD-EX-15e: I changed the sequence here to get some flow with the speech from Concerning … ‘The Hoard’. And since here Thingol does not lose his contenace the passage from TN where he sends Húrin away can not be taken. RD-EX-20.1: This is modivied to allow part of Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ to stand. (See my P.S. for a fan-ficional idea I had while working out this passage.) RD-SL-08b: From her I took a long passage from TN, as that is the best description of the strife between Thingol and the Outlaws. RD-EX-20.2: I think the bewilderment by Melians magic and the dark ways are no longer valid seeing how Menegroth was later described. RD-EX-20.25: If we take up the Outlaws kill on the road then the Outlaws killed in Menegroth are no longer the first victiems of Mîm’s curse. RD-EX-20.3: To cast the bodies of the killed Outlaws forth, is even in TN problematic: To where did they cast them? Out of Doriath – to long a way; just out of Menegroth – to have the stench of the routing bodies all over the place? RD-EX-20.4: This is taken vom Q30 because it is the last mentioning of the name. I have no idea if that name is still useable in later Sindarin. RD-EX-23b: Since we reinstalled the fight with the Outlaws we have as well to reinstall trebly curse and Melians warning about it. RD-EX-26b: I adde the ‘pale silver’ since sliver plays a crucial part in the story as told in Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ and is never mentiond in TN or TT. If some one has a beter idea then ‘pale’ for the description of the colour of silver to go with the ‘red’ of gold, I am open. But keep in mind that we speak about ‘masses and bars’ and not polished coins or precious. RD-EX-29.1 & RD-EX-32.1: The resulting test is unchanged, but we need a marker since Q30 is no longer the basic text. RD-EX-29b &RD-EX-32b: This is slightly changed for the integration with the new basic text. RD-EX-40b: Changed to the effect of the dwarves asking to put the Nauglír together with the Silmaril. RD-EX-30c & RD-EX-29b: I used this passages to explain why Thingol considers ‘the boon’, at all even so he has already some doubts about the dwarfish motives. RD-EX-36.5b: This nicely prepairs the passage from Concerning … ‘The Hoard’, were Thingol rethings the bargain. RD-EX-44.1: I hope this editing works to get a flowing text combined with the offering of less than the tithe. RD-EX-46c: ‘departed in wrath’ is a bit short and this is my try to elaborate on it. RD-EX-51b: I took Fangluin back in to gage Naugladur to an at first sight hopeless action. RD-SL-21: I had to re-arange these sentences to get a readable text. RD-EX-60b, RD-EX-63,5b, RD-EX-64c, RD-EX-65c & RD-SL-22b: As Concerning … ‘The Hoard’ does agree in sequence of events with TN I used that text here and edited as necessary. RD-EX-59.55: I needed a bridge her for the return to the basis text. RD-EX-59.56: Again reaganged to get some better flow. RD-EX-59.57: Marker needed because Q30 is no longer the basic text. RD-EX-70b: Change to accord with the Fugitivs as messenger for Beren and Lúthien. RD-EX-73: In all the following passages concerning the battle I changed the reference the river to Ascar and took up the name ‘Sarn Athrod’ for the Ford over Ascar. Other wise there is not much changed. RD-EX-81b: Q30 has still the warning about the curse by Melian, therefore I took up the description of her coming from TN. RD-SL-28.5: Here at the long last we change back our basic text to Q30. As always please feel free to disagree with me! Respectfully Findegil P.S.: I said before, that I find it sad that with the story as told now we lose Asgon as possible story teller. And while working on the text a purely fan-fictional solution for that issue poped up in my mind, that I would like to share here. BUT please mark: I am in strong opostion to take this up into our text! If some one thingks about agruing about it, he needs to present support from some original Tolkien source. I formatted the sinpet as we would edtit it the the -FF- in the marker signifiying fan-fiction. We jump into the story in the moment when Hurin leaves Menegroth: Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#83 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 217
![]() |
Hello. Some commentaries and proposals.
In my opinion, Asgon's Noble Retreat could be included without lacking in inventing anything. Let the reader get a good idea of him, who was not included in Morgoth's curse and was nobler than the rest of the outlaws. As for Cum-na-Arasaith, Could it not become Haudh-en-Arasaith? From RD-EX-35 and the whole story of the Dwarves' stay in Menegroth, I think I would be against C..TH's scheme. The Dwarfs should leave and when they start manufacturing again according to RD-EX-37 And it is understood that the evil implications of the Dwarfs as in RD-EX-54 <TN This then was the design; and by his deeds have the Dwarves been severed in feud for ever since those days with the Elves, and drawn more nigh in friendship to the {kin}[following] of {Melko}[Morgoth], must be erases due to the better conception of them in later writings. My combination proposal from here would be (sorry for the presentation): Now Naugladur {learnt of that Elf Narthseg, whose name is bitter to the Eldar yet}[knew], that the king would fare a-hunting at the next high moon but one RD-EX-57 {, and straightway he sent the trysted sign, a bloodstained knife, to Bodruith at Belegost}. Now all that host assembled on the confines of the woods, and no word came yet unto the king. RD-EX-56 <TN Now each year about the time of the great wolf-hunt of Beren {Tinwelint}[Thingol] was wont to keep the memory of that day by a hunt in the woods, and it was a very mighty chase and thronged with very many folk, and nights of merriment and feasting were there in the forest. RD-EX-59 <TN §309 (§36) Behold now {Tinwelint}[Thingol] the king rode forth a-hunting, … the Necklace of the Dwarves.> RD-EX-60b Now {is}when the king was {far in the woods with all his company, and the horns {grow}grew faint in the deep forest} [gone], {but }{Gwendelin}[Melian] {sits}sat in her bower {and}but foreboding {is}was in her heart and eyes. Then said an Elfmaid{, Nielthi}: ‘Wherefore, O Lady, art thou sorrowful at the hightide of the king?’ And {Gwendelin}[Melian] said: ‘Evil seeks our land, and my heart misgives me that my days in {Artanor}[Doriath] are speeding to their end, yet if I should lose {Tinwelint}[Thingol] then would I wish never to have wandered forth from Valinor.’ But {Nielthi}the Elfmaid said: ‘Nay, O Lady {Gwendelin}[Melian], hast thou not woven great {magic}[enchantment] all about us, so that we fear not?’ But the queen made answer: ‘Yet meseems editorial change{there is a rat that gnaws} the threads[ are riven] and all the web has come unwoven.’ This could "pre-explain" some better the failure of the Girdle. RD-EX-62b <QS77 Thus it was that the host of the Naugrim crossing over Aros passed unhindered into the woods of Doriath; {But either this fence} [the Girdle of Melian] had been robbed of its power by the evil within, or Melian had removed it in grief and horror at the deed that had been done> .and none withstood them, for they were many and fierce, and the captains of the Grey-elves were cast into doubt and despair, and went hither and thither purposeless. But the Dwarves held on their way. In other way, Sarn Athrod is valid as a ford for Ascar? And I know that in C...TH Tolkien says that the battle occurred at the ford of one of the Seven Rivers of Ossir, but without name... Must we assume that they crossed first the Athrad Daer and then crossed the other ford over the Ascar? Or maybe they went along the north path (their existence to the south is not clear) and arrived at Ascar? What do you think? Greetings |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#84 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,605
![]() |
Asgon: In my opinion we do not have enough evidence for such a story. Even so we think that he might have been the story teller of part of the Narn and The Wanderings of Húrin, we do not even have a hart evidence for that.
{Cum-na-Arasaith}[Haudh-en-Arasaith]: I can see the logic behind this change. Bt we I don't think we a change attested from {Cum-...}[Haudh-...], or have I missed it? The change from {...-na-...}[...-en-...] is attested, so I would agree to that at least. Quote:
RD-EX-54: I don't agree to this statement. A pre-mediated war upon Doriath for not more than a thithe of the Hoards unwrought gold and silver must be considered an over reaction (spezially in an elf-centrict story as the Silmarillion is). And that JRR Tolkien was of that opinion as well, is seen in the very late Galadriel and Celeborn text which we used to skip the Dwarves from Belegost. Anyhow even if the rason for the war would have been just, the war would have tainted the friendship between Elves and Dwarves, which is all that is said here in more drastical words. RD-SL-21: I like your idea to place the actual passing of the Dwarves trough the Girdle after that dialog between Melian and the Eflmaid. But I see an issue how to switch back to Menegroth and Melian afterwards. But That should be a solveable editorial issue. RD-EX-62b: You skipt the passage from Concerning ... 'The Horad' about the former impossibility of passing the Girdle. Even so I can see the beter flwo that you created, I Think the explicit contarst shown in Concerning ... 'The Horad' shouldn't be lost. Sarn Athrod as ford over Ascar: Yes that was my argument. And Concerning ... 'The Horad' does specifiy that the battle side is at Ascar even so in an indirect way: - Beren 'waylaid the Dwarves on their return march, at a ford across one of “Seven Rivers of Ossir”' - 'The gold and silver was cast into the river' (emphasis added) - which clearly means the same river that the ford crossed. - that river 'hereafter bore a new name, signifying “Golden-bed”' - as soon as the battle was moved from the border of Doriath (Ford over Aros) to Ossiriand the re-named river has ever been Ascar, even when the Battle was at a ford over Duin Daer (Gelion). Yes, for me it is clear that the Dwarf-road crossed 'Duin Daer' at 'Athrad Daer', the 'Great Ford', run for considerable way along the north of Ascar and then crossed Ascar at 'Sarn Athrad', the 'Stony Ford'. Just arriving at Ascar is not enough. Concerning ... 'The Hoard' tells us that the battle was at a ford - at least that is made very explicit, and as argued above for me that ford is over Ascar. Respectfuly Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#85 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 217
![]() |
Asgon must have a rethinking, Asgon was nobler than the outlaws (and the Hoard could have less influence in him), and not touched by the Curse of Morgoth only could be for example, (sorry, this is a retranslation of my spanish):
"Therefore many of Húrin's companions began to murmur, and the outlaws, freed from Húrin's presence, claimed that he was theirs, earned by their weapons and toil. But Asgon rebuked his men, and bowing to the king he left Doriath with his worshipers, in search of Húrin; and no story speaks of his fate." Thingol and the Dwarves are predisposed to the curse of the treasure, the only thing, the rest of the Elves of Doriath..., I don't know. Haudh. I think it would be a plausible way of change. I can't say if in any time you/we consider that change. Some of the "lambergolmor" of the Spanish Tolkien Society told me that is plausible, and they are word not in Neo-Sindarin, that I didn't want. But we need more opinions. Quote: I do not fully understand what you mean here. I used parts of TN to form the text, and thus added the treacherous designs and Thingol forcing the Dwraves to stay, which are neither mentioned nor explicitly denied in Concerning ... 'The Horad'. If you think these elements are to be left out, I can agree to that. But the Dwarven Smiths never left Menegroth before their work was finished. Ok. In C.. TH is said "After bargaining they agreed to send their best smiths to work at Thingol’s orders but at the price of one tithe of the unwrought metals. The smiths came and laboured long". And now I can see that the Dwarves emissaries could not leave Menegroth and send to look for the Smiths. They could be retained and could not. I meant to remove them, but could agree retainig them. RD-EX-54 I meant with the statement "more nigh in friendship to the {kin}[following] of {Melko}[Morgoth]", it sound to me an old conception. My quote, my fault: And I know that in C...TH Tolkien says that the battle occurred at the ford of one of the Seven Rivers of Ossir, but without name... I meant without a ford over Ascar name. Could it be Sarn Athroth as the name of the ford over Ascar, too much naming? I strongly think that the story must be East Road-->Athrd Daer--> Ford over Ascar.. but without naming it, or naming simply "a Stony Ford". Don't know, what do you think. Greetings |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#86 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,605
![]() |
Asgon: No doubt, in my personal 'Silmarillion' Asgon does surfive. But I don't see that we have enough evidence to introduce anythink in our text in this project. Which means that if we really want an introduction of what ever kind, we would have to find arguments out of original Tolkien sources for his surfival.
But just to mention it: For me there no chance for a following of Asgon that would surfive with him. I can imaging Asgon staying away from the Hoard, but the rest of Húrins following is needed to transport the Hoard, that means they are under the curse of Mîm and that has to kill them in one way or another. Haudh: More oppinions would be good, other wise it needs toilsome investigation. RD-EX-35: Why do you think the emessaries could not leave Menegroth after they had negothiated with Thingol? And whom could thy send back to fetch the smiths? I think that 'send' in Concerning ... 'The Hoard' does explicitly mean that the emessaries themself walked back to Nogord and initiated the smiths to go to Menegroth. As a matter of fact, I think here the structure of TN shows trough, but with Ufedhin and his dwarfish friends and the transport of half of the Hoard to Nogord taken out. RD-EX-54: Clearly the statment is routed in the old conception of the Dwarves. But there are some arguments why it could still be useable: - we see even in later sources some Dwarves reported to be 'under the Shadow' when they first meet with the Fathers of Men - later some Dwarves fight for Sauron in the War of the Last Alliance - The story is alway told out of the perpective of the ELves or their friends. And it is a classical point of view in a polarised situation such as war, that foe of my foe is my friend and vise versa. Sarn Athrad: Reading my own text know I can see your problem with the naming: It is to seperated and with that confusing (especailly since many readers would be familar with the old concept of Sarn Athrad being the Ford over Gelion). We have to find a n other way to make the geography of the road more clear. I will search for that and come back with a better presentation of what we consider as fact. Respectfuly Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 08-18-2022 at 04:57 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#87 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,605
![]() |
As promissed I have worked a bit farther on the textual issues:
First RD-SL-21 and gondowe's idea to introduce the failing of the Girdle by the speak of Melian with the Maid in Menegroth. What about this eiditing: Quote:
Quote:
Findegil |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#88 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 515
![]() |
I am just dropping in to weigh in on the Haudh question. The last word, Arasaith, is not likely to be proper Sindarin. I will try to lay it out here:
Arasaith was Tolkien's Noldorin update of Idrisaith in Gnomish. He does not break it down, but it seems to be made from: G. saith - hunger G. avos - wealth, prosperity, fortune, luck With regards to saith there has been a proposed updated version to follow Sindarin development becoming saeg but this is Neo-Sindarin, and requires the switching of the original Gnomish root ᴱ√SAẎA to ᴺ√SAYAK, due to Tolkien's use of a -kǝ suffix to form all the derivative words (eQ: saike, saiqa, G> saig, saith). Because saig exists also as a G. derivative of the root, given as meaning "hungry," I think this neo-Sindarin saeg is very soundly reasoned and argued, and I think it is fine to use. With regards to avos The situation is less cut and dry. The word is originally said to be derived from ᴱ√AW̯A, which has derivatives having to do with wealth. However, much later, in 1969 linguistic notes, Tolkien references a root √AW, meaning 'have in hand, possess, own.' This he gives the Quenya derivative aura - possession, thing owned. I think for our purposes we can use the Ara- element of Arasaith as a derivative of √AW, perhaps as a cognate of Q. aura: possession. Since Arasaith essentially meant "wealth-hunger" our new word might mean "possession-hunger" but I think the sense is still essentially the same. Putting this elements together with the correctly updated initial part of the word gives us Haudh-en-Arasaeg for which Mound of Avarice is still a good translation. I personally would be fine using this updated name, but I leave that up to you. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#89 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 217
![]() |
Quote: Asgon: No doubt, in my personal 'Silmarillion' Asgon does surfive. But I don't see that we have enough evidence to introduce anythink in our text in this project. Which means that if we really want an introduction of what ever kind, we would have to find arguments out of original Tolkien sources for his surfival.
But just to mention it: For me there no chance for a following of Asgon that would surfive with him. I can imaging Asgon staying away from the Hoard, but the rest of Húrins following is needed to transport the Hoard, that means they are under the curse of Mîm and that has to kill them in one way or another. Agreed. But let only Asgon to leave Doriath. Or even, let Asgon to leave Nargothrond before the carring of the Hoard. Could be? RD-EX-35: Ok. I think it could be. Agreed. RD-EX-54: The same, the Dwarves with Sauron convinced me. ![]() Agreed with the new texts but in: Quote:This had before been impossible, because of the Girdle of Melian, an invisible fence maintained by the power and will through which no one with evil intent could pass. I think the Girdle of Melian was well described in the corpus of the Mithology earlier. The Reader know what is the Girldle of Melian. For that reason I say to erase from the text. Tolkien in the manuscript is describing to a reader that didn't know what was it. And the geography is well for me, only if we are all agreed to call the ford Sarn Athrod or simply "a stony ford" About Asasaeg, in my project only try to use words from Tolkien, I don't mind if they are Noldorin, (I manage it as the diferent traditions of the sources), but try to modernised with "modern" words used by him. as Haudh. I don't know if is enough correct but for me Arasaith is valid. So you must decide if is valid for this project. Greetings. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#90 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,605
![]() |
Asgon:
Quote:
What do we know? Well, near to nothing. We have a very indirect evidence that one of Húrins Band survified at least long enough to tell the story how they essambeld around Húrin and picked up the Hoard. And even that is not sure, since the essambling could simply be deduced from evidence by the author of the Narn (people that left Brethil 'with' Húrin, report about the dead men in Menegroth) and for the death of Mîm there seemed to be other witness, since we hear that this news was brought to Belegost (supposedly by Ibun, Mîm's younger son). So even if I would ignore the fact that the story could be written without one of the Band survifing, we have no idea who was the survifer nor how he escaped the curse of Mîm and when he left the band and or Húrin. This means everythink we would put into our text would be invented facts in Middleearth. And that is a thing we shy back from for sure! About the Girdle: I agree that in this place it is a repeatition for sure, but of how fare back in our text? Anyhow I don't see that as an issue - repeatition are not that uncommon in Tolkiens texts. Sarn Athrod: Yes, that is exactly teh question we have to answer: Do we use the name or not? My oppinion is yes, but I could go with both answers. Asasaeg: Neo-Sindarin is a kind of no go for me. I think it is safest to leave the sindarin name out. Respectfuly Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#91 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 217
![]() |
Ok. We must remove Asgon. I, for sure too, don't want to invent anything not based in Tolkien's words.
I only wanted to ask for something that I might have missed. Sarn Athrod. I'll give my thougts. Athrod I suppose is old Gnomish or Noldorin. The Sarn Athrad has a general meaning of Stony Ford, but we have here a, say, "new" ford over Ascar that we have to manage. I'm inclined to use it as it was the old Aros ford, mostly having the Gelion Ford's name now as Athrad Daer. But I always wonder if the suggested change of the last one was due to not repeat the Sarn Athrad of the Baranduin. Asasaeg. As I said, I agree with the rejection of Neo-Elvish, I prefer to use Noldorin or leave it only in English/Spanish (another option to de Sarn Athrod/Stony ford). Greetings Edit: One proposal. RD-EX-54 <TN This then was the design; and by his deeds have the Dwarves been severed in feud for ever since those days with the Elves, and drawn more nigh in friendship to the {kin}[following] of {Melko}[Morgoth]. <From C..TH {Evidently not a lover of Dwarves, but one who looked only on their bad side (or knew no other side). He} [This] had some justification, for though no servants of the Evil Vala, the Dwarves were by nature and origin specially open to the degeneration of their love and admiration {[[the word “for” is corrected to “of”, written above the original word]]} of works of “craft” into a fierce possessiveness. Last edited by gondowe; 08-25-2022 at 09:14 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#92 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,605
![]() |
Asgon: Agreed.
Athrad: I have to appologise for some confusion: 'Athrod' is clearly the old version and has to be replaced by the newer 'Athrad'. I was inconsitent in my use, but have corrected that now. Beside that I agree that it is possible that JRR Tolkiens change Sarn Athrad => Athrad Daer could have been motivated by the fact that Sarn Ford was fixed by publication as a name for a ford in Eriador. But (and that is a big but) it is speculation on the motive of the change and we have lots of geographical features on the LotR-map that are similar of identical to such features on the 'Silmarillion'-map. Other than that I did not fully get your meaning. Do you agree to use Sarn Athrad for the ford over Ascar were the battle was fought? If not I agree that we simply remove the elvish name and stay with Stony Ford. Asasaeg: Okay if nobody else speaks up, we skip the elvish name. Your proposal, that I will name RD-EX-54.5: Good find! I agree to the inclusion. Respectfuly Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#93 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 217
![]() |
I'm inclined to use Sarn Athrad. Because is a name with very much history and is the everlasting ford of the battle from the begining. I only have doubts of its use and if is too much surpase the limits of edition. So yes, I WANT to use it. But with that doubt. But if you are convinced that this not too much editing I will fall into the abyss😉
Greetings |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |