BBC Story on Early Tolkien Critics
MP
the Ring when it first came out at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3935561.stm
Just be advised that some of the 'facts' in the story are wrong.
Those who'd like to comment on the story might go to the popular
SlashDot at:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/29/1353213&tid=199&tid=192&tid=6
--Mike Perry, Seattle
http://www.InklingBooks.com/
--
****************
Preorder Lord of the Ring DVDs and videos.
http://www.inklingbooks.com/
****************
Öjevind Lång
news:blackhole-D0E48...@netnews.comcast.net...
> The BBC has a new story on how critics responded to The Fellowship of
> the Ring when it first came out at:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3935561.stm
>
> Just be advised that some of the 'facts' in the story are wrong.
They are indeed.
> Those who'd like to comment on the story might go to the popular
> SlashDot at:
Sorry, but AFT is where I hang out, so I will reply here. It seems the
legend of the haughty, snobbish critics who take Tolken apart has entered
the realm of legend. In fact, many critics heaped praise on the book when it
first appeared. The article says this about Richard Hughes' review:
The Spectator's Richard Hughes, writing in October 1954, opened his review
praising the pleasures of reading Tolkien's The Hobbit - published 17 years
earlier - to his children.
and then, after citing a couple of other reviewers, goes on to say:
It seems Tolkien could not escape the sniffy literary attitudes to the
fantasy genre. The Fellowship of the Ring remained, in the eyes of the
critics, a children's novel.
There is not a word about what Hughes actually wrote about LotR, which was,
among other commendatory things: "For *width* of imagination it almost
beggars parallel, and it is nearly as remarkable for its vividness and for
the narrative skill which carries the reader on, enthralled, page after
page."
In other words, if there is any "sniffy" attitude to children's books
here, it is on the part of the author of that article. Huges praised "The
Hobbit" as a book for children and LotR as a book for grownups, which I'd
say is fair enough. The words by him I quote appear on the inner flap of the
three books, together with glowing praise from W. H. Auden and Naomi
Mitchison (and C. S. Lewis, but of course that doesn't really count, no
matter how respected a critic he was in his day).
In fact, the contemptuous attitude to Tolkien is much more typical of a
later generation of critics: the Derrida- and Barthes-quoting Bandar-log who
wield an unhappy authority in the field of literary studies at present. But
I believe their power is waning.
Öjevind
Shanahan
> "MP" <blac...@foxinternet.net.invalid> skrev i meddelandet...
>> The BBC has a new story on how critics responded to The
>> Fellowship of the Ring when it first came out at:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3935561.stm
>> Just be advised that some of the 'facts' in the story are wrong.
<snip>
> fact, the contemptuous attitude to Tolkien is much more typical
> of a later generation of critics: the Derrida- and
> Barthes-quoting Bandar-log who wield an unhappy authority in the
> field of literary studies at present. But I believe their power
> is waning.
Praise be! ("Bandar-log" -- heeheehee)
Ciaran S.
--
Change for the machines
- p.cadigan
TT Arvind
> In fact, the contemptuous attitude to Tolkien is much more typical of a
> later generation of critics: the Derrida- and Barthes-quoting Bandar-log who
> wield an unhappy authority in the field of literary studies at present. But
> I believe their power is waning.
You might like this little quote from the introduction to RL Trask's
guide to English usage:
"What I am calling, wisely or not, post-modernist writing is frequently
arrogant, sometimes strident, invariably pretentious, and, above all,
almost always opaque. The goal of such writing appears to be nothing more
than dazzling the hapless reader into stupefied and uncomprehending awe
with an unending sequence of fancy words, usually inappropriate words,
strung together in a way that makes no obvious sense at all. This stuff
is produced by the yard, and it appears to captivate intelligent and
well-educated people who really ought to know better. Instead of turning
away from such prose in contempt and disgust, these readers devote their
energies to turning out 'readings' of the masters. So far as I can tell,
producing a 'reading' means wading painfully through the master's
incomprehensible prose and then venturing a few guesses as to what the
master might possibly have had in minde while consigning those opaque
words to paper."
--
Meneldil
Dying is a very dull, dreary affair. And my advice to you is to have
nothing whatever to do with it.
-- W. Somerset Maugham
Öjevind Lång
news:MPG.1b74cd12a...@news.individual.net...
[snip]
> You might like this little quote from the introduction to RL Trask's
> guide to English usage:
>
> "What I am calling, wisely or not, post-modernist writing is frequently
> arrogant, sometimes strident, invariably pretentious, and, above all,
> almost always opaque. The goal of such writing appears to be nothing more
> than dazzling the hapless reader into stupefied and uncomprehending awe
> with an unending sequence of fancy words, usually inappropriate words,
> strung together in a way that makes no obvious sense at all. This stuff
> is produced by the yard, and it appears to captivate intelligent and
> well-educated people who really ought to know better. Instead of turning
> away from such prose in contempt and disgust, these readers devote their
> energies to turning out 'readings' of the masters. So far as I can tell,
> producing a 'reading' means wading painfully through the master's
> incomprehensible prose and then venturing a few guesses as to what the
> master might possibly have had in minde while consigning those opaque
> words to paper."
That describes it very nicely indeed.
Öjevind
Jim Deutch
<dnivej...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>"TT Arvind" <ttar...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
>news:MPG.1b74cd12a...@news.individual.net...
>
>[snip]
>>
>> "What I am calling, wisely or not, post-modernist writing is frequently
>> arrogant, sometimes strident, invariably pretentious, and, above all,
>> almost always opaque. The goal of such writing appears to be nothing more
>>[snip]
>That describes it very nicely indeed.
And you can have the server generate your very own unique examples at
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
Jim Deutch (Jimbo the Cat)
--
An amateur is someone who knows less and less about more and more
until he knows absolutely nothing about everything
A professional is someone who knows more and more about less and less
until he knows absolutely everything about nothing
Öjevind Lång
news:410f82b...@news.compuserve.com...
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 00:51:27 +0200, "Öjevind Lång"
> <dnivej...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
> >"TT Arvind" <ttar...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
> >news:MPG.1b74cd12a...@news.individual.net...
> >
> >[snip]
> >>
> >> "What I am calling, wisely or not, post-modernist writing is frequently
> >> arrogant, sometimes strident, invariably pretentious, and, above all,
> >> almost always opaque. The goal of such writing appears to be nothing
more
> >>[snip]
> >That describes it very nicely indeed.
>
> And you can have the server generate your very own unique examples at
>
> http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
Thank you; I generated several. The horrible thing is that they were so very
similar to stuff I have seen that was written in earnest, and which really
made no more sense.
Öjevind
Dirk Thierbach
> "Jim Deutch" <10313...@compuserve.com> skrev i meddelandet
[Post-modernism]
>> And you can have the server generate your very own unique examples at
>> http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
> Thank you; I generated several. The horrible thing is that they were so very
> similar to stuff I have seen that was written in earnest, and which really
> made no more sense.
I think somewhere on this site is also a link to the story of a
physicist (I keep forgetting the name) who "faked" a post-modern
article, introducing lots of obvious errors and bogus argumentation,
and managed to get it published in a "post-modern" journal. Then he
wrote an open letter to the journal, and told them what he did. The
reactions of some of the people involved with that journal are
hilarious: Even then, they didn't accept that the article was plainly
nonsense, but accused him of trying to retract his statements...
Quite entertaining.
- Dirk
Öjevind Lång
news:2004080406550...@localhost.localdomain.local...
[snip]
> I think somewhere on this site is also a link to the story of a
> physicist (I keep forgetting the name) who "faked" a post-modern
> article, introducing lots of obvious errors and bogus argumentation,
> and managed to get it published in a "post-modern" journal. Then he
> wrote an open letter to the journal, and told them what he did. The
> reactions of some of the people involved with that journal are
> hilarious: Even then, they didn't accept that the article was plainly
> nonsense, but accused him of trying to retract his statements...
>
> Quite entertaining.
It is indeed. You are talking about Alan Sokal's "Transgressing Boundaries:
Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity",published in the
magazine "Social Text". Of course, even the title is pure nonsense. But
apparently the editorial staff did not have the brains to see this, and they
were so happy to receive what they though was (at last!) an article by a
scientist who agreed with them that they prined it wothout letting an expert
reader look at it first.
Öjevind
TT Arvind
> Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity",published in the
> magazine "Social Text". Of course, even the title is pure nonsense. But
> apparently the editorial staff did not have the brains to see this, and they
> were so happy to receive what they though was (at last!) an article by a
> scientist who agreed with them that they prined it wothout letting an expert
> reader look at it first.
Sokal took such a lot of flak for that article. I recently suggested to
a post-modernist colleague that the criticism was underserved, since all
Sokal had actually only taken a leaf from their book and was "just
playing games" (as they always say they do). For some reason, he wasn't
too amused.
--
Meneldil
Insanity is hereditary. You get it from your kids.
Shanahan
<grinning hugely> For all their talk of 'jouissance', they don't
seem to have much of it, do they?
I recall a similar and equally hilarious article in _Dissent_, but
of course they *knew* they were spoofing! It was a post-mod
analysis of Gilligan's Island. I still have a copy of it
somewhere, and it sends me into stitches every time I read it.
Ciaran S.
--
Q: How many post-structuralist critical theorists does it take
to screw in a light bulb?
A: <pause> That's *not* funny.
Jim Deutch
wrote:
Alan Sokal. "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative
Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" published in _Social Text_ #46/47
(spring/summer 1996).
Jim Deutch (Jimbo the Cat)
--
"Pirates? Nonsense! We're Preemptive Nautical Salvage Specialists."
TT Arvind
>
> Alan Sokal. "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative
> Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" published in _Social Text_ #46/47
> (spring/summer 1996).
Available on Dr. Sokal's website with a lot of other related material:
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/
--
Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?
Jim Deutch
wrote:
>I recall a similar and equally hilarious article in _Dissent_, but
>of course they *knew* they were spoofing! It was a post-mod
>analysis of Gilligan's Island. I still have a copy of it
>somewhere, and it sends me into stitches every time I read it.
Have you ever seen the Freudian analysis of Dr. Suess's "The Cat in
the Hat"?
http://www.seuss.org/seuss/freud.seuss.html
Wow: there's a link on that page to a page of links to Dr. Suess
parodies. Lots of them.
Jim Deutch (Jimbo the Cat)
--
"I no longer want to change the world. I want to potty train the
world. Then we won't have to change it any more."
ste...@nomail.com
: Wes šu Jim Deutch hal!
:>
:> Alan Sokal. "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative
:> Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" published in _Social Text_ #46/47
:> (spring/summer 1996).
: Available on Dr. Sokal's website with a lot of other related material:
: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/
Of course scientists themselves are not immune from this same problem.
http://chronicle.com/free/2002/11/2002110501n.htm
Stephen
TT Arvind
>
> Of course scientists themselves are not immune from this same problem.
> http://chronicle.com/free/2002/11/2002110501n.htm
The Bogdanov affair is a little different, in that it is a case of bad
research being published, rather than a hoax being taken seriously.
Here's Dr. Baez's own (remarkably unbiased) account of what happened,
which also links to a discussion he had with the Bodganov brothers:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html
Sokal was making two points - first, that the complex language used by
postmodernists is very effective at distracting attention from the fact
that nothing much is really being said, and secondly, that doing this has
become quite routine in cultural studies. The Bogdanov affair quite
clearly shows that the first also holds true for science (which, I
think, is also your point). I am less certain whether it demonstrates
the second.
--
Meneldil
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.
Dirk Thierbach
[Sokal's hoax]
> Of course scientists themselves are not immune from this same problem.
> http://chronicle.com/free/2002/11/2002110501n.htm
The "of course" is probably wrong. Note the difference between the two
cases: While the peer review process of the journals has apparently
failed, the peer review process of the scientific community worked
fine. The result: The journals try to improve their standards.
Contrast this to Sokal's case, where he himself had to tell the journal
that it was nonsense, and even then, they didn't believe it.
Natural science is not immune to sloppy reviewers. Also, experiments
which contain numbers that are made-up were published in some cases in
the past. But, sooner or later, this will be discovered.
- Dirk
Hashemon Urtasman
A famous hoax of the last century was "Piltdown man."
I remember attending a lecture while a student, by the author of a book
on cold fusion. The entire state of Utah was taken in by the cold
fusion scandal, and it was understandable, given the rush to publish
that the venerable old Fleischmann and Pons felt.
> - Dirk
>
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> Have you ever seen the Freudian analysis of Dr. Suess's "The Cat in
> the Hat"?
>
> http://www.seuss.org/seuss/freud.seuss.html
>
> Wow: there's a link on that page to a page of links to Dr. Suess
> parodies. Lots of them.
LOL. Speaking of parodies and satire, let's not forget Frederick Crews'
brilliant "The Pooh Perplex" (1963/1964) and "Postmodern Pooh" (2001).
Öjevind
ste...@nomail.com
: ste...@nomail.com wrote:
: [Sokal's hoax]
:> Of course scientists themselves are not immune from this same problem.
:> http://chronicle.com/free/2002/11/2002110501n.htm
: The "of course" is probably wrong. Note the difference between the two
: cases: While the peer review process of the journals has apparently
: failed, the peer review process of the scientific community worked
: fine. The result: The journals try to improve their standards.
What evidence is there that the journals try to improve their standards?
The papers were published and they were granted PhD's. If not
for the notoriety of the Bogdanov's themselves no one may have
ever noticed any of this.
The current peer review process relies on a certain trust that
the submitter is being sincere, because most topics are so
complicated, and so much research is so specialized that there are few
people that can easily determine if something is correct or not,
or in some cases even if it makes sense.
One of the legendary cranks on sci.math recently got a paper
accepted by a peer reviewed journal. Again, if it were not
for the crank's notoriety which led people to tell the journal
that his work was wrong, who would have noticed?
Stephen
AC
Hashemon Urtasman <no...@nospam.org> wrote:
> Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>
>> ste...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>> [Sokal's hoax]
>>
>>
>>>Of course scientists themselves are not immune from this same problem.
>>> http://chronicle.com/free/2002/11/2002110501n.htm
>>
>>
>> The "of course" is probably wrong. Note the difference between the two
>> cases: While the peer review process of the journals has apparently
>> failed, the peer review process of the scientific community worked
>> fine. The result: The journals try to improve their standards.
>>
>> Contrast this to Sokal's case, where he himself had to tell the journal
>> that it was nonsense, and even then, they didn't believe it.
>>
>> Natural science is not immune to sloppy reviewers. Also, experiments
>> which contain numbers that are made-up were published in some cases in
>> the past. But, sooner or later, this will be discovered.
>>
>
> A famous hoax of the last century was "Piltdown man."
Piltdown Man never sat well with the growing body of evidence for human
origins. It was increasingly being viewed as an anomoly. The fact that
access to the alleged fossil was restricted also permitted this hoax to go
on far past any reasonable length of time. Once researchers had it in hand,
even low magnification revealed how the bones had been worked on. A proper
review process at the time would have revealed it as a hoax almost
immediately.
>
> I remember attending a lecture while a student, by the author of a book
> on cold fusion. The entire state of Utah was taken in by the cold
> fusion scandal, and it was understandable, given the rush to publish
> that the venerable old Fleischmann and Pons felt.
Cold fusion is a good example of how sloppy research can be weeded out quite
quickly if the proper avenues are taken. One of the biggest tips that there
is something wrong with a claim is when normal routes of publication are not
taken.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Dirk Thierbach
> What evidence is there that the journals try to improve their standards?
The article you cite says so; and on Baez homepage, the main editors
of two of journals say something like "if this article had ever passed
my desk, it would never have been published". Obviously the whole
affair *was* quite embarassing for them, so I think they are sufficiently
motivated to make sure it won't happen again.
Good enough for me.
> The papers were published and they were granted PhD's. If not
> for the notoriety of the Bogdanov's themselves no one may have
> ever noticed any of this.
That's not how the article you cite presents it: It was discovered
by someone reading one of the article by chance, you then emailed
his collegues, who in turn emailed their collegues. The notoriety of
the Bogdanov's was never mentioned in this context (and I haven't
heard of them myself before this affair, so their notoriety seems to
be somewhat limited).
> The current peer review process relies on a certain trust that
> the submitter is being sincere, because most topics are so
> complicated, and so much research is so specialized that there are few
> people that can easily determine if something is correct or not,
> or in some cases even if it makes sense.
No, that is wrong. It is true that some topics are so complicated or
specialized that there only a few poeple who can understand them in
depth. Nevertheless, if the article is properly written, every
physicist should at least roughly understand the main idea. And in
any case, you can always ask one of the experts in that field to
review the article.
That is not the case with the Bogdanov articles. I am a mathematician,
not a physicist, and I don't know any details about cosmology
research. But when I read the dialoge between the Bogdanov and Baez
given on Baez's home page, and can clearly say that Baez understands
what he is doing, while the Bogdanovs always evade his questions
without ever getting to the point.
When I was a teaching assistent, I have seen similar behaviour in
students who didn't fully understand what they were doing. They tried
to bluff their way by stringing together some of the words they heard
in the lecture. Apperently they had learned they they could get away
with that in school, but it's easy enough to make clear to them that
they are wrong if you start looking at concrete examples. When you do
that a few times, they have learned something :-)
It takes five minutes to do that in a conversation (at least with
students :-); with electronic communication, it's much harder (it's
easier to evade and ignore questions, and it takes to long).
> One of the legendary cranks on sci.math recently got a paper
> accepted by a peer reviewed journal. Again, if it were not
> for the crank's notoriety which led people to tell the journal
> that his work was wrong, who would have noticed?
As a reviewer, when you don't understand what the article is about,
you can either decline to review the article, or you can reject the
article and demand that it should be rewritten in more accessible form.
Sometimes, depending on the journal, you can even contact the author
directly.
It is always possible to find out if an article represents proper
research judging from the article alone (if it is properly written),
without any regard to the author's notoriety, or, if the article is not
properly written, you need half an hour with the author to ask him
some questions to find out if this is genuine or not. The reviewing
process doesn't allow for this "half an hour of questions" for various
reasons, one of which assumes that submitters are playing fair. So much
is true.
Another thing that is wrong with the reviewing process is that the
reviewers are sometimes incredible sloppy. They don't like to review,
they postpone it as far as possible, they are not thorough, and so
on. I have seen this, and this is really the achilles heel.
So if they are busy, and see something tht looks vaguely like it could
make sense, but they don't understand it, they give it the benefit of
doubt and let it pass. And that's wrong.
But that doesn't mean that natural science has now become vague in
principle and that it is no longer possible to tell good research from
a fake. This, and a flawed reviewing process, are very different things.
Please don't confuse the two.
- Dirk
Christopher Kreuzer
> You are talking about Alan Sokal's "Transgressing
> Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum
> Gravity",published in the magazine "Social Text". Of course, even the
> title is pure nonsense. But apparently the editorial staff did not
> have the brains to see this, and they were so happy to receive what
> they though was (at last!) an article by a scientist who agreed with
> them that they prined it wothout letting an expert reader look at it
> first.
Are the references genuine, or were those made up as well? The really
bad thing is that some bits sound interesting and I wish they were real!
Later in the thread, the Freudian analysis of Seuss was hilarious, and
also strangely convincing...
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Christopher Kreuzer
>> The BBC has a new story on how critics responded to The
>> Fellowship of the Ring when it first came out at:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3935561.stm
I found this bit interesting:
"Tolkien created 37 new languages for 34 new books".
Presumably the journalist didn't count all this himself, and is quoting
from somewhere. Has anyone ever heard this quote somewhere before?
Goggle isn't really helping...
I could probably list the 34 books, but what are the 37 languages. I
assume they are including the languages he made up as a child, and were
not used in the books?
Quenya
Sindarin
Noldorin
Westron
Rohirric
The language of Dale
The language of the Vales of Anduin
The original Adunaic (which became Westron?)
Black Speech
Entish
Southron languages
Easterling languages
Pukel speech
Maybe the '37' figure also includes the different alphabets, and the
many dialects and races and regions who have unrecorded languages? Even
so, this is only 13 so far. How can you get a figure of 37? Are they in
HoME?
Conrad Dunkerson
news:9InRc.1321$kV1.13...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> I found this bit interesting:
> "Tolkien created 37 new languages for 34 new books".
> I could probably list the 34 books, but what are the 37 languages.
Really? I can see ways to come up with that many languages, but Tolkien
never wrote anywhere near that many books. Even adding in those published
after his death (most of which consist of notes and drafts for just two
books) it falls well short.
For the languages, assuming that 'created' in this usage refers to any
language which Tolkien ever described - whether he ever developed the
vocabulary of it or not;
Primitive Quendian
Eldarin
Avarin (Lemberin)
Ilkorin
Quenya
Telerin
Sindarin
Nandorin
Doriathrin
Falassian
Old Sindarin
Old Noldorin (Gondolic)
Vanyarin (Lindarin)
Telerin of Valinor
Laiqeundian
Danian
Ossiriandeb
Khuzdul
Iglishmek
Entish
Black Speech
Orquin (Orcish Tongues)
Valarin
Taliska
Easterling (First Age)
Adunaic
Westron
Rohirric
Dunlending
Northern Mannish
Khandian
Haradic
Druedainic
Lossoth
Animalic
Nevbosh
Naffarin
There are numerous different ways that could be parsed and variants added or
subtracted, but overall the list from which the figure of 37 was derived
probably looked something like the above.
Christopher Kreuzer
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9InRc.1321$kV1.13...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
>> I found this bit interesting:
>
>> "Tolkien created 37 new languages for 34 new books".
Sorry, I added an extra 'new' in there. It should be:
"Tolkien created 37 new languages for 34 books".
>> I could probably list the 34 books, but what are the 37 languages.
>
> Really? I can see ways to come up with that many languages, but
> Tolkien never wrote anywhere near that many books. Even adding in
> those published after his death (most of which consist of notes and
> drafts for just two books) it falls well short.
Well, they probably included HoME, and the HoME index. That's 13 books
straightaway. Including FotR, TTT, and RotK as three books, then The
Hobbit, and The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales takes you to 19 books.
Only 15 'books' more to find.
Farmer Giles of Ham
Smith of Wootton Major
Leaf by Niggle
Are all stories, but I suspect the figure of 34 was obtained purely by
actually published books, so the ones used should be the various
collections: 'Tree and Leaf' etc.
They may have also, stupidly, included his academic and non-fiction
publications such as 'The Monsters and the Critics', 'Sir Gawain and the
Green Knight', 'Pearl and Sir Orfeo'.
Then you have the Biography, and the Letters.
And Roverandom and The Father Christmas Letters (did the various beings
in the Father Christmas universe have languages?)
This list has 28 entries and does not include Roverandom.
http://www.tolkiensociety.org/tolkien/bibl2.html
It lists HoME separately, and also has a list of the essential essays
(such as Osanwe-kenta) published sporadically in other publications.
I would guess the figure of 34 would be based on a list like this, but
was probably originally a figure from the publishers or the Estate for
the number of books with Tolkien credited as the author or artist.
<snip most languages - thanks for the list!>
> Danian
> Iglishmek
> Taliska
What are these three?
> Valarin
Is this a language of the Valar??
> Animalic
> Nevbosh
These two were ones from Tolkien's childhood?
> Naffarin
But what is this one?
Raven
news:9InRc.1321$kV1.13...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> "Tolkien created 37 new languages for 34 new books".
[...]
> Quenya
> Sindarin
> Noldorin
> Westron
> Rohirric
> The language of Dale
> The language of the Vales of Anduin
> The original Adunaic (which became Westron?)
> Black Speech
> Entish
> Southron languages
> Easterling languages
> Pukel speech
From memory: he devised one word of Dunlendish, namely "forgoil" meaning
"strawheads", which was the Dunlendings' scornful name for their Rohirric
enemies.
He also devised Telerin and Doriathrin. Then there were five languages
of Avarin Elves, where he devised what the word in Old Elvish "Quendi" had
become. And of course Old Elvish itself, which story-internally was the
language that the Elves, newly-awakended at Cuiviénen, devised for
themselves: the original Elvish language which later changed in various
Elvish tribes just as one Mannish language (such as the hypothetical
Proto-IndoEuropean) may branch out into a multitude of descendant-languages,
in modern times ranging from Gaelic to Hindi. Except that the Elvish
languages changed much more slowly, particularly in Valinor.
And there was Silvan Elvish, the original language of the folk of Lórien
and of Mirkwood.
Then there might be a case for saying that Qenya, which story-externally
was the ancestor language to Quenya, was a separate language in itself.
And there were two conlangs that he devised in his childhood and youth,
but which had nothing to do with the legendarium that he later made, namely
"Nevbosh" ("New rubbish") and "Naffarin".
He also devised Dwarvish. And there was the language of Tal-Elmar, which
was set on the shores of Middle-earth during the Second Age, when Sauron was
busy with evil and the Númenoreans were beginning to sail to those shores.
In this language we find some names and one grammatical relationship, IIRC.
And then we must not forget Valarin.
I haven't seen anything he devised of the language of Rhovanion, as it
was spoken when Rhovanion was populated by the so-called Northmen who aided
Gondor against invasions of Easterlings but were eventually defeated, only
remnants remaining in eg. Dale and the vale of Anduin. The Rohirrim
descended from some of these remnants. But their language was by Tolkien
represented by Gothic; he gives a few names such as Vidugavia and Vidumavi.
In most of these cases he devised only one or a small number of words,
without or almost without any grammar. The two most well-developed
languages were Quenya and Sindarin, and even if he developed them well
enough to hold conversations in them, not enough has been published for
anyone to do so. You cannot learn to actually converse in Quenya or
Sindarin. Neither were the grammars sufficiently completed nor the
vocabularies made extensive enough.
This brings my count to 29, including your own examples. But I can
easily have overlooked some. OTOH, I don't know if he published anything of
the Easterling languages, or of the language of Dale - we see several names,
including the outer names of the Dwarves, but they were presented by Tolkien
in Old Norse forms. And of course, since he never completed any of his
languages, he may be said to have devised no languages at all.
The Ardalambion web site ( http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf ) is a friend
of yours here.
Rabe.
TT Arvind
> Are the references genuine, or were those made up as well? The really
> bad thing is that some bits sound interesting and I wish they were real!
All references and quotations in the article are real.
--
What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.
That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary.
- Hillel
Conrad Dunkerson
> Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Danian
>> Iglishmek
>> Taliska
> What are these three?
Danian was the language of the Teleri who left the march prior to reaching
Beleriand and remained in the East (an ancestor of Silvan and Taliska),
Iglishmek was a Dwarven sign language, and Taliska was the language of the
Three Houses of the Edain before they entered Beleriand.
>> Valarin
> Is this a language of the Valar??
Yes.
>> Animalic
>> Nevbosh
> These two were ones from Tolkien's childhood?
Yes.
>> Naffarin
> But what is this one?
The last of the languages Tolkien invented prior to his work on the
Middle-Earth mythology. Unlike the first two this one was not used with his
friends. It differed from the others in that the vocabularly was truly
invented rather than modified from existing words. It included some
elements of Nevbosh and had many things in common with the earliest form of
Qenya.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
Thanks for all the explanations.
> Iglishmek was a Dwarven sign language
Seriously? For use in noisy situations? I'd like to read more about
that. Or maybe you mean a pictographic language. I can't find it in the
HoME index.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Iglishmek was a Dwarven sign language
> Seriously? For use in noisy situations? I'd like to read more about
> that. Or maybe you mean a pictographic language. I can't find it
> in the HoME index.
It's under 'Dwarves' in the index - War of the Jewels, Quendi and Eldar.
Pages 395 and 402. There isn't alot about it, but that's where to look.
Chris Kern
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> posted the following:
>Conrad Dunkerson <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Thanks for all the explanations.
>
>> Iglishmek was a Dwarven sign language
>
>Seriously? For use in noisy situations? I'd like to read more about
>that. Or maybe you mean a pictographic language. I can't find it in the
>HoME index.
This, as well as the Valarin you were asking about earlier, are found
in "Quenya and Eldar" in volume 11 (War of the Jewels) of HoME.
-Chris
Raven
> Conrad Dunkerson:
> > Iglishmek
Dwarvish sign language.
> > Valarin
> Is this a language of the Valar??
Yes. As a rule, they didn't need language to converse among themselves,
they used what we would call telepathy. But they *also* developed a
language, which the Eldar did not find beautiful. Sauron, who naturally
knew Valarin, based his Black Speech partly on it. Some Eldarin words,
particularly names of individual Ainur, were Valarin words adapted to
Eldarin.
> > Animalic
AFAIR this was not one of Tolkien's, but of two of his little, female
relatives.
*Amer.
Christopher Kreuzer
> where to look.
Thanks. The p.395 reference was fairly informative. It makes me wonder
what Tolkien knew of real world sign languages (and their grammar), of
which I know only a little bit. He talks about the dwarves being able to
extensively converse in Iglishmek for reasons of secrecy. There were
also references to the Eldar having a sign language to take advantage of
their keen eyesight over out-of-earshot distances. Both these cases are
different from the primary reason for real world sign languages
(deafness), but are very interesting none-the-less. Does anyone know of
any other examples of sign languages for hearing people in the real
world's history or present? I can only think of the hand gestures
developed by stock exchange traders.
Tar-Elenion
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
<snip>
>
> Thanks. The p.395 reference was fairly informative. It makes me wonder
> what Tolkien knew of real world sign languages (and their grammar), of
> which I know only a little bit. He talks about the dwarves being able to
> extensively converse in Iglishmek for reasons of secrecy. There were
> also references to the Eldar having a sign language to take advantage of
> their keen eyesight over out-of-earshot distances. Both these cases are
> different from the primary reason for real world sign languages
> (deafness), but are very interesting none-the-less. Does anyone know of
> any other examples of sign languages for hearing people in the real
> world's history or present? I can only think of the hand gestures
> developed by stock exchange traders.
Indians.
--
Tar-Elenion
He is a warrior, and a spirit of wrath. In every
stroke that he deals he sees the Enemy who long
ago did thee this hurt.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Both these cases are different from the primary reason for real
> world sign languages (deafness), but are very interesting
> none-the-less. Does anyone know of any other examples of sign
> languages for hearing people in the real world's history or present?
As Tar-Elenion noted, there is a Native American sign language which
actually predates any of the deaf sign languages which have been developed
in the last 400 years or so. It was used most extensively by the Plains
tribes (some evidence suggests it may have originated amongst the Kiowa
Apache), but spread throughout most of North America. It was primarily used
for trading and communication between tribes.
Dirk Thierbach
> Does anyone know of any other examples of sign languages for hearing
> people in the real world's history or present?
Military signs. Used either for communication when you can see someone
else but not hear him because of noise, for example with the driver
of a truck or tank, or in the field, when you need to be silent for
obvious reasons. I am not sure, but the signs may even be standardized
for all NATO armies, so that would add the capability to communicate with
some ally even if you don't know his language.
- Dirk
Jette Goldie
The "tic-tac" used by bookies at race-courses? The vocabulary
is limited though.
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
aelfwina
"Jette Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote in message
news:gSxTc.400$O22.5...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Many sports have such signals. Referees and umpires, coaches and so forth.
The one that jumps out at me is pitchers and catchers in baseball. I'm not
sure if any of these are advanced to enough to actually call a language
though.
Barbara
TT Arvind
> As Tar-Elenion noted, there is a Native American sign language which
> actually predates any of the deaf sign languages which have been developed
> in the last 400 years or so. It was used most extensively by the Plains
> tribes (some evidence suggests it may have originated amongst the Kiowa
> Apache), but spread throughout most of North America. It was primarily used
> for trading and communication between tribes.
The Kalahari bushmen and certain tribes in the Sahel had a sign
language which they used while on a hunt. I've also heard that some
Pacific islanders used to have a sign language for use underwater.
There was also the Anglo-Saxon monastic sign language, but I don't know
if that counts.
--
Meneldil
It has been observed that one's nose is never so happy as when it is
thrust into the affairs of another, from which some physiologists have
drawn the inference that the nose is devoid of the sense of smell.
-- Ambrose Bierce
Polik
"aelfwina" <aelf...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:10hui4l...@corp.supernews.com...
North American Indians have developed sign languages for use in hunting and
ambush situations. Some are developed enough for initial intertribal
communication. Western films have immortalized the Algonquin "how!" as a
greeting.
Polik.
Jim Deutch
Oh, I remember that: I read it in High School. Brilliant indeed!
>and "Postmodern Pooh" (2001).
Damn! Yet another for my TBR pile!
Jim Deutch (Jimbo the Cat)
--
"If I was a symbol of myself, I'd never forget what I meant."
-- M. Ruff