rohirric names
Count Menelvagor
mentioned that they're not alwys very imaginative: aldor and gamling
are old, so their names mean "old"; "theoden" and most of the other
kings' names mean "king," etc. considering the variety of actual anglo-
saxon names, this seems a bit odd.
anyway, someone observed that the name "eomer" is found in bede, and i
noticed afterwards that the infamous ruth noel says the name is in
BEOWULF.
it turned out that, in this case, ruth noel was correct. the name
comes up in v. 1960 ff. as the name of offa's son (presumably the same
offfa who built offa's dyke(*)): "then eomer awoke, help to heroes,
Hemming's kinsman, garmund's grandson, mighty in battles" (translation
mine, with generous help from klaeber).
klaeber also corroborates the attribution to bede: the name appears as
"eumer" in the ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, and as "eomaer" in the anglo-
saxon translation thereof. klaeber translates it "horse-famous."
(*)according to klaeber, he's the king of the continental angles.
Dirk Thierbach
> some of us were talking about rohirric names yesterday, and it was
> mentioned that they're not alwys very imaginative: aldor and gamling
> are old, so their names mean "old"; "theoden" and most of the other
> kings' names mean "king," etc. considering the variety of actual anglo-
> saxon names, this seems a bit odd.
Well, we've descriptive place names like "the Hill" and "Bywater",
or "Bree" and "Comb", or names like "Beorn" and "Attercop".
So it's not restricted to Rohirric names, and I think Tolkien did it
quite intentionally.
- Dirk
Öjevind Lång
news:20100118150145...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...
Possibly, but his Elvish and Hobbbitish names, for example, are rather more
inventive.
�jevind
Dirk Thierbach
Like /Elendil/ "Elf-friend", or Proudfoot? :-)
Joke aside, he certainly knew about the "things get named after their
nature, and then the language changes and the old word becomes the (now
meaningless) name, optionally with the new word for the very same thing
attached" observation. "Bree-Hill" is an obvious example.
- Dirk
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
wrote:
> >> Count Menelvagor <Menelva...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
> >>> some of us were talking about rohirric names yesterday, and it was
> >>> mentioned that they're not alwys very imaginative: aldor and gamling
> >>> are old, so their names mean "old"; "theoden" and most of the other
> >>> kings' names mean "king," etc. considering the variety of actual anglo-
> >>> saxon names, this seems a bit odd.
>
> Joke aside, he certainly knew about the "things get named after their
> nature, and then the language changes and the old word becomes the (now
> meaningless) name, optionally with the new word for the very same thing
> attached" observation. "Bree-Hill" is an obvious example.
Certainly; yet I somehow doubt that Aldor and Gamling, the "old" ones,
were very happy about their names when they were kids. Or do the
Rohirrim change their names every 20 or 30 years? :-)
Noel
Raven
meddelelsen
news:5132e901-704d-4b76...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Certainly; yet I somehow doubt that Aldor and Gamling, the "old" ones,
> were very happy about their names when they were kids. Or do the
> Rohirrim change their names every 20 or 30 years? :-)
Perhaps; Guttorm (in modern Norwegian literally "Boyworm") and Yngling in
their childhoods. :-)
Hrafn.
Count Menelvagor
<jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
> "Noel Q. von Schneiffel" <noel.von.schneif...@fats.teunc.org> skrev i
> meddelelsennews:5132e901-704d-4b76...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Certainly; yet I somehow doubt that Aldor and Gamling, the "old" ones,
> > were very happy about their names when they were kids. Or do the
> > Rohirrim change their names every 20 or 30 years? :-)
>
> Perhaps; Guttorm (in modern Norwegian literally "Boyworm") and Yngling in
> their childhoods. :-)
we know that elves had more thn one name. what i'm remebering off-hand
is that each parent gave the child a name, but i think there may have
been other names as well.
(in china, i believe, children choose a name for themselves when they
grow up. hence, chiang kai-shek selected the name "kai-shek," meaning
boundary stone. evidently, he's not called that anymore. i recall
reading a book where they insisted on giving the name not only in
pinyin, but in the mandarin form, thoughthat wasn't his native
language. annoying.)
anyway, another oddity is that most of the elvish names we have are
sindarin, but most of the actual texts are quenya. (hopefully, one of
the elvish language people will flame me for saying this.)
Derek Broughton
> On Jan 18, 1:31 pm, "Raven"
> <jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
>> "Noel Q. von Schneiffel" <noel.von.schneif...@fats.teunc.org> skrev i
>> meddelelsennews:5132e901-704d-4b76-
b9ee-0c6...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Certainly; yet I somehow doubt that Aldor and Gamling, the "old" ones,
>> > were very happy about their names when they were kids. Or do the
>> > Rohirrim change their names every 20 or 30 years? :-)
>>
>> Perhaps; Guttorm (in modern Norwegian literally "Boyworm") and Yngling in
>> their childhoods. :-)
>
Just because he they were called Aldor and Gamling doesn't mean that's what
their mother called them. I'm betting Gaffer Gamgee wasn't called "Gaffer"
as a kid, either.
--
derek
JJ
> Count Menelvagor wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 1:31 pm, "Raven"
> > <jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
> >> "Noel Q. von Schneiffel" <noel.von.schneif...@fats.teunc.org> skrev i
> >> meddelelsennews:5132e901-704d-4b76-
>
>
> >> > Certainly; yet I somehow doubt that Aldor and Gamling, the "old" ones,
> >> > were very happy about their names when they were kids. Or do the
> >> > Rohirrim change their names every 20 or 30 years? :-)
>
> >> Perhaps; Guttorm (in modern Norwegian literally "Boyworm") and Yngling in
> >> their childhoods. :-)
>
> Just because he they were called Aldor and Gamling doesn't mean that's what
> their mother called them. I'm betting Gaffer Gamgee wasn't called "Gaffer"
> as a kid, either.
> --
> derek
That wasn't his name (Hamfast?) but a nickname to distinguish him from
Sam.
Derek Broughton
> That wasn't his name (Hamfast?) but a nickname to distinguish him from
> Sam.
Hardly to distinguish him from Sam, since they never had the same name, but
that's my point. These men of Rohir were "called" something that is very
similar to "Gaffer", but there's no reason to assume that those are birth
names. My Uncle Louis is called "Bud". He's been Bud since at least his
teens, and most people would have no idea that there's another name on his
birth certificate. I know an "Itch", a "Moose" and two "Toads" - methinks
none of them are on a birth certificate, either, but Moose is the only one I
can say for sure had a different given name.
As for the suggestion that Tolkien was somehow lazy in naming the Rohirrim -
perhaps he's just making a nod to the well-known Anglo-Saxon penchant for
giving children names from a very limited pool (eg, in North America the
most popular WASP baby names are invariably from whatever soap opera is
popular at the time). So, the king's names were generally a variant on the
word "King" - well, exactly how many King's names have there been in England
since the Norman conquest (I get 5 from the Plantagenets, 2 from the Stuarts
and _1_ from the Hanovers - the most Anglo-Saxon of the lot). I might have
missed 1 or two, but the point is still valid.
--
derek
Weland
Not just Anglo-Saxon---Theodoric? And even before the Normans...Aethel-
means noble. Oswin Osric line....Eadmund, Eadward, and so on.....
Öjevind Lång
news:hj8uds$frk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Derek Broughton wrote:
[snip]
>> As for the suggestion that Tolkien was somehow lazy in naming the
>> Rohirrim - perhaps he's just making a nod to the well-known Anglo-Saxon
>> penchant for giving children names from a very limited pool (eg, in North
>> America the most popular WASP baby names are invariably from whatever
>> soap opera is popular at the time). So, the king's names were generally
>> a variant on the word "King" - well, exactly how many King's names have
>> there been in England since the Norman conquest (I get 5 from the
>> Plantagenets, 2 from the Stuarts and _1_ from the Hanovers - the most
>> Anglo-Saxon of the lot). I might have missed 1 or two, but the point is
>> still valid.
>
> Not just Anglo-Saxon---Theodoric? And even before the Normans...Aethel-
> means noble. Oswin Osric line....Eadmund, Eadward, and so on.....
Even so, if the claim is that Gamling and Aldor were just by-names, not
proper names, although Tolkien never says any such thing, one could with
equal merit (that is to say, none)declare that many of the kings in the line
of Rohan's kings were not really named, only referred to by some appellation
meaning "ruler". One can't just make unsubstantiated claims when it suits
one's purpose.
We also have the case of Baldor, Bergo's son, who at a great feast made
an oath to walk the Paths of the Dead and did so. Brego was an old Germanic
god (in Old Norse, he appears as Bragi), and unbreakable promises to perform
some great deed were actually made in his name at banquets. Tolkien knew
that, of course, and the circumstance that he nonetheless let the father of
Baldor be called Brego indicates to me that Tolkien was indeed rather
careless when naming the Rohirrim - almost as if their names didn't really
matter. He would never have been so haphazard when dealing with Elvish
names.
Before the Norman kings, the English had a rich and varied hoard of names,
and often invented new ones. After the Conquest, the pool of usable names
decreased without interruption until the Renaissance, when it slowly began
to increase again. Any list of names from the 11th century, or even the 12th
century, would constitute a decided contrast to the unimaginative pattern of
Tom, Dick and Harry and Mary, Anne and Joan which later on largely obtained
until the 19th century.
As for modern Anglo-Saxons, I would not say that the names they give their
children are few and unimaginative.
�jevind
Dirk Thierbach
> We also have the case of Baldor, Bergo's son, who at a great feast
> made an oath to walk the Paths of the Dead and did so. Brego was an
> old Germanic god (in Old Norse, he appears as Bragi), and
> unbreakable promises to perform some great deed were actually made
> in his name at banquets. Tolkien knew that, of course, and the
> circumstance that he nonetheless let the father of Baldor be called
> Brego indicates to me that Tolkien was indeed rather careless when
> naming the Rohirrim
Or humorous. What he probably would have called "donnish" or, in the case
of Smaug, "a low philological jest".
- Dirk
Öjevind Lång
Yes, indeed. :-) That particular jest first appeared in "The Hobbit", which
was written for children and not entirely "serious". There is also the
jesting in connection with the Hobbits - Sam Gamgee marrying Rosie Cotton,
Zaragamba (Oldbuck) changing his name to Brandagamba (Brandybuck), but
decidely not, as he points out in the appendices, Braldagamba ("Alebuck").
Or the New Smials being known, jokingly, as Sharkey's End in Bywater. Not to
mention all the philological jests in "Farmer Giles", which was of course
not intended as a serious story any more than TH - less so, I should say.
But I can't conceive of Tolkien making that kind of lingustic jest in
connection with his Elvish names, or his Elvish languages in general, since
he took them very seriously.
Öjevind
Dirk Thierbach
> "Dirk Thierbach" <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> skrev i meddelandet
> news:20100121160658...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...
>> Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote:
>>> We also have the case of Baldor, Bergo's son, who at a great feast
>>> made an oath to walk the Paths of the Dead and did so. Brego was an
>>> old Germanic god (in Old Norse, he appears as Bragi), and [...]
>> Or humorous. What he probably would have called "donnish" or, in the case
>> of Smaug, "a low philological jest".
> But I can't conceive of Tolkien making that kind of lingustic jest in
> connection with his Elvish names, or his Elvish languages in general, since
> he took them very seriously.
But he didn't, did he? In this case, it's Germanic. For all the Rohirric
Kings, it's Anglo-Saxon. For Smaug, it's also Anglo-Saxon. I guess
one could include a few Hobbit-related "jokes", too.
So, no bad puns with English names (though some are indeed only
"descriptive", and not very imaginative).
- Dirk
Troels Forchhammer
�jevind L�ng <ojevin...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
> Even so, if the claim is that Gamling and Aldor were just
> by-names, not proper names, although Tolkien never says any such
> thing, one could with equal merit (that is to say, none)declare
> that many of the kings in the line of Rohan's kings were not
> really named, only referred to by some appellation meaning
> "ruler".
Does it matter at all when, how, and by whom they were given the
names we know them by?
Tolkien uses this kind of descriptive naming all over the place --
Gil-galad is a byname, as are Galadriel and Thingol, and I hardly
need remind anyone of the end of the fiery spirit, F�anor. Frodo is
invoking Frode which means 'noble', and I could continue
indefinitely: actually I think it is more normal that characters
given a certain amount of dialogue are given names that are
descriptive in kind, and so, regardless of how, when and by whom
they given to the character, have the characteristics of a byname.
The Rohirric names are, IMO, far from being the most glaring in this
-- I mean, think of Treebeard, Proudfoot or Quickbeam . . .
I admit that I can't help but smile when I encounter Gamling -- in
particular because the '-ling' in Danish is used as a diminutive, so
that anyone deserving to be called 'Gamling' in Danish would be a
little old man, too bent and weakened with age to do other than
sipping gruel and soup ;-) But this is a pun which, though Tolkien
was probably aware of it, depends on modern use in a foreign
language and so hardly can be held against him.
> One can't just make unsubstantiated claims when it suits
> one's purpose.
I would say that the claim that a large proportion of names in
Tolkien describe the character in some way that is akin to bynames is
very well substantiated. Sometimes I think we need to remember that
Gamling was _never_ a child -- he exists only as an old man who fits
his name excellently. It seems to me that Tolkien exerted great care
in choosing the names of his characters, and that he very often chose
a name that describes the character in some way. For most of the
Rohirric kings, their only defining characteristic is just that --
that they were kings of the Horse-masters, and hence this is
reflected in their names.
> We also have the case of Baldor, Bergo's son, who at a great
> feast made an oath to walk the Paths of the Dead and did so.
> Brego was an old Germanic god (in Old Norse, he appears as Bragi),
> and unbreakable promises to perform some great deed were actually
> made in his name at banquets. Tolkien knew that, of course, and
> the circumstance that he nonetheless let the father of Baldor be
> called Brego indicates to me that Tolkien was indeed rather
> careless when naming the Rohirrim - almost as if their names
> didn't really matter.
Eh? I'll admit that I have never made the connection Brego - Bragi
before, but now that you point it out, I have to say that I think
rather that it is chosen with great care and is extremely appropriate
as the name of the father of Baldor; in what way do you see it as
careless?
> He would never have been so haphazard when dealing with Elvish
> names.
As calling a Noldo loremaster the Speaking Noldo? Oh, that would be
Pengolodh, I guess . . . ;-)
It seems to me that most (or at least very many) of the really
prominent Elves are known mainly by they by-names, which of course
accounts for their names being so descriptive (though in some cases
the name is extremely well-chosen by either mother or father --
F�an�ro is an example of that).
I'm not sure that I really understand what the issue is here, and so
I am probably, as we would say, answering in the East when you're
asking in the West.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you
haven't understood it yet.
- Niels Bohr (1885-1962)
Derek Broughton
> One can't just make unsubstantiated claims
> when it suits one's purpose.
Nobody has made such a "claim". We're _discussing_ a hypothesis - which
there doesn't seem to be enough information available to prove one way or
the other. And, of course, one _can_ make an unsubstantiated hypothesis.
That's the scientific method for you. You hypothesize, then you try to
_disprove_ it.
> As for modern Anglo-Saxons, I would not say that the names they give
> their children are few and unimaginative.
Sure there are always people who come up with imaginative names, but still
every year we get a new, crop of soap-opera names.
--
derek
Dirk Thierbach
> I admit that I can't help but smile when I encounter Gamling -- in
> particular because the '-ling' in Danish is used as a diminutive,
Interesting. In German, "-ling" just means "someone or something with
that property". So "Rohling" is something which is raw, unfinished,
at the begin of the manufacturing process. "Lehrling" (apprentice)
is someone who has to be taught. And so on.
> so that anyone deserving to be called 'Gamling' in Danish would be a
> little old man, too bent and weakened with age to do other than
> sipping gruel and soup ;-)
What would be the neutral, non-diminutive form?
- Dirk
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
>
> Even so, if the claim is that Gamling and Aldor were just by-names, not
> proper names, although Tolkien never says any such thing, one could with
> equal merit (that is to say, none)declare that many of the kings in the line
> of Rohan's kings were not really named, only referred to by some appellation
> meaning "ruler". One can't just make unsubstantiated claims when it suits
> one's purpose.
Absolutely correct. This is why I only make substantiated claims ever.
The truth is, Gamling and Aldor were proper names. I have proof,
namely a reprint of Gamling's birth certificate, dated Blotmath 13,
T.A. 2934. I bought it on eBay from a Mr. Bruce Hopkins (whom I don't
know, but he sounded serious). The certificate gives his name as
Gamling Bob Horssenbutcher. Obviously he looked rather old already at
the time of his birth. I think he most likely suffered from progeria.
Noel
Öjevind Lång
news:Xns9D089DA6...@130.133.4.11...
> In message <news:7rrajn...@mid.individual.net>
> �jevind L�ng <ojevin...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
>> Even so, if the claim is that Gamling and Aldor were just
>> by-names, not proper names, although Tolkien never says any such
>> thing, one could with equal merit (that is to say, none)declare
>> that many of the kings in the line of Rohan's kings were not
>> really named, only referred to by some appellation meaning
>> "ruler".
>
> Does it matter at all when, how, and by whom they were given the
> names we know them by?
Oh, it's not of earth-shattering importance. Actually, I was not speaking of
who in Tolkien's created world might have given those people their by-names
or new names. I was speaking of Tolkien's world as only a work of
imagination. Story-externally. And it does seem to me that Tolkien did not
pay the same attention to the names of the Rohirrim as he did to the names
of Elves.
> Tolkien uses this kind of descriptive naming all over the place --
> Gil-galad is a byname, as are Galadriel and Thingol, and I hardly
> need remind anyone of the end of the fiery spirit, F�anor. Frodo is
> invoking Frode which means 'noble', and I could continue
> indefinitely: actually I think it is more normal that characters
> given a certain amount of dialogue are given names that are
> descriptive in kind, and so, regardless of how, when and by whom
> they given to the character, have the characteristics of a byname.
> The Rohirric names are, IMO, far from being the most glaring in this
> -- I mean, think of Treebeard, Proudfoot or Quickbeam . . .
Quite true. Even so, we are informed of which Elven names are by-names. As
for the Ents, they had "real" names that took a long time to utter because
they were added to all the time. Treebeard says as much to Merry and Pippin,
IIRC. He definitely tells them that Fangorn and Treebeard are names given to
him by others, not his real name. Also, remember this quotation from LotR,
when the Entmoot has started:
"As soon as the whole company was assembled, standing in a wide circle round
Treebeard, a curious and unintelligible conversation began. The Ents began
to murmur slowly: first one joined and then another, until they were all
chanting together in a long rising and falling rhythm, now louder on one
side of the ring, now dying away there and rising to a great boom on the
other side. Though he could not catch or understand any of the words - he
supposed the language was Entish - Pippin found the sound very pleasant to
listen to at first; but gradually his attention waned. After a long time
(and the Ents showed no signs of slackening) he found himself wondering,
since Entish was such an 'unhasty' language, whether they had yet got
further than *Good Morning*; and if Treebeard was to call the roll, how many
days it would take to sing all the names."
This quotation is funny, but it also illustrates that even if the Ents had
been willing to divulge their true names (which is unlikely, since Treebard
is even a bit wary of telling the hobbits what his kindred is called), the
names would have been impracticable for other folks, and hence, by-names had
to be substituted and used as regular names. This is very different from the
case of "Aldor the Old" (so called in the list of kings), Eorl and the rest.
> I admit that I can't help but smile when I encounter Gamling -- in
> particular because the '-ling' in Danish is used as a diminutive, so
> that anyone deserving to be called 'Gamling' in Danish would be a
> little old man, too bent and weakened with age to do other than
> sipping gruel and soup ;-) But this is a pun which, though Tolkien
> was probably aware of it, depends on modern use in a foreign
> language and so hardly can be held against him.
I believe "gamling" actually meant "oldster" in Old English. Yet it is given
as the name of this man: "Gamling, an old man". I don't hold it against
Tolkien; but a pun it is. And an illusion-breaking one.
>> One can't just make unsubstantiated claims when it suits
>> one's purpose.
>
> I would say that the claim that a large proportion of names in
> Tolkien describe the character in some way that is akin to bynames is
> very well substantiated. Sometimes I think we need to remember that
> Gamling was _never_ a child -- he exists only as an old man who fits
> his name excellently. It seems to me that Tolkien exerted great care
> in choosing the names of his characters, and that he very often chose
> a name that describes the character in some way. For most of the
> Rohirric kings, their only defining characteristic is just that --
> that they were kings of the Horse-masters, and hence this is
> reflected in their names.
I think you misunderstand me here. What I said was that there was no proof
that Gamling & Aldor were actually, or originally, called something else,
and then by-names meaning "old" were substituted for their real names, even,
in the case of Aldor, in the list of rulers of Rohan. Claims to that effect
were made in this thread.
Incidentally, as you know, Sam and the Gaffer were not called Samwise and
Hamfast (or the corresponding names in Hobbitish) as nicknames intended to
contrast each other. Tolkien says, in Appendix F: "But Sam and his father
Ham were really called Ban and Ran. These were shortenings of *Banazir* and
*Ranugad*, originally nicknames, meaning 'half-wise, simple' and
'stay-at-home'; but being words that had fallen out of colloquial use, they
remained as traditional names in certain families." Of course this is
Tolkien punning again; but story-internally, the Hobbits are not punning any
more than in the case of Sam Gamgee marrying Rosie Cotton. Tolkien expressly
says that as well.
The only names "describing" hobbits, story-internally, that I can recall
are certain nicknames such as Fatty, the Gaffer and Pimple. Those names are
clear nicknames, not puns or names supplied as the only names or "true
names" of the characters involved. The nickname Merry, according to Tolkien,
necessitated an invented name Meriadoc instead of the genuine Kalimac; but
this could hardly be called punning. That is to say, maintaining the
illusion of telling a true story, Tolkien is a pains to invent a "correct"
glossa for the nickname Merry (Kali). A pet-form of a given name is
sometimes a pun, but I do�t think this the case here, though the nickname
"Merry" is apt. Nicknames often are.
I hope we are not becoming "un-friends", but simply calling characters by
names such as "Old" or "Ruler" ("Ruler" in the case of a fair number of
kings of Rohan) or "Widely-travelled" for a man who has travelled far does
seem rather careless to me. By careless, I don't mean that this is a matter
of great importance; I simply mean that this is something that Tolkien would
not have done where Elves are concerned. The circumstance that some Elves
were often known by by-names is not truly relevant, since no punning or
hasty naming in order to move on is involved.
>> We also have the case of Baldor, Bergo's son, who at a great
>> feast made an oath to walk the Paths of the Dead and did so.
>> Brego was an old Germanic god (in Old Norse, he appears as Bragi),
>> and unbreakable promises to perform some great deed were actually
>> made in his name at banquets. Tolkien knew that, of course, and
>> the circumstance that he nonetheless let the father of Baldor be
>> called Brego indicates to me that Tolkien was indeed rather
>> careless when naming the Rohirrim - almost as if their names
>> didn't really matter.
>
> Eh? I'll admit that I have never made the connection Brego - Bragi
> before, but now that you point it out, I have to say that I think
> rather that it is chosen with great care and is extremely appropriate
> as the name of the father of Baldor; in what way do you see it as
> careless?
I mean that it's a bit like introducing a name which is simply *too*
fitting. Like the habit of Victorian novelists to give doctors names such as
Fillgrave or Sawyer or Slasher. Those things can happen, but they usually
don't. A man who makes a Bragi-oath would very seldom have a father called
Brage, just the way a modern Scandinavian called Vidar would seldom have a
father called Odin or Oden.
>> He would never have been so haphazard when dealing with Elvish
>> names.
>
> As calling a Noldo loremaster the Speaking Noldo? Oh, that would be
> Pengolodh, I guess . . . ;-)
:-) Yes, but that was a by-name, wasn't it? On top of that, it isn't even
canonical. I don't think it disproves my general point.
> It seems to me that most (or at least very many) of the really
> prominent Elves are known mainly by they by-names, which of course
> accounts for their names being so descriptive (though in some cases
> the name is extremely well-chosen by either mother or father --
> F�an�ro is an example of that).
Yes, and we are told that that was why F�anor was given that name by his
parents. Just the way the parents of the first Icelander called Snorri gave
him that name (it means something like "ill-disposed") because of his nasty
temper as a baby.
> I'm not sure that I really understand what the issue is here, and so
> I am probably, as we would say, answering in the East when you're
> asking in the West.
Well, my friend, I was definitely not "accusing" Tolkien of anything except
being a bit desultory with the names of the Rohirrim, in a way he, IMO,
never was where Elves were concerned. Of course, Tolkien could, without any
difficulty, have found less unimaginative names for his Rohan kings than an
assortment of names meaning "ruler" plus a few others which meant things
such as "old" or "god of solemn promises at banquets". No doubt this lack of
variety (and the deplorable punning) were deliberate, because he enjoyed the
puns at the time and didn't want to spend too much thinking up a more
credible name-list; but I think it was misguided because it breaks the
illusion of reading about something real.
�jevind
Troels Forchhammer
Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these staves:
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> I admit that I can't help but smile when I encounter Gamling -- in
>> particular because the '-ling' in Danish is used as a diminutive,
>
> Interesting. In German, "-ling" just means "someone or something with
> that property".
I would guess that it all has the same origin, but www.etymonline.com
mentions that -ling was used as a dimunitive suffix in Old Norse (in
contrast to the other Germanic languages, it seems). When it is applied
to people in Danish it usually has negative connotations -- derogatory
or patronizing. Can one say 'manling' or 'mansling' in English? And if
so, doesn't this also carry some diminutive / derogatory connotations?
> What would be the neutral, non-diminutive form?
I think we would have to it in two words -- 'gammel mand' (old man) or
'gammel kvinde' (old woman).
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Smile
a while
ere day
is done
and all
your gall
will soon
be gone.
- Piet Hein, /Advice at Nightfall/
Troels Forchhammer
> meddelandet news:Xns9D089DA6...@130.133.4.11...
>>
<snip>
>> Does it matter at all when, how, and by whom they were given the
>> names we know them by?
>
> Oh, it's not of earth-shattering importance.
[...]
> I was speaking of Tolkien's world as only a work of imagination.
> Story-externally.
That's what I mean as well. Story-externally it would seem to me that
it doesn't matter whether it is a byname or a birthname, it is the name
by which we know that character.
There are, of course, a few central characters (notably Aragorn) who is
known by a number of names throughout the story, and here the manner in
which he gets these names does become important ('Strider' and
'Elessar' being cases in point), but this is, IMO, a deviation from the
norm: by far the most characters are known to the reader only by a
single name (though in the case of some of the Hobbits, this is
associated with diminutive forms of their names -- Sam, Merry, Pippin,
Pip etc.).
> And it does seem to me that Tolkien did not pay the same attention
> to the names of the Rohirrim as he did to the names of Elves.
Actually I'm inclined to agree that he did pay some additional
attention to at least some Elvish names, but I don't think that the
Rohirrim are singled out in this.
What about the names of the Dwarves taken from the V�lusp� -- I would
put this on par with the Rohirric names in terms of 'easyness' (by
which I mean simply that it cost Tolkien less effort to come up with
these names).
>> Tolkien uses this kind of descriptive naming all over the place
>> -- Gil-galad is a byname, as are Galadriel and Thingol,
[...]
>> The Rohirric names are, IMO, far from being the most glaring in
>> this -- I mean, think of Treebeard, Proudfoot or Quickbeam . . .
>
> Quite true. Even so, we are informed of which Elven names are
> by-names.
If we look only at LotR, I don't think we're told -- but then I don't
think either that we are told the meaning of names such as Gil-galad
and Galadriel, though we _are_ told the meaning of C�rdan and Legolas
(C�rdan is on par with calling the Rohirric kings names that mean
'ruler', and Legolas cries Wood-elf to everybody).
One other thing that I think the Elvish names shares with the Rohirric
names for most readers is that the meaning is obscure at best: I doubt
that even most English-speaking know the meaning of these Rohirric
names any better than they know the meaning of Galadriel or Gil-galad
(with some exceptions -- I suspect that W�dfara would have a greater
recognition-rate than Th�oden, though I wouldn't be surprised if most
readers miss the connection of Eorl = Earl).
> As for the Ents, they had "real" names that took a long time to
> utter because they were added to all the time.
Again, I don't think this knowledge makes a difference. Treebeard _is_
Treebeard -- that is the name by which the reader knows him, so, story-
externally speaking, Treebeard is, IMO, his 'true name'. Calling him
Treebeard (or Fangorn, rather) does, I think, suggest that Tolkien was
having a joke on him, though in his case the joke would rather be that
the character was made to fit the name so amusingly since the name
predated the character.
<snip>
> This quotation is funny, but it also illustrates that even if
> the Ents had been willing to divulge their true names
[...]
> the names would have been impracticable for other folks, and hence,
> by-names had to be substituted and used as regular names. This is
> very different from the case of "Aldor the Old" (so called in the
> list of kings), Eorl and the rest.
I think that is the point where I cannot quite agree. As I see it, the
important point is not story-internal, but story-external and is
related to the name by which the reader gets to know the character.
And of course I have to say that there's a lot of variation and
creativeness in the names of the Rohirric kings -- after all I come
from a country that has, for the past five hundred years, been ruled by
Frederik and Christian (exceept for the last 40, where Margrethe has
intruded) ;-)
> I believe "gamling" actually meant "oldster" in Old English.
But how many readers actually know this?
I had to go and check my old tattered Danish paperback, and to my
delight it actually has "gamling, en gammel mand" ;-)
> Yet it is given as the name of this man: "Gamling, an old man". I
> don't hold it against Tolkien; but a pun it is. And an
> illusion-breaking one.
Personally I wouldn't call it a pun as such, though of course I do see
the pun. To me it merely seems to follow the trend of using descriptive
names, though in this case it may feel somewhat overdone.
> I think you misunderstand me here. What I said was that there was
> no proof that Gamling & Aldor were actually, or originally, called
> something else, and then by-names meaning "old" were substituted
> for their real names, even, in the case of Aldor, in the list of
> rulers of Rohan. Claims to that effect were made in this thread.
Yes, I know -- I'm sorry was being unclear, but my point was to try to
mutate the claim to a very close one that actually, in my opinion,
_can_ be substantiated, namely that many of the names by which the
reader identifies the charactes in LotR are descriptive of the
character and hence has the characteristics of a byname, regardless of
how it was given.
> Incidentally, as you know, Sam and the Gaffer were not called
> Samwise and Hamfast (or the corresponding names in Hobbitish) as
> nicknames intended to contrast each other.
I agree, but I have to add that I've always loved King Elessar's pun in
the letter in the rejected epilogue: 'Half-wise that should be Full-
wise', indeed! :-)
<snip>
> The only names "describing" hobbits, story-internally, that I
> can recall are certain nicknames such as Fatty, the Gaffer and
> Pimple.
Samwise is surely also descriptive, I should say, as is Frodo (Frode -
Noble), Proudfoot, and probably others if we start to dig into it.
> Those names are clear nicknames, not puns or names supplied as
> the only names or "true names" of the characters involved.
Now you again make much of the story-internal differences in how the
name is given -- something that I think is unimportant for characters
that the reader will think of by only one name. We don't actually think
of Gollum as Sm�agol, or we could have added that to our list, though
his friend D�agol does deserver a place on the list of descriptive
Hobbit names.
> I hope we are not becoming "un-friends",
You'd definitely have to try harder if that'd been your goal ;-)
> but simply calling characters by names such as "Old" or "Ruler"
> ("Ruler" in the case of a fair number of kings of Rohan) or
> "Widely-travelled" for a man who has travelled far does seem
> rather careless to me.
Actually I both agree and disagree.
First of all I think there's two issues that are getting intermingled
here. One is Tolkien's predilection for using descriptive names. It
doesn't, IMO, matter if they're bynames or given names: Tolkien very
often gives his character a name that in some way emphasises an
important trait of the character, whether visually (Galadriel),
symbolic (Gil-galad), occupation (C�rdan) or spiritual (F�anor), it is
a very common feature in Tolkien's writings.
The other issue is the effort Tolkien spent in choosing the names. I
quite agree that the list of Rohirric rulers in the appendices doesn't
suggest that he spent a lot effort with these names, but I don't think
the Rohirric rulers are singled out in this respect -- most of the
Hobbit names that apear only in the appendices also appear to me to be
of this 'out of the shelf' nature (whether flower names or traditional
Frankish or Gothic names -- do any of these names have a meaning, by
the way? Or is it only Pippin's father, Paladin, that appear as apt for
the Thain of the Shire as Fr�awine for a king of Rohan?), and there's
also some of that in the lists of D�nedain rulers (the stewards in
particular seem to have been happy to re-use names, saving the author
the effort of inventing a unique name for each).
Tolkien's use of descriptive names may at times approach a bad pun --
not just with some of the Rohirric names (e.g. Gamling or W�dfara), but
also, IMO, in other cases: Quickbeam, Samwise, or Legolas for instance
(I suppose C�rdan is more in the nature of being just a bit too
obvious), and when this meets up with the more effortless (as I
understand English 'careless' it has some connotations that I can't
agree with, so I'd prefer to use 'effortless' for this), the result
isn't always beneficial.
> By careless, I don't mean that this is a matter of great
> importance; I simply mean that this is something that Tolkien would
> not have done where Elves are concerned. The circumstance that some
> Elves were often known by by-names is not truly relevant, since no
> punning or hasty naming in order to move on is involved.
Actually I'm not completely convinced with respect to the punning, but
I agree that all the Elvish names give the impression of having
required more effort come up with, if for nothing else, then for the
very fact that they are invented. Of course, if we look at the
composition of LotR in isolation, there are some Elvish names that
didn't require any effort because they are re-used from the
Silmarillion writings (Rateliff has some interesting points about
Tolkien borrowing from Tolkien, but in this context I think it is less
interesting simply because Tolkien would have put the effort into the
name at some point, and it matters little to the reader when that was).
[Baldor, son of Brego making a Bragi-oath]
> I mean that it's a bit like introducing a name which is simply
> *too* fitting.
Yes, I think I know what you mean, though I can't agree that it is
special for the Rohirrim. At most it is perhaps more obvious simply
because the Rohirric names are in Old English making them much closer
to the language of the main narrative than most other examples of this.
> Like the habit of Victorian novelists to give doctors names such
> as Fillgrave or Sawyer or Slasher.
LOL! They didn't, did they? Really?
The difference, the only difference, I agree, but still, IMO, an
important one, is that Tolkien did this in other languages -- a bit
like calling the drunkard Thomas Bibo instead of calling him Thomas
Drunkard: it's a matter of subtlety, but I do think that such subtlety
should be allowed to count for something :-)
>> As calling a Noldo loremaster the Speaking Noldo? Oh, that would
>> be Pengolodh, I guess . . . ;-)
>
>:-) Yes, but that was a by-name, wasn't it? On top of that, it
> isn't even canonical. I don't think it disproves my general point.
I'd rather prefer not to have a canon discussion from this -- the name
is, in any case, firmly established in Tolkien's writings and is one of
the names that survive throughout many phases of the lengendarium.
However, I think there're more Elvish names (and definitely names in
Elvish) that would fit the the bill of being 'too fitting' -- I've
mentioned C�rdan and Legolas already, and Elendil is another good
example, and who chose to call Arvedui by that name? I dare say I could
dig out more examples of names in the Elvish languages that I would say
also belong in the same group of names that are a little too fitting to
feel realistic.
<snip>
>> I'm not sure that I really understand what the issue is here, and
>> so I am probably, as we would say, answering in the East when
>> you're asking in the West.
>
> Well, my friend, I was definitely not "accusing" Tolkien of
> anything
And I was carefully avoiding words such as 'problem' or 'complaint' by
choosing 'issue' :-)
But I think I understand your point better now. I don't agree in every
respect.
> except being a bit desultory with the names of the Rohirrim,
Oh, I don't really think it is desultory -- I think it was carefully
planned and executed. This is not a value-statement, merely that I
belive that Tolkien actually did plan and design it in this way because
he liked it like that.
> in a way he, IMO, never was where Elves were concerned.
Actually I would claim that there were many Elvish names that came
about in a desultory manner -- where he just invented some
phonologically pleasing word and assigned that, only to go back later
and invent a meaning and an etymology for the name. It was, IMO,
certainly far from all the Elvish names that were carefully planned and
worked out (actually I think it is Flieger who makes this point
somewhere).
> Of course, Tolkien could, without any difficulty, have found less
> unimaginative names for his Rohan kings than an assortment of
> names meaning "ruler" plus a few others which meant things such as
> "old" or "god of solemn promises at banquets".
Or like the rich Goldwine ;-)
> No doubt this lack of variety
As said above, you really have no case coming to a Dane claiming that
there's a lack of variation in the names of the Rohirric kings :-D
('Oh, it's a boy, what shall we call him, Frederik?' 'Oh, I really
don't know, Mary, but how about Christian?' 'What an original idea, my
dear!' ;-)
> (and the deplorable punning) were deliberate, because he enjoyed
> the puns at the time and didn't want to spend too much thinking
> up a more credible name-list;
Precisely.
> but I think it was misguided because it breaks the illusion of
> reading about something real.
I'm usually quite difficult to wrest out of my literary belief once the
book has drawn me in (even Rowling didn't manage that until the last
couple of books, and even then only a handful of times), but even I
will occasionally feel a tug in my Secondary Belief when reading about
the old man Gamling (and more rarely when W�dfara intervenes), but in
the other cases I can gleefully ignore that I know what they actually
mean while reading the story, but stop and enjoy the pun afterwards.
I've suggested above that the majority of readers, even those whose
native language is English, will miss most of these references and so
it will not appear so dominant to them. This is of course quite a
presumptuous claim since my own native language is not English and so
it has no real bearing on the discussion that I have had to have the
meaning of most of the names pointed out to me (exceptions being such
as W�dfara, Gamling (obviously), Eorl and Helm).
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Elen s�la l�menn' omentielvo
- /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Steve Morrison
(snip)
> I'm usually quite difficult to wrest out of my literary belief once the
> book has drawn me in (even Rowling didn't manage that until the last
> couple of books, and even then only a handful of times), but even I
> will occasionally feel a tug in my Secondary Belief when reading about
> the old man Gamling (and more rarely when W�dfara intervenes), but in
> the other cases I can gleefully ignore that I know what they actually
> mean while reading the story, but stop and enjoy the pun afterwards.
>
> I've suggested above that the majority of readers, even those whose
> native language is English, will miss most of these references and so
> it will not appear so dominant to them. This is of course quite a
> presumptuous claim since my own native language is not English and so
> it has no real bearing on the discussion that I have had to have the
> meaning of most of the names pointed out to me (exceptions being such
> as W�dfara, Gamling (obviously), Eorl and Helm).
>
Well, in my case, it was only a year or two ago that I realized
that Brego's name was a pun (I came on a reference to "Brego"
as a variant of Bragi's name, and had a forehead-slapping
moment as I suddenly realized why the Tolkien character had
that particular name!) But as for W�dfara, I never thought much
about the meaning of his name until someone on rabt asked about
it, and the meaning dawned on me for the first time. I had no
idea what "Gamling" meant until long after I first read /LotR/;
I don't think I initially realized what "Eorl" meant; but "Helm"
is identical to a common noun which is actually used in the text
("helms too they chose") so it would have been difficult not to
see that the name was meaningful.
Troels Forchhammer
Steve Morrison <rim...@toast.net> spoke these staves:
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> I've suggested above that the majority of readers, even those
>> whose native language is English, will miss most of these
>> references and so it will not appear so dominant to them. This is
>> of course quite a presumptuous claim since my own native language
>> is not English and so it has no real bearing on the discussion
>> that I have had to have the meaning of most of the names pointed
>> out to me (exceptions being such as W�dfara, Gamling (obviously),
>> Eorl and Helm).
>
> Well, in my case, it was only a year or two ago that I realized
> that Brego's name was a pun (I came on a reference to "Brego"
> as a variant of Bragi's name, and had a forehead-slapping
> moment as I suddenly realized why the Tolkien character had
> that particular name!) But as for W�dfara, I never thought much
> about the meaning of his name until someone on rabt asked about
> it, and the meaning dawned on me for the first time. I had no
> idea what "Gamling" meant until long after I first read /LotR/;
W�dfara and Gamling may be more obvious to Scandinavian ears --
"vidfarare" is an actual Swedish word that turns up in a Google
search (the corresponding Danish term isn't actually used, but
"vidfarer" would make sense), and as I said the Danish version speaks
of "Gamling, en gammel mand".
> I don't think I initially realized what "Eorl" meant; but "Helm"
> is identical to a common noun which is actually used in the text
> ("helms too they chose") so it would have been difficult not to
> see that the name was meaningful.
I thought it was meant to refer to the Helmsman who steers the ship
(though he is not the captain) -- according to etymonline.com it has
a different etymology from the protective head gear, Helm(et):
* helm
"tiller," from O.E. helma "position of guidance, control,"
from P.Gmc. *khelman- (cf. O.N. hjalm, N.H.G. helm "handle").
* helmet
1470, from M.Fr. helmet, dim. of helme "helmet," from Frank.
*helm (cf O.H.G. helm "helmet"), from P.Gmc. *khelmaz, from
PIE *kel- "to cover, to hide" (see cell). O.E. had helm, but
it never was an active word.
<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=h&p=5>
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided
into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from,
and (d) rocks.
- /Equal Rites/ (Terry Pratchett)
Öjevind Lång
> In message <news:20100122080456...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de>
> Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these staves:
>>
>> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> I admit that I can't help but smile when I encounter Gamling -- in
>>> particular because the '-ling' in Danish is used as a diminutive,
>>
>> Interesting. In German, "-ling" just means "someone or something with
>> that property".
>
> I would guess that it all has the same origin, but www.etymonline.com
> mentions that -ling was used as a dimunitive suffix in Old Norse (in
> contrast to the other Germanic languages, it seems). When it is applied
> to people in Danish it usually has negative connotations -- derogatory
> or patronizing. Can one say 'manling' or 'mansling' in English? And if
> so, doesn't this also carry some diminutive / derogatory connotations?
This is going off at a tangent a bit, but I do find it interesting/amusing
that in one of Tove Jansson's Moomin books, Snufkin (Snusmumriken in the
Swedish-language original) calls some children "F�rm�rrade ungar", the
English translation uses the phrase "Oh, you grokelings" - the groke being
the standard English translation of *m�rran*, the terrible monster in the
Mooomin books. "Little grokes", or "offspring of the groke", in other
words. "F�rm�rrade ungar", of course, memaning something like "Begroked
kids".
It should be added, perhaps, that Snufkin actually is very fond of the
children - it's merely that they chose to slide down a newly tarred roof on
the seats of their trousers, which he had just washed,
�jevind
Steve Morrison
>> I don't think I initially realized what "Eorl" meant; but "Helm"
>> is identical to a common noun which is actually used in the text
>> ("helms too they chose") so it would have been difficult not to
>> see that the name was meaningful.
>
> I thought it was meant to refer to the Helmsman who steers the ship
> (though he is not the captain) -- according to etymonline.com it has
> a different etymology from the protective head gear, Helm(et):
>
> * helm
> "tiller," from O.E. helma "position of guidance, control,"
> from P.Gmc. *khelman- (cf. O.N. hjalm, N.H.G. helm "handle").
> * helmet
> 1470, from M.Fr. helmet, dim. of helme "helmet," from Frank.
> *helm (cf O.H.G. helm "helmet"), from P.Gmc. *khelmaz, from
> PIE *kel- "to cover, to hide" (see cell). O.E. had helm, but
> it never was an active word.
> <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=h&p=5>
>
That could be. Of course, "helmet" is the usual word for the
head covering in modern English.
JJ
wrote:
> I would guess that it all has the same origin, butwww.etymonline.com
> mentions that -ling was used as a dimunitive suffix in Old Norse (in
> contrast to the other Germanic languages, it seems). When it is applied
> to people in Danish it usually has negative connotations -- derogatory
> or patronizing. Can one say 'manling' or 'mansling' in English? And if
> so, doesn't this also carry some diminutive / derogatory connotations?
>
I've never heard of such a word (though there is 'mannikin' which has
the same meaning), but -ling as a diminutive is certainly used in
English: 'duckling', juvenile duck; 'princeling', young or minor
nobleman; 'darling', diminutive of 'dear'.
Steve Morrison
I have, although it's rare and, I suspect, archaic. Kipling used it
in /The Jungle Book/ according to this:
Julian Bradfield
> or patronizing. Can one say 'manling' or 'mansling' in English? And if
> so, doesn't this also carry some diminutive / derogatory connotations?
Yes, and yes. (for "manling").
It's a rare word, but many people will have seen it, because Kipling
uses it in "The Jungle Book", where it's used with diminutive
*de*notation, and derogatory *con*notation.
I've just looked it up in the OED - all but one of the quotations are
derogatory.
Derek Broughton
Helmet is the usual word for modern safety-head-covers, which is not quite
the same thing. I can't say I've often heard "helmet" for the article of
medieval armour - but it's possible that that's just too-long association
with the SCA.
--
derek
Öjevind Lång
> In message <news:7rubmo...@mid.individual.net>
> �jevind L�ng <ojevin...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
[snip]
> There are, of course, a few central characters (notably Aragorn) who is
> known by a number of names throughout the story, and here the manner in
> which he gets these names does become important ('Strider' and
> 'Elessar' being cases in point), but this is, IMO, a deviation from the
> norm: by far the most characters are known to the reader only by a
> single name (though in the case of some of the Hobbits, this is
> associated with diminutive forms of their names -- Sam, Merry, Pippin,
> Pip etc.).
True. On a side note, personally I feel that too many of Tolkien's
place-names are immediately discernible as meaning something like
"Stoneland" or "Blue River", correctly rendered in one or other of his
languages. Of couue, as a linguist he knew that names of obscure origin,
such as the pre-N�menorean "arnach" in Lossarnach, make up a much larger
portion of all real place-names. Even if many of those place-names
ultimately just mean something like "mountain" or "river" or "water" in some
obscure and long extinct language or other. Names like Bree-hill, or the
River Avon in the real world.
This may seem pernickety, and I quite understand if others don't feel that
way, but I would, so to speak, like to know less, not more, about some
aspects of Middle-earth. Of course, it's different with Valinor, where
everything is eternal, including the names.
>> And it does seem to me that Tolkien did not pay the same attention
>> to the names of the Rohirrim as he did to the names of Elves.
>
> Actually I'm inclined to agree that he did pay some additional
> attention to at least some Elvish names, but I don't think that the
> Rohirrim are singled out in this.
>
> What about the names of the Dwarves taken from the V�lusp� -- I would
> put this on par with the Rohirric names in terms of 'easyness' (by
> which I mean simply that it cost Tolkien less effort to come up with
> these names).
You are right. This first happened in "The Hobbit", which wasn't an entirely
"serious" book, and then he was stuck with it. Not that I find any fault
with the naming convention as such, but in TH, the 13 Dwarves bear names
rather mechancially copied from a list of dwarf-names in the Elder Edda.
When writing LotR, he took care to be a bit more varied; the names there
can't all be found at once on one page in the Old Icelandic literature. In
fact, I believe a couple of them do not appear there at all but are his own
constructions from the same linguistic material.
[snip]
> And of course I have to say that there's a lot of variation and
> creativeness in the names of the Rohirric kings -- after all I come
> from a country that has, for the past five hundred years, been ruled by
> Frederik and Christian (exceept for the last 40, where Margrethe has
> intruded) ;-)
"Five times an heir was born in his House so like to his Forefather that he
received the name of Christian. Another five times an heir was born in his
House so like to another Forefather that he received the name of Frederik."
Heh heh heh.
>> I believe "gamling" actually meant "oldster" in Old English.
>
> But how many readers actually know this?
>
> I had to go and check my old tattered Danish paperback, and to my
> delight it actually has "gamling, en gammel mand" ;-)
The old Swedish translation has "Gamling, en �ldrad man" ("Gamling, an aged
man"). The new one (by Erik Andersson) has "Gambling, en �ldre man"
("Auldster, en elderly man"). Andersson clearly tried to make the name a
little less embarrassingly obvious in Swedish by introducing a dialectal
form of "gamling"; gamling is a perfectly normal word for "oldster" in
Swedish. As in reporting from an old folk's home. (Voiceover to chirpy
speakers' voice:) "Here, sister Maria helps this oldster to retrieve her
false teeth from the porridge".
[snip]
> First of all I think there's two issues that are getting intermingled
> here. One is Tolkien's predilection for using descriptive names. It
> doesn't, IMO, matter if they're bynames or given names: Tolkien very
> often gives his character a name that in some way emphasises an
> important trait of the character, whether visually (Galadriel),
> symbolic (Gil-galad), occupation (C�rdan) or spiritual (F�anor), it is
> a very common feature in Tolkien's writings.
It is. Without meaning to imply that it spoils my fun in any significant
way, I think he overdid it.
> The other issue is the effort Tolkien spent in choosing the names. I
> quite agree that the list of Rohirric rulers in the appendices doesn't
> suggest that he spent a lot effort with these names, but I don't think
> the Rohirric rulers are singled out in this respect -- most of the
> Hobbit names that apear only in the appendices also appear to me to be
> of this 'out of the shelf' nature (whether flower names or traditional
> Frankish or Gothic names -- do any of these names have a meaning, by
> the way? Or is it only Pippin's father, Paladin, that appear as apt for
> the Thain of the Shire as Fr�awine for a king of Rohan?), and there's
> also some of that in the lists of D�nedain rulers (the stewards in
> particular seem to have been happy to re-use names, saving the author
> the effort of inventing a unique name for each).
>
>
> Tolkien's use of descriptive names may at times approach a bad pun --
> not just with some of the Rohirric names (e.g. Gamling or W�dfara), but
> also, IMO, in other cases: Quickbeam, Samwise, or Legolas for instance
> (I suppose C�rdan is more in the nature of being just a bit too
> obvious), and when this meets up with the more effortless (as I
> understand English 'careless' it has some connotations that I can't
> agree with, so I'd prefer to use 'effortless' for this), the result
> isn't always beneficial.
I don't mind those at all, since Quickbeam is just an "outer" name for an
Ent, Samwise being Sam's full name isn't really too much of a coincidendce
to swallow and Legolas is a logical name for an Elven king in a forest to
give to his son. Though when Legolas is, in one passage, called "Legolas
Gr�nblad" (for Greenleaf) in the Swedish translation, that is again a bit
too familiar, because Gr�nblad is a very ordinary name in Swedish. Just like
Lindblad and Ekblad and Sj�blad or Gr�nvall and Gr�nberg and Gr�nlund. Or
like Snaggletooth and Bumble in English. (Oops! Sorry. No, not at all like
Snaggletooth and Bumble.)
[snip]
> [Baldor, son of Brego making a Bragi-oath]
>
>> I mean that it's a bit like introducing a name which is simply
>> *too* fitting.
>
> Yes, I think I know what you mean, though I can't agree that it is
> special for the Rohirrim. At most it is perhaps more obvious simply
> because the Rohirric names are in Old English making them much closer
> to the language of the main narrative than most other examples of this.
I think it is more general with the Rohirrim than with the Elves. As I said,
I think Legolas is the kind of name one would expect a wood-Elf to bear.
>> Like the habit of Victorian novelists to give doctors names such
>> as Fillgrave or Sawyer or Slasher.
>
> LOL! They didn't, did they? Really?
I promise you, they did. Another example of this habit is when a man in one
book (I forget the author) is described as having many children and bears
the family name Quiverful. And in some of Anthony Trollope's Barset
chronicles, one encounters the tremendously rich Duke of Omnium.
[snip]
> However, I think there're more Elvish names (and definitely names in
> Elvish) that would fit the the bill of being 'too fitting' -- I've
> mentioned C�rdan and Legolas already, and Elendil is another good
> example, and who chose to call Arvedui by that name? I dare say I could
> dig out more examples of names in the Elvish languages that I would say
> also belong in the same group of names that are a little too fitting to
> feel realistic.
Malbeth the Seer told Arvedui's parents to give him that name, because he
would be the last ruler of Artehdain and end as either the first king of the
reunited kingdom or king of nothing at all. And Elendil must have been a
very fitting name for a member of the line of And�nie.
[snip]
> Actually I would claim that there were many Elvish names that came
> about in a desultory manner -- where he just invented some
> phonologically pleasing word and assigned that, only to go back later
> and invent a meaning and an etymology for the name. It was, IMO,
> certainly far from all the Elvish names that were carefully planned and
> worked out (actually I think it is Flieger who makes this point
> somewhere).
Yes, I agree. This is in contrast with the name of the Rohirrim, where he
clearly often used the meaning of the name as the starting point.
>> Of course, Tolkien could, without any difficulty, have found less
>> unimaginative names for his Rohan kings than an assortment of
>> names meaning "ruler" plus a few others which meant things such as
>> "old" or "god of solemn promises at banquets".
>
> Or like the rich Goldwine ;-)
I'd like to be Goldwine! ;-)
[snip]
> I'm usually quite difficult to wrest out of my literary belief once the
> book has drawn me in (even Rowling didn't manage that until the last
> couple of books, and even then only a handful of times), but even I
> will occasionally feel a tug in my Secondary Belief when reading about
> the old man Gamling (and more rarely when W�dfara intervenes), but in
> the other cases I can gleefully ignore that I know what they actually
> mean while reading the story, but stop and enjoy the pun afterwards.
Ah, we Scandinavians have a special burden to carry!
> I've suggested above that the majority of readers, even those whose
> native language is English, will miss most of these references and so
> it will not appear so dominant to them. This is of course quite a
> presumptuous claim since my own native language is not English and so
> it has no real bearing on the discussion that I have had to have the
> meaning of most of the names pointed out to me (exceptions being such
> as W�dfara, Gamling (obviously), Eorl and Helm).
That's true, but even so, I find those shortcuts to names mildly irritating.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
news:mbpr27-...@morgen.pointerstop.ca...
[snip]
>> That could be. Of course, "helmet" is the usual word for the
>> head covering in modern English.
>
> Helmet is the usual word for modern safety-head-covers, which is not quite
> the same thing. I can't say I've often heard "helmet" for the article of
> medieval armour - but it's possible that that's just too-long association
> with the SCA.
"Helm" was a very archaic word before Tolkien; he seems to have given it a
new lease of life.
�jevind
TT Arvind
wrote:
> The other issue is the effort Tolkien spent in choosing the names. I
> quite agree that the list of Rohirric rulers in the appendices doesn't
> suggest that he spent a lot effort with these names,
<snip>
Do you really think that? Surely coming up with a dozen or so
synonyms for 'king, prince, ruler' would have have required more than
a trivial effort, even for someone as familiar with Anglo-Saxon as
JRRT was?
--
Arvind
Öjevind Lång
news:5138f4c7-1cf8-461b...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
LOL.
�jevind
Dirk Thierbach
> On 2010-01-22, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>> or patronizing. Can one say 'manling' or 'mansling' in English? And if
>> so, doesn't this also carry some diminutive / derogatory connotations?
> Yes, and yes. (for "manling").
> It's a rare word, but many people will have seen it, because Kipling
> uses it in "The Jungle Book", where it's used with diminutive
> *de*notation, and derogatory *con*notation.
Interesting. The German translation in the /Jungle Book/ is
"Menschlein" (both diminuitive and, in this context, derogatory).
So maybe "-lein" and "-ling" merged at some stage? Does anyone know
the exact etymology?
What about "Earthling"? Is that necessarily derogatory?
- Dirk
Julian Bradfield
> Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
...
>> [manling] is a rare word, but many people will have seen it, because Kipling
>> uses it in "The Jungle Book", where it's used with diminutive
>> *de*notation, and derogatory *con*notation.
>
> Interesting. The German translation in the /Jungle Book/ is
> "Menschlein" (both diminuitive and, in this context, derogatory).
> So maybe "-lein" and "-ling" merged at some stage? Does anyone know
> the exact etymology?
I don't know whether there's an English cognate of "lein" - can't
think of one off-hand.
With regard to the dimunitivity, the OED says about "-ling":
In ON. the suffix had a diminutive force, of which there are only
slight traces in the other Teut. langs. (cf. OE. stærling mentioned
above, and G. sperling sparrow); chiefly in words denoting the young
of animals, as gǽsling-r gosling, ketling-r kitten,
kiðlin-gr young kid, ‘kidling’, but also in a few other
words, as bœ́kling-r booklet, vetling-r glove, yrmling-r little
worm. In Eng. the earliest certain instance of this use appears to be
codling, recorded c1314 (kitling, which appears a1300, being of
dubious formation), in the 15th c. we find gosling (of which the
earliest quoted form, gesling, points to adoption from ON.), and
duckling. In the 16thc. and subsequently the suffix has been employed
in many new diminutive formations, chiefly contemptuous appellations
of persons, as godling, lordling, kingling, princeling; in this use it
is still a living formative.
> What about "Earthling"? Is that necessarily derogatory?
Yes. Again, to quote the OED:
The personal designations in -ling are now always used in a
contemptuous or unfavourable sense (though this implication was not
fully established before the 17th c.), as courtling, earthling,
groundling, popeling (= papist), vainling, worldling.
Öjevind Lång
news:slrnhlmti...@krk.inf.ed.ac.uk...
In Swedish, the word "yngling", meaning "young man", is quite normal. The
only corresponding use in English I have encountered is "Youngling" in the
Star Wars films (for the apprentice Jedi), and I take it that that was
George Lucas' own invention.
Öjevind
Baron M. Bogusz
wrote:
> some of us were talking about rohirric names yesterday, and it was
> mentioned that they're not alwys very imaginative: aldor and gamling
> are old, so their names mean "old"; "theoden" and most of the other
> kings' names mean "king," etc. considering the variety of actual anglo-
> saxon names, this seems a bit odd.
I dõn't undersztand why everyõne keeps talking abõut the Anglõ-
Szaxõnz, when it'sz õbvious that the Rõhirrim are Magyarsz. They rode
horszesz from the szteppesz intõ part õf an ancient Empire, which the
Old Engliszh did nõt, and they did nõt usze boatsz tõ cõme to Rõhan,
as the Anglesz and Szaxonsz did.
Also, the name Eomer clearly derivesz frõm "Eötvös."
TT Arvind
> LOL.
That is one possible reaction. Still, my knowledge of Anglo-Saxon is
just about enough to read the sort of texts in Liebermann's /
Gesetze/. I could come up with a hoard of 'typical' Anglo-Saxon names
in five minutes. Tolkien could probably have done it in his sleep.
Finding descriptive names for his characters is hardly likely to have
been easier.
--
Arvind
Troels Forchhammer
> meddelandet news:Xns9D09C020...@130.133.4.11...
>>
> On a side note, personally I feel that too many of Tolkien's place-
> names are immediately discernible as meaning something like
> "Stoneland" or "Blue River", correctly rendered in one or other of
> his languages. Of couue, as a linguist he knew that names of
> obscure origin, such as the pre-N�menorean "arnach" in Lossarnach,
> make up a much larger portion of all real place-names.
I can see where you're coming from, though I think that this is also
heavily influenced by our intimate knowledge of the books etc. The
average reader does, I believe, not know this and so the names, to
the average reader, will appear to be far more obscure in both
meaning and derivation. This doesn't invalidate what you say, but I
think it is fair to consider _also_ the effect on the average reader.
> Even if many of those place-names ultimately just mean something
> like "mountain" or "river" or "water" in some obscure and long
> extinct language or other.
Yes, you are of course right. I do think we, in RABT and AFT are,
more or less, reading the book as the experts in these long-extinct
languages would read the normal map: to these experts the normal map
is every bit as full of meaning as Tolkien's book, and having long
since learned the meaning of every translatable bit in e.g. _The Lord
of the Rings_, including the many parts that Tolkien didn't
translate, we put ourselves in the place of the experts in the sense
that we now see the meaning.
<snip>
>> And of course I have to say that there's a lot of variation and
>> creativeness in the names of the Rohirric kings -- after all I
>> come from a country that has, for the past five hundred years,
>> been ruled by Frederik and Christian (exceept for the last 40,
>> where Margrethe has intruded) ;-)
>
> "Five times an heir was born in his House so like to his
> Forefather that he received the name of Christian. Another five
> times an heir was born in his House so like to another Forefather
> that he received the name of Frederik." Heh heh heh.
And next we'll be up for the tenth Frederik, except that he seems to
have picked up some better looks somewhere, which must be the French
side (his younger brother is more alike to his forbears, but I
suppose he'll manage anyway, being a prince and all, otherwise he'll
just have to take to wearing a bag over his head . . .)
<snip>
>> One is Tolkien's predilection for using descriptive names.
[...]
>> it is a very common feature in Tolkien's writings.
>
> It is. Without meaning to imply that it spoils my fun in any
> significant way, I think he overdid it.
Actually in cases such as 'Gamling, an old man' I think Tolkien _was_
having a private joke (or at least a 'for those who know' joke). I'm
sure there're others, though you may be right that this particular
feature is especially prominent where he turns to actual real-world
ancient languages such as Old English or Old Norse, simply because in
those cases there would be others than himself who would recognize
the joke.
<snip>
>> Tolkien's use of descriptive names may at times approach a bad
>> pun -- not just with some of the Rohirric names (e.g. Gamling or
>> W�dfara), but also, IMO, in other cases: Quickbeam, Samwise, or
>> Legolas for instance
[...]
>
> I don't mind those at all, since Quickbeam is just an "outer" name
> for an Ent, Samwise being Sam's full name isn't really too much of
> a coincidendce to swallow and Legolas is a logical name for an
> Elven king in a forest to give to his son.
I can't say that I actually mind any of them, but I do find Quickbeam
to be every bit as much a joke on the character as W�dfara, and
Greenleaf from the Wood of Greenleaves (Eryn Lasgalen -- the old name
for Mirkwood) . . . ;-) Also I am one of those whom Sam at times
irritates, and so I find his name to be extremely apt -- at times he
really (in my personal and certainly not rational opinion) is a half-
wit.
<snip>
> I think it is more general with the Rohirrim than with the Elves.
Fair enough -- there's more Elves to choose from anyway ;-)
One might also mention the royal names of Arnor -- most the kings and
chieftains of the King's-land (and later of Arthedain -- the 'real'
heirs of Elendil) incorporate 'king' in their names, but not in the
manner of the N�men�rean kings for whom is was a titular prefix
(Tar-) separated from their royal name by a hyphen, but as an
integrated part of their personal names (such as Aragorn)
But mileage varies and all that -- to me it doesn't matter how
Quickbeam got his name, for me, as a reader, it is that which is his
true name, but that just shows that we react differently to this, not
that it isn't there.
You appear to find that the Rohirric names for various reasons stick
our slightly more than the other names, which isn't in contrast to my
claim that Tolkien uses descriptive names all over the place, but
appears, to me at least, more a matter of taste.
<snip>
I'm in a flippant mood tonight, so I'll end on that note . . .
>> Or like the rich Goldwine ;-)
>
> I'd like to be Goldwine! ;-)
I _am_ Goldwine -- the problem is just that the gold isn't very
Troelswine ;-)
> Ah, we Scandinavians have a special burden to carry!
Sure - but was it more fun when it was an axe and a bag of gold :)
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left
the path of wisdom.
- Gandalf, /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Troels Forchhammer
Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> spoke these staves:
>
<snip>
> With regard to the dimunitivity, the OED says about "-ling":
>
> In ON. the suffix had a diminutive force, of which there are
> only slight traces in the other Teut. langs.
Thanks a lot, that was definitely more helpful all round than the on-
line descriptions :-)
It is curious that Swedish seems not to have the diminutive /
unfavourable sense -- from what you quoted from the OED it would appear
that this sense is lost in Swedish.
> Yes. Again, to quote the OED:
> The personal designations in -ling are now always used in a
> contemptuous or unfavourable sense (though this implication was
> not fully established before the 17th c.), as courtling,
> earthling, groundling, popeling (= papist), vainling,
> worldling.
Interesting -- it makes me wonder if 'oldling' would be recognizable in
English as a small, frail, old man? If so, I think the effect of the
Danish translation of Tolkien's introduction of Gamling is best
described as 'Oldling, an old man'.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided
Troels Forchhammer
�jevind_L�ng?= <ojevin...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
>
<snip>
> In Swedish, the word "yngling", meaning "young man", is quite
> normal.
Aye -- we've got that in Danish also. I get the impression that older
usage is more neutral than modern usage (descriptions in older
literature of 'ynglinge' in ancient Greece don't invoke the
unfavourable connotations), but today using 'yngling' in Danish will be
a way to stress the inexperience and immaturity of the person.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
- Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887.
Julian Bradfield
> In Swedish, the word "yngling", meaning "young man", is quite normal. The
> only corresponding use in English I have encountered is "Youngling" in the
> Star Wars films (for the apprentice Jedi), and I take it that that was
> George Lucas' own invention.
No. "Youngling" is a very old word, but it's fallen out of use since
the 19th century. It now sounds distinctly archaic.
Julian Bradfield
> Interesting -- it makes me wonder if 'oldling' would be recognizable in
> English as a small, frail, old man? If so, I think the effect of the
> Danish translation of Tolkien's introduction of Gamling is best
> described as 'Oldling, an old man'.
My personal feeling is "no, if I saw "oldling" I wouldn't quite know
what to think".
Jette Goldie
> Count Menelvagor <Menel...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>> some of us were talking about rohirric names yesterday, and it was
>> mentioned that they're not alwys very imaginative: aldor and gamling
>> are old, so their names mean "old"; "theoden" and most of the other
>> kings' names mean "king," etc. considering the variety of actual anglo-
>> saxon names, this seems a bit odd.
>
> or "Bree" and "Comb", or names like "Beorn" and "Attercop".
>
> So it's not restricted to Rohirric names, and I think Tolkien did it
> quite intentionally.
>
Place names are often descriptive in real life. for example "Avon"
means river (so the River Avon is actually "river river"). "What's
that? Oh, it's the River. Which river? River Avon, of course".
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> It is curious that Swedish seems not to have the diminutive /
> unfavourable sense -- from what you quoted from the OED it would appear
> that this sense is lost in Swedish.
In Swedish, there is nothing derogatory about the word "yngling". It's
possible that the word may seem faintly old-fashioned to those who are young
today. I'll make inquiries.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
In that case, pefect for the purposes of George Lucas.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
> In message <news:7s139h...@mid.individual.net>
> īŋŊjevind LīŋŊng <ojevin...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
[snip]
>> On a side note, personally I feel that too many of Tolkien's place-
>> names are immediately discernible as meaning something like
>> "Stoneland" or "Blue River", correctly rendered in one or other of
>> his languages. Of couue, as a linguist he knew that names of
>> obscure origin, such as the pre-NīŋŊmenorean "arnach" in Lossarnach,
>> make up a much larger portion of all real place-names.
>
> I can see where you're coming from, though I think that this is also
> heavily influenced by our intimate knowledge of the books etc. The
> average reader does, I believe, not know this and so the names, to
> the average reader, will appear to be far more obscure in both
> meaning and derivation. This doesn't invalidate what you say, but I
> think it is fair to consider _also_ the effect on the average reader.
That is true. When I read the books as a kid, the names seemed much more
mysterious and haunting than they do know. Eriador. Gondor. Rhovanion.
Min-Rimmon. Minhiriath. Tharbad. Moria. (Even though there's an old Swedish
fairy-storia featuring a magical castle called Soria Moria slott.)
>> Even if many of those place-names ultimately just mean something
>> like "mountain" or "river" or "water" in some obscure and long
>> extinct language or other.
>
> Yes, you are of course right. I do think we, in RABT and AFT are,
> more or less, reading the book as the experts in these long-extinct
> languages would read the normal map: to these experts the normal map
> is every bit as full of meaning as Tolkien's book, and having long
> since learned the meaning of every translatable bit in e.g. _The Lord
> of the Rings_, including the many parts that Tolkien didn't
> translate, we put ourselves in the place of the experts in the sense
> that we now see the meaning.
That's an excellent point. "BAH! as anyone with a smattering of Quenya
knows, this is merely..." and so on. Even so, I ahd to go and look up
Tharbad right now.
>>> And of course I have to say that there's a lot of variation and
>>> creativeness in the names of the Rohirric kings -- after all I
>>> come from a country that has, for the past five hundred years,
>>> been ruled by Frederik and Christian (exceept for the last 40,
>>> where Margrethe has intruded) ;-)
>>
>> "Five times an heir was born in his House so like to his
>> Forefather that he received the name of Christian. Another five
>> times an heir was born in his House so like to another Forefather
>> that he received the name of Frederik." Heh heh heh.
>
> And next we'll be up for the tenth Frederik, except that he seems to
> have picked up some better looks somewhere, which must be the French
> side (his younger brother is more alike to his forbears, but I
> suppose he'll manage anyway, being a prince and all, otherwise he'll
> just have to take to wearing a bag over his head . . .)
Something similar obtains with respect to the royal family of Sweden, which
badly needed an infusion of fresh blood in the form of queen Silvia, nīŋŊe
Silvia Sommerlath. Though with our lot, it was the intelligence and
creativity that tanked rather rapidly during the 20th century until Silvia
arrived. The Bernadotte genes apparently left Sweden for Denmark with Queen
Margrethe's mother, Ingrid.
[snip]
> One might also mention the royal names of Arnor -- most the kings and
> chieftains of the King's-land (and later of Arthedain -- the 'real'
> heirs of Elendil) incorporate 'king' in their names, but not in the
> manner of the NīŋŊmenīŋŊrean kings for whom is was a titular prefix
> (Tar-) separated from their royal name by a hyphen, but as an
> integrated part of their personal names (such as Aragorn)
I hadn't thought of that. Yes, all the names refelkct a high degree of
condifence that this child would one day be kign or leader. Though maybe all
sons were given names beginning with Ar-.
[snip]
> I'm in a flippant mood tonight, so I'll end on that note . . .
>
>>> Or like the rich Goldwine ;-)
>>
>> I'd like to be Goldwine! ;-)
>
> I _am_ Goldwine -- the problem is just that the gold isn't very
> Troelswine ;-)
>
>> Ah, we Scandinavians have a special burden to carry!
>
> Sure - but was it more fun when it was an axe and a bag of gold :)
(Starts to sing:) "Give me my axe of crimson gold!/ Give me my bag of golden
fire!"
īŋŊjevind
Öjevind Lång
I thougtht you were joking. Of course you are right. Even so, that makes
Tolkien's choice of names for his kings even siller. IMO, and all that.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
news:hji04d$tip$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>> Count Menelvagor <Menel...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>> some of us were talking about rohirric names yesterday, and it was
>>> mentioned that they're not alwys very imaginative: aldor and gamling
>>> are old, so their names mean "old"; "theoden" and most of the other
>>> kings' names mean "king," etc. considering the variety of actual anglo-
>>> saxon names, this seems a bit odd.
>>
>> Well, we've descriptive place names like "the Hill" and "Bywater",
>> or "Bree" and "Comb", or names like "Beorn" and "Attercop".
>>
>> So it's not restricted to Rohirric names, and I think Tolkien did it
>> quite intentionally.
>
> Place names are often descriptive in real life. for example "Avon" means
> river (so the River Avon is actually "river river"). "What's that? Oh,
> it's the River. Which river? River Avon, of course".
It seems that in Australia, many "native" place names are more or less
corrupted forms of something like: "I don't know its name" or "(It's called
a) mountain" or even "Go away".
�jevind
TT Arvind
wrote:
> It is curious that Swedish seems not to have the diminutive /
> unfavourable sense -- from what you quoted from the OED it would
> appear that this sense is lost in Swedish.
The -ling suffix as applied to persons is not necessarily derogatory
in Norwegian either. 'Gamling' is slightly so, but so are many old-
fashioned words for old people - 'Gubben' and 'Kjerring' for example -
so I don't think this has very much to do with the -ling suffix.
'Yngling' would probably just be seen as archaic, as would some other -
ling derivations like 'ætling' or 'nybøling'. But I don't think words
like 'nykomling' (newcomer) are particularly derogatory, and Norwegian
also has words like 'tvilling' (twin), which are perfectly normal
words.
--
Arvind
Dirk Thierbach
> 'Yngling' would probably just be seen as archaic, as would some other -
> ling derivations like 'ætling' or 'nybøling'. But I don't think words
> like 'nykomling' (newcomer) are particularly derogatory, and Norwegian
> also has words like 'tvilling' (twin), which are perfectly normal
> words.
I get the impression that most "-ling" words must be fairly old.
"Jüngling", "Neukömmling", "Zwilling" all exist in German, too. Without
any derogatory meaning, of course (though "Jüngling" is definitely
out of fashion).
- Dirk
TT Arvind
> I thougtht you were joking. Of course you are right. Even so, that makes
> Tolkien's choice of names for his kings even siller. IMO, and all that.
I agree that it is hard to understand why Tolkien chose to name all
his kings 'chief'. I first figured this out four or five years ago
while reading the Appendices, and my first reaction was to laugh, and
my second was to scratch my head. It is a slightly odd thing to do.
Perhaps it was his way of making a little linguistic joke.
--
Arvind
JJ
> It seems that in Australia, many "native" place names are more or less
> corrupted forms of something like: "I don't know its name" or "(It's called
> a) mountain" or even "Go away".
And apparently 'Canada' is a rude word in a Native American language!
Dirk Thierbach
> It seems that in Australia, many "native" place names are more or less
> corrupted forms of something like: "I don't know its name" or "(It's called
> a) mountain" or even "Go away".
Ah, the glorious age of the field researcher.
- Dirk
Derek Broughton
Sounds apocryphal to me - it wasn't a rude word in the language it
originally came from, though it easily could be somewhere else - but it's
true that it was a misunderstanding on the part of the first French
explorers. It was something more like "those? They're just huts."
--
derek
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
wrote:
>
> I get the impression that most "-ling" words must be fairly old.
> "Jüngling", "Neukömmling", "Zwilling" all exist in German, too. Without
> any derogatory meaning, of course (though "Jüngling" is definitely
> out of fashion).
It's also used in English, in words like "sling", which comes from "s-
ling" (a little something shaped like a S). This may be a Danish
loanword, though, as slings were first used by Viking invaders in
England to strangle rebellious monks.
Noel
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
> "Derek Broughton" <de...@pointerstop.ca> skrev i meddelandetnews:mbpr27-...@morgen.pointerstop.ca...
>
> > Helmet is the usual word for modern safety-head-covers, which is not quite
> > the same thing. I can't say I've often heard "helmet" for the article of
> > medieval armour - but it's possible that that's just too-long association
> > with the SCA.
>
> "Helm" was a very archaic word before Tolkien; he seems to have given it a
> new lease of life.
And a big lease. We know that the revived word "helm" survived into
the 24th century because of Tolkien's intervention. On my Star Trek
DVDs, I hear it used all the time, as in "Ensign, take the helm!" This
proves that Star Trek really would not have been possible without
Tolkien's influence.
Of course, in this time, it refers to rubber foreheads (which most
Star Trek actors wear) instead of metallic head covers.
Noel
TT Arvind
> It seems that in Australia, many "native" place names are more or less
> corrupted forms of something like: "I don't know its name" or "(It's called
> a) mountain" or even "Go away".
I've read somewhere that one of the early European explorers remarked
about how different the Inuit languages were - why, he said, the word
for 'man' in one village was completely unlike the word for 'man' in
the next. Later researchers examining his work found that the words
he had listed for 'man' sounded suspiciously like the words for
'husband', 'grandson', 'I don't know who he is', and so on.
--
Arvind
Öjevind Lång
news:2010012423485...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...
In Swedish, words are still coined using the "ing" or "-ling" suffix. A
fairly recent example is "anpassling" for "opportunist". It's formed from
the verb "anpassa (sig)" = ""adjust (oneself)".
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
That sounds exceedingly credible to me.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
There was even a story that the word "kangaroo" was another misunderstanding
of this sort, but then some linguist discovered that it exists in a tribal
language in Queensland.
Öjevind
Steve Morrison
> "Dirk Thierbach" <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> skrev i meddelandet
> news:20100125132342...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...
>>> It seems that in Australia, many "native" place names are more or less
>>> corrupted forms of something like: "I don't know its name" or "(It's
>>> called
>>> a) mountain" or even "Go away".
>>
>> Ah, the glorious age of the field researcher.
>
> There was even a story that the word "kangaroo" was another
> misunderstanding of this sort, but then some linguist discovered that it
> exists in a tribal language in Queensland.
>
There's something obout it here:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/491/whats-the-origin-of-kangaroo-court
Though the columnist is skeptical about the various stories of
place names meaning "I don't know" and the like.
Julian Bradfield
> There was even a story that the word "kangaroo" was another misunderstanding
> of this sort, but then some linguist discovered that it exists in a tribal
> language in Queensland.
gaŋurru is the word in Guugu Yimidhirr for a species of large black
kangaroo.
Even in 1898 somebody wrote to a newspaper pointing this out, but the
OED didn't notice this letter...
The language still has a couple of hundred speakers, but will soon be
dead.
(Source: Dixon's "The Languages of Australia", and Ethnologue.)
Troels Forchhammer
<5138f4c7-1cf8-461b...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
TT Arvind <ttar...@hotmail.com> spoke these staves:
>
> On Jan 23, 12:10 am, Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> The other issue is the effort Tolkien spent in choosing the
>> names. I quite agree that the list of Rohirric rulers in the
>> appendices doesn't suggest that he spent a lot effort with these
>> names,
>
> <snip>
>
> Do you really think that? Surely coming up with a dozen or so
> synonyms for 'king, prince, ruler' would have have required more
> than a trivial effort, even for someone as familiar with
> Anglo-Saxon as JRRT was?
Surely no more effort than doing the same in Quenya, Sindarin or
even in Old Norse :-)
Actually nearly all the names occur in Beowulf
<http://www8.georgetown.edu/departments/medieval/labyrinth/library/oe/texts/a4.1.html>
<http://bit.ly/3DtA1G> -- see also
<http://tolharndor.org/tilkal/issue1/beowulf.html> which lists many
of Tolkien's word-borrowings from Beowulf (one might add that
Beowulf also includes the name of Eorl's father, L锟給d, meaning lord,
the leader or a 'leode' -- clan, people, nation).
The exceptions are:
Fr锟絘l锟絝 - though both _frea_ (lord, master, king) and _laf_
(leftover, survivor) occur with these meanings.
Folcwine - though both _folc_ (people) and _wine_ (friend) do
appear
Th锟給dred - though both _锟絜od_ (people) and _r锟絛_ (counsel,
'rede') do appear
Elfwine - _ylf_ + _wine_ (锟給mer's son -- of Tolkien's long line
of Elf-friends: 锟絣fwine, Elendil, Alwin, Alboin)
However, that wasn't quite what I meant.
As I said, I think Tolkien uses this kind of descriptive naming so
much that it is the norm rather than the exception, but there _are_,
in my opinion, differences to the manner in which the names describe
the character.
The names in the Elvish languages often take physical qualities
(Gil-galad, Galadriel, Celeborn), but are also often more subtle
(even without going into the really difficult ones such as Elros),
and in comparison, I thought the names of the Rohirric kings are
more 'crude' or 'obvious' in their description of the characters
('Baldor' is the bold prince, 'Aldor' is old, 'Goldwine' is rich,
Fr锟絘l锟絝 was the only survivor left after Helm's death etc.)
Looking at it again, after having searched Beowulf, I may have to
reconsider. What Tolkien did with the Rohrric kings seems more to be
an advanced version of what he did with the Dwarves in _The Hobbit_,
meaning that he appears to have started out with a list of synonyms
and kennings for lord / master / chief / king from Beowulf and then
he seems to have attributed to some of them qualities or history
that relate to the literal meaning of the word. Then he added the
few extras shown above to complete the list.
I would still say that Tolkien the five names listed above were
probably the only ones that Tolkien actually spent time with, though
even in these there is a hint of what 锟絡evind describes as names
that fit just a bit too well to their wearers: better, actually,
than most or many of the traditional royal by-names.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot ++
- /Hogfather/ (Terry Pratchett)
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> Actually nearly all the names occur in Beowulf
> <http://www8.georgetown.edu/departments/medieval/labyrinth/library/oe/texts/a4.1.html>
> <http://bit.ly/3DtA1G> -- see also
> <http://tolharndor.org/tilkal/issue1/beowulf.html> which lists many
> of Tolkien's word-borrowings from Beowulf (one might add that
> Beowulf also includes the name of Eorl's father, L�od, meaning lord,
> the leader or a 'leode' -- clan, people, nation).
>
> The exceptions are:
> Fr�al�f - though both _frea_ (lord, master, king) and _laf_
> (leftover, survivor) occur with these meanings.
[snip]
> Fr�al�f was the only survivor left after Helm's death etc.)
I hadn't thought of that one. It is of course a prime example of what I
react against with regard to Tolkien's Rohirirric names.
�jevind
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:hj8uds$frk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> As for the suggestion that Tolkien was somehow lazy in naming the
>>> Rohirrim - perhaps he's just making a nod to the well-known
>>> Anglo-Saxon penchant for giving children names from a very limited
>>> pool (eg, in North America the most popular WASP baby names are
>>> invariably from whatever soap opera is popular at the time). So, the
>>> king's names were generally a variant on the word "King" - well,
>>> exactly how many King's names have there been in England since the
>>> Norman conquest (I get 5 from the Plantagenets, 2 from the Stuarts
>>> and _1_ from the Hanovers - the most Anglo-Saxon of the lot). I
>>> might have missed 1 or two, but the point is still valid.
>>
>> Not just Anglo-Saxon---Theodoric? And even before the
>> Normans...Aethel- means noble. Oswin Osric line....Eadmund, Eadward,
>> and so on.....
>
> Even so, if the claim is that Gamling and Aldor were just by-names, not
> proper names, although Tolkien never says any such thing, one could with
> equal merit (that is to say, none)declare that many of the kings in the
> line of Rohan's kings were not really named, only referred to by some
> appellation meaning "ruler". One can't just make unsubstantiated claims
> when it suits one's purpose.
> We also have the case of Baldor, Bergo's son, who at a great feast
> made an oath to walk the Paths of the Dead and did so. Brego was an old
> Germanic god (in Old Norse, he appears as Bragi), and unbreakable
> promises to perform some great deed were actually made in his name at
> banquets. Tolkien knew that, of course, and the circumstance that he
> nonetheless let the father of Baldor be called Brego indicates to me
> that Tolkien was indeed rather careless when naming the Rohirrim -
> almost as if their names didn't really matter. He would never have been
> so haphazard when dealing with Elvish names.
> Before the Norman kings, the English had a rich and varied hoard of
> names, and often invented new ones. After the Conquest, the pool of
> usable names decreased without interruption until the Renaissance, when
> it slowly began to increase again. Any list of names from the 11th
> century, or even the 12th century, would constitute a decided contrast
> to the unimaginative pattern of Tom, Dick and Harry and Mary, Anne and
> Joan which later on largely obtained until the 19th century.
> As for modern Anglo-Saxons, I would not say that the names they give
> their children are few and unimaginative.
>
> �jevind
I thought I best return to this before the thread drifts too far away
from me. Others have pointed out where I want to go, but I'll go there
anyway.
In terms of personal names, Tolkien may or may not have been creative,
but he did imitate real life. In terms of kings, almost everywhere you
look in the ancient and medieval rulers. There's a whole line of English
rulers with the affix Aethel-'noble". There is another line with Os-
"god". I mentioned Theodoric ("Ruler of the People"), there's
Vortigern, Vercingetorix, kings named Richard, William, Henry, Edward,
etc. In short, Tolkien is following the pattern of medieval king
names...esp. English.
Nor are some of the names pointed too that odd. Some occur in
literature, some occur in charters such as Aldo, Gamol, Widfara, Frealaf
among many others. So again, Tolkien is simply using historical
patterns in naming the characters.
I'm getting sleepy, so I'll keep it short: Tolkien is simply using
historical and linguistic patterns of naming noted in the real world,
particularly the England he knew. York is a "corruption" of Eoforwic
itself a probable corruption of Eboricum itself a corruption of the
original Celtic name probably meaning "yew tree estate". Compare
"Branduin" and Brandywine. Similarly with his names, whether of
hobbits, Rohirrim, Elves, Numenoreans, Wizards, etc....Moria...Dark Pit.
Cam River...Bending River. Oxford, the place cattle ford the river...
The only difference is that Tolkien amuses himself by sometimes placing
a named character in a context where the name fits: Gamling, Widfara,
Hamfast (stuck at home, resident, house owner) Samwise (halfwit,
stupid--hence Aragorn (?) saying "Fullwise", i. e. smart, intelligent,
full wit). But that's creative, and I for one enjoy the philologist's
jests immensely.
Troels Forchhammer
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>
<snip>
> In terms of personal names, Tolkien may or may not have been
> creative, but he did imitate real life. In terms of kings, almost
> everywhere you look in the ancient and medieval rulers. There's a
> whole line of English rulers with the affix Aethel-'noble". There
> is another line with Os- "god". I mentioned Theodoric ("Ruler of
> the People"), there's Vortigern, Vercingetorix, kings named
> Richard, William, Henry, Edward, etc. In short, Tolkien is
> following the pattern of medieval king names...esp. English.
Do you know if any of these rulers (with names that imply 'ruler')
were given that name from birth? I know that several of our early
kings took the crown under a different name from that which they had
worn previously (right now I can only remember Erik of Pommern who
was named Bugoslaw in his youth)? In Tolkien we know that Aragorn did
this, and assumed the scepter and crown as King Elessar, but how
common was this practice in medieval Europe?
And do we know anything about such customs in general? Was it normal
for the Anglo-Saxons to assume new names to celebrate some
achievement (such as travelling to remote contries, ascending the
throne or, for that matter, surviving to old age)? And if we don't
know for certain, do we know anything about what Tolkien thought and
believed of that matter?
<snip>
> The only difference is that Tolkien amuses himself by sometimes
> placing a named character in a context where the name fits:
> Gamling, Widfara, Hamfast (stuck at home, resident, house owner)
> Samwise (halfwit, stupid--hence Aragorn (?) saying "Fullwise", i.
> e. smart, intelligent, full wit). But that's creative, and I for
> one enjoy the philologist's jests immensely.
I think part of my reaction to 'Gamling' is due to the fact that in
Danish the -ling suffix has a condescending connotation that would
make it wholly inappropriate for someone still capable of carrying
arms (it would also make his grandson fully grown) something I don't
think was what Tolkien intended. This, however, is due to the
accident that 'old' in Danish is still "gammel" and Gamling is
therefore, while not in actual use, immediately recognizable as a
meaningful construction in Danish.
I don't recall when I first noticed W�dfara, but that's one of those
that draws an amused smile from me as well when I notice it while
reading.
As for Sam I think I overstated my position in an earlier message. I
do find him slow-witted and of course the 'mental myopia which is
proud in itself' and the smugness etc. does rather rub me the wrong
way, and so I find his name a very appropriate choice -- also because
'Hamfast' and 'Samwise' not just characterize themselves: both the
names and the characters epitomizes Hobbits in general and so
transcends the personal joke inherent (in my eyes) in e.g.
'Quickbeam'.
I think one of the reasons why the entish names seem to me to stand
out a bit is simply the same as with Gamling -- the meaning and hence
the joke they make on the ents is immediately recognizable in
Beechbone, Leaflock, Quickbeam, Skinbark and Treebeard simply because
these names are in plain English (or, when I first read them, in
Danish -- where, incidentally, things were _not_ helped by the
translation of Quickbeam into "Lynstr�le" meaning 'Lightning ray' . .
.). Fortunately tastes vary and I may be alone in seeing in the
Ents' names any small blemish on my enjoyment of Tolkien's names.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
A common mistake people make when trying to design
something completely foolproof is to underestimate the
ingenuity of complete fools.
- Douglas Adams, /Mostly Harmless/
Derek Broughton
> In message <news:hjoq4t$3vm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>> In terms of personal names, Tolkien may or may not have been
>> creative, but he did imitate real life. In terms of kings, almost
>> everywhere you look in the ancient and medieval rulers. There's a
>> whole line of English rulers with the affix Aethel-'noble". There
>> is another line with Os- "god". I mentioned Theodoric ("Ruler of
>> the People"), there's Vortigern, Vercingetorix, kings named
>> Richard, William, Henry, Edward, etc. In short, Tolkien is
>> following the pattern of medieval king names...esp. English.
>
> Do you know if any of these rulers (with names that imply 'ruler')
> were given that name from birth? I know that several of our early
> kings took the crown under a different name from that which they had
> worn previously (right now I can only remember Erik of Pommern who
> was named Bugoslaw in his youth)?
Very good - the same certainly occurs in Britain. I don't know of others,
except that there are some, but Edward VII was born Albert ("Bertie").
> I think part of my reaction to 'Gamling' is due to the fact that in
> Danish the -ling suffix has a condescending connotation that would
> make it wholly inappropriate for someone still capable of carrying
> arms (it would also make his grandson fully grown) something I don't
> think was what Tolkien intended. This, however, is due to the
> accident that 'old' in Danish is still "gammel" and Gamling is
> therefore, while not in actual use, immediately recognizable as a
> meaningful construction in Danish.
While "-ling" in modern usage is condescending in English, I think we tend
to recognize it (perhaps folk-etymologically!) as less-so when referring to
historical (or fantasy-historical) figures.
>
> I think one of the reasons why the entish names seem to me to stand
> out a bit is simply the same as with Gamling -- the meaning and hence
> the joke they make on the ents is immediately recognizable in
> Beechbone, Leaflock, Quickbeam, Skinbark and Treebeard simply because
> these names are in plain English (or, when I first read them, in
> Danish -- where, incidentally, things were _not_ helped by the
> translation of Quickbeam into "Lynstr�le" meaning 'Lightning ray' . .
> .).
otoh, istr that Tolkien felt the need to explain Quickbeam in English,
because it now has few of the connotations it might have had to a speaker of
Middle- or Old- English.
--
derek
Weland
I need to answer Troels, but quickly, Quickbeam being living tree.
Quick=cwic in OE, alive, and beam is one of the words for tree. This
is a name not only descriptive but a double entendre since Tolkien also
uses it of a character who makes up his mind quickly, i.e. fast.
JJ
>
> Very good - the same certainly occurs in Britain. I don't know of others,
> except that there are some, but Edward VII was born Albert ("Bertie").
>
Wasn't this George VI? Edward VIII was called David.
John W Kennedy
Yes, but Edward VII was, as stated, Albert.
I suspect the plan has always been for Prince Charles Philip Arthur
George to assume the royal name of "George", as his grandfather did.
Prince William Arthur Philip Louis doesn't have "George" among his
names, but that is not a strict requirement.
--
John W Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
Dirk Thierbach
>>> these names are in plain English (or, when I first read them, in
>>> Danish -- where, incidentally, things were _not_ helped by the
>>> translation of Quickbeam into "Lynstr�le" meaning 'Lightning ray' . .
>>> .).
Ouch.
>> otoh, istr that Tolkien felt the need to explain Quickbeam in
>> English, because it now has few of the connotations it might have
>> had to a speaker of Middle- or Old- English.
> I need to answer Troels, but quickly, Quickbeam being living tree.
> Quick=cwic in OE, alive, and beam is one of the words for tree. This
> is a name not only descriptive but a double entendre since Tolkien also
> uses it of a character who makes up his mind quickly, i.e. fast.
BTW, Tolkien himself says in GttN:
: Quickbeam. Ent. This is a translation of Sindarin Bregalad 'quick
: (lively) tree'. Since in the story this is represented as a name given
: to him because he was (for an Ent) 'hasty', it would be best to
: translate the name by a compound (made for the purpose) having this
: sense (for example German Quickbaum?). It is unlikely that the
: language of translation would possess an actual tree-name having or
: appearing to have this sense. Quickbeam and Quicken are actual English
: names of the 'rowan' or 'mountain ash'; also given to the related
: 'Service-tree'. The rowan is here evidently intended, since 'rowan' is
: actually used in Quickbeam's song (II 87).
BTW2, the chosen German translation is "Flinkbaum" (Carroux had access
to GttN).
- Dirk
Troels Forchhammer
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> otoh, istr that Tolkien felt the need to explain Quickbeam in
>> English, because it now has few of the connotations it might have
>> had to a speaker of Middle- or Old- English.
Are you thinking of Quickbeam's own explanation:
But it is only a nickname, of course. They have called me
that ever since I said yes to an elder Ent before he had
finished his question. Also I drink quickly, and go out
while some are still wetting their beards.
or perhaps, more likely, of the description in the Nomenclature:
*Quickbeam*. (Ent.) This is a translation of S. _Bregalad_
'quick (lively) tree'. Since in the story this is
represented as a name given to him because he was (for an
Ent) 'hasty', it would be best to translate the name in the
LT by a compound (made for the purpose) having this sense
(e.g. Ger. _Quickbaum?_). It is unlikely that the LT would
possess an actual tree-name having or appearing to have
this sense. _Quickbeam_ and _Quicken_ are actual E. names
of the rowan/mountain-ash; also given to the related
'Service-tree'. (According to dictionaries, Ger.
_Vogelbeere_, _-beerbaum_ and _Eberesche_.) The rowan is
here evidently intended, since _rowan_ is actually used in
Quickbeam's song (II 87 [2004 edn., p. 483; Book III,
Chapter 4]).
(_Reader's Companion_ p. 762; 'LT' is the target language of the
translation)
I admit that I'd completely forgotten the explanation in the
Nomenclature . . .
> I need to answer Troels, but quickly, Quickbeam being living tree.
> Quick=cwic in OE, alive, and beam is one of the words for tree.
> This is a name not only descriptive but a double entendre since
> Tolkien also uses it of a character who makes up his mind quickly,
> i.e. fast.
So, a name that improves with more knowledge about the meaning; or at
least feels less like poking fun at the character -- the older /
deeper meaning of, essentially, 'living tree' points more to
Tolkien's attitude to trees in general than to this particular ent,
and so, to me at least, softens the impact of the nickname. But how
many readers, even those whose native language is English, will know
this without having it pointed out to them?
Incidentally the, in my opinion, appropriate Danish translation would
have been "Kvikbom" which would be essentially the same word, but
this clearly didn't occur to the translator. There's been some talk
in Danish Tolkien circles of lobbying for a new translation, but the
publisher has so far been deaf to all pleas.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
People are self-centered
to a nauseous degree.
They will keep on about themselves
while I'm explaining me.
- Piet Hein, /The Egocentrics/
Öjevind Lång
> In message <news:hjoq4t$3vm$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
[snip]
> I think one of the reasons why the entish names seem to me to stand
> out a bit is simply the same as with Gamling -- the meaning and hence
> the joke they make on the ents is immediately recognizable in
> Beechbone, Leaflock, Quickbeam, Skinbark and Treebeard simply because
> these names are in plain English (or, when I first read them, in
> Danish -- where, incidentally, things were _not_ helped by the
> translation of Quickbeam into "Lynstr�le" meaning 'Lightning ray' . .
> .). Fortunately tastes vary and I may be alone in seeing in the
> Ents' names any small blemish on my enjoyment of Tolkien's names.
I have no problem with the Entish names because they are so plainly "outer"
names, not the ones they used among themselves; so they could choose (or be
given by Elves) a name reflecting their looks or personality.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> Are you thinking of Quickbeam's own explanation:
> But it is only a nickname, of course. They have called me
> that ever since I said yes to an elder Ent before he had
> finished his question. Also I drink quickly, and go out
> while some are still wetting their beards.
Do you know, I had forgotten how much I have always liked Quickbeam.
[snip]
> Incidentally the, in my opinion, appropriate Danish translation would
> have been "Kvikbom" which would be essentially the same word, but
> this clearly didn't occur to the translator. There's been some talk
> in Danish Tolkien circles of lobbying for a new translation, but the
> publisher has so far been deaf to all pleas.
That's exactly how the Swedish publishers responded all the way until a new
translation was suddenly commissioned. No publisher wants to spoil his sales
by informing people far in advance that a new and better translation is in
the pipelines.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
news:c98fc68b-d901-452e...@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Edward VII, the son of Queen Victoria, was called Albert before ascending
the throne, but Edward was his second given name. His full name was Albert
Edward. The full name of Edward VIII, the Duke of Windsor, was Edward Albert
Christian George Andrew Patrick David. I must say that the statement that he
was known as Prince David before ascending the throne is new to me. Perhaps
it was the name used internally in the royal family?
That one of his given names was Christian is no doubt due to the fact that
his grandfather, Edward VII, married Princess Alexandra of Denmark, daughter
of Christian IX. As Troels has mentioned, all kings of Denmark since the
16th century have been named either Chistian or Frederik. There is even an
urban myth in Sweden that there is a Danish law stipulating that the king
must be called Christian or Frederik.
�jevind
Tamf Moo
> That one of his given names was Christian is no doubt due to the fact
> that his grandfather, Edward VII, married Princess Alexandra of Denmark,
> daughter of Christian IX. As Troels has mentioned, all kings of Denmark
> since the 16th century have been named either Chistian or Frederik.
> There is even an urban myth in Sweden that there is a Danish law
> stipulating that the king must be called Christian or Frederik.
the danish prince Carl must have misunderstood this law when he changed
his name to Haakon in 1905 in order to become king of Norway (lots of
norwegian kings in the olden days had had that name). he also changed
the name of his son, who until then had been using a totally unsuitable
name for a king--Alexander.
--
tamf
I see two Gandalfs and church bell. And two half lions chasing
a bull rat each over the lake. (Rorschach tests seen by "Illogic")
Tamf Moo
[snip]
> The only difference is that Tolkien amuses himself by sometimes placing
> a named character in a context where the name fits: Gamling, Widfara,
> Hamfast (stuck at home, resident, house owner) Samwise (halfwit,
> stupid--hence Aragorn (?) saying "Fullwise", i. e. smart, intelligent,
> full wit). But that's creative, and I for one enjoy the philologist's
> jests immensely.
many people find this kind of thing amusing when it happens in real
life, as in the case of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales,
whose name happens to be Judge.
BBC Magazine points this out all the time, referring to it as
"nominative determinism", which, unsurprisingly, Wikipedia can tell us
more about: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism>
TT Arvind
wrote:
> Incidentally the, in my opinion, appropriate Danish translation would
> have been "Kvikbom" which would be essentially the same word, but
> this clearly didn't occur to the translator.
That's more or less what he's called in the 2006 Norwegian
translation: 'Kvekbom'.
--
Arvind
Thinking that he really ought to post a review of the 2006 translation
Derek Broughton
Not the 8th, the 7th. (That is, son of Victoria and Albert). But yes, now
that you mention it, Edward VIII was David. I knew there were others,
recently.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> In message <news:hjr8lm$d4m$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>>
>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> otoh, istr that Tolkien felt the need to explain Quickbeam in
>>> English, because it now has few of the connotations it might have
>>> had to a speaker of Middle- or Old- English.
>
> Are you thinking of Quickbeam's own explanation:
> But it is only a nickname, of course. They have called me
> that ever since I said yes to an elder Ent before he had
> finished his question. Also I drink quickly, and go out
> while some are still wetting their beards.
> or perhaps, more likely, of the description in the Nomenclature:
> *Quickbeam*. (Ent.) This is a translation of S. _Bregalad_
> 'quick (lively) tree'.
...
>
> I admit that I'd completely forgotten the explanation in the
> Nomenclature . . .
Yes, that was the one.
>
>> I need to answer Troels, but quickly, Quickbeam being living tree.
>> Quick=cwic in OE, alive, and beam is one of the words for tree.
>> This is a name not only descriptive but a double entendre since
>> Tolkien also uses it of a character who makes up his mind quickly,
>> i.e. fast.
>
> So, a name that improves with more knowledge about the meaning; or at
> least feels less like poking fun at the character -- the older /
> deeper meaning of, essentially, 'living tree' points more to
> Tolkien's attitude to trees in general than to this particular ent,
> and so, to me at least, softens the impact of the nickname. But how
> many readers, even those whose native language is English, will know
> this without having it pointed out to them?
Well, exactly. I really _did_ appreciate the humor of it - but this is a
direct violation of the old comedian's maxim that one should never explain a
joke. Until Tolkien did, it just wasn't that funny.
>
> Incidentally the, in my opinion, appropriate Danish translation would
> have been "Kvikbom" which would be essentially the same word, but
> this clearly didn't occur to the translator.
A translator's job must be pretty thankless. You only need to drop the ball
once, to be a bum.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> On 2010-01-28 07:04:05 -0500, JJ said:
>> On Jan 28, 12:15 am, Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>>> Very good - the same certainly occurs in Britain. I don't know of
>>> others, except that there are some, but Edward VII was born Albert
>>> ("Bertie").
>>>
>>
>> Wasn't this George VI? Edward VIII was called David.
>
> Yes, but Edward VII was, as stated, Albert.
>
> I suspect the plan has always been for Prince Charles Philip Arthur
> George to assume the royal name of "George", as his grandfather did.
> Prince William Arthur Philip Louis doesn't have "George" among his
> names, but that is not a strict requirement.
"Philip" is a name that's never been used in England or the United Kingdom,
and is a link to a foreign monarchy; Charles is at best unlucky and at worst
a reminder of the worst of monarchy; and I think the average Briton would
find Arthur extremely presumptuous. The "Once and Future King" and all
that...
--
derek
JJ
>
> - Show quoted text -
And both of the previous Prince Arthurs have died prematurely.
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>> >> Wasn't this George VI? Edward VIII was called David.
>>
>> > Yes, but Edward VII was, as stated, Albert.
>>
>> > I suspect the plan has always been for Prince Charles Philip Arthur
>> > George to assume the royal name of "George", as his grandfather did.
>> > Prince William Arthur Philip Louis doesn't have "George" among his
>> > names, but that is not a strict requirement.
>>
>> "Philip" is a name that's never been used in England or the United
>> Kingdom,
>> and is a link to a foreign monarchy; Charles is at best unlucky and at
>> worst
>> a reminder of the worst of monarchy; and I think the average Briton would
>> find Arthur extremely presumptuous. The "Once and Future King" and all
>> that...
I have read that the plan was to call him Charles to appease Scottish
separatists by reminding them of Charles' descent from the Stuarts through
James I's daughter. And many Britons in general seem to have a romantic
view of the Stuarts. I could be misinformed, of course.
�jevind
Cat_in_awe
> Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>> Count Menelvagor <Menel...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>> some of us were talking about rohirric names yesterday, and it was
>>> mentioned that they're not alwys very imaginative: aldor and gamling
>>> are old, so their names mean "old"; "theoden" and most of the other
>>> kings' names mean "king," etc. considering the variety of actual
>>> anglo- saxon names, this seems a bit odd.
>>
>> Well, we've descriptive place names like "the Hill" and "Bywater",
>> or "Bree" and "Comb", or names like "Beorn" and "Attercop".
>>
>> So it's not restricted to Rohirric names, and I think Tolkien did it
>> quite intentionally.
>>
>
> Place names are often descriptive in real life. for example "Avon"
> means river (so the River Avon is actually "river river"). "What's
> that? Oh, it's the River. Which river? River Avon, of course".
There is a major street in Atlanta called 'Boulevard'.
Steve Morrison
Öjevind Lång
news:2uCdnZ45kYQkpfbW...@posted.toastnet...
These are of course specially pertinent to this group:
Bredon Hill, England (Hill Hill Hill - Brythonic/Old English/Modern
English); compare Bredon and Brill (Hill Hill - Brythonic/Saxon) and Breedon
on the Hill (Hill Hill on the Hill - Brythonic/Saxon/Modern English)[3]
Brincliffe Edge, Sheffield, UK (Burning Hill Hill Welsh/English)
Bryn Glas Hill, Wales (Blue Hill Hill - Welsh/English)
I also like the Nowegian Bergeberget - "The Mountain Mountain".
�jevind