Elvish Dictionary
Harold Ensle
There has been quite a few requests for information on the Elvish
languages. Publishers are unwilling to accept books on the subject since
they do not believe that the market is large enough to cover their
investment. However, you can now buy what the publishers missed. The
authoritative (trust no other) dictionaries of the Elvish languages,
written by those who are experienced in linguistics and decryption.
These two books contain all available information on the Sindarin and Quenya
languages. Each has over 1500 entries (this does not include proper nouns
or untranslated words) which are indexed from the English as well. Grammars
are also included, though only as complete as can be reliably inferred.
Alphabets and sample text are also included. Each dictionary is in soft
cover booklet form 5" by 4.25", Sindarin 72pp, Quenya 80pp. Cost: $9.00,
overseas add $2.00 for postage.(allow 3 weeks for delivery). Write to
H.Ensle,500 W Prospect 5D,Ft. Collins, CO 80526.
Carl F. Hostetter
(Harold Ensle) wrote:
As the head of the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship and publisher of the
journal _Vinyar Tengwar_, I feel that I should strongly caution anyone
from blindly trusting in the "authoritativeness" of these works, which has
been seen, to my knowledge, by no one among the scholars of Tolkien's
languages nor by the Tolkien Estate (who will no doubt be most interested
to learn of its existence). Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that any work
so small could live up to the apparent claims of completeness.
Caveat Emptor.
|===================================================================|
| Carl F. Hostetter Carl.F.Ho...@gsfc.nasa.gov |
| |
| ho bios brachys, he de techne makre. |
| Ars longa, vita brevis. |
| The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. |
| "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take |
| such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about." |
|===================================================================|
Michael Martinez
Carl.F.Ho...@gsfc.nasa.gov (Carl F. Hostetter) wrote:
>
>Caveat Emptor.
Well, don't take this personally, but I really don't care what the emperor
eats.
I just think the buyer should be aware of the risk....
--
++ ++ "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
||\ /|| --fbag...@mid.earth.com
|| v ||ichael Martinez (mma...@basis.com)
++ ++------------------------------------------------------
Jan Six
> hen...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Harold Ensle) wrote:
[re purportedly "authoritative" work on Elvish languages]
> >The book does honestly report on all published sources.
>
> I sincerely doubt this. Have you considered the primary materials
> published (to date) only in _Vinyar Tengwar_, the journal of the
> Elvish Linguistic Fellowship? What about the Gnomish Lexicon
> (published in its entirety for the first time this past summer in
> _Parma Eldalamberon_ #11)?
>
> My point is this: there is actually a small but vigorous community
> of scholars of Tolkien's languages. It must arouse suspicion when a
> work, claiming to be "authoritative", appears from the pen of one
> who is (to my knowledge) unassociated with, unknown to the members
> of, and (presumably) unaware of, this community of scholars and
> its work of many years.
For all that I share Carl Hostetter's misgivings on the subject
[having been a victim of the infamous "authoritative" Noel book
myself] I cannot help but wonder why, if there is a small but
vigorous community of authoritative scholars out there, the
most comprehensive authoritative work on the subject dates from
1978? Without wanting to criticize the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship's
efforts, it is rather frustrating to find that the authoritative
resources on Tolkien's languages are so hopelessly scattered.
I believe it is not at all unlikely that non-authoritative efforts
such as the Noel book [I reserve judgement on the work that started
this particular thread, as I have not read it] would be far less
evident in the field if there _were_ such a comprehensive and
authoritative work [post-Silmarillion] to refer to. Does anyone
really wonder that well-meaning people consider Noel to be an
authoritative resource when there is no alternative [beyond Allan]
to refer them to?
The small interpolation "to date" above is hope-giving. It hints
that maybe, just maybe, us non-Elves with our limited spans will
not have to wait *yeni unotime* for such a _comprehensive_ and
authoritative resource. Until such time, however, we should not
really be surprised that well-meaning but non-authoritative works
are dominating the field.
______________________________________________________________________
Jan Six | Fair as an elven child is Lalaith | It's my real name
| but briefer, alas... | -- :: --
Jan...@uku.fi | and so fairer, perhaps, or dearer | Count on it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Carl F. Hostetter
> For all that I share Carl Hostetter's misgivings on the subject
> [having been a victim of the infamous "authoritative" Noel book
> myself] I cannot help but wonder why, if there is a small but
> vigorous community of authoritative scholars out there, the
> most comprehensive authoritative work on the subject dates from
> 1978?
I would say the reasons are usual and entirely non-sinister: the huge
amount of new information that has become available and the lack of time
needed to synthesize and distill it into one-volume form; the pursuit (at
least among the more active members of the E.L.F.) of locating, analyzing,
and publishing primary materials from the various Tolkien archives; a
desire to wait until some natural point of recapitulation is reached (such
as the publication of the final volume of _The History of Middle-earth_
later this year); etc., etc.
>Does anyone
> really wonder that well-meaning people consider Noel to be an
> authoritative resource when there is no alternative [beyond Allan]
> to refer them to?
It is no wonder to me at all; but I intend to do my best to disabuse
people of their false notions of the accuracy of Ruth Noel's work until
such time as something can be written to replace it.
> not have to wait *yeni unotime* for such a _comprehensive_ and
> authoritative resource.
No matter what volumes are written, the only truly comprehensive and
authoritative resource will be the corpus of Tolkien's own writings,
scattered though they may be. There is no other authority.
Michael Martinez
hen...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Harold Ensle) wrote:
>Michael Martinez (mma...@basis.com) wrote:
>
>: I just think the buyer should be aware of the risk....
>There is a risk, but I am hoping that some people will buy them and
>discuss their attributes in this news group. It is definitely not
>a scam. The demand for Elvish language books is not going to make anyone
>rich!
I was being facetious about about the "caveat emptor" in the article to which
I replied (I was being a jerk, a smart aleck, whatever).
Sometimes I'll order a pizza without anchovies or the littel fishies.
It's a joke. :)
Harold Ensle
There has been quite a few requests for information on the Elvish
languages. Publishers are unwilling to accept books on the subject since
they do not believe that the market is large enough to cover their
investment. However, you can now buy what the publishers missed. The
written by those who are experienced in linguistics and decryption.
These two books contain all available information on the Sindarin and Quenya
languages. Each has over 1500 entries (this does not include proper nouns
or untranslated words) which are indexed from the English as well. Grammars
are also included, though only as complete as can be reliably inferred.
Alphabets and sample text are also included. Each dictionary is in soft
cover booklet form 5" by 4.25", Sindarin 72pp, Quenya 80pp. Cost: $9.00,
overseas add $2.00 for postage.(allow 3 weeks for delivery). Write to
H.Ensle,500 W Prospect 5D,Ft. Collins, CO 80526.
There have been quite a few questions concerning the Elvish Dictionary. I
think that those interested in Tolkiens languages should know
the options available. As written by Christopher Tolkien, J.R.R.Tolkien
never wrote down a dictionary or a grammar of Sindarin or Quenya. He did
write down a root dictionary which has been published. Along with this
information there also exists short discussions of specific aspects of
Elvish language which can be gleaned from the many volumes of
"The history of Middle Earth". It is the near completion of this work
that gives a finality to my ongoing (since 1968) investigation of Tolkien's
languages. There is apparently one volume still outstanding, but from my
interpretation of previous works, I do not expect any major revelations
in the field of Elvish linguistics from this edition.
The dictionaries I have written were devised mainly for my own use, as a
collection of the Quenya and Sindarin vocabulary (and grammatical rules)
accumulated over the years. They are written thus, somewhat tersely, without
long discussion or overt speculation.
I will here list the references utilized:
The Hobbit (not much, some names)
The Lord of the Rings I,II,III (map,names,translated
phrases,appendices(especially writing and calendar))
The Silmarillion (names,map,translated phrases,elements in names)
Unfinished Tales (names,map,phrases)
The road Goes Ever On (detailed translations of the songs Namarie and
Elbereth,grammar)
The History of Middle Earth I,II,III,IV (not much, some carry over from
Gnomish that did not appear in the Etymologies)
The Lost Road V (The Etymologies: vocabulary,grammar. Sindarin composed
of Noldorin and/or East Noldorin entries with Noldorin preferred)
The History of Middle Earth VI,VII (not much new, names,phrases)
The History of Middle Earth VIII,IX,X,XI (names,phrases, Quenya
naming:philosophy and mysticism,naming of peoples,letter from
Aragorn,grammar,etc.)
Here is a short sample of the dictionary itself ({} represent italics
in the actual version and a capital vowel represents a long vowel with an
acute accent in the actual version):
andon[-ndi]/great gate
andUne/west;sunset
anesse/{added-name}
anga/iron
angaina/made of iron
ango[angwi]/snake
angulOce/dragon
anna/gift
anta/face
anta-[anne]/give
antan/man(of the 3 houses)
ante/giver(f.)
anto/mouth;giver(m.)
anwa/real,actual,true
ap(a)-/after
apacen/foresight
A typical grammatical entry would appear as so (underlines and italics
not showing):
The future is formed in -uva. Ex.: Endorenna tuluvalme, We will come to
Middle Earth; Quenuvanyet, I will speak to them.
Both dictionaries also contain a large list of word formation suffixes
and prefixes which could be used to expand the vocabulary considerably.
For people who want more information on Elvish language (right now),
where do they go?
Ruth Noel? (an outdated inaccurate book) Allen's unobtainable Elvish
Dictionary? (the publisher has disappeared) or the authorities at Vinyar
Tengwar? (who apparently have not produced a dictionary).
BThompson
>
> For people who want more information on Elvish language (right now),
>where do they go?
> Allen's unobtainable Elvish
>Dictionary? (the publisher has disappeared)
Hmmm...now _that's_ strange. I assume that you are referring to Jim
Allan's (ed.) "An Introduction to Elvish". Both the publisher (Bran's
Head Books) and a bookseller (Thornton's of Oxford, Ltd.), who both stock
Allan's book, were still in existence as of 2 months ago (I haven't
checked since then). Thornton's even has a webpage. In fact, I received
a copy of Allan's book from Thornton's this past week, although I think
they may have used the old "book-in-the-bottle" method to send it
overseas to me. :-) :-) Well, okay, it wasn't _that_ bad. It took about
3.5-4 months to receive after I had placed my order.
BTW, I am more than a bit curious about the copyright laws and your
dictionaries. Are your dictionaries removed enough from Tolkien's
work not to fall under copyright? Or did you receive permission from the
Tolkien Estate? I'm just asking out of curiousity...this isn't meant to
be an indictment of any kind.
Regards,
Bill
P.S. I just wanted to mention that Nancy Martsch's book, 'Basic Quenya',
has a Quenya-English and English-Quenya dictionary in the back. It's not
comprehensive, but based on my own rudimentary knowledge, it appears to
be a good _basic_ (as the title implies :-)) source of information.
Carl F. Hostetter
(Harold Ensle) wrote:
> As written by Christopher Tolkien, J.R.R.Tolkien
> never wrote down a dictionary or a grammar of Sindarin or Quenya.
Christopher Tolkien has made no such statement. There is in fact a great
deal of linguistic information that remains unpublished (for now, but not
forever).
>Allen's unobtainable Elvish Dictionary? (the publisher has disappeared)
Jim Allan [note spelling] et al.'s _An Introduction to Elvish_ is in fact
easily obtainable:
Allan, Jim, ed. _An Introduction to Elvish_. Somerset: Bran's Head Books,
1978. ISBN 0 905220 10 2.
Dated (it was written before _The Silmarillion_ was published) but
remarkably accurate, which is a testimony to the high level of
scholarship of the various authors.
Try ordering through a good local bookstore. If that fails, contact
either the publisher (last known addresss: 45 Milk Street, Frome,
Somerset BA11 3DB, England; phone 0373 467547) or Thornton's Books,
11 Broad Street, Oxford OX1 3AR, England; phone: 0865-242939;
fax 0865-204021; e-mail Thor...@booknews.demon.co.uk; web page
http://www.demon.co.uk/thorntons.
In Britain, any bookshop should be able to order this. At last check,
it cost L9.95.
> or the authorities at Vinyar Tengwar? (who apparently have not produced a
>dictionary).
For my own purposes, I've been using Paul Hyde's dictionaries and concordances:
All by Paul Nolan Hyde:
_A Working Concordance_
_A Working English Lexicon_
_A Working Reverse Dictionary_ (with or without meanings)
_A Working Reverse Index_
_A Working Reverse Glossary_
_A Working Tolkien Glossary_ (in 7 volumes (!))
_A Comprehensive Index of Proper Names and Places, The Hobbit
through The History of Middle-earth_
Some or all of these are available on disk (DOS). For information
on availability, cost, etc., contact Paul at:
8520 Jean Parrish Ct., NE
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87172
USA
Trevor Reynolds
Jim Allan's _An Introduction to Elvish_ first published in 1978 was out of
print for some time. It was reprinted in 1995. The publisher is
Bran's Head, ISBN 0-905220-10-2
--
Trevor Reynolds
Tom Tadfor Little
>
> Hmmm...now _that's_ strange. I assume that you are referring to Jim
> Allan's (ed.) "An Introduction to Elvish". Both the publisher (Bran's
> Head Books) and a bookseller (Thornton's of Oxford, Ltd.), who both stock
> Allan's book, were still in existence as of 2 months ago (I haven't
> checked since then). Thornton's even has a webpage.
Yes. I ordered this book a month ago.
>
> BTW, I am more than a bit curious about the copyright laws and your
> dictionaries. Are your dictionaries removed enough from Tolkien's
> work not to fall under copyright? Or did you receive permission from the
> Tolkien Estate? I'm just asking out of curiousity...this isn't meant to
> be an indictment of any kind.
I don't think there's a problem there. Copyright protects literary
expression, not information itself. Someone who collects elvish words
and their meanings from all the varied sources and arranges them in
a list is violating no copyright laws.
--
Tom Tadfor Little tli...@lanl.gov -or- te...@Rt66.com
technical writer/editor Los Alamos National Laboratory
Visit Telperion Productions on the web at
http://www.rt66.com/~telp/
Harold Ensle
There has been quite a few requests for information on the Elvish
languages. Publishers are unwilling to accept books on the subject since
they do not believe that the market is large enough to cover their
investment. However, you can now buy what the publishers missed. The
For people who want more information on Elvish language (right now),
where do they go?
Ruth Noel? (an outdated inaccurate book) Allan's? (pre-Silmarillion
publication) or the authorities
at Vinyar Tengwar? (who have not produced a dictionary).
By the way, 'Vinyar Tengwar' and 'Parma Eldalamberon' are both
grammatically incorrect. To find out why, buy my book!
TRUST NO OTHER
Harold Ensle
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Summary:
Keywords:
Tony Murray
Regarding the advertised "Elvish Dictionary" and copyright issues,
>I don't think there's a problem there. Copyright protects literary
>expression, not information itself. Someone who collects elvish words
>and their meanings from all the varied sources and arranges them in
>a list is violating no copyright laws.
The question may then be whether Elvish words are "information."
Copyright protects created works, and the Elvish languages are works
created by Tolkien. The language itself *may* fall under
the protections of copyright. (I'm not a lawyer, nor do I
play one on TV, so I may be in error) Surely, the person
selling these dictionaries would find it in his best interest
to check this out, though (if he hasn't done so already).
--Tony
BThompson
>
>Regarding the advertised "Elvish Dictionary" and copyright issues,
><311F9E...@lanl.gov> Tom Tadfor Little <tli...@lanl.gov> writes:
>
>>I don't think there's a problem there. Copyright protects literary
>>expression, not information itself. Someone who collects elvish words
>>and their meanings from all the varied sources and arranges them in
>>a list is violating no copyright laws.
Arranging them in a list is one thing, but it seems to me that selling
these lists is quite another. Also, these "varied sources" can all be
traced to the original creative work of JRRT.
>
>The question may then be whether Elvish words are "information."
>Copyright protects created works, and the Elvish languages are works
>created by Tolkien. The language itself *may* fall under
>the protections of copyright. (I'm not a lawyer, nor do I
>play one on TV, so I may be in error)
I'm the one who raised this somewhat indelicate question (although Carl
Hostetter raised the same question in a different thread) because I was
truly curious about it. I am obviously not a lawyer either, but my
impression was the same as Tony's. That is, the "Elvish" languages were
created by Tolkien. Therefore, it _seems_ to me that this would fall
under copyright. Furthermore, Nancy Martsch's 'Basic Quenya' is a book
of similar nature and it explicitly states that it was published with
permission from the Tolkien Estate. Of course, this may not _prove_
anything about the copyright issue, but it does make one wonder...
>Surely, the person selling these dictionaries would find it in his best >interest to check out, though (if he hasn't done so already).
>
>--Tony
I agree...which is the main reason I raised this question in the first
place.
Regards,
Bill
Tom Tadfor Little
>
> Regarding the advertised "Elvish Dictionary" and copyright issues,
> <311F9E...@lanl.gov> Tom Tadfor Little <tli...@lanl.gov> writes:
>
> >I don't think there's a problem there. Copyright protects literary
> >expression, not information itself. Someone who collects elvish words
> >and their meanings from all the varied sources and arranges them in
> >a list is violating no copyright laws.
>
> Copyright protects created works, and the Elvish languages are works
> created by Tolkien. The language itself *may* fall under
> the protections of copyright. (I'm not a lawyer, nor do I
> selling these dictionaries would find it in his best interest
I stand by my original statement. Many people think that copyright
protects ideas; it does not. It only protects the actual wording
of original passages from a book or other published document.
Individual words, whether invented or not, can be freely used,
unless they are registered trademarks. I'm certain that "the
language itself" is not something that can be copyrighted. Text
explaining the language, for example the Appendices to TLOTR, is
of course protected.
--
===============================================================
Tom Tadfor Little tli...@lanl.gov -or- te...@Rt66.com
technical writer/editor Los Alamos National Laboratory
---------------------------------------------------------------
Telperion Productions http://www.rt66.com/~telp/
===============================================================
Tom Tadfor Little
> >Tom Tadfor Little <tli...@lanl.gov> writes:
> >
> >>I don't think there's a problem there. Copyright protects literary
> >>expression, not information itself. Someone who collects elvish words
> >>and their meanings from all the varied sources and arranges them in
> >>a list is violating no copyright laws.
>
> Arranging them in a list is one thing, but it seems to me that selling
> these lists is quite another. Also, these "varied sources" can all be
> traced to the original creative work of JRRT.
Again, this is a common misconception about copyright law. Something is
either protected by copyright or it isn't. Whether you sell it or not
does not bear on this question, except in two limited respects:
1. Courts will often award higher damages if you violate copyright
law for profit rather than for fun, and
2. "Fair use" (the quoting of small excerpts for purposes of literary
criticism, for example) considers whether the use is for profit or not
as one of four criteria in determining if the use is fair. It is not
the most important criteria.
However, both these points apply to using material that is actually
protected by copyright law. Although I am not a lawyer, I am confident
that individuals words of Quenya or Sindarin, invented by Tolkien, are
simply not protected by copyright. If they were, 95% of the postings
to this newsgroup would be illegal, because writing
The elves called Rivendell "Imladris".
would be a copyright violation.
The matter would be somewhat different if Tolkien himself had published
an elvish lexicon; anyone else publishing a similar book would be forced
to paraphrase the original quite closely. But a listing of elvish words
culled from LOTR or The Silmarillion does not violate the copyright on
those works, since it does not copy any substantial quantity of original
literary expression (i.e., passages of text) from them.
> I'm the one who raised this somewhat indelicate question (although Carl
> Hostetter raised the same question in a different thread) because I was
> truly curious about it. I am obviously not a lawyer either, but my
> impression was the same as Tony's. That is, the "Elvish" languages were
> created by Tolkien. Therefore, it _seems_ to me that this would fall
> under copyright.
It's a legitimate topic for discussion, certainly. However, copyright
law is not a blanket protection of creative ideas; it only dictates
when it is legal to copy passages of text verbatim and use them in another
work. We are allowed to discuss Tolkien's books here, to list
names of characters, and to discuss the entire corpus of elvish languages
if we choose. We can do it in this forum, and we can also do it in print
for resale; the law does not make a distinction.
I'm not a lawyer, and the compiler of this book may in fact wish to
contact one just to put his mind at ease (for a price), but I have
read a great deal about copyright law and I don't believe he's
breaking it.
Tom Tadfor Little
a few qualifications to what I said.
1. Although JRRT did not publish any comprehensive Elvish
glossaries or grammars, CJRT has published some rather extensive
glossaries in the works he has published; if an Elvish dictionary
looked like a straightforward duplication and merging of CJRT's
glossaries, it might be in violation of copyright. If it were
substantively different, by adding new text and incorporating
many other references to Tolkien books not found it CJRT's
lists, it would probably not be a violation.
2. Obtaining permission from the estate is certainly a wise move
in any case. The estate's ability to take legal action is not
limited to copyright law. If they feel that a publication misuses
Tolkien's works to the point of being an embarrassment or
misrepresentation, they can take action on that basis, regardless
of whether copyright is violated or not. (I believe something
like this happened when TSR, Inc. tried to use "hobbit" as the
name of a race in their Dungeons & Dragons game.)
Furthermore, obtaining permission from the estate is a matter
of professional courtesy.
Tom Tadfor Little
> I am disappointed. There are people who, because they did not know who I
> was, or because I did not belong to their group, immediately assumed that I
> was an idiot and a charlatan. That is not logical and seems to me to be
> somewhat arrogant. Hostetter, who has never met me, who has
> never seen my book, has made every effort to make sure that no one ever
> buys it. Why? Is he making any attempt to be just or unbiased? Maybe
> even more important, do people believe him? Do they believe that he
> has psychic abilities and can accurately judge a book that he has
> never seen?
I think some of the negative reactions to your postings here are based
on these factors:
1. Natural suspicion of advertisement, especially on a newsgroup.
2. The comments about other works at the end of your ad (original version),
in which you set _yourself_ up in opposition to an established body of
scholarship on Tolkien's languages.
I am a longtime lurker on the TolkLang mailing list, and I can attest
that Hostetter and the other regular contributors are both knowledgeable
and objective. I would have great confidence and interest in a work
resulting from the mainstream of expertise on Tolkien's languages, of
which Hostetter is a part. I am naturally skeptical of a work that
ignores (or even denigrates) that mainstream of scholarship.
Frankly, your post hit me as being of the same ilk as postings on
sci.physics that read "Einstein proven wrong! Send $10 for my theory
of time and consciousness!"
Perhaps I'm being unfair. No, I haven't read your book. It may be
excellent. I am suggesting that some of the poor reception you
received may be the result of the manner in which you have chosen
to contribute to this endeavor, namely as a gatecrasher rather than
as a colleague.
I read Hostetter's postings in response to your ad, and I don't
think he's claiming that the book is awful; he's advising that
people be skeptical about something that seems to be coming from
left field.
No flame intended; I'm just explaining why your ad "hit me wrong",
and why others may also have this negative reaction, even before
seeing the book.
In good faith, Tom.
Tony Murray
I acceed to Tom's information and opinion on this copyright
issue, as he certainly seems to have read more about the
subject than I. :) One point he brings up in his last
posting causes me to wonder one thing...
In <31227A...@lanl.gov> Tom Tadfor Little <tli...@lanl.gov> writes:
>The matter would be somewhat different if Tolkien himself had published
>an elvish lexicon; anyone else publishing a similar book would be forced
>to paraphrase the original quite closely. But a listing of elvish words
>culled from LOTR or The Silmarillion does not violate the copyright on
>those works, since it does not copy any substantial quantity of original
>literary expression (i.e., passages of text) from them.
Do you think that a list of terms defined exactly
as they are (that is, copied verbatum) from the various
dictionaries and lists in the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and
History of Middle Earth series would be protected? There are
such lists in those books, and I'd *think* that if someone merely
compiled all the lists and sorted them, that would be some sort
of infringement (obviously coming up with synonyms for the
definitious would make the problem go away). Would that be a
correct assertion? Are the published lists themselves, as written down by
JRRT and CJRT, not protected?
This gets further away from the actual book that was advertised,
but curious in general.
--Tony
BThompson
>After my latest posting on this issue, I thought I should add
>a few qualifications to what I said.
And, IMHO, these additional comments have particular relevance to this
issue.
>
>1. Although JRRT did not publish any comprehensive Elvish
>glossaries or grammars, CJRT has published some rather extensive
>glossaries in the works he has published;
Yes, these were the "creative works" of JRRT (e.g., "The Etymologies" in
'Lost Road', etc.) that I was referring to in my previous post.
> if an Elvish dictionary
>looked like a straightforward duplication and merging of CJRT's
>glossaries, it might be in violation of copyright. If it were
>substantively different, by adding new text and incorporating
>many other references to Tolkien books not found it CJRT's
>lists, it would probably not be a violation.
I guess we can't really say until we read Mr. Ensle's dictionaries. :-)
You're obviously much more knowledgeable in the copyright issue than I
am, and I appreciate you're taking the time to explain some of its finer
points.
>
>2. Obtaining permission from the estate is certainly a wise move
>in any case. The estate's ability to take legal action is not
>limited to copyright law. If they feel that a publication misuses
>Tolkien's works to the point of being an embarrassment or
>misrepresentation, they can take action on that basis, regardless
>of whether copyright is violated or not. (I believe something
>like this happened when TSR, Inc. tried to use "hobbit" as the
>name of a race in their Dungeons & Dragons game.)
>
>Furthermore, obtaining permission from the estate is a matter
>of professional courtesy.
I agree. When I offered the example of NM's 'Basic Quenya' and its
stated permission from the Tolkien Estate, I tried to word it carefully
so that it would not seem like I was trying to "prove" anything by it. I
didn't (and don't) know if this permission was obtained for copyright
reasons or as a professional courtesy or for some other reason In any
event, I agree that it may be wise for Mr. Ensle to contact the Tolkien
Estate if he hasn't already.
This thread has motivated me to learn more about copyright laws in
general. In fact, seemingly by coincidence, I just came across a "letter
to the editor" in the March '96 issue of "Petersen's Photographic'
magazine in which a reader asked about copyright laws. The editor
offered the following source of information: "...a full copy of the
Copyright Act can be obtained free of charge by writing for the:
Copyright Information Kit
Copyright Office
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C. 20559
..the kit includes copies of the law, the office's regulations, the
copyright application forms and circulars explaining a great deal about
the office's operation.".
[Hmmm...then again, maybe this wasn't coincidence...perhaps I was _meant_
to find this just like Bilbo was _meant_ to find the Ring. :-) :-) ]
Anyway, the above is obviously for the U.S. copyright law - I don't know
how this relates to similar laws in other countries.
Regards,
Bill
P.S. BTW, I sent for my copyright kit earlier today in hopes that reading
it may cure me of some of my ignorance concerning this topic. :-)
Tony Murray
that he send a copy of his book to a respected and knowledgeable member
of the newsgroup for a review (since he's been advertising and including
the phrase TRUST NO OTHER each time), because I felt people were unlikely
to part with their money on an untested work.
He wrote a detailed response to another article, defending his criticisms
of a few Elvish translations. I am not knowledgeable enough in the
area of the languages to have any comment on that portion of his note,
and I also note the polite paragraph at the end of his note that read
as follows:
<4g2c02$5s...@lamar.ColoState.EDU> hen...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Harold Ensle):
> Thanks for the suggestion Tony! I considered it. The problem is, I don't
>trust Hostetter, because I'm afraid he would not be fair (conflict of
>interest). Who could I trust?
In response to that, I'd say I don't personally see a conflict of
interest, since as far as I know (and, as usual, I freely admit that
I may be wrong), Mr. Hostetter is not in competition with Mr. Ensle
in any way (and, by the way, I only suggested his name because he
seemed to me to be the most vocal and knowledgeable person on the
subject in this group...I have no knowledge whatsoever of whether
he'd even be interested in reviewing Mr. Estle's work).
The part of Mr. Estle's post I sort of take exception to is the following
verbatum quote:
>Tony Murray (tmu...@nova.umuc.edu) wrote: something
That's all. My original post was polite, and I felt it had something
relevant to say. If you followup to something I've posted, and you
don't quote any of my words, I find it rude to include an attribution
with a single-word summary 'something.' If you felt it didn't warrant
quoting, or that your followup wasn't sufficiently closely related to
*need* my original words, why put my name in at all? To me, it comes
across as condescending and dismissive. "He said..something..."
So thanks for the polite paragraph at the end, but I am offended
at the dismissive attribution and summary, when (given the context
of Mr. Ensle's full posting) none at all was required.
--Tony Murray (tmu...@nova.umuc.edu)
Carl F. Hostetter
First, thanks to Tom Tadfor Little for already saying so well much of what
I would have said in response to Mr. Ensle.
As I stated quite explicitly before, I am _not_ urging anyone not to buy
Mr. Ensle's dictionary. I am merely advising others that it is a work that
has not been seen (to my knowledge) by _anyone_ within the community of
scholars of Tolkien's languages or by the Tolkien Estate. That is a fact;
others can take that fact and form whatever decision they like in response
to it. If Mr. Ensle had followed standard scholarly practice and invited
his colleagues (in endeavor, if not in discourse) in the community of
Tolkienian linguists to vet his work before publication, this particular
warning would not be necessary. However, as head of the Elvish Linguistic
Fellowship, editor of _Vinyar Tengwar_, and grateful acquaintance and
respector of the Tolkien Estate, it is my avocational duty to alert others
of the issues surrounding Mr. Ensle's work and claims.
I do know that Mr. Ensle's work cannot be "comprehensive" as he claims,
since it does not incorporate at least the not-inconsiderable primary
lexical and grammatical information published to date only in _Vinyar
Tengwar_, which he does not receive. (Note: _VT_ is deposited with the
Bodleian Library in Oxford, the Wade Center in Illinois, Marquette
University Libary, and the Library of Congress, and should be available
from any of these institutions via interlibrary loan for those who do not
wish to subscribe or purchase back-issues.)
> I wrote that Christopher Tolkien stated that J.R.R.Tolkien had written no
> dictionaries or grammars of Quenya or Sindarin. (Why should I make this up?)
> Hostetter wrote with certainty (though considering the amount of
> information involved, I don't know how),that C.Tolkien had never made that
> claim. I quote: "He [J.R.R. Tolkien] never made again anything like the little
> packed 'dictionary' of the original Gnomish language..." The Lost Road,page
> 342. (The grammar statement is also correct, but I haven't re-located the
> source yet.)
I have it from Christopher Tolkien himself that his father did indeed
write grammar_s_ of Q(u)enya and Noldorin/Sindarin; so he could not have
made such a statement about the grammars. Mr. Ensle may have
_misinterpreted_ some statement of Christopher's to mean that his father
never wrote grammars of his Elvish languages (as many have); but that is
all it is, a misinterpretation. That is the portion of Mr. Ensle's claim
that I took issue with: If one claims NOT X (Tolkien wrote other
dictionaries...) AND NOT Y (Tolkien wrote grammars...) and NOT Y is false,
then NOT X AND NOT Y is false, even if NOT X is true. I responded so as
not to allow the propagation of false claims through my silence.
> 'Parma Eldalamberon' The book of the Elvish tongues: The compound is
> OK. The formation of the genitive plural is not correct. The gen. pl. is
> '-ron', but can also be '-ion' depending on the nominative plural of the
> word. Ex.: 'elenion<eleni+on' from Frodo's cry in Shelob's Lair. The plural
> of 'lambe' should be 'lambi' as 'lassi<lasse' so one can conclude that the
> correct genitive plural form is 'Eldalambion'.
As I stated earlier, it is no news that the title "_Parma Eldalamberon_"
is likely _not_ something Tolkien would have produced to translate "The
Book of Elven Tongues". However, this journal title was selected (and
_not_ by its current editor) 25 years ago, before even _The Silmarillion_
was published. The plural in _-r_ rather than _-i_ for the _-e_-declension
noun _lambe_ was selected on the evidence of _tyeller_ 'grades' (I:397)
(shiningly _not_ *_tyelli_, as Mr. Ensle's generalization would have it).
The then-editor of _Parma_ ran a letter in _Parma_ 2 discussing just this
issue; but there is of course a great deal of inertia involved in changing
the title of a publication, especially when, even if we have a suspicion
that it _may_ be incorrect, it cannot be _demonstrated_ that it is
incorrect.
> Another problem: the genitive precedes the noun it modifies (see "The road
> goes >ever on"), thus: 'Eldalambion Parma' would be correct, but still
> inaccurate.
Oh? Would Mr. Ensle then care to explain why Tolkien wrote a work entitled
_Quenta Silmarillion_ 'History of the Silmarils', and not **_Silmarillion
Quenta_? And is not the formation _Parma Eldalamberon_ exactly parallel,
syntactically, to _Quenta Silmarillion_?
> We actually
> should probably use the associative in this situation (see "History of
> Middle Earth X or XI?" {notes on the element 'ho'} for its use) thus:
> 'Parma Eldalambiva' where 'Eldalambiva' is in the associative plural with
> singular agreement. (The associative follows the noun it modifies.)
Tolkien's own use of _Quenta Silmarillion_, rather than *_Quenta
Silmarilliva_, is enough, I think, to justify the syntax of _Parma
Eldalamberon_. In accordance with what is said in the essay "Quendi and
Eldar" (WJ:368-69), *_Parma Eldalambiva_ would strictly mean
'Elven-tongues' book', i.e. a book possessed by the Elven tongues, which
is not the meaning intended (how can a family of languages possess a
book?); the intended meaning instead is 'the book of (i.e. concerning) the
Elven-tongues', just as _Quenta Silmarillion_ means 'the history of (i.e.
concerning) the Silmarils'. Moreover, in "Quendi and Eldar" (369), after
explaining the historical differences between partitive in _-o_ and
adjective/possessive in _-va_, Tolkien also states that "There remained
naturally many cases where either possessive-adjectival or
partitive-derivative genitives might be used, and the tendency to prefer
the latter [i.e. _-o_ forms], or to use them in place of the former,
increased", with numerous examples showing the use of the _-o_-genitive
where Mr. Ensle's claim for *_Parma Eldalambiva_ would demand the _-va_
form.
[An aside: I wonder where Mr. Ensle found the term "associative" for the
_-va_ case? It is not used by Tolkien, and was coined by Patrick Wynne in
an article on this case published in _Parma_ before the appearance of _The
War of the Jewels_.]
> 'Vinyar Tengwar' I assume that this is supposed to mean 'News Letters',
> but 'vinya' also means 'young' (probably from its association with
> 'venya'='fresh;yellow©green'). 'sinya' would be the better choice
> considering the Noldorin equivalent 'sein'>'siniath'='news' (see
> Etymologies).
_Vinya_ 'new' is amply attested in the later (most notably, in the
post-_Lord of the Rings_) corpus: _Vinya_ 'the New Land' (LR:64),
_Vinyalonde_ 'the New Haven' (U:176), _Vinyamar_ *'New Dwelling' (S:354,
UT:471). _Sinya_ 'new' occurs only in the c.1936 _Etymologies_. I see no
reason why _sinya_ would be a "better choice" than _vinya_.
>Double duty for word types is very rare in Quenya
In Mr. Ensle's judgement. The infinitive and gerundial forms of verbs are
identical; the bare stem of the verb can be used as both an impersonal
singular, an imperative, and an infinitive. And etymological adjectives
are sometimes used substantively.
> (unlike Sindarin or more so English) so we would need to use a substantival
> form of 'sinya'>'sinyo'
In Mr. Ensle's judgement. There is nothing in the corpus to support either
Mr. Ensle's claimed necessity or the wholly invented form he proposes.
> Now use
> the associative plural with plural agreement, thus: 'Tengwar Sinyoive' or
> the construct 'Sinyo-tengwar' (History of M.E. X or XI {notes on 'ho'}).
The same arguments against Mr. Ensle's demand for the _-va_ case in _Parma
Eldalamberon_ above apply here. Moreover, there is no need to use a
case-marker at all. Just as English "News Letters" is a loose compound
that could also be expressed with the strict compound "Newsletters" or
(stiffly, but grammatically) the phrase "Letters of news", so in Quenya we
have the choice of employing a loose compound, "especially in general
description", as Tolkien states in the notes Mr. Ensle himself cites
(WJ:368), as in _Orome rooma_ 'an Orome horn' (ibid.). In parallel with
this, we can say *_Vinyar Tengwa_ 'a news letter', *_Vinyar Tengwar_ 'news
letters'. Also note the similar loose compound _Coron Oiolaire_ *'Mound of
Ever-summer' (S:357, U:458).
> Another problem: 'Tengwar' means 'letters' as in the individual characters
> one uses in writing. Using it for the intended meaning above (as in English)
> does not follow. In fact, in most languages, this would not be the case.
There are few statements about any given language that will be true for
most languages. This does not mean that the statement is not true of
_some_ other languages; nor that, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, one cannot propose to extend that statement to an invented
language, especially when it is true of languages (Latin: _littera_, both
the character and the epistle; English) that are seen to have influenced
Tolkien's phonological, lexical, and syntactic choices for Quenya.
> I suppose some artistic license is in order, since a term with this meaning
> is not known. However, I suspect that Tolkien would not have solved the
> problem in this fashion.
Perhaps not. But the title was chosen with the best information available
at the time, and I've seen nothing in the subsequent corpus (nor in Mr.
Ensle's suspicions) to overthrow it.
> The problem is, I don't trust Hostetter, because I'm afraid he would not be
> fair (conflict of interest).
Since my interest is only in promoting the accurate study of Tolkien's
languages, and since there is nothing that Mr. Ensle can write that can in
any way impede my progress or projects, there can be no conflict of
interest; and since I argue only from the corpus, through citation of
forms and example (as I hope I've demonstrated above), the only thing Mr.
Ensle _really_ has to fear from me is my knowledge of the corpus. In
keeping with these principles, if Mr. Ensle's work as a whole is more
rigorously researched than his posts here (and if he seeks the approval of
the Tolkien Estate to publish it), it will of course be my avocational
duty, not to mention my genuine pleasure, to promote his work in my
journal and via my online list of resources. If not, it will be my
avocational duty to point out Mr. Ensle's mistakes. Hence Mr. Ensle has
nothing to fear from me, save the truth.
_Iatre, therapeuson seauton_.
|===================================================================|
| Carl F. Hostetter Aelf...@erols.com |
Harold Ensle
Jan Six
[a rigorous but IMO fair critique of Mr. Ensle's claims]
> > Another problem: 'Tengwar' means 'letters' as in the individual characters
> > one uses in writing. Using it for the intended meaning above (as in English)
> > does not follow. In fact, in most languages, this would not be the case.
>
> There are few statements about any given language that will be true for
> most languages. This does not mean that the statement is not true of
> _some_ other languages; nor that, in the absence of evidence to the
> contrary, one cannot propose to extend that statement to an invented
> language, especially when it is true of languages (Latin: _littera_, both
> the character and the epistle; English) that are seen to have influenced
> Tolkien's phonological, lexical, and syntactic choices for Quenya.
Since it is generally accepted [and stated by himself in Letters and
elsewhere] that Finnish was also an important source of inspiration,
it might be of interest to point out that the same is true in Finnish.
The Finnish word for epistle is _kirje_. The word for printed or
written character is _kirjain_. These are obvious cognates. I might
point out that _kirja_, "book", is likewise a cognate. I would not
be tempted to conclude from this, however, that _parma_ could not
possibly mean "book", because it is so obviously unrelated to
_tengwa_ :-)
Harold Ensle
: Aelf...@erols.com (Carl F. Hostetter) wrote:
: [a rigorous but IMO fair critique of Mr. Ensle's claims]
No doubt you really believe so, but I am not convinced.
The question of nominative plurals in '-e' is resolved by a simple word
count of plural nouns of that form. It is obvious, when looking at the
big picture, that '-e>-i' is the rule. 'tyeller' is thus irregular and if
'lambe' has the irregular plural 'lamber' then there is no problem.
The rule for modifiers and the genitive in standard Quenya is that they
precede the noun they modify (previous reference). There are two notable
exceptions: 1. occasional poetic license; 2. exilic back influence. (i.e.
Elves who speak Sindarin as their
native tongue, who inadvertently 'Sindarinize' their Quenya.) 'Coron
oiolaire' is a good example of this process, also 'Mindon Eldalieva'.
The examples given by C.Hostetter fall into the above mentioned
categories and thus can hardly be used as models to determine correct
grammatical rules.
I stand corrected on the '-va' '-o' issue. The genitive is appropriate
here. However, the use of '-va' is not restricted to possession as he
seems to imply.
On 'Sinya' the point was missed. It's not how common the form is, but
the connotations involved (and the parallel development in Noldorin).
>In Mr. Ensle's judgement. The infinitive and gerundial forms of
>verbs are identical.
I quote: "yal- 'summon', in infinitive (or gerundial) form en-yalie,"
This is from C. Tolkien's translation of Cirion's oath. (I guess
C.Tolkien suffers from the same judgement.)
C.Hostetter is correct that the impersonal singular can be equivalent
to the imperative, but that is double duty for conjugations, not word
types. However, my original statement may have been excessive. In
general, inflected languages are strict about marking
word types (e.g. slavic). Double duty can exist in Quenya for
verb-adjective and verb-noun pairs. Noun-adjective pairs are extremely rare.
>>form of 'sinya'>'sinyo'
>In Mr. Ensle's judgement. There is nothing in the corpus to
>support either Mr. Ensle's claimed necessity or the wholly
>invented form he proposes.
So... there is nothing to support this!? Examples:
norna/tough,hard>norno/dwarf(tough one)
minda/prominent,conspicuous>mindo/tower(prominent object)
tunda/tall>tundo/mound,hill(tall thing)
vea/adult,manly,vigorous>veo/male,man
(and many more)
After reading C.Hostetter's article, I definitely don't trust him to
review my work, but not because I think he would be unfair.
Harold Ensle
Newsgroups: alt.fan.tolkien
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Summary:
Keywords:
There has been quite a few requests for information on the Elvish
languages. Publishers are unwilling to accept books on the subject since
they do not believe that the market is large enough to cover their
investment. However, you can now buy what the publishers missed. The
well researched (trust no other) dictionaries of the Elvish languages,
written by those who are experienced in linguistics and decryption.
These two books contain all available information on the Sindarin and Quenya
languages. Each has over 1500 entries (this does not include proper nouns
or untranslated words) which are indexed from the English as well. Grammars
are also included, though only as complete as can be reliably inferred.
Alphabets and sample text are also included. Each dictionary is in soft
cover booklet form 5" by 4.25", Sindarin 72pp, Quenya 80pp. Cost for each:
$9.00,
overseas add $2.00 for postage. $2.00 discount for order of 2 or
more.(allow 3 weeks for delivery).
Write to H.Ensle,500 W Prospect 5D,Ft. Collins, CO 80526.
List of references utilized:
Louis Epstein
: This thread has motivated me to learn more about copyright laws in
: general. In fact, seemingly by coincidence, I just came across a "letter
: to the editor" in the March '96 issue of "Petersen's Photographic'
: magazine in which a reader asked about copyright laws. The editor
: offered the following source of information: "...a full copy of the
: Copyright Act can be obtained free of charge by writing for the:
: Copyright Information Kit
: Copyright Office
: Library of Congress
: Washington, D.C. 20559
: ..the kit includes copies of the law, the office's regulations, the
: copyright application forms and circulars explaining a great deal about
: the office's operation.".
: P.S. BTW, I sent for my copyright kit earlier today in hopes that reading
: it may cure me of some of my ignorance concerning this topic. :-)
Note that http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/ has much of this information.
Carl F. Hostetter
(Harold Ensle) wrote:
> The question of nominative plurals in '-e' is resolved by a simple word
>count of plural nouns of that form. It is obvious, when looking at the
>big picture, that '-e>-i' is the rule. 'tyeller' is thus irregular
It is true that "the majority of [nouns in _-e_] formed their plural in
_-i_" (WJ:361), but this same statment proves that some (perhaps
not-insignificant) minority of nouns in _-e_ did _not_ form their plurals
so. Note _malle_ 'road', pl. _maller_ (LR:47); _lasse_ *'leaf', pl.
_lasser_ (in "_Narqelion_", the earliest extant Quenya poem, first
published in _Mythlore_ LVI, p. 48); _quende_ '(Elvish) woman', pl.
_quender_ (MR:229); and _laamatyaave_ *'taste in sound' (MR:215), pl.
_laamatyaaver_ (MR:216). Moreover, it is clear that there was some leeway
in the selection of plural forms: "these are they whom we now call the
Valar (or the Vali, it matters not)" (LT1:58).
> if 'lambe' has the irregular plural 'lamber' then there is no problem.
Then it cannot be determined whether there is a "problem" or not. There is
nothing in the corpus to show that *_lamber_ is not permitted; therefore,
it may well be (even if it is not _expected_ to be) that the plural (or
rather, _a_ valid plural) form of _lambe_ _is_ *_lamber_. Therefore, one
cannot prove (as Mr. Ensle claimed he could, baldly, in starting this
debate) that *_Eldalamberon_ is _ungrammatical_.
> The rule for modifiers and the genitive in standard Quenya is that they
> precede the noun they modify (previous reference). There are two notable
> exceptions: 1. occasional poetic license; 2. exilic back influence. (i.e.
> Elves who speak Sindarin as their
> native tongue, who inadvertently 'Sindarinize' their Quenya.)
There is no statement by Tolkien behind Mr. Ensle's assertions here of the
distribution of or motive for the noun-modifier / modifier-noun word order
variance observed in the corpus. Through bald assertion Mr. Ensle lends his
theory an air of apparent authority that is really no more substantial than
the ether; for all that it is a plausible theory, it nonetheless is nothing
more than one theory among many other possible theories. To assert it as
something more than mere speculation is contrary to scholarship.
Specifically:
1) What is "standard Quenya"? Where exactly does Tolkien use this term?
What distinguishes it from other, presumably "non-standard" types of
Quenya? What are these other types of Quenya, and where are they described?
2) Where in the corpus is there any statement by Tolkien, explicit or
implicit, that the noun-modfier word order in Quenya is ever due to
"Sindarization" (either inadvertent or otherwise)?
3) Which of the two "exceptions" to modifier-noun word order asserted by
Mr. Ensle explains the following: _lumenn' omentielvo_ 'on the hour of our
meeting' (I:90), _Indis i.Kiryamo_ 'The Mariner's Wife' (UT:8), _Namna
Finwe Miiriello_ 'the Statute of Finwe and Miiriel' (MR:258), _Quenta
Silmarillion_ 'The History of the Silmarils' (S:33), _Yeenie Valinooreo_
'The Annals of Valinor' (MR:200), _Hiini Iluuvataro_ 'Children of
Iluuvatar' (S:322), _Oienkarme Eruo_ 'the One's perpetual production'
(MR:329), , _Heren Istarion_ 'Order of Wizards' (UT:388), _Tar-Ellion_
'Queen of the Stars' (LR:200), and _asea aranion_ 'kingsfoil' (III:141)?
(Note that noun-modifier word order predominates in titles of literary
works, such as _Quenta Silmarillion_ or [dare I say it?] *_Parma
Eldalaberon_.)
>'Coron oiolaire' is a good example of this process.
Mr, Ensle, please demonstrate for us, by appeal to the corpus, that the
syntax of "_Coron Oiolaire_" is unquestionably due to poetic license or to
Sindarinization.
> also 'Mindon Eldalieva'
As Mr. Ensle himself has already pointed out, in all published examples a
noun in the adjectival/possessive case invariably follows the noun it
modifies. How then can this be considered anything other than regular word
order for constructions of this type?
> The examples given by C.Hostetter fall into the above mentioned
> categories and thus can hardly be used as models to determine correct
> grammatical rules.
Neither Mr. Ensle nor anyone else (save Tolkien) is in a position to
determine anything about "correct" grammatical rules for this particular
point of syntax, and most especially no one can say, on the basis of the
published corpus, what the cause for the variation is.
All that can be claimed, in the absence of further information from Tolkien, is:
1. In the published corpus, a noun in the adjectival/possessive (_-va_)
case invariably follows the noun it modifies.
2. In the published corpus, a noun in the partitive/derivative (_-o_) case
may either precede or follow the noun it modifies. Noun-modifier word order
predominates in titles of literary works, while modifier-noun word order
predominates in prose passages.
This is purely descriptive, unlike Mr. Ensle's attempts at prescriptivism,
and properly makes no assertions about the motives behind these syntactic
facts, because they are simply not known.
>the use of '-va' is not restricted to possession as he seems to imply.
I agree that I seemed to imply this, and that that implication is
incorrect. It was not my intent to exclude the adjectival function of the
_-va_ case; although that too seems to be inappropriate to translating "The
Book of Elven-tongues": I freely admit that I'm not an expert on sytax, but
I fail to see how this could be interpreted adjectivally. But this is
really a moot point: the fact that "_Quenta Silmarillion_" translates 'The
History of the Silmarils' is all I need to show that there is nothing
ungrammatical about using the _-o_-genitive to translate "The Book of
Elven-tongues".
> On 'Sinya' the point was missed. It's not how common the form is, but
> the connotations involved (and the parallel development in Noldorin).
I did not miss Mr. Ensle's point; I simply don't agree with it. The mere
fact that a form with Noldorin cognates is found in _Etymologies_ does not
make it an inherently "better choice" (Mr. Ensle's term), esp. over a word
found repeatedly in the later corpus while the _Etymologies_ form is found
not at all. Nor is the connotation of _vinya_ (both 'new' and 'young' (this
latter only once, at its first appearance, LR:19; the former alone in all
other places) inappropriate to the sense intended in "_Vinyar Tengwar_". I
am not saying that one would be _wrong_ to use _sinya_ for 'new', only that
there is no reason to prefer it to _vinya_, despite Mr. Ensle's entirely
subjective claim to the contrary.
> >In Mr. Ensle's judgement. The infinitive and gerundial forms of
> >verbs are identical.
>
> I quote: "yal- 'summon', in infinitive (or gerundial) form en-yalie,"
> This is from C. Tolkien's translation of Cirion's oath. (I guess
> C.Tolkien suffers from the same judgement.)
Mr. Ensle has misread what I wrote. The period following "judgement" and
the capitalization of "The" in what I wrote are significant. They mark two,
independent sentences (though I admit that the first is not a complete
sentence, nor was it intended to be). Mr. Ensle claimed that it was rare
for word-forms to do double duty in Quenya (and has since softened this
claim after further consideration; which is an admirable ability, esp. in a
scholar). I replied that this was (only) _his_ judgement, and cited the
fact that the infinitive and gerundial forms of verbs are identical in
Quenya to show one (and, I would think, hardly rare in usage) of several
clear cases of a word-form doing double duty in Quenya. Mr. Ensle has
replied by quoting the evidence for the fact that I cited _against_ his
judgement. (This evidence occurs in notes written by J.R.R. Tolkien
himself, and not, as Mr. Ensle implies here, by Christopher; UT:317.)
> Noun-adjective pairs are extremely rare.
Even so, rarity does not make something ungrammatical. In fact, no matter
how rare a synactic structure may be in the corpus, so long as there is
_one_ example, then that structure _is_ grammatical (or, in the context of
invented languages, is grammatical at least at the stage of invention at
which it was penned). Remember, Mr. Ensle began this by asserting that
"_Vinyar Tengwar_" was _ungrammatical_, an assertion he has not proven.
> >>form of 'sinya'>'sinyo'
>
> >In Mr. Ensle's judgement. There is nothing in the corpus to
> >support either Mr. Ensle's claimed necessity or the wholly
> >invented form he proposes.
>
> So... there is nothing to support this!? Examples:
> norna/tough,hard>norno/dwarf(tough one)
> minda/prominent,conspicuous>mindo/tower(prominent object)
> tunda/tall>tundo/mound,hill(tall thing)
The derivation is not _tunda_ 'tall' > _tundo_ 'hill, mound' as Mr. Ensle
has written; rather, the adjectival and substantival forms have distinct
ancestors: primtive *_tundu_ > Q _tundo_ (by regular lowering of short _-u_
to short _-o_; primitive *_tundaa_ > Q _tunda_ (by regular shortening of
final long vowels).
> vea/adult,manly,vigorous>veo/male,man
Here, the derivation seems to be primitive *_we3aa_ > Q _vea_, but
primitive *_we3oo_ > Q *_veo_; but note that here the nominalizing ending
is *_-oo_, whereas in _tundo_ it is *_-u_.
(I mention these things only in the interest of precision, since I do not
disagree that, in the _Etymologies_ period, there is an apparent synchronic
mechanism of deriving nouns from adjectives by changing final _-a_ to
_-o_.)
In any event, I was not claiming that the proposed derivation of *_sinyo_
from _sinya_ had no models in the corpus; only that I do not see that it is
_necessary_ to use _sinya_ rather than _vinya_, and that it would not be
_necessary_ to use *_sinyo_ over _sinya_, or *_vinyo_ over _vinya_. _Vinya_
at least has the advantage of being an attested form.
As a model for _vinya_ 'new' > *_vinyar_ 'news', consider _vanya_
'beautiful' (adj., LR:351), _Vanya_ 'the Fair' (noun, S:354), pl. _Vanyar_
'the Fair' (ibid.); _fiirima_ 'mortal' (adj., LR:381), _Fiirima_ *'Mortal'
(noun, WJ:387), pl. _Fiirimar_ 'Mortals, those apt to die' (ibid., S:331);
etc., etc., etc.
In summation (and reiteration): the choices of "_Parma Eldalamberon_" and
"_Vinyar Tengwar_" to translate 'The Book of Elven-tongues' and 'News
Letters' were made in accordance with the data available at the time of
their choosing; and nothing that has appeared since demonstrates that
either of these titles in incorrect in any way, although one might choose
differently in light of the new data (or, might not). Nevertheless, neither
title has been, nor can be, shown to be _ungrammatical_, despite Mr.
Ensle's claim that he could do so.
> After reading C.Hostetter's article, I definitely don't trust him to
> review my work, but not because I think he would be unfair.
If by this Mr. Ensle means that he cannot blindly trust that I will give
his work a _favorable_ review, then he is correct: I will judge the work on
its own merits, and review it in accordance with its strengths and its
weaknesses. But if the sort of prescriptive, proof-by-declaration
pseudo-scholarship practiced by Mr. Ensle in this thread is the same model
followed in his book, then I fear I may already have given it sufficient
review.
Finally, I would direct all who are interested in a thorough study of the
evidence for the Quenya noun (through _Morgoth's Ring_) to Patrick Wynne's
superb article "The Quenya Case System in the Later Writings of J.R.R.
Tolkien" (_Parma Eldalamberon_ 10, 1994; pp.25-52).
|===================================================================|
| Carl F. Hostetter Aelf...@erols.com |
| |
| ho bios brachys, he de techne makre. |
| Ars longa, vita brevis. |
| The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. |
| "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take |
| such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about." |
|===================================================================|
|===================================================================|
| Carl F. Hostetter Carl.F.Ho...@gsfc.nasa.gov |
| |
Michael Martinez
>Harold Ensle (hen...@lamar.ColoState.EDU) wrote:
>: Subject: Re: Elvish Dictionary
>
>Do any of you guys have any credentials? Tolkien was a big-shot
>professor, and he only got one or two words in the Oxford English
>Dictionary. What makes you guys so special?
Well, *they* may not have credentials, but I got my Tolkien secret decoder
ring from a box of breakfast cereal, and I passed the hobbit-backseat-driver
test when I was a kid.
So, I think that pretty much qualifies me for any serious discussion.
az...@imap1.asu.edu
: In article <4h0tib$d...@news.asu.edu>, az...@imap1.asu.edu wrote:
: >Harold Ensle (hen...@lamar.ColoState.EDU) wrote:
: >: Subject: Re: Elvish Dictionary
: >
: >Do any of you guys have any credentials? Tolkien was a big-shot
: >professor, and he only got one or two words in the Oxford English
: >Dictionary. What makes you guys so special?
: Well, *they* may not have credentials, but I got my Tolkien secret
: decoder ring from a box of breakfast cereal, and I passed the
: hobbit-backseat-driver test when I was a kid.
: So, I think that pretty much qualifies me for any serious discussion.
Sure. Michael Martinez, HBD. OK, who's next?
--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
"The road goes ever on and on."
- Bilbo Baggins, as quoted in _The C++ Programming Language._
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
8^)
Michael Richard Siminski
>Michael Martinez (mma...@basis.com) wrote:
>: In article <4h0tib$d...@news.asu.edu>, az...@imap1.asu.edu wrote:
(SNIP)
>: Well, *they* may not have credentials, but I got my Tolkien secret
>: decoder ring from a box of breakfast cereal,
Aww, I had to send away for mine. :)
+-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| MICHAEL SIMINSKI | "We may sail West, as far |
| mr...@uow.edu.au | as we will, yet come no |
| Dept of Mechanical Engineering | nearer to our dreams. |
| University of Wollongong | For these are far away, |
| New South Wales | and that is why they are |
| Australia | so beautiful." |
+-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Harold Ensle
: Mr. Ensle is here making judgements about the status of forms in the
...........
: unless it can be _proven_, by explicit or implicit statement in the
: corpus, or by demonstration of an intolerable contradiction, that Tolkien
: did so.
The changes in Elvish between "The Lost Tales" and "Lord of the Rings" is
so pervasive in both vocabulary and grammar (leading to a multitude of
contradictions), that to try and maintain the older forms as part of the
working language is ridiculous. In a reasonable reading of the sources,
it is obvious that the languages went through a period of major revision.
The case is such, that in my dictionary (for those who are interested),
no pre-etymology forms were retained unless there was evidence that they
were included by Tolkien in his revisions. Etymology and post-etymology
forms were retained unless there was later evidence to the contrary. This
was done in an attempt to represent the languages in their final form.
One might quibble with this choice, but I believe it is reasonable.
For example: 'malle' is retained, since it occurs in the etymologies, but
'maller' is not since it occurs in a very old translation which employed
the archaic grammar. (This can be recognized.) This does not mean
absolutely, that 'maller' was not maintained to a later date. However,
knowing the amount of transformation that the languages underwent, I
certainly wouldn't bet on it.
: > 'Coron Oiolaire' is closely associated with the question at hand. This
: > name cannot, I repeat, cannot be a legitimate construction (with the
: > meaning given) in Quenya.
: Of course it can; it _is_! Are we to take Mr. Ensle's judgement of what is
: or is not a "legitimate construction" in Quenya over Tolkien's?
: And if one objects to _Coron Oiolaire_, what then is one to make of _Orome
: rooma_ 'an Orome horn' (WJ), which Tolkien carefully cites as a specific
: example of such loose compounds in Quenya? If _this_ is Quenya, as Tolkien
: clearly thinks it is, then so is _Coron Oiolaire_.
Again, Mr. Hostetter missed the point. Both Quenya and Sindarin can have
nouns in opposition, but in Sindarin, the modifier follows, in Quenya,
the modifier precedes. Therefore 'Orome rooma' is a perfectly legitimate
construction in Quenya. 'Coron Oiolaire' is too IF it means 'Evergreen
tree of the Mound', otherwise, no.
Carl F. Hostetter
(Harold Ensle) wrote:
> The changes in Elvish between "The Lost Tales" and "Lord of the Rings" is
> so pervasive in both vocabulary and grammar (leading to a multitude of
> contradictions), that to try and maintain the older forms as part of the
> working language is ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is to throw out a substantial portion of the corpus
that cannot be shown to be in any way invalid. In fact, one thing that
seems to have been most stable across the years (esp. for Quenya) is
_vocabulary_. There are really very few differences in vocabulary between
the "Qenya Lexicon" and the Quenya entries in _Etymologies_ (in
grammatical endings, perhaps; but _not_ in vocabulary).
> The case is such, that in my dictionary (for those who are interested),
> no pre-etymology forms were retained unless there was evidence that they
> were included by Tolkien in his revisions.
This explains why Mr. Ensle's dictionaries are so short, one of the
factors that set off my initial doubts about his claims for their
"authority" and comprehensiveness.
I would judge that Mr. Ensle's methodology is precisely backwards from
what it should be. All forms should be included unless it can demonstrated
that they were rejected by Tolkien (this for Quenya, of course; Goldogrin
and Sindarin are demonstrably very different languages, esp. in the
formation of plurals).
> Etymology and post-etymology
> forms were retained unless there was later evidence to the contrary. This
> was done in an attempt to represent the languages in their final form.
A fool's errand, since there is as yet no way to determine what is or is
not "final form" Quenya or Sindarin (or even that there ever was such a
thing). Some distinctions suggest themselves; but they are not proven.
Mr. Ensle has here provided a self-review of his dictionaries sufficient
to demostrate their worthlessness as either a research tool or as a
reliable guide to Tolkien's linguistic invention. (Even more so, as it
appears from the extract he provided earlier that his dictionaries don't
provide page citations.) Rather, they serve as a guide only to what Mr.
Ensle _thinks_ constitute Quenya and Sindarin, which I personally wouldn't
give a fig to know; I'm much more concerned to know what Tolkien thought,
throughout his lifetime.
> Again, Mr. Hostetter missed the point. Both Quenya and Sindarin can have
> nouns in opposition, but in Sindarin, the modifier follows, in Quenya,
> the modifier precedes. Therefore 'Orome rooma' is a perfectly legitimate
> construction in Quenya. 'Coron Oiolaire' is too IF it means 'Evergreen
> tree of the Mound', otherwise, no.
Mr. Ensle is correct that I did not see the point of word order that he
was making. Nevertheless, he is still not addressing _my_ point, which was
that if Tolkien says that a given phrase is Quenya, then by definition
whatever syntactic structure it exhibits is a "legitimate construction in
Quenya", regardless of whether Mr. Ensle thinks it is permitted in Quenya;
it remains only for us to modify our description of Quenya grammar
accordingly. To exclude it from the description elevates one's personal
opinions above Tolkien's own, and is a dangerous form of intellectual
dishonesty.
Harold Ensle
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Carl F. Hostetter (Carl.F.Ho...@gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: What is ridiculous is to throw out a substantial portion of the corpus
: that cannot be shown to be in any way invalid. In fact, one thing that
: seems to have been most stable across the years (esp. for Quenya) is
: _vocabulary_. There are really very few differences in vocabulary between
: the "Qenya Lexicon" and the Quenya entries in _Etymologies_ (in
: grammatical endings, perhaps; but _not_ in vocabulary).
Mr. Hostetter must be discussing something else entirely, because this is
plainly wrong. Since I did develope a dictionary of Qenya (using "The
Lost Tales"). I know first-hand the differences in vocabulary from later
versions (which was extensive >50%). If Mr. Hostetter really understood
Tolkien's methods of language development, he would never make such a
statement. Not only is the vocabulary superficially different, but the
roots and the method of derivation of final forms was revised. The
difference is much greater than mere appearance and cuts to the very core
of the hand-in-hand development of language and its enveloping history
(which was also changed). By excluding these forms, I demonstrate an
integrity, which would be lacking in anyone who would thoughtlessly
promote this archaic pre-etymology language as that of Quenya.
When I wrote 'final', I meant 'most recent', which could have been
understood in the context of the discussion, if the reader had not
been seeking diversionary argument.
Raimondas Lencevicius
> Well, *they* may not have credentials, but I got my Tolkien
When found, send to Sorhed
The postage is prepaid...
Even now dark postal agents are converging on
the Stye...
--
Raimondas Lencevicius rai...@cs.ucsb.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We have no integrity, we're ready to crawl
To attain celebrity we'll do anything at all...
"Shameless" -- Pet Shop Boys
Carl F. Hostetter
(Harold Ensle) wrote:
> Mr. Hostetter has argued well for the exceptance of his forms, but he did
> not prove that my forms were incorrect,
I never said that your forms were incorrect, nor did I ever say that I
would prove they were. You however claimed that you could prove that my
forms were incorrect, but you have failed to do so.
> Despite this, he still insists that my analysis is 'shoddy' and
> that I am somehow 'inept'.
Where did I ever use the terms "shoddy" and "inept"? I merely said that
your dictionaries are useless for research purposes or as a guide to
Tolkien's linguistic invention, because you have filtered the forms you
chose to include according to your own biases and judgement of what is or
is not valid (in contrast with Tolkien's own judgement) and because you
apparently do not include page references.
> Since the hard evidence to support this
> claim against my character does not exist, he is drawing an
> unsubstantiated conclusion. This indicates to me that there is some type
> of bias involved.
I have made no claims about your character whatsoever, only about the work
you have produced. To claim that I have attacked your character is a cheap
attempt at distraction from the central debate and the points I have made.
Carl F. Hostetter
(Harold Ensle) wrote:
> Since I did develope a dictionary of Qenya (using "The
> Lost Tales"). I know first-hand the differences in vocabulary from later
> versions (which was extensive >50%).
It is Mr. Ensle who "must be discussing something else entirely". I
challenge Mr. Ensle to show us how "> 50%" (his claim) of the vocabulary
found in the portion of the "Qenya Lexicon" published in the Appendices to
the _Book of Lost Tales_ is _demonstrably_ invalid on comparison with the
material found in the _Etymologies_.
I submit that, for vocabulary items of common form between "QL" and _Et._,
the vast majority share common meaning. As a quick sample, let's take the
first pages of the Appendix to LT1 (LT1:249-59); I'll mark the forms that
might reasonably be argued to have changed meaning with an asterisk (Mr.
Ensle, please let me know if you disagree with my judgements):
"QL" _Et._
---------------------------- --------------------------------
_ainu_ 'a pagan god' _Ainu_ 'holy one, angelic spirit'
_Alalminoore_ 'Land of Elms' _alalme_ 'elm'; _noore_ 'country, land, race'
_alalme_ 'elm' _alalme_ 'elm';
_Aldaron_ 'Lord of Trees' _Aldaron_ 'Lord of Trees'
_alda_ 'tree' _alda_ 'tree'
_Orome_ (the Vala) _Orome_ (the Vala)
_alqa_ 'swan' _alqa_ 'swan'
_lunte_ 'ship' _lunte_ 'boat'
_anga_ 'iron' _anga_ 'iron'
_angaina_ 'of iron' _angaina_ 'of iron'
_Angaron(ti)_ 'Mts. of Iron' _oron_, pl. _oronti_ 'mountain'
*_Arvalin_ 'nigh Valinor' _Arvalin_ 'outside Valinor', *'beside V.'
*_aksa_ 'waterfall' _aksa_ 'narrow path, ravine'
_Aule_ (the Vala) _Aule_ (the Vala)
Two out of 14 forms that _might_ have changed meaning; doesn't look too
good for Mr. Ensle's claim of "> 50", does it?
Now, let's look at some "QL" forms from the same pages that do _not_ have
matching forms in _Et._:
_Ainatar_ 'Iluuvatar, God'; this can be analyzed as _Aina_ 'holy' + _atar_
'father', two elements amply attest in _Et._ and later. Why should this
form be excluded from Mr. Ensle's Quenya dictionary?
_aldea_ 'tree-shadowed' &
_aldeon_ 'avenue of trees'. Given _alda_ 'tree', and the well-attested
adjectival formation in _-ea_ in the later corpus (cf. _laurea_ 'golden'),
why should these forms not be included in Mr. Ensle's dictionary? Please
demonstrate for us why these are in any way invalid forms.
_luuto_ 'flood', _lutta-, _lutu-_ 'flow, float'. Given the _Et._ base LUT-
'float, swim', why should these forms be excluded, simply because _Et._
only lists _lunte_ 'boat' as a Q derivative? It is perfectly reasonable
that Quenya would possess verbal derivatives from this verbal base that
Tolkien simply didn't list. Again, please demonstrate for us that these
forms are _invalid_.
_angayasse_ 'misery', _angaitya_ 'torment'. Given _anga_ 'iron' in _Et._,
and noting that these are clearly _derived_ forms, and hence perhaps
metaphorical, and noting that in Gnomish at least there was a "popular
connection" of _ang_ 'iron' with a form meaning 'tormentor', _prove_ that
these forms became invalid.
etc., etc., etc.
In fact, I defy Mr. Ensle to perform the same analysis on any page he
chooses and find even one page on which "> 50%" of the Qenya forms can be
_demonstrated_ to have become invalid.
> If Mr. Hostetter really understood
> Tolkien's methods of language development, he would never make such a
> statement.
Iatre, therapeuson seauton.
> Not only is the vocabulary superficially different,
Oh? How so? Demonstrate what you mean, please.
> but the roots and the method of derivation of final forms was revised.
First, the roots of "QL" do not have the same phonological status as the
bases of _Etymologies_. As Tolkien states, the roots of "QL" "serve as an
elucidation of the words grouped together and a connection between them",
i.e. they are the roots derived from a phonological analysis of purely
_Qenya_ cognates; while the bases of _Et._ represent the common
phonological structures underlying Quenya, Noldorin, Telerin, etc.,
cognates. So a difference between these two types of constructs is hardly
surprising. Second, I never claimed that there was no difference in the
phonological systems of Qenya in "QL" and Quenya in _Et._. I merely
claimed that those forms in common between "QL" and _Et._ have the same
meaning in the vast majority of cases, and that where the forms differ or
where there is no corresponding form at all it is impossible, in the vast
majority of cases, to show that the "QL" form and/or meaning were ever
judged _invalid_ by Tolkien. Therefore, I submit, they should be included
in any dictionary of Quenya, because there is, in the vast majority of
cases, no clear, non-arbitrary reason to exclude them from Quenya. Mr.
Ensle's filter is entirely arbitrary and greatly damaging to the utility
of his works.
Wouldn't Mr. Ensle's dictionary be _much_ more useful if he had simply
included _every_ form in the corpus, and provided a page reference for
each, which would indicate at a glance the Primary-world date of each
form, of which the reader can then decide the significance?
> By excluding these forms, I demonstrate an
> integrity, which would be lacking in anyone who would thoughtlessly
> promote this archaic pre-etymology language as that of Quenya.
By excluding these forms, Mr. Ensle is making an arbitrary and entirely
personal decision that these forms are invalid, when in fact such cannot
be proven in the vast majority of cases. And the resulting work cannot
make any claim of comprehensiveness. No kind of "integrity" can be claimed
by one who would put his own entirely unsupportable blinders over a
reader's eyes and still call their work "comprehensive".
> When I wrote 'final', I meant 'most recent', which could have been
> understood in the context of the discussion, if the reader had not
> been seeking diversionary argument.
Iatre, therapeuson seauton.
BThompson
>Suppose you were studying English without benefit of native speakers or
>"definitive" grammars and dictionaries. You would come across many
>words with plurals ending in -s or -es (box, boxes), and a few with
>plurals ending in -en (ox, oxen). Now if you are reading English texts
>and come across "fox", but can find no plural form written anywhere, you
>are forced to conjecture what the plural might be, if you want to use it
>when you write your own English sentences. "Foxes" is a plausible choice,
>given the prevalence of -es plurals, but "foxen" cannot be ruled out
>on the basis of the evidence. Only the discovery of a real English text
>with "foxes" as the plural can prove the conjecture.
However, is there always just 1 acceptable plural form for a given word?
Or, more to the point, should an older form necessarily be deemed
unacceptable? For example, the word "formula" has 2 acceptable plural
forms; that is, "formulas" and "formulae". The -s form just so happens
to be a bit more commonly used today than the older -ae form.
Regards,
Bill
Michael Martinez
BThompson <will...@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
>However, is there always just 1 acceptable plural form for a given word?
>Or, more to the point, should an older form necessarily be deemed
>unacceptable? For example, the word "formula" has 2 acceptable plural
>forms; that is, "formulas" and "formulae". The -s form just so happens
>to be a bit more commonly used today than the older -ae form.
This is getting off-topic, but what the heck....
I think English is a poor example of how languages form rules for
pluralization. The example with "oxen", for instance, points to the only
known verb form to survive from, I believe, the Kentish dialect.
"formulae" is the Latin pluralization borrowed by English, whereas "formulas"
is the *correct* plural form (which nonetheless is rejected by obfuscatory
principles derived from an academic appreciation of Latin that is no longer
well-distributed).
English speakers tend to "smooth" or "flatten" verb forms, and it has been
speculated this became the norm back when England was dominated by the four
English dialects and the Danish dialect that influenced English. It was
simply necessary for everyone to "merge" their dialects together in order to
communicate effectively.
Today, we are beginning to see the death of irregular verb forms. For
instance, "dove" is seldom used by the news media in the US any more. Rather,
"dived" is almost universally preferred (at least, it's been a long time since
I've seen "dove" in print).
So, I would be surprised to find that someone could correctly discern the
English rules of pluralization for "literary" English, unless this process
continues for, say, another 50-100 years with the result that we settle on a
coherent set of rules for verb forms.
BThompson
>This is getting off-topic, but what the heck....
Bounces off-topic for a moment as well...
>
>I think English is a poor example of how languages form rules for
>pluralization. The example with "oxen", for instance, points to the only
>known verb form to survive from, I believe, the Kentish dialect.
I don't know about the verb form, but _ox_ is from the Old English _oxa_
and, as you point out, is the only English word to retain the weak plural
_-en_ (_-an_ in OE).
>
>"formulae" is the Latin pluralization borrowed by English,
To expand on this a bit, the Latin word _formula_ (diminutive of
Latin _forma_, form) was borrowed directly into English and I assume that
its plural form came with it. _Formulas_ is the Anglicization of the
plural form of _formula_.
>whereas "formulas"
>is the *correct* plural form
Are you saying that _formulas_ is the *correct* English plural because it
is the Anglicized plural? I think you are being a bit stringent in your
use of *correct* here, given that both plural forms are listed as
acceptable in just about every (if not every) dictionary that you check.
I agree that the -s form is listed first in dictionary entries and, as
such, is the _preferred_ form, but that does not mean that the -e form is
*incorrect*.
>(which nonetheless is rejected by obfuscatory
>principles derived from an academic appreciation of Latin that is no longer
>well-distributed).
I'm not sure which "obfuscatory principles" you are referring to, but I
agree that _formulae_ appears more in an academic environment than in
general speech. For example, _formulae_ is still pretty commonly used in
statistical texts, and by statisticians themselves, and _may_ be fairly
common in related fields as well.
<snip>
..now back on topic (I think :-)):
I think Mr. Tadfor Little was using an example from English as a rough
analogy for Tolkien's languages in hopes of clarifying the recent
linguistic debate over word formation in general (and not just forming
plurals). I followed suit with another _rough_ analogy to forming
plurals because I _thought_ that the possibility of 2 correct word forms
(i.e., an older and a newer form) was not addressed in Mr. Tadfor
Little's post. Perhaps I misinterpreted part of Mr. Hostetter's
argument, but I thought that he pointed out that we don't know if an
older word form was rejected by JRRT unless he specifically stated so;
hence, dismissing an older form simply because it is an older form may or
may not be correct.
Regards,
Bill
Jan Six
> This is getting off-topic, but what the heck....
Tolkien was a linguist and would enjoy this discussion, and probably
contribute many comments more useful than mine, but what the heck :-)
> BThompson <will...@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
> > However, is there always just 1 acceptable plural form for a
> > given word?
The short answer to this is no. Very few languages _always_ use the
same system for pluralization. A considerable number of languages
use several systems, sometimes for the same word. To take the example
of Germanic languages, to which English belongs, I know of at least
three [there may be more]: a plural in -s (the default in modern
English, e.g. dogs), a plural in -n (oxen, children, brethren) and
what is technically an i-mutation plural, characterized by vowel
changes (men, women, feet, mice). Other Germanic languages
standardized on other plural types. Dutch mainly uses the plural in
-n (e.g. "boeken" books), though there are some forms in -s ("tafels"
tables). German also uses -n ("frauen" women), but perhaps as much as
half of all German plurals use i-mutation ("brueder" brothers,
singular "bruder").
> I think English is a poor example of how languages form rules for
> pluralization. The example with "oxen", for instance, points to the only
> known verb form to survive from, I believe, the Kentish dialect.
Verb? You mean noun, presumably. And I didn't know young humans were
called "childs" in modern English these days ;-) Perhaps it would be
more correct to say that the Kentish dialect standardized on the -n
plural.
> "formulae" is the Latin pluralization borrowed by English, whereas
> "formulas" is the *correct* plural form
No, the anglicized plural form. They are both acceptable - this is a
perfectly good example of a word with two acceptable plural forms.
Brothers/brethren is another. Often the use of different plurals
reveals subtle differences in meaning, as with sequels and sequelae
(though admittedly certain modern fantasy works - don't make me say
Br**ks, *dd*ngs, or McK**rn*n - feel more like the latter ;->)
> Today, we are beginning to see the death of irregular verb forms.
You mean i-mutation verb forms. Historically they're quite regular.
And the involvement of i-mutation has apparently misled you: IIRC
the discussion was about (noun) plurals, not conjugation.
> So, I would be surprised to find that someone could correctly
> discern the English rules of pluralization for "literary" English,
For the very good reason that historically there were several
different rules, all of which were at least historically valid.
Which I believe was the original poster's point.
Michael Martinez
BThompson <will...@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
>mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>
>>This is getting off-topic, but what the heck....
>
>
>>
>>pluralization. The example with "oxen", for instance, points to the only
>>known verb form to survive from, I believe, the Kentish dialect.
>
>and, as you point out, is the only English word to retain the weak plural
>_-en_ (_-an_ in OE).
Oops.
Sorry about that. I'm sure I had "verb" on the brain. Anyway, "oxen" is the
only known NOUN plural form to survive from the dialect in question.
This is precisely why I seldom get into linguistic discussions <g>.
>>"formulae" is the Latin pluralization borrowed by English,
>
>To expand on this a bit, the Latin word _formula_ (diminutive of
>Latin _forma_, form) was borrowed directly into English and I assume that
>its plural form came with it. _Formulas_ is the Anglicization of the
>plural form of _formula_.
>
>>whereas "formulas"
>>is the *correct* plural form
>
>Are you saying that _formulas_ is the *correct* English plural because it
>is the Anglicized plural?
Yes, but the emphasis on "correct" was meant to imply that it's only a
rule-induced correctness, not the CORRECT plural form.
Look: I dug the pit, I jumped in. Just toss the dirt in on top of me, okay?
Ethan A Merritt
Michael Martinez <mma...@basis.com> wrote:
>In article <4i45gp$i...@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>,
> BThompson <will...@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
>>mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>>
>>>This is getting off-topic, but what the heck....
>>
>>Bounces off-topic for a moment as well...
>>
>>>
>>>I think English is a poor example of how languages form rules for
>>>pluralization. The example with "oxen", for instance, points to the only
>>>known verb form to survive from, I believe, the Kentish dialect.
>>
>>I don't know about the verb form, but _ox_ is from the Old English _oxa_
>>and, as you point out, is the only English word to retain the weak plural
>>_-en_ (_-an_ in OE).
Umm, just off the top of my head there's also brother/"brethren" which
is still in current use, at least on this side of the Atlantic.
And, of course, child/"children".
I don't know enough to say whether man/men is another example of the same.
The form is well enough known that at least as a common joke the
plural of Vax is "Vaxen" among computer-science types.
just randomly strewing in comments,
and claiming no linguistic insight into the matter,
Ethan A Merritt
mer...@u.washington.edu
feel free
Michael Martinez
>> I think English is a poor example of how languages form rules for
>> pluralization. The example with "oxen", for instance, points to the only
>> known verb form to survive from, I believe, the Kentish dialect.
>
>called "childs" in modern English these days ;-) Perhaps it would be
>more correct to say that the Kentish dialect standardized on the -n
>plural.
Yes, I meant noun. "Verb" jumped out at me and threatened me with bodily harm
if I didn't use it.
"You are SO arrogant and egotistical, Michael!" it said.
"You MUST use me to look stupid, or I'll break every mortal bone in your
body!"
Of course, it only occurred to me later that I *have* no mortal bones in my
body, but by then the damage was done. :)
BTW -- the plurals "brethren" and "children" are not formed by the same rule
that forms "oxen".
>> "formulae" is the Latin pluralization borrowed by English, whereas
>> "formulas" is the *correct* plural form
>
>No, the anglicized plural form.
Yes, they are both acceptable, but there is no English rule for forming
plurals like "formulae". In English, the "correct" plural form is "formulas".
i.e., it is correct to say either because in one case the plural form is
borrowed and in the other the plural form is constructed according to English
rules.
I really should have stayed out of this one. No amount of spin control will
keep me from looking erroneous here.
>> Today, we are beginning to see the death of irregular verb forms.
>
>You mean i-mutation verb forms. Historically they're quite regular.
>And the involvement of i-mutation has apparently misled you: IIRC
>the discussion was about (noun) plurals, not conjugation.
It was, and I still sit corrected here, immortal bones and all.
Michael Martinez
mer...@u.washington.edu (Ethan A Merritt) wrote:
[snip]
>I don't know enough to say whether man/men is another example of the same.
>The form is well enough known that at least as a common joke the
>plural of Vax is "Vaxen" among computer-science types.
"unixen" is also sometimes used. But these are modern plural constructions
(of NOUNS) that don't derive from the Jutish dialect (which, since no one
corrected me on that, I guess is the correct one that used these forms).
Harold Ensle
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.tolkien
References: <4gkr2d$52...@lamar.ColoState.EDU> <4h0tib$d...@news.asu.edu> <4h447m$7...@odin.diku.dk> <4h79ud$3s...@lamar.ColoState.EDU> <Carl.F.Hostetter....@macdavis.gsfc.nasa.gov> <4hkcgi$3p...@lamar.ColoState.EDU> <Carl.F.Hostetter.1-06039613
<4hl4h2$3r...@lamar.ColoState.EDU> <Carl.F.Hostetter....@macdavis.gsfc.nasa.gov> <4i4djt$35...@lamar.ColoState.EDU> <Carl.F.Hostetter....@macdavis.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Distribution:
Carl F. Hostetter (Carl.F.Ho...@gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: down money for these things should know this fact, just as they should be
: aware that there are no page references,
Note the methods Mr. Hostetter uses in his argument. He implies by this
statement that the buyer is unaware of this fact, thus implying that it
has been withheld by me as some sort of deception. But a sample of the
dictionary is given in the advertisement which clearly discloses this fact.
He is ingenious here, in that, without actually lying, he still manages to
misrepresent the relevant facts. (Notwithstanding, I consider it unethical.)
: and that the grammar (judging by
: what Mr. Ensle has said here) makes sweeping, unsupportable, and, at least
: occasionally, demonstrably false declarations.
This is Lie #1. All statements previously made in this discussion by me
concerning grammar had support from the references, which I cited.
('sweeping' in this context is irrelevant, just verbiage)
: material) or as a reliable guide to Tolkien's linguistic inventions (large
: gaps, erroneous grammatical statements). They appear simply to be a couple
This is Lie #2. The use of the plural 'gaps' indicates more than one.
There is only one gap, concerning the pre-etymology material, which was
excluded for good reason (with the intent of providing the reader with a
faithful rendering of the language most closely akin to form which
appears in the "Lord of the Rings").
Note the use of Lie #1 again.
Carl F. Hostetter (Carl.F.Ho...@gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: In article <4i4bka$52...@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, hen...@lamar.ColoState.EDU
: (Harold Ensle) wrote:
: > In my add and in the preface of my book, the sources are clearly stated.
: One of which is _The Book of Lost Tales_; from which, however (and
: contrary to my and I'm sure many others' interpretation of your citation
: of this work as a source, and of the meaning of "comprehensive"), you
: apparently included very few forms.
: > The point that pre-etymology forms are rarely included is also stated in
: > the preface.
: Which of course one cannot read until one has purchased the book. The fact
: that your are forthright about this in the preface to your book does not
: overturn the disingenuousness of your ad in its description of your work
: as "comprehensive" and as including _BoLT_ as a source.
This is Lie #3. Here follows an excerpt from my advertisement (the references
mentioned by Mr. Hostetter).
List of references utilized:
The Hobbit (not much, some names)
The Lord of the Rings I,II,III (map,names,translated
phrases,appendices(especially writing and calendar))
The Silmarillion (names,map,translated phrases,elements in names)
Unfinished Tales (names,map,phrases)
The road Goes Ever On (detailed translations of the songs Namarie and
Elbereth,grammar)
The History of Middle Earth I,II,III,IV (not much, some carry over from
Gnomish that did not appear in the Etymologies)
etc. (see later for complete repeat of original ad)
One will note that along with each reference, there is a short comment
relating to the nature of the sources. My advertisement clearly discloses
the quantity of material utilized from "The Lost Tales".
He has fabricated what my advertisement stated and used this false
statement as 'evidence' to insinuate that I have been dishonest in the
advertisement. I think I could fairly classify this as a '(subtle?)
insult upon my character'.
: > The book is not
: > designed as a research tool, thus no page references. The book was
: > designed for the common man amoung Elvish lovers who might simply wish to
: > make a translation of some sort.
: And so long as it is understood that this is all this book delivers, then
: I have no qualms about it. I have no use for it personally, but I see no
: reason why others should not buy it
This statement by Mr. Hostetter is adequately correct.
:(aside from potential copyright problems, but that's another issue)
He occasionly brings up this non-issue in an additional attempt to
persuade people not to buy my book. (Which I suspect to be his true
motive despite all his altruistic claims. Why? Could it be because he is
afraid that people might actually like the book? (strange, huh))
:But your _ads_ do not describe such a work.
Lie #3 again.
: > All the words included in the
: > dictionary have a source, so a person using this list can be
: > confident that the translations represent (within tolerance) genuine
: > Elvish language.
: _Every_ word in the corpus is genuine: it came from Tolkien's pen. You
Again Mr. Hostetter missed the point. My statement is to the effect that
included entries are not themselves misrepresentations. It has nothing to
do with the pre-etymology argument.
R Shaw
>
> In article <4i464m$v...@luotsi.uku.fi>, Jan Six <Jan...@uku.fi> wrote:
> >> I think English is a poor example of how languages form rules for
> >> pluralization. The example with "oxen", for instance, points to the only
> >> known verb form to survive from, I believe, the Kentish dialect.
> >
> >Verb? You mean noun, presumably. And I didn't know young humans were
> >called "childs" in modern English these days ;-) Perhaps it would be
> >more correct to say that the Kentish dialect standardized on the -n
> >plural.
>
>
> that forms "oxen".
They are double plurals, brether and childer were the original
plurals. IIRC oxen wasn't the correct plural either.
--
They both savoured the strange warm glow of being
much more ignorant than ordinary people, who were
only ignorant of ordinary things.
Terry Pratchett, 'Equal Rites'
Michael Martinez
michel....@onwe.co.za (MICHEL CLASQUIN) wrote:
>MM>>From: mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez)
>
>MM>I think English is a poor example of how languages form rules for
>MM>pluralization. The example with "oxen", for instance, points to the only
>MM>known verb form to survive from, I believe, the Kentish dialect.
>
>Funny, I always though "ox" was a noun <G>. Or is this a form of
>brooklynese: Hey, canni ox youse a quisjon?"
It's really a verb in "Dimwittian", which I occasionally speak on quite fluent
occasions. (and no, I'm not repeating myself, no, not at all -- this is how
one concurs in Dimwittian)
Carl F. Hostetter
(Harold Ensle) wrote:
> Carl F. Hostetter (Carl.F.Ho...@gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>
> : down money for these things should know this fact, just as they should be
> : aware that there are no page references,
>
> Note the methods Mr. Hostetter uses in his argument. He implies by this
> statement that the buyer is unaware of this fact, thus implying that it
> has been withheld by me as some sort of deception. But a sample of the
> dictionary is given in the advertisement which clearly discloses this fact.
> He is ingenious here, in that, without actually lying, he still manages to
> misrepresent the relevant facts. (Notwithstanding, I consider it unethical.)
Actually, until very recently, Mr. Ensle had not previously stated, nor
either confirmed or denied my oft-repeated statement, that his
dictionaries have no page references (_I_ came to know this to be a fact
because an acquaintance who bought his work told me so). His "sample" from
the dictionaries, though leading one to _suspect_ that his dictionaries
have no page references, did not _demonstrate_ this fact, since he did not
say how he extracted this sample from his work; for all we knew, he might
simply not have bothered to type page references when quoting from his
work. Only recently has Mr. Ensle _stated_ otherwise. Again, this is an
important fact that was not made _clear_ until I probed the issue.
> : and that the grammar (judging by
> : what Mr. Ensle has said here) makes sweeping, unsupportable, and, at least
> : occasionally, demonstrably false declarations.
>
> This is Lie #1. All statements previously made in this discussion by me
> concerning grammar had support from the references, which I cited.
> ('sweeping' in this context is irrelevant, just verbiage)
Oh so? What "support from the references" does Mr. Ensle have for the
quite sweeping, unqualified statement he made that "the genitive precedes
the noun it modifies", which in fact is not true in many, many examples
from the corpus? E.g. _lumenn' omentielvo_ 'on the hour of our meeting'
(I:90), _Indis i.Kiryamo_ 'The Mariner's Wife' (UT:8), _Namna Finwe
Miiriello_ 'the Statute of Finwe and Miiriel' (MR:258), _Quenta
Silmarillion_ 'The History of the Silmarils' (S:33), _Yeenie Valinooreo_
'The Annals of Valinor' (MR:200), _Hiini Iluuvataro_ 'Children of
Iluuvatar' (S:322), _Oienkarme Eruo_ 'the One's perpetual production'
(MR:329), , _Heren Istarion_ 'Order of Wizards' (UT:388), _Tar-Ellion_
'Queen of the Stars' (LR:200), and _asea aranion_ 'kingsfoil' (III:141)
What about Mr. Ensle's unsupported claim that the titles "_Parma
Eldalamberon_" and "_Vinyar Tenwgar_" were demonstrably _ungrammatical_, a
claim he asserted could be proven based on the grammatical information in
his dictionaries, but which he has since admitted is not true?
> : material) or as a reliable guide to Tolkien's linguistic inventions (large
> : gaps, erroneous grammatical statements). They appear simply to be a couple
>
> This is Lie #2. The use of the plural 'gaps' indicates more than one.
> There is only one gap, concerning the pre-etymology material, which was
> excluded for good reason (with the intent of providing the reader with a
> faithful rendering of the language most closely akin to form which
> appears in the "Lord of the Rings").
> Note the use of Lie #1 again.
There are indeed gap_s_ in Mr. Ensle's supposedly "comprehensive"
dictionary, which omit _at least_: 1) the huge gap of the "pre-etymology"
Qenya material (which in the vast majority of cases _no one_ is in a
position to judge as alien to the "form which appears in the 'Lord of the
Ring'"); 2) the primary material published in the journal _Vinyar
Tengwar_, which Mr. Ensle did not consult; and apparently omit: 3) the
material (some of it _very_ late) in the book _Monsters and the Critics_
(to judge by Mr. Ensle's list of references below; correct me if the list
is incomplete); 4) the information in Tolkien's essay "Guide to Name in
_The Lord of the Rings_", published in _A Tolkien Compass_ (again, not
listed among Mr. Enlse's references below; correct me if the list is
incomplete).
> : > The point that pre-etymology forms are rarely included is also stated in
> : > the preface.
>
> : Which of course one cannot read until one has purchased the book. The fact
> : that your are forthright about this in the preface to your book does not
> : overturn the disingenuousness of your ad in its description of your work
> : as "comprehensive" and as including _BoLT_ as a source.
>
> This is Lie #3. Here follows an excerpt from my advertisement (the references
> mentioned by Mr. Hostetter).
>
> List of references utilized:
> The Hobbit (not much, some names)
> The Lord of the Rings I,II,III (map,names,translated
> phrases,appendices(especially writing and calendar))
> The Silmarillion (names,map,translated phrases,elements in names)
> Unfinished Tales (names,map,phrases)
> The road Goes Ever On (detailed translations of the songs Namarie and
> Elbereth,grammar)
> The History of Middle Earth I,II,III,IV (not much, some carry over from
> Gnomish that did not appear in the Etymologies)
Hm; OK, I'll admit that I did not recall that Mr. Enlse says his
dictionaries include "not much" from HoMe I - IV. Of course, I find the
phrase "not much" to be a less than vivid acknowledgement of Mr. Enlse's
methods and scope of exclusion of material from his supposedly
"comprehensive" work. But Mr. Ensle is correct: he makes a nod in this
direction, and I overlooked this fact.
> etc. (see later for complete repeat of original ad)
Now here is a _real_ "lie": this list of references was _not_ included in
Mr. Ensle's _original_ ad, but was added only _after_ I had challenged him
on his sources.
> One will note that along with each reference, there is a short comment
> relating to the nature of the sources. My advertisement clearly discloses
> the quantity of material utilized from "The Lost Tales".
> He has fabricated what my advertisement stated and used this false
> statement as 'evidence' to insinuate that I have been dishonest in the
> advertisement. I think I could fairly classify this as a '(subtle?)
> insult upon my character'.
Pish tosh. It is Mr. Ensle who invites questioning of his methods,
motives, and character by: 1) declaring his works to be "comrehensive"
while (as became clear only after further examination of the issue by me)
nonetheless actually excluding large portions of the corpus for entirely
arbitrary reasons; 2) claiming that his work is "authoritative" (as if
there were any authority possible other than the corpus itself) and
"written by those who are experienced in linguistics and decryption" (to
whom besides Mr. Ensle does the plural pronoun "those" refer?) while
painting other scholars as know-nothing boobs ("TRUST NO OTHERS"; falsely
claiming to be able to demonstrate that the titles "_Vinyar Tengwar_" and
"_Parma Eldalamberon_" are ungrammatical); 3) failing to seek the
permission or even acknowledgement of the Tolkien Estate to publish his
work; 4) diverting attention from the real issues and fishing for sympathy
by claiming that disagreement with his unsupported assertions and
discussion of the slowly-evolving accuracy of his representation of his
works is an "insult".
> : And so long as it is understood that this is all this book delivers, then
> : I have no qualms about it. I have no use for it personally, but I see no
> : reason why others should not buy it
>
> This statement by Mr. Hostetter is adequately correct.
>
> :(aside from potential copyright problems, but that's another issue)
>
> He occasionly brings up this non-issue
Oh? Why is it a "non-issue"? Simply because _you_ have decided that
copyright is not an issue? Others may quite reasonably suspect otherwise;
therefore, it is not a "non-issue", it is an _unsettled_ issue.
> in an additional attempt to
> persuade people not to buy my book. (Which I suspect to be his true
> motive despite all his altruistic claims. Why? Could it be because he is
> afraid that people might actually like the book? (strange, huh))
Right after I state that "I see no reason why others should not buy" Mr.
Enlse's works (which statement Mr. Enlse affirms), he immediately claims
that my motive is to persuade people not to buy his works. Amazing.
Anyone who wants to know what my true motives are should simply look at
Mr. Ensle's original advertisement and see how much it has evolved towards
an _accurate_ and _honest_ representation of the nature and scope of his
work, thanks to _my_ having taken the time and effort to question Mr.
Enlse; and further, read my defenses against Mr. Ensle's erroneous claims
about Quenya grammar, and of the validity and worthiness of study of the
_entire_ Quenya (indeed, Tolkienian) corpus, rather than just those parts
that Mr. Enlse has arbitrarily selected for his "comprehensive"
dictionaries.
> : > All the words included in the
> : > dictionary have a source, so a person using this list can be
> : > confident that the translations represent (within tolerance) genuine
> : > Elvish language.
Oh so? I am told that Mr. Ensle provides a "supposedly Quenya gloss for
'pipe-weed': _Nicotiana_". Would Mr. Ensle care to explain why I should
not feel somewhat less than confident in his work when he lists a Latin
form as a Quenya word? And this from "those who are experienced in
linguistics and decryption"!
|===================================================================|
| Carl F. Hostetter Aelf...@erols.com |
| |
Harold Ensle
My first advertisement contained virtually nothing about the specific
contents of the books. I received e-mail (not from Mr. Hostetter) that
simply stated 'why should somebody invest money in something sight
unseen?'. I realized then that I should try and give some type of more
specific description of the books. By the third posting, the description
(references, sample list) was added. The decision to do this was unrelated
to the discussion with Mr. Hostetter which then was just beginning.
After the third posting I received e-mail from a person who noticed that
there were no page references. (Apparently, they were able to extract this
information from the advertisement.) At this point, it was not an issue
for me, since it appeared that things were understood. Only recently has
Mr. Hostetter made this an issue, pretending that the advertisement could
not be understood and also pretending that he was somehow instrumental in
the motivation for its final form.
>Oh so? What "support from the references" does Mr. Ensle have.... "the
genitive precedes the noun it modifies"
I will repeat the reference I originally cited, which I assume he forgot.
On the issue of word order, I quote: "The word-order and style of the
chant [referring to Namaarie] is 'poetic', and it makes concessions to
metre. In a clearer and more normal style the words would be arranged as
below" (The Road Goes Ever On, p58). In the poem we find 'raamar aldaron'
(wings of trees) and 'below' we find 'aldaron raamar'. The implications
are obvious. The more normal (=standard) style is when the genitive precedes
the noun it modifies. This is essentially a direct statement from J.R.R
Tolkien concerning standard word-order, which presumably should supersede
generalizations derived from example (being the second recourse).
Now here is something I don't understand. Mr. Hostetter claims that one
of my major gaps is not utilizing the references in "A Tolkien Compass".
I was surprised by this, since I did look through the book, so I looked
again, just to be sure. I found virtually nothing about Quenya or Sindarin,
and what was there was already covered by other references. How is this
a gap? Mr. Hostetter has studied this subject. He must certainly know that
this is the case, so why make this claim? (or how can he make this claim in
good conscience?)
>excluding large portions of the corpus for entirely arbitrary reasons;
The reasons are not arbitrary! Apparently, they appear 'arbitrary' to
Mr. Hostetter because he doesn't understand the argument.
>"authoritative"
This word was dropped as of the second (or third) posting due to many
complaints. (Maybe Mr. Hostetter didn't notice this.)
Here follows a very deceptive argument by Mr. Hostetter. When he wrote "I
see no reason why others should not buy" I cited him out of context
(particularly because it was so anomalous). He went on to conclude that,
no, in fact, it would be useless for anyone to buy the books. I then stated
this general stance without specific reference. Mr. Hostetter used this to
make it appear that I was being inconsistent. The truth, however, is that it
was his own inconsistency that he was referring to. Truly amazing.
My 'insult' speculations pale in comparison to converting "trust no
others" into "other scholars are know-nothing boobs". "trust no others"
is sales talk for "mine is the best". What am I supposed to say in an
advertisement? I have a crappy dictionary, please buy it?
>Nicotiana
I knew that I was not perfect. I knew that as soon as my books were
out, a mistake would be found. I also knew that Mr. Hostetter would use
it to try and discredit me (all which has now come to pass). But, what I
didn't know was how bad the mistake would be! Mr. Hostetter is correct in
that this is not Quenya. I guess it is then accurate (and scientific) to
generalize from this one mistake that there is nothing of value in the
rest of the book.
>And this from "those who are experienced in linguistics..."
I do not know Latin. There are over 3000 languages in the world.
Knowledge of which ones (and how many) is required in order to meet Mr.
Hostetter's universal standards for linguists?
Anyone who wants to know what Mr. Hostetter's true motives are need
only consider this: Even now, he has not taken the time or effort to
seriously review the books (he has not yet seen them) which he could now
borrow from his friends (who have purchased them), if for no other reason
than to satisfy himself that indeed they are as pathetic as he conjectures.
What I claim, even including the above error, is that my books are still
the best that can be obtained at this time, utilized for basic reference of
the Elvish languages most akin to their forms as appearing in "The Lord
of the Rings".
Carl F. Hostetter
(Harold Ensle) wrote:
> After the third posting I received e-mail from a person who noticed that
> there were no page references. (Apparently, they were able to extract this
> information from the advertisement.) At this point, it was not an issue
> for me, since it appeared that things were understood.
Clearly, the extract from the dictionaries that Mr. Ensle posted had no
page references. As I said before, this strongly implied, but did not
_demonstrate_, that his dictionaries likewise had no page references,
since Mr. Enlse _may_ have simply neglected to type them in quoting from
his works; which is why I repeatedly wrote that it _appeared_ that the
dictionaries have no page references, until this was confirmed (by another
party, not by Mr. Ensle, who remained silent on the matter).
> Only recently has Mr. Hostetter made this an issue, pretending that the
> advertisement could not be understood
I "pretended" no such thing. My reasoning was, and is, just as I have
stated above. Where is the "pretense" in any of this?
> and also pretending that he was somehow instrumental in the motivation
for its
> final form.
Again, I "pretended" no such thing. I never claimed I was solely
responsible for the change in Mr. Ensle's statements and advertisements,
only that these changes were not made until I had raised the various
issues. It is disingenuous of Mr. Ensle to imply that my questions and
comments regarding his work have been of little or no consequence in his
continuing reformation of his advertisements.
> >Oh so? What "support from the references" does Mr. Ensle have.... "the
> genitive precedes the noun it modifies"
>
> I will repeat the reference I originally cited, which I assume he forgot.
<Well-known and remembered, but irrelevant, reference to _The Road Goes
Ever On_ omitted>
Mr. Ensle has not addressed my point. He claimed that: "All statements
previously made in this discussion by [Mr. Ensle] concerning grammar had
support from the references, which [he] cited." His "statement" behind
this particular point of the debate was that "the genitive precedes the
noun it modifies"; this without any qualification, and designed to "prove"
that the title "_Parma Eldalamberon_" was ungrammatical (i.e. that it
should be "_Eldalamberon Parma_"). Mr. Ensle's cherished quote from _RGEO_
has no bearing on the word order in titles of this form, as is well
demonstrated by the host of early and late titles in the Quenya corpus
that have the opposite word order (most of which I listed in my previous
post). Mr. Ensle knows this, and has admitted as much earlier in this
thread. Hence, his bald and thereby erroneous statement about word order
in Quenya in fact has _no_ "support" from this reference, which it is as
irrelevant to cite here again as "support" as it was each time he did so
previously, both before and after he admitted that he was _wrong_ about
the grammaticality of the word order of "_Parma Eldalamberon_".
> Now here is something I don't understand. Mr. Hostetter claims that one
> of my major gaps is not utilizing the references in "A Tolkien Compass".
Where did I claim that this was a "major" gap? I would invite Mr. Ensle to
stick to what I actually wrote instead of fabricating things for me to
have said.
> I was surprised by this, since I did look through the book, so I looked
> again, just to be sure. I found virtually nothing about Quenya or Sindarin,
> and what was there was already covered by other references. How is this
> a gap?
Mr. Ensle, "virtually nothing" is nevertheless something. The lack of just
_one word_ forms a gap; not very big, of course, and perhaps of no
significance, but a gap nonetheless. There is more than one word of
significance in Tolkien's "Guide to Names in _The Lord of the Rings_";
there are many words and grammatical statements of significance in
_Monsters and the Critics_; there are many words and grammatical
statements of significance in _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_ (also not
listed among Mr. Ensle's sources); and there are a huge number of words of
great significance in the appendices to _The Book of Lost Tales_. All of
this _does_ add up to significant gap_s_ in this supposedly
"comprehensive" work.
> Mr. Hostetter has studied this subject. He must certainly know that
> this is the case, so why make this claim? (or how can he make this claim in
> good conscience?)
My conscience is perfectly clear. After all, I offer support for my
claims, and simply admit when I am wrong about something. Furthermore, I'm
discussing matters of fact, not diverting attention by calling others
liars, misrepresenting the statements of others by putting words in their
mouth, inventing motives for others, or fishing for sympathy. Nor do I
attempt to reduce another's argument to a straw man by selecting the least
offensive item (Mr. Ensle's lack of the use of "Guide to Names" as a
source) from a longer list of such items (_BoLT_, _MC_) and act shocked
that one would even bother to mention it, as if that were the _only_ thing
that had been mentioned. And, I am not the one attempting to make money
off a work that _may_ be a violation of copyright (or may not; the issue
is unsettled) by claiming that my slender work that excludes large
portion_s_ of the corpus is in fact "comprehensive" and "well researched",
while at the same time implying that all other (unnamed) works are neither
("TRUST NO OTHERS") and touting my work as "written by those who are
experienced in linguistics and decryption" despite the fact that to all
appearances the work was written by only one man, the advertiser, who
cannot even reliably distinguish Quenya from Latin.
> Here follows a very deceptive argument by Mr. Hostetter. When he wrote "I
> see no reason why others should not buy" I cited him out of context
> (particularly because it was so anomalous). He went on to conclude that,
> no, in fact, it would be useless for anyone to buy the books.
I did no such thing. Here precedes a "very deceptive" _non-argument_ by
Mr. Ensle, in which he follows his oft-repeated practice of inventing
things for others to have said. This is what I wrote, in full context:
"And so long as it is understood that this is all this book delivers, then
I have no qualms about it. I have no use for it personally, but I see no
reason why others should not buy it (aside from potential copyright
problems, but that's another issue) if they judge that such a work has
some value for them. But your _ads_ do not describe such a work."
Note that I say only that _I_ "_personally_" have no use for Mr. Ensle's
work. I _in fact_ (and, as is becoming far too often the case, in
_contradiction_ to Mr. Ensle's claim) go on to say that I see _no_ reason
that _others_ should not buy it _so long as they understand that the work
is _not_ "comprehensive", counter to repeated claims in Mr. Ensle's
advertisements, and that it in fact has no page references and therefore
is of little or no use as a reference tool (as Mr. Ensle himself has
allowed).
> "trust no others" is sales talk for "mine is the best". What am I supposed to
> say in an advertisement? I have a crappy dictionary, please buy it?
An advertisement should be truthful. If the truth is that you have a
crappy dictionary, and yet you still hope that others will pay you money
for it, then yes, you should indeed say exactly that.
> >Nicotiana
>
> Mr. Hostetter is correct in that this is not Quenya. I guess it is then
> accurate (and scientific) to generalize from this one mistake that there is
> nothing of value in the rest of the book.
No, it would not be, nor did I or (to my knowledge) anyone else make such
a ridiculous generalization. (Stop building straw men, Mr. Ensle, and stop
fishing for sympathy. You were wrong, and you admitted it: that was right
and admirable, and it _ought_ to have been left there, as sufficient.)
However, your ads depict your works as both scholarly ("well researched
..., written by those who are experienced in linguistics and decryption")
and practicing a cautious reserve, at least in the construction of its
grammar ("only as complete as can be reliably inferred"). Such claims make
it all the more surprising that you _assumed_ that the word _Nicotiana_
was Quenya, when Tolkien never labelled it as such, and without bothering
to consider alternatives.
> >And this from "those who are experienced in linguistics..."
>
> I do not know Latin. There are over 3000 languages in the world.
> Knowledge of which ones (and how many) is required in order to meet Mr.
> Hostetter's universal standards for linguists?
Another straw man, Mr. Ensle. No one has claimed that one is _required_ to
know more than _one_ language to be a linguist (one must presumably know
at least one language by which to communicate with others as scholars).
However, the bald similarity of _Nicotiana_ to English _nicotine_ really
ought to have been a sufficient clue, whether you know Latin or not.
> Anyone who wants to know what Mr. Hostetter's true motives are need
> only consider this: Even now, he has not taken the time or effort to
> seriously review the books (he has not yet seen them)
If what you have said in this thread is true, I do not need to see the
books to know that they have no value for me. And I have taken far more
time and effort to review your works _most seriously_ in the course of
this debate than they warrant. (Unlike you, I'm neither trolling for nor
receiving money by carrying on this debate.) I have done so only because
it has helped others to more accurately know what you are asking them to
pay you for, and because the process of refuting your claims about Quenya
grammar have taught me a few things about points of Quenya syntax that I
had never before had occasion to study in such detail (for which I am
grateful).
> which he could now
> borrow from his friends (who have purchased them), if for no other reason
> than to satisfy himself that indeed they are as pathetic as he conjectures.
Of the people that I know who have bought and/or examined Mr. Ensle's
dictionaries, those that have had the time to compare my words against the
books and share their opinions with me have said that my assessment of
their value as reference tools (none) is correct. E.g., one called them
"Tiny things, slight, not worth the money".
> What I claim, even including the above error, is that my books are still
> the best that can be obtained at this time, utilized for basic reference of
> the Elvish languages most akin to their forms as appearing in "The Lord
> of the Rings".
This may be what you claim here, and (with the understanding that I see no
utility of reference in these works at all, since they lack page
references) this may even be accurate; but your _ads_ claim something
quite different.
A few other nagging questions:
In deciding that your dictionaries are "the best that can be obtained at
this time", did you compare them against those of Paul Nolan Hyde? Also,
how do you know that "Publishers are unwilling to accept books on the
subject since they do not believe that the market is large enough to cover
their investment"? Did you actually approach any publishers with your
project?
Carl F. Hostetter
dictionaries:
I am told that Mr. Ensle's Quenya dictionary lists a form _rohto_,
supposedly meaning 'horse'. Now, neither I nor my colleagues with whom I
spoke can recall any such word in the corpus. I must admit that merely
because I don't remember a form does not mean that it does not exist.
However, because Mr. Ensle has not included any page references in his
work, the only way one can confirm or deny this form's existence (save via
direct appeal to the author, assuming that even _he_ can remember where he
found this form, if it is in fact genuine) is to rifle through the entire
corpus.
So, Mr. Ensle: is _rohto_ 'horse' in fact a genuine Quenya form, and if
so, where does it occur?
Ninni M. Pettersson
In message ID <4is31b$1v...@lamar.ColoState.EDU> on 96-03-21, Harold Ensle
wrote:
> >Nicotiana
>
> I knew that I was not perfect. I knew that as soon as my books were
> out, a mistake would be found. I also knew that Mr. Hostetter would use
> it to try and discredit me (all which has now come to pass). But, what I
> didn't know was how bad the mistake would be! Mr. Hostetter is correct in
> that this is not Quenya. I guess it is then accurate (and scientific) to
> generalize from this one mistake that there is nothing of value in the
> rest of the book.
Well Mr Ensle,
how do you explain this "mistake" then, just a small error or an indication
of the standard of your work:
From the thread "The Term Nuzgul":
Harold Ensle (hen...@lamar.ColoState.EDU) wrote:
: 'Nazgul' is the plural of the black speech 'nazg'=ring, Thus it simply
: means 'rings' (referring to the black riders themselves)
> I do not know Latin. There are over 3000 languages in the world.
> Knowledge of which ones (and how many) is required in order to meet Mr.
> Hostetter's universal standards for linguists?
A knowledge of Latin isn't even required to spot that Nicotiana isn't Quenya,
but perhaps the word "nicotine" is unknown to you.
Vidumavi
Harold Ensle
: but perhaps the word "nicotine" is unknown to you.
This is an absurd comment. Yes, I noticed, and never liked this word
(nicotiana) because of it. Yes, it was a bad mistake, but your
own ignorance of the subject and of the circumstances makes it appear worse.
It was the habit of J.R.R. Tolkien to sometimes 'pun' the language,
having forms resemble English (e.g. atalanta 'down-fallen' = Atlantis;
eden 'begun again' =Eden; etc.) There was even a possible etymology
involved, considering the Qenya 'rianna'. This word (nicotiana) got into the
lists back in the 70's. If I had reviewed the original source of this
word in the last go-around (this year), it would have been removed.
I also have no doubt, after reading your comments, that in the same
enterprise, you would have fared far worse.
Carl F. Hostetter
about the quality of his "character".
Ms. Pettersson, I'm sorry Mr. Ensle saw fit to subject you to this
entirely uncalled-for (not to mention error-filled; for instance, Q
_Atalante_ is 'the Down-fallen', not *_atalanta_) diatribe; but it seems
you suspected you'd receive as much in answer. At least Mr. Enlse does not
fail to live down to expectations.
--
Ninni M. Pettersson
wrote:
> Ninni M. Pettersson (vidu...@online.idg.se) wrote:
> : but perhaps the word "nicotine" is unknown to you.
>
> This is an absurd comment. Yes, I noticed, and never liked this word
> (nicotiana) because of it.
Then why didn't you check it more thoroughly?
Yes, it was a bad mistake, but your
> own ignorance of the subject and of the circumstances makes it
> appear worse. It was the habit of J.R.R. Tolkien to sometimes 'pun'
> the language, having forms resemble English (e.g. atalanta
> 'down-fallen' = Atlantis; eden 'begun again' =Eden; etc.) There was
> even a possible etymology involved, considering the Qenya 'rianna'.
> This word (nicotiana) got into the lists back in the 70's. If I had
> reviewed the original source of this word in the last go-around
> (this year), it would have been removed.
Why didn't you? I would think that a careful checking of all sources would be
a prerequisite to writing this kind of book, but since I'm so ignorant of the
subject I'm probably wrong on this too.
> I also have no doubt, after reading your comments, that in the same
> enterprise, you would have fared far worse.
And what have *my* abilities or lack of them to do with the quality of *your*
book? But throwing slurs at his opponents abilities seems to be Mr Ensle's
favourite way of arguing (in addition to accusing them of wilfully
misunderstanding his arguments and having private and suspect reasons for
questioning the quality of his books, of course).
(I knew I would regret meddling in this discussion!)
Vidumavi
Harold Ensle
: _Atalante_ is 'the Down-fallen', not *_atalanta_) diatribe; but it seems
'atalanta' is the adjective 'down-fallen' (which, of course, I would not
expect Mr. Hostetter to know). Not that it would change the point of the
argument, but there you have it.
Harold Ensle
universally applicable (as I learned in our discussion), still has
support in the source I cited, which was clearly indicated by J.R.R.
Tolkien himself. (Perhaps Mr. Hostetter finds J.R.R. Tolkien's statements
irrelevant.) Mr. Hostetter implied that the statement had _no_ support
(as if I had invented it). This is simply untrue.
And please Mr. Hostetter, 'read' before responding.
>Mr. Ensle, "virtually nothing" is nevertheless something
(I continued:)>> and what was there was already covered by other references
This indicates 'no gap'
Why did I mention this one and not the others? Because I already knew
about it. If the other gaps are sufficient, why tack on one of no
consequence, other to falsely portray the number of gaps.
I will be checking into the other sources Mr. Hostetter has brought to my
attention (thank you). I honestly hope they are better than this one!
>Where did I claim that this was a "major" gap?
It is true that I added the word "major" to his article, but its
existence can certainly be inferred (if Mr. Hostetter is being
consistent) from his previous article of 3/12/96 "large gaps in the
material" . I assumed that he was following up on these "large (=major)
gaps".
(sigh... the things I have to explain!)
And please Mr. Hostetter, 'read' your own articles.
>This is what I wrote, in full context
>[a paragraph]
A single paragraph is hardly the full context. I quote:
"They are useless as research tools... or as a reliable guide to
Tolkien's linguistic inventions (referring to the books
that he has not seen)" This was written parallel (3/12/96) to the
paragraph Mr. Hostetter refers to (as I claimed). This _proves_ that my
"very deceptive"_non-argument_ was, in fact, true. Triply amazing.
Hmm... Mr. Hostetter is certainly milking 'Nicotiana' for everything its
worth (I expected no less).
>>>And this from "those who are experienced in linguistics..."
With this statement Mr. Hostetter creates the strawman. When I complain,
he accuses _me_ of creating the strawman (what deception!)
>(Unlike you, I'm neither trolling...)
Here's a new twist! This is definitely not true and there is certainly no
evidence to support such an accusation (though, obviously, this doesn't keep
Mr. Hostetter from claiming it anyway).
>"Tiny things, slight..."
I assume he's talking about the physical dimensions of the books. They
were made very small on purpose, so that they would be convenient for
people of less stature (like hobbits).
FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO BUY AN ELVISH DICTIONARY
(Things to watch out for)
My books (as stated) contain about 1,500 base vocabulary for each
language. Using this along with the word forming affixes (included)
actually covers a lot of territory. The books are very concise in this
way. This also represents the base vocabulary available from the sources
listed. There are some additional sources that I will look into, but I do
not expect the number to change much (+10-20 to be added in a later edition).
1,500 entries may not look impressive, but its honest. Some people try
and beef up the vocabulary using various ploys.
Some add proper nouns to the list (this can push it up to 9,000) Looks
great hey!, but the names all come from the same basic vocabulary.
Another ploy is to include inflected forms from the sources.
Another is to use the word forming affixes to expand the vocabulary,
which isn't terrible, but it makes the vocabulary list larger without
actually providing new information.
Another ploy is to include all the archaic forms from J.R.R.Tolkien's
previous creations. This is particularly damaging, since it misrepresents
the languages. It also results in contradictions and also ambiguous and
misleading etymologies. As an aside, it is interesting to note also that the
domain of communication is virtually unaffected by adding the archaic
forms. So, though it beefs up the vocabulary in appearance, it doesn't
expand the utility of the language. This adds to the argument (along with
the more direct references to the effect) that the later work was a
replacement as opposed to an addition. (Though in deference to Mr.
Hostetter, the borrowings in the case of Quenya were many and I can
understand how someone might be mislead by this fact.)
Some other things to watch out for:
One can make the work appear more scholarly by including page references
and making it, in general, like a concordance (of many volumes, of
course). If a person has to check every word in sources (that he probably
doesn't own), he won't progress in his translation very quickly!
The fact is, that this whole idea (that Mr. Hostetter has been harping
on) that a dictionary should be a research tool is a scam at best.
Researchers have direct access to the limited sources available and
should be able to extract the information they need without the help of
another's dictionary. So, it makes sense
that Mr. Hostetter (and certain others) don't really need my dictionary. I
certainly don't need theirs (nothing personal). It would not be practical
to produce a dictionary directed toward the 'needs' of researchers.
However, it also follows that for Mr. Hostetter to use this research
argument to devalue my work is simply wrong.
I definitely wouldn't recommend Mr. Hostetter's word list, since it
includes the archaic forms, unless one is interested in J.R.R.Tolkien's
former inventions, in which case, I would not be opposed to someone
obtaining it. (This gives me an idea.) Since Mr. Hostetter isn't
"receiving money" he should mail his word list free of charge to anyone
that writes him. Yes, that should work.
Oh...
'rohto' is from 'rokko'. Why? I'll let Mr. Hostetter explain, since he's
the expert.
Harold Ensle
: And what have *my* abilities or lack of them to do with the quality of *your*
: book?
Absolutely nothing. I was merely expressing my opinion.
For weeks Mr. Hostetter and I have been arguing it out without anyone
else taking part. Then when Mr. Hostetter has me down with this issue of
'nicotiana' of which I confessed to, you finally decide to involve
yourself with arguments Mr. Hostetter already made. Honestly, what kind
of response does such deserve (if any)?
Harold Ensle
: about the quality of his "character".
Mr. Hostetter continues his attacks on my character. I though he said he
wasn't doing this?
Ninni M. Pettersson
You seem to have an answer for everything, so I'm *still* waiting for your
explanation of this:
From the thread "The Term Nuzgul":
Harold Ensle (hen...@lamar.ColoState.EDU) wrote:
: 'Nazgul' is the plural of the black speech 'nazg'=ring, Thus it simply
: means 'rings' (referring to the black riders themselves)
Vidumavi
Carl F. Hostetter
(Harold Ensle) wrote:
> FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO BUY AN ELVISH DICTIONARY
> (Things to watch out for)
<snip>
Well, this just leaves me breathless. Just whom is Mr. Ensle referring to
that has used such "ploys" in their word-lists? Would you care to name
names, Mr. Ensle?
And, I have _no_ word-lists of my own to share with anyone.
> Oh...
> 'rohto' is from 'rokko'. Why? I'll let Mr. Hostetter explain, since he's
> the expert.
And this just leaves me scratching my head. Does this form occur in the
corpus, Mr. Ensle (page citation, please), or does it not (as I claim)? Or
are you engaging in the "ploy" of padding out your dictionaries with forms
of your own invention?
I think it's time for us to just let Mr. Enlse stew in his own juices in
his Happy Place in Woo-Woo Land.
|===================================================================|
| Carl F. Hostetter Carl.F.Ho...@gsfc.nasa.gov |
| |
| NASA/GSFC, Code 522.3 Phone: (301) 286-5625 |
| Bldg. 23, rm. W351 Fax: (301) 286-1724 |
| Greenbelt, MD 20771 |
|===================================================================|
Carl F. Hostetter
(Harold Ensle) wrote:
> Carl F. Hostetter (Aelf...@erols.com) wrote:
> : _Atalante_ is 'the Down-fallen', not *_atalanta_) diatribe; but it seems
>
> 'atalanta' is the adjective 'down-fallen' (which, of course, I would not
> expect Mr. Hostetter to know).
Indeed, I cannot know such a thing, because it is a wholesale invention of
Mr. Enlse's imagination. The adjectival form occurs as _atalantea_
'ruinous, downfallen' (pl. _atalantie_; _Monsters and the Critics_,
p.223); there is nowhere in the corpus such a form as *_atalanta_.
Mr. Ensle, you are digging yourself an ever deeper hole.
Carl F. Hostetter
Mr. Ensle. My poor judgement was occasioned by illness and a fit of pique,
but is nonetheless inexcusable. I apologize profusely to Mr. Ensle and to
the readers of this newsgroup.
Mea maxima culpa,
Carl
Michael Martinez
Carl.F.Ho...@gsfc.nasa.gov (Carl F. Hostetter) wrote:
>
>And, I have _no_ word-lists of my own to share with anyone.
Well, I tried to reveal all the names of the Nazgul, but they wouldn't let
even ME get away with that....
You've probably made the right choice.
[Stingy, Wraith number 10]
Carl F. Hostetter
> There was even a possible etymology involved, considering the Qenya 'rianna'.
OK, I just have to ask Mr. Ensle: where does "rianna" occur in the corpus
(page citation, please), what does it mean, and what possible connection
could this word (initial _r-_, geminate _-nn-_) have with _Nicotiana_ (no
_r_, single _-n-_)?
(Are you perhaps thinking of Noldorin _Rhian_, which it is true is derived
from a primitive (Old Noldorin?) form *_riig-anna_ 'crown-gift' (LR:383
s.v. RIG-)? This would indeed correspond regularly with a Quenya cognate
of the form *_rianna_, but off the top of my head I don't recall such a
form in the corpus (correct me if I'm mistaken). In any event, I fail to
see how *_rianna_ could have anything to do with _Nicotiana_, from which
it is structurally quite distinct.)
Carl F. Hostetter
Aelf...@erols.com (Carl F. Hostetter) wrote:
> OK, I just have to ask Mr. Ensle: where does "rianna" occur in the corpus
A colleague has pointed out to me the Quenya form "_vardarianna_, which is
described in UT as a "fragrant evergreen tree brought to Nuumenor by the
Eldar of Eressea" (pp. 167, 470)," which he suggests might mean "something
like *'Varda-garlanded' or *'Garland of Varda'". The element _-rianna_ of
this compound is clearly what Mr. Ensle was referring to, and given its
association with a fragrant plant I understand Mr. Ensle's impulse to
relate this semantically to _Nicotiana_. Of course, this simply ingnores
the profound phonological difficulties of suggesting a relationship
between a form with initial _r-_ and geminate _-nn-_ and one with no _r_
and a single _-n-_....
Harold Ensle
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Carl F. Hostetter (Carl.F.Ho...@gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: but is nonetheless inexcusable. I apologize profusely to Mr. Ensle and to
: the readers of this newsgroup.
I accept thank you
Did you want the source on 'rohto' or 'rokko'?
Carl F. Hostetter
(Harold Ensle) wrote:
> My statement 'the genitive precedes the noun it modifies' while not
> universally applicable (as I learned in our discussion), still has
> support in the source I cited, which was clearly indicated by J.R.R.
> Tolkien himself. (Perhaps Mr. Hostetter finds J.R.R. Tolkien's statements
> irrelevant.) Mr. Hostetter implied that the statement had _no_ support
> (as if I had invented it). This is simply untrue.
The source Mr. Ensle mentions does not support his inaccurate (because
overly broad and declarative) statement, but rather the much more
restricted statement that it is apparently the case that the genitive
properly precedes the noun it modifies in passages of the type that are
represented by the rerendering of _Namaarie_ into a "normal" style
(whatever type that might be).
> And please Mr. Hostetter, 'read' before responding.
Oh, please. Physician, heal thyself.
> If the other gaps are sufficient, why tack on one of no
> consequence, other to falsely portray the number of gaps.
Let's review: Mr. Ensle takes me to task for claiming more than one gap in
his dictionary, so I make a list demonstrating that there is in fact more
than one gap. Then he says that it is unfair for me to say that these
other gaps are "major" gaps, which I never said they were (as he admits).
Now he's saying that the number of gaps is in fact one if we discard the
several gaps that he has decided are of no consequence, and that to
include those gaps falsely portrays the number of gaps.
How can the act of including a gap (of whatever significance) in a list of
gaps act to "falsely portray the number of gaps"? Can Mr. Ensle really be
arguing that the number of gaps can be truly portrayed only by omitting
certain gaps from the list?
E: "Adam and Eve had two sons: Cain and Abel."
H: "According to the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve in fact had at least
three sons: Cain, Abel, and Set."
E: "Set was of no consequence, so to tack him on to the list falsely
portrays the number of sons."
Bizarre.
> >Where did I claim that this was a "major" gap?
>
> It is true that I added the word "major" to his article, but its
> existence can certainly be inferred (if Mr. Hostetter is being
> consistent) from his previous article of 3/12/96 "large gaps in the
> material" . I assumed that he was following up on these "large (=major)
> gaps".
Here's what I said in full context:
"Which to my mind raises the question: what use are these dictionaries?
They are useless as research tools (no page references, large gaps in the
material)...."
As can be easily seen, I was referring here to Mr. Ensle's dictionaries as
a whole, i.e. as a unified collection of data, from which the omission of
the data available in a number of sources does in fact constitute "large
gaps" relative to the entire corpus. That is, there is more than one gap,
the total size of which is large. I am not here claiming (nor have I ever
claimed) that each individual source that Mr. Ensle did not utilize in his
dictionaries constitutes, in itself, a large gap, nor would such a thing
"certainly" be inferred, save by someone with an agenda.
> (sigh... the things I have to explain!)
Perhaps if Mr. Ensle would calibrate his inference engine against reality,
and read, understand, and quote what others say in full context, he would
be save himself a great deal of needless effort.
> A single paragraph is hardly the full context. I quote:
> "They are useless as research tools... or as a reliable guide to
> Tolkien's linguistic inventions (referring to the books
> that he has not seen)" This was written parallel (3/12/96) to the
> paragraph Mr. Hostetter refers to (as I claimed). This _proves_ that my
> "very deceptive"_non-argument_ was, in fact, true. Triply amazing.
I defy anyone, Mr. Ensle included, to explain coherently to anyone else
what this vague and contorted mess means, or how it proves anything. This
makes my head hurt. Let's review:
Mr. Ensle claimed that I stated that "it would be useless for anyone to
buy [his] books". What I actually wrote was that "I have no use for it
personally, but I see no reason why others should not buy it (aside from
potential copyright problems, but that's another issue)." Mr. Ensle has
yet to show how what I actually wrote can possibly be construed to mean
what he claims I stated.
> Hmm... Mr. Hostetter is certainly milking 'Nicotiana' for everything its
> worth (I expected no less).
Such a mistake is worth a great deal when it comes from one who claims
superiority for his work over all other works ("TRUST NO OTHERS"), that it
is "well researched" (despite the fact that he admits that he couldn't be
bothered to review his at-points-at-least-17-year-old research before
asking people to buy it: "This word (nicotiana) got into the lists back in
the 70's. If I had reviewed the original source of this word in the last
go-around (this year), it would have been removed."), that it should
simply be accepted as reliable ("a person using this list can be confident
that the translations represent (within tolerance) genuine Elvish
language"), and that he is "experienced in linguistics and decryption".
> >>>And this from "those who are experienced in linguistics..."
>
> With this statement Mr. Hostetter creates the strawman. When I complain,
> he accuses _me_ of creating the strawman (what deception!)
Huh??? This makes no sense to me, nor, I'd be willing to wager, to anyone
other than Mr. Ensle.
(Here's the full context; you decide!)
CFH>>> And this from "those who are experienced in linguistics..."
HE >>
HE >> I do not know Latin. There are over 3000 languages in the world.
HE >> Knowledge of which ones (and how many) is required in order to meet Mr.
HE >> Hostetter's universal standards for linguists?
CFH>
CFH> Another straw man, Mr. Ensle. No one has claimed that one is _required_ to
CFH> know more than _one_ language to be a linguist (one must presumably know
CFH> at least one language by which to communicate with others as scholars).
CFH> However, the bald similarity of _Nicotiana_ to English _nicotine_ really
CFH> ought to have been a sufficient clue, whether you know Latin or not.
> >(Unlike you, I'm neither trolling...)
(Full quote: "Unlike you, I'm neither trolling for nor receiving money by
carrying on this debate.")
> Here's a new twist! This is definitely not true
Why, because you say so?
> and there is certainly no evidence to support such an accusation
Why, because you say so?
So, according to Mr. Ensle, his posts advertising his dictionaries and
asking people to send him money for them are "certainly no evidence". And
his increasingly shrill (and bizarre) attempts at discrediting other
(unnamed, perhaps unexamined?) competing works are "certainly no
evidence". And the posts from others complaining about Mr. Ensle's
postings of his advertisements seeking money for his dictionaries is
"certainly no evidence". Why, if he says it, it must be so!
> >"Tiny things, slight..."
>
> I assume he's talking about the physical dimensions of the books.
> They were made very small on purpose, so that they would be convenient for
> people of less stature (like hobbits).
Well, in that case I heartily recommend that all Hobbits buy Mr. Ensle's
precious little dictionaries. Unfortunately, we clumsy Big Folk will find
their stature (and content) too slight for our rough utilty, and too
slender to support Mr. Ensle's grandiose and self-aggrandizing claims for
them.
> My books (as stated) contain about 1,500 base vocabulary for each
> language.
Stated where (other than here)? When did you ever before claim to list
only "base" vocabulary in your dictionaries? This is a far, far cry from
the portrait of comprehensiveness painted in your advertisements (at least
your early ones; I don't have a copy of the latest ad(s) to check).
> This also represents the base vocabulary available from the sources
> listed.
Except the not-unsubstantial base vocabulary Mr. Ensle omitted for no
reason other than that it occurs in early materials.
> Some people try and beef up the vocabulary using various ploys.
Who? Name names! How do you know their motives? Might it not be other than
a "ploy" to produce a truly comprehensive index of _all_ the forms in the
corpus?
You make it sound as if there were some sort of bizarre cattle market for
Tolkienian dictionaries, and that those other, unscrupulous (and unnamed)
ranchers are making big bucks by bloating their stock with water before
they go on the scales before a public that values pure tonnage in over
utility, quality, or content. Outrageuous!
> Another ploy is to include all the archaic forms from J.R.R.Tolkien's
> previous creations.
In what ways, specifically, can all the forms in the "Qenya Lexicon" that
you do not include in your dictionary be shown to be "archaic"? Detail for
us, please, just how it can be shown that each such form is known not to
be compatible with the Quenya forms that you _do_ include. Demonstrate for
us, please, just how it can be shown that each form you _do_ include is
part of the same, homogeneous construction of Quenya (despite the fact
that the forms span some 40 years).
> This is particularly damaging, since it misrepresents the languages.
How can languages be demonstrably misrepresented by giving a complete
representation of all the forms that cannot be demonstrated to be
incompatible? How can the same languages be demonstrably _not_
misrepresented by omitting such forms?
> It also results in contradictions and also ambiguous and
> misleading etymologies.
Many etymologies of "real-world" words are ambiguous (a scan through the
Oxford English Dictionary will demonstrate this fact). Moreover, Tolkien
deliberately constructed such ambiguity into more than a few of his own
etymologies.
> the later work was a replacement as opposed to an addition.
_Etymologies_ was seemingly part of a recapitulation of Tolkien's
linguistic creations, similar to the recapitulation of the mythology that
he was engaged in at the same time. What these recapitulations (linguistic
and mythological) imply for the status of the earlier material must be
decided on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, some items were rendered
incompatible; others however may simply have been left unincorporated into
the recapitulations because of the shift in focus or because of
compression, not because they were necessarily ruled invalid by Tolkien.
(Such displacements are much more easily argued for in the mythology than
in the languages, esp. Quenya, the structure of which was, so far as we
can judge by the available evidence, much more stable than was that of the
mythology; nor should radical changes in the mythology be used as sole
justification for claiming that the languages likewise underwent such
dramatic changes. In both cases it seems that certain core elements were
established very early and proved stable even against other
more-or-less-massive upheavals.)
> (Though in
> deference to Mr. Hostetter, the borrowings in the case of Quenya were
many and
> I can understand how someone might be mislead by this fact.)
Implying that I was so "mislead"? And that I believe that Tolkien intended
that the "Qenya Lexicon" and _Etymologies_ were to be seen as companion
pieces? Utter nonsense.
> Some other things to watch out for:
>
> One can make the work appear more scholarly by including page references
> and making it, in general, like a concordance (of many volumes, of
> course). If a person has to check every word in sources (that he probably
> doesn't own), he won't progress in his translation very quickly!
Another straw man. No one says that one is obligated to check sources for
every word in order to produce a translation (how absurd!). But if someone
is concerned abour producing _accurate_ translations using Mr. Ensle's
dictionaries and grammar as guides, one had _better_ check the sources,
since they are hardly reliable in all cases.
> The fact is, that this whole idea (that Mr. Hostetter has been harping
> on) that a dictionary should be a research tool is a scam at best.
I said only that Mr. Ensle's dictionaries are useless as research tools
since they do not include page references (NOT A (research tool) BECAUSE
NOT B (page numbers)). This is not equivalent to saying that dictionaries
should be research tools (A (research tool) BECAUSE C (dictionary)).
> So, it makes sense
> that Mr. Hostetter (and certain others) don't really need my dictionary.
So we agree that what I actually said makes sense.
> I certainly don't need theirs (nothing personal). It would not be practical
> to produce a dictionary directed toward the 'needs' of researchers.
Not practical for you, perhaps; but certainly practical for someone else.
> for Mr. Hostetter to use this research argument to devalue my work is simply
> wrong.
Nonsense. I am not seeking to devalue your work, only to deflate your once
enormous and misleading claims for it, claims which have been softened and
made more revealing and accurate in the course of our debates. If this
more accurate depiction and understanding of what it is you're selling
causes someone else to judge that your asking price is greater than the
work's worth to them, then so be it. There is nothing wrong, and
everything right, with that. Better (for them, if not for you) that they
should see this before they send you their money than after.
> I definitely wouldn't recommend Mr. Hostetter's word list,
Implying that I have one to offer to other people, which is false. My word
list the published corpus. Is _that_ what you wouldn't recommend?
Harold Ensle
: (Harold Ensle) wrote:
: Mr. Ensle claimed that I stated that "it would be useless for anyone to
: buy [his] books". What I actually wrote was that "I have no use for it
: personally, but I see no reason why others should not buy it (aside from
: potential copyright problems, but that's another issue)." Mr. Ensle has
: yet to show how what I actually wrote can possibly be construed to mean
: what he claims I stated.
Mr. Hostetter continues to quote the wrong quote. (You can lead a horse
to water....)
: (Full quote: "Unlike you, I'm neither trolling for nor receiving money by
: carrying on this debate.")
: > Here's a new twist! This is definitely not true
Mr. Hostetter here ignores the modification (by carrying on this debate).
My purpose for carrying on this debate is to defend my works against the
unjustified attacks of Mr. Hostetter.
: > >"Tiny things, slight..." : >
: > I assume he's talking about the physical dimensions of the books.
: > They were made very small on purpose, so that they would be convenient for
: > people of less stature (like hobbits).
: Well, in that case I heartily recommend that all Hobbits buy Mr. Ensle's
: precious little dictionaries. Unfortunately, we clumsy Big Folk will find
: their stature (and content) too slight for our rough utilty...
Ironically, he is probably correct.
: > My books (as stated) contain about 1,500 base vocabulary for each
: > language.
Which just about covers it. The number was given in the add. They buy it
then complain that the number isn't big enough. That makes sense! (There
are obviously other motives involved here.)
Mr. Hostetter should look up the word 'strawman' he is always misusing
it. There is a difference between 'changing the subject' and 'strawman'.
You know, of course, that if anything good is found in my dictionaries,
it won't be reported here by these people. You also know, that any
mistake or error will most certainly receive grandiose exposure. They
have had my dictionaries for over a month and have come up with one
error. I think the review process is going quite well.
Jian Ming Li
In article <4kbcub$4q...@lamar.ColoState.EDU> hen...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Harold Ensle) writes:
>Carl F. Hostetter (Aelf...@erols.com) wrote:
>: (Harold Ensle) wrote:
<SNIP>
Could you two please stop your flame war? It is has gotten
EXTREMLY boring.
Mr. hostetter the more you post about his books the more times
Mr. Ensle will respond. I DO NOT read this news group to read about a
small book that is NOT written by J.R.R. Tolkien.
Mr. Ensle don't take things so personaly. If you really want to
sell your book then stop the flames. When someone asks questions about
the translation or grammer of elvish then post an answer, including info
on where to buy your book in your .sig file. If your answers are correct
then I am sure people who are interested will buy it.
Tony Murray
> Could you two please stop your flame war? It is has gotten
>EXTREMLY boring.
To you. I find the debate very informative. Different strokes...
> Mr. hostetter the more you post about his books the more times
>Mr. Ensle will respond.
Mr. Hostetter isn't responsible for whether or not someone else
responds to his postings. His comments have been enlightening.
To ask him to silence himself because someone else might respond
seems... odd.
>I DO NOT read this news group to read about a
>small book that is NOT written by J.R.R. Tolkien.
The key word in that sentence is "I."
Some of us read the newsgroup to read about topics related
to Tolkien and his works. If you don't want to read a
particular thread, by all means skip it.
--Tony Murray (tmu...@nova.umuc.edu)
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
>In article <4kbcub$4q...@lamar.ColoState.EDU> hen...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Harold Ensle) writes:
>>Carl F. Hostetter (Aelf...@erols.com) wrote:
>>: In article <4jh4ok$51...@lamar.ColoState.EDU>, hen...@lamar.ColoState.EDU
>>: (Harold Ensle) wrote:
><SNIP>
> Could you two please stop your flame war? It is has gotten
>EXTREMLY boring.
This is no flame war. While I could wish that the main participants would
turn down the heat a bit, they are sticking to the subject, and being
reasonably polite.
> Mr. hostetter the more you post about his books the more times
>Mr. Ensle will respond. I DO NOT read this news group to read about a
>small book that is NOT written by J.R.R. Tolkien.
Then skip this thread. Easy to do.
> Mr. Ensle don't take things so personaly. If you really want to
>sell your book then stop the flames. When someone asks questions about
>the translation or grammer of elvish then post an answer, including info
>on where to buy your book in your .sig file. If your answers are correct
>then I am sure people who are interested will buy it.
This is what JRRT himself had to say about publishing his works: "I have
exposed my heart to be shot at." It is very difficult not to take
criticism of someting that has cost you a lot of time and effort
personally. But please do try.
Klaus O K
Harold Ensle
: This is no flame war. While I could wish that the main participants would
: turn down the heat a bit, they are sticking to the subject, and being
: reasonably polite.
It is heartening to see that there are people out there that realize what
is going on. Mr. Kristiansen is quite right. This is not a flame war (for
flame war, see my other thread). I think that Mr. Hostetter and I have
remained, for the most part, on focus in relation to the issues, which
themselves are of interest, especially when we wander into specific
grammatical points, where I have found Mr. Hostetter's arguments to be
valuable. What he writes, he is motivated to, by his understanding of the
subject. I may disagree with his interpretation, but I feel that his
motivation (in relation to linguistic study) is correct. This differs
greatly from those who ignorantly mimick his (possibly inaccurate or
premature) findings soly for the sake of derision. For example, let's
look at 'atalanta' and 'rohto'. Mr. Hostetter brought up the derived
adjective 'atalantea'. This is fine, but what is the source of
'Atalante'=the down-fallen. Note that this is a noun derived from the
past participle, not 'lanta-' as it might first appear, such an
interpretation being something like 'atalante'=*that which is _falling_
back. It is more likely that the noun comes from the past participle in
'-na' with noun formed by a>e (similar to a>o discussed earlier). This
points to the verb *'atalata-' (atalata-+-na>atalatna>atalanta).
Interestingly, one finds in the source 'atalta-'= collapse, fall in
(which also compares better semantically to the given meaning of 'Atalante').
The choice of 'rohto' is based on J.R.R.Tolkien's approach to the
consonant combinations kt, tk which were forbidden in Quenya. This was
resolved in two ways in the sources, one by strong 'k', ex.: et+kaia>
ekkaia ='outer sea' or (later) by 'ht' ('h' pronounced as in German
'ch'), et+kele>ektele>ehtele = out-flow, spring. From this evidence the
form 'rokko' (Silmarillion 363) was converted by rokko<rok-to>rohto. This
form 'rokko' may not be archaic in the sense of Tolkien's inventions, but
perhaps archaic within the historical context of the "Lord of the Rings".
However, since my motivation was to display the language as it was spoken
in the _3rd age_ of Middle Earth, 'rohto' was required in any case.
ÿTO THE BUYERS OF ENSLE'S DICTIONARIES
These books are more than a list of words gleaned from J.R.R.Tolkien's
works. There was considerable effort employed to resolve conflicts
within the sources, thus, one may not find certain words included (later
forms being preferred), or may find (rarely) subtle differences in the
pronunciation and/or spelling. These are not typographical errors. For
each case, they were motivated by evidences found in the sources.
Exclusion of the archaic forms does not reduce the domain of
communication (since there
were always subsequent forms to replace them). In fact, the purpose of
this listing, and the generalized grammar, is to cover the widest domain
possible with the information available (to maximize the utility).
Furthermore it was the desire of this work to represent the languages as
closely as possible to their state as of the writing of the 'Lord of the
Rings'. To include the details of all the analysis would expand the books
to four times their present size and transform them into a technical
treatise rather than a simple reference. Should the buyer have any doubts
about specific points in the text, he should feel free to e-mail the
author for clarification (source and/or analysis).
Carl F. Hostetter
(Harold Ensle) wrote:
> Mr. Hostetter brought up the derived adjective 'atalantea'. This is fine, but
> what is the source of 'Atalante'=the down-fallen.
_atalantea_ is not only "fine", it is the only attested adjectival form in
the corpus corresponding to _Atalante_. Mr. Ensle's arguments for a form
*_atalanta_ are reasonable, but they in no way require or demonstrate that
such a form actually existed in the language. To list such a form in a
work that claims to be a dictionary of Quenya and asks the reader to
assume that each word in the list has a valid source (and what source
other than the corpus is really valid?), with no indication that some
forms are in fact inventions of the author, is misleading to those who
seem to be Mr. Ensle's target audience: the novice translator, who will
have no means to judge whether the form actually occurs or on what basis
it was inferred.
Why offer an invented adjectival form of a word for which an attested
adjectival form occurs in the corpus?
> The choice of 'rohto' is based on J.R.R.Tolkien's approach to the
> consonant combinations kt, tk which were forbidden in Quenya. This was
> resolved in two ways in the sources, one by strong 'k', ex.: et+kaia>
> ekkaia ='outer sea' or (later) by 'ht' ('h' pronounced as in German
> 'ch'), et+kele>ektele>ehtele = out-flow, spring. From this evidence the
> form 'rokko' (Silmarillion 363) was converted by rokko<rok-to>rohto.
Mr. Ensle here assumes that Q. _rokko_ indicates a prior *_rok-to_, for
which there is no evidence. In fact, there is evidence counter to this
assumption: the Sindarin name _Rohan_ (for _Rochan(n)_) suggests that the
contact was in fact originally *_-k-k-_ (which yields _-ch-_ in Sindarin);
while if the original contact were in fact *_-k-t-_, this name would have
developed regularly into **_Rauthan_ (cf. N _auth_ < OKTAA, LR:379; and
thanks to Arden Smith for pointing this out to me).
Even if Mr. Ensle's invention **_rohto_ were not ruled out on phonological
grounds, it simply does not occur in the corpus, and so should not be
baldly listed in what purports to be a dictionary of Quenya. Since it and
other invented forms are listed in Mr. Ensle's dictionary, and since the
dictionary omits many words that are in fact actual Quenya, the result is
instead a dictionary of what Harold Ensle (as opposed to J.R.R. Tolkien)
considers to be Quenya.
> ÿTO THE BUYERS OF ENSLE'S DICTIONARIES
> These books are more than a list of words gleaned from J.R.R.Tolkien's
> works.
Indeed; they also contain words invented by Harold Ensle.
Harold Ensle
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523:
Distribution:
Carl F. Hostetter (Aelf...@erols.com) wrote:
: *_atalanta_ are reasonable, but they in no way require or demonstrate that
............
: forms are in fact inventions of the author, is misleading to those who
'atalanta' does not occur in my dictionary, only 'atalta-' and '-na'. The
readers are free to do with this information whatever they wish
(generalizations for the sake of utility). Nor do I really invent.
'deduce' would be the better word. Everything has a source and a reason.
: > The choice of 'rohto' is based on J.R.R.Tolkien's approach to the
: > consonant combinations kt, tk which were forbidden in Quenya. This was
: > resolved in two ways in the sources, one by strong 'k', ex.: et+kaia>
: > ekkaia ='outer sea' or (later) by 'ht' ('h' pronounced as in German
: > 'ch'), et+kele>ektele>ehtele = out-flow, spring. From this evidence the
: > form 'rokko' (Silmarillion 363) was converted by rokko<rok-to>rohto.
: Mr. Ensle here assumes that Q. _rokko_ indicates a prior *_rok-to_, for
: which there is no evidence. In fact, there is evidence counter to this
: assumption: the Sindarin name _Rohan_ (for _Rochan(n)_) suggests that the
: contact was in fact originally *_-k-k-_ (which yields _-ch-_ in Sindarin);
: while if the original contact were in fact *_-k-t-_, this name would have
: developed regularly into **_Rauthan_ (cf. N _auth_ < OKTAA, LR:379; and
: thanks to Arden Smith for pointing this out to me).
This is an interesting argument, but there is one error. You are assuming
that the Sindarin form was derived from 'rokto'. What if the Sindarin form
were derived from the root 'rok'? Then 'roch' would certainly be a
plausible form. So, while possible, Mr. Smith's argument doesn't actually
prove the point.
Harold Ensle
Organizatio6n: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523:
Distribution:
Carl F. Hostetter (Aelf...@erols.com) wrote:
: the corpus corresponding to _Atalante_. Mr. Ensle's arguments for a form
: *_atalanta_ are reasonable, but they in no way require or demonstrate that
: such a form actually existed in the language. To list such a form in a
: work that claims to be a dictionary of Quenya and asks the reader to
: assume that each word in the list has a valid source (and what source
: other than the corpus is really valid?), with no indication that some
: forms are in fact inventions of the author, is misleading to those who
: seem to be Mr. Ensle's target audience: the novice translator, who will
: have no means to judge whether the form actually occurs or on what basis
: it was inferred.
I have been considering this statement further and I find it more
inaccurate then justifiable. My form is a simple past participle. If I
claimed that 'yulmanya' was a Quenya word, most researchers would agree
that it is and indeed it means 'my cup'. By Mr. Hostetter's reasoning,
however, I would be guilty of inventing language since this form does not
occur in the sources. And I do give the means (direct inquiry by e-mail).
I am not concerned about being inundated with e-mail because the
alterations were quite rare (we're looking at about 5-6 entries out of
the 1,600 in the Quenya dictionary). I only mentioned it to provide full
disclosure. What Mr. Hostetter doesn't know (since he has never seen the
book) is that I indicate in the dictionary that 'rohto' was indeed
converted from 'rokko', so a reader would not be mislead by this.
: which there is no evidence. In fact, there is evidence counter to this
: assumption: the Sindarin name _Rohan_ (for _Rochan(n)_) suggests that the
: contact was in fact originally *_-k-k-_ (which yields _-ch-_ in Sindarin);
: while if the original contact were in fact *_-k-t-_, this name would have
: developed regularly into **_Rauthan_ (cf. N _auth_ < OKTAA, LR:379; and
: thanks to Arden Smith for pointing this out to me).
In the etymologies, one finds 'ROK- Q. rokko S. roch' There are 50 (I
counted them) other roots in final -K-. Not one of them, NOT ONE OF THEM
has the the Quenya derivative in -kk-. Am I to assume from this that it
is natural for roots in -K- to transform to -kk-? It is thus quite
_obvious_ that this -kk- is the result of an affix of some sort. Since it
is known that 'kt'>'kk'(at some time in the history) this would be the
logical choice. This is also supported by the following examples (that do
occur in the 50 other -K- roots!) lehta,luhta,mahta-,nahta,suhto,
rihta-,tehta,tehto. The proper evolution of the forms should thus be:
Quenya: ROK->*rokto>rokko(ar.)/rohto
Sindarin: ROK->roch
Note that Mr. Arden's examples are from roots in -KT- as opposed to roots
in -K- with Quenya suffix -ta,-to.
Jan Six
Harold Ensle wrote:
> 'atalanta' does not occur in my dictionary, only 'atalta-' and '-na'.
> The readers are free to do with this information whatever they wish
> (generalizations for the sake of utility). Nor do I really invent.
> 'deduce' would be the better word. Everything has a source and a
> reason.
Forgive me if I jump in at an awkward place in this discussion. This
debate is very interesting, and it is certainly gratifying to see that
after some initial misunderstandings it has developed into a mature
and fascinating discussion. Whether we judge it acceptable to generalize
or, as Mr. Ensle puts it, 'deduce' words and rules from the corpus or
not (Mr. Hostetter would be more reticent on this point than Mr. Ensle),
it does seem that Mr. Ensle has at least spent a lot of effort in making
his deductions. For this at least, Mr. Ensle deserves credit, even if
we may judge his efforts misguided (and I'm *not* saying that I do so
judge them).
I think perhaps the most crucial question for those of us who are
considering using Mr. Ensle's Dictionary is this: given that there is
a source and a reason for everything in Mr. Ensle's Dictionary, how
clearly are those sources and reasons stated therein? To put it another
way, does the entry 'rohto' in Mr. Ensle's Dictionary at least state
the reasoning which he has expounded to us in his very interesting post,
or will the interested user of his Dictionary have to contact the author
to get source or reason for a particular entry? I think the answer to
that question might help very many of us to decide whether Mr. Ensle's
Dictionary would be a valuable resource to them.
______________________________________________________________________
Jan Six | Fair as an elven child is Lalaith | It's my real name
| but briefer, alas... | -- :: --
Jan...@uku.fi | and so fairer, perhaps, or dearer | Count on it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BThompson
Jan Six <Jan...@uku.fi> wrote:
>
>I think perhaps the most crucial question for those of us who are
>considering using Mr. Ensle's Dictionary is this: given that there is
>a source and a reason for everything in Mr. Ensle's Dictionary, how
>clearly are those sources and reasons stated therein? To put it another
>way, does the entry 'rohto' in Mr. Ensle's Dictionary at least state
>the reasoning which he has expounded to us in his very interesting post,
>or will the interested user of his Dictionary have to contact the author
>to get source or reason for a particular entry? I think the answer to
>that question might help very many of us to decide whether Mr. Ensle's
>Dictionary would be a valuable resource to them.
I completely agree. I would like to add (or reinforce the above
statements) that the manner in which Mr. Ensle arrived at these forms
would be a lot more informative to me than simply a listing of the final
forms themselves (*if* this is the way Mr. Ensle's dictionaries are
organized). Earlier in this thread Mr. Ensle seemingly dismissed the
idea of listing specific sources or references for his work because, as
he said, his work was not meant to be a tool for research. From my
standpoint, a list of sources goes well beyond simply a research tool.
That is, knowledge of exactly where these forms came from, whether they
were "deduced" or borrowed directly from the corpus, would be invaluable
to the learning process. However, *if* I have to e-mail Mr. Ensle every
time I wanted a reference for a particular form, I may as well just use
the corpus itself. Again, I have never seen Mr. Ensle's dictionaries so
these are just general comments about what *I*, as a potential buyer,
would find useful.
Regards,
Bill
Harold Ensle
This feed-back is very helpful, thank you. I think, though, that a
misconception has been developed about the nature of these books. I had
originally considered a real effort to expand Tolkien's languages by
deducing new forms, to make them complete, speakable languages (a task
that still could be done (by myself, or with some help from
knowledgeable people in this group)). These books, however, do not
represent this task. These books represent a core of material that is
taken directly from the sources. Alterations were made only on the rare
occasion of conflicts or inconsistances in the material (5-6 words of
1,600) Not all of this was clearly documented in the first edition and
I see now that it would be benificial to do so. (This would not be an
extensive change due to the small number involved.) It would be simple
to provide an associated list (one page) of deductions (with motivations)
along with each book (until the next edition which will be footnoted).
Carl F. Hostetter
I wrote:
>> Mr. Ensle here assumes that Q. _rokko_ indicates a prior *_rok-to_, for
>> which there is no evidence. In fact, there is evidence counter to this
>> assumption: the Sindarin name _Rohan_ (for _Rochan(n)_) suggests that the
>> contact was in fact originally *_-k-k-_ (which yields _-ch-_ in Sindarin);
>> while if the original contact were in fact *_-k-t-_, this name would have
>> developed regularly into **_Rauthan_ (cf. N _auth_ < OKTAA, LR:379; and
>> thanks to Arden Smith for pointing this out to me).
To which Harold Ensle replied:
> This is an interesting argument, but there is one error. You are assuming
> that the Sindarin form was derived from '[rokko]'. What if the Sindarin form
> were derived from the root 'rok'? Then 'roch' would certainly be a
> plausible form. So, while possible, Mr. Smith's argument doesn't actually
> prove the point.
Sorry, no. If the Sindarin form were from an earlier form *_rok_, it would
yield _rog_, not _roch_. What's more, Tolkien himself tells us that
_Rohan_ is derived from *_rokkoo_, so I "assume" nothing; see below.
Mr. Ensle further wrote:
> In the etymologies, one finds 'ROK- Q. rokko S. roch' There are 50 (I
> counted them) other roots in final -K-. Not one of them, NOT ONE OF THEM
> has the the Quenya derivative in -kk-. Am I to assume from this that it
> is natural for roots in -K- to transform to -kk-?
Not necessarily. Although we do find reduplication of the final basic
consonant in certain forms (cf. the base BAT- in _Etymologies_), it is
also possible that _rokko_ is due to a primitive ending *_-koo_.
> It is thus quite _obvious_ that this -kk- is the result of an affix of some
> sort.
No, this is not obvious; it could well be due to a reduplication of the
final basic consonant.
> The proper evolution of the forms should thus be:
> Quenya: ROK->*rokto>rokko(ar.)/rohto
> Sindarin: ROK->roch
Tolkien disagrees. In a letter dated Aug. 1967 Tolkien wrote (_Letters_ p.382):
"_Rohan_ is stated (III 391, 394) to be a later softened form of
_Rochand_. It is derived from Elvish *_rokkoo_ 'swift horse for riding'
(Q. _rokko_, S. _roch_) + a suffix frequent in names of lands."
Thus Quenya _rokko_ and Sindrin _roch_ and _Rohan_ are due to a primitive
form *_rokkoo_. Whatever the mechanism for producing the geminate _-k-_
was in the primitive language (reduplication of final basic consonant,
addition of a suffix *_-koo_), there is no possible justification for
"converting" the Quenya form to the erroneous form **_rohto_.
Mr. Ensle may, as he says, "indicate in the dictionary that 'rohto' was indeed
converted from 'rokko', so a reader would not be mislead by this"; but if
so, he is simply further misleading his readers into thinking he has a
valid rationale for doing so, in contradiction to Tolkien's own thoughts
on the matter.
Mr. Ensle often chides me for not reading his dictionary. I would invite
him to read Tolkien's own works more thoroughly.
David Russo
I'd like more information about this dictionary, please (i.e. how can I purchas
e it). I missed the original post so I'm asking now. Thanks in advance.
Harold Ensle
David Russo (CJRU...@ukcc.uky.edu) wrote:
: I'd like more information about this dictionary, please (i.e. how can I
:purchase it). I missed the original post so I'm asking now.
:Thanks in advance.
These two books contain practical information on the Sindarin and Quenya
languages. Each has over 1500 entries (this does not include proper nouns
or untranslated words) which are indexed from the English as well. Grammars
are also included, though only as complete as can be reliably inferred.
Alphabets and sample text are also included. Each dictionary is in soft
cover booklet form 5" by 4.25", Sindarin 72pp, Quenya 80pp. Cost for each:
$8.00, overseas add $2.00 for postage.(allow 3 weeks for delivery).
Write to H.Ensle,500 W Prospect 5D,Ft. Collins, CO 80526.
List of references utilized:
The Hobbit (not much, some names)
The Lord of the Rings I,II,III (map,names,translated
phrases,appendices(especially writing and calendar))
The Silmarillion (names,map,translated phrases,elements in names)
Unfinished Tales (names,map,phrases)
The road Goes Ever On (detailed translations of the songs Namarie and
Elbereth,grammar)
The History of Middle Earth I,II,III,IV (not much, some carry over from
Gnomish that did not appear in the Etymologies)
The Lost Road V (The Etymologies: vocabulary,grammar. Sindarin composed
of Noldorin and/or East Noldorin entries with Noldorin preferred)
The History of Middle Earth VI,VII (not much new, names,phrases)
The History of Middle Earth VIII,IX,X,XI (names,phrases, Quenya
naming:philosophy and mysticism,naming of peoples,letter from
Aragorn,grammar,etc.)
Here is a short sample of a dictionary itself ({} represent italics
in the actual version and a capital vowel represents a long vowel with an
acute accent in the actual version):
andon[-ndi]/great gate
andUne/west;sunset
anesse/{added-name}
anga/iron
angaina/made of iron
ango[angwi]/snake
angulOce/dragon
anna/gift
anta/face
anta-[anne]/give
antan/man(of the 3 houses)
ante/giver(f.)
anto/mouth;giver(m.)
anwa/real,actual,true
ap(a)-/after
apacen/foresight
A typical grammatical entry would appear as so (underlines and italics
not showing):
The future is formed in -uva. Ex.: Endorenna tuluvalme, We will come to
Middle Earth; Quenuvanyet, I will speak to them.
Both dictionaries also contain a large list of word formation suffixes
and prefixes which could be used to expand the vocabulary considerably.
Irene Gates
Subject: Elvish Dictionary
(From Ivan Derzhanski, who can read rec.arts.books.tolkien,
but can't post at the moment)
hen...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Harold Ensle) wrote:
>
>These two books contain practical information on the Sindarin
>and Quenya languages. [...] Grammars are also included, though
>only as complete as can be reliably inferred.
[...]
>Here is a short sample of a dictionary itself [...]:
>anta/face
A general comment: Words in a dictionary should be tagged for
part of speech. The English word _face_ can be either a noun or
a verb. How is the reader expected to know which one is intended?
This is not how someone who has had any exposure to language-lore
(to say nothing of being `experienced in linguistics', whatever
that means) would organise a dictionary.
>anta-[anne]/give
Reference for the past form _anne_, please?
>antan/man(of the 3 houses)
And for this word. It wouldn't be a typo for _atan_, would it?
>A typical grammatical entry would appear as so
>(underlines and italics not showing):
>
>The future is formed in -uva.
Except when it isn't. What about _anta'va_ `will give' and
_antava'ro_ `he will give', both from `The Lost Road'?
>Ex.: Endorenna tuluvalme, We will come to Middle Earth;
>Quenuvanyet, I will speak to them.
Letting alone that there is no such verb as *_quen-_ (Ruth Noel's
daft fabrications and early guesses recorded in _ItE_ don't count),
_-t_ (presumably from LotR _laituvalmet_ `we will praise them') means
`them', not `*to* them', so *_quenuvanyet_ (properly _quetuvanyet_)
would have to mean `I will say them', not `I will speak to them'.
Anyhow, there is no shortage of future verb forms in the attested
corpus. Why use made-up examples?
Is the rest of the Quenya book (and the Sindarin one) equally
`well-researched'?
--Ivan A Derzhanski
Ninni M. Pettersson
In message ID <4ml7ab$10...@lamar.ColoState.EDU> on 96-05-06, Harold Ensle
wrote:
> David Russo (CJRU...@ukcc.uky.edu) wrote:
> : I'd like more information about this dictionary, please (i.e. how can I
> : purchase it). I missed the original post so I'm asking now.
> : Thanks in advance.
>
> are also included, though only as complete as can be reliably inferred.
I think that in all fairness David Russo should also be informed that:
- there are no pagereferences to Tolkien's works so you can't easily check a
word you wonder about,
- some of the grammars has been strongly challenged by knowledgeable
scholars,
- the books contain words that are not found in the corpus but are made up by
Harold Ensle himself.
Vidumavi
vidu...@online.idg.se (via BulkRate 2.1.2)
Irene Gates
From: Irene Gates <7073...@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 8 May 1996 17:54:37 GMT
Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)
Subject: Elvish Dictionary
(From Ivan Derzhanski, who can read rec.arts.books.tolkien,
but can't post at the moment)
hen...@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Harold Ensle) wrote:
>
>These two books contain practical information on the Sindarin
>and Quenya languages. [...] Grammars are also included, though
>only as complete as can be reliably inferred.
>anta/face
>anta-[anne]/give
>antan/man(of the 3 houses)
--Ivan A Derzhanski
--
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Ninni M. Pettersson
From: vidu...@online.idg.se (Ninni M. Pettersson)
Date: 08 May 1996 09:11:08 GMT
Organization: IDG Online, Stockholm, Sweden
In message ID <4ml7ab$10...@lamar.ColoState.EDU> on 96-05-06, Harold Ensle
wrote:
> David Russo (CJRU...@ukcc.uky.edu) wrote:
> : I'd like more information about this dictionary, please (i.e. how can I
> : purchase it). I missed the original post so I'm asking now.
> : Thanks in advance.
>
> These two books contain practical information on the Sindarin and Quenya
> languages. Each has over 1500 entries (this does not include proper nouns
> or untranslated words) which are indexed from the English as well. Grammars
> are also included, though only as complete as can be reliably inferred.
> Alphabets and sample text are also included.
[snip]
I think that in all fairness David Russo should also be informed that:
- there are no pagereferences to Tolkien's works so you can't easily check a
word you wonder about,
- some of the grammars has been strongly challenged by knowledgeable
scholars,
- the books contain words that are not found in the corpus but are made up by
Harold Ensle himself.
Vidumavi
vidu...@online.idg.se (via BulkRate 2.1.2)
BThompson
Irene Gates <7073...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>
>Subject: Elvish Dictionary
>
>(From Ivan Derzhanski, who can read rec.arts.books.tolkien,
>but can't post at the moment)
>
IVAN!!!!!!!!! WELCOME BACK!!!!!!!! :-) :-) :-)
It's _great_ to have you back in r.a.b.t.! I hope your Internet
connection gets straightened out so we can soon hear from you directly.
Regards,
Bill
O. Sharp
Someone purporting to be Irene Gates (7073...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: Subject: Elvish Dictionary
: (From Ivan Derzhanski, who can read rec.arts.books.tolkien,
: but can't post at the moment)
This seems like an appropriate moment to echo Mr. Thompson's sentiments:
_Ivan!_ _Welcome_back!!!_ :) :) :)
[snip of just about everything of relevance to the thread]
: Is the rest of the Quenya book (and the Sindarin one) equally
: `well-researched'?
Hmmmm. Wish we weren't welcoming you back with _this_ thread, though... :\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
o...@netcom.com If we'd known you were coming, we'd have baked a cake. :)