Middle Earth and Arthurian Legend

12 visualizações
Pular para a primeira mensagem não lida

Chris Csernica

não lida,
14 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0014/12/1999
para
Nystulc wrote:
>
> Does anyone suppose that perhaps Tolkien had in mind
> a specific connection between Arthurian legend and
> his tales of Middle Earth.

No.

> I always imagined that Arthur
> was likely a descendent of Aragorn, and Excalibur
> perhaps none other than Narsil/Anduril renamed yet
> again.

Renamed more than once. "Excalibur" is ultimately derived from the
Welsh "Caledfwlch," or "hard one" IIRC. Semantically and phonetically
unconnected with Anduril "Flame of the West", but we would expect to
find such a relation had Tolkien intended any such thing.

Also, if he intended your imagined genaeology, he likely have provided
somewhere in his copious notes and drafts some kind of line of descent
for Arthur where his line might be traceable to pre-Roman British
chieftains, themselves decended from Numenorean royalty. But he did not
do so, and the line of Pendragons of which Arthur was supposed to be a
bastard son has no such antecedents in legend. There is no connection,
either explicit or implied.

It ought to be remembered here, perhaps, that Tolkien set out at first
to create a mythology for the English people. In Arthurian legend, one
of the ancestor groups of the English - the Saxons - are the main enemy.

> He has much in common with Aragorn besides
> a magic sword: specifically his connection with elves.
> Arthur apparently had both elvish blood and elvish
> relatives, specifically his sister, Morgan le Fay. And it
> is interesting that so many of Aragorns line start with
> "Ar-"

This is just an Adunaic word-element meaning "King". Do any of the
Tolkien linguists out there know if "-thur" corresponds to anything in
that language? I want to say it doesn't, but I have only a passing
familiarity with Adunaic and no deep knowlege.

You cannot identify Tolkien's Eldar with the Faeries, Sidhe, and the
rest of the otherworldy folk of British legend. There is no
correspondence whatsoever. The latter are never even called "elves" in
their original matrix. "Elf" is of Germanic origin and not Celtic at
all. The identification of the two is strictly a modern construction.

> And then, i have always imagined that Merlin might be
> none other than Radagast, still hanging out in his
> beloved Middle Earth after 6 thousand years.

Radagast was a friend of the Eagles... A merlin is a kind of eagle...
Hmm...

Naah.

> Certainly Tolkien makes specific reference, in his
> legends to the island of Avalon, (This is where the
> mortally wounded Arthur is ultimately taken by Morgan
> and two other elvish queens). It is mentioned as an
> island that lies west of Numenor on the outskirts of Aman.

Tol Eressea is the name of the island. Avallone is the haven on it.

> In referring to Morgan as "elvish" I am of course referring
> to the more ancient versions of the tale. It is only later
> that she came to be regarded merely as an evil sorceress
> whose beauty was preserved by dark magic rather than
> natural immortality.

It is perhaps an error to assume that the more otherworldly Welsh
Arthurian tales are in fact the oldest versions of the story. The
bardic tradition appears to have survived in Wales for a rather long
while. As professional storytellers, bards were less interested in
preserving a tradition than in telling a ripping good story, such as
would induce silver to flow from his audience in his direction. I could
cite specific examples of instances where common Indo-European themes
were melded into various traditional histories via this process, but I'm
too lazy to consult my references just now.

-- Chris Csernica

Nystulc

não lida,
15 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0015/12/1999
para
Does anyone suppose that perhaps Tolkien had in mind
a specific connection between Arthurian legend and
his tales of Middle Earth. I always imagined that Arthur

was likely a descendent of Aragorn, and Excalibur
perhaps none other than Narsil/Anduril renamed yet
again. He has much in common with Aragorn besides

a magic sword: specifically his connection with elves.
Arthur apparently had both elvish blood and elvish
relatives, specifically his sister, Morgan le Fay. And it
is interesting that so many of Aragorns line start with
"Ar-"

And then, i have always imagined that Merlin might be


none other than Radagast, still hanging out in his
beloved Middle Earth after 6 thousand years.

Certainly Tolkien makes specific reference, in his


legends to the island of Avalon, (This is where the
mortally wounded Arthur is ultimately taken by Morgan
and two other elvish queens). It is mentioned as an
island that lies west of Numenor on the outskirts of Aman.

In referring to Morgan as "elvish" I am of course referring


to the more ancient versions of the tale. It is only later
that she came to be regarded merely as an evil sorceress
whose beauty was preserved by dark magic rather than
natural immortality.

-- John Whelan

David Sulger

não lida,
15 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0015/12/1999
para
John Whelan wrote:

>it is interesting that so many of Aragorns
>line start with "Ar-"

That is because in this case, "ar-" is a Sindarin root meaning "noble".
Not surpirsing, considering that these men were the kings of
Arnor/Arthedain and then later the chieftains of the Dunedain of the
North. The "ar-" root btw is also part of the name Arnor as well, which
means (I think) "Land of Kings" (or something like that).

--Dave


Cian

não lida,
15 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0015/12/1999
para
Chris Csernica wrote:

> [snip]


> Radagast was a friend of the Eagles... A merlin is a kind of eagle...
> Hmm... Naah.

Actually, a merlin is a pigeon hawk.
To compare names:
Welsh 'Myrddin'-- 'sea-hill' (N.Tolstoy gives 'Mer/lin' 'Sea fortress')
'Aiwendil', Radagast's name in the West, means 'friend/lover of birds'

'Tolkien first gives the form 'Radagast' as 'Tender of beasts' then later
writes that it was a name derived from the Men of the Vales of Anduin, and
'not now clearly interpretable'. Though I know our eminent linguist David
Salo has given it a plausible interpretation in archaic German and Gothic.
:)
--
Cian


Mark Wells

não lida,
15 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0015/12/1999
para
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 03:25:05 -0500 (EST), David Sulger <or...@webtv.net> wrote:

>That is because in this case, "ar-" is a Sindarin root meaning "noble".
>Not surpirsing, considering that these men were the kings of
>Arnor/Arthedain and then later the chieftains of the Dunedain of the
>North. The "ar-" root btw is also part of the name Arnor as well, which
>means (I think) "Land of Kings" (or something like that).

That's unlikely, as 'Arnor' is Sindarin. (As are 'Gondor' and 'Mordor'.)
The 'ar-' root in Sindarin means, AFAICT, 'noble' (as in 'Aredhel').
Hence 'Arnor' = "noble land" or "noble people", depending on whether this
is 'nor' as in Quenya 'ndor' or as in Quenya 'nore'. ('Numenor' is both.
Properly, the land of Numenor is called Numendor (though Quenya ND and NG
frequently get reduced to just N, as in 'Rohan', 'Noldor') and the people
who live there are called, collectively, Numenore.)

Robert Brady

não lida,
15 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0015/12/1999
para
Chris Csernica <cser...@ihwy.com> wrote:
>> Certainly Tolkien makes specific reference, in his
>> legends to the island of Avalon, (This is where the
>> mortally wounded Arthur is ultimately taken by Morgan
>> and two other elvish queens). It is mentioned as an
>> island that lies west of Numenor on the outskirts of Aman.

>Tol Eressea is the name of the island. Avallone is the haven on it.

Not until fairly late (1950s). Prior to that, Avalonne was the island. The
name seems to be one of the few instances (with "Earendil"), of direct
borrowing of names (although of course it stayed long after it's original
significance and link to Avalon was lost). The tale of Aelfwine fits in
neatly with this type of thing. (myths of an island, sometimes identified
with heaven, to the far west of the British Isles.)

--
Robert

Mark Wells

não lida,
15 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0015/12/1999
para
I'm an idiot. I thought you were talking about Adunaic. I reread your
post and realized I'd repeated exactly what you said.


Chris Csernica

não lida,
15 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0015/12/1999
para
Robert Brady wrote:

> Not until fairly late (1950s). Prior to that, Avalonne was the island.

I'd assumed we were talking about the canonical version. The original
poster did not seem to have read HoME.

-- Chris Csernica

David Sulger

não lida,
15 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0015/12/1999
para
Mark Welles wrote:

>I thought you were talking about
>Adunaic.

Since the root "-ar" appears in Sindarin, Quenya, and Adunaic, I can
understand your confusion (and embarrasment, since I clearly stated
Sindarin :) ... oh well, nobody's perfect). I made sure I mentioned
Sindarin, as I was trying to make a point about the names of the
Dunedain of the North.

--Dave


Nystulc

não lida,
17 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0017/12/1999
para
In article <3857450A...@ihwy.com>, Chris Csernica <cser...@ihwy.com>
writes:

>Nystulc wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone suppose that perhaps Tolkien had in mind
>> a specific connection between Arthurian legend and
>> his tales of Middle Earth.
>

>No.

OK.

>> I always imagined that Arthur
>> was likely a descendent of Aragorn, and Excalibur
>> perhaps none other than Narsil/Anduril renamed yet
>> again.
>

>Renamed more than once. "Excalibur" is ultimately derived from the
>Welsh "Caledfwlch," or "hard one" IIRC. Semantically and phonetically
>unconnected with Anduril "Flame of the West", but we would expect to
>find such a relation had Tolkien intended any such thing.

Why? Is "West-Flame" semantically or phonetically connected
to "Narsil"? Is "Sting" semantically or phonetically derived from whatever
the Gondolin elves called it. Is "Biter" semantically or phonetically related
to "Orcrist"? Anduril would certainly have been a "hard one" compared
to the typical dark ages sword, and that is more than adequate
explanation for its developing a new name in a local language after
6000 years. Sheesh!

> Also, if he intended your imagined genaeology, he likely have provided
> somewhere in his copious notes and drafts some kind of line of descent
> for Arthur where his line might be traceable to pre-Roman British
> chieftains, themselves decended from Numenorean royalty.

You say that very flippantly, as though it were an easy thing. Tell you
what! Why don't you give Tolkien 10 years of your life so he can come
back to finish the Silmarilion, and I'll give him 10 years of mine so that
when he is done with that he can work out the history of the 4th, 5th,
and 6th ages, and work into them the genealogies connecting Aragorn
with Arthur.

There are many reasons why he would not have chosen to devote
time to such a project. One, of course, is the fact that, the closer you
get to modern times, the harder it is to "invent" things without
contradicting known historical facts that you personally are unaware
of (thus spoiling ths suspension of disbelief). This is one of the reasons
Tolkien set his histories so far back in the first place. And such lore
of course, could not have been worked into the Red Book as a
framing device.

Tolkien suggested that the Blue Wizards might have been the founders
of eastern magic traditions. I presume he was referring to real
magical/mystical traditions that surivive today (at least in myth).
And yet he merely suggested this, without writing a 3 volume
history of the development. Nor did he write a 3-volume hstory
of Hobbits from ancient times to present (though he strongly
hints they still survive). Even within the early ages, he never
wrote a genealogy connecting the various famous dragons
"of royal lineage" like Glaurung, Ancalagon, Scatha, Smaug, and
Chrysophilax.

> But he did not
> do so, and the line of Pendragons of which Arthur was supposed to be a
> bastard son has no such antecedents in legend. There is no connection,
> either explicit or implied.

To my knowledge, the "line of Pendragons" does not go back beyond Uther,
Arthur's father. The legends leave much about Arthur unexplained, especially
if one goes back to the older legends that Tolkien evidently preferred. This
does not prevent the imagination from working.

I have already mentioned some "implied" connections: Both are member of a
mysterious line of Kings with both "fairy" blood and "fairy" relatives, which
line, due to such "elvish" connections, has a way of returning, even after
long absences.

Of course, I would not assume that Arthur's connection (if any) to the line of
Elendil comes through Uther Pendragon. My impression from the legends
is that Arthur was special in a way that Uther was not, and this mystical
connection comes more from Igraine's side of the family than from
Uther's. I also get the impression that the union of Igraine and Uther was
part of a plot by Merlin to raise one of Igraine's ancestry to the local
throne.

> It ought to be remembered here, perhaps, that Tolkien set out at first
> to create a mythology for the English people. In Arthurian legend, one
> of the ancestor groups of the English - the Saxons - are the main enemy.

OK, but does that point work against this idea?

> > He has much in common with Aragorn besides
> > a magic sword: specifically his connection with elves.
> > Arthur apparently had both elvish blood and elvish

> > relatives, specifically his sister, Morgan le Fay. And it


> > is interesting that so many of Aragorns line start with
> > "Ar-"
>

> This is just an Adunaic word-element meaning "King". Do any of the
> Tolkien linguists out there know if "-thur" corresponds to anything in
> that language? I want to say it doesn't, but I have only a passing
> familiarity with Adunaic and no deep knowlege.

Aran-Thorono means King-Eagle, from which is derived "Arathorn"
the name of Aragorn's father. "Arthur" could as easily have the
same derivation, or simply be a shorter variation of "Arathorn".
As Tolkien makes clear in one of this letters, he never bothered
to create meanings for all the the suffixes to "Ar" or "Ara" names
in Isildur's line. Some, he suggested, might have no specific meaning
but merely be local variants, like "Robin" or "Bob" derived from
"Robert" (Tolkien's own example)..

I'm not sure what the suffix means in "Denethor". Probably the same
thing -- "eagle".

> You cannot identify Tolkien's Eldar with the Faeries, Sidhe, and the
> rest of the otherworldy folk of British legend. There is no
> correspondence whatsoever.

They appear to correspond smewhat in Tolkien's mind. He himself
refers to Aman as "Faerie"..

> The latter are never even called "elves" in
> their original matrix. "Elf" is of Germanic origin and not Celtic at
> all. The identification of the two is strictly a modern construction.

I doubt the legends are entirely unrelated, but....

Who cares if it is a modern construction or not? Does it matter that
the identification of "Thames" with "Tame Dragon" is
"strictly a modern construction" entirely invented by
Tolkien?

Tolkien has invented his own fantasy history of the Elves.
Within this fantasy, all the above legends are derived from
his invented "truth". He made the connection himself
when he associated the Fairy isle of Avalon with the
Elvish isle of Erissea..

>> And then, i have always imagined that Merlin might be
>> none other than Radagast, still hanging out in his
>> beloved Middle Earth after 6 thousand years.
>

>Radagast was a friend of the Eagles... A merlin is a kind of eagle...
>Hmm...
>Naah.

A Merlin is a type of hawk actually. But Radagast was known as
a friend of birds in general, not of Eagle's in particular. Gandalf
says as much, and Saruman calls him "Bird-tamer".

There is no need for the names to be linguistically related, any more
than Gandalf's various names were (Gandalf, Incanus,
Mithrandir, Olorin, Stormcrow, Tharkun). Gandalf says his
names are many in many countries, and I suspect this is no
more than a partial list of the more important and widespread
ones.

Merlin was certainly one of the inspirations for Tolkien's
Istari. Of course, if Tolkien were to comment on this connection
while maintaining "suspension of disbelief", he would likely
suggest rather that Merlin legends were derived from memories
of the Istari, rather than the other way round. Radagast
is the only Istari who remains in the West in ancient times.

Tolkien suggests that the Blue Wizards went to found magic
traditions in the East. If Radagast were to found a magic
tradition in the West, it would likely be nature oriented, like
Druidism. Merlin is of course a very important figure within
Druidism.



> > Certainly Tolkien makes specific reference, in his
> > legends to the island of Avalon, (This is where the
> > mortally wounded Arthur is ultimately taken by Morgan
> > and two other elvish queens). It is mentioned as an
> > island that lies west of Numenor on the outskirts of Aman.
>
>Tol Eressea is the name of the island. Avallone is the haven on it.

Clearly Tolkien intended to draw a connection here, implying
that the legendary Avalon is based on memory ot the "real"
one of his fantasy universe. The confusion of the haven with
the island is only a nod to realism -- legends do in fact become
confused this way, and it is only realistic that the legends
(which evolve and contradict each other) should have evolved
and contradicted the "truth" they are derived from. Erissea
and Avalon are both islands positioned just before an earthly
paradise. By making "Avallone" the port of Erissea,
Tolkien makes clear that they are the same place in his mind,
and that the similarities are no coincidence.

>> In referring to Morgan as "elvish" I am of course referring
>> to the more ancient versions of the tale. It is only later
>> that she came to be regarded merely as an evil sorceress
>> whose beauty was preserved by dark magic rather than
>> natural immortality.
>

> It is perhaps an error to assume that the more otherworldly Welsh
> Arthurian tales are in fact the oldest versions of the story.

The "otherworldly" Welsh tales are precisely what Tolkien would
have been interested in. Arthur was, or course, a real person,
who probably had a real history (if only we could dig it up) which
no doubt has nothing whatsoever with fay folk or magic or Merlin
or any of these Celtic mythological trappings. Do you think that
would have mattered to Tolkien? His interest was in mythology,
not realistic history.

It is also "perhaps an error" to imagine that Thames is "really"
derived from "kingdom of the Tame Dragon".

> The
> bardic tradition appears to have survived in Wales for a rather long
> while. As professional storytellers, bards were less interested in
> preserving a tradition than in telling a ripping good story, such as
> would induce silver to flow from his audience in his direction. I could
> cite specific examples of instances where common Indo-European themes
> were melded into various traditional histories via this process, but I'm
> too lazy to consult my references just now.

Please see "On Fairy Stories" for some of Tolkien's thoughts on this
subject, specifically his references to the great "Cauldron" of mythology,
into which historical figures get sometimes mixed. He refers specifically
to Arthur:

"It seems fairyl plain that Arthur, once historical (but perhaps as such
not of great importance), was also put into the Pot. There he was
boiled for a long time, together with many other older figures and
devices of mythology and Faerie, and even some other stray bones
of history (such as Alfreds defence against the Danes), until he
emerged as a King of Faerie."

As the essay makes clear, he regards Arthur the "King of Faerie" as
in a way more interesting, more important, and even "older" than
the "real" Arthur he was derived from.

-- John Whelan


Chris Csernica

não lida,
17 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0017/12/1999
para
Nystulc wrote:

[snip]

> Is "West-Flame" semantically or phonetically connected
> to "Narsil"? Is "Sting" semantically or phonetically derived from whatever
> the Gondolin elves called it. Is "Biter" semantically or phonetically related
> to "Orcrist"? Anduril would certainly have been a "hard one" compared
> to the typical dark ages sword, and that is more than adequate
> explanation for its developing a new name in a local language after
> 6000 years. Sheesh!

I was grasping at straws, more or less looking for any reasonable
support for your theory. If the sole connection you can draw between
Anduril and Excalibur is that they were both "magic" swords, "you'll
have to do better than that!" Magic swords are a dime a dozen in
Faerie. I could use the same criterion to suggest that Roland (of Le
Chanson de) and little Johnny's D&D character Throg the Barbarian are
related because they both had magic swords.

The fact is that Tolkien made no connection between the two blades. A
name in common (such as Avalon/Avallone; Atlantis/Atalante) might have
provided just such a connection. It doesn't.

> > Also, if he intended your imagined genaeology, he likely have provided
> > somewhere in his copious notes and drafts some kind of line of descent
> > for Arthur where his line might be traceable to pre-Roman British
> > chieftains, themselves decended from Numenorean royalty.
>
> You say that very flippantly, as though it were an easy thing. Tell you
> what! Why don't you give Tolkien 10 years of your life so he can come
> back to finish the Silmarilion, and I'll give him 10 years of mine so that
> when he is done with that he can work out the history of the 4th, 5th,
> and 6th ages, and work into them the genealogies connecting Aragorn
> with Arthur.

What, I'm supposed to think he didn't do it because it was too hard?
Writing LOTR was hard. Making up a single line of descent within the
context of legends that were extremely well known to him, either because
they were a focus of his study or because he made them up himself -
that's relatively easy. He did it numerous times just for LOTR. Look
at the appendices sometime.

> There are many reasons why he would not have chosen to devote
> time to such a project.

But there is ample reason to think he would have devoted a moment or two
of thought to it, and had he done so he almost certainly would have
jotted down a note or mentioned it to someone at some point in his
voluminous correspondence.

One, of course, is the fact that, the closer you
> get to modern times, the harder it is to "invent" things without
> contradicting known historical facts that you personally are unaware
> of (thus spoiling ths suspension of disbelief). This is one of the reasons
> Tolkien set his histories so far back in the first place. And such lore
> of course, could not have been worked into the Red Book as a
> framing device.

I think you need to give Tolkien a bit more credit. He knew quite a bit
of history as it related to his linguistic researches, and all the
history he would have needed to construct - or merely suggest - such a
line of descent. In fact, he did just this in the earliest version of
his mythology, when Tol Eressea was meant to be England, and the town of
Kortirion corresponded to Warwick. A traveller named Eriol (later in
the story renamed Aelfwine = Elf-Friend = Elendil) who comes to the
island later becomes the father of Hengist and Horsa, and receives
himself a genaeology going back to Woden. (Significantly for this
discussion, the word elements "Kor-" and "War-" are intended to be
etymologically related.)

> Tolkien suggested that the Blue Wizards might have been the founders
> of eastern magic traditions. I presume he was referring to real
> magical/mystical traditions that surivive today (at least in myth).

That presumption may be, as Tolkien often put it, "impertinent."

> And yet he merely suggested this, without writing a 3 volume
> history of the development.

And a connection between Arthur and Aragorn could have been similarly
suggested, at some point, to someone. It was not.

[snip]

> Even within the early ages, he never
> wrote a genealogy connecting the various famous dragons
> "of royal lineage" like Glaurung, Ancalagon, Scatha, Smaug, and
> Chrysophilax.

In the history of the Little Kingdom, Tolkien produced a tale that was
entirely unconnected with his larger mythology. It was a herculean
effort for him to do so, and it is quite inconsiderate of you to drag
them together in spite of that. True, he did feel certain that it would
have inevitably become connected had he written a sequel or two, simply
because everything he wrote seemed to connect itself one way or
another. Even _The Hobbit_ was not supposed to have anything to do with
_The Silmarillion_ at first. Thus, there is no need to produce a
precise geneaology for dragons from Glaurung (the father of all dragons)
to Chrysophylax (who, it should be noted, was not of royal lineage, but
of ancient and imperial lineage, a much grander thing.)
But none of Morgoth's dragons are ever described as "royal". It is no
more reasonable to believe that Tolkien would have developed a
genaeology for them than he would have for, say, the Orcs.

On the other hand, he did develop genaeologies for the royal houses of
Gondor and Arnor, Rohan, the Dwarves of Durin's folk, and some of the
more prominent families of the Shire, all as an afterthought to LOTR for
the benefit of the appendices, and fairly quickly. It would not have
taxed his powers significantly to outline (or even mention!) a descent
from Elessar to Arthur.

[snip]

> To my knowledge, the "line of Pendragons" does not go back beyond Uther,
> Arthur's father. The legends leave much about Arthur unexplained, especially
> if one goes back to the older legends that Tolkien evidently preferred. This
> does not prevent the imagination from working.

So the historical associations you were so worried about as being
difficult to reconcile with invented legends don't really seem do exist,
do they?

> I have already mentioned some "implied" connections: Both are member of a
> mysterious line of Kings with both "fairy" blood and "fairy" relatives, which
> line, due to such "elvish" connections, has a way of returning, even after
> long absences.

The same is true of half the kings of Ireland. So what?

And there was nothing mysterous about Aragorn's ancestry, merely
obscure. But it was well documented, even if not well known. His
line's "elvish connections" didn't have a way of returning; in all the
5000+ years of the Second and Third Ages it happened exactly once, at
the end of the Third. It was fairly clear that it wouldn't happen
again. The Eldar would soon all depart.

> Of course, I would not assume that Arthur's connection (if any) to the line of
> Elendil comes through Uther Pendragon. My impression from the legends
> is that Arthur was special in a way that Uther was not, and this mystical
> connection comes more from Igraine's side of the family than from
> Uther's. I also get the impression that the union of Igraine and Uther was
> part of a plot by Merlin to raise one of Igraine's ancestry to the local
> throne.

Did Tolkien see this the same way? Should he have? Are your
impressions colored by modern writers such as Marion Zimmer Bradley,
whom Tolkien never would have read? And can you demonstrate that he saw
things the same way you do? You're not even attempting to here. You
ought, in any event, be careful of ascribing your subjective impressions
to others.

> > It ought to be remembered here, perhaps, that Tolkien set out at first
> > to create a mythology for the English people. In Arthurian legend, one
> > of the ancestor groups of the English - the Saxons - are the main enemy.
>
> OK, but does that point work against this idea?

Arthur wasn't English. Tolkien's mindset was, as is clear from HoME,
that the modern descendents of the Elf-friends were English. This was
explicitly true as late as the composition of "The Lost Road," which was
the first version of the Akallabeth. He never involved Celts in his
stories in any way.

[snip the only thing that makes sense]



> > You cannot identify Tolkien's Eldar with the Faeries, Sidhe, and the
> > rest of the otherworldy folk of British legend. There is no
> > correspondence whatsoever.
>
> They appear to correspond smewhat in Tolkien's mind. He himself
> refers to Aman as "Faerie"..

I was using Faerie in a general sense, to indicate the various
supernatural races; this was a mistake. The word itself is of French
origin and has nothing to do with Celtic legend except where it was
embellished by French troubadours. My point stands.

> > The latter are never even called "elves" in
> > their original matrix. "Elf" is of Germanic origin and not Celtic at
> > all. The identification of the two is strictly a modern construction.
>
> I doubt the legends are entirely unrelated, but....

You ought not. There's no similarity at all.

> Who cares if it is a modern construction or not? Does it matter that
> the identification of "Thames" with "Tame Dragon" is
> "strictly a modern construction" entirely invented by
> Tolkien?

If you were to make the point that Tolkien meant for "Thames" to be
derived from a confusion of "Tame" and "Ham", in the context of "Farmer
Giles", then I'd have to agree. He said so explicitly. He never said
anything to even suggest that Morgan le Fay (for example) ought to be
thought of as one of his Eldar.

> Tolkien has invented his own fantasy history of the Elves.
> Within this fantasy, all the above legends are derived from
> his invented "truth". He made the connection himself
> when he associated the Fairy isle of Avalon with the
> Elvish isle of Erissea..

This is the sole point of contact and it means nothing in the context of
existing legend, no more than Greek history or legend is to be conflated
with the history of Numenor, which is similarly identified with
Atlantis.

[snip the rest. I really don't have the time, and some of this stuff I
really ought not get started on. I'd be seriously OT in no time.]

-- Chris Csernica

Alan Graham

não lida,
17 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0017/12/1999
para
I think the fundamental point has been mentioned here - Merlin and Arthur
are fundamentally Celtic (and more specifically Welsh) myths - they are not
specifically English myths.

Tolkien did say several times he disliked Celtic myths, so I'm not sure he
would have wanted to take from celtic mythology to create his myth for
England

Al


David Salo

não lida,
17 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0017/12/1999
para
In article <slrn85fsp...@colpanic.office.pc-intouch.com>,
ma...@colpanic.office.pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) wrote:

Arnor is a Sindarin (in form) _borrowing_ from Quenya Arna-noore (which
by "haplology", or loss of a syllable in a sequence of two similar
syllables, in this case na-no) becomes Arnoore; in Sindarin, in which final
vowels are rare, and long final syllables even rarer, it becomes Arnor.
Arna (S Arn) means "royal", and is related to Aran "king".
Why this complicated origin? Well, because Tolkien in this case
cheated. He wanted a name that mean "royal land", but since Arn+dor (the
usual Sindarin suffix for "land") would give "Ardor", with unsuitable
suggestions of fire and passion, he decided to make it Arnor, and justify
it as a Quenya borrowing!

Arthur could be explained as a Sindarin derivative of *Artuuro "High
Master" or *Artuure "High Mastery"; these would naturally evolve to Arthur
in Sindarin. But the name Arthur appears to derive, in fact, from a Latin
name Artorius (with long o) > Arturius > Arthur in Welsh. It is odd, in
fact, that Arthur is known by the Welsh form of his name in the English
legends, which are mostly derived from French versions in which the name is
Artus, Artu; the name must have been re-formed by persons with at least a
passing knowledge of the Welsh Arthur.

David Salo

the softrat

não lida,
17 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0017/12/1999
para
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:01:48 -0000, "Alan Graham"
<a...@kuhl-graham.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>Tolkien did say several times he disliked Celtic myths

Hol'Dit! I want references. I don't believe that he ever said such a
thing! He did say that the Sil. was not Celtic, but that's not the
same thing. (He also wrote a fragment of an Arthurian poem.)

the softrat
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
God? I'm no God! God has MERCY!

Nystulc

não lida,
18 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0018/12/1999
para
In article <385A165B...@ihwy.com>, Chris Csernica <cser...@ihwy.com>
writes:

>I was grasping at straws, more or less looking for any reasonable


>support for your theory. If the sole connection you can draw between
>Anduril and Excalibur is that they were both "magic" swords, "you'll
>have to do better than that!" Magic swords are a dime a dozen in
>Faerie. I could use the same criterion to suggest that Roland (of Le
>Chanson de) and little Johnny's D&D character Throg the Barbarian are
>related because they both had magic swords.

My mention of the Magic Sword was an afterthought, and a logical corollary to
the idea that Arthur might be of the line of Elendil. It could easily be a
different sword, whether he is of the line of Elendil or not. Besides, my
question was, whether it is possible that Tolkien imagined a connection between
Arthurian legend and his Middle Earth history. I never claimed much evidence.
I find it amusing to imagine such a connection, and it seems to me at least
plausible that Tolkien might have as well. Your response is no, (it is not
possible), and I do not find your objections convincing .

>The fact is that Tolkien made no connection between the two blades. A
>name in common (such as Avalon/Avallone; Atlantis/Atalante) might have
>provided just such a connection. It doesn't.

>> > Also, if he intended your imagined genaeology, he likely have provided
>> > somewhere in his copious notes and drafts some kind of line of descent
>> > for Arthur where his line might be traceable to pre-Roman British
>> > chieftains, themselves decended from Numenorean royalty.
>>
>> You say that very flippantly, as though it were an easy thing. Tell you
>> what! Why don't you give Tolkien 10 years of your life so he can come
>> back to finish the Silmarilion, and I'll give him 10 years of mine so that
>> when he is done with that he can work out the history of the 4th, 5th,
>> and 6th ages, and work into them the genealogies connecting Aragorn
>> with Arthur.
>
>What, I'm supposed to think he didn't do it because it was too hard?
>Writing LOTR was hard. Making up a single line of descent within the
>context of legends that were extremely well known to him, either because
>they were a focus of his study or because he made them up himself -
>that's relatively easy. He did it numerous times just for LOTR. Look
>at the appendices sometime.

Right. I notice that he failed to write a line of descent for the descendents
of Aragorn, though the line presumably survived for a long time into the Fourth
age, and perhaps beyond. Why did he not do this if it was so easy (whether it
ends in Arthur of not). Your objection seems scarcely relevant..

And I think you underestimate the creative energy required to make a meaningful
line of descent that is anything more than a silly list of names.

>> There are many reasons why he would not have chosen to devote
>> time to such a project.
>
>But there is ample reason to think he would have devoted a moment or two
>of thought to it,

Of course.

> and had he done so he almost certainly would have
>jotted down a note or mentioned it to someone at some point in his
>voluminous correspondence.

Total non-sequitur. You seem to assume that if someone has time to walk a
step, he therefore has time to walk 20 steps. Why should the subject be
addressed in his "voluminous correspondence" unless someone asked him
specifically about the subject (and why should he tell them, even if they
asked). You vastly overestimate the thoroughness of Tolkien's published
correspondence. They touch on a thousant subjects, but there are a million
subjects they do not touch on. Nowhere, for instance, does he address the
question of whether Frodo or the Ring spoke on Mount Doom, or whether Elves
have pointed ears, etc.

>> One, of course, is the fact that, the closer you
>> get to modern times, the harder it is to "invent" things without
>> contradicting known historical facts that you personally are unaware
>> of (thus spoiling ths suspension of disbelief). This is one of the reasons
>> Tolkien set his histories so far back in the first place. And such lore
>> of course, could not have been worked into the Red Book as a
>> framing device.
>
>I think you need to give Tolkien a bit more credit. He knew quite a bit
>of history as it related to his linguistic researches, and all the
>history he would have needed to construct - or merely suggest - such a
>line of descent. In fact, he did just this in the earliest version of
>his mythology, when Tol Eressea was meant to be England, and the town of
>Kortirion corresponded to Warwick. A traveller named Eriol (later in
>the story renamed Aelfwine = Elf-Friend = Elendil) who comes to the
>island later becomes the father of Hengist and Horsa, and receives
>himself a genaeology going back to Woden. (Significantly for this
>discussion, the word elements "Kor-" and "War-" are intended to be
>etymologically related.)
>
>> Tolkien suggested that the Blue Wizards might have been the founders
>> of eastern magic traditions. I presume he was referring to real
>> magical/mystical traditions that surivive today (at least in myth).
>
>That presumption may be, as Tolkien often put it, "impertinent."

Impertinent to who, Tolkien or the Eastern Traditions? He appears to have had
something in mind, and it is not like he had invented fictional Eastern cults
of his own that the was referring to. He suggests that these cults "outlasted
the fall of Sauron", which seems to me a clear attempt to draw an association
to later times. What later times do you suppose he had in mind, if not our own
ancient history and legend?

>> And yet he merely suggested this, without writing a 3 volume
>> history of the development.

>And a connection between Arthur and Aragorn could have been similarly
>suggested, at some point, to someone. It was not.

I'm sure there are s zillion things of which we have no recorded comment.


>[snip]
>
>> Even within the early ages, he never
>> wrote a genealogy connecting the various famous dragons
>> "of royal lineage" like Glaurung, Ancalagon, Scatha, Smaug, and
>> Chrysophilax.
>
>In the history of the Little Kingdom, Tolkien produced a tale that was
>entirely unconnected with his larger mythology.

Fine. Leave out Chrysophilax if you do not find his "royal lineage" suggestive
of a connection. Explain why he never wrote a genealogy connecting the rest of
them.

> It was a herculean
>effort for him to do so, and it is quite inconsiderate of you to drag
>them together in spite of that.

I'm sure he is rolling in his grave at the insult. Actually, I think he liked
to imagine all his stories as though they were true, and all set within *this*
same world. Applying "suspension of disbelief" to both tales leads
automatically to the conclusion that Chrysophylax is descended from the flying
"uruloki" of the third age. I suspect, rather, that Tolkien would be
flattered by the connection, for it would mean that the stories had had there
intended effect.



> True, he did feel certain that it would
> have inevitably become connected had he written a sequel or two, simply
> because everything he wrote seemed to connect itself one way or
> another. Even _The Hobbit_ was not supposed to have anything to do with
> _The Silmarillion_ at first. Thus, there is no need to produce a
> precise geneaology for dragons from Glaurung (the father of all dragons)
> to Chrysophylax (who, it should be noted, was not of royal lineage, but
> of ancient and imperial lineage, a much grander thing.)
> But none of Morgoth's dragons are ever described as "royal".

Smaug is, I believe, decribed in such terms, though I don't have the Hobbit in
front of me to check. I always assumed this referred to the fact that he was a
fire-breathing winged dragon, descended from the ones that were bred by
Morgoth, and specifically from the most powerful and famous of them (such as
Ancalagon).

> It is no
>more reasonable to believe that Tolkien would have developed a
>genaeology for them than he would have for, say, the Orcs.

You say it is not reasonable because he did not do it. Had he done it, there
would have been nothing unreasonable about it. The point is, one can imagine,
or imply, or suggest, a line of descent without documenting it fully, as was
done in the case of Smaug. I never argued that Tolkien should be obliged or
expected to do such things, though that did appear to be your assumption.

> On the other hand, he did develop genaeologies for the royal houses of
> Gondor and Arnor, Rohan, the Dwarves of Durin's folk, and some of the
> more prominent families of the Shire, all as an afterthought to LOTR for
> the benefit of the appendices, and fairly quickly. It would not have
> taxed his powers significantly to outline (or even mention!) a descent
> from Elessar to Arthur.
>
> [snip]
>
>> To my knowledge, the "line of Pendragons" does not go back beyond Uther,
>> Arthur's father. The legends leave much about Arthur unexplained,
>especially
>> if one goes back to the older legends that Tolkien evidently preferred.
>This
>> does not prevent the imagination from working.
>
>So the historical associations you were so worried about as being
>difficult to reconcile with invented legends don't really seem do exist,
>do they?

Tolkien was deliberately vague about the precise time-period in which the War
of the Ring took place. He was not sure if it was 6000 or 7000 or 8000 years
ago. He did not wish to be specific, because he felt that was perilous to
suspension of disbelief, perhaps allowing his tales to seem unconvincing to
readers with geological or archaeological knowledge of past ages. Writing a
line of descent that directly connects the Third Age to our own would not at
all be consistent witht his deliberate vagueness, and would have been
problematic for a whole host of other reasons. Tolkien would not have done it.
My suggestions may be silly, but your objections are even sillier..

>> I have already mentioned some "implied" connections: Both are member of a
>> mysterious line of Kings with both "fairy" blood and "fairy" relatives,
which
>> line, due to such "elvish" connections, has a way of returning, even after
>> long absences.
>
>The same is true of half the kings of Ireland. So what?

You yourself stated he was interested in a specifically English mythology.

>And there was nothing mysterous about Aragorn's ancestry, merely
>obscure.

You're being silly. It was "mysterious" to the same people to whom it was
"obscure". Those who did not find it "obscure" did not find it "mysterious"
either.

> But it was well documented, even if not well known. His
>line's "elvish connections" didn't have a way of returning; in all the
>5000+ years of the Second and Third Ages it happened exactly once, at
>the end of the Third.

The family connection between Elrond an the line of Elendil existed during the
entire period, and were at least one of the reasons for the support given by
Elrond to the Dunedain kings. It was renewed by the marriage of Arwen and
Aragorn (who were already distant relatives).

> It was fairly clear that it wouldn't happen
>again. The Eldar would soon all depart.

I'm not clear that Tolkien ever stated that ALL the Eldar departed at the
beginning of the fourth age. I'm sure there were, as always, some who tarried.
In any event, many dark elves remained.

>> Of course, I would not assume that Arthur's connection (if any) to the line
of
>> Elendil comes through Uther Pendragon. My impression from the legends
>> is that Arthur was special in a way that Uther was not, and this mystical
>> connection comes more from Igraine's side of the family than from
>> Uther's. I also get the impression that the union of Igraine and Uther was
>> part of a plot by Merlin to raise one of Igraine's ancestry to the local
>> throne.
>
> Did Tolkien see this the same way? Should he have?

I thought it possible he could have imagined a connection with Arthurian
legend, though I have no idea how he would have done it. My own ideas are my
own ideas, which I put forth because they amuse me. I did not ascribe the
above ideas to Tolkien. I was interested to find out if anyone else on this NG
had thoughts on the subject, or knew if Tolkien had had any.

> Are your
> impressions colored by modern writers such as Marion Zimmer Bradley,
> whom Tolkien never would have read?

I have not read Marion Zimmer Bradley. I am not surprised that she came up
with this notion, though, because it is not an radical or wierd one. I find
birth-legends interesting, and particularly in that they are, in origen, often
an excuse for denying someones apparent heritage and giving them an different
one. Take Moses, for example. The point of his birth-legend is to make him a
Hebrew, but perhaps a more interesting and certain aspect of his heritage is
what the legend was trying to deny -- that he was an Egyptian nobleman.
Similar logic applied to Arthur would lead one to conclude that his descent
from Igraine might be a more significant fact than his descent from Uther.
That his mother's side is the supernatural side of the family only adds to the
tendency to emphasise its importance for anyone who wishes to rewrite the story
(as modern writers are less likely to be impressed by the importance of
establishing "royal blood").

If there was a real Arthur, then one thing about him is almost certainly true:
He was most definitely NOT the son of Uther Pendragon. Otherwise, there would
be no need to invent a host of tall tales to pretend that he actually was.


> And can you demonstrate that he saw
> things the same way you do? You're not even attempting to here. You
> ought, in any event, be careful of ascribing your subjective impressions
> to others.

Oh, stop preaching! Sheesh!

>> > It ought to be remembered here, perhaps, that Tolkien set out at first
>> > to create a mythology for the English people. In Arthurian legend, one
>> > of the ancestor groups of the English - the Saxons - are the main enemy.
>>
>> OK, but does that point work against this idea?
>
> Arthur wasn't English. Tolkien's mindset was, as is clear from HoME,
> that the modern descendents of the Elf-friends were English. This was
> explicitly true as late as the composition of "The Lost Road," which was
> the first version of the Akallabeth. He never involved Celts in his
> stories in any way.

I have not read HoME, so I cannot comment. I still do not see much relevance
here. I suspect that Tolkien's imaginary "English" mythology is set before the
Saxon invasion. Therefore, I doubt that they were "English" in the precise
sense of being Anglo-Saxon. Anyway, we are not talking about Middle Earth, but
another abandoned project.

>[snip the only thing that makes sense]

?



>> I doubt the legends are entirely unrelated, but....
>
>You ought not. There's no similarity at all.

One can always find similarities if one is imaginative, and that's what we are
talking about. Tolkien's works are not scientific treatises on mythology. The
Atlantis legend is unconnected to the Avalon legend. So what? Tolkien
connected them in his fiction. If Tolkien (or one of his admireres) were to
write fiction about the latter-day events on Tol Erissea and its dealing with
mortal lands such as Britain, one could just as easily relate Tolkien's Elves
with the Fairies (or at least, those "Fairies" that were associated with
Avalon) -- which seems an inevitably logical thing to do. I don't at all see
why one "ought not" or why this is inconsistent with the sort of stuff Tolkien
himself did.

>> Who cares if it is a modern construction or not? Does it matter that
>> the identification of "Thames" with "Tame Dragon" is
>> "strictly a modern construction" entirely invented by
>> Tolkien?
>
> If you were to make the point that Tolkien meant for "Thames" to be
> derived from a confusion of "Tame" and "Ham", in the context of "Farmer
> Giles", then I'd have to agree. He said so explicitly. He never said
> anything to even suggest that Morgan le Fay (for example) ought to be
> thought of as one of his Eldar.

He did (explicitly) associate Avalon with his mythology. Morgan le Fay is
definitely associated with Avalon. Therefore, if one were to suspend
disbelief, and assume Tol Erissea is a real island that still exists and is the
source of the Avalon legend, one would naturally tend to suspect that legends
of Morgan were derived from an Elf (or Maia?) associated with Tol Erissea. If
"elves" and "fairies" are really totally unrelated, as you claim, then I guess
the local Celts must have just gotten confused about her, and wrongly ascribed
her to a category more familiar to them. Whatever.

[snip]


>> his invented "truth". He made the connection himself
>> when he associated the Fairy isle of Avalon with the
>> Elvish isle of Erissea..
>
>This is the sole point of contact and it means nothing in the context of
>existing legend, no more than Greek history or legend is to be conflated
>with the history of Numenor, which is similarly identified with
>Atlantis.

Actually, the Atlantis legend has almost no points of connection with other
aspects of Greek mythology. It is not really part of Greek mythology at all.
Hercules never visited Atlantis. Morgan did visit Avalon.

-- John Whelan


Nystulc

não lida,
18 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0018/12/1999
para
In article <83dq7j$jo$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Alan Graham"
<a...@kuhl-graham.fsnet.co.uk> writes:

I cannot see how any myth can possibly considered "specifically English"
without including Celtic elements. Like it or not, the Celts remain an
important part of England's cultural makeup regardless of who conquered and
supplanted them.

-- John Whelan

JM

não lida,
18 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0018/12/1999
para

Nystulc <nys...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:19991217004844...@ngol02.news.cs.com...

> In article <3857450A...@ihwy.com>, Chris Csernica
<cser...@ihwy.com>
> writes:
>
> >Nystulc wrote:
> >>
> >> Does anyone suppose that perhaps Tolkien had in mind
> >> a specific connection between Arthurian legend and
> >> his tales of Middle Earth.
> >
> >No.
>
> OK.

Even though he did not have Arthurian legend in mind when writing his books,
it would be strange if he hadn't been influenced by Arthurian legends - or
more specifically romances, as he was a romance scholar and did translate
_Gawain and the Green Night_ and _Pearl_ into modern English. The plot in
both LOTR and The Hobbit are clearly influenced by romance - which explains
the difficulty many critics have had in accepting the books as proper
novels - thy are not novels, they are romances!

Nex

Mark Wells

não lida,
18 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0018/12/1999
para
On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 20:41:58 GMT, David Salo <ds...@usa.net> wrote:

> Arnor is a Sindarin (in form) _borrowing_ from Quenya Arna-noore (which
>by "haplology", or loss of a syllable in a sequence of two similar
>syllables, in this case na-no) becomes Arnoore; in Sindarin, in which final
>vowels are rare, and long final syllables even rarer, it becomes Arnor.
>Arna (S Arn) means "royal", and is related to Aran "king".
> Why this complicated origin? Well, because Tolkien in this case
>cheated. He wanted a name that mean "royal land", but since Arn+dor (the
>usual Sindarin suffix for "land") would give "Ardor", with unsuitable
>suggestions of fire and passion, he decided to make it Arnor, and justify
>it as a Quenya borrowing!

Did he say that somewhere? I find it a pretty tenuous explanation, as he
could have justified it by saying that Arn+dor becomes 'Arnor'. The usual
sound pattern in Quenya, at least, is for RND to become RD rather than RN,
but that appears somewhat flexible (as in names like 'Numenor' or
'Rohan'). The sounds aren't that distinct. (Neither are the letters. A
D-tengwa is just an N-tengwa with a slightly longer stem. I think there's
a reason for that.)

David Salo

não lida,
19 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0019/12/1999
para
In article <slrn85nno...@colpanic.office.pc-intouch.com>,
ma...@colpanic.office.pc-intouch.com (Mark Wells) wrote:

Yes, he did; see Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #347, p. 428 "For instance we
have Arnor and Gondor, which [the author] has retained because he desired
to avoid _Ardor_. But it can now only (though reasonably) be explained
after invention as due to a blending of Q. arnanóre/arnanor with S.
arn(a)dor > ardor. The name was in any case given to mean 'royal land' as
being the realm of Elendil and so taking precedence of the southern realm."
It is a "tenuous" explanation, but only because Tolkien's construction of
names was (or became) very exacting and _not_ "flexible"; the names
Númenor, Rohan, do not show "flexibility"; the first is Quenya, a short
form of Númenóre = núme(n)+nóre "west country"; the latter is Sindarin,
*Rochand > Rohan, with a usual reduction of final -nd to -n(n) when
completely unstressed; both quite different instances from the
syllable-initial d of -dor! The sound rules governing the construction of
Tolkien's Sindarin names are certainly elaborate, but they have very few
exceptions.
The letters ando, númen are of course similar because they represent
similar sounds, both being voiced dentals. This is part of the
construction of the tengwar system.

David Salo

David Salo

não lida,
19 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0019/12/1999
para
In article <83gkjs$24au$1...@news.cybercity.dk>, "JM" <n...@post.cybercity.dk>
wrote:

> > >Nystulc wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Does anyone suppose that perhaps Tolkien had in mind
> > >> a specific connection between Arthurian legend and
> > >> his tales of Middle Earth.
>

> Even though he did not have Arthurian legend in mind when writing his books,

> it would be strange if he hadn't been influenced by Arthurian legends\

Consider this, from Letter #154, pp. 198-9:

"But in this story [The Lord of the Rings] it is supposed that there may
be certain rare exceptions or accommodations....; and so certain 'mortals'
who have played some great part in Elvish affairs, may pass with the Elves
to Elvenhome. Thus Frodo (by the express gift of Arwen_ and Bilbo, and
eventually Sam.... and as a unique exception Gimli the Dwarf, as friend of
Legolas and 'servant' of Galadriel.
"I have said nothing about it in this book, but the mythical idea
underlying is that for mortals, since their 'kind' cannot be changed
forever, this is strictly only a temporary reward: a healing and redress of
suffering. They cannot abide for ever, and though they cannot return to
mortal earth, they can and will 'die' - of free will, and leave the world.
(In this setting the return of Arthur would be quite impossible, a vain
imagining.)"

Here Tolkien makes an explicit parallel between Arthur's voyage to
Avalon and the voyages of Frodo, Bilbo, Sam and Gimli to Tol Eressea - *as
if* they were part of the same mythology, or could be part of the same
mythology; i.e., _if_ we were to put King Arthur into the universe of
Middle-earth, then his Avalonian destination would be Tol Eressea, but one
could not expect him to return.

Tolkien also discusses Arthurian legend (rather sympathetically) in The
Notion Club Papers (published in Sauron Defeated), p. 228-30, etc.; in one
place a character, discussing "re-viewing" stories and myths through
dreaming, says "I think I could go back to Camelot, _if_ the conditions of
my mind and the chances of travel were favourable. The chances are not, as
I told you, more than very slightly affected by waking desire. An
adventure of that sort would _not_ be the same thing as re-viewing what
you'ld call Fifth-century Britain. Neither would it be like making a
dream-drama of my own. It would be more like the first, but it would be
more active. It would be much less free than the second. It would
probably be more difficult than either. I fancy it might be the sort of
thing best done by one or two people in concert."
Later on in the story, two people succeed (or were intended to succeed,
in unwritten parts) in "re-viewing" (as participants) the Fall of Númenor,
which I understand is conceived of as having the same borderline mythical
and historical character as Camelot.

David Salo

Öjevind Lång

não lida,
19 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0019/12/1999
para
David Salo hath writen:

[snip]


>
> Consider this, from Letter #154, pp. 198-9:
>
> "But in this story [The Lord of the Rings] it is supposed that there may
>be certain rare exceptions or accommodations....; and so certain 'mortals'
>who have played some great part in Elvish affairs, may pass with the Elves
>to Elvenhome. Thus Frodo (by the express gift of Arwen_ and Bilbo, and
>eventually Sam.... and as a unique exception Gimli the Dwarf, as friend of
>Legolas and 'servant' of Galadriel.
> "I have said nothing about it in this book, but the mythical idea
>underlying is that for mortals, since their 'kind' cannot be changed
>forever, this is strictly only a temporary reward: a healing and redress of
>suffering. They cannot abide for ever, and though they cannot return to
>mortal earth, they can and will 'die' - of free will, and leave the world.
>(In this setting the return of Arthur would be quite impossible, a vain
>imagining.)"


How does that fit together with the statement that Tuor was the only mortal
man to become numbered among the Eldar? Is this another example of Tolkien
stitching together things later on to make them more compatible with his
religious beliefs?

Öjevind

Conrad Dunkerson

não lida,
19 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0019/12/1999
para
Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:aX974.2846$W33....@nntpserver.swip.net...

> How does that fit together with the statement that Tuor was the
> only mortal man to become numbered among the Eldar? Is this
> another example of Tolkien stitching together things later on to
> make them more compatible with his religious beliefs?

I don't see why. The passage in question specifically states that
they will remain mortal and die... and thus are not numbered amongst
the Eldar. Where is the contradiction?

Mark Wells

não lida,
20 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0020/12/1999
para
On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 17:52:27 GMT, ds...@usa.net (David Salo) wrote:

> Yes, he did; see Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #347, p. 428 "For instance we
>have Arnor and Gondor, which [the author] has retained because he desired
>to avoid _Ardor_. But it can now only (though reasonably) be explained
>after invention as due to a blending of Q. arnanóre/arnanor with S.
>arn(a)dor > ardor. The name was in any case given to mean 'royal land' as
>being the realm of Elendil and so taking precedence of the southern realm."

So it's not so much a direct borrowing from Quenya as an alteration of
the Sindarin word under the influence of Quenya.

>It is a "tenuous" explanation, but only because Tolkien's construction of
>names was (or became) very exacting and _not_ "flexible"; the names
>Númenor, Rohan, do not show "flexibility"; the first is Quenya, a short
>form of Númenóre = núme(n)+nóre "west country"; the latter is Sindarin,
>*Rochand > Rohan, with a usual reduction of final -nd to -n(n) when
>completely unstressed; both quite different instances from the
>syllable-initial d of -dor! The sound rules governing the construction of
>Tolkien's Sindarin names are certainly elaborate, but they have very few
>exceptions.

Why should 'arn(a)dor' necessarily become 'ardor'? Why not 'arnor'?

> The letters ando, númen are of course similar because they represent
>similar sounds, both being voiced dentals. This is part of the
>construction of the tengwar system.

There's little difference between 'arnor' and 'ardor' when spoken.
There's also very little difference between them when written. So why
bother choosing between them at all? Because, as Tolkien explained,
'ardor', when written in the Roman alphabet, has connotations that he
wanted to avoid, even though it's a completely unrelated word.

But that becomes relevant only when we consider writing a Sindarin
word in an alphabet that doesn't handle Sindarin properly. Within the
context of the Sindarin language, there's no reason to distinguish
between 'arnor' and 'ardor' at all.


Öjevind Lång

não lida,
20 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0020/12/1999
para
Conrad Dunkerson hath written:

>Öjevind Lång wrote in message


>
>> How does that fit together with the statement that Tuor was the
>> only mortal man to become numbered among the Eldar? Is this
>> another example of Tolkien stitching together things later on to
>> make them more compatible with his religious beliefs?
>
>I don't see why. The passage in question specifically states that
>they will remain mortal and die... and thus are not numbered amongst
>the Eldar. Where is the contradiction?


I was thinking of this quote from one of Tolkien's "Letters" in David Salo's
post:

"I have said nothing about it in this book, but the mythical idea
underlying is that for mortals, since their 'kind' cannot be changed
forever, this is strictly only a temporary reward: a healing and redress of
suffering. They cannot abide for ever, and though they cannot return to
mortal earth, they can and will 'die' - of free will, and leave the world.
(In this setting the return of Arthur would be quite impossible, a vain
imagining.)"

If mortal "kind" cannot be changed forever, how was it possible for Tuor to
be counted among the Eldar, that is to say, become immortal after their
fashion?

Öjevind

"Sheriff Hankins says Ewoks are a protected species. He's full of it. My
cousin Leroy impregnated one of them a half year go."

(From "The Diary of a Redneck Jedi")

David Salo

não lida,
20 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0020/12/1999
para
In article <385d6ed3...@news.pc-intouch.com>, ma...@pc-intouch.com
(Mark Wells) wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 17:52:27 GMT, ds...@usa.net (David Salo) wrote:
>
> > Yes, he did; see Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #347, p. 428 "For instance we
> >have Arnor and Gondor, which [the author] has retained because he desired
> >to avoid _Ardor_. But it can now only (though reasonably) be explained
> >after invention as due to a blending of Q. arnanóre/arnanor with S.
> >arn(a)dor > ardor. The name was in any case given to mean 'royal land' as
> >being the realm of Elendil and so taking precedence of the southern realm."
>
> So it's not so much a direct borrowing from Quenya as an alteration of
> the Sindarin word under the influence of Quenya.

That's assuming that there was a Sindarin name "ardor" -- but within the
historical context of Middle-earth, the name was constructed by the
Dúnedain and (unless there is history we don't know about) was _Arnor_ from
the beginning -- when writing in Sindarin, anyway. (The Quenya name may
have been Arnanóre.) Exactly how or when the "blending" took place is
unclear from the passage itself; I find it easiest to suppose that it
occurred in the mind of the Dúnadan who invented the name "Arnor".

> Why should 'arn(a)dor' necessarily become 'ardor'? Why not 'arnor'?

Because this is Sindarin and not some other language, and that is just
the way Sindarin works!



> There's little difference between 'arnor' and 'ardor' when spoken.
> There's also very little difference between them when written. So why
> bother choosing between them at all?

I don't think that a difference of a single phoneme is little, in the
context of language; "she was born on July 3, 1883" and "she was bored on
July 3, 1883" only differ by a single phoneme, but the significance is
entirely changed!

> But that becomes relevant only when we consider writing a Sindarin
> word in an alphabet that doesn't handle Sindarin properly. Within the
> context of the Sindarin language, there's no reason to distinguish
> between 'arnor' and 'ardor' at all.

I can't agree. If you were a student in Fornost Erain, and you wrote
"Ardor" for "Arnor" in one of your papers on national history, you'd be
graded down for spelling errors no matter how obvious your meaning was!

David Salo

Mark Wells

não lida,
20 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0020/12/1999
para
On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:50:01 GMT, David Salo <ds...@usa.net> wrote:

>> Why should 'arn(a)dor' necessarily become 'ardor'? Why not 'arnor'?
>
> Because this is Sindarin and not some other language, and that is just
>the way Sindarin works!

I realize that, but I'd be a lot more comfortable with it if you had some
examples of rn+d becoming 'rd' rather than 'rn'.

>> There's little difference between 'arnor' and 'ardor' when spoken.
>> There's also very little difference between them when written. So why
>> bother choosing between them at all?
>
> I don't think that a difference of a single phoneme is little, in the
>context of language; "she was born on July 3, 1883" and "she was bored on
>July 3, 1883" only differ by a single phoneme, but the significance is
>entirely changed!

There's a significant difference between 'rn' and 'rd' as final sounds,
but it's much less noticeable (and can be totally inaudible) when they're
followed by a vowel.

Of course, in a language in which 'bored' and 'born' mean different
things, it's natural to _make_ the difference audible.

>> But that becomes relevant only when we consider writing a Sindarin
>> word in an alphabet that doesn't handle Sindarin properly. Within the
>> context of the Sindarin language, there's no reason to distinguish
>> between 'arnor' and 'ardor' at all.
>
> I can't agree. If you were a student in Fornost Erain, and you wrote
>"Ardor" for "Arnor" in one of your papers on national history, you'd be
>graded down for spelling errors no matter how obvious your meaning was!

I disagree. The 'spelling error' consists only of making the stem a bit
too long, which can easily be justified as a normal part of one's
handwriting style.

And again, I think there's a reason for this.

Cian

não lida,
20 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0020/12/1999
para
Mark Wells wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 22:50:01 GMT, David Salo <ds...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >> Why should 'arn(a)dor' necessarily become 'ardor'? Why not 'arnor'?
> >
> > Because this is Sindarin and not some other language, and that is just
> >the way Sindarin works!
>
> I realize that, but I'd be a lot more comfortable with it if you had some
> examples of rn+d becoming 'rd' rather than 'rn'.

Sindarin 'Mordor' works as one example; 'morn' ('black') + 'dor' ('land')
(Mor(n)dor). [see Letter 347 for this triconsonant reduction]
--
Cian

R. Vink

não lida,
21 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0021/12/1999
para

Öjevind Lång wrote:

> Conrad Dunkerson hath written:
>
> >Öjevind Lång wrote in message
> >
> >> How does that fit together with the statement that Tuor was the
> >> only mortal man to become numbered among the Eldar? Is this
> >> another example of Tolkien stitching together things later on to
> >> make them more compatible with his religious beliefs?
> >
> >I don't see why. The passage in question specifically states that
> >they will remain mortal and die... and thus are not numbered amongst
> >the Eldar. Where is the contradiction?
>
> I was thinking of this quote from one of Tolkien's "Letters" in David Salo's
> post:
>
> "I have said nothing about it in this book, but the mythical idea
> underlying is that for mortals, since their 'kind' cannot be changed
> forever, this is strictly only a temporary reward: a healing and redress of
> suffering. They cannot abide for ever, and though they cannot return to
> mortal earth, they can and will 'die' - of free will, and leave the world.
> (In this setting the return of Arthur would be quite impossible, a vain
> imagining.)"
>
> If mortal "kind" cannot be changed forever, how was it possible for Tuor to
> be counted among the Eldar, that is to say, become immortal after their
> fashion?
>
> Öjevind

The only One able to do so would be Ilúvatar. Occasionally, Ilúvatar did
interfere in the affairs of Arda - e.g. when the Númenóreans attacked the
Blessed Realm and he changed the face of the earth. So why not in Tuor's case?

Renée

--
Homepage: http://people.a2000.nl/nordho00/home.html

R. Vink

não lida,
21 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0021/12/1999
para

David Salo wrote:

> In article <385d6ed3...@news.pc-intouch.com>, ma...@pc-intouch.com
> (Mark Wells) wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 17:52:27 GMT, ds...@usa.net (David Salo) wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, he did; see Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #347, p. 428 "For instance we
> > >have Arnor and Gondor, which [the author] has retained because he desired
> > >to avoid _Ardor_. But it can now only (though reasonably) be explained
> > >after invention as due to a blending of Q. arnanóre/arnanor with S.
> > >arn(a)dor > ardor. The name was in any case given to mean 'royal land' as
> > >being the realm of Elendil and so taking precedence of the southern realm."
> >
> > So it's not so much a direct borrowing from Quenya as an alteration of
> > the Sindarin word under the influence of Quenya.
>
> That's assuming that there was a Sindarin name "ardor" -- but within the
> historical context of Middle-earth, the name was constructed by the
> Dúnedain and (unless there is history we don't know about) was _Arnor_ from
> the beginning -- when writing in Sindarin, anyway. (The Quenya name may
> have been Arnanóre.) Exactly how or when the "blending" took place is
> unclear from the passage itself; I find it easiest to suppose that it
> occurred in the mind of the Dúnadan who invented the name "Arnor".
>

> > Why should 'arn(a)dor' necessarily become 'ardor'? Why not 'arnor'?
>
> Because this is Sindarin and not some other language, and that is just
> the way Sindarin works!
>

> > There's little difference between 'arnor' and 'ardor' when spoken.
> > There's also very little difference between them when written. So why
> > bother choosing between them at all?
>
> I don't think that a difference of a single phoneme is little, in the
> context of language; "she was born on July 3, 1883" and "she was bored on
> July 3, 1883" only differ by a single phoneme, but the significance is
> entirely changed!
>

> > But that becomes relevant only when we consider writing a Sindarin
> > word in an alphabet that doesn't handle Sindarin properly. Within the
> > context of the Sindarin language, there's no reason to distinguish
> > between 'arnor' and 'ardor' at all.
>
> I can't agree. If you were a student in Fornost Erain, and you wrote
> "Ardor" for "Arnor" in one of your papers on national history, you'd be
> graded down for spelling errors no matter how obvious your meaning was!
>

> David Salo

And if you wrote Quenya and used the `ando'?

Öjevind Lång

não lida,
21 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0021/12/1999
para
R. Vink hath written:

>Öjevind Lång wrote:
>
[snip]


>>
>> I was thinking of this quote from one of Tolkien's "Letters" in David
Salo's
>> post:
>>
>> "I have said nothing about it in this book, but the mythical idea
>> underlying is that for mortals, since their 'kind' cannot be changed
>> forever, this is strictly only a temporary reward: a healing and redress
of
>> suffering. They cannot abide for ever, and though they cannot return to
>> mortal earth, they can and will 'die' - of free will, and leave the
world.
>> (In this setting the return of Arthur would be quite impossible, a vain
>> imagining.)"
>>
>> If mortal "kind" cannot be changed forever, how was it possible for Tuor
to
>> be counted among the Eldar, that is to say, become immortal after their
>> fashion?
>>
>> Öjevind
>
>The only One able to do so would be Ilúvatar. Occasionally, Ilúvatar did
>interfere in the affairs of Arda - e.g. when the Númenóreans attacked the
>Blessed Realm and he changed the face of the earth. So why not in Tuor's
case?


That makes sense.

Öjevind

Conrad Dunkerson

não lida,
21 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0021/12/1999
para
Öjevind Lång <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:zLv74.3530$W33....@nntpserver.swip.net...

> If mortal "kind" cannot be changed forever, how was it possible
> for Tuor to be counted among the Eldar, that is to say, become
> immortal after their fashion?

Ooops. Color me dense. I'd assumed your were referring to Frodo
and the other mortals listed as examples of others becoming Eldar
because they went to elvenhome.

As to what you actually meant (which makes a great deal more sense
than what you didn't mean)... hmmm, good question. I consider it an
exception. Eru makes the rules... and he can change them when he
wants to. Luthien for instance.


Mark Wells

não lida,
22 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0022/12/1999
para
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 10:02:16 +0100, "R. Vink" <R.V...@cable.A2000.nl>
wrote:

>> I can't agree. If you were a student in Fornost Erain, and you wrote
>> "Ardor" for "Arnor" in one of your papers on national history, you'd be
>> graded down for spelling errors no matter how obvious your meaning was!
>>
>> David Salo
>
>And if you wrote Quenya and used the `ando'?

You _wouldn't_ write in Quenya; that would be roughly equivalent to a
student in a Spanish-speaking country turning in an exam in Latin.
Not precisely equivalent; a student at Fornost Erain might very well
receive instruction from a native speaker of Quenya, or maybe a
co-inventor of Quenya. (There aren't too many ancient Romans left in
Spanish-speaking countries.)

The Quenya name of the place is probably 'Arnórë'. I think an 'ando'
would be entirely correct here, as 'nórë' comes from the root NDOR
(just as we use the 'ungwë' to represent the N in 'Noldor', because it
comes from NGOL, right?) but I Could Be Wrong As Usual.

According to a strict reading of Appendix E, Sindarin should
represents /nd/ as 'ando numen', but /nd/ doesn't occur very often in
Sindarin. (See below.) I think it would make sense to use 'ando' for
/nd/ in Sindarin, even when it's reduced to /n/. Among other things,
it maintains compatibility with Quenya for what is essentially the
same sound.

(Of course, as I've said, there's not much difference between an
'ando' and a 'numen' when written either. I'd be willing to say that
the difference between 'Arnor' and 'Ardor' would go completely
unnoticed by a speaker of Sindarin, and thus Tolkien's decision hinged
entirely on how a reader might misinterpret 'Ardor' as a borrowing
from English.)

While I was looking this up, I thought I'd take a break from my usual
Uninformed Speculations and look up the

From LOTR, Appendix E (p. 489 in my edition):

"In Sindarin the combinations /ng/, /nd/, /mb/, which were specially
favoured in the Eldarin languages at an earlier stage, suffered
various changes. /mb/ became /m/ in all cases, but still counted as a
long consonant for purposes of stress (see below), and is thus written
/mm/ in cases where otherwise the stress might be in doubt.[1] /ng/
remained unchanged except finally where it became the simple nasal (as
in English /sing/). /nd/ became /nn/ usually, as /Ennor/
'Middle-earth', Q. /Endóre/; but remained /nd/ at the end of fully
accented monosyllables such as /thond/ 'root' (cf. /Morthond/
'Blackroot'), and also before /r/, as /Andros/ 'long-foam'. This /nd/
is also seen in some ancient names derived from an older period, such
as /Nargothrond/, /Gondolin/, /Beleriand/. In the Third Age final
/nd/ in long words had become /n/ from /nn/, as in /Ithilien/,
/Rohan/, /Anórien/."


So, now that we have Tolkien's statement that /nd/ usually becomes
/nn/ in Sindarin, for which he uses en + dor -> 'Ennor' as an example,
_why_ would we expect arn + dor -> 'Ardor'?


R. Vink

não lida,
23 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0023/12/1999
para

Mark Wells wrote:

Not me. Thank you for your explanation!

David Salo

não lida,
24 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0024/12/1999
para
> Mark Wells wrote:
>
> > From LOTR, Appendix E (p. 489 in my edition):
> >
> > "In Sindarin the combinations /ng/, /nd/, /mb/, which were specially
> > favoured in the Eldarin languages at an earlier stage, suffered
> > various changes. /mb/ became /m/ in all cases, but still counted as a
> > long consonant for purposes of stress (see below), and is thus written
> > /mm/ in cases where otherwise the stress might be in doubt.[1] /ng/
> > remained unchanged except finally where it became the simple nasal (as
> > in English /sing/). /nd/ became /nn/ usually, as /Ennor/
> > 'Middle-earth', Q. /Endóre/; but remained /nd/ at the end of fully
> > accented monosyllables such as /thond/ 'root' (cf. /Morthond/
> > 'Blackroot'), and also before /r/, as /Andros/ 'long-foam'. This /nd/
> > is also seen in some ancient names derived from an older period, such
> > as /Nargothrond/, /Gondolin/, /Beleriand/. In the Third Age final
> > /nd/ in long words had become /n/ from /nn/, as in /Ithilien/,
> > /Rohan/, /Anórien/."
> >
> > So, now that we have Tolkien's statement that /nd/ usually becomes
> > /nn/ in Sindarin, for which he uses en + dor -> 'Ennor' as an example,
> > _why_ would we expect arn + dor -> 'Ardor'?

Because this is a different case. Here the n is sandwiched between two
different consonants, and falls out, as it does in the following examples:

pel+arn+ci^r (enclosure (of) royal ships) = pelargir
morn+pen (dark person) = morben
arn+gonath (royal stones) = argonath
morn+megil (black sword) = mormegil
morn+ndor (black land) = mordor
born+ngil (red-hot star) = borgil

Also compare what happens to elements beginning in nd, ng, when following
r, l:

mor+ngoth (black enemy) = morgoth
gil+ndis (star lady) = gildis
her+ndir (master man) = herdir

This is a very regular rule. Just as in these cases, we must expect

arn+ndor (royal land) = ardor .... and not "arnor", or else we'd have
Gilnis, Hernir, Mornor, Morn~oth, Born~il (with n~ = ng in "sing"), etc.

David Salo

R. Vink

não lida,
25 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0025/12/1999
para

David Salo wrote:

You got me thinking instead of merely nodding. I tend to be swayed, except that
the rule doesn't seem to work in Eärnil and Eärnur, nor, for a different
reason, in Valandil and Valandur. Are these the notorious exceptions, is the
rule less regular than it seems, or what?

David Salo

não lida,
25 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0025/12/1999
para
In article <3864D780...@cable.A2000.nl>, "R. Vink"
<R.V...@cable.A2000.nl> wrote:


> You got me thinking instead of merely nodding. I tend to be swayed,
except that
> the rule doesn't seem to work in Eärnil and Eärnur, nor, for a different
> reason, in Valandil and Valandur. Are these the notorious exceptions, is the
> rule less regular than it seems, or what?

It's a regular rule for Sindarin: it doesn't work at all in Quenya!

In Quenya, -nd- remains intact between vowels, so Vala+ndil = Valandil,
Vala+ndur = Valandur. The n can drop out between consonants, just as in
Sindarin, e.g. Mar+ndil = Mardil, Anar+ndil = Anardil, Isil+ndur = Isildur;
however, in some compounds, probably for the most part later ones, the nd-
element was treated as if it were absolutely initial. When initial, nd-,
mb- became n-, m-;

e.g. *ndúmen > númen "west"
*mbar > mar "home"

So *ndil > nil and *ndur > nur; and Eär+nil = Eärnil, Eär+nur = Earnur,
next to Eärendil, Eärendur. Cf. also Valimar, Eldamar rather than
Valimbar, Eldambar; all of these instances of nd > n, mb > m non-initially
are however somewhat unusual in Quenya.

David Salo

R. Vink

não lida,
27 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0027/12/1999
para

David Salo wrote:

> In article <3864D780...@cable.A2000.nl>, "R. Vink"
> <R.V...@cable.A2000.nl> wrote:
>
> > You got me thinking instead of merely nodding. I tend to be swayed,
> except that
> > the rule doesn't seem to work in Eärnil and Eärnur, nor, for a different
> > reason, in Valandil and Valandur. Are these the notorious exceptions, is the
> > rule less regular than it seems, or what?
>
> It's a regular rule for Sindarin: it doesn't work at all in Quenya!
>
> In Quenya, -nd- remains intact between vowels, so Vala+ndil = Valandil,
> Vala+ndur = Valandur.

I thought it was Valar+ndil, Lover of the Valar, plural, in which case one would
expect Valardil. Could you give a source for Vala+ndil? I wasn't able to find
one.

> The n can drop out between consonants, just as in
> Sindarin, e.g. Mar+ndil = Mardil, Anar+ndil = Anardil, Isil+ndur = Isildur;
> however, in some compounds, probably for the most part later ones, the nd-
> element was treated as if it were absolutely initial. When initial, nd-,
> mb- became n-, m-;
>
> e.g. *ndúmen > númen "west"
> *mbar > mar "home"
>
> So *ndil > nil and *ndur > nur; and Eär+nil = Eärnil, Eär+nur = Earnur,
> next to Eärendil, Eärendur. Cf. also Valimar, Eldamar rather than
> Valimbar, Eldambar; all of these instances of nd > n, mb > m non-initially
> are however somewhat unusual in Quenya.
>
> David Salo

A later development, then, if I understand it correctly . Such things do serve to
make the language seem all the more real.

Cian

não lida,
27 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0027/12/1999
para
"R. Vink" wrote:

> David Salo wrote:
> > It's a regular rule for Sindarin: it doesn't work at all in Quenya!
> > In Quenya, -nd- remains intact between vowels, so Vala+ndil = Valandil,
> > Vala+ndur = Valandur.
>
> I thought it was Valar+ndil, Lover of the Valar, plural, in which case one would
> expect Valardil. Could you give a source for Vala+ndil? I wasn't able to find
> one.

In the Lost Road 'Valandil' > 'God-friend' (*Vala-friend).

Here's a hazy word which relates somewhat to this thread, consider 'Eriador': both
Ed Kloczko and someone, hey David Salo I think it was, :) give Eriador a possible
etymology* that ends the 'eria-' element with a consonant to likely explain why we
don't see 'Eriannor' instead of 'Eriador' in the land of 'Pelennor' and 'Mordor'.
[*only one of such, back in the mists of 1996 anyway; er, and I hope I haven't
misrepresented David's or EK's thoughts here]

Earlier in this thread the association of the falcon word 'Merlin' drew a parallel to
the bird associations of the Istar Radagast/Aiwendil. But there's more to the case
with 'Merlin', (ooh, back on topic even), in that the name Merlin likely derived from
a place name in Wales, and was further possibly altered to avoid a 'foul smelling'
French word. The Galfridian 'Merlinus' is most often said to come from a slightly
skewed translation of Welsh 'Myrddin' (Caer Fyrddin) <> Moridunum meaning
'Sea-fortress' -- in this case a consonant change for, ahem, coincidental reasons,
and no bird associations -- and then we have prof. Jean Markale adding his theory of
'Merle' 'Blackbird' into the cauldron! (um, but I tend to go with the place name
theory personally though) Just an example of the variable associations, or
alterations even, of a name wound up in both a 'mythic fog' and history. And what I'm
trying to blither out is that sometimes these type of little 'complications' can lend
a 'realer' feel to Myth -- or maybe a mythic feel to reality? :)
I think the Arnor 'reasoning' only lends more reality to JRRT's invented languages
(in story reason of course), as it mimics those confusing results in 'real' languages
due to real history. Tolkien knew this, and the Quenya 'blend' could have occurred in
the history of Middle-earth after all, a believable way to circumvent those pesky
Sindarin consonant patterns.
--
Cian
And a 'Merlin' is also a kind of Welsh pony!


R. Vink

não lida,
28 de dez. de 1999 03:00:0028/12/1999
para

Cian wrote:

> "R. Vink" wrote:
>
> > David Salo wrote:
> > > It's a regular rule for Sindarin: it doesn't work at all in Quenya!
> > > In Quenya, -nd- remains intact between vowels, so Vala+ndil = Valandil,
> > > Vala+ndur = Valandur.
> >
> > I thought it was Valar+ndil, Lover of the Valar, plural, in which case one would
> > expect Valardil. Could you give a source for Vala+ndil? I wasn't able to find
> > one.
>
> In the Lost Road 'Valandil' > 'God-friend' (*Vala-friend).
>
> Here's a hazy word which relates somewhat to this thread, consider 'Eriador': both
> Ed Kloczko and someone, hey David Salo I think it was, :) give Eriador a possible
> etymology* that ends the 'eria-' element with a consonant to likely explain why we
> don't see 'Eriannor' instead of 'Eriador' in the land of 'Pelennor' and 'Mordor'.
> [*only one of such, back in the mists of 1996 anyway; er, and I hope I haven't
> misrepresented David's or EK's thoughts here]
>

<snip Merlin - sorry>

I could have guessed it was somewhere in the HoMe series! Thank you.

Responder a todos
Responder ao autor
Encaminhar
0 nova mensagem