In Elfling message 27285, approved by list moderator "elimloth", Helge
Fauskanger writes
(<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/27285>):

> Travis Waith-Mair wrote:
>
>> Hi I did post my own attempt at translating parts of the book of
>> mormon. But I got no reply, maybe cuz it was too big. Anyway, Here is
>> a part of that translation.
>>
>> 'Ni, Nefai, nè nostaina màra nostarinen, tanen nen saitaina
>> (somewhat) ilyë noliessë atarinyo
>>
>> The original text reads as follows:
>>
>> I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught
>> somewhat in all the learning of my father.
>
> I thought the "original" was in Reformed Egyptian? Well, since Joseph
> Smith failed to copy down the original text from those famous golden
> plates which sadly are no longer available to scholarship, I guess we
> must start from the English version.


So now Helge is permitted to openly mock the tenets of a religion on
Elfling?

Siggghhhhhh

Maybe you guys should just stick to invading Iraq and banning French
products.


> Just want to give a big shout-out back to Dorothea Salo, who
featured
> me prominently in her blog today, as a result of noticing my link:
>
>  http://www.yarinareth.net/caveatlector/archive/
> week_2003_05_25.html#e001755

In Elfling post 27459
(<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/27459>), David Salo
flatly asserts, _inter alia_, that the Sindarin word _certhas_ is
"inadmissible ... as a plural", and futher that:

"The last time I had this discussion, my interlocutor (eventually)
admitted that _certhas_ must in fact be construed as singular".

Item 2 of the "Posting Guidelines" for Elfling
(<http://www.yarinareth.net/David/elfling.html>) states:

"When you make arguments, please do your best to base your arguments on
facts (either documentary evidence, or well-argued inductive or
deductive proof)."

I insist that the moderators of Elfling require David either to provide
evidence for his assertion regarding the claimed "admission" of his
unnamed "interlocutor", or to admit that it is false. David must not be
permitted to misrepresent the arguments of others without challenge, or
otherwise to argue solely from his (assumed) authority. If David's
claimed "admission" is real, it should be easy for him to quote it and
point us to where the statement is archived. If he cannot or will not,
then he is renouncing scholarship in favor of convenient untruth.

For the record -- which David seems anxious that no one else discover
-- the entire discussion David refers to is conveniently archived at:

	 http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/misc/local/TolkLang/messages/Vol41/

with a little bit at the end carried over from there to Elfling by
David beginning at:

	 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/7371

As anyone who cares about the truth can confirm for themselves from
this archive, no one "admitted" that _certhas_ is singular, because
that was never at issue. Instead, the issue was that Christopher Gilson
proposed that _certhas_ might have arisen from *_certhath_ by
dissimilation (as one can see from David's own initial post in this
thread,
<http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/misc/local/TolkLang/messages/Vol41/41.01>;
which proposal David at first dismissed out of hand, arguing that since
all the nouns in _-ath_ in his (incomplete, selective) list of such
forms are (he asserted) plural, then _certhas_, which he asserted is
singular, cannot have any connection with _-ath_. This assertion is
contradicted by Tolkien's own statement (_Letters_ p.427) that:

"_ath_ ... was a collective or group suffix, and the nouns so formed
[were]
_originally singulars_. But they were later treated as pl[ural]s,
especially
when applied to people(s)." (Emphasis mine.) _Letters_ 427.

In fact, even David came to admit that it is _not impossible_ that
_certhas_ arose by dissimilation from *_certhath_ (unlike David, I am
happy to provide the reference for my claim, because it actually
exists):

"I do not say it is *impossible*."
(<http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/misc/local/TolkLang/messages/Vol41/41.11>)

So in fact the only one who "eventually admitted" anything was David
himself. Despite his current, unsupported and unsupportable attempt at
misrepresentation and historical revisionism.

I trust that the moderators of Elfling will correct this blatant breech
both of scholarship and of the guidelines of Elfling.

In Elfling message 27459
(<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/27459>), David Salo
writes:

> I note that no historical explanation of a past tense "-(a)s" has been
> offered, presumably because no realistic one is available.

This is a very curious statement. By the same argument, most every
feature of Noldorin/Sindarin grammar would fail, because "no historical
explanation" has been offered for them. For example, what "historical
explanation" has been offered for the future tense in _-tha_?  (For
that matter, what "historical explanation" can David offer for the
plural ending in _-r_ in Quenya? None, in fact, because it is a Quenya
innovation.) What difference does it make whether we can identify or
fix the antecedent forms of _-as_, or _-tha_, or any other ending or
element of Sindarin grammar? If Tolkien says a given ending or element
exists, either by direct statement or by indirect example, then it
exists, whether it has an Eldarin antecedent and/or Quenya cognate or
not.

What exactly is David questioning here? Whether a past tense in _-as_
exists in Noldorin? Yes, it does: the example of _mudas_ in _The
Etymologies_ proves it.

Weirdly, this plain fact seems bothersome to David. He goes on to say:

> If [_-as_] is a productive past tense form, there would obviously be a
> significant confusion between past tenses and nominals in a large
> number of verbs.

That may be; but if so, this claimed "confusion" was evidently not at
all bothersome to Tolkien. Nor I daresay does homophony of grammatical
endings and elements cause much "confusion" in the many "real"
languages that have it. For example, English, in which _-(e)d_ can be
used to form both past-tense verbs and passive participles; and in
which _-(e)s_ can be used to form both plural nouns and present-tense
verbs. Quick: Is "baked" a past-tense verb or a passive participle? Is
"passes" a noun, or a verb? Can't tell? My goodness, how confused
English must be. Clearly, we can't admit _-(e)d_ or _-(e)s_ as verbal
endings.

Again, we see that David, like Helge, while loving to proclaim
Tolkien's languages to be just like "real" languages, at the same time
is oddly opposed to allowing them to _behave_ like real languages.

Finally, I should like to point out that both Pat Wynne's arguments and
David Salo's objections are _utterly independent_ of whether there are
or ever were any other past-tense verbs in _-as_. It is quite
sufficient that we know that _one_ such form does exist. All Pat has
argued is that a past-tense ending in _-as_ appears to lie on a
continuum of Tolkien's conceptual development of similar past-tense
formations in Goldogrin -> Noldorin (in contradiction of Helge
Fauskanger's assertion that "nowhere in the entire published
Tolkien-linguistic corpus is there any past tense formation even
resembling" _mudas_); this argument would be neither strengthened nor
weakened even if there were _hundreds_ of other examples of past-tense
verbs in _-as_. On the other hand, David Salo has argued, even though a
past-tense ending in _-as_ does exist in Noldorin, that it must
represent a mistake on Tolkien's part, because (he claims) it causes
confusion in Tolkien's languages. Note that David's position, _if_ it
were accurate, _also_ would be neither strengthened or weakened even if
there were hundreds of other examples. David's objection of "confusion"
would remain, and would stand or fail just the same.

What one is left to assess is whether David's assertion of personal
desires and judgments in claiming "confusion" in the Noldorin
past-tense in _-as_ has any validity against Tolkien's own apparent
opinion on the matter, and against the many "real" languages that have
such homophony of grammatical endings and elements.


--
=============================================
Carl F. Hostetter   Aelfwine@...   http://www.elvish.org

		    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."

Nanye tyur!!!!
Yê!!!!!!!!

P.S. Ânin anta tyur!!!!!!!

Ai! laurea lanta tyur vilyallo!
Yéni únótime ve meldor tyurdo,
yéni ve melwa tyur avánier
mi oromardi tyurdenóriesse
nu Chuck-E-Cheese tellumar
yassen cala Anar ve tyur
culuina ar cantaina máryanten.

Sí casenna mano taltuva i tyur?

An sí Chuck-E-Cheese tyurdenóreo
ve tyur máryat Aran Tyuro ortane,
ar ilye tier tompe hahtar tyurdeva,
ar tyurdenóriello caita mornie
i ear tyurdeva imbe met, ar tyur
untúpa nóre sina oiale.
Sí culuina ná, tyurdenen culuina, i salque!

Namárie! Nai hiruvalye Chuck-E-Cheese.
Nai elye hiruva. Namárie!

The hypocrisy flows freely whenever David Salo or Helge Fauskanger
chime in, and never more freely than when both are involved, as in the
latest post by Helge, lovingly approved by list
owner/moderator/neglector David:

	 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/27766

I'd like to focus the lantern of truth on this little sarcastic
potshot, referring to the correction of certain typographical errors in
various Elvish forms:

> No little nod of acknowledgement that "fellow" scholars had actually
> figured this out even without access to privileged information?

To respond:

1) Helge hypocritically fails to note that his own "fellow" scholars
had actually "figured out" quite a few such probable errors long before
his own groundbreaking, pioneering, hard-on-the-heels first-look at
_Etymologies_ burst on the scene some 10 years after its publication
(in the meantime lying unnoticed by everyone else, until Helge rescued
it from neglect -- or so he would have you believe), and yet you will
search in vain to find the name of even a single such scholar in his
account: <http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/errors.htm>

2) It would serve absolutely no scholarly or otherwise useful purpose
to note the _guesses_ of other people in a work based on the _actual
manuscript_. Who on earth would care one whit that Helge had published
a web page in which he guessed some form is incorrect?

3) I notice that Helge doesn't bother to point out any of the
not-infrequent cases where his guesses were _wrong_, or to criticize
the editors of the "A&C" for not noting that this "fellow" scholar had
made _wrong_ guesses (such as **_mankar_ for _makar_, **_Dureledh_ for
_Duveledh_, that _gwedi_ is a misreading, and insisting that N _Anar_
must be Q).

4) Just who are the compilers and editors of this work that Helge
reviews at such length, and criticizes for not naming names? Good luck
finding out from Helge's review: he hypocritically neglects to mention
the people to whose long, hard work he is indebted.

5) Not that this is anything new for Helge. He makes a point,
conveniently, of singling out new information shedding light on
"Fíriel's Song", which he himself had analyzed in considerable detail
on his site at: <http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/firiel.htm>. You'll
search in vain on that page, though, for any mention of the _first_
scholar to have offered a detailed analysis of the poem, Patrick Wynne
(_Parma Eldalamberon_ 8, published in 1990) -- who, perhaps not
coincidentally, is one of the unnamed compilers and editors of the
"A&C". Does Helge suffer from a form of Tourette's Syndrome that makes
him unable to speak or type the names of "fellow" scholars?

We get the message, Helge: do as you say, not as you do.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Dec 12, 2003, at 3:34 PM, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

> 5) Not that this is anything new for Helge. He makes a point,
> conveniently, of singling out new information shedding light on
> "Fíriel's Song",

Helge _also_ neglects to mention that the feature illuminated, that of
the use of _en_ before past-tense verbs, was pointed out by Pat and me
in the "A&C" entry. Helge instead hypocritically presents the
connection without acknowledgment of this fact, as though he were the
first to draw it.

In a timely post to Elfling
(<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/27793>), Helge writes:

> I have begun updating the English-Quenya wordlist on my site:
>
> http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/eng-quen.rtf
>
> Some corrections from VT45 are already in place

(timely since Helge brought up the issue of naming names in connection
with this very issue of _VT_).

Consider this, Helge, fair warning to proceed with measure and
consideration in the use that you make of my and Pat's work in our
"Addenda and Corrigenda to the _Etymologies_". You have no right to
reproduce the contents of that work, even in reorganized form. Further,
even with use falling under Fair Use, you have no right to use _any_ of
our work without crediting us for it. Yet I see no mention of our names
or the title of the work.

On this latter point, may I suggest that you refer to the work in
abbreviated fashion as the "A&C"? This is how Pat and I refer to it;
and it has the advantage over "VT 45" of immediately associating it
with _Etymologies_. As you know, it is important always to bear in mind
the source and date of any information pertaining to Tolkien's
art-languages, as it helps us keep our facts separate from our
assumptions.


--
=============================================
Carl F. Hostetter   Aelfwine@...   http://www.elvish.org

		    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."

In Elfling message 27821
(<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/27821>), Helge
Fauskanger writes:

> I was the first to write out a formal article on the subject and
> publish it on a permanent Tolkien-linguistic website.

Nevertheless, you were _not_ the first to spot probable errors in
_Etymologies_ (my own working copy is marked up with such, dating from
a time long before I had even heard of the Internet or Mr. Helge
Fauskanger). (BTW, can any web-site really be considered "permanent"?)

>  CFH dismisses this article as mere "guesses"

I did not _dismiss_ your article thereby: it is a _fact_ that the
errors you yourself title as only "probable" were and remain only
hypothetical until either confirmed or refuted by examination of the
actual manuscript. (Even then, some of the readings noted by Pat and
myself are only guesses, since Tolkien's handwriting is ambiguous or
indecipherable at points, and at points neither context nor knowledge
of Eldarin phonology can resolve the uncertainty.)

> My article can, I hope, be recognized as an actual work of
> linguistics, since I _argue_ (from phonology and morphology) why this
> or that form in the printed text should probably be emended. On the
> other hand, the material appearing in VT45 contains virtually no
> linguistic arguments; most of the time its writers just reproduce bits
> and pieces of a Tolkien manuscript.

Here Helge offers up yet another choice piece of his dismissive
hypocrisy, being seemingly too blindered to see that by his own
argument what Pat and I did in the "Addenda and Corrigenda" is a far
more impressive work of linguistics than his own. For Helge would have
you believe that our task, or Christopher Tolkien's before us, involved
nothing more than transcribing Tolkien's own clear, unambiguous
handwriting. This is utterly false. At nearly every stage, editing a
linguistic text by Tolkien requires resolution of ambiguities, both by
context and by knowledge of Eldarin phonology. If his own work is to be
considered linguistics -- and I never said it wasn't, only that the
results being guesses were of no use or value when examining and
detailing firsthand what Tolkien actually wrote -- then so must ours
be.

> I don't want to hear that actual linguistic studies aiming to
> elucidate and (in this case) refine such published material are mere
> "guesses", as if they are just wild, unfounded speculation.

First, I did not use the word "mere": as usual, you insert such
qualifiers for your own misleading rhetorical purposes. Second, I did
not say that your guesses were either wild or unfounded: again, more
misleading rhetoric -- not all guesses are unfounded. But third, yes,
they are just speculation, and such speculation was of no use or value
to examining and detail Tolkien's own manuscript. Which, I remind you,
was how this began, with your attempt to fault us for not crediting
your article. Let me be clear on this (not that that ever stops you
from misrepresenting things):

The _obligation_ of a scholar is to credit work that they _used_ in
their own work.

Since Pat and I did not _use_ your work, it being utterly irrelevant to
our own work, there was _nothing_ to credit. Had our work, readings, or
conclusions in any way _used_ or _depended_ on your work, we would have
credited it.

> CFH also insists that I myself failed to credit the compilers of the
> Addenda and Corrigenda article, since I did not mention their names.
> Well, let's face it: the main articles in Vinyar Tengwar are produced
> by a _very_ limited number of people. Once I have stated that a
> certain article appeared in VT, one needs rather few guesses to
> identify the exact writer(s)

This is _absolutely_ irrelevant. You are under both a _scholarly_ and a
_legal_ obligation to credit the authors of work that you use in your
own. Leaving it to the guesswork of your readers does not meet this
obligation. The wordlists that you compile _depend_ on (_inter alia_)
the work that Pat and I published in _VT_ 45, and as such, you are
obligated to credit us by name. Avoiding mentioning my and Pat's name
in your "review" was only weird and hypocritical; failing to mention
our names in your wordlists, and anywhere else where you use our work
in your own, is a violation of scholarship and of copyright.

> I certainly consider myself sufficiently credited when people say that
> a certain article appears on "Ardalambion", even if my name is not
> mentioned.

Bully for you (the reprehensible plagiarist Mr. Pesch not
withstanding); but your idiosyncratic feelings about your own work do
not excuse you from the scholarly and legal obligation to credit the
work of others when you use it in your own.

> (The _author_ of the substantial content of the article is of course
> Tolkien himself.)

This is false. The bulk of our "Addenda and Corrigenda" consists of
_editorial_ indications of additions and corrections, and of our own
descriptions of the manuscript and its internal construction. All of
these are original work authored by myself and Patrick Wynne.

> Furthermore, regarding my analysis of Fíriel's Song, Hostetter notices
> that I don't credit Patrick Wynne for an earlier analysis of this song
> which apparently appeared in Parma Eldalamberon #8 back in 1990. Well,
> I literally did not know about Wynne's 1990 analysis before Hostetter
> mentioned it; I have never seen any other issues of Parma than 11, 12
> and
> 13 (the two Lexicons and the Sarati/Early Noldorin Fragments).

A _scholar_ bears an obligation to be familiar with the chief
literature of his field.

> My own analysis of Fíriel's Song is therefore absolutely independent
> of Wynne's earlier study, and he cannot feel insulted because he is
> not credited.

Ah, so now you're saying that we are not required to credit work we did
not use in our own work. Where have I heard that before?


--
=============================================
Carl F. Hostetter   Aelfwine@...   http://www.elvish.org

		    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."

In Elfling message 27821
(<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/27821>), Helge
Fauskanger goes on and on in his petty, verbose way, first pretending
that Christopher Tolkien's purposes in compiling _Etymologies_ were not
both clearly stated and clearly discernible, and that he was under no
constraints of time or space in preparing the work for publication; and
then faulting Christopher Tolkien for not including every jot and
tittle and for not explaining himself sufficiently to the implacable
Mr. Fauskanger.

To which I will just respond: thank goodness that Christopher Tolkien
decided to permit others to revisit his editorial work and decisions in
the _Etymologies_, despite knowing that it would invite such
small-minded and opportunistic nattering as that from Helge.


--
=============================================
Carl F. Hostetter   Aelfwine@...   http://www.elvish.org

		    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."

This morning I attempted to respond on Elfling to Helge
K. Fauskanger's remarks in post #27872, "Re: The
Appallingly Biased Moderation of Elfling". My post was
summarily rejected by list-owner and moderator
David Salo, who said only:

"You are off topic. Consider this thread ended."

It is interesting that my post should be rejected as
"off topic", given that it was on precisely the same topic
as Fauskanger's. Whatever.

For the record, here is my response to Fauskanger.
Attentive readers will note that it was probably the
reminder of previous list-owner high-handedness
in the final paragraph that incurred the wrath of Salo.

===============================

Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:

>But since Hostetter has been banned, the moderators did ask
me not to cite directly from his post, so that I would
be placing his material on Elfling. (I largely respected this;
the remaining quotations in my post are few and short.)

This is a pointless technical distinction, as I think the moderators
now realize. Whether you quoted Carl directly or paraphrased
his arguments in your own words, the end result was still the
presentation of the contents of Carl's Elfling-d posts on Elfling.

>It was not I who challenged any member of the editorial team;
it was YOU who posted the reference to Hostetter's comments,
even though you could or should foresee that the moderators
would not like it.

I have posted links to Elfling-d before, and the moderators
said nothing about it, so it was entirely reasonable for me to
assume that I was free to do so again in this most recent instance.

>It is altogether wrong to assume that I am eagerly seeking
opportunities to take "potshots" at Hostetter; normally
I totally ignore what he writes over at Elfling-d (though the
sole topic of virtually ALL his contributions there is to criticize
David Salo and/or me).

It is true that many of Carl's Elfling-d posts are criticisms of
you and David Salo; but it is also true that in virtually every case
they are _responses_ to criticisms initiated by you and David on
Elfling. In this most recent instance, it was your comment in
Elfling post #27766 -- "No little nod of acknowledgement that
"fellow" scholars had actually figured this out even without access
to privileged information?" -- that resulted in Carl's posts to
Elfling-d to which I provided links. That such remarks are
permitted on Elfling in the first place demonstrates the
inconsistent moderation that was the subject of my own post.

>Nonetheless, I _have_ on occasion discussed various matters
with Hostetter in unmoderated forums, where we were both
perfectly free to say exactly what we wanted.

This is as it should be. But it does not excuse making posts
critical of Carl on forums such as Elfling where he is NOT free
to respond.

>It happened here before he got himself banned

Carl did not "get himself banned" from Elfling. He was banned
because David Salo retroactively _disapproved_ a post that had
been approved by another moderator, and used that as a pretense
to ban him. Had there truly been anything impermissible in the
post in question, and had the stated moderatorial procedure been
followed, Carl would have had his message turned back to him
and would have been asked to edit out the "offending" material.
Instead, David Salo bypassed his own rules and banned him
by fiat.

-- Patrick H. Wynne

I see this morning that I have been banned from Elfling, presumably by that
paragon
of restraint and fairness, David Salo. No prior warning given to me, no reasons
provided, no announcement to the list. I am just to be swept under the rug,
apparently, and hopefully nobody will notice.

Well merry Christmas to you too, David. Once again you've demonstrated your
fervent
advocacy of academic and intellectual freedom and freedom of speech in Tolkien
linguistics.

If the other moderators of Elfling have a shred of integrity left, they will
resign
immediately.

-- Patrick H. Wynne

David Salo, Dorothea Salo, and Lisa Star have all made a career out of
portraying themselves as fierce proponents of free speech and warriors
against all who would silence debate, and of accusing myself and my
colleagues of silencing others.

People silenced by David, Dorothea, and Lisa (that we know of): 2

People silenced by Carl, Pat, etc.: 0

Just so we know where we stand on the count, and on the whole "truth"
thing that David finds so inconvenient....


--
=============================================
Carl F. Hostetter   Aelfwine@...   http://www.elvish.org

		    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."

Patrick H. Wynne wrote:
> No prior warning given to me, no reasons provided, no announcement
> to the list. I am just to be swept under the rug, apparently, and
> hopefully nobody will notice.

Since the purpose of this list is to publicly discuss the moderation
of ELFLING, "including the policies and practices of its
manager/moderator", will the moderator(s) explain here their apparent
decision to ban Patrick from ELFLING, for the sake of transparency
regarding such decisions? From what we have seen on ELFLING itself, I
don't see any reason that could have justified this decision, and I
feel at lost understanding it. True, there was an argument between
Patrick and Fauskanger, but this is not the first time such
controverse occur between members, and there was nothing unacceptable
in the relevant messages (to no extent was there any flames or
unacceptable speech)... I have appreciated Patrick's intervention on
ELFLING in the past, and I do hope that the things will get
clarified, including all issues that come along: if a ban is indeed
active, is it a temporary ban? How long will last the bans currently
active? Who, beside Patrick and Carl, is currently banned from
posting? Such things used to be explained in the past, and I feel
mitigated to hear that no explanation was provided and that a ban was
just applied without warning. This is not an encouraging thing to see
that on ELFLING.

Didier.
P.S. Merry Christmas... ^^

> People silenced by David, Dorothea, and Lisa (that we know of): 2

For the record, since the above is a nominative list and therefore
extends beyond ELFLING, you can increase the count to 3. More than
one year ago, I realised I was no longer subscribing to
ElvishLinguistics, Lisa Star's list. Having just switched to a new
computer with difficulties to get my former e-mail still working, I
thought it was a mistake and tried to register again, but I was
rejected, without explanation but just a standard, automated and
impersonal, message from the moderator. There was no answer, either,
to my private request for information to the moderator. Of course,
registering with an "alternate" identity worked, so there is little
doubt about the issue... I don't take offense at it, just noting that
ElvishLinguistics is not a "free" list (despite the claimed
policy "The list is moderated to remove netkooks and spammers.
Transgressors will be banned"). But I do hope that ELFLING will not
show the same lack of transparency in its moderation policy.

In elfing-d #47, Elimloth made a point about the moderation at work
at that time, and I hope the current moderators have the freedom to
do the same again.

In elfling #27901, Lukas Novak is cross-posting a message from a
banned member, which is the reason why Patrick was apparently banned.
Hmmm... Hmmm... This is getting stupid, as it sounds.

Didier.

On Dec 26, 2003, at 5:56 AM, Didier wrote:

>>People silenced by David, Dorothea, and Lisa (that we know
>>of): 2
>
>For the record, since the above is a nominative list and therefore
>extends beyond ELFLING, you can increase the count to 3. More than
>one year ago, I realised I was no longer subscribing to
>ElvishLinguistics, Lisa Star's list. Having just switched to a new
>computer with difficulties to get my former e-mail still working, I
>thought it was a mistake and tried to register again, but I was
>rejected, without explanation but just a standard, automated and
>impersonal, message from the moderator. There was no answer, either,
>to my private request for information to the moderator.

Very interesting -- and welcome to the club! I tried to join Lisa
Star's list a long time ago, and was also rejected. No big surprise
there, really. So I now have the honor of having been silenced in
two online forums by both David Salo and Lisa Star.

It should also be noted that Lisa Star practices a similarly
restrictive policy with her print journal "Tyalie Tyelelliéva".
I tried to subscribe a year or two ago and was curtly refused
(with a personal insult thrown in for good measure) by the
Editrix herself. And yet Lisa still hypocritically claims on
her website that "we are happy to make arrangements to
provide the journal to anyone who is interested." This is a lie,
plain and simple.

It bears repeating that subscribership to Carl's journal "VT" is
_truly_ open to anyone who is interested -- Helge Fauskanger
numbers among Carl's subscribers. Similarly, no one is ever
refused the right to purchase a copy of "Parma Eldalamberon"
(as long as a particular issue is still in print, of course), and
membership to the Lambengolmor discussion group is
open to everyone as well.

>... I don't take offense at it, just noting that
>ElvishLinguistics is not a "free" list (despite the claimed
>policy "The list is moderated to remove netkooks and spammers.
>Transgressors will be banned"). But I do hope that ELFLING will not
>show the same lack of transparency in its moderation policy.

They already have, as my recent banning without warning, explanation,
or announcement demonstrates. And despite the fact that "Open
membership" is listed among the Group Settings on the Elfling home
page, the membership criteria for Elfling are in reality the same as
they are for Star's list: only those against whom the list owner does
not bear a personal grudge may join.

-- Patrick H. Wynne

Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

>A _scholar_ bears an obligation to be familiar with the chief
>literature of his field.
>
**I am glad I do not regard myself a scholar (it is just a label, anyway).
Otherwise I would get mad wondering about which literature is chief
and which not. And when having made up my mind, I would be greatly
worried if I found out that the literature is not available (out of
print, sold
out, hard to get or expensive). I prefer enjoyment of studying the
literature
of the field to any obligations connected with scholarship. And I am not
talking about the field of Tolkien's linguistics only.


Ales Bican

--
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)

I joined this list for no other reason than geting an email that made
me out to be an idiot when i first joined Elfling to learn about The
tolkien languages. *sigh* i'm sorry i'm only 21 just learning and not
able to fully understand why wanting to join a list to understand
something is wrong. Not to mention I love reading post from people
who are so well educated and well rounded. It gives me hope in my
studies.

Roslyn

Aiya ilquen,

My name is Janet and I am from Rotterdam, The Netherlands. I am
studying Quenya. I use the course on Ardalambion and other resources
on the internet. Besides that, I am some sort of LotR junk, both
movies and books, I have a dog and I try to keep myself occupied in
many other ways.

For I understand that there are some communication-things between
some people, well, I would not want to have any part in it. My only
wish is to learn the language. I hope to learn a lot from you.

Tenn' entecielva.
Janet

Ales Bican worte
> And when having made up my mind, I would be greatly
> worried if I found out that the literature is not available
> (out of print, sold out, hard to get or expensive). I prefer
> enjoyment of studying the literature of the field to any
> obligations connected with scholarship.

The availability and the cost of the material is a very different
issue, Ales, unrelated with the obligations of scholarship. Books and
publications are both protected by intellectual property and authors
rights, for a variable time duration. Most countries follow for that
purpose the same international laws and principles, declined within
their own local laws. You may want to refer to the WIPO / OMPI for
information (www.wipo.org) and to the Bern convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and finally to local laws
applicable to your country (in France for example, it would be
"Le Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle". Local laws differ in
subtles points and in their application decrees (defining the
penalties when the law is enforced, the duration of the protection,
before the material falls in the public domain, etc.), but the effect
remains the same, and the law is applicable to all. Basically, an
author and his designated heirs have the rights to decide how is work
is to be published and divulgated. I don't think the law to be
excessive (it's not illimited, many old books are available in the
public domain for the general audience, etc.). You may disagree, but
there are good reasons for such laws to exist.

>>A _scholar_ bears an obligation to be familiar with the chief
>>literature of his field.
> **I am glad I do not regard myself a scholar (it is just a label,
> anyway).

It's not "just" a label, it has more to do usually with universitary
works (such as a thesis, etc.)... So technically, we could say that
there are nearly no scholars of Elvish Linguistics (most of us are
amateurs), though this does not imply we cannot tend towards work of
the scholarly type, and yes, that includes a knowledge of the chief
litterature of the field (main works, secundary works, related
studies, etc.). Above all, it is an issue of quality.

Didier.

What Didier said.

Also: scholarly is as scholarly _does_: cite sources, provide evidence
for claims, develop arguments rather than assertions, and position
one's work with respect to the work of other scholars. Anyone can do
this, regardless of whether or not one has university affliations, if
they are willing to invest the time and effort into adhering to the
discipline.

As for deciding what is the chief literature of Tolkienian linguistics,
I think Ales is being overly dramatic. There isn't all that much
literature to start with, and the main journals are well-known and
quite obvious. Yes, some of these publications are difficult to obtain.
But that doesn't remove the obligations of the discipline. There are
alternative means of obtaining the information needed: e.g., ask a
fellow scholar who does have the publication(s) you lack to assist you
with your research. (You should acknowledge their assistance, of
course, out of politeness and gratitude, if for no other reason.)


--
=============================================
Carl F. Hostetter   Aelfwine@...   http://www.elvish.org

		    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."

--- In elfling-d@yahoogroups.com, Carl F. Hostetter
<Aelfwine@e...> wrote:
> It's odd that Helge, who so often proclaims that Quenya is
a "real"
> language, so very clearly doesn't want it to behave like a
real
> language....

Esperanto is a real language, and also regular. I don't even
see who have the right to claim that a real language should
not be almost regular.

I admire your studying and efforts on Tolkien's conlangs and
disapprove what the moderator's banning somebody. But I hate
to see meaningless arguements.

Hi!

Welcome to the conversation.

FORTRAN is also a "real" language; but that's not what Carl
meant.

Tolkien was an expert on the European languages, particularly
English, German, and their relatives. These languages were not
designed by anyone but grew up generation after generation,
everyone adding their own little bit.

Regularity was added everytime someone noticed a pattern and
applied it in a new way. The plual of "book" used to be "beech",
but at some point somebody said "books" and it stuck. Similarly
today, we are hearing "mouses" more and more often. But we
still say "feet", "children", and "people". We also use "brothers"
regularly; but "brethren" (which used to the the plural) in special
contexts. This pattern (of replacing an irregular form with a
regular one, but using the old irregular one in a special way)
happens over and over again in the history of natural languages
(which might have been a better way to describe what we are
talking about).

These patterns are part and parcel of the history of the language.
This history was very important to Tolkien; and by his own
testimony he invented Middle-earth in order to provide his
languages with a history: "it was primarily linguistic in inspiration
and was begun in order to provide the necessary background of
'history' for Elvish tongues". Take note of his use of "necessary"
here. It implies that he could not have Elvish tongues (as he
wanted to have them) absent history.

Esperanto and FORTRAN have histories too; but the history is
not embedded in the language; and not necessary for the
language to exist, as it is for English and from Tolkien's
perspective for Quenya and Sindarin.

The argument is not meaningless but is, in fact, crucial to what
attracts me to Tolkien's work. I encourage you to spend some
time getting familiar not just with bits of the languages; but with
Tolkien's relationship to them. A great place to start would be his
essay "A Secret Vice"  published in _The Monsters and the
Critics_. It's out of print, but not hard to find online. There's
another essay "English and Welsh" in the same book which is
particularly good for understanding what he was trying to achieve
with Sindarin.

--Bill

In Elfling message #27908, Ales Bican commented on my
announcement in Elfling-d message #98 that I had been
banned from Elfling:

> ... am I blind or is the message no. 97 really missing
> from the archives? what happened to it?

Elfling-moderator René Vega has also mentioned this missing
message no. 97 in a private email to me.

While it might be titillating to suppose in the current tense
atmosphere that message #97 was deleted for some nefarious
reason, the actual truth of the matter is very dull indeed.

When I sat down yesterday morning to write a post to Elfling-d
announcing that I had been banned from Elfling, I managed to
accidentally hit the "Send" button after writing nothing but the
subject header "I have been banned on Elfling". Since post 97
was thus nothing but an empty message with a subject header,
I deleted it, and then wrote and posted (this time intentionally!)
message 98.

My apologies for any confusion my slip of the fingers may have
caused.

-- Patrick H. Wynne

Now, it took me an entire day to decide wether to post this here or
not, but i have decided to at last
note: i do not blame Elimloth
and i do not take sides in the arguments going on
but i don't like it being treated this way
and i still hope to get an answer to my question: where can elfling
discussions be continueed since it seems that elfling is the place
no more?
here is what i received in the morning, without a change in a single
word



There is quite a bit of infighting that I am attempting to put at an
end or at least downgrade it a civil debate. Pat's banning is not my
doing but I will be reinstating him albeit under moderation.

In the meatime, this post does not help fan out the flames, so I am
not approving it. I will, however, explain what led up to this
situation.

BTW, these flare-ups happen about twice a year.
--Elimloth, beleaguered moderator

> I'm sorry to interrupt when serious people speak, but really, this
is getting way too ugly
> Is this officially the end of elfling?
> with so many of you leaving(or refraining to post), those
relatively new to quenya and "non-specialists" are being left with
no guidance in their studies...
> Indeed the world of Tolkien and tolkienian linguistics should have
been full of peace&love (and no more), but now it looks so sad, this
situation can make fans repulse from quenya and all the beauty of
what the professor created.
> ...will elfling ever be the same again?
> I hope i've expressed my feelings clearly
> with lots of respect to everyone in tolkienian linguistics,
> Celene
>
> Bill Welden <BillWelden@h...> wrote:
>
> So, if the moderators would indulge me and add me to the list I'd
> be much obliged. In any event I will not be posting here until the
> moderation policy comes under serious review.
>
> --Bill
>

On Dec 27, 2003, at 2:02 PM, maiarim wrote:

> Esperanto is a real language, and also regular. I don't even see who
> have the right to claim that a real language should not be almost
> regular.
>
> I admire your studying and efforts on Tolkien's conlangs and
> disapprove what the moderator's banning somebody. But I hate to see
> meaningless arguements.

Hm, but you don't mind making them, apparently.

Tolkien's purposes in creating Quenya, Sindarin, and his other
languages could hardly be more different from those of Zamenhof with
Esperanto. The latter was specifically intended to be a "regular",
easy-to-learn, auxiliary language; as such it is deliberately
artificial. Tolkien's languages were intended to create the illusion of
having been spoken and developed by various cultures over thousands of
years, and thus to appear to be just like non-artificial languages.
It's really hard to imagine a more inapt comparison among constructed
languages than yours.

As for who has the "right to claim" that _Tolkien's_ languages are not
"regular" (in your sense; they are in fact "regular" in the sense of
historical linguistics, in that they obey laws of uniform phonological
development, just like "real" languages), that would be Tolkien
himself, and those of us who study what Tolkien actually wrote and the
"evidence" he crafted for his fictional languages.


--
=============================================
Carl F. Hostetter   Aelfwine@...   http://www.elvish.org

		    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."

I wrote:

>>And when having made up my mind, I would be greatly
>>worried if I found out that the literature is not available
>>(out of print, sold out, hard to get or expensive). I prefer
>>enjoyment of studying the literature of the field to any
>>obligations connected with scholarship.

Didier Willis wrote:

>The availability and the cost of the material is a very different
>issue, Ales, unrelated with the obligations of scholarship.

**Sure it is. Yet it is an important issue. I do not want to be involved
in scholarship if it means that one is less scholarly if (s)he does not
have access to certain materials that are out of print, hard to get or
expensive. Surprising as it may sound, I am not able to get all
"chief" material because I am not yet able to pay it myself. I am
glad my parents have been willing to pay all the Tolkien-related
things that I have but it is partly because they do not realize how
much I have spent on it all. And it is more or less only my hobby,
I am not talking, for instance, about my university studies.

> Books and
>publications are both protected by intellectual property and authors
>rights, for a variable time duration. Most countries follow for that
>purpose the same international laws and principles, declined within
>their own local laws. You may want to refer to the WIPO / OMPI for
>information (www.wipo.org) and to the Bern convention for the
>Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and finally to local laws
>applicable to your country (in France for example, it would be
>"Le Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle". Local laws differ in
>subtles points and in their application decrees (defining the
>penalties when the law is enforced, the duration of the protection,
>before the material falls in the public domain, etc.), but the effect
>remains the same, and the law is applicable to all. Basically, an
>author and his designated heirs have the rights to decide how is work
>is to be published and divulgated. I don't think the law to be
>excessive (it's not illimited, many old books are available in the
>public domain for the general audience, etc.). You may disagree, but
>there are good reasons for such laws to exist.

**Thank you, Didier, for this information. However, since I was
not discussing this topic, I do not have any comments on it.

Carl Hostetter wrote:

>>>A _scholar_ bears an obligation to be familiar with the chief
>>>literature of his field.

I wrote:

>>**I am glad I do not regard myself a scholar (it is just a label,
>>anyway).

Didier wrote:

>It's not "just" a label, it has more to do usually with universitary
>works (such as a thesis, etc.)...

**Well, it is a just a label, and if I wanted to be witty, I would
say it is just because a linguistic sign is arbitrary. *smile*
But what I wanted to say is that you can call anyone a scholar
just as you can call him/her a stupid but it does not mean that
(s)he has to be actually a scholar or stupid or whatever. Likewise,
one can be a scholar, a stupid or whatever even if (s)he was not
called so. As Carl wrote right: scholarly is as scholarly does but
the question and problem is what a scholar does. This is given,
I believe, by convention and mutual agreement.

> So technically, we could say that
>there are nearly no scholars of Elvish Linguistics (most of us are
>amateurs), though this does not imply we cannot tend towards work of
>the scholarly type, and yes, that includes a knowledge of the chief
>litterature of the field

**Yes, it includes knowledge not obligations to be familiar.

> (main works, secundary works, related studies, etc.).

**The problem and my dislike lies in the word "chief" because
everyone can regard different things are chief. Looking at your
list of chief literature, I wonder, which is not chief?

Carl wrote:

>Also: scholarly is as scholarly _does_: cite sources, provide evidence
>for claims, develop arguments rather than assertions, and position
>one's work with respect to the work of other scholars. Anyone can do
>this, regardless of whether or not one has university affliations, if
>they are willing to invest the time and effort into adhering to the
>discipline.

**Yes, this sounds better than plain assertions about obligations.
And what I did not like in the first place was the implication that
Helge Fauskanger did not act scholarly because he was not
familiar with (and did not refer to) Patrick Wynne's analysis of
Fíriel Song in PE8, because he did not have the issue. Apparently,
he did not regard it as important and/or "chief". Neither do I and
neither do I have the issue (I mentioned the reason: its cost). I do
not want to despise Patrick's work but for me the chief literature
for this field is what Tolkien wrote himself and I am familiar and
have a great majority of it (and so does Helge).

>As for deciding what is the chief literature of Tolkienian linguistics,
>I think Ales is being overly dramatic.

**As I wrote in my original post, I was not talking about
Tolkienian linguistics only.

> There isn't all that much
>literature to start with, and the main journals are well-known and
>quite obvious. Yes, some of these publications are difficult to obtain.
>But that doesn't remove the obligations of the discipline. There are
>alternative means of obtaining the information needed: e.g., ask a
>fellow scholar who does have the publication(s) you lack to assist you
>with your research. (You should acknowledge their assistance, of
>course, out of politeness and gratitude, if for no other reason.)

**I know about it; you, Carl, and others have already helped
me this way. I have always tried to show my gratitude and
acknowledge your (pl.) help.


Ales Bican

--
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)

On Dec 28, 2003, at 6:10 PM, Ales Bican wrote:

> I do not want to be involved in scholarship if it means that one is
> less scholarly if (s)he does not have access to certain materials that
> are out of print, hard to get or
> expensive.

Oddly enough, scholarship has thrived for centuries with the vast
majority of the huge numbers of scholars, generation upon generation,
unable to afford to buy most of the chief scholarship. That's what
libraries and colleagues are for.

> **Yes, this sounds better than plain assertions about obligations.

I did not create the norms and standards of scholarship. But then, the
wisdom of the Internet age is doubtlessly superior to that of the
generations and centuries of scholars and scholarship that preceded and
developed those standards.

Aiya ilquen,
I was looking for a verb to translate 'to smile' but I could not find
one. Is there a quenya verb which represents 'to smile'? Can anyone
help me out?
Tenn' entecielva,
Janet