>I think in this case, the "and" means more of an "and then" or

>a "then" instead. The "and" sort of implies a 'cause and effect'

>

>I couldn't find a word for "then" in any of the Quenya stuff I have...

>  what about using _ar ento_ "and next" ...not quite the same.

>

>just my two cents worth...

>

>Ciao-

>Noelle (aka Erunostarel i Tári)

>

wait... I think MC mentions _san_ "then" in page 216...though I ask others

to comment on it



another two cents



    emilio_1987



_________________________________________________________________

MSN. Más Útil cada Día. http://www.msn.es/intmap/

--- rynnalise <queenoelle@...> tence:



> I think in this case, the "and" means more of an

> "and then" or

> a "then" instead. The "and" sort of implies a 'cause

> and effect'

>

> I couldn't find a word for "then" in any of the

> Quenya stuff I have...

>  what about using _ar ento_ "and next" ...not quite

> the same.



As for "then", there is a plausible construction

_tallume_ "at that time_ (tana + lúme), on analogy

with attested _sillume_ "now, this time"; also

Fíriel's Song has _táre_, untranslated, but evidently

meaning "then, that day"



Mára lóme!



Thomas







__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.yahoo.com

> >can you use Quenya's _ar_ in the sense of English sentences like

> >these?

> >

> > * Three more minutes and we can leave.

> > * Kiss me like that again and I'll love you forever.

> > * Say one more word and it's your funeral.



I think in this case, the "and" means more of an "and then" or

a "then" instead. The "and" sort of implies a 'cause and effect'



I couldn't find a word for "then" in any of the Quenya stuff I have...

  what about using _ar ento_ "and next" ...not quite the same.



just my two cents worth...



Ciao-

Noelle (aka Erunostarel i Tári)

--- In elfling@y..., Kai MacTane <kmactane@g...> wrote:

> A question that may not be answerable, but suddenly occurred to me

and is

> already driving me nuts: can you use Quenya's _ar_ in the sense of

English

> sentences like these?

>

> * Three more minutes and we can leave.

> * Kiss me like that again and I'll love you forever.

> * Say one more word and it's your funeral.

>

> I know this sort of thing is highly idiomatic,

[...]



I remembered this old question (message #10429, Feb 14) recently,

when I found a general discussion of causative constructions.

Actually, it's a review of a book, the author of which claims to have

examined 408 languages. The construction you have in mind is the

first mentioned in the review: "2.1 The AND type"

(http://www.angelfire.com/tx/moradita/cause.htm)



It doesn't seem to be so idiomatic, after all!

Nonetheless, I didn't find the construction in the available (to me!)

Quenya corpus. :-(



Hans

G. Dyke wrote:

> >

> > As far as I know, "and" is used in the "consequential" sense in many

> > languages. I´m a native speaker of Portuguese, I speak English and a

>little

> > bit of Spanish and I´m learning French. And in all of these languages,

>"and"

> > has such usage.

> >

>

>A lot of idiomatic features are common to all european languages. I presume

>that they don't always occur in non-european languages. It seems that

>Tolkien probably was not aware of (or disliked) linguistic features that

>don't occur in european, and did not use them.



Well, his eurocentrism wasn't stronger than that Hebrew and Arabic clearly

provided inspiration for Khuzdul and Adunaic. There are also some Elvish

words that seem to be "borrowed" from Semitic, _pé_ "mouth" for instance.



                                                   Andreas



_________________________________________________________________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

  teithant Frances Hardy



> This is something else I'd like to know the answer to (why they did it), so

if anyone has the time and they know why, could they email me, pls?



* i was reading the mails, and i stumped on yours, and i read your question, and

i wanted to answer.. for i am greek... and i think i could answer...



and i say that every language has its own style, and in koine greek this was a

style to link phrases together..







---------------------------------

Do You Yahoo!?

ÁðïêôÞóôå ôçí äùñåÜí óáò@yahoo.gr äéåýèõíóç  óôï Yahoo! Mail.





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

----- Original Message -----

From: "Alex Grigny de Castro" <a.grigny@...>

To: <elfling@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 3:52 AM

Subject: Re: [elfling] Re: Idiomatic Use of "And"?





> This use of 'and' is very common in ancient semitic languages like Aramaic

> and Hebrew...



And Koine Greek! they stick the word 'and' in all over the place and most of

the time it has absolutely no relevance to what they are saying although I'm

sure it meant something to the writer!



This is something else I'd like to know the answer to (why they did it), so

if anyone has the time and they know why, could they email me, pls?

This use of 'and' is very common in ancient semitic languages like Aramaic

and Hebrew: "washama` sha'ul waharagani"  "if Saul hears (this) he will

kill me" literally "Saul will hear this and he will kill me" (1 Samuel CIV 28).



Alex



  > As far as I know, "and" is used in the "consequential" sense in many

  > languages. I´m a native speaker of Portuguese, I speak English and a

>little

> > bit of Spanish and I´m learning French. And in all of these languages,

>"and"

> > has such usage.

> >

>

>A lot of idiomatic features are common to all european languages. I presume

>that they don't always occur in non-european languages. It seems that

>Tolkien probably was not aware of (or disliked) linguistic features that

>don't occur in european, and did not use them.

>

>Greg



===

Alex Grigny de Castro

mailto:a.grigny@...

http://members.ams.chello.nl/a.grigny

XelaG

mailto:xelag@...

http://www.imatowns.com/xelagot





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

>(Potentially related question: in other European languages, can the

>additive conjunction be used for such constructs? Does this trick only work

>in English, or can you do it in Latin, Welsh, Finnish, and so on?)



In Czech it works, as it does in most languages, I think. It's just that you

do not explicitly express the peculiar relation of the two clauses, since

"and" is "semantically poor"...

But note I may be wrong!



Lukas

>

> As far as I know, "and" is used in the "consequential" sense in many

> languages. I´m a native speaker of Portuguese, I speak English and a

little

> bit of Spanish and I´m learning French. And in all of these languages,

"and"

> has such usage.

>



A lot of idiomatic features are common to all european languages. I presume

that they don't always occur in non-european languages. It seems that

Tolkien probably was not aware of (or disliked) linguistic features that

don't occur in european, and did not use them.



Greg

As far as I know, "and" is used in the "consequential" sense in many

languages. I´m a native speaker of Portuguese, I speak English and a little

bit of Spanish and I´m learning French. And in all of these languages, "and"

has such usage.



   Cuio mae,



   Ioreth.



_________________________________________________________________

Téléchargez MSN Explorer gratuitement à l'adresse

http://explorer.msn.fr/intl.asp.

--- In elfling@y..., Kai MacTane <kmactane@g...> wrote:

> So you'd say this isn't even an idiom, but a natural use of the

concept

> "and"? Thanks for the reports on German and Russin, BTW -- I speak a

bit of

> Russian, but not enough to be sure this was okay. (Also I'm very

rusty.)

>

You're welcome. Yes, that's what I meant: it's _one_ of the natural

uses of a conjunction like "and", probably in quite a few languages.

That it's really meant to express a _consequence_ can only be deduced

from semantics, unfortunately, and that's not what language,

especially grammar, is all about: to convey meaning through _syntax_.

Let's look at an example (deliberately extreme): "eat bread man" is

entirely ungrammatical, but it's hard to miss the meaning. It's clear

what subject, object, action are. Time is implied, since there's no

hint at past or future. But in other cases, it may be ambiguous what

is object and what subject (hence the order of words, or an accusative

case), and you may need "-s" to indicate it's really present

tense, and an article to indicate that you don't mean mankind, but "a

man", or "the man" you referred to before.



To cut the long rant short: I'm afraid we can't always express the

meaning of a consequence without an "if A then B" construction. There

may be acceptable work-arounds in special situations only.



Hans

Gildor wrote:



> > Oops... I thought I was replying to Gildor.

> I'm very sorry for the mistake!

>

> * i dont remember helping on Isengard either?? :)



ROTFL! Ok. Doesn't matter. Perhaps it was something I imagined during my

days of flu. :O)

Thanks anyway!...



Meneg suilaid,

--

Beorn.

  teithant Beorn



> >PS: many thanks for your answers in my Isengard question. :O)

>

> You're welcome. Even though I totally don't remember what I said --

> it's been so long, my memory is gone! :)





> Oops... I thought I was replying to Gildor.

I'm very sorry for the mistake!



* i dont remember helping on Isengard either?? :)







---------------------------------

Do You Yahoo!?

ÁðïêôÞóôå ôçí äùñåÜí óáò@yahoo.gr äéåýèõíóç  óôï Yahoo! Mail.





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

  teithant slimehoo



> * i know few languages (greek, english, french, italian), and i think in all

of these, "and" is used, so i believe in quenya too



>That is not the question asked. What was asked is whether or not

"and" is used in the "consequential" sense. That is, in such usage



* and this is what i answered :).. ie "in those languages "and" is used (in

those cases)"







---------------------------------

Do You Yahoo!?

ÁðïêôÞóôå ôçí äùñåÜí óáò@yahoo.gr äéåýèõíóç  óôï Yahoo! Mail.





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

Kai MacTane wrote:

> >PS: many thanks for your answers in my Isengard question. :O)

>

> You're welcome. Even though I totally don't remember what I said --

> it's been so long, my memory is gone! :)





Oops... I thought I was replying to Gildor.

I'm very sorry for the mistake!



Ciao,

--

Beorn.



(And many thanls to John Cowan, too!)

At 2/14/02 05:10 AM , gentlebeldin wrote:

>--- In elfling@y..., Kai MacTane <kmactane@g...> wrote:

> > (Potentially related question: in other European languages, can the

> > additive conjunction be used for such constructs? Does this trick

>only work

> > in English, or can you do it in Latin, Welsh, Finnish, and so on?)

>

>It works in German and Russian, and it's pretty much clear why it

>works: The order implies "A, and then B" (and it wouldn't work if you

>switched around the two), the "and" implies at least some connection

>between the two parts.



So you'd say this isn't even an idiom, but a natural use of the concept

"and"? Thanks for the reports on German and Russin, BTW -- I speak a bit of

Russian, but not enough to be sure this was okay. (Also I'm very rusty.)



>I have to admit that I don't know a Quenya word for "or", so this

>isn't helpful. :-)



Actually, I think it is pretty helpful -- you've pointed out why "or" isn't

even necessary to express this concept.



                                                  --Kai MacTane

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"The seasons don't fear the reaper,

   Nor do the wind, the sun and the rain.

   We can be like they are."

                                                  --Blue Öyster Cult,

                                                   "Don't Fear the Reaper"

At 2/14/02 04:43 AM , Beorn wrote:

>We often use this in Italian, and there's a similar use in Latin, too

>(as far as I remember). I didn't know that it was an idiomatic structure!



Maybe it's not; I guess I just thought it was. Thanks for letting me know

it's done in Italian (and probably Latin).



>PS: many thanks for your answers in my Isengard question. :O)

>I did write an email, but I got flu and forgot it in the drafts folder...



You're welcome. Even though I totally don't remember what I said -- it's

been so long, my memory is gone! :)



                                                  --Kai MacTane

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"You wear guilt/Like shackles on your feet;

   Like a halo in reverse..."

                                                  --Depeche Mode,

                                                   "Halo"

--- In elfling@y..., Gildor Inglorion <elfiness@y...> wrote:

> * i know few languages (greek, english, french, italian), and i think in all

of these, "and" is used, so i believe in quenya too



That is not the question asked.  What was asked is whether or not

"and" is used in the "consequential" sense.  That is, in such usage



"If you stop, then I will not hit you." is semantically equivalent to

"Stop, and I will not hit you."

--- In elfling@y..., Kai MacTane <kmactane@g...> wrote:

> (Potentially related question: in other European languages, can the

> additive conjunction be used for such constructs? Does this trick

only work

> in English, or can you do it in Latin, Welsh, Finnish, and so on?)



It works in German and Russian, and it's pretty much clear why it

works: The order implies "A, and then B" (and it wouldn't work if you

switched around the two), the "and" implies at least some connection

between the two parts. You wouldn't use "and" if B weren't to be

expected after A: for unexpected consequences, we use "but" (and the

pair "and/but" has its analogy in the German "und/aber" or the Russian

"i/a"). However, it's much guess-work, and wouldn't work without

semantic hints at a causal connection.

Another vague replacement for an "if A, then B" construction is "not

A, or B", meaning that A would imply B (as in "don't do that, or

else...").

I have to admit that I don't know a Quenya word for "or", so this

isn't helpful. :-)



Hans

Alle 11:50, giovedì 14 febbraio 2002, hai scritto:



[...]

> can you use Quenya's _ar_ in the sense of

> English sentences like these?

>

> * Three more minutes and we can leave.

> * Kiss me like that again and I'll love you forever.

> * Say one more word and it's your funeral.

[...]

> (Potentially related question: in other European languages, can the

> additive conjunction be used for such constructs? Does this trick only

> work in English, or can you do it in Latin, Welsh, Finnish, and so on?)



We often use this in Italian, and there's a similar use in Latin, too

(as far as I remember). I didn't know that it was an idiomatic structure!

I think it's an understandable and logical construct - a conjunction

between two related facts - but I'm afraid I'm not such a linguistics

expert to say what is linguistically understandable and logical!



Ciao,

--

Beorn.





PS: many thanks for your answers in my Isengard question. :O)

I did write an email, but I got flu and forgot it in the drafts folder...

:O(

  teithant Kai MacTane



> A question that may not be answerable, but suddenly occurred to me and is

already driving me nuts: can you use Quenya's _ar_ in the sense of English

sentences like these?



* Three more minutes and we can leave.

* Kiss me like that again and I'll love you forever.

* Say one more word and it's your funeral.



* i know few languages (greek, english, french, italian), and i think in all of

these, "and" is used, so i believe in quenya too







---------------------------------

Do You Yahoo!?

ÁðïêôÞóôå ôçí äùñåÜí óáò@yahoo.gr äéåýèõíóç  óôï Yahoo! Mail.





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

A question that may not be answerable, but suddenly occurred to me and is

already driving me nuts: can you use Quenya's _ar_ in the sense of English

sentences like these?



* Three more minutes and we can leave.

* Kiss me like that again and I'll love you forever.

* Say one more word and it's your funeral.



I know this sort of thing is highly idiomatic, and the chance that there's

any such usage in the available corpus is somewhere between zero and zilch,

but I'll be interested to see people's thoughts on it.



(Potentially related question: in other European languages, can the

additive conjunction be used for such constructs? Does this trick only work

in English, or can you do it in Latin, Welsh, Finnish, and so on?)



                                                  --Kai MacTane

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Why can't I live a life for me?

   Why should I take the abuse that's served?

   Why can't they see they're just like me?

   I'm not the one that's so absurd!"

                                                  --Ministry,

                                                   "Every Day is

                                                    Halloween"

Carl, not to bemore a sore point anymore than normal, but you do state some

personal things on your website, which is kind of open to the public to see.

If you are telling the world about that info (and to quote you say "I'll

tell you about it sometime").  I don't think Helge (in his defense) really

stated anything that you had not already "told the world".  Although one

must alway take into account Helge's ability to say something in 100 words

rather than 10, but hey, that's Helge.



And he was trying to make a point.





> >> Helge, I personally sympathize with you (and with Patrick too). But

look at

> >> the situation - has anybody pressed you for time? Have you been engaged

in

> >> flame wars with people demanding that the material be published - NOW?

I

> >> don't remember it.

> >>

> > No, but Helge does not have access to anything that any one of us do not

have

> > access to (except, perhaps, time!).  He is not in a privileged position

w/r/t

> > otherwise inaccessible resources, except the one in his own head.

> >

> So, John, are you saying that because _I_ did all the hard work and made

all

> the effort that put me in this "privileged position" (and it _is_ a

> privilege, though not in the way you mean), that my private life is fair

> game? (And let's face it, it's _all_ private, since I'm not being paid by

> anyone to do what I do, nor am I under any obligation to continue the work

> or produce anything more, should I decide I don't want to.)

>

> But let Helge squawk all he wants -- his last opportunity _ever_ to

> influence what I and my colleagues work on and when we publish has now

been

> (mis)spent, and his relentless attacks have long since destroyed any

concern

> I once had about what others think of my efforts and progress. I will do

> what I choose to do, as I see fit, and as time and tide permit, and I

don't

> care a fig for what anyone (other than my colleagues and Christopher

> Tolkien) thinks about it: no one is _entitled_ to my time, or to any

> accounting or explanation of how it is spent. And if I never published

> another thing I would nonetheless feel only pride at what I've

accomplished

> in the realm of Tolkien, and gratitude to Christopher Tolkien and the

Estate

> for the opportunity and encouragement to do it.

>

--- In elfling@y..., "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@e...> wrote:

> I once had about what others think of my efforts and progress. I will do

> what I choose to do, as I see fit, and as time and tide permit, and I don't

> care a fig for what anyone (other than my colleagues and Christopher



Now I remember why I went into the natural sciences.  All possible

source material is out there for anybody to take a crack at.  The last

thing I ever wanted was to get into the position of being a

gatekeeper.  No matter what decision I would make, I would be

despised.  Also, my ego is enormous enough without having that sort of

power.

Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:



> So, John, are you saying that because _I_ did all the hard work and made all

> the effort that put me in this "privileged position" (and it _is_ a

> privilege, though not in the way you mean), that my private life is fair

> game? (And let's face it, it's _all_ private, since I'm not being paid by

> anyone to do what I do, nor am I under any obligation to continue the work

> or produce anything more, should I decide I don't want to.)



Of those to whom much is given, much is expected, that's all.

You are under no obligation to live up to other people's expectations

of you, either.



> But let Helge squawk all he wants



Please do let him!



--

John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@...

To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.  There

are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language

that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful.

         --_The Hobbit_

On 2/12/02 3:23 PM, "johnwcowan" <cowan@...> wrote:



> --- In elfling@y..., "Pavel Iosad" <pavel_iosad@m...> wrote:

>

>> Helge, I personally sympathize with you (and with Patrick too). But look at

>> the situation - has anybody pressed you for time? Have you been engaged in

>> flame wars with people demanding that the material be published - NOW? I

>> don't remember it.

>>

> No, but Helge does not have access to anything that any one of us do not have

> access to (except, perhaps, time!).  He is not in a privileged position w/r/t

> otherwise inaccessible resources, except the one in his own head.

>

So, John, are you saying that because _I_ did all the hard work and made all

the effort that put me in this "privileged position" (and it _is_ a

privilege, though not in the way you mean), that my private life is fair

game? (And let's face it, it's _all_ private, since I'm not being paid by

anyone to do what I do, nor am I under any obligation to continue the work

or produce anything more, should I decide I don't want to.)



But let Helge squawk all he wants -- his last opportunity _ever_ to

influence what I and my colleagues work on and when we publish has now been

(mis)spent, and his relentless attacks have long since destroyed any concern

I once had about what others think of my efforts and progress. I will do

what I choose to do, as I see fit, and as time and tide permit, and I don't

care a fig for what anyone (other than my colleagues and Christopher

Tolkien) thinks about it: no one is _entitled_ to my time, or to any

accounting or explanation of how it is spent. And if I never published

another thing I would nonetheless feel only pride at what I've accomplished

in the realm of Tolkien, and gratitude to Christopher Tolkien and the Estate

for the opportunity and encouragement to do it.





|======================================================================|

| 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@y..., "Pavel Iosad" <pavel_iosad@m...> wrote:



> Helge, I personally sympathize with you

> (and with Patrick too). But look at

> the situation - has anybody pressed you for time?

> Have you been engaged in

> flame wars with people demanding that the material

> be published - NOW? I

> don't remember it.



No, but Helge does not have access to anything that any one of us

do not have access to (except, perhaps, time!).  He is not in

a privileged position w/r/t otherwise inaccessible resources,

except the one in his own head.

Hello,



I know this is irrelevant, but I can't help (note: this is my first posting

on the off-topic topic :-))



> I resent the idea that many people on this list are only interested in

> scavenging Tolkien's material for "useful" information. This said, I think

> Hostetter would do well to realize that most people who want to study

> Tolkien's languages actually want to study them _as languages_, frequently

> even with some pretensions of actually using them for prose or poetry.

They

> are not primarily interesting in studying trivial conceptual variations in

> multiple layers of obscure manuscripts (most of which are not even

> published!)



I don't think that Carl actually confines himself to studying trivial

variations (who said they were trivial, by the way? What is the basis of

making such assumptions?). It is exremely important to actually understand

this third dimension of Tolkien's languages. Understanding the various

underlying conceptions is part of the study of Tolkien's languages, which

does not necessarily entail (as you seem to assume) denying of studying the

languages "as languages", does not only add a good deal of data. It can be

used to do a great many useful things. After all, why cannot it be possible

to appreciate Noldorin in its own right? What if Tolkien died without

reaching the later stages of his languages' developemnt? Would you thrash

the GL scanning for valid Noldorin material? I daresay you would.

Studying Tolkien's languages in two dimenions is folly. Arda is not Earth.

John R. R. Tolkien is on different terms with it than Helge K. Fauskanger,

with all due respect to the latter. Studying Arda is studying a _secondary_,

_sub-created_ world. You can't be the one to decide what is and is not

relevant (you are free to do so, but please don't force the other take your

word as the ultimate one there is).

As for ignoring the earliest material: has anyone analysed the _Nebrachar_

poem? None of the advocates of "mature" (*)Tolkien's languages has, I

believe, published such an analysis (I am sorry if this is wrong). Helge

has, in much detail, analysed _Namárië_, _A Elbereth Gilthoniel_ (forming

part of the canon), the _Markirya_ poem (which has late Quenya version), and

Firiel's song (apparently because it is 'late' Qenya, which gives it a right

to live). No _Nebrachar_. Catholic prayers, yes, in a context which, as you

certainly knew, would generate controversy. And here's a lengthy text in

Noldorin. Answer: early stage, shifting conception, irrelevant.



> > You're arrogance is breathtaking. It is only to protect the material

from

> the likes of _you_ that Tolkien's linguistic writings must be far more

> tightly guarded than before.

>

> Yes, all things considered, it would obviously have been much better for

> this field if I (and David, and Lisa, and Ed, and...) had never been born.

> Just imagine the horrible things we want to do with these writings. We

want

> to...ANALYZE them! We want to...SHARE the insights gained! Worst of all,

we

> may even want to utilize some of the information, using it to (shudder!)

> WRITE Eldarin texts, or TEACH others who may be interested how it can be

> done! Really grotesque. Breathtaking arrogance, indeed.



No one is having trouble with all those all-capitals things. Indeed, we are

all hugely indebted to you for all this.The quarrel is about another matter,

and you perfectly know that. Please, cut demagogy short.



> Incidentally, CJRT himself would seem to be guilty of having "ripped from

> their context" such highly important sources as the _Etymologies_ and

> _Quendi and Eldar_, not to mention his entire unified _Silmarillion_ --

> produced by "ripping" material from numerous sources. For that matter,

JRRT

> himself, by publishing LotR with samples of Elvish in it, also ripped

> material from what Hostetter would seem to consider the "proper" academic

> context.



In publishing this, Tolkien did not act as a Tolkien scholar. He acted as

the author of The Lord of the Rings. And CJRT also "amended" his "ripping"

by publishing HoME. And that's just what the ET are doing. And please don't

tell me about time - how long did it take CJRT to publish it?



> It was only when the ET received numerous manuscripts from CJRT that it

> suddenly became so extremely important to publish everything in its

> "context", in nearly chronological order. (As Gilson admitted to me a few

> years ago, this idea was NOT originally Christopher Tolkien's -- though he

> approved of it later. It was the ET members themselves who initiated a

> project which now seems rather over-ambitious, and we shall never know

> whether a less ambitious but more practical and feasible angle would not

> have been equally acceptable to CJRT.)



The current one has been accepted. Full stop.



> It was with good reason that I avoided virtually all references to

> Tolkien's narratives in the exercises I constructed for my Quenya course.

I

> wanted to emphasize that the subject of study was only the actual

language,

> irrespective of the fictional context.



Which is a purely structuralist point of view. Yes, Saussure and Bloomfield

have contributed a great deal to modrn linguistics, but structuralism is not

the only trend in lingusitcs!

Especially in the field of Tolkien studies. A semantic description of the

Etymologies is a good source of valuable information (Boris here will

testify).



> About the editing of Tolkien's Pater Noster/Ave Maria:

[snip]

> Carl, you and your group are not the only ones who know loss and pain. But

> life goes on, and so does -- or should -- work in this field. Please do

not

> imagine that while you and your group, burdened by all sorts of grief and

> problems, heroically work to present Tolkien's writings, you are being

> harassed by rude, insensitive people who don't have a care in the world. I

> suspect that this way of imagining the general situation is somehow

> attractive to you, but that does not make such an idea any more accurate.

>

> Since my own father was very ill and maybe close to dying last year, I

> would have been -- I still am -- able to sympathize with Patrick Wynne. My

> condolences. But I do resent having the news of the death of Wynne's

father

> thrown in my face together with sarcastic comments to the effect that it

> was "damn inconsiderate" of him to die "without first obtaining [my]

> leave". What are you thinking, Carl?



Helge, I personally sympathize with you (and with Patrick too). But look at

the situation - has anybody pressed you for time? Have you been engaged in

flame wars with people demanding that the material be published - NOW? I

don't remember it.



I am sorry for posting this, but I am afraid I had to have my say

avel