Or you might try looking at

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/elvish<http://www.phy.duke.edu/%7Etrenk/elvish>/

, which has a number of excellent courses and dictionaries, if you don't

want to spend money. You might also try googling his book to see differing

opinions of its quality and value before investing real cash.



2008/5/28 elffanatic2000 <elffanatic2000@...>:



>   --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com <elfling%40yahoogroups.com>, "maho4451"

> <maho4451@...> wrote:

> >

> > Hi all, I've become extremely interested in learning the spoken

> form

> > of Sindarin, and through such efforts I have been working on this

> > translation:

> >

> > "Im gwedhiel anim le, Terese, anuir."

> >

> > Which i believe should translate as, "I bind myself to you, Terese,

> > forever" or more specifically, "I, having bound myself, to you,

> > Terese, for eternity." But after reading some of David Salo's work

> I

> > believe my sentence structure is alittle off, so I was hoping you

> all

> > could take a look at it for me.

> >

> > Also, if someone could point me towards an online (or even in

> print)

> > guide to spoken Sindarin, as in sentence structure and verbal

> > mutations (specifically) I would be most grateful.

> >

> > thanks!

> > -Patrick.

> >

>

> you could try buying David Salo's book A Gateway to Sindarin, it

> really helps if you're trying to learn spoken sindarin, but its a

> long read try that

>

>

>







--

Phil

------- Haiku ---



Horses hooves hammer

Pounding priests of drumskin ground

Bringing the thunder





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

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Phillip Wayne" <exuyangi@...> wrote:

>

> Or you might try looking at

>

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/elvish<http://www.phy.duke.edu/%7Etrenk/e\

lvish>/

> , which has a number of excellent courses and dictionaries, if you

don't

> want to spend money. You might also try googling his book to see

differing

> opinions of its quality and value before investing real cash.



Do you happen to have an opinion of your own on the subject of the

"quality and value" of A Gateway to Sindarin, Philip?  One that's not

based on 'googling' but on your own analysis and criticism?  I'm just

curious.



David Salo

Not actually a reply, just a comment actually.



Dear Mr. Salo,



I am an avid reader and in particular, a devoted J.R.R. Tokein reader.? I just

wanted to say that your "Gateway to Sindarin" is the epitome of Sindarin and I

applaud the effort and dedication you have put to this language.? I shall

contine to do so.



Blessings,

Dianna





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

From: iiipitaka <dsalo@...>

To: elfling@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Fri, 30 May 2008 5:27 am

Subject: [elfling] Re: Sindarin translation?















--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Phillip Wayne" <exuyangi@...> wrote:

>

> Or you might try looking at

>

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/elvish<http://www.phy.duke.edu/%7Etrenk/e\

lvish>/

> , which has a number of excellent courses and dictionaries, if you

don't

> want to spend money. You might also try googling his book to see

differing

> opinions of its quality and value before investing real cash.



Do you happen to have an opinion of your own on the subject of the

"quality and value" of A Gateway to Sindarin, Philip? One that's not

based on 'googling' but on your own analysis and criticism? I'm just

curious.



David Salo













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

Alas, I am but a poor judge ... there are differing opinions of almost any

attempt Sindarin out there. I am sure that googling many persons such as

Dianna would, indeed swing things in your direction, or in that of some of

the other experts in Sindarin, Quenya, and the other languages of the group,

such as work by Thorsten Renk, and H.K. Fauskanger, both of whom, you would

agree I am sure, have excellent courses available.



Yes, I do have an opinion on it. However, I do not consider it my particular

place to play the peculiar, if you will. Your book is mentioned many times,

by many experts. What is a poor man to do but trust in the word of those

self-same experts (and I do include you in that lot, Mr. Salo). If we do no

trust you, and people like you, then where would suggest we turn?



Phillip

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Phillip Wayne" <exuyangi@...> wrote:

>

> Alas, I am but a poor judge ... there are differing opinions of almost any

> attempt Sindarin out there. I am sure that googling many persons such as

> Dianna would, indeed swing things in your direction, or in that of some of

> the other experts in Sindarin, Quenya, and the other languages of the group,

> such as work by Thorsten Renk, and H.K. Fauskanger, both of whom, you would

> agree I am sure, have excellent courses available.

>

> Yes, I do have an opinion on it. However, I do not consider it my particular

> place to play the peculiar, if you will. Your book is mentioned many times,

> by many experts. What is a poor man to do but trust in the word of those

> self-same experts (and I do include you in that lot, Mr. Salo). If we do no

> trust you, and people like you, then where would suggest we turn?

>

> Phillip

>



You're asking the wrong person in the wrong forum.  I became involved in Tolkien

language studies in the mid-1990s because I was skeptical of the opinions of the

self-

proclaimed "experts" of the time. I don't place any trust in "expertise" in this

field, not

even my own; I certainly make mistakes.  _A Gateway to Sindarin_ was never

intended to

be the last word in Sindarin studies, but a stop-gap to fill a hole that had

long existed.



Its purpose was twofold: one, to gather in one place all the primary material

(texts,

vocabulary, nomenclature) on Sindarin that then existed; two, to present an

analysis of as

much of that material as seemed analysable.  The chief complaint against the

books seems

to be that it presented *my* analysis, and not somebody else's.  I am afraid

that fault was

hardly avoidable.  Its chief remedy would be for the book's critics to write

books and

articles of their own presenting their theories in full.



What I would suggest is not "turning to experts", but learning enough about the

source

materials to make up your own mind, and discussing your theories with others. 

That's

why Elfling exists; not to be a mountaintop from which the law can be laid down

by a few

enlightened "experts", but to be an equal forum where everybody gets to be an

expert,

and no theory is above criticism.  If you have opinions about Elvish languages,

this is

precisely the place to state them.

Phillip.



First, let me say, that nothing can be obtained by "googling" me or by looking

at such? sites as "you tube" or "my space" because this is not something I

consider to be a forum for myself.



However, maybe I'm unclear as to your questions/concerns.



Is it that you're looking for something in Sindarin that you ca find?? Is it

that no matter your question(s), David S., Helge F. and Thorsen R.?cannot answer

it for you?? Or, are you looking for a reason not to trust (believe) the

research and expertise these people have brought us?? Have you some other

information you might like to share?? Because it sounds like you are challenging

people who I honestly believe have reserched and studied and looked into?the

information and have given us their time, effort, traslations and education on

Sindarin (or Quenyan) etc.?



I don't know for sure, of course, so I wouldn't (nor can I) speculate.? I just

think you sound sort of cynical.? Is there a reason for that?? I only said what

I thought after having informatoin I've been given by any of these "experts" and

after having read anything I can get my hands on that they may have imparted or

written.? I feel that they are QUITE kowledgeable.? Do you not?? Perhaps you can

offer another perspective?? I am open to all information on the loanguages of

JRR Tolkein.





Blessings,

Dianna

Hi there,



> Is it that you're looking for something in Sindarin that you ca find??

> Is it that no matter your question(s), David S., Helge F. and Thorsen

> R.?cannot answer it for you?? Or, are you looking for a reason not to

> trust (believe) the research and expertise these people have brought

> us?? Have you some other information you might like to share?? Because

> it sounds like you are challenging people who I honestly believe have

> reserched and studied and looked into?the information and have given us

> their time, effort, traslations and education on Sindarin (or Quenyan)

> etc.?



I can only speak for myself of course, but personally I am not keen on

people trusting my expertise or believing what I say. What I would prefer

is that people try to find out if I am right or not by themselves.



Yes, the work to compile an overview over some bit of grammar (say past

tenses) is tedious, and it is nice to see this work appreciated. But that

isn't the same thing as trusting that it is 100% correct or that the

conclusions are sound - rather, with a well-referenced article as guide,

it becomes possible with reasonable effort to follow all the little tags

like LR:312 and VT42:11 and see in what context a word or phrase is

presented originally, if the original source is a rough draft or a

well-written essay, if that may lead to different conclusions and so on.



Frankly, I don't mind to be challenged in my opinion as long as the

challenge can be argued somehow from Tolkien's writings. If somebody can

make a better case for his theory than I can for mine, then that's just a

step forward.



So, I'd very much appreciate this discussion turning back to Tolkien's

writings and judging quality by agreement or disagreement with those.



All the best,



* Thorsten

Why don’t a group of, as I call them, “high-profile” students of quenya

(or even sindarin), such as the guys that run the websites etc get together as a

council and develop/standardise quenya and call it fourth-age quenya?







It would solve a lot of arguments, and there will be a base for people to get

into the language without a ton of contradicting theories.







The discussion and analysis can still continue as it’s discussing first-third

age quenya.







As far as I know, Tolkien wrote very little about the fourth age, and iirc

we’re in the fourth age, so should not the ‘elder students’ be teaching

fourth age quenya?







They can still have their analysis, and we can have a standardised language.







Smiles all round, no?







Elëaren



























Hi there,

...

So, I'd very much appreciate this discussion turning back to Tolkien's

writings and judging quality by agreement or disagreement with those.



All the best,



* Thorsten





Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.24.2/1471 - Release Date: 28/05/2008 5:33

PM







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

Thorsten Renk wrote:

> rather, with a well-referenced article as guide,

> it becomes possible with reasonable effort to follow all the

> little tags like LR:312 and VT42:11 and see in what context a

> word or phrase is presented originally, if the original source is

> a rough draft or a  well-written essay, if that may lead to

> different conclusions and so on.



I guess we all wholly agree that valuables articles must be

well-referenced, citing all their sources (books and exact pages), so

that readers may check these original documents in their real, actual

context.



If I may play the devil's alternative here without sounding too

provocative: within these good scholarly practices of well-made

source-referencing, how are we assumed to consider, for instance, many

so-said "Sindarin-courses" found on the Internet - such as your own

_Pedin Edhellen_ 3.0 - since they do not include even a single

book-reference? I sincerely think that exact references on all cited

word forms and attested grammar usages would GREATLY benefit such

courses and grammatical descriptions of Tolkien's invented language,

whatever target audience is assumed by their compilers.



Cheers,



Didier.

> I guess we all wholly agree that valuables articles must be

> well-referenced, citing all their sources (books and exact pages), so

> that readers may check these original documents in their real, actual

> context.

>

> If I may play the devil's alternative here without sounding too

> provocative: within these good scholarly practices of well-made

> source-referencing, how are we assumed to consider, for instance, many

> so-said "Sindarin-courses" found on the Internet - such as your own

> _Pedin Edhellen_ 3.0 - since they do not include even a single

> book-reference? I sincerely think that exact references on all cited

> word forms and attested grammar usages would GREATLY benefit such

> courses and grammatical descriptions of Tolkien's invented language,

> whatever target audience is assumed by their compilers.



Didier, I think what you say is grossly unfair.



Pedin Edhellen makes no attempt to hide what it is, the preface is very

clear about it being a standardized edition of Sindarin for a special

purpose. Furthermore, there is a scheme used to mark what is attested and

what is not, and (and this is the main point) - grammar articles (Helge's

'Sindarin - the Noble Tongue' and some of my own) are cited.



I think this ought to be sufficient, and the reader with a deeper interest

can refer to these articles which cite Tolkien properly. Pedin Edhellen os

*not* a scholarly publication, doesn't claim to be one (quite the

opposite) and shouldn't be held to the standard of scholarly publications.



Sorry, but I really am angry now - how many disclaimers does Pedin

Edhellen need?



* Thorsten

I also see PE as a course book .. like the books that I had at school

to learn French from.

And I think it is very good at that.





On 5-Jun-08, at 3:12 PM, Thorsten Renk wrote:

> Didier, I think what you say is grossly unfair.

>

> Pedin Edhellen makes no attempt to hide what it is, the preface is

> very

> clear about it being a standardized edition of Sindarin for a special

> purpose.

Thorsten Renk wrote:

> Didier, I think what you say is grossly unfair.



Please, both you and I ought to be above _ad hominem_ arguments such

as these, so don't over-react here - I am not criticizing you on a

personal angle, nor am I saying anything implying you could be

"grossly unfair" with your own readers. I am ONLY saying that, in my

opinion, works such as yours "would GREATLY benefit" from having

"exact references on all cited word forms and attested grammar usages".



I don't think saying such a simple thing is unfair (and even less

"gross"!). Or is it? How so?



> Furthermore, there is a scheme used to mark what is attested and

> what is not,



I provided in ELFING #34873 a few examples of what I personally regard

as problematic issues in your work, but with respect to the above

point, please allow me to just provide yet another example: On p. 59,

�8.3.4, you give _sain_ "them" without asterisk, therefore I

understand it is assumed to be attested (if I am to believe your

"scheme" as explained on p. 9). Without references, it's really hard

for me to tell with certainty whether this form is attested, so please

tell us where we can find it. So far, my own research only leads to

LR:385 _ha, hana_, pl. _hein_ and to PE17:42 _hain_ < _hein_ pl. of

_han_, also _hain_ = _heinn_ (_san-_). So I have not been able to find

the _sain_ form occurring in your work... And there are two

possibilities here:

- Either this word IS attested somewhere in the vast and scattered

sources we have, but then LACK of exact reference prevented me to

easily check it in its actual context.

- Or this word is NOT attested, but then it should have been marked

with an asterisk, and LACK of a consistent mark-up scheme is hiding

this fact to us.



I am uncertain which of the above is correct. But again, a single

reference would have provided a *clear* answer to this question - And

THIS is the whole point I am defending here.



> and (and this is the main point) - grammar articles (Helge's

> 'Sindarin - the Noble Tongue' and some of my own) are cited.



These are only listed on p. 9-11 in the introduction, as mere general

links, so it's unclear to me how they are relevant to any extent in

order to help analyze the rest of your theories in the subsequent

pages. Taking the example just mentioned above, out of curiosity, will

I find in any of these links a discussion which might enlight me on

_sain_ = "them"?



> Pedin Edhellen is *not* a scholarly publication, doesn't claim to

> be one (quite the opposite) and shouldn't be held to the standard

> of scholarly publications.



I can only disagree here. Even if intended for "beginners", a

publication should not be leveled down, in my opinion. Providing exact

references should not be a problem - beginners can just ignore them

without harm - and the overall result will then be more satisfying for

anyone wishing to check the validity of you explanations.



> Sorry, but I really am angry now - how many disclaimers does Pedin

> Edhellen need?



I don't think the issue lies with disclaimers. They clearly state the

purpose of such a "course". BUT this is no reason for the rest of the

text to be uncheckable and unverifiable...



Cheers,



Didier.

>> Didier, I think what you say is grossly unfair.

>

> Please, both you and I ought to be above _ad hominem_ arguments such

> as these, so don't over-react here - I am not criticizing you on a

> personal angle, nor am I saying anything implying you could be

> "grossly unfair" with your own readers.



I can't see any ad hominem in here - I wrote that I think what you say is

grossly unfair, and that's not a judgement of your character, but a

factual statement.



In short, you ask for 'good scholarly practice' in a non-scholarly work -

how is that a fair request?



Elfling #34873 contains quite a few more unfair statements, for example

your claim that one is 'left in the wild to verify this [i.e. the form

caenui]' where in fact a well referenced article is available.



> I am ONLY saying that, in my

> opinion, works such as yours "would GREATLY benefit" from having

> "exact references on all cited word forms and attested grammar usages".



No, in fact you have been using phrases like



* "It doesn't have yet the quailty and standards of a v1.0" (who explained

to you my version numbering scheme anyway?)



* "...what could be otherwise valuable for beginners"



and in general write in a rather condescending tone about Pedin Edhellen.

So please don't tell me that writing that I think what you say is unfair

is ad hominem.



Having said that, let me be very clear:



The problems you mention exist, and I am aware of them. A fair share of

what you mention is caused by typos and omitted asterisks. These do occur

in a 160 page document which gets reworked frequently. I try to minimize

them, and before each new version is released there is always a 1 month

trial period in which I ask experienced readers to go through the text and

tell me about any suspect/unmarked form. I am aware that this does not

remove all such problems, but I am likewise aware that you haven't cared a

single time to contribute to proofreading. Nevertheless, I thank you for

bringing a two more typos to my attention.



> I don't think saying such a simple thing is unfair (and even less

> "gross"!). Or is it? How so?



See above.



> I am uncertain which of the above is correct. But again, a single

> reference would have provided a *clear* answer to this question - And

> THIS is the whole point I am defending here.



In fact, it seems you do not even understand the problem I am faced with.



There are essential two main reasons why people are interested in

Tolkien's languages:



* being able to read and compose in (Neo-)Sindarin



* make a scholarly study of Tolkien's languages



Pedin Edhellen is *clearly* intended for the first group, but may serve as

an entry point to become curious to do the second. But there's a limit in

complexity and discussions of deleted and reintroduced forms a beginner

will still enjoy while reading a course. Ultimately, I want to reach

people with Pedin Edhellen, entertain them and let them have fun and maybe

make them curious towards more. Having a 3 page discussion about what

number words to use, where they occur and how they changed (and it can

hardly be done properly in less than 3 pages) is not going to do that.



So, suppose I would still make the selection of forms I do, but I'd add

direct references to Tolkien. In this case, it would appear to the reader

that he is reading a scholarly work, and he'd easily get the impression

that the forms which are so well referenced are in fact *the only*

existing forms (if I list all existing forms, we're back to the length and

confusion problem). But in fact, the reader should by intention not have

the impression that he is reading a scholarly work - that's why all these

'Conversation' chapters are thrown in as well.



Trying to write document which could be used by both scholarly interested

people and Neo-Sindarin writers alike creates a hybrid that is

unsatisfactory to both: The scholar will always (rightfully) criticize the

arbitrary selection of forms making up a unified grammar, the Neo-Sindarin

writer will always find the discussions of contradictory forms boring and

overly complicated.



I remember I have precisely this issue with DragonFlame - it tries to be

scholarly in referencing forms, but with phonologically updated Noldorin

form and reconstructed roots and layer merging offers information for the

Neo-Sindarin user as well.



So, personally, I'd rather have one publication which is only scholarly

and one which is chiefly for the Neo-Sindarin enthusiast (but is still as

close to Tolkien's intention as possible). There are a number of criteria

involved in selecting forms, including:



* close in time to publication of LOTR is preferable to far away

* forms found in tidy essays may be preferable to forms on rough notes

* forms inside Pedin Edhellen should be coherent, i.e. a reconstructed

ordinal number may be perferable to an attested one if the reconstructed

fits the chosen set of cardinals better

* forms in Pedin Edhellen and Quetin i Lembe Eldaiva should form a

coherent whole

* last but not least, aesthetics plays a role



No single criterion makes the cut - it's often a decision based on

several.



You may disagree about this basic philosophy, but it's the philosophy I

have chosen to present my work: One layer of scholarly work directly based

on Tolkien's writings, a second layer of Neo-Sindarin based on this first

layer. What you now do is take the second layer, pretend the first one

doesn't exist, and criticize.



> These are only listed on p. 9-11 in the introduction, as mere general

> links, so it's unclear to me how they are relevant to any extent in

> order to help analyze the rest of your theories in the subsequent

> pages. Taking the example just mentioned above, out of curiosity, will

> I find in any of these links a discussion which might enlight me on

> _sain_ = "them"?



Yes. I trust you'll find it.



> I can only disagree here. Even if intended for "beginners", a

> publication should not be leveled down, in my opinion. Providing exact

> references should not be a problem - beginners can just ignore them

> without harm - and the overall result will then be more satisfying for

> anyone wishing to check the validity of you explanations.



No, attempting to create a hybrid will create something utterly

unsatisfying to me.



> I don't think the issue lies with disclaimers. They clearly state the

> purpose of such a "course". BUT this is no reason for the rest of the

> text to be uncheckable and unverifiable...



Sorry, but the text is by no means 'uncheckable and unverifyable' Yes,

some bits may never have been written down, but that's a far cry. In

general, there is a large number of well refernced articles available

outlining the theories, and the changelog published with the course

often outlines explanations why something is changed.



You'd do well to read more details before you start criticizing. And let

me note that DragonFlame comes with zero documentation why and how a

particular root has been reconstructed - if it's so important to you, why

not start there?



Regards,



* Thorsten

Thorsten Renk wrote:

> I remember I have precisely this issue with DragonFlame - it tries

> to be scholarly in referencing forms, but with phonologically

> updated Noldorin form and reconstructed roots and layer merging

> offers information for the Neo-Sindarin user as well.



Ouch, some backfire. Maybe I deserve it, after all (??).



But Dragon Flame (spelt in two words) *was* a software tool (Windows

application) now discontinued (as being unmaintained, to my deepest

regrets), so I assume here you refer to (one of) the embedded lexicon

it featured, namely Hisweloke's Sindarin v0.993 (December 2003, and

BTW v0.994, december 2004, for Hesperides on MacOS). If find it rather

strange being criticized *now* on a 4+ year-old software! THIS could

be regarded as GROSSLY unfair *laugh* ;)



But anyhow:

- reconstructed roots: David Salo's reconstructed etymologies were

removed from the project in 2005-2006 (semi-public v0.994821, public

v0.9949 in June 2006).

- phonologically updated Noldorin forms: They have always been

identified very clearly (with asteriks) as such from the very first

version of the dictionary. After some (strong) cristicim, I admitted

that the annotations weren't clear enough (i.e. as to distinguish

deduced forms from "normalized" forms), and this was improved in 2007

(v0.99499). Nevertheless I also got some strong criticism (including

yours) against having "normalized" forms at all in the dictionary, and

I addressed that too - It was a long process, but the recent v0.995

from May 2008 now comes in two "flavours", one with reconstructions

and the other without them. I also provided, in 2007, statiscal charts

so that informed readers can measure the impact of having normalized

forms at all (around 11% of headwords!) and make their own opinion

whether this is so important or not.



So please, if you want to backfire criticism take on the latest

version of my work, not a 4+ year-old version. Then you may be as

harsh and rude as you wish, I won't feel insulted and won't backfire.

I believe criticism is what helps us improving out ideas ;)



> And let me note that DragonFlame comes with zero documentation why

> and how a particular root has been reconstructed - if it's so

> important to you, why not start there?



Erm... as stated above, David's reconstructed roots were removed from

Hisweloke's Sindarin dictionary years ago. Moreover, whatever were my

reasons to remove them, David now has his own book for defending

himself and presenting his ideas.



As for "normalized" entry, the HSD with normalizations

includes X/LH, X/OE, etc. references on *each* entry where applicable

(pointing to Helge's article, mostly). This system is in place since

the first version... But I'll greatly appreciate any idea (even if

harsh and rude, again) how to improve this, if it is not felt

sufficient (besides now having the HSD without normalizations, obviously!)



> I try to minimize [typos and omitted asterisks], and before each

> new version is released there is always a 1 month trial period

> in which I ask experienced readers to go through the text and

> tell me about any suspect/unmarked form. I am aware that this

> does not remove all such problems, but I am likewise aware that y

> ou haven't cared a single time to contribute to proofreading.



I haven't cared? Huh, I'd have been more than happy to proofread

(though 1 month is not enough for me and will never be, due to various

real life constraints), but I was not proposed it and don't even know

where this should be done. I cannot read (and even less speak) German

well enough (to my uttermost regrets, despite having studying it in my

youth). For the HSD project, we have the sindict mailing-list (in

English, though post in French are admitted).



...



Ok, we probably need to calm down, or our moderator will explode

*grin*. I'll answer later to the rest of your message - And you made

some good points.



Cheers,



Didier.

I don't know if it's needed - but I am a programmer, and if you need

any help with the software implementation - I am willing to put time

into that.



~ maike





On 7-Jun-08, at 9:57 PM, hisweloke wrote:



> But Dragon Flame (spelt in two words) *was* a software tool (Windows

> application) now discontinued (as being unmaintained, to my deepest

> regrets), so I assume here you refer to (one of) the embedded lexicon

> it featured, namely Hisweloke's Sindarin v0.993 (December 2003, and

> BTW v0.994, december 2004, for Hesperides on MacOS). If find it rather

> strange being criticized *now* on a 4+ year-old software! THIS could

> be regarded as GROSSLY unfair *laugh* ;)

Thorsten Renk wrote:

> In fact, it seems you do not even understand the problem I am

> faced with.

> There are essential two main reasons why people are interested in

> Tolkien's languages:

> * being able to read and compose in (Neo-)Sindarin

> * make a scholarly study of Tolkien's languages



Well, that might be a point where we differ in opinion. I don't

pretend knowing why people are interested in Tolkien's languages, but

my feeling

is that the above is not an accurate representation of the actual

situation. I don't think it's just black or white like this. It's not

even a scale of gray tones between these alternatives. I rather see it

as a full-colored rainbow, i.e. so many various reasons that the

picture is not that simple.



For instance, I know peoples interested in getting just "a grasp" of

Elvish without entering into the subtle details of scholarly articles.

They'd obviously enjoy a "course for beginners", but they don't need

the language to be "useable" at all and they'd be happy with an

"incomplete" grammar just presenting the things we know with some

certainty, e.g. they don't need reconstructed rules regarding how to

build "great numbers" (p. 70 in your course). Even in that category, I

have seen various trends. Some are "conlangers" interested in language

creation, wanting to know the basics (e.g. mutation, plural patterns,

elements of syntax...) for comparison with other created languages.

Others are "story writers", seeking to understand how Tolkien's mind

worked, and since language was so important to him, trying to

understand its importance in the narratives (e.g. nomenclature,

effects on style, expression of drama...). Others are "researchers" -

scholars of some sort, indeed, but interested in other aspects of

Tolkien's Legendarium (theology, mythology...) but feeling that some

aspects of these invented languages are important for their thesis

(e.g. semantics, whether _estel_ may perhaps represent a theological

virtue, whether _guren b�d enni_ may refer to the notion of "heart" as

expressed by St Augustine, etc.)



That's only a small (selected) example, but yet all these persons

could benefit from "beginner's course" that do represent the actual

facts (what we know and what we don't) without being distorted by

reconstructions and wild guesses made to make the language "useable"

in conversation.



Oh, on the other extreme side, yet another example of a small

population "interested" in Elvish... There are those peoples wanting

wedding rings, tattoos, etc. in Elvish. They'll browse the resources

they can find on the Internet. I don't want to judge this here, but

anyhow, a tattoo stands life-long (or at least pretty hard to remove),

so these people probably ought to avoid Neo-Elvish reconstructions

that will change as soon as a new publication appears...



In all these situations, we (= the informed readers and students) have

a strong responsability on what we say and how we say it.



So it seems, in due turn, that you do not understand the problem I am

faced with, when these peoples come with various pages they found on

the Internet - not to mention published books (*) - and ask whether

this is "correct" or not for their needs.



Even when I do make the efforts of telling them which resources must

be avoided and which one may be trusted, there's always going to be a

"why?". And that's the whole point.



Why would "my own" Hisweloke's Sindarin dictionary be better, say,

than Harold Ensle's wordlist (1). Why would it be better that the

so-said Webster's Online (2)?



Why would Thorsten Renk's course be better than the stuff proposed on

CouncilOfElrond, "Gildor Inglorion"'s course (3), etc. ?



Where do we cut the line?



The only response to this I am able is simple: Is that ressource

well-referenced? Does it point, for each quoted word form, for each

grammatical usage, precisely and accurately, to a verifiable and

reliable source of information? It's not sufficient in itsel, as I

already wrote. But without this, there's NO WAY it may be trusted. No

way...



There are days, really, where I feel a bit desperate when faced with

this situation. This is painful, because, for most of this resources,

it's not the language I have come to enjoy and study.



(*) We all here know the 'quality' of Ruth Noel's book, don't we?

(1) http://home.netcom.com/~heensle/lang/elvish/sindarin/sind.html

(2) http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/Sindarin/

(3) http://www.councilofelrond.com/



> Pedin Edhellen is *clearly* intended for the first group, but

> may serve as an entry point to become curious to do the second.



Well, I am afraid it *is* intended *only* for those who want a *use*

some sort of *Neo*-Sindarin. I have no problem with that, really. I

did compose a few texts too in Neo-Sindarin or Neo-Quenya, for the

pleasure of experimenting it.



But it's called "Sindarin Course" (no "Neo-" here).



Whatever audience you thought to target, it will have a broader

audience  than expected, and it will mislead people about what it

really presents, regardless of the amount of careful wording you adopt

in your introduction.



> But there's a limit in complexity and discussions of deleted and

> reintroduced forms a beginner will still enjoy while reading a

> course. (...) Having a 3 page discussion about what

> number words to use, where they occur and how they changed (and

> it can hardly be done properly in less than 3 pages) is not going

> to do that.



Sure there's a limit, I agree. But the issue at stake here is not to

introduce long discussions and elaborations over a huge number of

pages. I perfectly understand this should not be the case in such a

course for beginners.



> So, suppose I would still make the selection of forms I do, but

> I'd add direct references to Tolkien. In this case, it would

> appear to the reader that he is reading a scholarly work,



From my point of view? No.



She/He would still be reading an otherwise good beginners' course (due

to its structure, the way it reorders and presents things, etc.) and

she/he would probably ignore the small references and footnotes. They

won't kill her/him.



You are assuming people would find the annotations boring or

unbearable. Well, I think it can hardly annoy them, really. That's

probably another point where we differ. Of course, these annotations

could be made as small as you wish, or dark-greyed, etc. so that to

stay non-intrusive. The only important thing, for me, being their very

*presence*.



Then, maybe, after that only can we start discussing the merits of one

course or another.



> and he'd easily get the impression

> that the forms which are so well referenced are in fact *the only*

> existing forms (if I list all existing forms, we're back to the

> length and confusion problem).



At the same place where you explain your usage of the asterisk, you

could simply state that the listed forms are not exhaustive by any

mean, but that the selected/chosen ones will just be clearly referred.



I don't even understand this point, ab absurdum. Providing no

reference does also tend to give the impression that these are the

only existing forms. I fail to see any relation between this two concepts.



> But in fact, the reader should by intention not have

> the impression that he is reading a scholarly work -



I don't think - I might be wrong, Ok? - that it would be the case,

just because of the presence of references.



A scholarly work is something else (e.g. some article dealing with

subtle details of the Elvish languages, as found in Carl's Tengwestie,

on your own website, etc. - dealing with all layers of Tolkien's

linguistic invention, dabbling into obscure areas, etc.). It's not

just scholarly because it includes references.



Helge's article about Sindarin on Ardalambion includes many references

and annotations. Yet, I wouldn't consider it to be a "scholarly"

article. It's just (and it's pretty fine at this for me) a good and

fair introduction to Sindarin, detailing the corpus, main grammatical

points, etc. I won't speak for Helge, but I don't think calling it a

"non-scholarly" work does bad service to it. I usually recommend it -

It does not mean that I agree with Helge on every details, but I just

have to add a small caveat and here it goes for a start (= "It's

well-sourced, verifiable, it's sound - don't trust everything for

granted and immuable, exercice your own judgement, but anyhow, it's

clearly a good start, yes...").



> You may disagree about this basic philosophy, but it's the

> philosophy I have chosen to present my work: One layer of scholarly

> work directly based on Tolkien's writings, a second layer of

> Neo-Sindarin based on this first layer. What you now do is take the

> second layer, pretend the first one doesn't exist, and criticize.



No, what I am criticizing is the fact that it's impossible to trace

the logic, if there's really one (I am not judging it), between these

two layers. I don't believe that just throwing out a list of raw links

in introduction allows it. Is this so hard to understand?



> > Taking the example just mentioned above, out of curiosity,

> > will I find in any of these links a discussion which might

> > enlight me on _sain_ = "them"?

> Yes. I trust you'll find it.



Ok, so please be helpful, where is *_sain_ = "them" mentioned?



> The problems you mention exist, and I am aware of them. A fair

> share of what you mention is caused by typos and omitted asterisks.

> These do occur in a 160 page document which gets reworked

> frequently. (...)



By the way, please note that "omitted asterisks" and lack of

references is already what I criticized several months ago in another

of your works (see ELFLING #34450 and #34454).



Ok, it was again a "not so much scholarly article" -- but for more

scholarly articles, I'd dare to say that "The Sindarin Verb System"

(4) might be a good place to start for also fixing all these

inadvertendly omitted asterisks and unmarked reconstructions. This

small "flaw" seems to occur in a lot of your works, methink. I don't

have to tell you what you should do, but this problem should be pretty

easy to fix - focussing on the quality of publications over

their quantity...



By the way, this has nothing to do with being wrong or right in our

interpretations and deductions - such as my remark in ELFLING #34455

and #34459 - which you never answered, if I am not mistaken, except

indirectly on a German forum (5), as far as I can tell.



This has *only* to do with presenting facts rather than wild guesses

thrown in the air, with their actual evidences (= references and

annotations. And sometimes also deductions, obviously, but then with

the appropriate indications as well (= asterisks and their likes).



(4) http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/elvish/verbs.html - especially the

long list of verbal stems in �15...

(5) http://www.sindarin.de/tolkienforum/viewtopic.php?p=5344



Regards,



Didier.

> For instance, I know peoples interested in getting just "a grasp" of

> Elvish without entering into the subtle details of scholarly articles.

> They'd obviously enjoy a "course for beginners", but they don't need

> the language to be "useable" at all and they'd be happy with an

> "incomplete" grammar just presenting the things we know with some

> certainty, e.g. they don't need reconstructed rules regarding how to

> build "great numbers" (p. 70 in your course).



Well, I don't know about you, but from the questions I received via email

during the years since the first publication of Pedin Edhellen, I believe

I have quite a good grasp about what people would like to see in an

introduction and what not. In some cases I found that I could accomodate

that interest, in others I couldn't. Strangely enough, the question how to

construct higher numerals is pretty high up in the 'most asked' list. I

don't know where you get the notion what beginners 'need' or 'want' - but

I am rather sure about what I get commonly asked.



> That's only a small (selected) example, but yet all these persons

> could benefit from "beginner's course" that do represent the actual

> facts (what we know and what we don't) without being distorted by

> reconstructions and wild guesses made to make the language "useable"

> in conversation.



You think it's important, you write it. I thought something else was

important, I wrote it. That's all I have to say.



> In all these situations, we (= the informed readers and students) have

> a strong responsability on what we say and how we say it.



Agreed. That's where the disclaimer comes in (assuming it is read of

course).



> So it seems, in due turn, that you do not understand the problem I am

> faced with, when these peoples come with various pages they found on

> the Internet - not to mention published books (*) - and ask whether

> this is "correct" or not for their needs.



So, maybe you get different people asking.



> Even when I do make the efforts of telling them which resources must

> be avoided and which one may be trusted, there's always going to be a

> "why?". And that's the whole point.



So, you tell people Pedin Edhellen is Neo-Sindarin, or as Carl Hostetter

phrases it "Thorsten offers the most up-to-date and accurate web-based

account of Neo-Sindarin (that is, a synthetic and regularized form of

Sindarin formed by the selective piecing-together of evidences from across

decades of Tolkien's successive versions and elaborations of Noldorin and

Sindarin) as a series of graded courses in a (gzipped) PDF file. Highly

recommended as an introduction to more rigorous and detailed study of

Tolkien's own Sindarin(s)."



Which I think is an accurate description. And your problem with that is?





> Where do we cut the line?

>

> The only response to this I am able is simple: Is that ressource

> well-referenced? Does it point, for each quoted word form, for each

> grammatical usage, precisely and accurately, to a verifiable and

> reliable source of information? It's not sufficient in itsel, as I

> already wrote.



That's where you cut the line - I cut it somewhere else. My cut is rather:

Does it claim to be something that it isn't? For example, does it look

like a scholarly work but not employ scholarly method? Or, if it's

Neo-Sindarin, is that acknowledged, and how? Does it contain proper

disclaimers?



> Well, I am afraid it *is* intended *only* for those who want a *use*

> some sort of *Neo*-Sindarin. I have no problem with that, really.



Fine! Then I confirm that is clearly the intention (as I have written

several times now, and as I believe it says on my page as wel), and we can

end this conversation. Great, thanks.



> But it's called "Sindarin Course" (no "Neo-" here).



Well, yes, and your project is called 'Sindarin Dictionary' and not

'Sindarin Dictionary with some Noldorin thrown in' - so what?



> You are assuming people would find the annotations boring or

> unbearable. Well, I think it can hardly annoy them, really. That's

> probably another point where we differ. Of course, these annotations

> could be made as small as you wish, or dark-greyed, etc. so that to

> stay non-intrusive. The only important thing, for me, being their very

> *presence*.



I assume then you're in for a disappointment with regard to Pedin Edhellen.



> Then, maybe, after that only can we start discussing the merits of one

> course or another.



Actually, we (exclusive now) don't really need you in that discussion. It

has been going on for years in various places without your involvement,

there were meaningful statements being made, and relative merits can still

be argued.



> No, what I am criticizing is the fact that it's impossible to trace

> the logic, if there's really one (I am not judging it), between these

> two layers. I don't believe that just throwing out a list of raw links

> in introduction allows it. Is this so hard to understand?



Yes, because as I pointed out, there often is no overriding logical

argument known to me why one form should be selected, it often is an

arbitrary selection out of several possible forms. And since it's

arbitrary, one could make a good case for one or the other form. And

writing down the arguments in every case is a lot of work - which I'm not

going to do just because you feel it would be nice.



> By the way, please note that "omitted asterisks" and lack of

> references is already what I criticized several months ago in another

> of your works (see ELFLING #34450 and #34454).



Yeah, I omit asterisks occasionally, I confess. It just happens. It's not

laziness or meanspiritedness, but occasionally it *just happens*.

Presumably there was never a typo in your works, so I just apologize that

I don't get it right every time. Must be me. I am truly sorry. I am

trying, but I can't promise that it never happens, or that it will never

happen.



> This small "flaw" seems to occur in a lot of your works, methink.



Yes. I seem to have a major problems with missing asterisks.



> I don't

> have to tell you what you should do, but this problem should be pretty

> easy to fix - focussing on the quality of publications over

> their quantity...



Yes, the quality of my publications is so low, I should really address

this issue, it's really the most serious problem in current Elvish

scholarship. I see it now, I will humbly go back to the drawing table and

not publish anything before I fixed these asterisks *irony*.



Sorry, this is really on a level which I don't take seriously any more. Of

course asterisks should be fixed, and I do it over time, usually as I

rework asticles (which is also necessary at times) - there's no question

about it. But excuse me if I don't think his to be the most pressing issue.



> This has *only* to do with presenting facts rather than wild guesses

> thrown in the air, with their actual evidences (= references and

> annotations.



So, I don't present facts but rather wild guesses because sometimes I omit

asterisks. Sorry, Didier, this conversation is now over, it's becoming

ridiculous.



* Thorsten

Thorsten Renk wrote:

> Sorry, Didier, this conversation is now over, it's becoming

> ridiculous.



This heated discussion indeed needs to stop somewhere and I

wholeheartedly agree this is not a bad point where to stop it.



I am afraid we both said 'ugly' things to each other, but it is I,

after all, who started all this controversy and if someone must be

blamed for it, then it ought to be me. Therefore, I offer my sincere

apologies to you personally - and to this list as well - for the

vigourous tone and the unpleasant direction taken by these exchanges.



It seems likely that our views on what we regard as an 'ideal' are not

conciliable, but this is no justification for such a tone. As I

earlier wrote - and this was really sincere although the wording, on

my side at the least, was no doubt far from appropriate - my intent

was certainly not to 'flame' your work and I regret it may have been

perceived as such by anyone. I strongly expressed (some of) my

disatisfactions regarding 'courses' and 'grammars' on the Internet and

their lack of verifiability and accuracy in annotations, but as Erna

wrote, _Pedin Edhellen_ certainly not deserved being called a

"pseudo-course" and it probably did not deserved either being singled

out as I did a bit too abruptly. For peoples interested in

Neo-Sindarin reconstructivism, I have little doubts it is a

"top-notch" work, nicely presented and illustrated, with lots of

efforts involved in it that deserved being recognized. Don't ask me to

say more, fairly obviously that's not my cup of tea and we'd disagree

on other more fundamental aspects... but hey! As long nobody dies ;)



As far as I am concerned, this is behind us now. If we ever meet - we

never know - I hope we'll share a beer, in good company. That is my

final word and _estel_.



Cheers,



Didier.

Ruth Noel's book 'The Languages of Tolkien's Middle-earth may be laughed at now,

but I read only last night in 'Gateway to Sindarin' that this was one of the

first attempts to present the same, and this should be kept in mind while

reading it.  Since David was nice enough to then itemize the inaccuracies,

I see no point in chucking the book into the Linguistic trash can...

            Crowbabe

May the Grace of the Valar protect you.

 









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

I earlier wrote:

> I guess we all wholly agree that valuable articles must be

> well-referenced, citing all their sources (books and exact pages),

> so that readers may check these original documents in their real,

> actual context.



Please allow me to provide an actual example in order to illustrate

the problemtic issues raised by the lack of references in most of the

so-said courses or grammars found on the Internet.



Thorsten Renk's _Pedin Edhellen_ v3.0, �12.2.6 "ordinal numbers". The

ordinal 10th is provided as _caenui_. There's not a single reference,

but no asterisk either, so we are to assume that this form is genuine

and attested somewhere, lost in the vast scattered Sindarin material

we have. We are just left in the wild to verify this... Ok, the only

reference I have been able to find after some research is VT42:10,

where this form is mentioned as having being *deleted* by Tolkien. The

earlier _Pedin Edhellen_ v2.0 previously listed _paenui_ here, and

_pae_ for 10, where v3.0 now lists _cae_ only on p. 70. After some

research again, the latter is apparently from PE17:95 (where the

actual reading is _cae, caen-_). It wholly eludes me why a deleted

form would have been retained for 10th. Even if there could be good

some reason for doing this (e.g. let's say for the 'sake' of apparent

consistency with PE17), it wholly eludes me why this form is not

marked in any way to indicate it was deleled at the time it was

considered by Tolkien... But moreover, while I can probably understand

that the latest known form is retained for 10, then I would logically

expect all other numbers to be taken from the same late source.

Weirdly, however, 7 is still given as _toloth_ (LR:394, VT42:25), not

as _tolodh_ (VT42:31, VT48:6), and not even as _tolod_ (PE17:95). So

finally, no, _Pedin Edhellen_ is not systematically using PE17 as

ultimate reference, but words are rather 'picked' from one publication

or another, and the very logic behind these (arbitrary?) choices just

again eludes me.



Then, _Pedin Edhellen_ also  lists _nellui_ for "3rd", again without

any hint of reference and without any asterisk... After some research

again and again, I vainly tried to find it in the resources known to

me. I utterly failed, as the only close form I found was _nelui_

(VT42:25), and I am left again in the dark wild whether there is a

typo in Renk's work or whether I just missed an obscure reference

somewhere.



Do you want even more examples? Then here we are: _Pedin Edhellen_

also provides, on p. 70, some theories regarding how greater numbers

might be built, e.g. *_nelchaen_ "30". The only indirect reference

provided to the reader is the following "we may use formation of Qenya

[sic?] as a guideline". This is a bit unclear, isn't it? Where in all

the Qenya material am I supposed to check this assumption? On the

opposite, I had rather the feeling that these deductions and/or

reconstructions were probably influenced by _nelchaenen_ *"30th"

(SD:129-131), but _Pedin Edhellen_ does not mention this word in any

place, and therefore it again eludes me what we are supposed to

understand here...



More? Still on p. 70, _Pedhin Edhellen_ provides an example _neled

binn delithar_. Well, this _neled_ is attested (I am getting tired and

will leave to other the exercice of checking the references), but

however this form is not listed just above, where "3" is only given as

_nel(edh)_ (from PE17:95). What am I supposed to assume here, if the

provided example is not consistent with the (selected) information

just presented above it?



More? _Pedin Edhellen_ lists _mimp_ and _imp_ for 11 and 12

respectively, again without references. Ok, with all the research

previously done, I can tell they come from PE17:95. Erm... Sorry, if

am not mistaken but there, they are listed between curly brackets,

meaning that Tolkien struck them out... Without the reference, without

the indication that these forms have apparently been rejected, where I

am supposed to go now?



The above remarks only deal with the sections devoted to "numbers",

but the same process would easily be applicable to nearly all sections

of _Pedin Edhellen_...



Oh! Please don't misunderstand me here. I am not trying to flame

Renk's work. I took _Pedin Edhellen_ as example here, because I am

sure that Thorsten Renk knows better than this and I have good faith

that he can do much better than this and could easily fix all these

fondamental problems. On the whole, it must be said that _Pedin

Edhellen_ is 'much better' than many other on-line ressources, for

what they are worth. But I am afraid I would not call this a "v3.0"

version. It doesn't have yet the quality and standards of a v1.0(*)...



What is the *main* problem here? As far as I am concerned, I have been

studying Sindarin for more than 10 years, and yet it took me much

research (= several hours of hard work) to just check and comment only

this section on "numbers". _Pedin_ is supposed to be a "course" for

*beginners*, who probably won't have immediate access to all the

Sindarin resources I can check (and I do NOT even have all of them

available at hand!). LACK of references and also LACK of appropriate

annotations / mark-up (for deleted, deduced or hypothetical forms) are

what spoils a work that could otherwise be valuable for beginners.



Cheers,



Didier.



(*) Ok, I know I may be too over-strict regarding "versioning" things.

My own attempt at building a decent Sindarin dictionary, after all, is

still 'branded' as a 0.99xx version after more than *9* years ! ;)

> Please allow me to provide an actual example in order to illustrate

> the problemtic issues raised by the lack of references in most of the

> so-said courses or grammars found on the Internet.



Please allow me a response.



> Thorsten Renk's _Pedin Edhellen_ v3.0, �12.2.6 "ordinal numbers". The

> ordinal 10th is provided as _caenui_. There's not a single reference,

> but no asterisk either, so we are to assume that this form is genuine

> and attested somewhere, lost in the vast scattered Sindarin material

> we have. We are just left in the wild to verify this...



No, in fact you are not. Would you have cared to read the introduction of

Pedin Edhellen, you would have found a reference to an article



'The Eldarin Numerals'



http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/elvish/numerals.html



where in fact all occurrances of numerals in 'the vast scattered Sindarin

material' are painstakingly assembled and referenced. So I reiterate: What

you write is grossly unfair - you are nowhere 'left in the wild'.





> Ok, the only

> reference I have been able to find after some research is VT42:10,

> where this form is mentioned as having being *deleted* by Tolkien.



Yes. You seem to view this as problematic, however I don't. Not in the

same way as you, evidently. And we can argue about this of course, it's

not a question of scholarly method here, but of a selection scheme and

philosophy. The fact that Tolkien wrote it down means that at some point

he intended the form. The fact that he crossed it out means that at some

later point he disregarded the form. The same is however true for a lot of

e.g. Noldorin forms which he just never bothered to cross out, but which

you seem to have no problem listing in your dictionary.



> The

> earlier _Pedin Edhellen_ v2.0 previously listed _paenui_ here, and

> _pae_ for 10, where v3.0 now lists _cae_ only on p. 70. After some

> research again, the latter is apparently from PE17:95 (where the

> actual reading is _cae, caen-_). It wholly eludes me why a deleted

> form would have been retained for 10th. Even if there could be good

> some reason for doing this (e.g. let's say for the 'sake' of apparent

> consistency with PE17), it wholly eludes me why this form is not

> marked in any way to indicate it was deleled at the time it was

> considered by Tolkien...



Well, you could have asked politely about my selection scheme with regard

to forms where we see several layers, and I would have told you. Many

aspects of this problem which form to select have in fact been discussed

in some length in the German Tolkien forum Mellyn Lammath.



>  So

> finally, no, _Pedin Edhellen_ is not systematically using PE17 as

> ultimate reference, but words are rather 'picked' from one publication

> or another, and the very logic behind these (arbitrary?) choices just

> again eludes me.



No, it isn't. Did I ever claim it is? In fact, again, if you had looked

into the preface, you would known that there is some degree of arbitrary

selection.



> Then, _Pedin Edhellen_ also  lists _nellui_ for "3rd", again without

> any hint of reference and without any asterisk... After some research

> again and again, I vainly tried to find it in the resources known to

> me.



Well, it tool me 2 seconds to look for it in the 'Eldarin Numerals' to

verify that it is a typo.



> Do you want even more examples?



No, I think I had quite enough of this. If you don't want to read the

referenced articles, okay. But don't blame it on me.



> Oh! Please don't misunderstand me here. I am not trying to flame

> Renk's work.



No, it seems to me you are not trying, you are actually doing it. You are

criticizing a work which, I say again, makes a very clear statement that

it in itself is not a scholarly work, but that cites other scholarly works

where the link to Tolkien's writings is made, and you criticize it *as if*

these other works would not exist and never be mentioned.



> that he can do much better than this and could easily fix all these

> fondamental problems.



If you (keeping the example of numbers) read through 'The Eldarin

Numerals', you will discover that the number of layers we're looking at

here is in fact of staggering complexity. So there's no way this could be

'fixed' in an introduction which has the purpose of presenting *a unified,

edited version of Sindarin* - you can explain all the layers properly

in a scholarly work (which I have done), but for an introduction that is

too complicated. Which is why I wrote two separate publications. Out of

which you only go against one.



> On the whole, it must be said that _Pedin

> Edhellen_ is 'much better' than many other on-line ressources, for

> what they are worth.



Thanks, too kind of you.



> What is the *main* problem here? As far as I am concerned, I have been

> studying Sindarin for more than 10 years, and yet it took me much

> research (= several hours of hard work) to just check and comment only

> this section on "numbers".



It seems to me that the main problem is that you didn't know about or

didn't consider that I have in fact written down a detailed treatment of

numerals which, if you had used it, would have reduced your workload

substantially.



> _Pedin_ is supposed to be a "course" for

> *beginners*, who probably won't have immediate access to all the

> Sindarin resources I can check (and I do NOT even have all of them

> available at hand!).



Well, I suppose other people do read the preface...



All the best,



* Thorsten



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

hmm



that last exchange between hisweloke and thorsten left me a bit

puzzled ... and a bit sad as well.



I mean, of course one can disagree .. but there seems to surface some

chagrin that I find too bad. I mean, this is a small community and I

see several people that have put enormous effort into publications,

dictionaries, studies, whatnot.



I cant make any claim to be able to judge what is according to

academic standards and what needs more work. But all of you seem to

have produced a wealth of material that delights me, as someone who

merely wants to *learn* and *use* the language.



Sindarin is a beautiful language. In my opinion, the most beautiful of

all. That honour was previously claimed by the title of my French

textbook in highschool ('La Plus Belle Langue'), but as far as I'm

concerned, it was wrong.



I think all your efforts are wonderful and each have their place. I

think I am using **all** of your works: "Pedin Edhellen" as a study

guide like we used in high school; Hesperides as my dictionary /

reference; "Gateway to Sindarin" for the in-depth backgrounds  and

"Sindarin the noble tongue".



I wouldn't want to miss any of them.

I am very new to Sindarin, slowly making my way through Pedin Edhellen

in my scarce spare time. I have hoarded other resources, including the

Hiswel�k� dictionary which I use all the time; I have my copy of the

etymologies and many printouts of material available on the web, etc.

and I look forward to being able to make full use of it all - but I

need to walk before I run.



Pedin Edhellen is a very good beginners course, and I find that the

mixture of dialogue, grammar, vocabulary, etc, makes the language

come "alive". If it was covered in annotations and interpretations it

would be a 1600 page long course, and I would have probably given up by

now.



I am most grateful to those like Thorsten, Didier and many others for

sharing and presenting their knowledge to the wider world. Short of

finding a native Sindarin speaker (!) I don't think we beginners could

do any better, thanks to their efforts.



Carmen

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "hisweloke" <didier.willis@...> wrote:

> Oh! Please don't misunderstand me here. I am not trying to flame

> Renk's work. I took _Pedin Edhellen_ as example here, because I am

> sure that Thorsten Renk knows better than this



I am definitely *not* presuming to speak on Thorsten Renk's behalf.

I am only an unimportant individual that has been a mere *beginner*

five years ago.

I would like to state, however, that to me 'Pedin Edhellen' has been

an excellent starting point. It seems to me that the general

information provided in the preface to the course is quite

unambiguous. It did *not* prevent me from reading the HoME, VT, PE

etc., but, quite the contrary, it incited me to do so.



A coherent scholarly presentation of Tolkien's multilayer conceptions

of the Sindarin numerals seems to be beyond the aim of 'Pedin

Edhellen'. Presumably, a *beginner* would not really benefit from the

mention of "curly brackets in PE17:95". Applying a strictly scholarly

standard, every inflected or mutated form that is not explicitly

attested would require asterisks, references and lengthy elaborations

and argumentations that would pad out the course intolerably, in my

opinion.



I appreciate any attempt at presenting grammatical features of

Sindarin in a traceable way, as recently suggested on Sindict.



But it should still be considered that - no matter what your

complaints in detail may be - Thorsten Renk's Sindarin course is the

only available resource for *beginners* that incorporates information

from PE17, which is in fact more than Hiswel�ke, Ardalambion etc.

appear to do at present.



Regards

Erna

Erna "aelindis" wrote, in response to my message:

> I would like to state, however, that to me 'Pedin Edhellen' has been

> an excellent starting point.



I never wrote it wasn't.



There's a quite a large number of webpages devoted to Tolkien

languages now on the Internet, and several pseudo-courses and

pseudo-wordlists. They are of highly uneven quality. How are we to

distinguish them and to judge their quality? I sincerely think that

well-made references and appropriate annotations is a key criteria -

It's not sufficient in itself alone, but it is a FIRST step.



> A coherent scholarly presentation of Tolkien's multilayer

> conceptions of the Sindarin numerals seems to be beyond the aim

> of 'Pedin Edhellen'.



Of course it is beyond its aim, and I am not claiming the contrary! In

a simplified course for a targeted audience, there might of course be

good reasons for the compiler to select one form rather than another.

This as not been, as far as I am concerned, the point criticized here.



> Presumably, a *beginner* would not really benefit from the

> mention of "curly brackets in PE17:95".



Presumably, yes. But on the opposite, such brackets (or any other

convenient mark-up) would not be harmful to him. And when he/she is no

longer a "beginner", he/she'll certainly appreciate having the extra

information.



> Applying a strictly scholarly standard, every inflected or

> mutated form that is not explicitly attested would require

> asterisks, references and lengthy elaborations and

> argumentations that would pad out the course intolerably,

> in my opinion.



On p. 126, �19.2.1, Thorsten lists the "dative pronouns" in a table.

Almost all of them are reconstructions, and this is clearly indicated

using the asterisk. I am real happy with this and I don't feel all

those asterisks "pad out the course intolerably". Brackets and

asterisks are not that intrusive. The table remains legible,

presenting a functional and useable system, yet the very hypothetical

nature of it is clearly stated. THIS is nice.



Where elaborations or argumentations would possibly be required,

footnotes could be used to refer, at that exact point, the reader to

other publications and essays. I don't think footnotes are that

intrusive either, but if felt so, then chapter endnotes could be

considered as well (so as not to 'break' the flow of text at the end

of each page). A small superscript note number would not be very

intrusive either.



I am not asking for something unfeasible. Bertrand Bellet used a

similar approach when contributing to the Sindarin article on the

French Wikipedia (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindarin). In this

case, deduced forms are marked with a # symbol, Noldorin is

distinguished from Sindarin using a superscript N, and some important

references or details are presented using footnotes. Yet this

Wikipedia article remains very legible in my opinion - and even if

it's only a brief article (of course reduced in scope, by nature), I

think it provides an understable and very interesting introduction to

non-specialists. There's no secret, for me, why such an article

succeeded in obtaining the "good quality article" label despite its

very specific nature... And we are not dealing here with a scholarly

article, but just with general knowledge as found in any encyclopedia,

where the target audience is not necessarily composed of specialists

and scholars.



> But it should still be considered that - no matter what your

> complaints in detail may be - Thorsten Renk's Sindarin course is the

> only available resource for *beginners* that incorporates

> information from PE17, which is in fact more than Hiswel�ke,

> Ardalambion etc. appear to do at present.



As far as Hisweloke is concerned, I am unsure what to make with such a

statement. We are not going to play "who has the most up-to-date

wordlist", are we? You'd be right here, but it's a tricky game - The

index at the end of PE17 contains around 600 entries (rough

estimation), and this does not even take into account all the forms

(e.g. the conjugated verbs and the numbers from PE17:132 and PE17:95

are not listed in the index). Hence, Sindarin words from PE17 would

probably represent more than 25% of the complete dictionary (again

rough estimation). It was only published end of last year. For any

lexicographer, this "big beast" is going to be a nightmare (though a

pleasant one *laugh* - We are certainly all very happy to discover so

many new words, notes and concepts, thanks to the efforts of the Parma

Eldamberon team.)



Anyhow, I don't have any "complaint in detail". References and

annotations are not a detail, for me. It's something I deem

fundamental for any serious work.



Kind regards,



Didier

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "hisweloke" <didier.willis@...> wrote:

>

> There's a quite a large number of webpages devoted to Tolkien

> languages now on the Internet, and several pseudo-courses and

> pseudo-wordlists. They are of highly uneven quality.



That's very true. Yet I am still convinced that attentive readers of

the preface will recognize that 'Pedin Edhellen' is certainly *not*

a "pseudo-course".



How are we to

> distinguish them and to judge their quality? I sincerely think that

> well-made references and appropriate annotations is a key criteria -



As already stated, I am not presuming to speak on Thorsten Renk's

behalf, but it seems to me that his reasoning -  that he declined to

create a "hybrid", that might possibly indeed be suggestive of a

pseudo-scholarly work � cannot be dismissed offhand.



In

> a simplified course for a targeted audience, there might of course

be

> good reasons for the compiler to select one form rather than

another.



A scholarly reference to one particular selected form might

nevertheless mislead the reader over the fact that there are other

attested, but eventually omitted forms.



Several possibly missing asterisks indicating 'reconstructions'

in `Pedin Edhellen' appear to be typos.



Regarding the question of scholarly annotations/references/footnotes

etc. in such a course, I will only say that I do understand Thorsten

Renk's well-defined position.



The "1 month trial period" provided for potential proofreading, cf.

Elfling Message #34519, might have been too short, however, in my

opinion.



> I am not asking for something unfeasible. Bertrand Bellet used a

> similar approach when contributing to the Sindarin article on the

> French Wikipedia (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindarin).



Thank you for the link. As my French � unfortunately � is even worse

than my English, I will require some time to read it from start to

finish. It goes without saying that the poor German Wikipedia article

about Sindarin is totally insufficient.



> As far as Hisweloke is concerned, I am unsure what to make with

such a

> statement. We are not going to play "who has the most up-to-date

> wordlist", are we?



No, sorry, I just wanted to point out that � as far as I know -

  'Pedin Edhellen' is the only available *resource for beginners* that

takes account of PE17. The numerous questioners in several forums

asking for comments on translations, that e. g. are obviously relying

on well known and publicly estimated suggested conjugations etc.,

which do not include information from PE17, seemed to call

that fact to mind.



The

> index at the end of PE17 contains around 600 entries (rough

> estimation), and this does not even take into account all the forms

> (e.g. the conjugated verbs and the numbers from PE17:132 and PE17:95

> are not listed in the index). Hence, Sindarin words from PE17 would

> probably represent more than 25% of the complete dictionary (again

> rough estimation).



I am aware of that. I know that it will take a *huge* amount of time

and dedication to include the new words into HSD - and I wonder how

you will deal with the frequent deleted notes eventually.



Kind regards,

Erna

ah excellent. but i can't seem to open the course files? do you know

what programs they use?









--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Phillip Wayne" <exuyangi@...> wrote:

>

> Or you might try looking at

> http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/elvish<http://www.phy.duke.edu/%

7Etrenk/elvish>/

> , which has a number of excellent courses and dictionaries, if you

don't

> want to spend money. You might also try googling his book to see

differing

> opinions of its quality and value before investing real cash.

>

> 2008/5/28 elffanatic2000 <elffanatic2000@...>:

>

> >   --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com <elfling%

40yahoogroups.com>, "maho4451"

> > <maho4451@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hi all, I've become extremely interested in learning the spoken

> > form

> > > of Sindarin, and through such efforts I have been working on

this

> > > translation:

> > >

> > > "Im gwedhiel anim le, Terese, anuir."

> > >

> > > Which i believe should translate as, "I bind myself to you,

Terese,

> > > forever" or more specifically, "I, having bound myself, to you,

> > > Terese, for eternity." But after reading some of David Salo's

work

> > I

> > > believe my sentence structure is alittle off, so I was hoping

you

> > all

> > > could take a look at it for me.

> > >

> > > Also, if someone could point me towards an online (or even in

> > print)

> > > guide to spoken Sindarin, as in sentence structure and verbal

> > > mutations (specifically) I would be most grateful.

> > >

> > > thanks!

> > > -Patrick.

> > >

> >

> > you could try buying David Salo's book A Gateway to Sindarin, it

> > really helps if you're trying to learn spoken sindarin, but its a

> > long read try that

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

> --

> Phil

> ------- Haiku ---

>

> Horses hooves hammer

> Pounding priests of drumskin ground

> Bringing the thunder

>

>

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

>

You can winrar to open the .gz files, and adobe to read them

Happy to help



2008/5/30 maho4451 <maho4451@...>:



>   ah excellent. but i can't seem to open the course files? do you know

> what programs they use?

>

>

> --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com <elfling%40yahoogroups.com>, "Phillip

> Wayne" <exuyangi@...> wrote:

> >

> > Or you might try looking at

> >

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/elvish<http://www.phy.duke.edu/%7Etrenk/elvish>

> <http://www.phy.duke.edu/%

> 7Etrenk/elvish>/

> > , which has a number of excellent courses and dictionaries, if you

> don't

> > want to spend money. You might also try googling his book to see

> differing

> > opinions of its quality and value before investing real cash.

> >

> > 2008/5/28 elffanatic2000 <elffanatic2000@...>:

> >

> > > --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com <elfling%40yahoogroups.com> <elfling%

> 40yahoogroups.com>, "maho4451"

>

> > > <maho4451@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Hi all, I've become extremely interested in learning the spoken

> > > form

> > > > of Sindarin, and through such efforts I have been working on

> this

> > > > translation:

> > > >

> > > > "Im gwedhiel anim le, Terese, anuir."

> > > >

> > > > Which i believe should translate as, "I bind myself to you,

> Terese,

> > > > forever" or more specifically, "I, having bound myself, to you,

> > > > Terese, for eternity." But after reading some of David Salo's

> work

> > > I

> > > > believe my sentence structure is alittle off, so I was hoping

> you

> > > all

> > > > could take a look at it for me.

> > > >

> > > > Also, if someone could point me towards an online (or even in

> > > print)

> > > > guide to spoken Sindarin, as in sentence structure and verbal

> > > > mutations (specifically) I would be most grateful.

> > > >

> > > > thanks!

> > > > -Patrick.

> > > >

> > >

> > > you could try buying David Salo's book A Gateway to Sindarin, it

> > > really helps if you're trying to learn spoken sindarin, but its a

> > > long read try that

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> > --

> > Phil

> > ------- Haiku ---

> >

> > Horses hooves hammer

> > Pounding priests of drumskin ground

> > Bringing the thunder

> >

> >

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

> >

>

>

>







--

Phil

------- Haiku ---



Horses hooves hammer

Pounding priests of drumskin ground

Bringing the thunder





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

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "elffanatic2000"

<elffanatic2000@...> wrote:

>

> --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "maho4451" <maho4451@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi all, I've become extremely interested in learning the spoken

> form

> > of Sindarin, and through such efforts I have been working on

this

> > translation:

> >

> > "Im gwedhiel anim le, Terese, anuir."

> >

> > Which i believe should translate as, "I bind myself to you,

Terese,

> > forever" or more specifically, "I, having bound myself, to you,

> > Terese, for eternity." But after reading some of David Salo's

work

> I

> > believe my sentence structure is alittle off, so I was hoping

you

> all

> > could take a look at it for me.

> >

> > Also, if someone could point me towards an online (or even in

> print)

> > guide to spoken Sindarin, as in sentence structure and verbal

> > mutations (specifically) I would be most grateful.

> >

> > thanks!

> > -Patrick.

> >

>

> you could try buying David Salo's book A Gateway to Sindarin, it

> really helps if you're trying to learn spoken sindarin, but its a

> long read try that

>





Yes, i really look forward to reading that, but as of yet i have not

had the chance to get a copy.

funny coincidence ..



I just got that book because I was *getting serious* in studying

Sindarin and we (my study partner and me) started to notice the huge

difference in quality there appears to be in the resources on the web.



I am really impressed by Thorsten Renk's site and use his course as

well .. but also wanted something in print. "A gateway to Sindarin"

was mentioned here and there and all of a sudden I remembered that

Tolkien Shop that is just around the corner here so I walked over

there and picked up a copy.



I've only had it for a couple of days now and read a bit .. but I

think it is definitely is a must have and very much worth the expense

if you are serious about Sindarin. I think it is very thorough,

complete, well written and clear.



And *any* attempt to learn Sindarin will surely involve a lot of

effort, including long reads...



=======



btw - do any of you have an opinion about the quality of this website:

http://www.realelvish.net/

   ?







On 28-May-08, at 5:35 PM, elffanatic2000 wrote:

> [...]

> you could try buying David Salo's book A Gateway to Sindarin, it

> really helps if you're trying to learn spoken sindarin, but its a

> long read try that