The term "Neo-Quenya" is already in use and it's not me who started it.



It might be helpful to at least define it more clearly - by editing wikipedia

entries or so - but I do not think anyone can prevent its usage anymore.









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

Matthias,





     As always, danke for your enthusiasm and wanting to move forward, help

the community and be clear.  I, also, am for those goals.  :)  I apologise

for the misunderstanding, since I did not clearly communicate my reasons for

questioning "Neo-Quenya" in the first place.



     I was not assuming that you came up with the term - I am well aware that

it has been in general use in excess of 10-15 years.  I simply brought it up

because I thought what you were addressing was relevant to it.  Forgive my

arrogance in that.



      Whether or not "Neo-Quenya" is being used is not the question.  While

it should be defined more clearly, the fundamental question is: should it be

used at all?  I can and should not ever seek to prevent its usage, but

instead encourage people and scholars to think about its usage, and whether

or not it truly applies.  My point is this: if we are using a name like

"Neo-Quenya" because it is Quenya that is being analysed and used by fans,

and not the author himself, then that is not a particularly valid reason

linguistically.  Whether a language comes about spontaneously, is the result

of one man's creation, or a committee, is irrelevant.  Language does not

alter in its properties based on how it originated.  Instead, it is most

important that we categorise it based on those features that are

traditionally and logically important to differentiate languages from each

other: phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, etc.  That being said, when

it comes to how we make decisions that affect the structure and word choice

of the language, I believe we should tread carefully in order to pay respect

to Tolkien's original intent.  So while I believe we must be careful to

adhere to his process, approach and imagination on grammar and lexicon, I

don't believe that that should influence the nomenclature of the languages

themselves.



      Calling it "Neo-Quenya" indicates that this is a new language, or a

significantly different dialect of a pre-existing language.  In fact, most

"Neo-Quenya" compositions that have been written with care are almost

entirely compatible and mutually intelligible.  If there are legitimate

reasons for the designation "Neo-Quenya", then that is appropriate, but I

believe that this convention has simply been accepted out of good

intentions, but without a great extent of thought.



     I do not think there will ever be 100% consensus in the scholarly

community, nor should there be.  Diversity is a great and powerful tool for

furthering ideas and a way for our community to discuss things and have a

good time with it. :)



   I appreciate your interest, and I love discussing this stuff with you and

everyone in the community.  I really look forward to working with all of you

more extensively.



~Jonathon



On 20 September 2010 09:45, matthias liszt <gunananda@...> wrote:



>

>

> The term "Neo-Quenya" is already in use and it's not me who started it.

>

> It might be helpful to at least define it more clearly - by editing

> wikipedia entries or so - but I do not think anyone can prevent its usage

> anymore.

>

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

>

>

>





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