>Mans Bjorkman <mansb@...>
>Lisa Star wrote:
> > >Mans Bjorkman <mansb@...> wrote:
>I apologize for causing this misunderstanding. I meant nothing of the
>kind! My intention was merely to point out that one can view Tolkien's
>material in many different ways (not just two, as you rightly point
**My turn to apologize, perhaps I made a hasty assumption.
>Obviously. I have never investigated the views held by all my fellow
>Tolkienites (not even the ones I know of).
**We have communicated in the past about the alphabet samples on my webpage.
>I agree with you that 1) Tolkien's understanding of the texts grew as he
>studied them, and 2) the earlier material should not be discarded. I do
>*not* agree the Etymologies and the "Appendix on Runes", as they stand,
>are more reliable sources on the First Age than later writings,
>specifically _The Lord of the Rings_!
**In my view, it makes sense to say that they are, partly because the forms
of the names change, and Tolkien often retains an earlier form in a later
text--or Christopher Tolkien has. In what language is the word Neldoreth,
which I believe still appears as a name of a forest of Doriath as the name
is given in the Lord of the Rings? There are other issues like that, but
that might not be on topic if we are only supposed to be discussing
alphabets on this list.
**I think I will pursue this by producing some samples and putting them up
on my webpage. That will take a little while, but since I have just
finished a study of the grammar of Qenya (of the Lexicons), I have a lot of
material to work with.
>So your view is that there are several equally correct conceptions of
>Middle-earth -- divided, perhaps, by the changes that Tolkien made over
**Divided by the different viewpoints in the different sources that he was
using, that is, some manuscripts might have been produced by the Sindar,
some by Mortals and some by Hobbits. Some might have better texts, others
have copying errors. Perhaps none of them are perfectly accurate or even
complete. You study the linguistics also, don't you? Do you realize how
complex it is? I'm not being rude in asking that, I just wondered if you
had considered it, or if you had, had you dismissed the complexities?
>So that in one conception there are "Ilkorin" elves that use the
>"Runes of Beleriand" of AR, in another there are Sindar who use the
>Certhas Daeron as described in LR? I think this, in essence, summarizes
>the view I so bluntly ascribed to you.
**No, some *manuscripts* were written in Ilkorin in a cirth hand, others are
later copies made by Noldorin elves in 3rd Age Sindarin and written with the
tengwar. Tolkien is "translating" manuscripts and hence viewpoints of many
>I agree there is no single perfect conception of Arda -- after all,
>Tolkien's sources were written during a period of several thousand years
>-- but I believe the later discoveries of the Author to be usually more
>accurate than the earlier, thereby superceding them. Sometimes there is
>indeed a choice between two late contradictory sources, but never
>between one late source and one early. And there's my view in a
**I think you should look more carefully at this. In the latest sources
Tolkien rejected the entire cosmology of the Silmarillion including the
making of the Sun and Moon from the fruit and flower of the Two Trees. Do
you really want to reject all that? I certainly would not. Just to be
clear, I'm not objecting to it if you do, but I certainly would not.
> > **Of course, I give you permission to do whatever you like, too :-)
>Thank you. I hope, then, that I have not insulted you beyond redemption.
**No, you've made me laugh--always a welcome and healthy experience!
** Lisa Star
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at