- Jun 15, 2008Rather than go through the long labor of responding to Helge's latest
laborious logorrhea point by point, let me just say that anyone who
wants to know what I _actually_ think about the question of "Neo-
Elvish", rather than what Helge wants you to _believe_ I think, should
read my full statement on the matter in my essay, "Elvish as She Is
Spoke", which you can find here: <http://www.elvish.org/articles/>
As for Helge's posts (both this current one and in general), I offer
this heuristic: whenever Helge quotes someone else's statement and
responds that it "seems" to him X, you can be sure that X is at best
half true, and most often is just flat out false; and further that
even a few moments of consideration of the particulars of the
statement, in its context, and with openness to truth, will
demonstrate the falsehood of Helge's claims to you.
In particular, the truth is that it is not "Neo-Elvish", _per se_,
that I take issue with; rather, it is with the intellectual and
rhetorical dishonesty of Helge Fauskanger and David Salo, with respect
to 1) my positions and those of my colleagues, 2) the Tolkien Estate
and Christopher Tolkien as regards the disposition of Tolkien's
linguistic papers, and most importantly to 3) the actual nature of
Tolkien's languages and what Tolkien actually wrote about and intended
with them. Helge knows this,* but since he can't defend his own
positions and behavior in these three matters, he seeks to divert
people's attention from these actual foci of the actual criticisms,
offering instead the red herring of opposition to "Neo-Elvish" _per se_.
David Salo knows this too, but his expedient of choice is not
diversion, but censorship.
*Unless, of course, Helge honestly believes that he and Salo _are_
"Neo-Elvish", so that any criticism or questioning of _their_ methods
and claims is an attack on "Neo-Elvish" _per se_....
Carl F. Hostetter