Re: [elfling-d] Citation, scholarship, and copyright (was Re: VT45 etc.)
- What Didier said.
Also: scholarly is as scholarly _does_: cite sources, provide evidence
for claims, develop arguments rather than assertions, and position
one's work with respect to the work of other scholars. Anyone can do
this, regardless of whether or not one has university affliations, if
they are willing to invest the time and effort into adhering to the
As for deciding what is the chief literature of Tolkienian linguistics,
I think Ales is being overly dramatic. There isn't all that much
literature to start with, and the main journals are well-known and
quite obvious. Yes, some of these publications are difficult to obtain.
But that doesn't remove the obligations of the discipline. There are
alternative means of obtaining the information needed: e.g., ask a
fellow scholar who does have the publication(s) you lack to assist you
with your research. (You should acknowledge their assistance, of
course, out of politeness and gratitude, if for no other reason.)
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."
- I wrote:
>>And when having made up my mind, I would be greatlyDidier Willis wrote:
>>worried if I found out that the literature is not available
>>(out of print, sold out, hard to get or expensive). I prefer
>>enjoyment of studying the literature of the field to any
>>obligations connected with scholarship.
>The availability and the cost of the material is a very different**Sure it is. Yet it is an important issue. I do not want to be involved
>issue, Ales, unrelated with the obligations of scholarship.
in scholarship if it means that one is less scholarly if (s)he does not
have access to certain materials that are out of print, hard to get or
expensive. Surprising as it may sound, I am not able to get all
"chief" material because I am not yet able to pay it myself. I am
glad my parents have been willing to pay all the Tolkien-related
things that I have but it is partly because they do not realize how
much I have spent on it all. And it is more or less only my hobby,
I am not talking, for instance, about my university studies.
> Books and**Thank you, Didier, for this information. However, since I was
>publications are both protected by intellectual property and authors
>rights, for a variable time duration. Most countries follow for that
>purpose the same international laws and principles, declined within
>their own local laws. You may want to refer to the WIPO / OMPI for
>information (www.wipo.org) and to the Bern convention for the
>Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and finally to local laws
>applicable to your country (in France for example, it would be
>"Le Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle". Local laws differ in
>subtles points and in their application decrees (defining the
>penalties when the law is enforced, the duration of the protection,
>before the material falls in the public domain, etc.), but the effect
>remains the same, and the law is applicable to all. Basically, an
>author and his designated heirs have the rights to decide how is work
>is to be published and divulgated. I don't think the law to be
>excessive (it's not illimited, many old books are available in the
>public domain for the general audience, etc.). You may disagree, but
>there are good reasons for such laws to exist.
not discussing this topic, I do not have any comments on it.
Carl Hostetter wrote:
>>>A _scholar_ bears an obligation to be familiar with the chiefI wrote:
>>>literature of his field.
>>**I am glad I do not regard myself a scholar (it is just a label,Didier wrote:
>It's not "just" a label, it has more to do usually with universitary**Well, it is a just a label, and if I wanted to be witty, I would
>works (such as a thesis, etc.)...
say it is just because a linguistic sign is arbitrary. *smile*
But what I wanted to say is that you can call anyone a scholar
just as you can call him/her a stupid but it does not mean that
(s)he has to be actually a scholar or stupid or whatever. Likewise,
one can be a scholar, a stupid or whatever even if (s)he was not
called so. As Carl wrote right: scholarly is as scholarly does but
the question and problem is what a scholar does. This is given,
I believe, by convention and mutual agreement.
> So technically, we could say that**Yes, it includes knowledge not obligations to be familiar.
>there are nearly no scholars of Elvish Linguistics (most of us are
>amateurs), though this does not imply we cannot tend towards work of
>the scholarly type, and yes, that includes a knowledge of the chief
>litterature of the field
> (main works, secundary works, related studies, etc.).**The problem and my dislike lies in the word "chief" because
everyone can regard different things are chief. Looking at your
list of chief literature, I wonder, which is not chief?
>Also: scholarly is as scholarly _does_: cite sources, provide evidence**Yes, this sounds better than plain assertions about obligations.
>for claims, develop arguments rather than assertions, and position
>one's work with respect to the work of other scholars. Anyone can do
>this, regardless of whether or not one has university affliations, if
>they are willing to invest the time and effort into adhering to the
And what I did not like in the first place was the implication that
Helge Fauskanger did not act scholarly because he was not
familiar with (and did not refer to) Patrick Wynne's analysis of
Fíriel Song in PE8, because he did not have the issue. Apparently,
he did not regard it as important and/or "chief". Neither do I and
neither do I have the issue (I mentioned the reason: its cost). I do
not want to despise Patrick's work but for me the chief literature
for this field is what Tolkien wrote himself and I am familiar and
have a great majority of it (and so does Helge).
>As for deciding what is the chief literature of Tolkienian linguistics,**As I wrote in my original post, I was not talking about
>I think Ales is being overly dramatic.
Tolkienian linguistics only.
> There isn't all that much**I know about it; you, Carl, and others have already helped
>literature to start with, and the main journals are well-known and
>quite obvious. Yes, some of these publications are difficult to obtain.
>But that doesn't remove the obligations of the discipline. There are
>alternative means of obtaining the information needed: e.g., ask a
>fellow scholar who does have the publication(s) you lack to assist you
>with your research. (You should acknowledge their assistance, of
>course, out of politeness and gratitude, if for no other reason.)
me this way. I have always tried to show my gratitude and
acknowledge your (pl.) help.
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)
- On Dec 28, 2003, at 6:10 PM, Ales Bican wrote:
> I do not want to be involved in scholarship if it means that one isOddly enough, scholarship has thrived for centuries with the vast
> less scholarly if (s)he does not have access to certain materials that
> are out of print, hard to get or
majority of the huge numbers of scholars, generation upon generation,
unable to afford to buy most of the chief scholarship. That's what
libraries and colleagues are for.
> **Yes, this sounds better than plain assertions about obligations.I did not create the norms and standards of scholarship. But then, the
wisdom of the Internet age is doubtlessly superior to that of the
generations and centuries of scholars and scholarship that preceded and
developed those standards.