Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"Idiosyncratic canon" (...indeed!) (was "Idiosyncratic canon" (...please!))

Expand Messages
  • Carl F. Hostetter
    ... members thereof) is ... supposedly ... such a ... This claim is false, and a deliberate misrepresentation. As Helge well knows, no one of Wynne s group
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 22, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Helge K. Fauskanger"
      <helge.fauskanger@n...> wrote:

      > the traditional position of Wynne's group (or at least individual
      members thereof) is
      > rather that my wordlists contain _too many_ words, so that they
      supposedly
      > violate somebody's copyright, making it utterly immoral to publish
      such a
      > list without "permission".

      This claim is false, and a deliberate misrepresentation. As Helge
      well knows, no one of "Wynne's group" has ever said that it is
      "immoral" to publish wordlists of Tolkien's languages without
      permission. Rather, we (some of us at least) have maintained that it
      is a violation of the copyrights of Tolkien and his Estate (i.e., not
      of just of "somebody" as Helge puts it, but of the artist who
      _created_ these his art-languages (as he called them)), which would
      make it _illegal_. Not everything that is illegal is immoral (nor is
      everything that even most would consider immoral illegal).

      > It would be truly ridiculous to suggest that if a word is not
      currently included in
      > my Q-E wordlist, this is because I somehow try to deliberately
      "neglect" or
      > suppress it and pervert Tolkien scholarship for some sinister
      purpose of my
      > own, establishing an "idiosyncratic canon" in the process.

      Perhaps. But when as in _this_ case (_inter alia_) you assert that
      said form is "obsoleted" by another, that _is_ a deliberate attempt
      to establish a canon of forms. And since your assertion that _vea_
      'adult, manly, vigorous' "certainly obsolated" _vea_ 'sea' is based
      upon and supported by precisely nothing but your own private
      judgment, that makes it an idiosyncratic canon, to boot.
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      ... wordlists, it ... He of course can seem to be saying such a thing only to anyone that has not read what Pat actually wrote, which was
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 22, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Helge K. Fauskanger"
        <helge.fauskanger@n...> wrote:

        > Wynne seems to be saying that unless a word is included in my
        wordlists, it
        > will most likely slip into instant oblivion and never be analyzed or
        > noticed by anyone.

        He of course can "seem to be saying" such a thing only to anyone that
        has not read what Pat actually wrote, which was <http://
        groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/799>:

        "I Googled "Mornvenniath" to see if this word had been analyzed on
        any of the online forums, and got bupkis -- no hits at all.
        Apparently _Mornvenniath_ is a sort of "forgotten word", excluded
        from the idiosyncratic canons of the neo-Elvish practitioners
        (despite the fact that it provides confirmation of the enduring
        existence of N. _ment_), and not yet analyzed by scholars."

        Unless Helge believes that no one's analysis but his own could
        possibly be found by a Google search, and that he is the only scholar
        whose analysis counts, there is no way to read this as saying that a
        form must be found in Helge's wordlists to avoid oblivion (instant or
        otherwise), per Helge's straw-man rendering.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.