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

Re: "Veantur" and language change in Tolkien ("Idiosyncratic canon" (...please!)

Expand Messages
  • Carl F. Hostetter
    In Elfling message 32478 (
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In Elfling message 32478 (<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/
      message/32478>), "quildarener" wrote:

      > I believe there are enough instances, inside and outside of Helge's
      > Quenya course, of his discussing both sides of an Elvish language
      > question and emphasizing uncertainty where it exists to show that
      > he is not trying to impose any canon on anyone,

      First, no one (least of all Pat) has claimed that Helge is "trying to
      _impose_ a canon" on anyone. I invite you not to import your own
      terms into the discussion. For his part, Pat simply noted (<http://
      groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/799>) that there exist
      idiosyncratic canons of vocabulary among neo-Elvish practitioners --
      which is clearly the case, considering how much of Tolkien's lexicons
      are dismissed as "obsolete" or otherwise ignored, a fact that you
      yourself have been at pains to criticize on Elfling of late (the left
      hand knows not etc.). Second, Pat was NOT speaking about Helge's
      course, but rather (and this only by default, as by default it does
      constitute the primary neo-Elvish canon of vocabulary) Helge's Quenya
      "wordlist", which since it clearly does NOT contain all of the Quenya
      vocabulary Tolkien created, and clearly DOES make judgments about
      what does or does not constitute "valid" Quenya vocabulary (at times
      by failing to mention the evidence _against_ Helge's judgment), and
      DOES declare various forms to be "obsolete", even "certainly
      obsolete", obviously DOES constitute a canon of forms.

      (I note that I made essentially these same observations before, on
      Elfling even, and yet you continue to proceed as though I had not,
      and continue to misrepresent Pat's actual words, which I note you
      fail to quote, but only (mis-)characterize without citation.)

      > where "possibly" or "probably" is missing from discussion of
      > alternatives it is "probably" inadvertent or an attempt to simplify
      > a complex question in a long vocabulary list.

      Granted -- and never in dispute, so I fail to see why you bring it up
      here. But what about where Helge states that something is "certainly"
      obsolete, as in the case of _vea_ 'sea'? You know, the _specific_
      case _actually_ under discussion, which Pat _actually_ addressed

      > Even in those cases, most of the users of his site are thoughtful
      > and intelligent enough to make up their own minds on this subject,
      > and Helge has little or nothing to apologize for.

      But again, _those_ cases were _not_ raised by Pat, but by you; so no
      one has asked Helge to apologize in _those_ cases, nor has anyone
      other than you even thought that he might be asked to do so.

      > Much of Wynne's complaint seems to stem from the fact that Helge's
      > work reaches a wider audience than Wynne's does; if so, this is by
      > Wynne's own choice and not Helge's fault.

      It can seem that way only to one like yourself who clearly has not
      bothered to read Pat's words, which had nothing to do with any such
      "complaint" (<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/799>):

      "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. There are
      a lot of these forgotten words to be found in "The History of Middle-
      earth" volumes,"

      If Pat here is "complaining" about anything, it is that not enough
      people are paying attention to what TOLKIEN wrote; so in your view of
      things the contrast would have to be between the audiences, not of
      Helge's work vs. Pat's, but of Helge's work vs. Tolkien's! Which
      rather makes Pat's case for him, so thanks for the reinforcement.
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      In Elfling message 32507 (
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        In Elfling message 32507 (<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/
        message/32507>), "Quildarener" wrote:

        > Applying a real-life language perspective such as this allows us to
        > reconcile, explain and treat as something closer to a unified
        > language, in which many apparently conflicting forms are equally
        > valid, what a purely artificial-creation approach would be forced
        > to leave as a bewildering multiplicity of forms to be "accepted" or
        > "rejected," depending on what real or imagined stage of Tolkien's
        > "scheme" we are discussing.

        That's not a bad way to succinctly describe the formation of the
        "idiosyncratic canons" that Pat Wynne was referring to. So once
        again, thanks for the support of Pat's point.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.