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

Re: Long Neo-Quenya text (Merry X-mas, BTW)

Expand Messages
  • Carl F. Hostetter
    In Elfling message 33727 (
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      In Elfling message 33727 (<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/
      message/33727>), Helge Fauskanger writes:

      > If we ever get to see Tolkien's notes on the more developed forms
      > of his languages, I will surely want to revise this

      Which "more developed forms" do you mean? "More developed" than what?
      "More developed" how? What makes you think that, say, Quenya as it
      stood at the publication of _The Lord of the Rings_ is "more
      developed" than Qenya of the "Early Qenya Grammar"? Which Q(u)enya
      has the more extensive (and, in this particular context, the more
      Christianized) vocabulary? Which has the most fixed grammar, and the
      most fixed syntax?

      > Many of the "Qenya" words I had to fall back on, such as _húme_
      > "1000", I should very much like to replace with the relevant terms
      > from Tolkien's later forms of Quenya -- and I will do so if they
      > ever become available.

      What makes you think there _are_ "relevant terms" for these things in
      "later forms of Quenya"? You speak as if they must surely be
      attested, but I see no reason to assume this. (What's more, you're
      already on record as favoring _some_ c. 1937 Qenya number names over
      those found in "later forms of Quenya", so why those and not these?)
      The two largest vocabularies Tolkien _ever_ produced for Q(u)enya
      have already been published. Tell me: which is the more extensive?
      Which has more of the "relevant terms", as you call them?

      > But of course, words explicitly given in Tolkien's writings are
      > always the best,

      Except of course when they don't fit your own "theory" (_mudas_,

      > Such a text must contain certain "cultural adaptations", in this
      > case almost injokes, as when "Alpha and Omega" (first and last
      > letter of the Greek alphabet) here becomes _Tinco ar Úre_ (first
      > and last letter of the Tengwar table!)

      I don't agree with this statement at all. We don't _have to_
      "culturally adapt" the New Testament when it is translated into
      _English_, so why do you think you "must" do so when translating it
      into "Neo-Quenya"? No English Bible I've ever seen says "I am the A
      and the Z", so why "must" "Neo-Quenya" use _tinco_ and _úre_? Sure,
      it's clever and fun (for a moment), but it is _not_ necessary.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.