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

886Re: A question about Artist & Illustrator

Expand Messages
  • Sébastien Bertho
    May 11, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Aiya lambendili !

      I'd like to thank Mr. Arden R. Smith for his very clear and comprehensive
      answer to my question and for his very useful comments !

      Thank's also to John Cowan, Michael Everson and Gildir for their comments.

      I wrote :
      >> I noticed what seemed to me a typo in "Artist and Illustrator" by W.
      >> Hammond and C. Scull (p. 72, note 67 mentions a tree labeled in tengwar
      >> "ald orné").
      >> Searching in the TolkLang archive, I found that this error has been
      >> already pointed by Lisa Star (in her post of the 3 Feb 1997), but I
      >> haven't been able to find a definitive reply. The only one I found was
      >> from Arden R. Smith (4 Feb 1997), but he only says that "the reading
      >> should indeed have been _alda orne_".
      >> Has the Editorial Team or someone else seen the original tengwar
      >> inscription or did W.. Hammond or C. Scull given a definitive reply ?

      Arden R. Smith wrote :
      > Wayne and Christina have in fact listed this correction in their
      > "Corrigenda to _J. R. R. Tolkien: Artist & Illustrator_" in _The
      > Tolkien Collector_ #15 (February 1997), p. 19.

      I live in France and all the interesting specialized publications are not
      always available here, nor is it easy to be aware of this kind of

      > I have seen the tengwar inscription in question, though it was not
      > until after _Artist & Illustrator_ had already been published. That
      > _orné_ should have been read as _orne_ is clear: the e-tehta is
      > above _nuumen_ and is neither doubled nor placed above a long
      > carrier. The reading of _alda_ rather than _ald_, on the other hand,
      > rests entirely on a knowledge of Quenya vocabulary, since the a-tehta
      > is not used at all in this inscription. The word could be read as
      > _ald_, _alad_, _alada_, or _alda_, if it were not for the fact that
      > the first three are not Quenya words.


      > The inscription uses the letters _lambe_ and _ando_ rather than the letter
      > _alda_, and given the usual Quenya value of _ando_, the word could be
      > interpreted as _aland_ or _alanda_, as well. The word _alanda_ in fact
      > appears (without a gloss) in the Qenya Lexicon (PE12:30), but given that
      > the inscription in question is used as a caption under a drawing of a
      > tree, _alda_ seems to be a more likely reading than _alanda_.

      But *_aland_ or more probably _alanda_ could be possible as well, since the
      drawing and the inscription seem to date from the late 20's.
      Are there any clues for a precise datation of them ? A&I speaks about the
      preceeding drawingw that are form july and august 1928, but the drawing that
      interests us seems to have been made on a separate sheet, probably later
      than the last drawings in the Book of Ishness.

      Does someone know if the letter _alda_ was already in existence at this
      stage of Tolkien's linguistics (late 20's) ? I'm most interested in the
      languages (especially Quenya), but, alas, I'm not a specialist in the
      scripts !

      More, _alanda_ appears indeed unglossed on p. 30 of the QL, but it is
      glossed "wide" on p. 34 (and so it in the "Poetic & Mythologic Words of
      Eldarissa") and "broad, wide" on p. 51(from stem LARA, with a diacritic on
      the 'r') !

      > However, I won't discount the possibility that _alanda_ *might* be
      > the correct reading, meaning something like "growing," "thriving," or
      > "blessed"; cf. the derivatives of GALA- in Etym. (V:357).

      I am most inclined to interpret the inscription as *_alanda orne_, with the
      probable meaning *"wide tree", since _alda orne_ *"tree tree" would seem
      very odd !
      I'd like very much to see how the tree looks like on the drawing... Can you
      please help, Mr. Smith ?

      > I should add that the second word in the inscription cannot be
      > interpreted as _orane_, since _óre_ is used instead of _rómen_, and
      > especially because a dot was placed under the _óre_, indicating that
      > no vowel follows the _r_. A dot was not placed under the _lambe_,
      > though we should perhaps also expect one there.

      To me, the fact that no point is placed under _lambe_ (nor under _ando_) in
      the first word points also toward an interpretation of it as _alanda_ and
      not _alda_.

      > The most curious thing about this inscription is in the
      > representation of the initial vowels. These are represented by full
      > letters rather than by tehtar above short carriers. The initial _a_
      > of _alda_ is represented by the letter _vilya_ and the initial _o_ of
      > _orne_ by _úre_. These letters appear with these values in the full
      > mode for English seen in inscriptions like the _Errantry_ and _Tom
      > Bombadil_ calligraphy (_Pictures_ 48), but nowhere else have I seen
      > vowel tengwar and vowel tehtar combined in this way.

      Very interesting indeed !

      Gildir wrote :
      > By the way: the originating TolkLang message (and subsequent
      > messages) refers to AI page 72 note 67. It's page 67, note 72.

      I only have the french edition of A&I, and I wasn't sure about the page
      number, so I gave the (erroneous) one given in Lisa Star's message on
      TolkLang... Sorry !

      Thank you again for your answer Mr. Smith !

      Namárië !

    • Show all 17 messages in this topic