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

Re: [elfscript] (unknown)

Expand Messages
  • Carl F. Hostetter
    ... It all depends on what you mean by inferior (a term you keep inserting into the discussion; I don t use it, myself -- my contention has all along only
    Message 1 of 28 , Aug 10, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 01:04 PM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:

      > In a way, I am glad to see CFH state that the grammatical correctness
      > of
      > Elvish phrases can be measured by comparing them to the writings of
      > J.R.R.
      > Tolkien, since the implication is that where a post-Tolkien
      > Quenya/Sindarin
      > composition can be demonstrated to agree with the grammar observed in
      > Tolkien's own texts, then this text is indeed correct, genuine
      > Quenya/Sindarin -- not inherently inferior to Tolkien's own
      > compositions.
      > Sometimes, CFH seems to deny this.

      It all depends on what you mean by "inferior" (a term you keep
      inserting into the discussion; I don't use it, myself -- my contention
      has all along only been that it is wrong to call such compositions
      "authentic", as you do). If by "inferior" one means, "not from
      Tolkien's hand", then yes, they are indeed inferior. If by "inferior"
      one means, "having no status as evidence for the grammar of Tolkien's
      languages", then yes, they are indeed inferior. For which reasons I
      would also call them "inauthentic" and "not genuine".

      > Yet the movies have established their own universe, generally similar
      > to
      > Tolkien's but not identical, so in Movie Sindarin at least, _ae_ does
      > mean
      > "if".

      Hence my stipulating that, when unqualified, asking whether some bit of
      composition in one of Tolkien's languages is "grammatical" can only be
      answered by comparison with the evidence we have for these languages:
      that is, Tolkien's own writings.

      >> There is not a shred of evidence that any such verb as *_estelio_
      >> existed
      > in Sindarin (it is conjecture based on the noun _estel_ 'hope, faith').
      >
      > "Conjecture" is hardly the right word here.

      American Heritage Dictionary: conjecture: "1. Inference or judgment
      based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence". Seems the _mot juste_ to
      me. Certainly it is what _I_ meant.

      > David just made a word fitting the derivational structure of Tolkien's
      > Sindarin as we know it, -ia (imperative -io) being a frequent verb
      > ending. So _estelio_ is canonical in the movie universe and unattested
      > in the literary universe, though the word as such would fit perfectly
      > into the latter universe as well. End of story.

      Hardly. _estel_ is a noun, not a verb, apparently derived by prefixed
      _sundóma_ from a base like *STEL-. There is no reason to suppose that
      the verb from the same stem (if one existed) would have a prefixed
      _sundóma_; it would be at least as likely not to. Nor is there any
      particular reason to suppose that the verb from this stem (if one
      existed) would necessarily be derived and not basic.

      >> There is not a shred of evidence that any such ending as _-ch_ *'you'
      > existed in Sindarin (it is based on an extremely unlikely conjecture
      > from
      > an as-yet-unpublished late-Noldorin/early-Sindarin composition).
      >
      > Here we see one of CFH's strange habits: he sometimes insists that we
      > should pretend that unpublished material simply doesn't exist and does
      > not
      > qualify as evidence.

      If you can point to even a single instance, published or unpublished,
      of _-ch_ *'you' in Sindarin, I will retract my statement. Otherwise,
      what I said is perfectly accurate, as even you must agree.

      > The text in question, the Turin Wrapper, is indeed
      > "as-yet-unpublished" because CFH has failed to publish it,

      I haven't "failed" to publish anything; that would require that I tried
      to publish it but was unsuccessful. I haven't yet tried to publish the
      text in question.

      > though way back in 1996 he assured all subscribers to the TolkLang
      > list that "soon"
      > everybody would get to see it.

      Priorities change. As does editorial interest.

      > David Salo recalls that on October 6th, 1996, CFH himself showed him
      > Tolkien manuscripts
      > presenting -ch (and -g) as the 2nd person ending.

      As David himself noted -- though you conveniently fail to note it
      yourself -- the manuscript he saw concerned Noldorin, not Sindarin.

      > In such cases, the correctness of a post-Tolkien Quenya or Sindarin
      > text must be judged by
      > this criterion: does it fit within the _scope of variation_ observed
      > in Tolkien's manuscripts? In this case, the answer is obviously yes.

      I repeat: If you can point to even a single instance, published or
      unpublished, of _-ch_ *'you' in Sindarin, I will retract my statement.
      Otherwise, what I said is perfectly accurate, as even you must agree.
      Deciding whether a text is grammatical for some language doesn't mean
      accepting any form from any conceptual stage that happens to give the
      desired meaning; grammaticality means something rather more precise
      than that.

      > CFH has himself publicly confirmed that the ending _-ch_ for sg. "you"
      > does appear in some Tolkien's manuscripts, yet he has repeatedly
      > critized David Salo for using it in Movie Sindarin, claiming that
      > David can't present any evidence for such an ending.

      For the third time, I say: If you can point to even a single instance,
      published or unpublished, of _-ch_ *'you' in Sindarin, I will retract
      my statement. Otherwise, what I said is perfectly accurate, as even you
      must agree.

      > Does CFH hereby imply that we should just ignore and dismiss his own
      > public statements about the ending _-ch_ (link above)?

      Indeed not. But I hereby state that you should read what I actually
      said, not just report what you want me to have said.

      > This whole thread is of course off topic,

      And yet you don't mind extending it. I at least answered the question
      that was asked. You've done nothing but avoid answering the question by
      misdirecting attention both from it and from the actual meaning of my
      own words.

      > but it was CFH who grabbed this opportunity to express his disdain for
      > Movie Sindarin once again

      I most certainly did not. I _answered the question_ accurately. Do you
      disagree with my answer? If so, then please provide your own.

      > -- and one can't help wondering if this attitude is not colored by
      > his dislike for
      > David Salo himself.

      Look who's talking.
    • Michael Everson
      I think Helge s personal remarks about Carl are out of line. That kind of comment is not welcome of public forums like this. -- Michael Everson * * Everson
      Message 2 of 28 , Aug 10, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I think Helge's personal remarks about Carl are out of line. That
        kind of comment is not welcome of public forums like this.
        --
        Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
      • elimloth
        ... I think any of the personal remarks are out of line. And, these retorts reflect an old story. For those interested, take a look at the elfling archives
        Message 3 of 28 , Aug 10, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@e...>
          wrote:
          > I think Helge's personal remarks about Carl are out of line. That
          > kind of comment is not welcome of public forums like this.

          I think any of the personal remarks are out of line. And, these
          retorts reflect an old story. For those interested, take a look at
          the elfling archives starting around message 9099, dated 1/21/2002.
          Look for the thread called "on -ch".

          As for "mu", a most appropriate answer to un-ask the question, the
          linguistic commentaries (at least the non personal portions of the
          thread) fall more within elfling or lambemgolmor, certainly not
          elfscript.

          http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mu

          BTW, Douglas R Hofstadter's book, "Goedel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal
          Golden Braid" is a wonderful read.

          http://www.bestbookdeal.com/book/0465026567

          Elimloth
        • elimloth
          ... [...] the ... Oh dear, sorry about that typo: lambengolmor. Elimloth
          Message 4 of 28 , Aug 10, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "elimloth" <draco@s...> wrote:
            [...] the
            > linguistic commentaries (at least the non personal portions of the
            > thread) fall more within elfling or **lambemgolmor, certainly not
            > elfscript.

            Oh dear, sorry about that typo: lambengolmor.
            Elimloth
          • Carl F. Hostetter
            I quite agree with everything Elimloth says... except for the central, inaccurate and unfair implication that my responses in this thread are of a kind with
            Message 5 of 28 , Aug 11, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              I quite agree with everything "Elimloth" says... except for the
              central, inaccurate and unfair implication that my responses in this
              thread are of a kind with Helge's. I've seen this attitude reflected
              numerous times on Elfling, including from Elimloth (a moderator), where
              I am prohibited from responding; but I won't remain silent on the
              matter here.

              I did nothing more than accurately answer a question made on this list
              (off-topic though it was, if no one is going to moderate this list,
              such questions are to be expected). I made absolutely _no_ personal
              comments in doing so. As usual, it was _Helge_ who, seeing my name
              attached to a post, reflexively replied with his usual mix of snide
              remarks, innuendo, mockery, and misrepresentation; as usual, it was
              _Helge_ who personalized things.

              If Elimloth is lumping my response to Helge in her "personal remarks",
              and thus means to deny me the right to defend myself against such
              personal charges, well, perhaps she should moderate _this_ list as
              well, and give Helge yet another platform from which to launch his
              rhetoric and insults without fear of response.

              Carl



              -----------

              On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 11:31 PM, elimloth wrote:

              > --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Michael Everson <everson@e...>
              > wrote:
              >> I think Helge's personal remarks about Carl are out of line. That
              >> kind of comment is not welcome of public forums like this.
              >
              > I think any of the personal remarks are out of line. And, these
              > retorts reflect an old story. For those interested, take a look at
              > the elfling archives starting around message 9099, dated 1/21/2002.
              > Look for the thread called "on -ch".
              >
              > As for "mu", a most appropriate answer to un-ask the question, the
              > linguistic commentaries (at least the non personal portions of the
              > thread) fall more within elfling or lambemgolmor, certainly not
              > elfscript.
              >
              > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mu
              >
              > BTW, Douglas R Hofstadter's book, "Goedel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal
              > Golden Braid" is a wonderful read.
              >
              > http://www.bestbookdeal.com/book/0465026567
              >
              > Elimloth
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > ---------------------~-->
              > Low on Ink? Get 80% off inkjet cartridges & Free Shipping at
              > 77Colors.com.
              > We have your brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark, Canon, Compaq and more!
              > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5981
              > http://us.click.yahoo.com/DmnqpB/IyhGAA/ySSFAA/7L5olB/TM
              > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
              > ~->
              >
              > To Post a message, send it to: elfscript@...
              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              > elfscript-unsubscribe@...
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
            • elimloth
              ... this ... I thought I was clear that my comment about the personal remarks transcend this thread. There are plenty of examples in public archives of
              Message 6 of 28 , Aug 14, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@e...>
                wrote:
                > I quite agree with everything "Elimloth" says... except for the
                > central, inaccurate and unfair implication that my responses in
                this
                > thread are of a kind with Helge's.

                I thought I was clear that my comment about the personal remarks
                transcend this thread. There are plenty of examples in public
                archives of personal displeasure between you two, so my comments are
                fair in the general case.

                And yes, I agree with you that in this thread you were not
                exhibiting the personal remarks I referred to. That Helge does so
                here or in any other forum is lamentable. This is not new as we have
                discussed this before. You will note I and other moderators of
                Elfling (and I've mentioned this before) have taken the effort to
                limit such activity, and that applies to several other people who
                have the unfortunate tendency to lapse into personal invectives.

                > I've seen this attitude reflected numerous times on Elfling,
                > including from Elimloth (a moderator), where
                > I am prohibited from responding; but I won't remain silent on the
                > matter here.

                Well, yes, I am a moderator on Elfling, and stars above, that's
                enough duty for me, but the matter of you being prohibited from
                responding in that forum is not mine to change. That one lies
                between you and the list manager.

                > If Elimloth is lumping my response to Helge in her "personal
                remarks", and thus means to deny me the right to defend myself
                against such personal charges, well, perhaps she should moderate
                _this_ list as well, and give Helge yet another platform from which
                to launch his rhetoric and insults without fear of response.

                Oh dear. Carl, now you have painted me as a person who is partial to
                another who gives you grief. I truly think that is unfair.

                But, since you and I agree this matter is off topic, why don't we
                continue this in private and see where that leads, to the better, I
                think.

                Best,
                Elimloth
              • Carl F. Hostetter
                ... Yes, and it is precisely this generality that generates the implication that I object to: for it lumps my posts in with Helge s. ... Good. And if you had
                Message 7 of 28 , Aug 16, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 11:46 PM, elimloth wrote:

                  > --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@e...>
                  > wrote:
                  >>
                  >> I quite agree with everything "Elimloth" says... except for the
                  >> central, inaccurate and unfair implication that my responses in this
                  >> thread are of a kind with Helge's.
                  >
                  > I thought I was clear that my comment about the personal remarks
                  > transcend this thread.

                  Yes, and it is precisely this generality that generates the implication
                  that I object to: for it lumps my posts in with Helge's.

                  > And yes, I agree with you that in this thread you were not exhibiting
                  > the personal remarks I referred to.

                  Good. And if you had said so, instead of implying otherwise by your
                  generality, then I would have had nothing to say in response (save
                  perhaps a private thanks!)

                  > You will note I and other moderators of Elfling (and I've mentioned
                  > this before) have taken the effort to limit such activity,

                  I have indeed noticed. But that encouraging sign on Elfling is all the
                  more reason for me to fear that this forum will not be so fortunate,
                  particularly if there is a failure to distinguish between specific
                  cases and instigators and generalities.
                • Helge K. Fauskanger
                  ... [post-Tolkien Eldarin compositions] are indeed inferior. I don t think not from Tolkien s hand is included in the definition of inferior in any of the
                  Message 8 of 28 , Aug 19, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Sorry about the slow response -- blame the flu. CFH wrote:

                    > If by "inferior" one means, "not from Tolkien's hand", then yes,
                    [post-Tolkien Eldarin compositions] are indeed inferior.

                    I don't think "not from Tolkien's hand" is included in the definition of
                    "inferior" in any of the dictionaries CFH is fond of quoting. A sonnet not
                    written by Shakespeare is of course irrelevant for Shakespeare research,
                    but surely its authorship does not make it inferior _per se_?

                    > If by "inferior" one means, "having no status as evidence for the grammar
                    of Tolkien's languages", then yes, they are indeed inferior.

                    We were discussing texts that could be demonstrated to _conform_ with the
                    grammar observed in Tolkien's own compositions, remember? Same word order,
                    same syntactical patterns, same grammatical constructions -- no other
                    difference than the exact words used. For instance: Tolkien provided _linte
                    yuldar_ for "swift draughts". So adjective + noun is a possible
                    construction (though not necessarily the only possible word order). I
                    deduce that "(a) red house" can be expressed as _carne coa_. But I
                    understand that by CFH's standards, the latter phrase represents the merest
                    hypothesis about how "red house" is expressed in Quenya. After all, we
                    can't be _quite sure_ that Tolkien didn't invent some currently unknown,
                    incredibly perverse grammatical rule that makes _carne coa_ an impossible
                    phrase in High-elven...

                    May the same principle apply to the writings, the immediate concern of this
                    list? Are all post-Tolkien transcriptions into Tengwar (or Cirth) _per se_
                    inferior, pretty doodles that may look a lot like Tolkien's Tengwar but are
                    in no way "genuine" or "authentic" Tengwar? Actually I sometimes find
                    post-Tolkien Tengwar calligraphy _superior_ to his own results, and not
                    only in terms of esthetics. I am not always impressed by Tolkien's own
                    spellings; according to the rules he sets out elsewhere, his Namárie
                    transcript in _The Road Goes Ever On_ unquestionably contains several
                    spelling mistakes, some of them pretty elementary (such as confusing the
                    tehtar for E and I -- clearly Tolkien is lapsing into other modes). I have
                    often wondered if this transcript was produced in a hurry -- deadline
                    approaching FAST?

                    > For which reasons I would also call them "inauthentic" and "not genuine".

                    I am not a native speaker of English. Yet I hope this letter is written in
                    "authentic" or "genuine" English, and that it is vaguely intelligible to
                    native speakers like CFH himself?

                    When I speak of authentic Quenya/Sindarin, I mean something that is
                    authentic or genuine in the sense "Grelvish" is NOT authentic or genuine. I
                    might also speak of an inscription in authentic Tengwar or Cirth, though
                    anyone could come up with some pretty doodles or angles that most people
                    couldn't tell apart from the real thing. (Indeed I have been approached by
                    people who wanted to know whether certain non-Tolkien invented alphabets
                    are "real Elvish", and I had to inform them that though the script in
                    question seemed inspired by the Tengwar, it had nothing to do with Tolkien
                    or his Elves. In that sense, it was not authentic. If it was "Elvish", it
                    must belong to another mythos with another Elvish race.)

                    Concerning _estelia-_ (imp. _estelio_) as a word for "hope": I must
                    maintain that this is a newly-coined word (coined by David Salo for the
                    movies) rather than a form David "conjectured" to have "existed" in
                    Sindarin. After all, a "complete" Sindarin lexicon never existed -- not in
                    Tolkien's mind, and certainly not in the Middle-earth setting, for that is
                    quite fictional. Perhaps a Tolkien-made verb for "hope" will turn up one
                    day, but in the meantime we are merely discussing whether the neologism
                    _estelia-_ can be said to be a well-formed word, i.e. fitting and
                    seamlessly blending with the Tolkienian core which any post-Tolkien
                    additions must be based on. There is no "inconclusive or incomplete
                    evidence" (American Heritage Dictionary) involved here; all the morphemes
                    included in this verb are directly attested in Tolkien's material. Only
                    their combination is potentially controversial. CFH seems to deny that
                    _estelia-_ is well-formed; at least he considers it questionable:

                    > _estel_ is a noun, not a verb, apparently derived by prefixed _sundóma_
                    from a base like *STEL-. [Good News Carl: you can drop the asterisk! See
                    WJ:318-19!] There is no reason to suppose that the verb from the same stem
                    (if one existed) would have a prefixed _sundóma_; it would be at least as
                    likely not to.

                    Verbs with prefixed sundóma are not unheard of in Eldarin. Just consider
                    Quenya _atalta-_ "collapse", clearly derived from ATALAT as a prefixed
                    variant of the stem TALAT (in WJ:319, Christopher Tolkien uses this very
                    stem as his example when explaining the sundóma concept!) If _estelia-_
                    "hope" is seen as a denominated verb, based on the noun _estel_, there is
                    every reason to believe that the prefixed sundóma would be used in the verb
                    as well.

                    > Nor is there any particular reason to suppose that the verb from this
                    stem (if one existed) would necessarily be derived and not basic.

                    For the sake of clarity, it is best to make it a derived verb. A basic verb
                    _estel-_ would have _estel_ as its endingless 3rd person singular present
                    (aorist?) tense form, thus clashing with the noun. A derived verb
                    _estelia-_ would appear as _estelia_ in the same form, remaining quite
                    distinct from Tolkien's noun. Much clearer.

                    There seems to be no hard-and-fast rule for how the verb ending -ia
                    (primitive -jâ, Quenya -ya) is applied. In the entry SIR in Etym, we learn
                    that for "flow" Quenya uses the basic verb _sir-_, whereas Noldorin (>
                    Sindarin) instead has the derived verb _sirio_, infinitive of *_siria-_. So
                    I don't think we are violating Tolkien's general system if we throw in this
                    ending where it will be useful.

                    Sure, we could derive a basic verb with no prefixed sundóma from STEL-.
                    There is just one tiny problem: Tolkien did so himself! This verb is
                    _thel-_, and it does not mean "hope", but "intend, mean, purpose, resolve,
                    will" (WJ:319). Surely CFH is not suggesting that we should coin a brand
                    new verb _thel-_ clashing with Tolkien's own form?

                    I know...CFH is not suggesting that we should coin anything at all. Not
                    what he is interested in. But anyhow: _estelia-_ remains beautifully
                    distinct from _thel-_ because of the prefixed sundóma (connecting it to the
                    noun _estel_) and the ending _-ia_.

                    As for the pronominal ending _-ch_ "you", CFH now seems to be saying that
                    this ending is only attested in Noldorin. Well, then he may just as well
                    insist that since many of the words used by David Salo in the Elvish movie
                    lines come from the Etymologies, they are actually Noldorin and there is
                    "no shred of evidence" that they existed in Sindarin! Indeed, even the
                    samples of "Sindarin" in LotR are strictly speaking Noldorin, for as is
                    clear from Tolkien's drafts for the appendices, he thought of Sindarin as
                    Noldorin even after the entire narrative had been written. Available
                    material does not suggest that the re-naming and the corresponding drastic
                    change of the internal history of the language is in any way matched by
                    equally drastic revisions of its structure, and so any available pronominal
                    endings may be considered "valid" quite irrespective of whether Tolkien
                    would have called them Noldorin or Sindarin when he wrote them down. CFH
                    has himself indicated that there are very many contradicting pronoun
                    tables, and any forms appearing in them are potentially "valid" parts of
                    Tolkien's great Celtic-Theme Language -- though in internal terms,
                    hopelessly contradictory tables must be assigned to different universes.

                    > Priorities change. As does editorial interest.

                    What about the interest of the readers, who may have been looking forward
                    to reading certain pieces of material which the editor has publicly stated
                    they would "soon" get to see? I know I did, seven years ago. Is the
                    potential disappointment of the readers of any relevance at all to the
                    editor?

                    - Helge Fauskanger
                  • Carl F. Hostetter
                    ... As usual, context means nothing to you, Helge. That is, at least not when observing context robs you of a (perceived) chance to score a point. ... Once
                    Message 9 of 28 , Aug 19, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 05:20 PM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:

                      > CFH wrote:
                      >
                      >> If by "inferior" one means, "not from Tolkien's hand", then yes,
                      >> [post-Tolkien Eldarin compositions] are indeed inferior.
                      >
                      > I don't think "not from Tolkien's hand" is included in the definition
                      > of "inferior" in any of the dictionaries CFH is fond of quoting.

                      As usual, context means nothing to you, Helge. That is, at least not
                      when observing context robs you of a (perceived) chance to score a
                      point.

                      > A sonnet not written by Shakespeare is of course irrelevant for
                      > Shakespeare research, but surely its authorship does not make it
                      > inferior _per se_?

                      Once again, that depends on what you mean by "inferior"; and I note
                      that you have yet to share with us what you mean by it, or to
                      demonstrate that your definition in any way justifies your assertion
                      that I consider such texts "inferior" (despite the fact that it was
                      you, not I, who inserted this term into the discussion).

                      >> If by "inferior" one means, "having no status as evidence for the
                      >> grammar of Tolkien's languages", then yes, they are indeed inferior.
                      >
                      > We were discussing texts that could be demonstrated to _conform_ with
                      > the grammar observed in Tolkien's own compositions, remember?

                      Indeed we were; the question I took up was specifically whether a given
                      bit of dialogue from the movies was "grammatically correct Sindarin". I
                      stipulated right up front the basis on which this determination can be
                      made. You have yet to do so; but instead have once again changed the
                      terms to suit your own wishes for what you _want_ me to have said, and
                      to have meant. Thus, you instead chose to divert us from what you
                      recongize was the actual discussion by asserting that I consider such
                      compositions "inferior", without definition, and despite the fact that
                      I did not use that term; and now you pretend that it was I, and not
                      you, that was not addressing the subject.

                      Speaking of which, you have yet to demonstrate that the sentence in
                      question "conforms with the grammar" of _Sindarin_ as "observed in
                      Tolkien's own compositions", even though I specifically challenged you
                      to do so, in general and in the particular case of _-ch_.

                      > Same word order, same syntactical patterns, same grammatical
                      > constructions -- no other
                      > difference than the exact words used. For instance: Tolkien provided
                      > _linte yuldar_ for "swift draughts". So adjective + noun is a possible
                      > construction (though not necessarily the only possible word order). I
                      > deduce that "(a) red house" can be expressed as _carne coa_. But I
                      > understand that by CFH's standards, the latter phrase represents the
                      > merest
                      > hypothesis about how "red house" is expressed in Quenya.

                      And thus you demonstrate once again that your understanding is flawed.
                      While it is indeed, strictly speaking, a hypothesis (your "mere",
                      inserted as per usual for disdainful and snide rhetorical effect, is
                      not a qualifier I would use), it is one based on very, very firm
                      elements: a fully attested noun and a fully attested adjective, placed
                      together in a fully-attested syntactic relationship. That looks fully
                      conforming to me. Do you _really_ think so little of your readers that
                      you expect them to see no difference of importance between this
                      situation and the one under discussion, which features (_inter alia_) a
                      conjunction unattested in Sindarin (*_ae_), a verb unattested in
                      Sindarin (*_estelia_), and a pronominal ending unattested in Sindarin
                      (*_-ch_)?

                      > May the same principle apply to the writings, the immediate concern of
                      > this list? Are all post-Tolkien transcriptions into Tengwar (or Cirth)
                      > _per se_ inferior, pretty doodles that may look a lot like Tolkien's
                      > Tengwar but are in no way "genuine" or "authentic" Tengwar?

                      Once again, do you really expect your readers to see no difference of
                      importance between the employment of a fully-specified set of abstract
                      symbols for writing, and claiming that the employment of invented words
                      and devices for a poorly-attested language produces grammatical texts
                      in that language? If so, then you must also believe that the fact that
                      I can spell words using the Greek alphabet implies that I am able to
                      write grammatical Greek.

                      But to address the truly analogical situation: if someone were to
                      invent a new _tengwa_ or _tehta_ form to bear some desired value, then
                      it would indeed in no way belong to the "genuine" or "authentic"
                      _Tengwar_. Conversely, if the sentence under discussion had employed
                      only _attested_ words and grammatical devices (which _none_ of the
                      features I cited are), then it could indeed be considered grammatical
                      Sindarin in a non-trivial sense.

                      > I am not a native speaker of English. Yet I hope this letter is
                      > written in "authentic" or "genuine" English, and that it is vaguely
                      > intelligible to native speakers like CFH himself?

                      Actually, the meanings you assign to words -- admittedly, usually under
                      rhetorical pressures to avoid having ever to admit a mistake or issue
                      an apology -- are sometimes clearly _not_ "authentic" or "genuine"
                      English. But again, do you really think that your readers will see no
                      difference of importance to the question of grammaticality between your
                      ability to use the vast, fully-attested lexicon and grammar of English,
                      in a manner wholly devoid of, say, invented conjunctions, verbs, and
                      pronouns; and the use of such invented words and devices in a
                      poorly-attested language like Sindarin?

                      > When I speak of authentic Quenya/Sindarin, I mean something that is
                      > authentic or genuine in the sense "Grelvish" is NOT authentic or
                      > genuine.

                      In other words, you know it when you see it, even though you can't
                      define it by any measure other than your subjective opinions of what
                      seems right to you.

                      To put the contrast more starkly: what Helge apparently means by
                      "genuine" and "authentic" Sindarin is "conforming with his hypotheses
                      about what Sindarin is/should be". Thus, despite the fact that Helge
                      cannot point to even a single example of an ending *_-ch_ meaning 'you'
                      in Sindarin, in either published or unpublished material, because he
                      has accepted the hypothesis that it _might_ have that meaning, he has
                      decided that its use _is_ "genuine", "authentic" Sindarin.

                      So, Helge, you've _once again_ replaced the discussion that was
                      actually taking place with your own private discussion: the question
                      was not whether the sentence under discussion is "authentic" or
                      "genuine" but whether it is "grammatical Sindarin".

                      > Concerning _estelia-_ (imp. _estelio_) as a word for "hope": I must
                      > maintain that this is a newly-coined word (coined by David Salo for
                      > the movies) rather than a form David "conjectured" to have "existed"
                      > in Sindarin.

                      I never said David "conjectured the form to have existed" in Sindarin.
                      I said the _form itself_ was conjecture. Once again, rather than simply
                      quoting what I said, and responding to it, you choose instead to
                      respond to something you _want_ me to have said, even though I never
                      did.

                      But since you bring it up: do you mean to say that word-coinage has no
                      bearing whatsoever on the question of grammaticality (which, I remind
                      you once again, was the actual question under discussion)?

                      > in the meantime we are merely discussing whether the neologism
                      > _estelia-_ can be said to be a well-formed word, i.e. fitting and
                      > seamlessly blending with the Tolkienian core which any post-Tolkien
                      > additions must be based on.

                      _No we are not_. _Once again_, you've changed the terms of the
                      discussion. The question was of grammaticality, not of conformance to
                      your or David's hypotheses and conjectures as to what is or is not
                      "well-formed" or "core".

                      > There is no "inconclusive or incomplete evidence" (American Heritage
                      > Dictionary) involved here; all the morphemes included in this verb are
                      > directly attested in Tolkien's material. Only their combination is
                      > potentially controversial.

                      Absolutely false. You can't point to a single instance, published or
                      unpublished, of a Sindarin _verb_ of the form _estel-_ (whether
                      extended or not), or of a Sindarin conjunction of the form *_ae_, or of
                      a Sindarin pronoun of the form _-ch_. These forms are all utterly
                      _lacking_ in the attested evidence for Sindarin.

                      > CFH seems to deny that _estelia-_ is well-formed; at least he
                      > considers it questionable:

                      So questioning an assertion is denial of its validity. I see.

                      >> _estel_ is a noun, not a verb, apparently derived by prefixed
                      >> _sundóma_ from a base like *STEL-. [Good News Carl: you can drop the
                      >> asterisk! See WJ:318-19!]

                      Ah! I thought there was a root like that, but when I wrote my message I
                      wasn't able to search for it. Thanks for the citation.

                      >> There is no reason to suppose that the verb from the same stem (if
                      >> one existed) would have a prefixed _sundóma_; it would be at least as
                      >> likely not to.

                      Indeed, there is _from the very source Helge cites_, a _very_ good
                      reason to think that the verb would _not_ have prefixed _sundóma_. It
                      reads in full:

                      "Latter element [of _Ecthelion_ / _Aegthelion_] is a derivative of
                      √_stel_ 'remain firm'. The form with prefix '_sundóma_', _estel_, was
                      used in Q and S for 'hope' -- sc. a temper of mind, steady, fixed in
                      purpose, and difficult to dissuade and unlikely to fall into despair or
                      abandon its purpose. The unprefixed _stel-_ gave [? S verb] _thel_
                      'intend, mean, purpose, resolve, will'."

                      Thus the _attested_ verb from the root √_stel_ indeed does _not_ have a
                      prefixed _sundóma_ (nor is it derived, but rather basic). What's more,
                      it is clear from this passage that what Tolkien meant by _estel_ is
                      _not_ semantically equivalent to English "hope", making it even _less_
                      likely that a verb derived from it would be suitable to either the
                      English verb in general or to the semantics of the sentence under
                      discussion.

                      > Verbs with prefixed sundóma are not unheard of in Eldarin.

                      Who ever said they were? Verbs _without_ prefixed _sundóma_ aren't
                      unheard of either; indeed they are vastly more common. Nor are basic
                      verbs unheard of. So what?

                      > Just consider Quenya _atalta-_ "collapse", clearly derived from ATALAT
                      > as a prefixed variant of the stem TALAT (in WJ:319, Christopher
                      > Tolkien uses this very stem as his example when explaining the sundóma
                      > concept!)

                      First, there are also other related verbs to _atalta-_ that do _not_
                      have the prefixed _sundóma_; so how does this make *_estelio_ any more
                      likely than a verb in *_thel-_? Second, this example is _Quenya_, not
                      Sindarin. Can you cite a Sindarin verb that _does_ have a prefixed
                      _sundóma_? I can think of only one: _agor_ 'made, did' (XI:415), a
                      _past tense_ verb.

                      > If _estelia-_ "hope" is seen as a denominated verb, based on the noun
                      > _estel_, there is
                      > every reason to believe that the prefixed sundóma would be used in the
                      > verb as well.

                      I'm going to assume that the circular reasoning of this sentence is due
                      to haste, and is not intentional.

                      >> Nor is there any particular reason to suppose that the verb from this
                      >> stem (if one existed) would necessarily be derived and not basic.
                      >
                      > For the sake of clarity, it is best to make it a derived verb. A basic
                      > verb _estel-_ would have _estel_ as its endingless 3rd person singular
                      > present (aorist?) tense form, thus clashing with the noun.

                      All the more reason to suppose that the verb does _not_ share the
                      prefixed _sundóma_ with the noun. As indeed the attested verb, _thel-_,
                      does not.

                      > Surely CFH is not suggesting that we should coin a brand new verb
                      > _thel-_ clashing with Tolkien's own form?

                      Indeed not. In fact, it seems pretty clear that neither _estel_ nor
                      _thel-_ is in close agreement with the semantic range of either the
                      nominal or the verbal meaning of English "hope". Which, given the
                      question under discussion, which I remind you was whether the sentence
                      under discussion is "grammatical Sindarin" (and not whether its
                      conjectures are expedient), makes the answer all the more firmly "no".

                      > As for the pronominal ending _-ch_ "you", CFH now seems to be saying
                      > that this ending is only attested in Noldorin.

                      I've never said anything contrary to this. Only _you_ have repeatedly
                      misrepresented me as having said something else.

                      > Well, then he may just as well insist that since many of the words
                      > used by David Salo in the Elvish movie lines come from the
                      > Etymologies, they are actually Noldorin and there is
                      > "no shred of evidence" that they existed in Sindarin!

                      So you agree then that the sentence under discussion is certainly not
                      "grammatical Sindarin", and thus with my "no" answer to that question.
                      So what are you arguing with me for?

                      > Available material does not suggest that the re-naming and the
                      > corresponding drastic change of the internal history of the language
                      > is in any way matched by equally drastic revisions of its structure,
                      > and so any available pronominal endings may be considered "valid"
                      > quite irrespective of whether Tolkien would have called them Noldorin
                      > or Sindarin when he wrote them down.

                      This is sheer nonsense. First, as I have discussed elsewhere, there are
                      _very_ good reasons to think that _-ch_ in the sentence from which
                      David formed his conjecture _cannot_ mean 'you' (either sg. or pl.). So
                      it is not just a case of absence of evidence; there is in addition
                      evidence _to the contrary_. Second, the question was not whether the
                      ending is "valid" (by which here you seem to mean "attested with a
                      desired meaning somewhere, anywhere, in Tolkien's papers"), but whether
                      it was "grammatical Sindarin". You cannot answer that in the
                      affirmative honestly, but only if you silently change the answer to
                      mean "conforms with David's/Helge's hypotheses and conjectures". Third,
                      the "available material" does _indeed_ show that there was a
                      considerable restructuring of the Eldarin pronominal forms between the
                      Qenya/Noldorin of the _Etymologies_ era and the Quenya/Sindarin
                      attested in _The Lord of the Rings_, rendering the systems
                      incompatible, as even you now recognize and state.

                      >> Priorities change. As does editorial interest.
                      >
                      > What about the interest of the readers, who may have been looking
                      > forward to reading certain pieces of material which the editor has
                      > publicly stated they would "soon" get to see? I know I did, seven
                      > years ago. Is the potential disappointment of the readers of any
                      > relevance at all to the editor?

                      As always when it suits your rhetorical purposes, it's all or nothing
                      with you, Helge. Yes, the potential disappointment of readers is of
                      _some_ relevance to me; but it is not the _only_ thing of relevance. It
                      is my responsibility to tell the story of Tolkien's development of his
                      languages; and it is thereby my responsibility to do so in the best way
                      I know how, even if, as in this case, that means delaying publication
                      of an item in favor of latterly-arrived materials of more importance to
                      the overall project; or even if, as also in this case, I decide to work
                      on something not only of more importance but also of more interest to
                      me than a piece tainted by the disgusting behavior of another.

                      By the way, if anyone wonders why my colleagues and I no longer make
                      any announcement of future publication plans, you need wonder no longer
                      after reading Helge's words.


                      --
                      =============================================
                      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."
                    • John Cowan
                      ... According to the standard meaning of grammaticality as used by mainstream linguists these last forty years, word-coinage is quite irrelevant to
                      Message 10 of 28 , Aug 19, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:

                        > But since you bring it up: do you mean to say that word-coinage has no
                        > bearing whatsoever on the question of grammaticality (which, I remind
                        > you once again, was the actual question under discussion)?

                        According to the standard meaning of "grammaticality" as used by
                        mainstream linguists these last forty years, word-coinage is quite
                        irrelevant to grammaticality. "This sentence contains one nonstandard
                        English flutzpah" is perfectly grammatical despite containing a nonce
                        word.

                        What is more, by that same definition of "grammatical", there are no
                        grammatical Quenya or Sindarin utterances at all, merely attested and
                        unattested ones. Grammaticality requires native-speaker judgements,
                        and there are none to be had. (The fact that Q & S are conlangs is
                        quite irrelevant; exactly the same statement applies to Akkadian.)

                        --
                        John Cowan jcowan@...
                        "You need a change: try Canada" "You need a change: try China"
                        --fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know
                      • Carl F. Hostetter
                        ... Floople me diddly-dang gupgup. Ae we not resolve a thing, resolve you for us. Grelvish. Do you consider these to be grammatical? I don t. ... Any Quenya or
                        Message 11 of 28 , Aug 19, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 09:37 PM, John Cowan wrote:

                          > Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:
                          >
                          >> But since you bring it up: do you mean to say that word-coinage has
                          >> no bearing whatsoever on the question of grammaticality (which, I
                          >> remind you once again, was the actual question under discussion)?
                          >
                          > According to the standard meaning of "grammaticality" as used by
                          > mainstream linguists these last forty years, word-coinage is quite
                          > irrelevant to grammaticality. "This sentence contains one nonstandard
                          > English flutzpah" is perfectly grammatical despite containing a nonce
                          > word.

                          Floople me diddly-dang gupgup.

                          Ae we not resolve a thing, resolve you for us.

                          Grelvish.

                          Do you consider these to be grammatical? I don't.

                          > What is more, by that same definition of "grammatical", there are no
                          > grammatical Quenya or Sindarin utterances at all, merely attested and
                          > unattested ones.

                          Any Quenya or Sindarin sentence written by Tolkien is grammatical for
                          the language as it stood at the time it was written (unless, of course,
                          he gives it as an example of an ungrammatical sentence). As the
                          _inventor_ of his languages, his examples _define_ what is grammatical
                          in them.

                          > Grammaticality requires native-speaker judgements,

                          Or, in the case of invented languages, _inventor_ judgments.

                          > The fact that Q & S are conlangs is quite irrelevant;

                          No it isn't.

                          > exactly the same statement applies to Akkadian.

                          That is true _because_ Akkadian is not an invented language. Were it,
                          then the writings of its inventor would be quite sufficiently
                          grammatical.
                        • John Cowan
                          ... But no other sentences whatever are grammatical, then? If so, then I have no problem with it; but we must recognize that for Q, S, and Akkadian,
                          Message 12 of 28 , Aug 19, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:

                            > Any Quenya or Sindarin sentence written by Tolkien is grammatical for
                            > the language as it stood at the time it was written (unless, of course,
                            > he gives it as an example of an ungrammatical sentence).

                            But no other sentences whatever are grammatical, then? If so, then
                            I have no problem with it; but we must recognize that for Q, S, and Akkadian,
                            "grammatical" means the same as "attested", but not so for English,
                            Welsh, or Finnish, where mmany non-attested sentences are grammatical.

                            --
                            John Cowan <jcowan@...> http://www.reutershealth.com
                            "But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund's daughter.
                            You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless.
                            For living or dark undead, I will smite you if you touch him."
                          • Carl F. Hostetter
                            ... How did you derive _that_ from what I wrote? Saying that Tolkien s sentences _are_ grammatical (in response to your saying that they weren t, by a certain
                            Message 13 of 28 , Aug 19, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Tuesday, August 19, 2003, at 10:56 PM, John Cowan wrote:

                              > Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:
                              >
                              >> Any Quenya or Sindarin sentence written by Tolkien is grammatical for
                              >> the language as it stood at the time it was written (unless, of
                              >> course,
                              >> he gives it as an example of an ungrammatical sentence).
                              >
                              > But no other sentences whatever are grammatical, then?

                              How did you derive _that_ from what I wrote? Saying that Tolkien's
                              sentences _are_ grammatical (in response to your saying that they
                              weren't, by a certain definition of "grammatical") does _not_ equate to
                              saying that _no other_ sentences are grammatical:

                              > If so, then I have no problem with it; but we must recognize that for
                              > Q, S, and Akkadian,
                              > "grammatical" means the same as "attested", but not so for English,
                              > Welsh, or Finnish, where mmany non-attested sentences are grammatical.

                              I agree that there is definitely a difference in quality between saying
                              that a sentence in an invented language (specifically a
                              far-from-completely attested one having no speech-community and no
                              living inventor) is grammatical, and saying that a sentence in a living
                              language with a speech-community is grammatical. The latter certainly
                              involves a rather stricter judgment than the former, since in the
                              former case any non-attested sentence is, strictly speaking, only
                              hypothetically grammatical. But as I've stated already in this thread,
                              I would say that a sentence formed by taking fully-attested words and
                              joining them according to a fully-attested syntactic pattern _would_ be
                              grammatical in a non-trivial sense. (And, in what will no doubt be a
                              vain attempt to cut off another thousand-word diversion from Helge, I
                              will state here that I do _not_ mean to limit grammaticality _in this
                              sense_ to _only_ such sentences; for example, plural formation seems
                              well-enough defined, particularly in Quenya, that forming plurals from
                              singulars remains grammatical _in this sense_ -- though in Sindarin one
                              must choose between ablaut or suffix plurals, with often no real way to
                              decide which would be the more likely.) But when you start inventing
                              words and devices to the degree exhibited in the sentence under
                              discussion (unattested conjunction, unattested verb, unattested
                              pronoun), then it is no longer grammatical _in the language as defined
                              by its inventor_, but only in the secondarily-invented language defined
                              by the hypotheses, conjectures, and assumptions of others (in this
                              case, David Salo). And since the original question was whether the
                              sentence was "grammatically correct Sindarin" (not "is this expedient
                              for movie-making purposes" or "does it conform to David Salo's
                              hypotheses, conjectures, and assumptions", which by definition it
                              does), I say again, the answer is "no".
                            • John Cowan
                              ... As far as I can see, then, your definition of grammaticality differs from Helge s only in degree. Actual languages (and Q & S are intended to be
                              Message 14 of 28 , Aug 19, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:

                                > I would say that a sentence formed by taking fully-attested words and
                                > joining them according to a fully-attested syntactic pattern _would_ be
                                > grammatical in a non-trivial sense.

                                As far as I can see, then, your definition of grammaticality differs
                                from Helge's only in degree. Actual languages (and Q & S are
                                intended to be facsimiles of actual languages) are irregular, and
                                furthermore irregular in irregular ways.

                                If JRRT were alive, we could ask him "Is such-and-such a sentence
                                grammatical?", requesting the close equivalent of a native speaker judgment.
                                (I'm not going to enter in to the controversy about whether native speakers
                                can err about these judgments.) Since this is not possible,
                                we can only guess whether the following of a regular pattern produces a
                                grammatical sentence or not. The only *objective* standard for
                                grammaticality in these circumstances is attestedness: everything else
                                is a matter of private judgment.

                                --
                                "What has four pairs of pants, lives John Cowan
                                in Philadelphia, and it never rains http://www.reutershealth.com
                                but it pours?" jcowan@...
                                --Rufus T. Firefly http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
                              • Carl F. Hostetter
                                ... I disagree. There is a difference not only in degree but in kind between, for example, employing productive plural formation mechanisms with singular
                                Message 15 of 28 , Aug 20, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 01:03 AM, John Cowan wrote:

                                  > Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:
                                  >
                                  >> I would say that a sentence formed by taking fully-attested words and
                                  >> joining them according to a fully-attested syntactic pattern _would_
                                  >> be grammatical in a non-trivial sense.
                                  >
                                  > As far as I can see, then, your definition of grammaticality differs
                                  > from Helge's only in degree.

                                  I disagree. There is a difference not only in degree but in kind
                                  between, for example, employing productive plural formation mechanisms
                                  with singular nouns, and, say, inventing a conjunction.

                                  (Also, I don't recall Helge actually offering or stipulating to a
                                  definition of grammaticality; instead, he shifted the discussion to
                                  issues of "genuineness" and "authenticity".)

                                  > The only *objective* standard for grammaticality in these
                                  > circumstances is attestedness:

                                  Not so. You quoted my offering of one completely objective standard
                                  above: fully-attested forms in a fully-attested syntactic relationship.
                                  (Yes, it relies again on attestedness, but only of forms and syntax,
                                  not, as in your usage, of entire sentences.)
                                • John Cowan
                                  ... That is indeed an objectively *interpretable* standard, but it is subjectively chosen. In essence, there is a certain level of potential error you are
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Aug 20, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:

                                    > > The only *objective* standard for grammaticality in these
                                    > > circumstances is attestedness:
                                    >
                                    > Not so. You quoted my offering of one completely objective standard
                                    > above: fully-attested forms in a fully-attested syntactic relationship.

                                    That is indeed an objectively *interpretable* standard, but it is
                                    subjectively chosen. In essence, there is a certain level of potential
                                    error you are willing to tolerate, and another, higher, level, that
                                    other people are willing to tolerate. Suppose that English were a
                                    language known only from fragments: if the sentence "I wish that you
                                    wouldn't make off-topic posts" is attested, your standard would label
                                    "I want that you wouldn't mae off-topic posts" grammatical, though every
                                    native speaker knows that it is not.

                                    Now the "grammatical" = "attested only" view is extreme, but just because
                                    it is, it is guaranteed to be 100% correct.

                                    In any event, given your stated interests, I can't understand why you
                                    care about unattested sentences anyway.

                                    --
                                    With techies, I've generally found John Cowan
                                    If your arguments lose the first round http://www.reutershealth.com
                                    Make it rhyme, make it scan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
                                    Then you generally can jcowan@...
                                    Make the same stupid point seem profound! --Jonathan Robie
                                  • Carl F. Hostetter
                                    On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 8:40 AM, John Cowan wrote: ... Not so. You quoted my offering of one completely objective standard above: fully-attested
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Aug 20, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 8:40 AM, John Cowan wrote:

                                      Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:

                                      > The only *objective* standard for grammaticality in these
                                      > circumstances is attestedness:

                                      Not so. You quoted my offering of one completely objective standard
                                      above: fully-attested forms in a fully-attested syntactic
                                      relationship.

                                      > That is indeed an objectively *interpretable* standard, but it is
                                      > subjectively chosen.

                                      Agreed.

                                      > Suppose that English were a language known only from fragments: if
                                      > the sentence "I wish that you wouldn't make off-topic posts" is
                                      > attested, your standard would label "I want that you wouldn't mae
                                      > off-topic posts" grammatical, though every native speaker knows
                                      > that it is not.

                                      Unless your "mae" is an unintentional typo, then no, this sentence
                                      would _not_ be grammatical by the standard offered ("mae" being an
                                      unattested form). If it _is_ a typo (for "make"), then yes, of course
                                      it is grammatical, even if not the normal formula for expressing this
                                      sentiment.

                                      > In any event, given your stated interests, I can't understand why
                                      > you care about unattested sentences anyway.

                                      I don't. But I do "care about" (i.e., have an intellectual interest
                                      in) the question of deciding grammaticality of utterances (purported
                                      to be) in Tolkien's languages, and more broadly in invented or poorly
                                      attested languages in general. Hence my taking the time to answer the
                                      question when it was asked here. Perhaps anyone else interested in
                                      this topic as it pertains to Tolkien's languages will join us over on
                                      the Lambengolmor list
                                      (<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Lambengolmor/>),
                                      where such scholarly matters are definitely on topic. (Helge is
                                      particularly invited; I will have another person moderate his posts
                                      if that is a concern to him.)
                                    • John Cowan
                                      ... It is; I was suffering from a sticky keyboard this morning. ... I disagree, but that s by the way. Suppose we speak Latin and are trying to construct some
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Aug 20, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:

                                        > > Suppose that English were a language known only from fragments: if
                                        > > the sentence "I wish that you wouldn't make off-topic posts" is
                                        > > attested, your standard would label "I want that you wouldn't mae
                                        > > off-topic posts" grammatical, though every native speaker knows
                                        > > that it is not.
                                        >
                                        > Unless your "mae" is an unintentional typo,

                                        It is; I was suffering from a sticky keyboard this morning.

                                        > If it _is_ a typo (for "make"), then yes, of course
                                        > it is grammatical, even if not the normal formula for expressing this
                                        > sentiment.

                                        I disagree, but that's by the way. Suppose we speak Latin and are trying
                                        to construct some sentences in the poorly documented lingua Anglorum.
                                        I say, "How do you say 'Caesar in Britanniam multis impedimentis
                                        transiit'?" You reply, "That sentence happens to be attested: 'Caesar
                                        crossed to Britain with much baggage.'" I then say "Suppose I wanted
                                        to translate 'multis equis' instead?" You would reply, "Well, 'equi'
                                        in English is 'horses', so it would be 'Caesar crossed to Britain with
                                        much horses.'". Not.

                                        (This tale is a variant of one of the two truly magnificent howlers I
                                        perpetrated in Latin class.; the other transformed a "dining room above
                                        the water" to a "couch floating down the river".)

                                        Claims about the grammaticality of unattested sentences in fragmentary
                                        languages are always guesswork, and it seems to me arbitrary to draw lines
                                        and say "Yes, X works" and "No, Y can't be right". Because X might *not*
                                        work, and Y might *be* right after all.

                                        --
                                        Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before.
                                        --Nicholas van Rijn
                                        John Cowan <jcowan@...>
                                        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com
                                      • Mach Hezan
                                        Just replying to what concerns Tolkien s alphabets... ... When the rules he set don t conform with the samples he wrote, which one is wrong? And spelling
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Aug 20, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Just replying to what concerns Tolkien's alphabets...

                                          Helge K. Fauskanger teithant:
                                          > I am not always impressed by Tolkien's own
                                          > spellings; according to the rules he sets out elsewhere, his Namárie
                                          > transcript in _The Road Goes Ever On_ unquestionably contains several
                                          > spelling mistakes, some of them pretty elementary (such as confusing the
                                          > tehtar for E and I -- clearly Tolkien is lapsing into other modes). I have
                                          > often wondered if this transcript was produced in a hurry -- deadline
                                          > approaching FAST?

                                          When the rules he set don't conform with the samples he wrote, which one is
                                          wrong? And spelling mistakes in tengwar manuscripts seem natural to me, as
                                          in all kind of manuscripts.

                                          Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
                                          > But to address the truly analogical situation: if someone were to
                                          > invent a new _tengwa_ or _tehta_ form to bear some desired value, then
                                          > it would indeed in no way belong to the "genuine" or "authentic"
                                          > _Tengwar_.

                                          Of course it wouldn't, but still we could decide whether it's a good
                                          invention that takes into account the attested relationships between sound
                                          features and tehtar form features, or whether it's a bad one that doesn't
                                          have any relation to the attested tehtar.

                                          Something similar: Assume that there were two different French modes. We
                                          could judge which one is better, even though neither is attested.

                                          suilaid
                                          mach
                                        • Carl F. Hostetter
                                          ... Assuming that the much / many contrast is not attested in the _lingua Anglorum_, then yes, that is true. And a very good, cautionary tale for anyone
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Aug 20, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 12:27 PM, John Cowan wrote:

                                            > Suppose we speak Latin and are trying to construct some sentences in
                                            > the poorly documented lingua Anglorum. I say, "How do you say 'Caesar
                                            > in Britanniam multis impedimentis transiit'?" You reply, "That
                                            > sentence happens to be attested: 'Caesar crossed to Britain with much
                                            > baggage.'" I then say "Suppose I wanted to translate 'multis equis'
                                            > instead?" You would reply, "Well, 'equi' in English is 'horses', so it
                                            > would be 'Caesar crossed to Britain with much horses.'". Not.

                                            Assuming that the "much" / "many" contrast is not attested in the
                                            _lingua Anglorum_, then yes, that is true. And a very good, cautionary
                                            tale for anyone writing in "neo-Tolkienian".
                                          • Carl F. Hostetter
                                            ... But by Helge s analogy and terminology, he would not agree with you. ... Sure we could (though we might not all reach the same decision as to goodness),
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Aug 20, 2003
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 02:14 PM, Mach Hezan wrote:

                                              > Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
                                              >>
                                              >> But to address the truly analogical situation: if someone were to
                                              >> invent a new _tengwa_ or _tehta_ form to bear some desired value,
                                              >> then it would indeed in no way belong to the "genuine" or "authentic"
                                              >> _Tengwar_.
                                              >
                                              > Of course it wouldn't,

                                              But by Helge's analogy and terminology, he would not agree with you.

                                              > but still we could decide whether it's a good invention that takes
                                              > into account the attested relationships between sound features and
                                              > tehtar form features, or whether it's a bad one that doesn't have any
                                              > relation to the attested tehtar.

                                              Sure we could (though "we" might not all reach the same decision as to
                                              goodness), but that was never at issue (despite Helge's attempts to
                                              make it seem as though it were).
                                            • Danny Andriës
                                              ... I was wondering the same thing. I can t think of a long carrier with a vowel tehta in an English mode specimen by Tolkien apart from the words by and
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Jun 19, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Teithant Harri Perälä:
                                                >Why the long carrier in "pure" in the first row?

                                                I was wondering the same thing. I can't think of a long carrier with a vowel tehta in an English mode specimen by Tolkien apart from the words 'by' and 'history' on the title page. In orthographic modes, Tolkien ignores vowel length.

                                                >I notice you use óre before the final silent e in the first row and
                                                >rómen in the second. Are there samples that show this was Tolkien's
                                                >usage in these modes, or is there room for interpretation?

                                                Lucy states that the second row is in the mode of Beleriand, which, of course, uses rómen for 'r' regardless of position. However, I don't think that the Mode of Beleriand is appropriate for English; it is a specifically Sindarin mode. In all of Tolkien's English examples he uses óre for 'r' before a silent 'e' unless it's followed immediately by a vowel. For a full writing orthographic English mode, I would use the one seen in the King's Letter: 'pure' = parma, vala, óre + under-dot.

                                                Cuio mae, Danny.





                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • calwen76
                                                king_pure_correction.gif picture in the Files section/calwen76 is ready. I removed the Full mode and corrected the two mistakes. Thanks. Lucy
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Jun 20, 2004
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  king_pure_correction.gif picture in the Files section/calwen76 is
                                                  ready. I removed the Full mode and corrected the two mistakes. Thanks.

                                                  Lucy
                                                • Helge K. Fauskanger
                                                  ... Reflexive pronouns are somewhat uncertain in Sindarin, but in Quenya we can say _mela immo_ for love (your)self . _Cuio bathred e-guil_ could express
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Oct 11, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Vickie wrote:

                                                    > I would like to translate the phrase 'Love yourself' or 'Live Life to the fullest' (haven't decided which one yet) into Elvish.



                                                    Reflexive pronouns are somewhat uncertain in Sindarin, but in Quenya we can say _mela immo_ for "love (your)self".



                                                    _Cuio bathred e-guil_ could express something like "live (the) fullness of life" in Sindarin (if we assume that some older "Noldorin" items of vocabulary were still valid after Tolkien's revisions). We must of course improvise certain details of idiom.



                                                    Then I guess the next question is how to write this in "Elvish" Tengwar characters?



                                                    HKF


                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • Vickie Blake
                                                    Thanks for that Helge, I will attempt to write it in Tengwar but as I have mentioned it is very unlikely. If anyone else will have a go I will be extremely
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Oct 12, 2007
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Thanks for that Helge, I will attempt to write it in Tengwar but as I
                                                      have mentioned it is very unlikely. If anyone else will have a go I
                                                      will be extremely gracious.

                                                      Vickie
                                                      --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Helge K. Fauskanger"
                                                      <helge.fauskanger@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > Vickie wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > > I would like to translate the phrase 'Love yourself' or 'Live Life
                                                      to the fullest' (haven't decided which one yet) into Elvish.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > Reflexive pronouns are somewhat uncertain in Sindarin, but in Quenya
                                                      we can say _mela immo_ for "love (your)self".
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > _Cuio bathred e-guil_ could express something like "live (the)
                                                      fullness of life" in Sindarin (if we assume that some older "Noldorin"
                                                      items of vocabulary were still valid after Tolkien's revisions). We
                                                      must of course improvise certain details of idiom.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > Then I guess the next question is how to write this in "Elvish"
                                                      Tengwar characters?
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > HKF
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      >
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.