Re: [elfscript] Istan pole!
- On Friday, September 5, 2003, at 04:14 AM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:
> Carl F. Hostetter wrote:The contempt with which you treat the rational capacity of your
>> Once again we see one of the classic Fauskangerian rhetorical
>> bankruptcies: pretend that I used a term I never did, so as to
>> introduce a false contradiction. I never called such compositions
>> "genuine Quenya", and I do not do so now, despite Helge's dishonest
>> implication. Yes folks, he really does think you're that stupid.
> The man who speaks about "dishonest implication" would probably do
> well to refrain from ascribing to me such ideas about the intelligence
> of the "folks" reading this list.
readers, as amply demonstrated by your bankrupt rhetorical methods,
more than justifies this ascription.
> CFH is very afraid of the word "genuine", it would seem, or insists onAmerican Heritage Dictionary:
> using it in a highly specialized meaning.
Genuine. 2. Not spurious or counterfeit; authentic. See Synonyms at
Authentic 2. Having a claimed and verifiable origin or authorship; not
counterfeit or copied
> Yet what is the relevant context here? This whole thread started with_No it didn't_. The question was whether the sentence was
> someone asking whether a certain (post-Tolkien) Sindarin sentence was
> correct or not.
"grammatically correct Sindarin".
> Do these people mean, "Does this string of words happen to be directlyAnd yet _again_ you're unable to avoid your bankrupt rhetorical
> attested in
> Tolkien's corpus?" Hardly.
manipulations. No one has ever claimed that people mean any such thing.
Nor did my particular answer to this particular question make any
reference to whether "this string of words happen to be directly
attested in Tolkien's corpus". Instead, it examined the individual
words and grammatical devices, and in at least three of these features
it was _not_ "grammatically correct Sindarin", _precisely_ the terms of
> Some would tolerate one or a few neologisms (like _estelio_),I can tolerate any number of neologisms, but definitely not ones like
_estelio_, for the reasons I've already detailed, though you somehow
have failed to notice.
> others would insist on using only Tolkien's own words.Perhaps; but despite your implication, I am not one of those. Again, as
I've already stated, though you somehow have failed to notice.
> Yet it is possible to provide a useful answer to their question.Indeed. As I did. To which you in turn responded with your usual
bankrupt rhetoric, and lo these many off-topic posts later, here you
are _still_ misrepresenting the original question, ignoring and/or
misrepresenting what I actually wrote, ascribing straw-man arguments to
people who never made them, etc., etc. Why _don't_ you provide a useful
answer to the original question, if you disagree with mine? You have
yet to do so. Thought I strongly doubt that the questioner will still
be reading this thread, or even this list, given the path you have
taken it on.
>> Post-Tolkien material is genuine Neo-Eldarin, to the extent it isI'm very glad to hear that making factual responses is a predictable
>> well-formed according to the rules that can be inferred from
>> Tolkien's own material. Of course it is not "genuine Tolkien", which
>> simply means that Tolkien didn't come up with it.
> Predictably, CFH responded:
>> Nor is it genuine Quenya, or genuine Sindarin.
trait of mine. Would that we could say the same about you.
> It is genuine Neo-Quenya/Sindarin. It is not genuine Tolkien-made Q/S,Yes, precisely! No wonder you found my response predictable, since you
> course, which simply means that Tolkien didn't write it.
_agree_ with it entirely! Why then did you spend all this time on
attacking my position, which you youself have _just restated_ in
> Incidentally, is Tolkien's _istan pole_ a genuine Quenya sentence?Yes, though it (almost) certainly doesn't have the meaning Tolkien
intended to convey, as indicated by the accompanying gloss ("I can
speak (because I have learned (a) language)", VT41:6), the manner of
its composition, and the context in which it occurs. Context: your
friend and mine. (Well, OK, _my_ friend, your occasional acquaintance
and frequent adversary.)
> Genuine, but wrong?See above.
> That's a tricky one...Not in the least.
> I stand by it. I also wrote: "But for a very few highly specializedFrom the _words_ and their _meanings_? Like _Eru_, _fíru-_, etc.?
> vocabulary units, like 'Silmaril', the entire Quenya-Sindarin-scenario
> could be fitted to just about ANY people and ANY history".
> CFH writes:
>> Sure, so long as they were a monotheistic culture of immortal spirits
>> indwelling in immortal bodies
> How can this be inferred from the languages?
> How can you tell that a _hroa_ is an immortal body just by looking atThat was _not_ a term of your claim. (You can't even represent _your
> the word?
own claims accurately!) _You_ claimed that "_the entire
Quenya-Sindarin-scenario_ could be fitted to just about ANY people and
ANY history" (emphasis mine). "The entire Quenya-Sindarin-scenario"
includes _definitions_ of words, not just their written representation
devoid of meaning. And those _definitions_ include nuances and
distinctions that are derived _from the culture that defined them_
through common usage. And as we have seen repeatedly, those definitions
are _not_ culturally or metaphysically neutral. Thus, for example, as
Tolkien himself says, "What the _óre_ was for Elvish thought and
speech, and the nature of its counsels — it says, and so advises, but
is never represented as commanding — requires for its understanding a
brief account of Eldarin thought on the matter." (VT41:11).
>> who lived alongside a race of angelic godsStick to the point much? Note that that is "gods", little _g_. Note
> "Gods"? I thought you just said they were monotheists?
that Tolkien himself uses the term. Note that neither to Tolkien nor to
me nor to the vast majority of people who have ever uttered the phrase
"Ye gods!" does that imply pantheism.
> Indeed, if all you had was the word _Vala_ and the knowledge that itBut that is _not_ all we have, again _even by the terms of your own
> referred to some kind of powerful spirit being,
> No, I'm afraid the fact remains that very little certain knowledgeThat depends entirely on how complete and detailed the dictionary was;
> about the intended world could be extracted just by examining the
> grammar and dictionary of the languages supposedly spoken in it.
i.e., whether it conveyed fully for each word the meaning it had in
(and was given to it by) "Elvish thought and speech", per Tolkien's
distinction; or whether it was more like your own wordlists.
> CFH is warning the reader against me again:So finally you begrudgingly acknowledge the plain meaning of my words,
>> By ripping my words out of context, and by replying as he does, he
>> wants you, the reader, to believe that the contrast I was drawing
>> was between the understanding of those who have not read _all_ of
>> Tolkien's own writings, published or unpublished, and those who have.
> All right. So the "real" or intended distinction was between those who
> depend only on secondary sources like the ones I have provided, and
> those who have also (or only) read the published primary sources.
instead of the straw-man position you dishonestly ascribed to me
earlier. And it only took three posts for you to do it. Well, sadly,
that constitutes real progress for you.
> I would surely encourage all serious students to read the primary(Notice once again the classic Fauskagerian technique of inserting
> sources, but what immense revelations are people supposed to
> experience, really?
hyperbole -- here, "immense revelations", which I never claimed -- in
order to misrepresent the _actual_ point as ludicrous. He really,
really, really does think you are _that_ stupid, folks.)
For starters: All the context, subtly, nuance, and variability that you
fail to convey. A chance to measure your claims and characterizations
against Tolkien's own words and creative methods. A familiarity,
appreciation, and understanding of _Tolkien's_ thoughts on his
languages, and _Tolkien's_ manner and method of presenting and
describing his languages, instead of merely mastering your own, highly
artificial, manner, method, and presentation.
> The "read Tolkien's books!" mantra becomes misleading if people areWhat on Arda are you talking about? Who has _ever_ claimed or implied
> lead to believe that everything will be answered there.
that "everything will be answered" in Tolkien's writings? Have I and my
colleagues not, in fact, repeatedly made precisely the opposite claim?
Well yes, we have, and as we've seen _ad nauseam_ Helge representations
of the claims and positions of myself and my colleagues bears little or
no relationship to reality.
By the same token, Helge, would you say that the "read Helge's web
site!" "mantra", which is vastly more common in these fora than the one
you claim, is misleading because it leads people to believe that
everything will be answered there.
> Well, let's buy LotR, the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, RGEO, MC, allAnd perhaps _you_ will discover that this straw-man scenario STILL has
> twelve volumes of HoME, every single back issue of VT and Parma...
> Half a year later, when you have absorbed all of this stuff, you would
> discover that you STILL don't know how the Quenya pluperfect is > formed.
nothing to do with the question at hand, as no one has ever said that
the value of reading Tolkien's works lies in discovering what the
Quenya pluperfect is. That is entirely _your_ fiction.
> I wrote:Helge, your contempt for any semblance of sticking to the points and
>> It is quite obvious that some "evidence" represents ideas Tolkien
>> abandoned, and then I must be allowed to say so.
> CFH responded:
>> Absolutely, _in cases where it is in fact quite obvious_; which cases
>> are far, far fewer than you believe (because you want to believe, to
>> keep your conclusions tidy, compact, and "useful").
> All right, so maybe we should expect to see the genitive ending _-n_
> suddenly come back to life for several minutes in a 1963 note Tolkien
> scribbled on the back of an envelope -- and therefore nobody must ever
> feel free to say that Tolkien dropped the ending -n in favour of -o.
terms of a discussion is appalling.
> It's no point in going through the entire list; CFH himself has toNo I don't. And I daresay I am far from alone. You're only fooling
> admit nothing insulting can be read into many of these quotations.
yourself (and almost certainly not even yourself).
> Quote from me:Horse-hockey. You aren't just conveying random bits of general
>> "Hostetter in his editorial observed: "Translations of the Lord's
>> Prayer have enjoyed a long tradition as representative texts for use
>> in side-by-side comparisons of various languages." But since Tolkien
>> apparently never made any efforts to have his Quenya-language Lord's
>> Prayer published, it does not seem that he intended it to be a
>> general "sample" of the language."
> CFH comments:
>> Looks to me like a typical Fauskangerism: create a contrast to make
>> it look like I was making a claim about Tolkien's translation, which
>> I never did.
> No artificial "contrast" is intended here. I believe it is quite clear
> from the reference that the quote does NOT come from the same VT issue
> as the one where Tolkien's Lord's Prayer versions are presented; it is
> much earlier and relates to his OWN attempt to translate this prayer.
> The quote from CFH simply presents entirely general information. In no
> way am I trying to make it look as if he is asserting anything about
information: you set my words against your own characterization,
thereby consciously and deliberately creating a contrast between them,
as reinforced by your wording "_But since_ ..." etc. (emphasis mine).
You aren't fooling anyone, Helge, not even yourself.
> I am discussing the possibility that _síra_ should actually readI don't find that at all relevant. It is absolutely no surprise at all
> _síre_. It is then relevant that other researchers also found this a
> plausible word and even came up with such a form themselves (though
> not in the context of analyzing Tolkien's own text, as I clearly
that Tolkien's own creations differ from the coinages of those who are
not Tolkien. Nor does the judgment of those who are not Tolkien as to
what is plausible have any bearing at all on the question of whether a
form Tolkien wrote is accurate or not; that can be judged only on the
basis of Tolkien's own writings and from context.
> The quotes relating to the publication project and its rather slowSadly, I can almost believe that your agenda-driven self-delusions and
> progress are, as far as I can see, simply factual information. I don't
> believe my wording is anywhere particularly bitter or insulting.
rationalizations are such that you really do believe that. Almost.
As for the rest of Helge's post, I'll trust in the intelligence of the
reader to see that it's all just more of the same contempt-filled
manipulation and misrepresentation. You know the drill by now.
- Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:
> As for the rest of Helge's post, I'll trust in the intelligence of theWe certainly do know the drill by now: each one's foot is aimed
> reader [...]. You know the drill by now.
directly at the other's knee, and though the vocabulary is adult,
the emotional tone is that of an 8-year-old. I would ask the two of
you to desist, but I've been down that road so many times there is
no further point in it.
Helge and Carl, we you implore
To go away and sin no more;
Or if that effort be too great,
To go away, at any rate.
(The sigmonster that chooses my .sig, though random, did rather well
"You know, you haven't stopped talking John Cowan
since I came here. You must have been http://www.reutershealth.com
vaccinated with a phonograph needle." jcowan@...
--Rufus T. Firefly http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
- Very clever and all, John, but once again, I will not accept being
lumped in with Helge in this matter.
It was Helge who began the personal attacks.
It is Helge who has refused a clear invitation to continue (the
scholarly portion of) this discussion in another forum.
It is Helge who refuses to stick to any sort of scholarly argument, but
instead continues his campaign of mockery, distortions and attacks.
It is entirely up to Helge to end this, either by dropping it or by
responding honestly and thoughtfully to the scholarly issue(s) under
discussion, in a manner devoid of mockery, distortions and attacks.
- Carl F. Hostetter scripsit:
> It is entirely up to Helge to end this, either by dropping it or by"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Either one of you can
> responding honestly and thoughtfully to the scholarly issue(s) under
> discussion, in a manner devoid of mockery, distortions and attacks.
drop this, and both of you should. If you won't, you won't, but it is
false to claim that "it is entirely up to Helge", as if your postings
(but not his) were *truly* a matter of conditioned reflex rather than
a choice for which you stand responsible.
"No, John. I want formats that are actually John Cowan
useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
address all questions by piling on ridiculous http://www.reutershealth.com
internal links in forms which are hideously jcowan@...
over-complex." --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev
- This is not "an eye for an eye", John; that you think it is shows how
little attention you've paid to the discussion. It is fallacious claim
versus correction, which is a very, very different thing.
I have repeatedly "dropped" this; every time I correct Helge's
distortions and fallacies, the matter is dropped, so far as I am
concerned. It is dropped right now, in fact.
But then Helge comes along an picks it up again, with a new and
increasingly desperate round of distortions and fallacies, which as I
have said before I will not allow to go uncorrected when they concern
me or my colleagues. Period.
So once again: the matter _is_ dropped, right now; unless Helge picks
it up again.