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

Re: [elfscript] Re: Authenticity (Was: stop it please! will you!)

Expand Messages
  • Carl F. Hostetter
    ... May I remind you that my reply was to the claim that we can learn Gothic ? ... And you, Mr. Jonsson, are _completely_ wrong, as you would know if you had
    Message 1 of 8 , Sep 6, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Saturday, September 6, 2003, at 05:21 AM, BP Jonsson wrote:

      > "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:
      >
      >> But no, it is _not_ possible to "learn Gothic", not in the sense that
      >> "learn" means when unqualifiedly applied to languages, such as "learn
      >> Japanese" or "learn German". _No one knows_ how Gothic was actually
      >> spoken. _No one knows_ for sure what was and what was not grammatical
      >> in spoken Gothic. _All we know_ is theory derived from _written_
      >> Gothic
      >> and other theoretical results.
      >>
      >> And precisely the same is true of Tolkien's languages.
      >
      > Nobody has contested that.

      May I remind you that my reply was to the claim that we can "learn
      Gothic"?

      >> Tolkien was able to write and speak (to some extent; we have only
      >> second-hand reports, not transcriptions, so know way of knowing what
      >> Tolkien actually said, or how artificial or rehearsed it was)
      >> sentences composed of words and grammatical devices according (for
      >> the most part) with the predominant theories of the day concerning
      >> Gothic (and, no doubt, with his own personal theories and
      >> convictions). Nor was he entirely successful even at that, even in
      >> writing, as he himself pointed out.
      >
      > And some are trying to do exactly the same with Tolkien's languages.
      > You, Mr. Hostetter seem to find this morally reprehensible.

      And you, Mr. Jonsson, are _completely_ wrong, as you would know if you
      had read even just my most recent posts to this list, in which I have
      _repeatedly_ denied that there is anything improper in doing so. My
      issue is _only_ with the blurring of the line between scholarship and
      creativity, specifically between fact and hypothesis: Tolkien never
      attempted to pass his Gothic off as "genuine" or "authentic" Gothic.

      (If anyone wonders why I feel so strongly the need, and claim the
      right, to correct the charges and misrepresentations leveled against
      me, how can you wonder after reading this? Here Mr. Jonsson, a
      prominent contributor to this and other Tolkienian-linguistics lists,
      lazily maintains a completely false opinion of me, because he can't be
      bothered to read my words, but instead simply accepts the distortions
      and misrepresentations fostered by Helge Fauskanger as true.)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.