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

Re: translation help

Expand Messages
  • i_degilbor
    ... we ... Requests for help in translations really should go to the Elfling list. Elfscript is about Tolkien s writing systems, not his languages. But when
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 12, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > There is a line in a Star Trek movie, "Time is the fire in which
      we
      > burn," which I am considering translating and writing into Tengwar
      > Cursive as a tattoo. Can anyone give some pointers as to the
      > translation part?

      Requests for help in translations really should go to the Elfling
      list. Elfscript is about Tolkien's writing systems, not his
      languages. But when you request help in translation, it would be
      helpful if you specify what language you want it translated into.

      Cuio mae, Danny.
    • neenluvsjay
      I need some help. I would like to get a tattoo of a saying in Tengwar. First I need it written in Quenya. The saying is All who wander are not lost. Please
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 7, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I need some help. I would like to get a tattoo of a saying in
        Tengwar. First I need it written in Quenya. The saying is All who
        wander are not lost. Please help me thank you
      • Helge K. Fauskanger
        ... First I need it written in Quenya. The saying is All who wander are not lost. _Ilya i vantar lá ranyar_ all who wander do not stray may come close
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 10, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          > I need some help. I would like to get a tattoo of a saying in Tengwar.
          First I need it written in Quenya. The saying is All who wander are not
          lost.

          _Ilya i vantar lá ranyar_ "all who wander do not stray" may come close
          enough.

          In the standard Tengwar fonts:

          `Bj´E `B yE4#6 j~C 7E5Ì#6

          - Helge Fauskanger
        • Carl F. Hostetter
          ... Not close at all. 1) Tolkien tells us (_Vinyar Tengwar_ 39, p. 20): _ilya_ = each, every, all of a particular group of things , cf. GL [i.e. Galadriel s
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 10, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            On Oct 10, 2004, at 2:03 PM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:

            >> I need some help. I would like to get a tattoo of a saying in
            >> Tengwar. First I need it written in Quenya. The saying is All who
            >> wander are not lost.
            >
            > _Ilya i vantar lá ranyar_ "all who wander do not stray" may come close
            > enough.


            Not close at all.

            1) Tolkien tells us (_Vinyar Tengwar_ 39, p. 20): "_ilya_ = 'each,
            every, all of a particular group of things', cf. GL [i.e. Galadriel's
            Lament] _ilye tier_ 'all roads, paths' (sc. between Middle-earth and
            Aman)." _i vantar_, intended to mean '(those) that wander', is plural,
            like _tier_. So, likewise, if we assume that "all" here is purely
            adjectival: _ilye i vantar_. (Of course, adjectives in Q(u)enya do
            _not_ always accord in number with their antecedents, not even _ilya_:
            cf. _ilya raxellor_ 'from all danger', VT44:5. But since Helge has
            himself just complained on Elfling that _all_ such cases of
            non-accordance must be considered and marked out as anomalous, we'll
            apply his own criticism to his translation. It could also be noted that
            since adjs. used as names are pluralized as nouns, it might instead be
            that we should use _ilyar_ instead in this generic case.)

            2) We say "if we assume" etc., because it's not certain that "all" is
            an adjective, as Helge treats it. "All" can also be a noun in English:
            e.g., "All that he says is suspect". And nominal adjectives in Quenya
            are often pluralized as nouns: cf. _lehtar_ 'free, released
            (elements)', _taptar_ 'impeded (elements)', _mussi_ 'softs', etc.
            (VT39:16). So it might be better still to use *_ilyar_ here. Perhaps
            best of all would be to avoid the issue entirely, and translate by
            sense rather than by slavish adherence to the English syntax and idiom,
            by using _ilquen_ 'everybody' (XI:372). This choice though -- as with
            most everything when trying to translate into these or any other
            poorly-attested languages -- itself raises questions, such as whether
            _ilquen_ is to be treated as a singular noun like English 'everybody',
            or as a plural.

            3) _vanta-_ as meaning 'wander' is unattested (in the _Etymologies_, Q
            _vanta- in fact means 'walk', s.v. BAT-). It is apparently meant by
            Helge to be a derived verb from the _Etymologies_ base WAN- 'depart, go
            away, vanish, disappear'. But a) the attested Qenya verbal derivative
            from this base is _vanya-_; and b) _vanya-_ does not mean 'wander' but
            rather 'go, depart, disappear'; and c) the attested adjectival
            derivative _vanwa_ (Galadriel's Lament again) means 'lost', not
            'wandering' (and further, 'lost' as in 'lost to us, (de)parted from us
            against our will', not merely drifted out of sight or known position).
            So, given this, Helge's "translation" in fact would mean something
            like: "Each who walk do not stray/wander"; or, even granting Helge his
            clashing neologism *_vanta- 'wander', "Each who wander do not
            stray/wander".

            4) _In context_ (that is, of Tolkien's aphorism about Strider), the
            contrast being drawn is between _wandering_ in the sense of "ranging
            about (Strider being a _Ranger_ after all), roaming, rambling here and
            there with no certain course of definite objective in view" on the one
            hand, and _lost_ in the sense of "having wandered from, or being unable
            to find, the way; bewildered". The sense of "wander" in context thus
            seems closest to that of Q _mista-_ 'stray about' < MIS- 'go free,
            stray, wander' (note the application of the cognate name _Mirimor_ to
            the Teleri; and contrast this sense with that of Q _ranya-_ 'stray',
            _ránen_ 'errant' < RAN- 'wander, stray', the contrast being between
            freedom and errancy).

            Thus, a better version -- as relying far more on attested forms and
            grammar, and on all the information Tolkien provides for the meaning of
            words rather than simply on English glosses and their English synonyms,
            and on the full meaning and nuance of the sentiment being expressed
            rather than simply on dictionary translation and slavish adherence to
            English syntax and idiom -- would be:

            _La ilye i mistar ránie (nar)_

            (if "all" here is best translated adjectivally in Quenya) or

            _La ilyar i mistar ránie (nar)_

            (if best as a nominalized adjective) or

            _La ilquen i mista ránea (ná)_

            And even this assumes much about the use of _la_/_lá_ that is only
            speculation, and that _ilquen_ is singular, and that *_ránea_, pl.
            _ránie_ is a valid adjectival derivative from RAN-.

            All is not so simple as Helge seems to think.


            Carl F. Hostetter
            Patrick H. Wynne
          • Helge K. Fauskanger
            When somebody requested a translation of all who wander are not lost , I suggested (off the top of my head) _ilya i vantar lá ranyar_. CFH and ... every, all
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 13, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              When somebody requested a translation of "all who wander are not lost", I
              suggested (off the top of my head) _ilya i vantar lá ranyar_. CFH and
              Patrick H. Wynne don't think it is accurate:

              > 1) Tolkien tells us (_Vinyar Tengwar_ 39, p. 20): "_ilya_ = 'each,
              every, all of a particular group of things', cf. GL [i.e. Galadriel's
              Lament] _ilye tier_ 'all roads, paths' (sc. between Middle-earth and
              Aman)." _i vantar_, intended to mean '(those) that wander', is plural,
              like _tier_. So, likewise, if we assume that "all" here is purely
              adjectival: _ilye i vantar_.

              Yes and no. In the Etymologies, entry IL, the gloss is simply "all, the
              whole". As CFH/PHW themselves go on to point out:

              > "All" can also be a noun in English: e.g., "All that he says is
              suspect".

              (We may also consider their parting shot, "All is not so simple as Helge
              seems to think"!) I treated _ilya_ as a noun here. It is not an adjective
              modifying a following noun as in _ilye tier_, but a NOUN that is even the
              subject of the following relative sentence. It is, to use the Etym gloss,
              "the whole" -- in this case, the entire group of people concerned. Hence, I
              did not use the pl. form _ilye_.

              As for the suggestion that _ilya_ could receive the plural ending _-r_ --
              well, I think it would be semantically superfluous. Again notice the Etym
              glosses: "all" and "the whole", as if the word is already in a way plural
              and singular at the same time. But when case endings are to be added, it is
              interesting to notice that they are or can be plural: _ilyain_ "to all",
              LR:72.

              > 3) _vanta-_ as meaning 'wander' is unattested (in the _Etymologies_, Q
              _vanta- in fact means 'walk', s.v. BAT-). It is apparently meant by Helge
              to be a derived verb from the _Etymologies_ base WAN- 'depart, go away,
              vanish, disappear'.

              No, it is Tolkien's own _vanta-_, derived from BAT, I had in mind. Surely
              there is no great sematic leap from "walk" to "wander"? Nonetheless, I am
              perfectly willing to grant that _mista-_ "stray about" is also a very good,
              maybe better, translation in this particular context. (It is heartening to
              notice that for once, CFH's criticism could actually be perceived as
              somewhat constructive.)

              > contrast this sense with that of Q _ranya-_ 'stray', _ránen_ 'errant' <
              RAN- 'wander, stray', the contrast being between freedom and errancy.

              CFH and PHW go on to use the form _ránie_ , evidently meant as the plural
              form of _ránea_ "errant", as if _ránen_ in the printed Etymologies is a
              misreading. (I agree that _ránea_ seems like a far more likely form, but
              why is there no mention of this in the entry for RAN in the Addenda and
              Corrigenda to the Etymologies, VT46:10?)

              Thus CFH and PHW suggest _La ilye i mistar ránie (nar)_ or _La ilyar i
              mistar ránie (nar)_ or _La ilquen i mista ránea (ná)_ -- "and even this
              assumes much about the use of _la_/_lá_ that is only speculation". Well,
              that particular problem can be avoided if we use the negative verb _umin_
              "I do not, am not" instead: 3 pl. aorist presumably _umir_. Thus, using
              _ilya_ as a noun "all" as it is glossed in the Etymologies:

              _Ilya i mistar umir ránie_ "all who stray about are not errant"

              -- or even _Ilya i mistar umir ranya_, using the verb _ranya-_ as I did in
              the first place; after all, Tolkien's gloss is simply "stray".

              - HKF
            • Carl F. Hostetter
              ... Semantically correct in no way implies not superfluous in _any_ natural language; so this assessment in no more than a guess, based on your own
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 13, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                On Oct 13, 2004, at 7:16 AM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:

                > As for the suggestion that _ilya_ could receive the plural ending _-r_
                > --
                > well, I think it would be semantically superfluous.

                "Semantically correct" in no way implies "not superfluous" in _any_
                natural language; so this assessment in no more than a guess, based on
                your own language. It remains to be seen in what way(s) _Tolkien_
                thought of this matter (if ever). You are certainly free to have a
                preference in uncertain matters; but there is nothing inherently
                superior to this preference.

                > Again notice the Etym glosses: "all" and "the whole", as if the word
                > is already in a way plural and singular at the same time.

                Those are _English_ glosses. You can't be certain that any English
                gloss completely and fully specifies all semantic or grammatical
                aspects of an Elvish form (any more than you can be certain that
                English synonyms are completely equivalent semantically and
                grammatically -- they very often are not, in fact).

                > But when case endings are to be added, it is interesting to notice
                > that they are or can be plural: _ilyain_ "to all", LR:72.

                Rather superfluous semantically, isn't it? Natural languages are funny
                that way.

                > No, it is Tolkien's own _vanta-_, derived from BAT, I had in mind.
                > Surely there is no great sematic leap from "walk" to "wander"?

                You're kidding, right? Do you _really_ think that, if the Tolkienian
                source of the translated quote was not known or did not exist, that
                _anyone_ would understand the sense of your translation as saying
                _anything_ other than "Not all those who walk stray"? If this is a
                measure of the nature and expressiveness of Neo-Quenya, it certainly
                does not bode at all well.

                > (It is heartening to notice that for once, CFH's criticism could
                > actually be perceived as somewhat constructive.)

                What is truly novel is that for once Helge has not simply dismissed or
                ignored a criticism, or worse, attacked the critic while lying about
                what he meant or about the meaning of words in order to pretend to be
                beyond criticism.

                > CFH and PHW go on to use the form _ránie_ , evidently meant as the
                > plural form of _ránea_ "errant", as if _ránen_ in the printed
                > Etymologies is a misreading.

                Nonsense. We _specifically_ said that we were only _assuming_ that
                _ránea_, pl. _ránie_ would be a valid adjectivally derivative of RAN-.
                We said precisely _nothing_ about the "validity" or lack thereof of
                _ránen_. Stop lying about what we did and did not say, Helge.

                But since you've raised a good point, Pat and I have now had a look at
                the entry again, and agree that it _is_ possible to read published
                _ránen_ as _ránea_ -- but that it is also quite possible to read it as
                _ránen_ This may be another of the many cases where Tolkien's final _a_
                looks a lot like an _n_.

                > (I agree that _ránea_ seems like a far more likely form, but why is
                > there no mention of this in the entry for RAN in the Addenda and
                > Corrigenda to the Etymologies, VT46:10?)

                Why do you think, Helge? It's because when Pat and I looked at this
                while compiling the A&C, it struck us both as looking like the
                published form, _ránen_. Sheesh.

                > Thus CFH and PHW suggest _La ilye i mistar ránie (nar)_ or _La ilyar i
                > mistar ránie (nar)_ or _La ilquen i mista ránea (ná)_ -- "and even
                > this assumes much about the use of _la_/_lá_ that is only
                > speculation". Well, that particular problem can be avoided if we use
                > the negative verb _umin_ "I do not, am not" instead: 3 pl. aorist
                > presumably _umir_. Thus, using _ilya_ as a noun "all" as it is glossed
                > in the Etymologies:
                >
                > _Ilya i mistar umir ránie_ "all who stray about are not errant"

                All this does is substitute the set of unknowns surrounding *_umir_ for
                those surrounding _la_/_lá_. I don't see any inherent improvement here.
                And in fact, there's an additional difficulty: it _may_ be that Quenya
                is not so syntactically flexible in this matter as English, and that
                what you've written here actually means that _no one_ who wanders is
                _ever_ errant (as opposed to, "It is not the case that all who wander
                are errant"). In English, for example, we naturally understand "All
                that is gold does not glitter" to mean that not everything that
                glitters is gold (the more literal meaning, that nothing that is gold
                ever glitters, being a perverse interpretation because plainly false).
                But we do not know that Quenya has the same idiomatic flexibility in
                quantifiers and negation.

                > -- or even _Ilya i mistar umir ranya_, using the verb _ranya-_ as I
                > did in the first place; after all, Tolkien's gloss is simply "stray".

                If you compare the glosses of the Quenya and Noldorin forms under MIS-
                with those under RAN- (taking the A&C into account as well), you'll see
                both that they are _not_ completely synonymous, and also that the
                distinctions between the two seem to be (almost but not quite entirely)
                reversed between Q and N.

                Just another example of why dictionary translations are usually worth
                even less than the effort put into them.

                Carl F. Hostetter
                Patrick H. Wynne
              • Helge K. Fauskanger
                ... there is nothing inherently superior to this preference. When Tolkien wrote _ilya_ and wrote the gloss all next to this word, I tend to assume that he
                Message 7 of 12 , Oct 19, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Concerning _ilya_, Carl F. Hostetter and Patrick H. Wynne wrote:

                  > You are certainly free to have a preference in uncertain matters; but
                  there is nothing inherently superior to this preference.

                  When Tolkien wrote _ilya_ and wrote the gloss "all" next to this word, I
                  tend to assume that he knew what he was talking about, and that _ilya_ can
                  indeed be used to translate English "all". Even if CFH & Co can ever
                  produce any evidence that Tolkien at some (later?) conceptual stage
                  considered the possibility that _ilya_ can be "pluralized" as _ilyar_, it
                  will not change this fact.

                  > You can't be certain that any English gloss completely and fully
                  specifies all semantic or grammatical aspects of an Elvish form

                  Aha. Sounds very much like the principle I relied upon when I assumed that
                  _vanta-_ can be used to translate "wander" even though Tolkien's gloss is
                  strictly "walk", but in that case CFH/PHW seem quite convinced that "walk"
                  is the one and only possible translation.

                  I wrote:

                  > CFH and PHW go on to use the form _ránie_ , evidently meant as the plural
                  form of _ránea_ "errant", as if _ránen_ in the printed Etymologies is a
                  misreading.

                  And my honorable opponents did bother to check this:

                  > But since you've raised a good point, Pat and I have now had a look at
                  the entry again, and agree that it _is_ possible to read published _ránen_
                  as _ránea_ -- but that it is also quite possible to read it as _ránen_ This
                  may be another of the many cases where Tolkien's final _a_ looks a lot like
                  an _n_.

                  Thanks. However, when asking why this problem was not commented on in the
                  Addenda & Corrigenda to the Etymologies, I get a somewhat grumpy response:

                  > It's because when Pat and I looked at this while compiling the A&C, it
                  struck us both as looking like the published form, _ránen_. Sheesh.

                  May I remind you and "Pat" that in the editorial in VT45, the A&C article
                  is presented as nothing less than an "exhaustive study" of the Etymologies
                  manuscript? Once an "exhaustive study" has been carried out, there
                  shouldn't remain quite a few obvious problems to be commented upon.

                  The form _ránen_ is indeed inherently suspect. As far as I can see, there
                  is very little evidence for _-n_ as an adjectival ending in Quenya (as
                  opposed to the longer endings _-in_ and _-na_). _Ettelen_ ?"foreign" (ET)
                  would be one example, but the A&C article indicates that it should perhaps
                  read _ettelea_ (VT45:13). _Ránen_ should likewise have been identified as a
                  probable misreading, Tolkien intending _ránea_ instead. When it is
                  eminently possible to read _-a_ instead of _-n_, the former being a very
                  well-attested adjectival ending, it is not an economical theory to assume
                  that there is also an adjectival ending _-n_ that however occurs in one or
                  two words only!

                  (I'm glad to notice that the fiction of the "exhausitive study" is dropped
                  already in VT46, where CFH in his editorial invites readers to assist in
                  finding further errors. The A&C article apparently wasn't the last word in
                  Etym studies after all...)

                  - HKF
                • Patrick H. Wynne
                  ... Ah, honorable opponents . I envy Helge for having them. ... That the A&C was meant as an exhaustive study of the Etymologies is not a fiction . It was as
                  Message 8 of 12 , Oct 19, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Helge" wrote:

                    > And my honorable opponents did bother to check this:

                    Ah, "honorable opponents". I envy Helge for having them.

                    Helge continues on with:

                    > May I remind you and "Pat" that in the editorial in VT45, the A&C
                    > article is presented as nothing less than an "exhaustive study"
                    > of the Etymologies manuscript? Once an "exhaustive study" has
                    > been carried out, there shouldn't remain quite a few obvious
                    > problems to be commented upon.

                    ... and:

                    > (I'm glad to notice that the fiction of the "exhausitive study" is
                    > dropped already in VT46, where CFH in his editorial invites
                    > readers to assist in finding further errors. The A&C article
                    > apparently wasn't the last word in
                    > Etym studies after all...)

                    That the A&C was meant as an exhaustive study of the Etymologies
                    is not a "fiction". It was as thorough as Carl and I could make it,
                    and if it contains oversights, e.g. not suggesting that _ránen_
                    might be read as _ránea_, Carl and I are addressing these issues
                    openly online. We are, after all, only human and thus capable of
                    oversight and error, no matter how careful and thorough we have
                    tried to be. Helge should try admitting this himself sometime
                    -- it's good for the soul.

                    But of course, Helge prefers instead to smirk and make snide comments,
                    claiming that there "remain quite a few obvious problems to be
                    commented upon" in the Etymologies. You would never know this to
                    read Helge's recently updated article "Probable Errors in the
                    Etymologies", which consists primarily of noting how _the A&C
                    answers the majority of questions that have been raised_ about
                    puzzling forms in the text as published in _The Lost Road_!
                    "Hostetter & Wynne concur...", "Hostetter & Wynne agree...", over
                    and over and over...

                    There are a few points on which Helge remains uncertain; he writes:

                    1.
                    "Hostetter & Wynne prefer the reading _egledhrim_, VT46:16. But
                    *_egledhruin_, later *_egledhryn_, would also be a possible plural
                    form of _egledhron_ 'exile'."

                    Maybe so, but there is NO doubt that the form in the Etymologies
                    reads _egledhrim_.

                    2.
                    "Dadhrin "Nandor" under NDAN should probably read *Dadhrim, given
                    that -rim is an ending used in the names of peoples; see RIM."

                    The form in the ms. is _Dadhrin_. See Lambengolmor posts 743, 745.

                    3.
                    "Another possible case of a missing nasal may be Quenya makar
                    "tradesman" (MBAKH)"

                    The form in the ms. is _makar_.

                    4.
                    "The form Duveledh *"Dark Elf" ... should undoubtedly read *Dureledh"

                    Absolutely not. Cf. the annotation to entry DO3-, DÔ in the A&C,
                    which notes the etymology "Duveledh = dômeleda" in the pencil
                    version of the entry. No problem, Helge is merely human and thus
                    capable of error and oversight.

                    5.
                    "Sindarin rhaes "horn" (RAS) must be a misreading for *rhass."

                    The form is _Noldorin_, not Sindarin (oopsie!), and appears in the
                    ms. to be _rhas_.

                    6.
                    "Another case of e for a may be sogennen as the past participle of
                    Sindarin sogo- "drink" (SUK); other examples of Sindarin participles
                    point rather to sogannen. "

                    No, the form _sogennen_ in the ms. is quite clearly written as such.

                    So, there are the six unanswered "obvious problems" that I found in
                    Helge's article, now answered. Six. Not exactly "quite a few", is it.

                    -- Patrick H. Wynne
                  • Carl F. Hostetter
                    ... Here we have yet another example (in a long series; collect them all!) of Helge s contempt for truth and the intelligence of his readers. Let s look again
                    Message 9 of 12 , Oct 19, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Oct 19, 2004, at 5:10 AM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:

                      > Concerning _ilya_, Carl F. Hostetter and Patrick H. Wynne wrote:
                      >
                      >> You are certainly free to have a preference in uncertain matters; but
                      >> there is nothing inherently superior to this preference.
                      >
                      > When Tolkien wrote _ilya_ and wrote the gloss "all" next to this word,
                      > I tend to assume that he knew what he was talking about, and that
                      > _ilya_ can indeed be used to translate English "all". Even if CFH & Co
                      > can ever produce any evidence that Tolkien at some (later?) conceptual
                      > stage considered the possibility that _ilya_ can be "pluralized" as
                      > _ilyar_, it will not change this fact.

                      Here we have yet another example (in a long series; collect them all!)
                      of Helge's contempt for truth and the intelligence of his readers.
                      Let's look again at what our comment, quoted above, was made in
                      response to:

                      > On Oct 13, 2004, at 7:16 AM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:
                      >
                      >> As for the suggestion that _ilya_ could receive the plural ending _-r_
                      >> --
                      >> well, I think it would be semantically superfluous.
                      >
                      > "Semantically correct" in no way implies "not superfluous" in _any_
                      > natural language; so this assessment in no more than a guess, based on
                      > your own language. It remains to be seen in what way(s) _Tolkien_
                      > thought of this matter (if ever). You are certainly free to have a
                      > preference in uncertain matters; but there is nothing inherently
                      > superior to this preference.

                      Notice that our comment about preference in uncertain matters was made
                      in response to Helge's assertion that pluralizing _ilya_ 'all', when
                      used as a noun, would be "semantically superfluous". Notice further
                      that precisely no one claimed that _ilya_ could _not_ be used to
                      translate 'all', though Helge now here pretends that we did. The issue
                      is not whether _ilya_ means 'all', as Helge seems honestly to think he
                      can dupe his reader into believing is the issue; rather, it is whether
                      pluralizing _ilya_ when used as a noun would indeed be "semantically
                      superfluous" as Helge asserts. When presented with the plain fact that
                      natural languages make little effort to avoid any such
                      "superfluousness" (nor does Quenya, which in fact has a number of
                      doubly pluralized case endings, which are by Helge's own criterion be
                      "semantically superfluous"), Helge responds by contemptuously
                      misdirecting the reader and lying once again about what is actually
                      under discussion and what was actually said.

                      He continues in this same rhetorical vein:

                      > Sounds very much like the principle I relied upon when I assumed that
                      > _vanta-_ can be used to translate "wander" even though Tolkien's gloss
                      > is strictly "walk", but in that case CFH/PHW seem quite convinced that
                      > "walk" is the one and only possible translation.

                      Circumventing Helge's reality distortion field, I remind the reader
                      that what we in fact said was:

                      > Do you _really_ think that, if the Tolkienian source of the translated
                      > quote was not known or did not exist, that _anyone_ would understand
                      > the sense of your translation [of Q _vanta-_ 'walk' as meaning
                      > 'wander'] as saying _anything_ other than "Not all those who walk
                      > stray"?

                      That is, that one can hardly expect anyone to share or discern Helge's
                      purely idiomatic, ad hoc "extension" of the meaning of Q _vanta-_
                      'walk' < BAT- 'tread' to include the meaning 'wander'. Could Q _vanta-_
                      cover other English glosses? Of course; but that was not the point. Is
                      it possible that it Tolkien could elsewhere or privately have himself
                      included even Helge's ad hoc meaning 'wander' in the verb? Yes (though
                      it looks thoroughly unlikely). But again, that was not the point. The
                      point was, that no one would ever _interpret_ it as meaning 'wander'
                      unless Helge _told_ them that is what he is using it to mean.

                      Once again, rather than simply admit to making a poor choice, or even
                      just to address the issue fairly and on its own terms, Helge expends
                      every effort to dupe his readers and justify his mistakes, including
                      lying about what the issue really is and what others actually said, in
                      utter contempt for both the facts and for his readers.

                      Carl
                    • Helge K. Fauskanger
                      ... fiction . It was as thorough as Carl and I could make it, and if it contains oversights, e.g. not suggesting that _ránen_ might be read as _ránea_, Carl
                      Message 10 of 12 , Oct 20, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Patrick H. Wynne wrote:

                        > That the A&C was meant as an exhaustive study of the Etymologies is not a
                        "fiction". It was as thorough as Carl and I could make it, and if it
                        contains oversights, e.g. not suggesting that _ránen_ might be read as
                        _ránea_, Carl and I are addressing these issues openly online. We are,
                        after all, only human and thus capable of oversight and error, no matter
                        how careful and thorough we have tried to be.

                        Here we are: the A&C article was MEANT to be an exhaustive study. If it had
                        been really exhaustive, there would have been nothing more to say, no more
                        forms to correct or comment upon. But...there are.

                        I don't doubt that you and Hostetter did the best job you could. Yet the
                        editorial should have said that the article was "BY INTENTION exhaustive",
                        or something to that effect - the editors humbly acknowledging the fact
                        that they are "only human and thus capable of oversight and error, no
                        matter how careful and thorough [they] have tried to be". Good for the
                        soul, right?

                        Instead the article was presented as exhaustive, period, no reservations
                        whatsoever. Hubris. A sure recipe for embarrassment.

                        - HKF
                      • Patrick H. Wynne
                        ... Being accused of hubris by Helge Fauskanger is like being accused of lewd conduct by a twenty-dollar whore. -- Patrick H. Wynne
                        Message 11 of 12 , Oct 20, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Helge K. Fauskanger" smarmed:

                          > Instead the article was presented as exhaustive, period, no
                          > reservations whatsoever. Hubris. A sure recipe for embarrassment.

                          Being accused of hubris by Helge Fauskanger is like being accused
                          of lewd conduct by a twenty-dollar whore.

                          -- Patrick H. Wynne
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.