Re: [elfscript] Re: name transcription
- On Jun 14, 2004, at 11:52 AM, i_degilbor wrote:
> Teithant Calwen Rûdh:Well _that_ response is _surely_ going to a) be helpful and b) promote
>> --- In email@example.com, "laurifindil" <ejk@f...> wrote:
>>> No, not Quenya at all. Quenya is a language made up by Pr
>>> not by Mr Bican.
>>> Tyultare is a _Mish-mash_ word made up by a "fan"; it is
>>> Tolkien's languages.
>> What would you suggest then? :)
> He wouldn't suggest anything. Edouard's only joy on Elfscript is to
> complain about attempts by anyone other than Tolkien.
> Cuio mae, Danny.
Whatever flaws Edouard's tone may have, there is an indisputable core
to what he says; and the failure to recognize this truth is betrayed by
response: for _any_ poorly attested language, like Quenya and Sindarin
Etruscan and Gothic and so on and on and on, the only correct answer to
translation questions will be, "we don't know". The fact that almost
that, but instead simply makes up "the" answer, and presents it as
though it were
not entirely hypothetical and as though it were secure and certain and
is a _major_ defect of the whole "Neo-Elvish" phenomenon, at least so
far as it
pretends to be based on Tolkien's languages.
I remind everyone that the original question was: "Would the correct
transcribe my name [Stacy] into quenya be Tyultare?" This question
presumes three things that are indisputably untrue: first, that
there is a single, complete, authoritative "Quenya"; second, that
_tyultare_ is an attested "Quenya" form; and second, that this
(and any other) question can be gauged against this non-existent
"Quenya" to judge grammatical correctness of any and all sentences,
forms, and constructions. Lucy's answer, relying as it does on Ales
Bican's site as the authority, gives the false impression that
_tyultare_ is both authoritative and Quenya; when in fact neither
is true. Edouard's response may come across as abrasive, but at
least it has the virtue of being at its core factual. Lucy's
response may have seemed helpful to the questioner -- and for their
purposes, was probably perfectly helpful, as concern for authenticity
and for the standards by which correctness is judged (that is, aside
from "somebody has it on their site, somewhere") are barely in evidence
among the "Neo-"crowd); but it was (unintentionally, I am quite sure)
also quite misleading, and false.
For the record, and to reiterate: the only _correct_ answer to the
original question is: we don't know.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]