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

Re: [elfscript] translation help

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.