146Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: [LDB] "Canonical" Quenya and Quettahostanie
- Jul 26 1:14 PMAt 7/24/02 05:44 PM , williamwelden wrote:
> > _always_ cite forms found in those texts that were incorporatedAnd it's my hope that QH can be of service to both groups.
> > in _The Silmarillion_ from the original texts as presented in
> > _The History of Middle-earth_.
>A fine practice from the standpoint of scholarship. It does emphasize
>that "canonicity" is of more interest to those trying to speculate on
>what Tolkien would eventually have done with Quenya than to those who
>are trying to set out clearly what he did do.
>If your point is that Silmarillion shouldn't be considered canonical,I'm getting the strong impression, at this point, that I should demote the
Silmarillion to "unpublished" status.
>I would argue for categorizing entries as canonical or not. It mightI personally feel that the distinction can be even mushier than that, and
>be possible to create an additional, slightly weaker distinction
>like "this bit was approved for publication by Christopher Tolkien,
>and we believe that he believed that Tolkien would have published it
>in the same form", but I think the distinction itself is
have wound up dividing things into rather a few "grades" of mushiness
(seven, to be exact, though only five refer to actual Tolkien-attested words).
> "Canonical" is crisp (though I could imagine situations inAnd indeed, the broad "attestation levels" can certainly be ignored by
>which we might disagree about it).
>As for inclusion of material invented by others, I think we ought to
>acknowlege that different people will want to use this database for
>different purposes, and honor everyone's interest. If the entries are
>clearly marked with a provenience and "attestation level" the
>database will serve the purposes of scholarship just as well as if
>the entries had never been included.
those of a more scholarly bent, who will simply look at the direct
attestations included in each entry. As QH currently stands:
1) Anything non-Tolkienian will be clearly marked as either "coined"
or "compounded", and this marker will be quite noticeable in an
individual entry, or any search or browse results;
2) The colors of orange and red were chosen specifically to give a
feeling of "danger" about those entries;
3) Non-Tolkien material will not even show up in a search unless the
user goes to the advanced search page and selects a lower attestation
level cutoff point. By default, both simple and advanced searches
search only the "published", "unpublished", and "derived" forms.
(Though browse results will display all levels.)
At the moment, I have only one non-Tolkienian word entered in the database:
_curweahuo_, a compound I put together to mean "coyote". I'm curious to
know how many of you have even noticed that entry. Short of an advanced
search with the attest level cutoff set to "compounded" or "coined", it
will only show up if you browse nouns or animals. In both cases, it should
stick out like a sore thumb, with that bright orange "C" standing out from
the blue "P"s and green "U"s.
But there is one major reason why I'd like to keep the attestation levels:
they form an easy way to track the general level of a word's "canonicality"
in search and browse results. By displaying a single icon that fits into
one of a few categories, I can quickly give the user a general idea of how
well attested the element is, without having to try to fit every detail of
the element's attestation onto one screen. Could I program QH to dump the
entire "Attestations" field into search results? Sure! But the result would
be a visual nightmare.
>Second: inclusion of inauthentic forms will require a vetting process farI had been planning on simply grabbing the words from the PPQ, pending
>more complicated than that needed if only authentic forms are permitted.
>(What value will the database of inauthentic forms have if anyone can
>contribute any forms whatsoever? But if you don't allow that, then what
>persons will decide what does or does not get in, and on what criteria?
>And who will decide who decides, and what the criteria are?)
Boris' approval. I'm not sure what his criteria are, but they seem to serve
the needs of the community.
>That, and the additional properties needed to mark and characterizeActually, given the presence of the attestation level field to begin with
>authentic vs. inauthentic entries in the database, will impart (needless,
>in my opinion) complexity (to say nothing of bloat) to the database and
>its design and compilation. Carl]
(to separate words like _elen_ (which appear in many places, published by
Tolkien) from those like _ñarmo_ (which TTBOMK, appears only in _Etym._,
and hence JRRT never though it would see the light of day) -- anyway, given
the presence and utility of such a field to begin with, it's trivial to
extend the number of options in that field to include another setting for
_curweahuo_ and the like.
"Lucretia, my reflection, dance the ghost with me."
--Sisters of Mercy,
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>