I've accumulated a fair backlog of reported errata, which I'm consolidating
here into a single post. My thanks to all who have spotted these
errors and reported them.
This is a good time to remind people of the E.L.F. Errata web-page,
which contains a list of all confirmed errata reported to me for both
_VT_ and _Parma_, compiled and maintained by Per Lindberg:
Please continue to report errata to me and Per at: errata@...
Diego SeguÌ notes the following:
In VT36:25, second paragraph, it is speculated that "primitive _3o_
could account for the ending..."; shouldn't this read _3Ù_ [macron]
instead? Two lines below the hypothetical form which includes it is
[For the greatest clarity, yes, it would have been best to cite the
putative ending as _-3Ù_ (with macron); though at some point this
would have been reduced to _-3o_ by the regular shortening of
original final long vowels. CFH]
In VT49:6-7 and 17-18 there must be something wrong with _lasir_ vs.
_lasÌr_: on pages 17-18 it says that AS1 had _lasi_, then _la lasir_
[short] was added above, and then _la_ and _lasi_ were struck out,
"leaving just _lasir_ (with long _Ì_)" (!) On the other hand, page 7
says that in AS3 _lasÌr_ [long] >> _˚sir_, but according to page 18
this version "had _lasir_ [short] as first written, emended to _˚sir_".
[The parenthetical comment "(with long _Ì_)" in the note on AS1 (p.
18) is indeed an error; omit the comment. In AS3, the form as first
written is very clearly _lasÌr_, and the note on p. 7 is correct; the
note on p. 18 is in error, and should read "had _lasÌr_ as first
written" etc. CFH]
In VT49:19 _Tintalle_ should be _TintallÎ_ (with diaeresis), since it
is the text of LR that is being quoted.
[Correct. Read _TintallÎ_. CFH]
In VT49:23 is _numenna_ the correct reading, instead of _n˙menna_?
There is no comment on this short _u_ in _n˙men_ 'west', but the only
other occurrences in related words that I can find are _numenda_ and
_numenda-_ in PE12:68 (apart from _Numenorean_ in early editions of LR).
[The reading _numenna_ is correct. When writing hastily -- as he
definitely was in this glossary -- Tolkien did not always supply
In VT49:35 the base WA-N- from Etym. is quoted with a short A,
whereas according to VT46:21 the correct reading is W¬-N- [macron]
(besides, the parenthesis that follows says "probably <
[Correct. Read W¬-N- (with macron) and add citation of VT46:21. CFH]
In VT49:45 the root √_ber-_ appears with a hyphen in Tolkien's quote,
but as √_ber_ in the next line, without the hyphen; read √_ber-_?
[Tolkien cites it both ways, but for editorial consistency I ought
indeed to have cited it as √_ber-_. CFH]
In VT49:48 _lumissen_ should be _l˙missen_, as the word appears on
the previous page.
[Correct. Read _l˙missen_. CFH]
In VT49:48 "endings (_kse_, _kser_, _kset_)" should use hyphens
"endings (_-kse_, _-kser_, _-kset_"), as these appear in the table
below (or have the hyphens been added editorially in the table?)
[The hyphens were indeed supplied editorially, as the forms,
beginning with _ks_, cannot be anything else in Quenya (and since,
again when writing hastily as here, Tolkien was not himself
consistent in providing such hyphens). I should note here that in my
editorial notes and commentary I will often cite in unmodified form
such forms as I have tidied editorially in their presentation of
Tolkien's text, and without comment, when the change is so minor as
Similarly, In VT49:49 "1 pl. incl. gen. _lmo_" should read "1 pl.
incl. gen. _-lmo_" with a hyphen (this is not quoting the table, but
decomposing _omentielmo_, and the argument continues "implies poss. _-
[Correct. Read _-lmo_. CFH]
In VT49:52, note 1, _tengwea_ should be _tengwÎa_, as the form
appears on pages 54-5 (note _-wÎa_ on p. 48).
[Correct. Read _tengwÎa_. CFH]
Merlin DeTardo notes the following:
PE17:6 first full paragraph, seventh line of that paragraph: "so that
Tolkien is translated ancalima 'brightest, very bright'".
[Read "so that Tolkien translated". CFH]
PE17: 8, fourth full paragraph, first line of that paragraph: "the
content of a dozen loose sheets place together".
[Read "placed together". CFH]
Fredrik Strˆm notes the following:
PE17:10 For "for some the terminology for which Tolkien assumes a
knowledge", read "for some of the terminology for which
Tolkien assumes a knowledge"
PE17:10 For "interested in lingistics" read "interested in linguistics"
PE17:15 The editor writes that in _RC_ 'the entry for _Sarn Ford_
gives the Sindarin form as
_Sarn-thrad_ (p. 775)'. It should be noted that an erratum for this
typo has been published at
(entry for page 775).
PE17:96 s.v. _Araw_, the reference to 'a note on _Earendil_' should
read 'see I 246' (not I 380).
PE17:165 Since the list of "Eldarin Roots and Stems" is intended to
be complete with cross-reference entries to all of the roots cited,
the following item should be added to the list: (note: <TH> should
be spelled with a capital thorn):
MI<TH>- [See I 394, s.v. _sinda_]
PE17:220 The following item should be added to the "List of
NT = "Notes and Translations" (in _The Road Goes Ever On_)
And finally, two of my own:
In VT49:40 I cite the "inscription Tolkien made for his erstwhile
student Elaine Griffiths (1909-1996), in her copy of the first
edition of _The Lord of the Rings_, which reads: '_Elainen t·rin
Periondion ar meldenya any·ran_'".
That should of course read _Periandion_.
In PE17:126 we read: "_-nt_, Sindarin past of transitive verb. _-ir_
intransitive. _agarfast_, he talked. _agarfant beth_, he spoke
words." Editor Christopher Gilson further notes that: "A letter,
probably an _s_, was added in pencil above the ending _-ir_."
I've looked at my (second-generation) photocopy of this manuscript
and, to my eyes, it is possible to read this "_-ir_" as a very poorly
formed _-st_, in which the _s_ is a barely curvy, nearly vertical
stroke, and the top of the _t_ is formed just above and just to the
right of this _s_, curving right and down, with the cross of the
"_t_" looping out in one continuous stroke (very like the branch of
an _r_, it must be noted). If so, then the _s_ that Tolkien wrote
above this was a clarification to himself of his own handwriting
(something he occasionally had to do!). Given this, and given the
occurrence of _st_ in the form cited immediately afterwards as an
example of this intransitive ending, the possibility of reading this
as _-st_ should be noted.
However, it must also be noted that Christopher Gilson, who gives the
reading from his _first_-generation photocopy, maintains that the
correct reading is indeed _-ir_.