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

_Huorn_ and _huine_ ?

Expand Messages
  • lambertiana
    Hello, Is there a linguistic reason why the _hu-_ in _Huorn_ might not be semantically connected to that in _huine_ gloom, darkness (S 358)? Searching the
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 17, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      Is there a linguistic reason why the _hu-_ in _Huorn_ might not be semantically connected
      to that in _huine_ 'gloom, darkness' (S 358)? Searching the archives to this list, I see that
      all discussion about _hu-_ in the context of _Huorn_ deals with the quality of speech or at
      least vocalization.

      Although the ability to speak was a defining characteristic of Huorns in early drafts (VIII
      47-55), and this ability is still mentioned in the final text of LR (LR 551), the ability to
      speak is hardly relevant in the narrative context of the final text. In the final text, Huorns
      are defined by their ambiguity (second only perhaps to their ability to uproot and travel).
      They move in shadow, vaguely heard or sensed but not seen (no one actually sees them
      move, except perhaps the Ents: LR 551, 539; Merry says "they seem to be able to wrap
      themselves in shadow" [LR 551]). In the only scene where readers get a good look at
      Huorns (standing still), "the great aisles of the wood were already wrapped in dusk,
      stretching away into impenetrable shadows" (LR 533).

      Another aspect of the Huorns' ambiguity is that no one seems to know quite what they are
      (Ents that have become like trees? Trees that have become like Ents?); early drafts
      demonstrate that Tolkien himself vacillated on the issue (VIII 47-55). Even the final text is
      not definitive. Merry and Treebeard, each speaking with considerable uncertainty,
      contradict one another: Merry thinks that Huorns "are Ents that have become almost like
      trees" (LR 551), yet Treebeard speaks of trees "getting Entish" (LR 457).

      A further semantic connection to _huine_ may lie in the suggestion that Huorns are "queer
      and wild. Dangerous" (LR 551, per Merry). Treebeard explains that, when a tree gets
      Entish, "you find that some have bad hearts," alluding to "some very black patches" around
      Fangorn (LR 457). Treebeard connects these negative points to "some shadow of the Great
      Darkness" which still lingers in the area.

      I am aware that Tolkien glosses the earlier names for Huorns as "Talking Trees" (VIII 47,
      50), but I wonder whether the intended meaning of the name may have changed as the
      Huorns' role in the narrative evolved. Given the narrative context in the final text of LR,
      there seems to be good reason to gloss the _hu_ in _Huorn_ with some suggestion of
      'gloom, darkness' or perhaps 'shadow.'

      I am a Tolkien scholar but not a linguist by any means, so please forgive me if I am
      making a linguistically ridiculous suggestion. One potential obstacle I see is that _Huorn_
      is a Sindarin word (per Jim Allen 1978) and _huine_ is Quenya (S 358); can a justification
      be found in the way in which the Ents use both forms of Elvish (LR 1105)? If the mixing of
      languages in this instance is permissible, I wonder whether "ui" treated as a dipthong
      might be a problem?

      Your input is much appreciated.

      - Cynthia Cohen
    • Roman Rausch
      ... That very paragraph actually contains a clear explanation of the name: They still have voices, and can speak with the Ents – that is why they are called
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 29, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        A late answer, but nevertheless:

        >Although the ability to speak was a defining characteristic of Huorns
        >in early drafts (VIII 47-55), and this ability is still mentioned in
        >the final text of LR (LR 551), the ability to speak is hardly relevant
        >in the narrative context of the final text. In the final text, Huorns
        >are defined by their ambiguity (second only perhaps to their ability
        >to uproot and travel). They move in shadow, vaguely heard or sensed
        >but not seen (no one actually sees them move, except perhaps the Ents:
        >LR 551, 539; Merry says "they seem to be able to wrap themselves
        >in shadow" [LR 551]).

        That very paragraph actually contains a clear explanation of the name:
        'They still have voices, and can speak with the Ents – that is why
        they are called Huorns, Treebeard says'

        >One potential obstacle I see is that _Huorn_
        >is a Sindarin word (per Jim Allen 1978) and _huine_ is Quenya (S 358)

        Yes, that'a point. Original aspirated PH becomes _h_ before _u_ in
        Quenya only. PHUY- yields Q. _Fui_, _Hui_ 'Night' as well as _fuine_,
        _huine_ 'deep shadow', but N. _fuin_ only (V:382).

        >If the mixing of languages in this instance is permissible, I wonder
        >whether "ui" treated as a dipthong might be a problem?

        Oh yes, it is, there is no known mechanism to simplify a diphthong
        like that. Examples of hybrid Quenya/Sindarin words do exist, e.g. Q.
        _Ondohir_ which substitutes _-hir_ 'lord' from S. _hîr_, pure Quenya
        would be _Ondoher_ (XII:210). But also given _#hu-_ instead of _*hui_
        the possibility of a derivation from PHUY- just doesn't appear likely
        by Occam's razor.

        Still, your guess was not unreasonable. Tolkien apparently considered
        an element _hô_ 'spirit, shadow' (PE17:86) > *S. _hû_ as a possibility
        among others, although the translation is not very readable. Look here
        for a quick discussion (use the browser search to get to _Huorns_):
        http://sindanorie.lima-city.de/RS&TI&WR.htm

        But one should note that Tolkien wrote down almost every possible
        retrospective interpretation for a lot of LR names and it's seldom
        clear in favour of which possibility he decided (if he did at all). In
        any case, earlier variants are a helpful means of analysis, often
        showing the original intention for the meaning of a name. In this case
        it's clearly 'talking trees'.

        Roman Rausch
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.