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

Re: [LDB] "Canonical" Quenya and Quettahostanie

Expand Messages
  • eluchil404
    ... As long as they are clearly marked as newly coined words, I think it is a limited concern. Indeed, with the current design of the database , it is
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 24, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Carl Hostetter wrote:

      > [As will come as a surprise to no one, I vehemently oppose any notion of
      > allowing non-Tolkienian coinages into any serious database of Tolkien's
      > languages. Things have gotten confused enough already, with rampant
      > failure to distinguish data and fact from theory and invention. Carl]

      As long as they are clearly marked as newly coined words, I think it is a
      limited concern. Indeed, with the current design of the 'database', it is
      possible to ignore all such forms completely. Whether such coinages should
      be considered Quenya at all, is a thorny theoretical problem that I do not
      wish to delve into. Suffice it to say that a dictionary, which is what
      this database certainly looks like to me, designed for a wide variety of
      both scholarly and non-scholarly uses can, in my opinion, fairly include
      them as long as they are clearly marked out.

      Cirk R. Bejnar

      [See my comments appended to Bill Welden's post, just approved. If
      inauthentic forms are permitted at all, then you simply cannot avoid
      the "thorny theoretical problem" of "whether such coinages should be
      considered Quenya", unless you want to allow anyone to add anything
      they please to the database (and are prepared to trust that they will
      mark inauthentic forms as such). Carl]
    • Beregond. Anders Stenström
      ... This sense of canonical is an accident of modern critical jargon. It is not listed in the American Heritage Dictionary. There, canonical is said to
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 25, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Carl Hostetter replied to Bill Welden:


        > [First: I find nowhere a definition of "canonical" that distinguishes
        > between published and unpublished state. The usual use of the term in
        > the general literary context is synonymous with "authentic", i.e., coming
        > from the author's pen.

        This sense of "canonical" is an accident of modern critical
        jargon. It is not listed in the American Heritage Dictionary. There,
        "canonical" is said to mean: "1. Pertaining to, required by, or
        abiding by canon law. 2. Of or appearing in the Biblical canon.
        3. Authoritative; officially approved; orthodox." Sense 3 is the one
        Bill relied on (if I did not misunderstand), and it seemed a good
        word-choice to me.

        > If you mean "published" (sc., during the author's
        > lifetime, and thus with his approval), why not say that, . . . ?

        Because that long _scilicet_ is not obvious from the bare word.

        > Second: inclusion of inauthentic forms will require a vetting process far
        > more complicated than that needed if only authentic forms are permitted.

        I agree totally: it would be to invite complications. Keeping the
        project as uncomplicated as possible makes it more likely to actually
        come off.

        Meneg suilaid,

        Beregond
      • Petri Tikka
        ... Not adding inauthentic forms would make it easier, but so would not adding inauthentic analysis, inauthentic singular forms, inauthentic undeclined
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 25, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In lambengolmor@y..., Beregond. Anders Stenström <beregond@u...> wrote:

          > Carl Hostetter replied to Bill Welden:

          >> Second: inclusion of inauthentic forms will require a vetting process
          >> far more complicated than that needed if only authentic forms are
          >> permitted.
          >
          > I agree totally: it would be to invite complications. Keeping the
          > project as uncomplicated as possible makes it more likely to actually
          > come off.
          >
          > Meneg suilaid,
          >
          > Beregond

          Not adding "inauthentic" forms would make it easier, but so would not
          adding "inauthentic" analysis, "inauthentic" singular forms, "inauthentic"
          undeclined forms, "inauthentic" synonyms, "inauthentic" antonyms, etc..
          It would enlarge the possibility of this project ever coming to fruit,
          but it would also make it much poorer. The "vetting process" would
          be difficult, but the making of linguistical databases is, by definition,
          _extremely hard_. The vetting process would be eased by adding,
          to all non-Tolkienian forms, complete analysis and basis for the "new
          words" from attested writings.

          Petri Tikka Helsinki, Finland
          kari.j.tikka@...
          http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/
        • John Garth
          ... That is why, as an initial stage (which would itself take a very long time), no such analysis or forms ought to be included in a Tolkienian linguistic
          Message 4 of 6 , Jul 25, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            on 25/7/02 1:22 pm, Petri Tikka at kari.j.tikka@... wrote:

            > Not adding "inauthentic" forms would make it easier, but so would not
            > adding "inauthentic" analysis, "inauthentic" singular forms, "inauthentic"
            > undeclined forms, "inauthentic" synonyms, "inauthentic" antonyms, etc..
            > It would enlarge the possibility of this project ever coming to fruit,
            > but it would also make it much poorer.

            That is why, as an initial stage (which would itself take a very long time),
            no such analysis or forms ought to be included in a Tolkienian linguistic
            database. Surely the best methodology is to gather as much data as possible
            before extrapolating from it.

            Anyone so inclined could provide analysis and extrapolation elsewhere. That
            way, you would have the most reliable catalogue of the Tolkienian languages
            possible; and elsewhere you would have commentaries plainly distinguishable
            from it, whose authors could take responsibility for their own work.

            In my abortive database I included, at the most, an indication that a word
            was, for example, a plural form or a noun when it was (to my mind)
            indisputable from the context but would be unclear out of context. (This was
            relatively easy, in the vast majority of cases, because the context was
            generally English rather than, say, Quenya.)

            The process of creating a thesaurus, which _Quettahostanie_ appears
            encompass, seems to me quite alien to the aims of a linguistic catalogue,
            and should also be kept separate.

            John Garth
          • Kai MacTane
            ... It s certainly possible for us to simply start loading attested Tolkienian forms into QH as it stands, and not bother with compounded/coined
            Message 5 of 6 , Jul 26, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              At 7/25/02 10:07 AM , John Garth wrote:

              >That is why, as an initial stage (which would itself take a very long time),
              >no such analysis or forms ought to be included in a Tolkienian linguistic
              >database. Surely the best methodology is to gather as much data as possible
              >before extrapolating from it.

              It's certainly possible for us to simply start loading attested Tolkienian
              forms into QH as it stands, and not bother with compounded/coined
              (post-Tolkienian) material until later (if at all). Just because the
              capability is there doesn't mean we have to use it immediately. However:

              >Anyone so inclined could provide analysis and extrapolation elsewhere. That
              >way, you would have the most reliable catalogue of the Tolkienian languages
              >possible; and elsewhere you would have commentaries plainly distinguishable
              >from it, whose authors could take responsibility for their own work.

              There is a certain level of utility in having things centralized, and hence
              easily searchable through one interface. Granted, this is of no particular
              use for the academic community. But for the Quenya-composition folks, it
              would be nice to be able to search for attested Tolkienian words *and*
              newer coinages all at once. (Also note that QH will display Tolkien's forms
              higher up in the results than the non-Tolkien forms, all other things being
              equal -- for more details, see the guide to search results in the
              documentation. Essentially, it depends on just what the user enters as
              search terms, but attestation level is the second-level sort criterion.)

              >The process of creating a thesaurus, which _Quettahostanie_ appears
              >encompass, seems to me quite alien to the aims of a linguistic catalogue,
              >and should also be kept separate.

              I'm a bit confused by how QH acts as a thesaurus -- do you mean the listing
              of synonyms? I had actually intended that to be a bit more of a research
              tool; there are places where it can be useful to compare and contrast
              different words that refer to similar or identical things.

              --Kai MacTane
              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
              "Wind in wings,/Two angels falling
              To die like this/With a last kiss..."
              --Siouxsie and the
              Banshees,
              "Face to Face"
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.