--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "Galadhorn Elvellon"
> Recently I have found new adjective _paran_ 'smooth, shaven (often
> applied to hills ?without trees)', cf. _Dol Baran_ *'Shaven (i.e.
> deprived of trees) Hill' (RC:433).
Just to clarify for the benefit of list members who do not yet have
a copy of RC: Tolkien's index gives "_Paran_ smooth, shaven (often
applied to hills ?without trees), cf. _Dol Baran_." The subsequent
gloss *'Shaven (i.e. deprived of trees) Hill' is Ryszard's rendition.
I would propose *'Smooth (i.e. treeless) Hill' as well. There is no
reason to necessarily assume that Dol Baran was "deprived of trees";
it may have always been treeless. But there is of course the
implication of 'shaven' as a purely visual metaphor: a treeless
hilltop resembles a tonsured head. This is an image that clearly
appealed to Tolkien; cp. the "green hill-top, treeless, rising like a
bald head out of the encircling wood" encountered by the Hobbits
in the Old Forest, a hill around which the forest stood "like thick
hair that ended sharply in a circle round a shaven crown" (LR:113).
> The book also provides us with Tolkien's explanation of the word
> _huorn_ (RC:425). It contains the stem KHUG- 'bark, bay' (V:365) (!)
Actually, Ryszard's wording here is misleading -- the RC only says
that the first element in _Huorn_ "could be" KHUG-; this is Hammond
and Scull's statement, not Tolkien's. They add that this derivation
"appears to be supported" by unpublished etymological notes; again,
note that Hammond and Scull's cautious wording indicates that we are
dealing here with a still-uncertain _possibility_, not any flat and
definitive statement that _huorn_ contains KHUG- 'bark, bay'. In
our rush of enthusiasm for this new material in the RC, we must
be careful not to distort the facts in reporting them!
Finally, if I may don my moderatorial hat -- I would also request,
since this list is devoted to scholarly rather than fannish discussion,
that contributors please sign their posts with their real names, in
addition to whatever Elvish appellations they choose to go by. It
would be greatly appreciated!
[I second that, and would further ask that we not use the Elvish
names at all -- this is a scholarly, not fannish, list, and we should
comport ourselves accordingly. -- CFH]
-- Patrick H. Wynne