--- In email@example.com
, "Wayne G.
Hammond" <Wayne.G.Hammond@...> wrote:
> and from "edition" in the textual
> sense, as when we refer to the "first edition text" and "second
> text" of LR.
Okay-- but then (just to keep things confusing)- even in this
third (authorial) definition, which I think is the operative one,
can we meaningfully define the ur-Second Edition as "what Tolkien
intended in 1965"? Or do the many errors that persisted, and
CRT's periodic "consistency" emendations, obviate such a
definition? And is it sensible to refer to the first Anderson as
the "3rd Edition" and your 50th as the "4th Edition", in the same
way that one hears of the "4th Edition" Hobbit- texts attempting
to restore a theoretical pre-existing state, rather than create a