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

Expand Messages
  • rodetrip2003
    Aiya, Estanya Rob. Meln quetil sina ar estel hostuvan vinyandili. (Hail, my name is Rob. I love (Mel-n) this language and hope I shall meet (host-uva-n) new
    Message 1 of 18 , Mar 20, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Aiya, Estanya Rob. Meln quetil sina ar estel hostuvan vinyandili.

      (Hail, my name is Rob. I love (Mel-n) this language and hope I shall
      meet (host-uva-n) new friends (vinya-ndili). Please post me if i'm
      incorrect. That's why I've joined!
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      Here s something that has puzzled me for a very long time now. Why is there such a pronounced tendency in Neo-Quenya to form compound words like
      Message 2 of 18 , Mar 22, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Here's something that has puzzled me for a very long time now. Why is
        there such a pronounced tendency in "Neo-Quenya" to form compound words
        like **_vinyandili_ 'new-friends'?

        My own theory is that this tendency reflects the general deficiency (to
        put it mildly) of "Neo-Quenya" as a language: because the utilitarian
        is placed ahead of attestation and aesthetics both, the desire to
        translate into "Neo-Quenya" leads inexorably to the construction of
        phrasal words (e.g., *_airahoselle_ 'little holy band', intended to
        mean 'cult', to pick just the first example of many in chief exemplar
        William Womack's latest "Neo-Quenya" vocabulary list), due to the
        formation and direct translation of paraphrases.

        I think there can be no doubt that Tolkien would have found such
        constructions to be entirely alien to his language.

        Can somebody remind me again why "Neo-Quenya" is intrinsically superior
        to the universally reviled "Grelvish"?


        Carl Hostetter

        --------

        On Mar 20, 2004, at 1:03 PM, rodetrip2003 wrote:

        > Aiya, Estanya Rob. Meln quetil sina ar estel hostuvan vinyandili.
        >
        > (Hail, my name is Rob. I love (Mel-n) this language and hope I shall
        > meet (host-uva-n) new friends (vinya-ndili). Please post me if i'm
        > incorrect. That's why I've joined!
      • Atwe
        ... I get your point, Carl, but I think you are being a little too harsh. William s rather pointless exercises quite differ from formations like this
        Message 3 of 18 , Mar 22, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:
          > Here's something that has puzzled me for a very long
          > time now. Why is
          > there such a pronounced tendency in "Neo-Quenya" to
          > form compound words
          > like **_vinyandili_ 'new-friends'?
          >
          > My own theory is that this tendency reflects the
          > general deficiency (to
          > put it mildly) of "Neo-Quenya" as a language:
          > because the utilitarian
          > is placed ahead of attestation and aesthetics both,
          > the desire to
          > translate into "Neo-Quenya" leads inexorably to the
          > construction of
          > phrasal words (e.g., *_airahoselle_ 'little holy
          > band', intended to
          > mean 'cult', to pick just the first example of many
          > in chief exemplar
          > William Womack's latest "Neo-Quenya" vocabulary
          > list), due to the
          > formation and direct translation of paraphrases.
          >
          > I think there can be no doubt that Tolkien would
          > have found such
          > constructions to be entirely alien to his language.
          >
          > Can somebody remind me again why "Neo-Quenya" is
          > intrinsically superior
          > to the universally reviled "Grelvish"?
          >
          >
          > Carl Hostetter
          >

          I get your point, Carl, but I think you are being a
          little too harsh. William's rather pointless exercises
          quite differ from formations like this "vinyandil",
          which is IMHO the result of not really understanding
          how grammar works. This is much like when somebody
          hastily reads a book "Teach Yourself Japanese in 5
          Days" and then tries to converse with a bunch of
          Japanese tourists.

          Shine on,

          =====
          Thomas Ferencz

          "Manuel!!!
          Que?
          I'm so sorry, he's from Barcelona."

          __________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
          http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
        • rob
          I really don t know about this, Carl F, but compound phrases are used in Tolkien s books. eg. Hiruvan (if that s the sort of thing you re refering to). I
          Message 4 of 18 , Mar 22, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            I really don't know about this, Carl F, but compound phrases are used
            in Tolkien's books. eg. "Hiruvan" (if that's the sort of thing
            you're refering to). I think the reason people create long compounds
            like the one you mentioned for "cult" is that the quenya dictionary
            is incomplete so such phrases must be formed. On the other hand, I
            may not have a clue what I'm talking about!

            (please excuse the prominent use of the english language in this
            post, Mr. owner. Avatyarn.)




            In quenya@yahoogroups.com, Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@e...> wrote:
            > Here's something that has puzzled me for a very long time now. Why
            is
            > there such a pronounced tendency in "Neo-Quenya" to form compound
            words
            > like **_vinyandili_ 'new-friends'?
            >
            > My own theory is that this tendency reflects the general deficiency
            (to
            > put it mildly) of "Neo-Quenya" as a language: because the
            utilitarian
            > is placed ahead of attestation and aesthetics both, the desire to
            > translate into "Neo-Quenya" leads inexorably to the construction of
            > phrasal words (e.g., *_airahoselle_ 'little holy band', intended to
            > mean 'cult', to pick just the first example of many in chief
            exemplar
            > William Womack's latest "Neo-Quenya" vocabulary list), due to the
            > formation and direct translation of paraphrases.
            >
            > I think there can be no doubt that Tolkien would have found such
            > constructions to be entirely alien to his language.
            >
            > Can somebody remind me again why "Neo-Quenya" is intrinsically
            superior
            > to the universally reviled "Grelvish"?
            >
            >
            > Carl Hostetter
            >
            > --------
            >
            > On Mar 20, 2004, at 1:03 PM, rodetrip2003 wrote:
            >
            > > Aiya, Estanya Rob. Meln quetil sina ar estel hostuvan vinyandili.
            > >
            > > (Hail, my name is Rob. I love (Mel-n) this language and hope I
            shall
            > > meet (host-uva-n) new friends (vinya-ndili). Please post me if
            i'm
            > > incorrect. That's why I've joined!
          • Carl F. Hostetter
            ... Actually, no, that s not the sort of thing I m talking about. That is simply the normal way to form verbs with subject markers (well, except that I don t
            Message 5 of 18 , Mar 22, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mar 22, 2004, at 3:53 PM, rob wrote:

              > I really don't know about this, Carl F, but compound phrases are used
              > in Tolkien's books. eg. "Hiruvan" (if that's the sort of thing
              > you're refering to).

              Actually, no, that's not the sort of thing I'm talking about. That is
              simply the normal way to form verbs with subject markers (well, except
              that I don't think we ever see shortened forms of subject endings with
              the future tense, but they might be permissible in the language). I'm
              talking about compound nouns and other such phrasal words.

              > I think the reason people create long compounds like the one you
              > mentioned for "cult" is that the quenya dictionary is incomplete so
              > such phrases must be formed.

              Right, that's my own thought. The problem is that the resulting
              "Neo-Quenya" is so un-Quenya-like that it can hardly be considered
              Tolkienian at all.

              Let me expand on this a bit. The goal of "Neo-Quenya" seems to be to
              convey meaning, _by any means possible_, frequently using elements
              found in Tolkien but freely mixing them, gluing them together into
              phrasal and kenning words, stretching and distorting the semantic
              ranges of roots and words (sometimes seemingly infinitely, and beyond
              all ready recognition), etc. But by what reasonable measure can the
              result be considered "Quenya" of any flavor? After all, if I write:

              "I go close-eye this-time"

              and claim that by this I mean "I'm going to go to sleep now", then
              sure, you can see the relationship between the intended meaning and the
              construction offered. And you could even say, fairly, that I managed to
              convey the intended meaning (at least, once it has been explained in
              other terms). But is the construction really English? It is formed of
              English elements, sure; but it is certainly not grammatical English,
              and would strike any English speaker as extremely odd at best.

              But this is _precisely_ the nature of "Neo-Quenya" (at least, as
              exhibited most frequently on Elfling these days, and all too often here
              on the "Quenya" list). The "translations" offered frequently hover on
              the edge of intelligibility, but usually require extensive accompanying
              explanations to explain how the elements used add up to the desired
              meaning (as, again, in the example of *_airahoselle_ 'little holy
              band', intended to mean 'cult': even if one accepts the un-Tolkienian
              compounding of elements in this word, it is extremely unlikely that one
              would readily interpret the word as 'cult' if one is not told what the
              coiner intended the word to mean; just as it is extremely unlikely that
              anyone else will use this form or remember its intended meaning again
              in the future). Does it convey a meaning? Yes, like "I go close-eye
              this-time", once the intended meaning has been explained in other
              terms, it can be said to do so. But is it Quenya?

              Carl
            • Carl F. Hostetter
              ... I would agree if my comments were really directed at Rob; which is why they weren t. Rob s formation was just the point of departure for a broader concern,
              Message 6 of 18 , Mar 22, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mar 22, 2004, at 3:14 PM, Atwe wrote:

                > I get your point, Carl, but I think you are being a little too harsh.
                > William's rather pointless exercises quite differ from formations like
                > this "vinyandil",

                I would agree if my comments were really directed at Rob; which is why
                they weren't. Rob's formation was just the point of departure for a
                broader concern, directed at "Neo-Quenya" and its proponents and
                practitioners in general.

                Carl
              • Atwe
                ... Hiruvan is not a compound phrase, it s an inflected verb. What Carl refers to is mechanical, arbitrary forming of compounds, often mirroring the
                Message 7 of 18 , Mar 22, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- rob <rode_trip@...> wrote:
                  > I really don't know about this, Carl F, but compound
                  > phrases are used
                  > in Tolkien's books. eg. "Hiruvan" (if that's the
                  > sort of thing
                  > you're refering to).

                  Hiruvan is not a compound phrase, it's an inflected
                  verb. What Carl refers to is mechanical, arbitrary
                  forming of compounds, often mirroring the
                  English/whatever original, where Tolkien himself
                  would've most likely used something original, concise
                  and inventious.
                  I don't think all vinyacarier are "evil". I myself use
                  a lot in my translations/originals. But I try to tread
                  carefully on the path. Maybe what I achieve is not
                  always desirable, but sometimes good thing may come
                  out also.

                  Shine on,

                  =====
                  Thomas Ferencz

                  "Manuel!!!
                  Que?
                  I'm so sorry, he's from Barcelona."

                  __________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
                  http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
                • Carl F. Hostetter
                  ... I hope that by this, Thomas, you do not mean to imply that _I_ think they are evil . I fail to see how any moral dimension enters into anything I have
                  Message 8 of 18 , Mar 22, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mar 22, 2004, at 5:38 PM, Atwe wrote:

                    > I don't think all vinyacarier are "evil".

                    I hope that by this, Thomas, you do not mean to imply that _I_ think
                    they are "evil". I fail to see how any moral dimension enters into
                    anything I have said, or into the issues at hand, at all.

                    This sort of non-sequitur response -- all too typical, alas -- utterly
                    fails to address the real, linguistic issues I raised: what are the
                    goals, principles, and methods of "Neo-Quenya", and how do they, and
                    their results, relate to Tolkien's Quenya?

                    Carl
                  • ravenduongladash
                    Hostetter wrote ... and ... utterly ... and ... I believe that rather than asking *how do they, and their results, relate*, perhaps a question should be how
                    Message 9 of 18 , Mar 23, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hostetter wrote
                      > I think there can be no doubt that Tolkien would have found such
                      > constructions to be entirely alien to his language.

                      and

                      > This sort of non-sequitur response -- all too typical, alas --
                      utterly
                      > fails to address the real, linguistic issues I raised: what are the
                      > goals, principles, and methods of "Neo-Quenya", and how do they,
                      and
                      > their results, relate to Tolkien's Quenya?

                      I believe that rather than asking *how do they, and their results,
                      relate*, perhaps a question should be how the neo-quenya doesn't
                      relate? After all, you have stated that "there can be no doubt" in a
                      previous mail hence implying some self-evident fact -- one which you
                      care not to elaborate on -- about Tolkien's opinion with regards to
                      this matter. Please, share the knowledge? Or is it that we are
                      really seeing Hostetter's opinion but articulately carefully to imply
                      <ekk another implication> Tolkien's assent?

                      Also, with respect to "linguistic"<>"goals, principles, and methods",
                      it can be stated that these are in fact self-evident and have been
                      explained repeatedly by others and yourself in many bbs, this and
                      others.

                      caio
                      Graeme
                    • Atwe
                      ... I apologise if my remark came out as a reprimand - it was not intended to be so. So what is the purpose of Neo-Quenya? For now let s put aside those who
                      Message 10 of 18 , Mar 23, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > On Mar 22, 2004, at 5:38 PM, Atwe wrote:
                        >
                        > > I don't think all vinyacarier are "evil".
                        >
                        > I hope that by this, Thomas, you do not mean to
                        > imply that _I_ think
                        > they are "evil". I fail to see how any moral
                        > dimension enters into
                        > anything I have said, or into the issues at hand, at
                        > all.

                        I apologise if my remark came out as a reprimand - it
                        was not intended to be so.

                        So what is the "purpose" of Neo-Quenya? For now let's
                        put aside those who simply want to learn a few phrases
                        because it's "cool" to have Elvish tattoos or Quenya
                        nicknames on the net. So I will speak for myself only.
                        One is: the pure force and aesthetics of Tolkien's
                        creation, the language, calls for a subcreation work;
                        if you like, Tolkien was Il�vatar of his languages and
                        we would be Valar, subcreators, putting his genuine
                        ideas into form and matter (this may sound very
                        haughty but I feel so). It is also a mental
                        experiment: can an incomplete language be made living?
                        Can we guess and understand Tolkien's mental processes
                        and aesthetic principles and form the language so that
                        it matches his way of doing things?
                        There is no "absolute need" for Neo-Quenya to exist.
                        Quenya as it is is already a wonderful piece of
                        creation. But by studying, analyzing (first) and
                        extending (second) this creation might actually help
                        us to learn how languages, communication and craetion
                        works in general.

                        And it's fun, too.

                        Shine on,

                        =====
                        Thomas Ferencz

                        "Manuel!!!
                        Que?
                        I'm so sorry, he's from Barcelona."

                        __________________________________
                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
                        http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
                      • Carl F. Hostetter
                        ... Actually, I have no problem with such purposes (no _interest_ in them, either, but no objection), _except_ when those who really know better than this
                        Message 11 of 18 , Mar 23, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Mar 23, 2004, at 6:12 AM, Atwe wrote:

                          > So what is the "purpose" of Neo-Quenya? For now let's put aside those
                          > who simply want to learn a few phrases because it's "cool" to have
                          > Elvish tattoos or Quenya nicknames on the net.

                          Actually, I have no problem with such purposes (no _interest_ in them,
                          either, but no objection), _except_ when those who really know better
                          than this gloss over the fact that this, really and truly, constitutes
                          the vast majority of the activity that is passed off as "scholarly
                          study of the languages invented by J.R.R. Tolkien" in certain prominent
                          forums and press-releases.

                          > So I will speak for myself only. One is: the pure force and aesthetics
                          > of Tolkien's creation, the language, calls for a subcreation work; if
                          > you like, Tolkien was Ilúvatar of his languages and we would be Valar,
                          > subcreators, putting his genuine ideas into form and matter (this may
                          > sound very haughty but I feel so).

                          Well, there is certainly no indication that Tolkien ever thought his
                          languages should be extended by others. I would say that, using your
                          own metaphor, Tolkien would have preferred that others do what he
                          himself did by subcreating _under God_ (not under Tolkien) and
                          _according to their own aesthetic_, rather than diluting or distorting
                          his own subcreation; or in other words, to mirror his purposes and his
                          artistic and intellectual integrity, but not his particular
                          expressions. But setting that aside: If it is the aesthetics of
                          _Tolkien's_ creation that attract you so strongly -- as of course they
                          do me -- then I have to wonder to what degree you feel the whole
                          "Neo-Quenya" notion thus far has respected and preserved that
                          aesthetic. I don't dispute that on occasion some, yourself included,
                          manage to produce texts rather lovely in both thought and form, but I
                          think that even you have to agree that the vast majority of the efforts
                          to date have been most unlovely and un-Tolkienian by any measure.

                          > It is also a mental experiment: can an incomplete language be made
                          > living?

                          Sure it can. The real question is: is the living, "complete" result
                          still the same language? Would a revived and "completed" Etruscan still
                          be Etruscan? Clearly not. And again I ask: Is "Neo-Quenya" Quenya?

                          > Can we guess and understand Tolkien's mental processes and aesthetic
                          > principles and form the language so that it matches his way of doing
                          > things?

                          No. Would anyone, ever, have translated "The Lord's Prayer" and gotten
                          anything like the result Tolkien did? Of course not. Could anyone else
                          have the personal associations of sound and sense that Tolkien
                          expresses throughout _The Etymologies_ and the Lexicons? Of course not.
                          Could anyone else share the same mix of real-world linguistic
                          influences and aesthetics that formed Tolkien's palette? Of course not.

                          > But by studying, analyzing (first) and extending (second) this
                          > creation might actually help us to learn how languages, communication
                          > and craetion works in general.

                          That has never been in dispute. But one does not need to do the second
                          -- "extend" Quenya -- in order to achieve the same result, any more
                          than one has to "extend" Latin and Greek in order to derive the same
                          benefits from their study. And I'm sure it is quite as evident to you
                          as to me that most practitioners of "Neo-Quenya" should have done much,
                          much more studying and analyzing, before they rushed on to the
                          "extending" part.

                          > And it's fun, too.

                          As you know, it's not _always_ fun, for those of us who have to look at
                          the results! ;)

                          Carl
                        • Carl F. Hostetter
                          ... Um... doesn t the first form of the question contain the second by necessary implication? Or perhaps I should be asking you, what isn t your point? ...
                          Message 12 of 18 , Mar 23, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Mar 23, 2004, at 5:24 AM, ravenduongladash wrote:

                            > I believe that rather than asking *how do they, and their results,
                            > relate*, perhaps a question should be how the neo-quenya doesn't
                            > relate?

                            Um... doesn't the first form of the question contain the second by
                            necessary implication? Or perhaps I should be asking you, what isn't
                            your point?

                            > After all, you have stated that "there can be no doubt" in a previous
                            > mail hence implying some self-evident fact -- one which you care not
                            > to elaborate on -- about Tolkien's opinion with regards to this
                            > matter. Please, share the knowledge?

                            Given the vagueness of your description here, I'd first have to ask,
                            what aren't you referring to? But in general, aren't "self-evident
                            facts" pretty much not in need of elaboration, by definition?

                            > Or is it that we are really seeing Hostetter's opinion but
                            > articulately carefully to imply <ekk another implication> Tolkien's
                            > assent?

                            Um... huh?

                            > Also, with respect to "linguistic"<>"goals, principles, and methods",
                            > it can be stated that these are in fact self-evident and have been
                            > explained repeatedly by others and yourself in many bbs, this and
                            > others.

                            In other words, you know it when you see it. Got it.
                          • Atwe
                            ... Me neither. I have already translated acountless number of tattoos for people over at my discussion board on Ezboard. This is harmless and will grow out of
                            Message 13 of 18 , Mar 23, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > On Mar 23, 2004, at 6:12 AM, Atwe wrote:

                              > Actually, I have no problem with such purposes

                              Me neither. I have already translated acountless
                              number of tattoos for people over at my discussion
                              board on Ezboard. This is harmless and will grow out
                              of fashion quickly when the next smash hit reaches the
                              cinemas or whatever.

                              (no
                              > _interest_ in them,
                              > either, but no objection), _except_ when those who
                              > really know better
                              > than this gloss over the fact that this, really and
                              > truly, constitutes
                              > the vast majority of the activity that is passed off
                              > as "scholarly
                              > study of the languages invented by J.R.R. Tolkien"
                              > in certain prominent
                              > forums and press-releases.

                              I get your sidestab at elfling. But consider this: the
                              majority of us, including myself, are neither
                              linguists nor scholars. I am a medic; maybe I have a
                              feel for languages, maybe a feel for poetry, but
                              still, the linguistic analysis of Tolkienian sources
                              is out of my scope, truly, it would be pretentious to
                              say that I am capable of "scholarly study" (that's
                              what prevents me, e.g., from posting to Lambengolmor,
                              although I read the list regularly). But I am able to
                              _understand_ those studies and able to _apply_ it, and
                              it's the way I apply it that will show if I am true to
                              what Tolkien represents or not.


                              But setting that aside: If it is the
                              > aesthetics of
                              > _Tolkien's_ creation that attract you so strongly --
                              > as of course they
                              > do me -- then I have to wonder to what degree you
                              > feel the whole
                              > "Neo-Quenya" notion thus far has respected and
                              > preserved that
                              > aesthetic.

                              What disturbs me here that you talk about Neo_Quenya
                              as if it were a single, evolved entity, a language in
                              itself. What I see is individual efforts and
                              experiments. Some are quite creative and humble in
                              their approach - like, for instance, Petri Tikka's
                              translations, others, like the "Quenya Headlines" You
                              have mentioned which are pointless and un-Tolkienian.

                              I don't dispute that on occasion some,
                              > yourself included,
                              > manage to produce texts rather lovely in both
                              > thought and form,

                              Thank you. I haven't been aware that you follow my
                              "work" in this field.


                              >
                              > Sure it can. The real question is: is the living,
                              > "complete" result
                              > still the same language? Would a revived and
                              > "completed" Etruscan still
                              > be Etruscan? Clearly not. And again I ask: Is
                              > "Neo-Quenya" Quenya?

                              No, not the same language. Is the Hungarian I speak
                              every day the same as the Hungarian my ancestors spoke
                              a thousand years ago the same language? Nouns were
                              "conjugated" then by using postpositives - by today
                              they have fused with the nouns, producing the suffixes
                              we use today.
                              We could say that Tolkien's languages in their sixty
                              years' lifetime produced a development worth ten
                              thousand years; that in itself makes them highly
                              exciting. But should we consider them dead now? They
                              seem to have an afterlife.

                              And do not forget, that people also change with time.
                              It was only two years ago that Edouard Kloczko
                              attacked me vehemently over on Elfling for my
                              "Mishmash" Quenya; tomorrow, maybe, I'd do the same to
                              another poor newbie.


                              > No. Would anyone, ever, have translated "The Lord's
                              > Prayer" and gotten
                              > anything like the result Tolkien did? Of course not.
                              > Could anyone else
                              > have the personal associations of sound and sense
                              > that Tolkien
                              > expresses throughout _The Etymologies_ and the
                              > Lexicons? Of course not.
                              > Could anyone else share the same mix of real-world
                              > linguistic
                              > influences and aesthetics that formed Tolkien's
                              > palette? Of course not.

                              No, not. But is there a chance, that the Professor,
                              seeing some of the efforts would have said: "Mmm, not
                              bad."? I believe yes. He'd dismiss a lot of them,
                              true.
                              >
                              > That has never been in dispute. But one does not
                              > need to do the second
                              > -- "extend" Quenya -- in order to achieve the same
                              > result, any more
                              > than one has to "extend" Latin and Greek in order to
                              > derive the same
                              > benefits from their study.

                              Still, I belive the Vatican recently issued a
                              vocabulary of Neo-Latin words to cover such modern-day
                              ideas as vacuum-cleaner and washing-machine...


                              And I'm sure it is quite
                              > as evident to you
                              > as to me that most practitioners of "Neo-Quenya"
                              > should have done much,
                              > much more studying and analyzing, before they rushed
                              > on to the
                              > "extending" part.

                              That is very true.


                              > > And it's fun, too.
                              >
                              > As you know, it's not _always_ fun, for those of us
                              > who have to look at
                              > the results! ;)

                              Ah, Carl, you forget that you have a vast advantage
                              that we do not: every time you go home, you can tell
                              yourself you still have a few hundred pages of
                              olkienian texts to occupy yourself for the next few
                              years:-) I believe you that that is a hude task to
                              live up to the standards the Professor's heritage
                              seems to warrant. But we, poor mortals, have to live
                              on the morsels you Powers deem fit to throw to us:-)

                              And thank you for the nice discussion.

                              Shine on,

                              =====
                              Thomas Ferencz

                              "Manuel!!!
                              Que?
                              I'm so sorry, he's from Barcelona."

                              __________________________________
                              Do you Yahoo!?
                              Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
                              http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
                            • Carl F. Hostetter
                              ... Hence, the reason I do not object to the activities under discussion, when practiced purely for enjoyment and without knowing misrepresentation. ... Maybe.
                              Message 14 of 18 , Mar 23, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Mar 23, 2004, at 8:54 AM, Atwe wrote:

                                > --- "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:
                                >> _except_ when those who really know better than this gloss over the
                                >> fact ...
                                >
                                > ...But consider this: the majority of us, including myself, are
                                > neither linguists nor scholars.

                                Hence, the reason I do not object to the activities under discussion,
                                when practiced purely for enjoyment and without knowing
                                misrepresentation.

                                > I am a medic; maybe I have a feel for languages, maybe a feel for
                                > poetry, but still, the linguistic analysis of Tolkienian sources is
                                > out of my scope,

                                Maybe. My guess is that you're selling yourself short, though.
                                Tolkienian linguistics isn't rocket surgery: it mostly consists of
                                looking at what Tolkien actually wrote, comparing all the evidence with
                                itself, and looking for patterns.

                                > What disturbs me here that you talk about Neo_Quenya as if it were a
                                > single, evolved entity, a language in itself.

                                How ironic!

                                > the "Quenya Headlines" You have mentioned which are pointless and
                                > un-Tolkienian.

                                Well, to be fair, they're no more "pointless" to William Womack than
                                are the tattoos and nicknames: they give _him_ pleasure. What they most
                                definitely are _not_, though, is Quenya.

                                > We could say that Tolkien's languages in their sixty years' lifetime
                                > produced a development worth ten thousand years; that in itself makes
                                > them highly exciting.

                                And is precisely what makes them susceptible to scholarly study.

                                > But should we consider them dead now?

                                Yes.

                                > They seem to have an afterlife.

                                As did Frankenstein's patchwork monster.

                                > But is there a chance, that the Professor, seeing some of the efforts
                                > would have said: "Mmm, not bad."? I believe yes.

                                Probably so. I already allowed as much. The more so, of course, as it
                                stuck to Tolkien's own constructions and patterns, making use of the
                                available vocabulary and grammar instead of inventing new forms. Which
                                is pretty much the point I've been making. (Here's an idea: instead of
                                figuring out how to "translate" the TV Guide into "Quenya", why not
                                ponder the available Quenya vocabulary and see what it might inspire
                                one to express solely in those attested terms? Which approach do you
                                think is more likely to produce something Tolkien would have recognized
                                as at least nearly akin to his own languages? Which do you think would
                                produce a result actually worth the time it takes to interpret it?)

                                > Still, I belive the Vatican recently issued a vocabulary of Neo-Latin
                                > words to cover such modern-day ideas as vacuum-cleaner and
                                > washing-machine...

                                Latin (and Greek), of course, being _vastly_ more amply attested than
                                any Tolkienian language, forming new words in the language are much
                                less fraught with hypotheticals.

                                > Ah, Carl, you forget that you have a vast advantage that we do not:
                                > every time you go home, you can tell yourself you still have a few
                                > hundred pages of Tolkienian texts to occupy yourself for the next few
                                > years:-)

                                And believe me, I am grateful for that privilege -- and even for its
                                attendant duty and labor, if not for the criticism I receive for having
                                agreed to shoulder the burden. But I promise you that I just as often
                                tell myself that there are already hundreds upon hundreds of pages of
                                Tolkien's linguistic creativity and sure aesthetic published lying
                                virtually unanalyzed, simply because some agenda-driven few have
                                declared it to be uninteresting, and that it apparently will remain so,
                                unless I and my colleagues take it upon ourselves to do the analysis,
                                in addition to our other work. Nor is it very heartening, as one who
                                _has_ seen the whole breadth and nature of Tolkien's linguistic
                                invention, to see Tolkien's own writings, thoughts, and forms lying
                                stagnant and buried under a crushing (and ever-growing) mass of
                                "mature/Neo-Quenya" fabrications.

                                > But we, poor mortals, have to live on the morsels you Powers deem fit
                                > to throw to us:-)

                                A feast has already been set before you, if only you can see with other
                                than Salovian/Fauskangerian eyes.

                                > And thank you for the nice discussion.

                                I thank you for the same.

                                Carl


                                --
                                =============================================
                                Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

                                ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
                                Ars longa, vita brevis.
                                The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
                                "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
                                a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
                              • ravenduongladash
                                ... Well, technically we are *all* scholars (regardless of the general implications of the Lambengolmor list), from Elfling s favourite friend
                                Message 15 of 18 , Mar 24, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > I get your sidestab at elfling. But consider this: the
                                  > majority of us, including myself, are neither
                                  > linguists nor scholars.

                                  Well, technically we are *all* scholars (regardless of the general
                                  implications of the Lambengolmor list), from Elfling's favourite
                                  friend www.dictionary.com:

                                  schol·ar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sklr)
                                  n.
                                  1. A learned person.
                                  2a. A specialist in a given branch of knowledge: a classical scholar.
                                  2b. One who attends school or studies with a teacher; a student.
                                  3. A student who holds or has held a particular scholarship.

                                  One could add in "qualified" but even then almost everybody would
                                  drop off. So I guess we are all "Tolkienian Scholars" :-)

                                  caio
                                  Graeme
                                • ravenduongladash
                                  ... Well, no, we are waiting for you to reveal the truth to us mere mortals. Preferrably from on high, while striking down the Golden Calf of Neo Quenya...
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Mar 24, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    >
                                    > In other words, you know it when you see it. Got it.

                                    :-)
                                    Well, no, we are waiting for you to reveal the truth to us mere
                                    mortals. Preferrably from on high, while striking down the Golden
                                    Calf of "Neo" Quenya...

                                    caio
                                    Graeme
                                  • Carl F. Hostetter
                                    Graeme, I know you don t take these things very seriously, and think you re quite clever, but really, can t you at least be honest about the fact that nothing
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Mar 24, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Graeme, I know you don't take these things very seriously, and think
                                      you're quite clever, but really, can't you at least be honest about the
                                      fact that nothing I've said is an attempt to "strike down" Neo-Quenya,
                                      merely to define it and characterize it?

                                      Carl


                                      On Mar 24, 2004, at 8:23 AM, ravenduongladash wrote:

                                      >>
                                      >> In other words, you know it when you see it. Got it.
                                      >
                                      > :-)
                                      > Well, no, we are waiting for you to reveal the truth to us mere
                                      > mortals. Preferrably from on high, while striking down the Golden
                                      > Calf of "Neo" Quenya...
                                      >
                                      > caio
                                      > Graeme
                                    • ravenduongladash
                                      ... think ... I think I just got a compliment... Hey, when one is defined as unTolkien you gotta get em were you can take em. caio Graeme
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Mar 25, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > Graeme, I know you don't take these things very seriously, and
                                        think
                                        > you're quite clever, <snip>

                                        I think I just got a compliment...

                                        Hey, when one is defined as "unTolkien" you gotta get 'em were you
                                        can take 'em.

                                        caio
                                        Graeme
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.