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

Re: Phrasal words in "Neo-Quenya" (was Re: [quenya] (unknown))

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , Mar 22 2:38 PM
    • 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 2 of 18 , Mar 22 4:01 PM
      • 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 3 of 18 , Mar 23 2:24 AM
        • 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 4 of 18 , Mar 23 3:12 AM
          • 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 5 of 18 , Mar 23 4:11 AM
            • 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 6 of 18 , Mar 23 4:19 AM
              • 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 7 of 18 , Mar 23 5:54 AM
                • 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 8 of 18 , Mar 23 7:14 AM
                  • 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 9 of 18 , Mar 24 2:41 AM
                    • 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 10 of 18 , Mar 24 5:23 AM
                      • 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 11 of 18 , Mar 24 6:31 AM
                        • 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 12 of 18 , Mar 25 9:52 PM
                          • 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.