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

Re: An observation

Expand Messages
  • quildarener
    ... AFAIK this list was intended to ... The homepage message identifies it as a group for people to practice reading and writing in Quenya (and for other
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 29, 2005
      --- In quenya@yahoogroups.com, Atwe <percival64@y...> wrote:
      >
      >
      AFAIK this list was intended to
      > be a "quenya-chat group", and not a learning resource.
      > Doesn't really work, as it is.



      The homepage message identifies it as "a group for people to practice
      reading and writing in Quenya (and for other people to correct them)."
      That covers either interpretation.
      >
    • quildarener
      ... This is Atwe s opinion, not that of everyone on the list. Carl could be and has been likened to more than one Tolkien character, but Tom Bombadil he ain t.
      Message 2 of 29 , Oct 1 9:50 AM
        --- In quenya@yahoogroups.com, Atwe <percival64@y...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > --- elvenmagic21 <elvenmagic21@y...> wrote:
        >
        > > *shrugs* I think it's a wonderful resource anyway.
        > > Just try being a
        > > little nicer. You're upsetting the tree fairies.
        > >
        > > Elvenmagic
        >
        > Carl is who he is (now this was a very Goldberry-like
        > observation:-)), and we like him the way he is:-) A
        > little bashing and sword-clashing only brings life to
        > this list.

        This is Atwe's opinion, not that of everyone on the list. Carl could
        be and has been likened to more than one Tolkien character, but Tom
        Bombadil he ain't.
      • Patrick Wynne
        On Oct 1, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Quildarener wrote, re Atwe s observation that Carl is who he is (now this was a very Goldberry-like observation:-)), and we like
        Message 3 of 29 , Oct 1 10:28 AM
          On Oct 1, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Quildarener wrote, re Atwe's
          observation that "Carl is who he is (now this was a very
          Goldberry-like observation:-)), and we like him the way he
          is:-) A little bashing and sword-clashing only brings life to
          this list" :

          > This is Atwe's opinion, not that of everyone on the list. Carl could
          > be and has been likened to more than one Tolkien character, but
          > Tom Bombadil he ain't.

          Hey 'Batman' -- thanks for wasting bandwidth with your snide
          _ad hominem_ snarking.

          I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- Carl F. Hostetter is
          personally responsible for, or has played a key role in, the
          publication of more Quenya than anybody other than Christopher
          Tolkien himself. Both Tolkien scholars and neo-Quenya enthusiasts
          owe Carl a HUGE debt of gratitude, but mostly he gets opprobrium
          instead, usually from dilettantes who have themselves contributed
          little or nothing of lasting worth to the Tolkien linguistic community
          save endless reams of neo-Quenya "translations" that plummet into
          well-deserved obscurity an hour after they're posted. And all because
          Carl has the courage and integrity to call a spade a spade when it
          comes to the predominant shoddiness and dishonesty of what passes
          for "Tolkienian linguistics" online.

          You don't have to _like_ Carl, but you darned well owe him some
          thanks and some respect.

          -- Patrick H. Wynne
        • Atwe
          Dears, indeed this debate was initiated by my inappropriate use of pronouns. I should ve written Carl is who he is (now this was a very Goldberry-like
          Message 4 of 29 , Oct 2 5:32 AM
            Dears,

            indeed this debate was initiated by my inappropriate use of pronouns. I should've written "Carl is who he is (now this was a
            very
            Goldberry-like observation), and _I_ like him the
            way he
            is." My personal opinion, and naturally does not represent anybody else's.
            Apologies for that.

            Now I'll plummet back into my well-deserved obscurity.

            Shine on,
            --- Patrick Wynne wrote:
            On Oct 1, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Quildarener wrote, re
            Atwe's
            observation that "Carl is who he is (now this was a
            very
            Goldberry-like observation:-)), and we like him the
            way he
            is:-) A little bashing and sword-clashing only
            brings life to
            this list" :





            Thomas Ferencz

            -- love is the shadow that ripens the wine --

            Let's discuss Eldarin languages - http://aglardh.middangeard.hu


            Yahoo! for Good
            Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
          • quildarener
            ... could ... community ... because ... Considering that Hostetter has come close to cancelling out his undeniable contributions (if he has not passed the
            Message 5 of 29 , Oct 2 11:56 AM
              --- In quenya@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Wynne <pwynne@g...> wrote:
              > On Oct 1, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Quildarener wrote, re Atwe's
              > observation that "Carl is who he is (now this was a very
              > Goldberry-like observation:-)), and we like him the way he
              > is:-) A little bashing and sword-clashing only brings life to
              > this list" :
              >
              > > This is Atwe's opinion, not that of everyone on the list. Carl
              could
              > > be and has been likened to more than one Tolkien character, but
              > > Tom Bombadil he ain't.
              >
              >
              >
              > I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- Carl F. Hostetter is
              > personally responsible for, or has played a key role in, the
              > publication of more Quenya than anybody other than Christopher
              > Tolkien himself. Both Tolkien scholars and neo-Quenya enthusiasts
              > owe Carl a HUGE debt of gratitude, but mostly he gets opprobrium
              > instead, usually from dilettantes who have themselves contributed
              > little or nothing of lasting worth to the Tolkien linguistic
              community
              > save endless reams of neo-Quenya "translations" that plummet into
              > well-deserved obscurity an hour after they're posted. And all
              because
              > Carl has the courage and integrity to call a spade a spade when it
              > comes to the predominant shoddiness and dishonesty of what passes
              > for "Tolkienian linguistics" online.
              >
              > You don't have to _like_ Carl, but you darned well owe him some
              > thanks and some respect.
              >
              > -- Patrick H. Wynne



              Considering that Hostetter has come close to cancelling out his
              undeniable contributions (if he has not passed the point already)
              with relentless attacks on many scholars and "dilettantes" alike and
              done his best in the past to bully, threaten and sue their own
              contributions off the web, not to mention the lack of courage and
              integrity in his shoddy, irresponsible, and misleading "drive-by"
              criticism of my Quenya while failing to respond to my own posts on
              the flaws in his neo-Quenya criticism, I decline any thanks, and
              certainly think your own sneering and equally unfounded charges of
              dishonesty say very little in his defense.

              As I'm not the only one to respond this way, shouldn't that be a
              clue by now that at least some of the fault lies with Carl and now,
              apparently, you?

              Apparently the sterling qualities you mention are to be reserved, on
              both your parts (I do not refer to the Editorial Team as a whole),
              for the fellow members of your cliquish community, while the rest of
              us lowly peasants should be thankful for such pearls of scholarly
              wisdom as "It's easy when you make things up" and YOUR "snide ad
              hominem snarking." And lack of interest, indifference or outright
              prejudiced hostility should not be confused with the worth or
              quality of the effort.
            • Carl F. Hostetter
              ... If the fact that you don t like what I say cancels out my contributions , then I expect that you will no longer be able to avail yourself of those
              Message 6 of 29 , Oct 2 12:41 PM
                On Oct 2, 2005, at 2:56 PM, quildarener wrote:

                > Considering that Hostetter has come close to cancelling out his
                > undeniable contributions (if he has not passed the point already)

                If the fact that you don't like what I say "cancels out" my
                "contributions", then I expect that you will no longer be able to
                avail yourself of those "contributions". Thus you will no longer be
                able use any form or fact that citation of which contains "VT" --
                since every one of those is _my_ "contribution". If you fail to
                adhere to this, we'll know that you're just blustering.

                > with relentless attacks on many scholars and "dilettantes" alike

                I'm not aware that I've "attacked" _any_ scholar; certainly, not for
                being scholarly! What I "attack" are sophists and liars.

                > and done his best in the past to bully, threaten and sue their own
                > contributions off the web,

                I have _never_ sued _anyone_ for _anything_: this is a vicious lie
                and desperate libel. To my knowledge, the only person _ever_ to have
                engaged a lawyer in any matter of Tolkienian linguistics is Helge
                Fauskanger, against Christopher Tolkien and the Tolkien Estate (and
                pre-emptively at that). And the only people who have ever bullied
                others out of Web forums, including by outright censorship, in
                matters Tolkienian, are David and Dorothea Salo. I have never banned
                anyone from participation in any of the various forums I moderate,
                nor have I ever attempted to have anyone banned from any other forum.
                What I DO do is exercise the very right to free speech that you
                pretend to be defending while at the same time seeking to deny to me,
                in pointing out erroneous claims, deliberate misrepresentations,
                fallacious assumptions and assertions, etc.

                > not to mention the lack of courage and integrity in his shoddy,
                > irresponsible, and misleading "drive-by" criticism of my Quenya
                > while failing to respond to my own posts on the flaws in his neo-
                > Quenya criticism,

                I'll make you a deal: when you start paying attention and responding
                to what I _actually_ write, then I'll consider it worth my while to
                discuss your "Quenya" with you (on occasion -- I don't OWE anyone any
                comments, after all; the only thing I DO owe to you and others is,
                when and if I DO chose to respond, to read your own contributions
                carefully and respond accurately -- something YOU owe to ME and to
                everyone else on this list as well).

                > As I'm not the only one to respond this way, shouldn't that be a
                > clue by now that at least some of the fault lies with Carl and now,
                > apparently, you?

                When you respond with a cogent criticism of what I/we actually write,
                instead of shifting the terms of the discussion to something more to
                your liking, then I will consider that as potentially cluefull.
                Otherwise, your words are only a clue to the fact that you're not
                really interested in what we think, or why we think it, or what
                insight we might have as, you know, _the editors of Tolkien's
                writings on his invented languages_; but only in holding yourself and
                your "Quenya" above criticism.

                > And lack of interest, indifference or outright prejudiced hostility
                > should not be confused with the worth or quality of the effort.

                I couldn't have put it better myself.
              • Carl F. Hostetter
                A few P.S.s: 1) It would really help, Quildarener , if you would not quote such huge chunks of long posts when you respond to them (and you should CERTAINLY
                Message 7 of 29 , Oct 2 12:52 PM
                  A few P.S.s:

                  1) It would really help, "Quildarener", if you would not quote such
                  huge chunks of long posts when you respond to them (and you should
                  CERTAINLY not quote the ENTIRETY of a post just to tack a paragraph
                  of response at the end).

                  2) You should recognize that when you make a post that is several
                  pages long with many interleaved comments, it is not always possible
                  to respond right away even if one is inclined to do so. As these
                  thing progress and accrue points and counterpoints -- and esp. when
                  the actual points are diluted with the introduction and/or invention
                  of numerous points that were never under discussion in the first
                  place -- it takes more and more effort and time for those of us
                  interested in making coherent responses to what the other person
                  actually writes to do so.

                  3) You should also recognize that some of us at least have jobs and
                  other commitments that don't always give us the leisure to spend
                  hours every day engaged in point and counterpoint just any time you
                  think we should. That is, we don't dance to your tune, or work on
                  your timetable. Just because you can fire off a response immediately
                  doesn't mean you are yourself owed an immediate response.
                • quildarener
                  ... such ... should ... paragraph ... possible ... when ... invention ... and ... you ... immediately ... Many of these are reasonable points. (I m tacking
                  Message 8 of 29 , Oct 2 1:23 PM
                    --- In quenya@yahoogroups.com, "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@e...>
                    wrote:
                    > A few P.S.s:
                    >
                    > 1) It would really help, "Quildarener", if you would not quote
                    such
                    > huge chunks of long posts when you respond to them (and you
                    should
                    > CERTAINLY not quote the ENTIRETY of a post just to tack a
                    paragraph
                    > of response at the end).
                    >
                    > 2) You should recognize that when you make a post that is several
                    > pages long with many interleaved comments, it is not always
                    possible
                    > to respond right away even if one is inclined to do so. As these
                    > thing progress and accrue points and counterpoints -- and esp.
                    when
                    > the actual points are diluted with the introduction and/or
                    invention
                    > of numerous points that were never under discussion in the first
                    > place -- it takes more and more effort and time for those of us
                    > interested in making coherent responses to what the other person
                    > actually writes to do so.
                    >
                    > 3) You should also recognize that some of us at least have jobs
                    and
                    > other commitments that don't always give us the leisure to spend
                    > hours every day engaged in point and counterpoint just any time
                    you
                    > think we should. That is, we don't dance to your tune, or work on
                    > your timetable. Just because you can fire off a response
                    immediately
                    > doesn't mean you are yourself owed an immediate response.

                    Many of these are reasonable points. (I'm tacking this on as a
                    response to the entirety of your post, but I'll try to work on that
                    in future posts.) But I don't necessarily post every day or even
                    more than two or three times a week nowadays (it's been a quiet
                    weekend so I've posted more). And it's been TWO MONTHS since the
                    post you're referring to. I did make allowances for other demands on
                    your time, but it seemed fair to interpret that long a lapse as
                    rudeness, indifference or rejection of my points (or as conceding
                    them, but I somehow doubted that)--hardly a sign of unbridled
                    impatience. Also, when you open up a large subject like neo_Quenya
                    with sweeping and at times puzzling claims (used to criticize
                    others' posts) you let yourself in for at least a fair amount of
                    questions and complaints in return. That said. I'll check your other
                    post, sign off and try not to post (or expect) too demanding a reply.
                  • Carl F. Hostetter
                    ... Well, similarly, when you 1) Put out lots and lots of translations of arbitrary English prose into a poorly-attested dead language, and/or 2) Fire off
                    Message 9 of 29 , Oct 2 3:27 PM
                      On Oct 2, 2005, at 4:23 PM, quildarener wrote:

                      > when you open up a large subject like neo_Quenya with sweeping and
                      > at times puzzling claims (used to criticize others' posts) you let
                      > yourself in for at least a fair amount of questions and complaints
                      > in return.

                      Well, similarly, when you

                      1) Put out lots and lots of "translations" of arbitrary English prose
                      into a poorly-attested dead language, and/or

                      2) Fire off scurrilous charges against someone else without a scrap
                      of evidence or citation, and/or

                      3) Present broad parodies of another person's positions or motives,
                      again without a scrap of evidence or citation,

                      then you likewise let yourself in for at least a fair amount of
                      questions and complaints in return.

                      That being said: can we get past this now? If I say something that
                      puzzles you, ask me for a clarification, and I will attempt to give
                      it. And if you find yourself needing to characterize my positions or
                      motives, then please provide at least _one_ citation of my words that
                      (might) support that characterization.

                      I _do_ have some long (and I hope deep) thoughts on the matter of neo-
                      Elvish "translation", which I have expressed quite fully in "Elvish
                      As She Is Spoke". I don't wish to rehash them all in this forum, nor
                      do I have permission to publish that paper, since it was an invited
                      paper and is assigned for publication (late this year or early next)
                      in the proceedings of the Marquette conference of last Fall. But I
                      WILL say that in it and by it I DO offer a means to identify and
                      (hopefully) avoid the most common pitfalls in neo-Elvish translation
                      (or, really, in any poorly-attested dead language), which if heeded
                      and not simply dismissed out of hand by neo-Elvish ideologues, WILL
                      tend to make for BETTER neo-Elvish. It even ends with SPECIFIC
                      suggestions for how to seek to "use" Tolkien's languages in a manner
                      more faithful to Tolkien's own thoughts and interests in his
                      languages. So I am by NO MEANS attempting to stop others from using
                      Elvish!
                    • Atwe
                      Sére ar nilme, otorninyar. Nai televa* ohta** sina... Alye tule ar *atarquete lambi Eldaive *Alcardasse***. *: since the stem is given as _tele-_ in Etym **:
                      Message 10 of 29 , Oct 3 2:00 AM
                        Sére ar nilme, otorninyar. Nai televa* ohta** sina...

                        Alye tule ar *atarquete lambi Eldaive *Alcardasse***.


                        *: since the stem is given as _tele-_ in Etym
                        **: rather in the sense of "quarrel", not "war" here
                        ***: http://aglardh.middangeard.hu (shameless
                        self-advertisement)

                        Atwe


                        Thomas Ferencz

                        -- love is the shadow that ripens the wine --

                        Let's discuss Eldarin languages - http://aglardh.middangeard.hu



                        __________________________________
                        Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
                        http://mail.yahoo.com
                      • quildarener
                        ... be ... By contributions I was referring to your writings outside of specific Tolkien texts and vocabulary lists, which latter as I understand it involve
                        Message 11 of 29 , Oct 5 9:27 AM
                          --- In quenya@yahoogroups.com, "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@e...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > On Oct 2, 2005, at 2:56 PM, quildarener wrote:
                          >
                          > > Considering that Hostetter has come close to cancelling out his
                          > > undeniable contributions (if he has not passed the point already)
                          >
                          > If the fact that you don't like what I say "cancels out" my
                          > "contributions", then I expect that you will no longer be able to
                          > avail yourself of those "contributions". Thus you will no longer
                          be
                          > able use any form or fact that citation of which contains "VT" --
                          > since every one of those is _my_ "contribution". If you fail to
                          > adhere to this, we'll know that you're just blustering.


                          By "contributions" I was referring to your writings outside of
                          specific Tolkien texts and vocabulary lists, which latter as I
                          understand it involve collaboration with other members of the
                          Editorial Team. Without reflecting on your scholarship or your right
                          to the Tolkien language material, I would point out that you and the
                          rest of the E.T. have exclusive and jealously guarded control of
                          this material and that only that circumstance forces the rest of us
                          to rely on your release of it as a source of later Tolkien grammar
                          and vocabulary. My or others' use of it is not related to whether
                          we like what you say or not. I still maintain that your harsh
                          treatment of others who use the material, at least in the past, has
                          considerably soured others' enjoyment of and progress in Tolkien
                          Elvish language study, as you have said that their complaints have
                          soured yours. So I don't agree that my continued use of the words
                          contradicts this or amounts to blustering.



                          >
                          >> I'm not aware that I've "attacked" _any_ scholar; certainly, not
                          for
                          > being scholarly! What I "attack" are sophists and liars.
                          >
                          > > and done his best in the past to bully, threaten and sue their
                          own
                          > > contributions off the web,
                          >
                          > I have _never_ sued _anyone_ for _anything_: this is a vicious
                          lie
                          > and desperate libel. To my knowledge, the only person _ever_ to
                          have
                          > engaged a lawyer in any matter of Tolkienian linguistics is Helge
                          > Fauskanger, against Christopher Tolkien and the Tolkien Estate
                          (and
                          > pre-emptively at that). And the only people who have ever bullied
                          > others out of Web forums, including by outright censorship, in
                          > matters Tolkienian, are David and Dorothea Salo. I have never
                          banned
                          > anyone from participation in any of the various forums I
                          moderate,
                          > nor have I ever attempted to have anyone banned from any other
                          forum.
                          > What I DO do is exercise the very right to free speech that you
                          > pretend to be defending while at the same time seeking to deny to
                          me,
                          > in pointing out erroneous claims, deliberate misrepresentations,
                          > fallacious assumptions and assertions, etc.


                          Not wishing to aggravate this issue but standing firm on my
                          contention, I will let the record of your and others' posts on
                          Tolklang, Elfling and other sites speak for itself to anyone else
                          who's interested. If we cannot agree on this, they at least can make
                          up their own minds.


                          >
                          > > And lack of interest, indifference or outright prejudiced
                          hostility
                          > > should not be confused with the worth or quality of the effort.
                          >
                          > I couldn't have put it better myself.


                          Then you should understand my reaction to your criticism and
                          Patrick's post. The quality of your work, if not its promptness (for
                          reasons perhaps beyond your control), has at least not been impugned.
                        • quildarener
                          ... and ... let ... complaints ... prose ... scrap ... motives, ... Subject to my saying here that I disagree with the above and subject to my reply to your
                          Message 12 of 29 , Oct 5 9:38 AM
                            --- In quenya@yahoogroups.com, "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@e...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > On Oct 2, 2005, at 4:23 PM, quildarener wrote:
                            >
                            > > when you open up a large subject like neo_Quenya with sweeping
                            and
                            > > at times puzzling claims (used to criticize others' posts) you
                            let
                            > > yourself in for at least a fair amount of questions and
                            complaints
                            > > in return.
                            >
                            > Well, similarly, when you
                            >
                            > 1) Put out lots and lots of "translations" of arbitrary English
                            prose
                            > into a poorly-attested dead language, and/or
                            >
                            > 2) Fire off scurrilous charges against someone else without a
                            scrap
                            > of evidence or citation, and/or
                            >
                            > 3) Present broad parodies of another person's positions or
                            motives,
                            > again without a scrap of evidence or citation,
                            >
                            > then you likewise let yourself in for at least a fair amount of
                            > questions and complaints in return.
                            >
                            > That being said: can we get past this now?


                            Subject to my saying here that I disagree with the above and subject
                            to my reply to your other post (to which you may wish to respond),
                            willingly.


                            If I say something that
                            > puzzles you, ask me for a clarification, and I will attempt to
                            give
                            > it. And if you find yourself needing to characterize my positions
                            or
                            > motives, then please provide at least _one_ citation of my words
                            that
                            > (might) support that characterization.
                            >
                            > I _do_ have some long (and I hope deep) thoughts on the matter of
                            neo-
                            > Elvish "translation", which I have expressed quite fully
                            in "Elvish
                            > As She Is Spoke". I don't wish to rehash them all in this forum,
                            nor
                            > do I have permission to publish that paper, since it was an
                            invited
                            > paper and is assigned for publication (late this year or early
                            next)
                            > in the proceedings of the Marquette conference of last Fall. But
                            I
                            > WILL say that in it and by it I DO offer a means to identify and
                            > (hopefully) avoid the most common pitfalls in neo-Elvish
                            translation
                            > (or, really, in any poorly-attested dead language), which if
                            heeded
                            > and not simply dismissed out of hand by neo-Elvish ideologues,
                            WILL
                            > tend to make for BETTER neo-Elvish. It even ends with SPECIFIC
                            > suggestions for how to seek to "use" Tolkien's languages in a
                            manner
                            > more faithful to Tolkien's own thoughts and interests in his
                            > languages. So I am by NO MEANS attempting to stop others from
                            using
                            > Elvish!

                            While I don't expect you to rehash your paper, whose contents sound
                            more promising than its derisive title, I do think you should use
                            points from it or its underlying assumptions to explain what I find
                            puzzling or contradictory. I do not myself claim to be entirely
                            happy with my neo-Quenya, but see its awkwardness as something
                            forced by the nature of the original material rather than
                            incompetence in or ignorance of Quenya per se.
                          • quildarener
                            ... Alassinen, Atwe, var tana estel ninya naa. ... Etymologies kosta- = quarrel (verb could be used as noun or taken as verbal noun, cf. erka n. and v.,
                            Message 13 of 29 , Oct 5 9:53 AM
                              --- In quenya@yahoogroups.com, Atwe <percival64@y...> wrote:
                              > Sére ar nilme, otorninyar. Nai televa* ohta** sina...

                              Alassinen, Atwe, var tana estel ninya naa.

                              >
                              > Alye tule ar *atarquete lambi Eldaive *Alcardasse***.
                              >
                              >
                              > *: since the stem is given as _tele-_ in Etym
                              > **: rather in the sense of "quarrel", not "war" here


                              Etymologies "kosta-" = "quarrel" (verb could be used as noun or
                              taken as verbal noun, cf. erka n. and v., etc.).

                              Mal queen polle est(it?)as "narohta."
                            • Carl F. Hostetter
                              ... Do you really mean to say that if you do those things, that it is _not_ to be expected that you will get (what you call) questions and complaints in
                              Message 14 of 29 , Oct 5 10:02 AM
                                On Oct 5, 2005, at 12:38 PM, quildarener wrote:

                                > --- In quenya@yahoogroups.com, "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@e...>
                                > wrote:
                                >
                                >> Well, similarly, when you
                                >>
                                >> 1) Put out lots and lots of "translations" of arbitrary English
                                >> prose into a poorly-attested dead language, and/or
                                >>
                                >> 2) Fire off scurrilous charges against someone else without a
                                >> scrap of evidence or citation, and/or
                                >>
                                >> 3) Present broad parodies of another person's positions or
                                >> motives, again without a scrap of evidence or citation,
                                >>
                                >> then you likewise let yourself in for at least a fair amount of
                                >> questions and complaints in return.
                                >>
                                >> That being said: can we get past this now?
                                >
                                > Subject to my saying here that I disagree with the above

                                Do you really mean to say that if you do those things, that it is
                                _not_ to be expected that you will get (what you call) "questions and
                                complaints" in return?

                                Or do you mean that you disagree that you have done those things?

                                In either case, I find your mere assertion of disagreement unconvincing.

                                > and subject to my reply to your other post (to which you may wish
                                > to respond),

                                I certainly never expect that anything I say must go unresponded to.
                                What I do expect is that responses will be to what I actually say,
                                and that claims will be backed up with evidence.

                                > While I don't expect you to rehash your paper, whose contents sound
                                > more promising than its derisive title,

                                The derivation of the title, and its aptness both to neo-Elvish and
                                to the argument presented therein, is itself explained in the paper.
                                (For those that don't know, the title is an allusion to what is
                                popularly called "English As She Is Spoke", a rather (in)famous
                                "guidebook" of "English" for Portuguese readers, written by a couple
                                of would-be instructors who themselves were not fluent in English).

                                > I do think you should use points from it or its underlying
                                > assumptions to explain what I find
                                > puzzling or contradictory.

                                But I have done so. I listed specific areas of defectiveness in neo-
                                Elvish, which are those covered (in more detail, of course) in the
                                paper itself: e.g., dictionary translation, reliance on English
                                syntax and idiom, etc.

                                > I do not myself claim to be entirely happy with my neo-Quenya, but
                                > see its awkwardness as something forced by the nature of the
                                > original material rather than incompetence in or ignorance of
                                > Quenya per se.

                                Absolutely! That is EXACTLY the point made in my paper! (And of
                                course by my repeated pointing out that Quenya is a "dead" and poorly-
                                attested language.) And since I never accused you or anyone else of
                                "incompetence" or "ignorance", I really cannot understand why you
                                would think that THAT has anything to do with my argument, as opposed
                                to the very nature of Tolkien's invented languages, and of Tolkien's
                                means and motives in creating them.
                              • Carl F. Hostetter
                                ... Well, if so, then you are guilty of changing the subject, since you made your comment regarding by contributions in response to and in the context of Pat s
                                Message 15 of 29 , Oct 5 10:19 AM
                                  On Oct 5, 2005, at 12:27 PM, quildarener wrote:

                                  > --- In quenya@yahoogroups.com, "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@e...>
                                  > wrote:
                                  >
                                  >> On Oct 2, 2005, at 2:56 PM, quildarener wrote:
                                  >>
                                  >>> Considering that Hostetter has come close to cancelling out his
                                  >>> undeniable contributions (if he has not passed the point already)
                                  >>
                                  >> If the fact that you don't like what I say "cancels out" my
                                  >> "contributions", then I expect that you will no longer be able to
                                  >> avail yourself of those "contributions". Thus you will no longer
                                  >> be able use any form or fact that citation of which contains "VT"
                                  >> -- since every one of those is _my_ "contribution". If you fail
                                  >> to adhere to this, we'll know that you're just blustering.
                                  >
                                  > By "contributions" I was referring to your writings outside of
                                  > specific Tolkien texts and vocabulary lists,

                                  Well, if so, then you are guilty of changing the subject, since you
                                  made your comment regarding by contributions in response to and in
                                  the context of Pat's remark, which was:

                                  "Carl F. Hostetter is personally responsible for, or has played a key
                                  role in, the publication of more Quenya than anybody other than
                                  Christopher Tolkien himself."

                                  Changing definitions in mid-stream like that, to something more to
                                  your liking, without telling us is hardly conducive to productive
                                  discussion.

                                  > which latter as I understand it involve collaboration with other
                                  > members of the
                                  > Editorial Team.

                                  So? That doesn't make it any LESS my contribution, it just means that
                                  it isn't my EXCLUSIVE contribution, which of course I never claimed.
                                  But NOTHING published in VT since issue 9 has been done so without my
                                  involvement.

                                  > Without reflecting on your scholarship or your right to the Tolkien
                                  > language material,

                                  I have no "right" to Tolkien's writings. I have been given a
                                  photocopy of materials by Christopher Tolkien, and asked to work on
                                  ordering, editing, and (eventually) publishing them, in a scholarly
                                  fashion, and only with the consent and approval of the Tolkien Estate.

                                  > I would point out that you and the rest of the E.T. have exclusive
                                  > and jealously guarded control of this material

                                  No we don't. The Tolkien Estate has the exclusive control of the
                                  material. Period. And if that control is now much more closely
                                  "guarded" than it was before, it is ONLY because of the antics of
                                  such as David Salo and Helge Fauskanger, who in their overmastering
                                  pride cannot accept that that the Tolkien Estate, and not they, are
                                  the heirs, protectors, and yes, OWNERS, of Tolkien's writings.

                                  > I still maintain that your harsh treatment of others who use the
                                  > material,

                                  If you will provide a specific example or two, and show me where my
                                  treatment of ANYONE who was simply "using the material" was harsh,
                                  then perhaps we'll have something to discuss here. Otherwise, this is
                                  just another vague and probably baseless characterization on your
                                  part, resting on some fundamental misapprehension on your part, just
                                  like your assertions regarding rights and control of Tolkien papers
                                  exhibited above.

                                  >> What I DO do is exercise the very right to free speech that you
                                  >> pretend to be defending while at the same time seeking to deny to
                                  >> me, in pointing out erroneous claims, deliberate
                                  >> misrepresentations, fallacious assumptions and assertions, etc.
                                  >
                                  > Not wishing to aggravate this issue but standing firm on my
                                  > contention, I will let the record of your and others' posts on
                                  > Tolklang, Elfling and other sites speak for itself to anyone else
                                  > who's interested.

                                  Excellent, let's please do that. I am COMPLETELY happy to refer
                                  people to my ACTUAL words -- and in fact wish that YOU would avail
                                  yourself of that practice before you issue your vague, parodical
                                  claims regarding my positions and motivations and history.
                                • Carl F. Hostetter
                                  Consider the following sentence: I go close-eye this-time Now ask yourself, what language is this? If we note that every word in the sentence is an attested
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Oct 5 11:09 AM
                                    Consider the following sentence:

                                    "I go close-eye this-time"

                                    Now ask yourself, what language is this?

                                    If we note that every word in the sentence is an attested English
                                    word, or is composed of attested English elements; and that it
                                    follows the typical English declarative sentence structure SVO; and
                                    that it is in fact, strictly speaking, grammatical in English
                                    (correct pronominal subject form, correct subject-verb agreement,
                                    correct tense form, etc.); and that its meaning ("I am going to bed/
                                    sleep now") is interpretable to the community of English speakers and
                                    scholars; then we can, by the same criteria used for what some would
                                    call simply "Quenya", or "neo-Quenya", or even "authentic Quenya",
                                    confidently call the language of this sentence English.

                                    But of course there is not one native speaker of English who would
                                    think this sentence grammatical as that term is generally used (i.e.,
                                    in other than the strictest analytical sense), to say nothing of
                                    "authentic", English. If it were uttered by someone in earnest, we
                                    would instantly know that they are non-native speakers of English, in
                                    fact someone who obviously must struggle greatly to make themselves
                                    understood to English speakers in even the simplest of grammatical
                                    circumstances. And it fails the English test for precisely the same
                                    reason as (nearly all) neo-Elvish does: it is obviously ad hoc,
                                    obviously circumlocutionary in its paraphrase words, and obviously
                                    unidiomatic. But this sort of sentence is _typical_ of neo-Elvish
                                    "translations".

                                    And so by precisely the same "measure" of "goodness" of neo-Elvish
                                    "translations" -- use only of attested forms and elements,
                                    interpretability, and (in the strict sense) grammaticality -- we
                                    would call this sentence English, even "good" English, or "authentic"
                                    English, when of course it is none of those things, but instead,
                                    precisely paralleling "neo-Elvish", really a sort of "neo-English".

                                    Now, I should hasten to point out that though I accept these obvious
                                    facts, I am NOT arguing that no one should "translate" into (neo-)
                                    Elvish. I have done so myself in the past, and found it enjoyable,
                                    and even now occasionally do so for special requests. There's no
                                    denying that it can be both fun and intellectually stimulating to do
                                    so. By all means, let's have more of it on this list (that IS the
                                    purpose of this list, after all). BUT let's also keep in mind and be
                                    honest about both the nature of Tolkien's languages AND the nature of
                                    neo-Elvish and "translations" into it. Just because one can make
                                    oneself understood using only attested Elvish words and elements does
                                    NOT mean that one is speaking Elvish, or that Elvish is a living,
                                    speakable language. And if these facts discourage any would-be
                                    "speaker" of Elvish, then it's better to find out its nature right up
                                    front, before investing too much of oneself in a falsehood.

                                    (This does not, BTW, exhaust the deficiencies of neo-Elvish
                                    translation. I offer it only as a succinct example of the KINDS of
                                    deficiencies there are, and of my perspective on the _results_ of neo-
                                    Elvish translation.)
                                  • quildarener
                                    ... Two obvious replies to this as an example of the awkwardness of neo- Quenya are that 1) There would be no need for so awkward a translation in neo-Quenya
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Oct 5 11:36 AM
                                      --- In quenya@yahoogroups.com, "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@e...>
                                      wrote:
                                      > Consider the following sentence:
                                      >
                                      > "I go close-eye this-time"
                                      >
                                      Two obvious replies to this as an example of the awkwardness of neo-
                                      Quenya are that

                                      1) There would be no need for so awkward a translation in neo-Quenya
                                      itself: "I am going to bed now" could easily be translated "Si(n)
                                      lelyan caimanna." The specific example isn't suited to Hostetter's
                                      point.

                                      2) We know much more about English grammar and especially usage than
                                      we do about Quenya as a standard by which to judge "grammaticality."
                                      Much of that would be in the eye of the English (etc.)speaking/Quenya
                                      studying beholder.
                                    • Carl F. Hostetter
                                      ... I m sorry, but this obvious reply is utterly beside the point. I never said that this particular sentence could not be translated into neo-Quenya (though
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Oct 5 12:24 PM
                                        On Oct 5, 2005, at 2:36 PM, quildarener wrote:

                                        > --- In quenya@yahoogroups.com, "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@e...>
                                        > wrote:
                                        >
                                        >> Consider the following sentence:
                                        >>
                                        >> "I go close-eye this-time"
                                        >
                                        > Two obvious replies to this as an example of the awkwardness of neo-
                                        > Quenya are that
                                        >
                                        > 1) There would be no need for so awkward a translation in neo-
                                        > Quenya itself: "I am going to bed now" could easily be translated
                                        > "Si(n) lelyan caimanna." The specific example isn't suited to
                                        > Hostetter's point.

                                        I'm sorry, but this "obvious reply" is utterly beside the point. I
                                        never said that this particular sentence could not be translated into
                                        neo-Quenya (though in fact I don't recall seeing any idiom for "to go
                                        to sleep/bed" in Quenya, so we don't really know how it would be said
                                        in Quenya; at best we could "translate" the English idiom), nor did I
                                        offer it as an example of such. I specifically said it is offered as
                                        an example of the KINDS of deficiencies we see in neo-Elvish. In
                                        other words, this specific example is used to exemplify generic
                                        characteristics of translation into neo-Elvish (indeed in
                                        "translations" into ANY dead, poorly-attested language). And for that
                                        purpose this specific example is perfectly suited to my point.

                                        > 2) We know much more about English grammar and especially usage
                                        > than we do about Quenya as a standard by which to judge
                                        > "grammaticality." Much of that would be in the eye of the English
                                        > (etc.)speaking/Quenya studying beholder.

                                        If you intend this as a rejoinder to my point, then again you've
                                        missed it: the KINDS of deficiencies we see in both the specific
                                        example given here and in neo-Elvish "translations" generally are
                                        characteristic of translation into any poorly-understood and/or -
                                        attested language. The fact that we can't do any better in such
                                        translations due to the nature of Elvish does NOT render the results
                                        "good" or "authentic" Elvish: it just makes them the best one can do.

                                        Further, the fact that we can speak English only BECAUSE we know so
                                        much more about its grammar and "especially usage" than we do about
                                        Quenya -- which is what your point here boils down to -- is exactly
                                        MY point: since we KNOW that we have precious little such information
                                        for Elvish, then we KNOW that what Elvish can now be produced must
                                        necessarily be woefully deficient in these respects; and thus that it
                                        is likely to be ungrammatical in all but perhaps the strictest
                                        analytical sense, and thus as I have said before "un-Elvish".

                                        (Nor do we have to know what the correct Elvish would be in order to
                                        know what it would NOT be. I know a little German, enough to string
                                        words and elements together in proper order and to get the tense
                                        right, and agreement, and case, etc. But I'm far from fluent, and in
                                        fact can read it only slowly with the help of a dictionary, and would
                                        surely never pass as a speaker of German beyond maybe 5 seconds of
                                        attempted conversation. And I don't have to know what idiomatic
                                        German for "I'm going to sleep now" is to know that it _isn't_ "Ich
                                        gehe aufmachen-auge dies-zeit_". Interpretable to a German speaker?
                                        Sure. Grammatical, strictly speaking? Yep. Correct or "authentic"
                                        German? I am quite sure not. Even if I have a complete lexicon and
                                        grammar, and use it to produce instead "_Ich bin gehend zu schlaf
                                        nun_", I am quite sure that that is NOT idiomatic German.)

                                        Further, you neglect to address the fact that the very same criteria
                                        you used to defend your neo-Quenya translations as Quenya -- sc. the
                                        use only of attested Quenya forms and elements -- would require that
                                        we similarly defend "I go close-eye this-time" as English (that being
                                        my intent). My example demonstrates that these criteria are
                                        insufficient -- and thus again is perfectly suited to my point.

                                        If you'd care to address my actual points, I'm happy to continue
                                        discussing them with you.
                                      • Carl F. Hostetter
                                        P.S. While all natural languages are ultimately arbitrary in their systems (that is, there are a very large, possibly infinite, number of equally valid ,
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Oct 5 12:49 PM
                                          P.S. While all natural languages are ultimately arbitrary in their
                                          systems (that is, there are a very large, possibly infinite, number
                                          of equally "valid", workable possibilities for pairing sound and
                                          meaning, none of the choices among which are _inherent_), that does
                                          NOT mean that PARTICULAR languages do not have particular, signature
                                          characteristics that can be gleaned in general even if not enumerable
                                          in all specifics. (Most native English monoglots can on hearing
                                          distinguish, say, French from German, or even French from Italian
                                          from Spanish, without knowing how to make even one basic sentence in
                                          any of those languages; we all can discern the character of languages
                                          even if we can't specify it in any detail.)

                                          As Tolkien said (for most of us, the first time we heard and
                                          considered any such thing), languages operate on an aesthetic as well
                                          as an analytical level, and even apart from any question of utility.
                                          He remarked once that, if one divorces it from its meaning, the
                                          English phrase "cellar door" is perhaps the most beautiful one in any
                                          language; and he went on to say that the Welsh language was for him
                                          full of such beauties as "cellar door". It is precisely this such
                                          characteristic beauty that we find in Tolkien's two main Elvish
                                          languages, when wielded in composition by Tolkien. But it is
                                          precisely this such characteristic beauty that seems buried if not
                                          completely lacking in the vast majority of "neo-Elvish", _even when_
                                          wielded in "translation" by those who rely solely on attested Elvish
                                          words and elements.

                                          Tolkien's languages, as fully exemplified by his Elvish compositions,
                                          are (for most of us) full of "cellar doors", and we recognize that
                                          character of his languages in his compositions even when we can't
                                          enunciate that character in detail. By the same token, we can readily
                                          detect the un-Elvish character of (nearly all) neo-Elvish
                                          "translations", being as they are instead full of "close-eyes" and
                                          "this-times".
                                        • Atwe
                                          ... OFF: there was once a survey among foreigners who were asked to name the most beautiful Hungarian word; the winner was _hóhér_ which means
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Oct 6 4:43 AM
                                            --- "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:



                                            > He remarked once that, if one divorces it from its
                                            > meaning, the
                                            > English phrase "cellar door" is perhaps the most
                                            > beautiful one in any
                                            > language; and he went on to say that the Welsh
                                            > language was for him
                                            > full of such beauties as "cellar door".

                                            OFF: there was once a survey among foreigners who were
                                            asked to name the most beautiful Hungarian word; the
                                            winner was _hóhér_ which means "executioner"... :-)

                                            By the same
                                            > token, we can readily
                                            > detect the un-Elvish character of (nearly all)
                                            > neo-Elvish
                                            > "translations", being as they are instead full of
                                            > "close-eyes" and
                                            > "this-times".

                                            I believe that there are quite a lot among us who now
                                            and then fall into the sin of composing/translating in
                                            neoElvish (I can speak naturally for myself only and
                                            maybe for those who visit my site regularly and post
                                            there) who really ask themselves before posting: would
                                            this appeal to Tolkien? Would he find it as an
                                            interesting/plausible solution? Would he find the
                                            sound of it pleasing?
                                            It's perfectly possible that most of the times we'd
                                            fail of those criteria. The only one who could judge
                                            this passed away long ago. We can only hope that some
                                            of our texts would pass the test of the "cellar door"
                                            and not fall immediately into "well-deserved
                                            oblivion", to quote Patrick.

                                            With warm regards,

                                            Thomas Ferencz

                                            -- love is the shadow that ripens the wine --

                                            Let's discuss Eldarin languages - http://aglardh.middangeard.hu



                                            __________________________________
                                            Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
                                            http://mail.yahoo.com
                                          • Carl F. Hostetter
                                            ... LOL! (Can you give us an indication of how that is pronounced?) ... I know it s just a flourish here, Thomas, but in the current environment in which a lot
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Oct 6 6:00 AM
                                              On Oct 6, 2005, at 7:43 AM, Atwe wrote:

                                              > OFF: there was once a survey among foreigners who were
                                              > asked to name the most beautiful Hungarian word; the
                                              > winner was _hóhér_ which means "executioner"... :-)

                                              LOL! (Can you give us an indication of how that is pronounced?)

                                              > I believe that there are quite a lot among us who now
                                              > and then fall into the sin of composing/translating in
                                              > neoElvish

                                              I know it's just a flourish here, Thomas, but in the current
                                              environment in which a lot baseless charges are being thrown at me
                                              and my colleagues, can I ask you to please stipulate that you know
                                              that we do not in fact consider composing or translating into neo-
                                              Elvish to be a "sin", or in fact have ever said that people should
                                              not compose or translate? It will really help to ratchet down the
                                              rhetoric and focus on the actual issues.

                                              > (I can speak naturally for myself only and
                                              > maybe for those who visit my site regularly and post
                                              > there) who really ask themselves before posting: would
                                              > this appeal to Tolkien? Would he find it as an
                                              > interesting/plausible solution? Would he find the
                                              > sound of it pleasing?

                                              Excellent! And if they keep the points of common deficiency that I
                                              listed in mind, then they will have a much better chance of
                                              approaching that standard.

                                              > The only one who could judge this passed away long ago.

                                              That depends on the criteria being judged. The ones I listed are easy
                                              to spot, and VERY frequent in neo-Elvish translations. We don't need
                                              Tolkien to spot and avoid such deficiencies as these.

                                              > We can only hope that some of our texts would pass the test of the
                                              > "cellar door"

                                              You can do more than just hope. You can also heed the common pitfalls
                                              of neo-Elvish.

                                              > and not fall immediately into "well-deserved oblivion", to quote
                                              > Patrick.

                                              That would be great, but I haven't seen it happen yet. Every
                                              translation I've seen offered here has surfaced briefly and then sunk
                                              away without a ripple.
                                            • Atwe
                                              Dear Carl, ... Imagine the word being Quenya and you ll come quite close. ... Indeed it was a flourish, no offence meant. It is quite clear that the quality of
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Oct 6 7:47 AM
                                                Dear Carl,

                                                --- "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:


                                                > the
                                                > > winner was _hóhér_ which means "executioner"...
                                                > :-)
                                                >
                                                > LOL! (Can you give us an indication of how that is
                                                > pronounced?)

                                                Imagine the word being Quenya and you'll come quite
                                                close.



                                                > I know it's just a flourish here, Thomas, but in the
                                                > current
                                                > environment in which a lot baseless charges are
                                                > being thrown at me
                                                > and my colleagues, can I ask you to please stipulate
                                                > that you know
                                                > that we do not in fact consider composing or
                                                > translating into neo-
                                                > Elvish to be a "sin", or in fact have ever said that
                                                > people should
                                                > not compose or translate? It will really help to
                                                > ratchet down the
                                                > rhetoric and focus on the actual issues.

                                                Indeed it was a flourish, no offence meant. It is
                                                quite clear that the quality of the
                                                translations/compositions to be found on the net
                                                (let's now exclude one-liners/tattoos etc. though they
                                                also contribute to the overall picture) is very
                                                varying, from the outright horror to quite
                                                nice/creatives ones. If I consider the various texts I
                                                contributed to elfling etc. in the past 5 years there
                                                are a lot which I would do differently today or would
                                                not do at all, but there are also some that I am proud
                                                of and find them pleasing even to myself. And the same
                                                goes for a lot of others out there (well, maybe not a
                                                _lot_), like Petri Tikka, Roman Rausch to name but
                                                two.
                                                I think I rather look at this whole thing as at a
                                                development process. It is quite natural I think for
                                                anybody who approaches the Eldarin languages not from
                                                the professional linguists' angle but out of devotion
                                                to Tolkien's creation or out of simple excitement for
                                                the intricacies of a language (amateurism in the best
                                                sense of the word) to translate everything he/she can
                                                lay hands on. Then if the interest perseveres (it does
                                                for a few, although not many - look at the number of
                                                people who post _regularly_ on elfling out of the 2000
                                                or so members) this slowly changes as the person
                                                starts to appreciate the limits of the language, the
                                                limits of the available information and the simple
                                                beauty with wich Tolkien resolves his own problems and
                                                then the scope and topic of translations/compositions
                                                will almost automatically narrow itself. This also
                                                happened to me; and although I can't say I do not
                                                produce "mishmash" but maybe I produce more ingenious
                                                mishmash.



                                                > > and not fall immediately into "well-deserved
                                                > oblivion", to quote
                                                > > Patrick.
                                                >
                                                > That would be great, but I haven't seen it happen
                                                > yet. Every
                                                > translation I've seen offered here has surfaced
                                                > briefly and then sunk
                                                > away without a ripple.

                                                If you refer to _this list_ specifically, then I
                                                agree.

                                                With warm regards,

                                                Thomas Ferencz

                                                -- love is the shadow that ripens the wine --

                                                Let's discuss Eldarin languages - http://aglardh.middangeard.hu




                                                ______________________________________________________
                                                Yahoo! for Good
                                                Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
                                                http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
                                              • Carl F. Hostetter
                                                ... No offense taken. I just wanted it stipulated that you weren t in fact accusing us of viewing neo-Elvish translation as inherently a bad thing (however
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Oct 6 8:59 AM
                                                  On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:47 AM, Atwe wrote:

                                                  > Indeed it was a flourish, no offence meant.

                                                  No offense taken. I just wanted it stipulated that you weren't in
                                                  fact accusing us of viewing neo-Elvish translation as inherently a
                                                  bad thing (however poorly it might be executed in practice at times).
                                                  I didn't get quite that stipulation, but perhaps this will have to do.

                                                  > I think I rather look at this whole thing as at a development process.

                                                  Indeed. And part of my intent is to help that development along by
                                                  pointing out common pitfalls and suggest a better approach.
                                                • Peter
                                                  ... Why is it that some people refuse to understand that Christopher Tolkien has a right to decide who gets to publish his father s papers? Anybody who has
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Oct 9 10:06 AM
                                                    --- In quenya@yahoogroups.com, "quildarener" <quildarener@y...> wrote:

                                                    > Without reflecting on your scholarship or your right
                                                    > to the Tolkien language material, I would point out that you and the
                                                    > rest of the E.T. have exclusive and jealously guarded control of
                                                    > this material and that only that circumstance forces the rest of us
                                                    > to rely on your release of it as a source of later Tolkien grammar
                                                    > and vocabulary.

                                                    Why is it that some people refuse to understand that Christopher
                                                    Tolkien has a right to decide who gets to publish his father's papers?
                                                    Anybody who has ever worked with archives and private papers in an
                                                    academic manner knows that these has to be "exclusively and jealously"
                                                    guarded since most archives demand that you do not publish without
                                                    their permission. Furthermore when you are working with private papers
                                                    you have to be extra careful since no honest person wants to violate
                                                    the trust of the owner or keeper of the papers.
                                                    It is an absurd assumption that the Tolkien papers should be freely
                                                    available to anyone who comes along since they are the property of the
                                                    Tolkien Estate and frankly I trust Christopher Tolkien and the people
                                                    he has been working with to make these papers available in a
                                                    presentable and scholarly manner.
                                                    "That circumstance" that the E. T. started to work with Christopher
                                                    Tolkien and earned his trust and cooperation has given us the Gnomish
                                                    and Qenya Lexicons, an until then unknown Tolkien writing system, the
                                                    sárati of Rúmil, the answer to what was behind the secret door in the
                                                    Paths of the Dead, five Catholic prayers in Elvish, page after page of
                                                    linguistic philosophy, elvish grammar and elvish words. All presented
                                                    in a thoroughly scholarly manner. And it doesn't seem to stop!
                                                    Happy "circumstance" indeed. I am happy that this task was appointed
                                                    to people who have kept an enduring interest in Tolkien's languages
                                                    over decades. Many people who were active in Tolkien linguistics in
                                                    1992, when I understand the E. T. started their cooperation with Chr.
                                                    Tolkien, have since dropped out. David Salo seems to have "retired"
                                                    after publishing his long awaited book. Lisa Star seems to have
                                                    withdrawn from Tolkien linguistics as well. Luckily the E. T. hasn't
                                                    lost interest and it seems that steadily and surely we will see the
                                                    unfolding of Tolkien's languages from A to Z.
                                                    Thank you Carl F. Hostetter, Christopher Gilson, Patrick Wynne, Arden
                                                    R. Smith and Bill Welden! You give us Tolkien's world in it's own
                                                    words. And for a moment or two we can feel that we are walking with
                                                    the elves.

                                                    Nobody forces anybody to rely on anything. You are free to read what
                                                    you want and write what you want. Don't attack people for having
                                                    access to information, and that complain that you are forced to rely
                                                    on them when they publish that information.

                                                    Sincerely,
                                                    Peter Edelberg
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.