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

Re: [quenya] Centa

Expand Messages
  • Helge K. Fauskanger
    ... Thanks. It is not intended as a compliment, of course, but I ll take it as one. ... linguistics, it is in fact still indispensable. The list of resources
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 25, 2002
      Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

      > Helge, you really are a piece of, er, let's say work.

      Thanks. It is not intended as a compliment, of course, but I'll take it as
      one.

      > As for _Intro. to Elvish_, of the _books_ available for Tolkienian
      linguistics, it is in fact still indispensable. The list of resources on
      the inside back cover of _Vinyar Tengwar_ is _deliberately_ confined to
      printed, non-Internet-based sources, because there are still people who
      read _VT_, but do _not_ have Internet access.

      Well, it says nowhere that the list is limited to printed _books_. If
      "indispensable" really means "all you can get if you are totally cut off
      from Internet access", I would suggest that this wording is adopted
      instead.

      > Those who _do_ have Internet access, and so would be able to avail
      themselves of your own excellent (in a different way) primer, are directed
      on the same page to my resources page, where they will discover many
      references to your work.

      How nice. Actually there is very much useful material on the net besides my
      own contributions, in particular regarding the writing systems. But to
      speak of my own work, how is it "excellent in a different way"? And why do
      I feel a sneaking suspicion that CFH actually prefers the _other_ "way" of
      being excellent, which puts the entire seeming compliment in a rather
      strange light?

      My Quenya course, the most substantial single document on my pages, aims to
      present Quenya-as-Quenya, almost entirely divorced from Tolkien's fiction:
      an actual linguistic structure which is at least potentially useable. (Cf.
      the purpose of this list, which the subscribers at least occasionally
      remember...) However, I guess CFH would prefer the angle
      "Quenya-as-linguistics-in-the-abstract" -- the academic study of a subtle
      species of "literary art" appearing and evolving in the manuscripts of a
      late British author, and very little else.

      > Though not every detail found in _Intro. to Elvish_ has held up now 25
      years later, that is of little concern compared to the value of the
      education one gets in reading the book: to wit, anyone reading _Intro. To
      Elvish_ will come away with a grounding in _descriptive and historical
      linguistics_ as pertains to Tolkien's languages that is crucial to their
      study.

      Even if this is true, and I'm not convinced it is, are there not better
      introductions to "descriptive and historical linguistics" as such? If this
      is the respect in which _Introduction to Elvish_ is "indispensable", this
      would seem to mean that descriptive and historical linguistics was actually
      invented by the authors of this book, and that this work is the sole book
      that teaches such things.

      > And _most_ of the details are in fact still correct, because on the whole
      the authors eschewed prescriptivism and instead confined themselves to
      describing the data, and the implications of the data, as it existed at the
      time.

      Even where the details are not positively wrong, the discussions are now so
      woefully _incomplete_ that the work as a whole cannot be recommended
      anymore. An astronomy textbook written in the year 1800 is probably still
      _correct_ as far as it goes, but would CFH (who I understand is a NASA
      employee) really recommend it to fresh students now in 2002? We have learnt
      a few new things about the planets and the entire solar system in the last
      couple of centuries, haven't we? Well, we have likewise learnt quite a few
      new things about Tolkien's languages in the last couple of decades.

      Anyhow, there is much in _Introduction_ that IS positively wrong. In
      particular, its discussion of Sindarin should be read as a mere curiosity
      today.

      > Can _you_ recommend a _better_ printed work on Tolkienian linguistics?

      Yes. One is indeed also listed on the inside back cover of most VTs: Nancy
      Martsch' _Basic Quenya_ is a much better "introduction" as far as Quenya is
      concerned, not because its author was so much smarter than the guys who
      wrote _Introduction_, but because she had more source material than they
      had. The increase in quality thus does not reflect badly on the authors of
      _Introduction_. Tolkien's own texts, such as _Quendi and Eldar_, _The
      Etymologies_, and _Lowdham's Report_ (now available in printed form in
      HoME) will provide the serious student with infinitely much more
      information than _Introduction_ does.

      > Or better yet, why don't you publish a better book yourself?

      I have already answered that question in my Amazon.com review of
      _Introduction to Elvish_: As long as so much primary material remains
      unpublished, I would be very hesitant to publish my own works on paper. I
      prefer electronic articles that can readily be revised and updated.
      (Publishing on the web also clears me of any suspicion that I am seeking
      personal profit in the form of royalties, thus emphasizing the absolutely
      non-commercial nature of my work...a useful point in the occasional
      copyright debates.)

      > Why must you trash the work of others in order to feel good about
      yourself and your own work?

      Please. Read my review as registered on Amazon.com. I carefully point out
      that _when originally published_, this book was about as good as it could
      be. I write that the authors were competent and tried to analyze the entire
      corpus they had. But what was a very good book in the late seventies has
      inevitably turned into a woefully incomplete and outdated study, NOT
      because the original authors weren't competent, but simply because so much
      more source material has become available in the meantime. It must be
      possible to hold two thoughts in one's head at the same time: Yes, this
      book was very good back then. No, it is not particularly good, let alone
      "indispensable", now.

      Claiming that this book is still, in the year 2002, the "indispensable"
      Bible of Tolkienian linguistics is simply not true. "Indispensable" means
      that you literally CANNOT DO WITHOUT IT, right? Yet there are many highly
      competent Tolkien-linguists around that have probably never read
      _Introduction_ . Ergo they have indeed been able to dispense with the
      "indispensable" work.

      I notice that whereas _Introduction_ has been described as "venerable but
      still indispensable" on the inside back cover of the last four VTs, it was
      only "venerable but still valuable" in the otherwise identical text in
      VT39. I would suggest that this alternative wording is adopted permanently.
      Though of course, "venerable" with no further qualifications would probably
      be an even better description.

      > Can't you just feel good about the work _you've_ done? Are you
      _that_ insecure?

      The feedback I receive gives me very little reason to be particularly
      "insecure" in that particular matter.

      - HF
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      On 6/25/02 4:23 AM, Helge K. Fauskanger ... You re a clever lad, Helge. You could figure it out, if you wanted to. ... When you
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 25, 2002
        On 6/25/02 4:23 AM, "Helge K. Fauskanger" <helge.fauskanger@...>
        wrote:

        > Well, it says nowhere that the list is limited to printed _books_.

        You're a clever lad, Helge. You could figure it out, if you wanted to.

        > If "indispensable" really means "all you can get if you are totally cut off
        > from Internet access", I would suggest that this wording is adopted
        > instead.

        When you get to be editor, you can pick any phrasing you like. (And of
        course, since you're you, why pick 1 word when 13 will do?) Last time I
        looked, "indispensable" meant "not to be dispensed with". Anyone serious
        about the _scholarly_ study of Tolkien's languages should _not_ dispense
        with this book, in particular as an introduction to the _scholarly_ method
        (which will not be found in Nancy's primer, nor in your course), and further
        as a very useful index to the "foreign" language element in _The Lord of the
        Rings_ (something else not to be found in Nancy's primer, nor in your
        course).

        > How nice. Actually there is very much useful material on the net besides my
        > own contributions, in particular regarding the writing systems.

        As usual, I'm sure many of us find ourselves wondering what your point is? I
        never said that yours was the _only_ work on the Web, nor did I say that my
        resources page _only_ pointed to your work. What a strange thing to respond
        with. Oh, and thanks for reminding me: _Intro._ is still a very handy and
        valuable reference for the writing systems; indeed, its treatment seems to
        form the basis of most of those found elsewhere, on the net or in printed
        form.

        > speak of my own work, how is it "excellent in a different way"?

        See above.

        > My Quenya course, the most substantial single document on my pages, aims to
        > present Quenya-as-Quenya, almost entirely divorced from Tolkien's fiction:
        > an actual linguistic structure which is at least potentially useable.

        It may aim to do that, but if so it misses the mark widely, instead
        presenting Helge's personal and artificial *Quenya as Tolkien's Quenya, in
        order to make something "useable".

        > Even if this is true, and I'm not convinced it is, are there not better
        > introductions to "descriptive and historical linguistics" as such?

        Of course there are. So what? People looking for a book-form, _scholarly_
        introduction to _Elvish_ can do no better that _An Introduction to Elvish_.

        >If this
        > is the respect in which _Introduction to Elvish_ is "indispensable", this
        > would seem to mean that descriptive and historical linguistics was actually
        > invented by the authors of this book, and that this work is the sole book
        > that teaches such things.

        Which just shows to what absurd lengths you are willing to go in
        constructing strawman arguments in order to avoid the simple, clear meaning
        and truth of what I say.

        > Even where the details are not positively wrong, the discussions are now so
        > woefully _incomplete_ that the work as a whole cannot be recommended
        > anymore. An astronomy textbook written in the year 1800 is probably still
        > _correct_ as far as it goes, but would CFH (who I understand is a NASA
        > employee) really recommend it to fresh students now in 2002?

        Whoa, we're drowning in straw now!

        > Anyhow, there is much in _Introduction_ that IS positively wrong. In
        > particular, its discussion of Sindarin should be read as a mere curiosity
        > today.

        Nonsense. The discussion of ablaut is still sound in general, as is the
        discussion of basic phonology. And the dictionary is still the best printed
        Sindarin index to _The Lord of the Rings_ available.

        >> Can _you_ recommend a _better_ printed work on Tolkienian linguistics?
        >
        > Yes. One is indeed also listed on the inside back cover of most VTs: Nancy
        > Martsch' _Basic Quenya_ is a much better "introduction" as far as Quenya is
        > concerned,

        I'm sure that Nancy would be the first to admit that her work and _Intro._
        have very different aims and means. As usual, you seem incapable of
        responding to what I actually asked (much preferring to answer your own
        made-up questions and hypotheticals): _Basic Quenya_ is the best printed
        _tutorial_ on Quenya (which is why I also recommend it in _VT_), but it is
        by no means a better introduction to Tolkienian _linguistics_ than _Intro.
        to Elvish_. Quite the opposite.

        > not because its author was so much smarter than the guys who
        > wrote _Introduction_, but because she had more source material than they
        > had. The increase in quality thus does not reflect badly on the authors of
        > _Introduction_.

        Who ever said it had anything to do with relative intelligence? Your mind
        seem ineluctably drawn to make such judgmental assessments. In your mind, it
        seems, one work must succeed at the expense of another. Scholarship as
        conquest, it seems.

        > Tolkien's own texts, such as _Quendi and Eldar_, _The
        > Etymologies_, and _Lowdham's Report_ (now available in printed form in
        > HoME) will provide the serious student with infinitely much more
        > information than _Introduction_ does.

        Yes of course! (I wonder just to whom you think this is news? Or to what
        counterargument you think you're responding? Certainly not me and mine, nor
        to anyone on this list.) What has that got to do with _Intro._'s value as an
        introduction to Tolkienian linguistics?

        >> Why must you trash the work of others in order to feel good about
        > yourself and your own work?
        >
        > Please. Read my review as registered on Amazon.com.

        I'm sure if I read your laundry lists I wouldn't find you trashing other
        people's work there either. But we're talking about the _present_
        discussion.

        > Claiming that this book is still, in the year 2002, the "indispensable"
        > Bible of Tolkienian linguistics is simply not true.

        Well, once again, we see Helge's (in)famous rhetorical technique. I have
        never claimed that _Intro._ is any sort of "Bible" of Tolkienian
        linguistics. Another strawman, existing only in your fevered mind. I said it
        is _indispensable_, and for the reasons listed above, I stand by that
        remark.

        > The feedback I receive gives me very little reason to be particularly
        > "insecure" in that particular matter.

        No, but clearly you give yourself sufficient reason, as this your latest,
        desperate, haystack attempt at misconstrual and dismissiveness shows.


        |======================================================================|
        | 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." |
        |======================================================================|
      • Tip Toe
        Firstly, let me apologize for not writing the following in Quenya. My skills are not that far advanced that I would be able to write something of this length
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 25, 2002
          Firstly, let me apologize for not writing the following in Quenya. My
          skills are not that far advanced that I would be able to write something of
          this length in that wonderful language.

          It seems that there is yet another 'discussion' between Carl and Helge that
          has gone so far off topic that it no longer has anything to do with 'Centa'
          (which is declared to be associated with in the subject line).

          I *am* a newbie, and I normally *love* lurking, but I find it hard to stay
          quiet when this sort of thing happens to a mailing list I love.

          I am now going to try to attempt to satisfy CFH, Helge and my own peace of
          mind in one post.

          Firstly (okay, okay, second firstly ;)), I do believe the 'Description' of
          this mailing group is [This is a group for people to practice reading and
          writing in Quenya (and for other people to correct them :->). If you post
          to this group, please do so in Quenya, using English only for comments and
          explanations. And "Nai i kwet ayan eledion nuve tur!" ("Be it that the holy
          tongue of the Elves be the victor!")] -- Hence my apology for posting in
          English (the lesser language ;-D) If you two (I say two even though other
          people have been involved - Helge and CFH have been the most... wordy)
          insist on arguing, would you please do it in Quenya? That way you could
          argue, it would be on topic, and those lurking just may learn something
          about the structure, and how it is written.

          Secondly may I present Helge's point(much condensed of course)
          _THERE ARE OTHER VALUABLE RESOURCES THAT MAY BE OF MORE USE THAN THE
          OFFICIAL *BOOKS*! [When trying to *learn* the language]_

          May I also present CFH's point(also much condensed)
          _THE BOOKS AND WRITINGS(VT) ARE !VITAL! TO THE SCHOLARLY *STUDY* OF
          TOLKIEN'S LANGUAGES!_

          These are both valid points.

          Here is the problem. You are arguing two different points. While one is
          talking about the scholarly study (ie: verb morphing, evolution) the other
          is talking about learning the language itself... Or at least this is what
          *I* got from the 'posts'. I do have to congratulate you two though; it is
          most interesting and impressive to see a 'flame war' where instead of
          misspelt swear words, language like 'strawman' and 'indispensable' are the
          norm.

          If only all flames were like this. The world would be a happier place. Can
          you see it? "You are completely not indispensable! You Strawman! I'm
          going to drown you in your own straw! I'm going to plunge my hand into your
          body, rip your straw out and make a Hat from it!" (Personally, I'd love to
          see this. It would make me laugh over and over again)

          Let's just say that it is the reader's purpose which determines the value of
          any text. If, hypothetically speaking, a teacher assigned a project where
          the students were to study the makings and evolution of a language. In that
          case, Helge's wonderful course may not be very much use. On the other hand
          (although very unlikely), if the object of the project was to *learn* (or
          attempt to learn) a language not already known to the student, in the most
          correct, modern form possible, it is likely that "_Intro._" would not be of
          much use, in that case.

          These two different texts have different purposes. As I'm sure the authors
          of all books/literary forms do.

          In conclusion, I would like to ask/beg/plead/appeal to CFH and Helge.
          Please, if you want to argue, then phone each other. It is much more fun
          (IMHO) to yell at someone, then to type it out. If you can not do that,
          then perhaps you could e-mail each other? Or (if you've blocked each other
          from sending you messages, and have call display and don't answer) and feel
          that you simply *must* defend your/the estate's honor, and that the only way
          to do that is by this list, then *please* do it in quenya. With all words
          sourced, referenced and explained of course.

          ~Sprite,
          *a mere learner who wants to learn as much as possible about all things
          elvish, except copyright debates.*

          PS:[Whoa, we're drowning in straw now!] Hee Hee Hee, can I quote that?

          PPS: Does anybody know what a translation for ["You are completely not
          indispensable! You Strawman! I'm going to drown you in your own straw!
          I'm going to plunge my hand into your body, rip your straw out and make a
          Hat from it!"] would be?

          _________________________________________________________________
          MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
          http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
        • Carl F. Hostetter
          I m in agreement with much that you write, Tip Toe . I would just point out that this discussion began when I corrected another poster s misuse of _kenta_,
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 25, 2002
            I'm in agreement with much that you write, "Tip Toe". I would just point out
            that this discussion began when I corrected another poster's misuse of
            _kenta_, and pointed out that Helge's wordlist is likewise erroneous in this
            case. To my mind, this sort of communication is perfectly within the purpose
            of this list. It was Helge who took advantage of seeing a post with my name
            attached to it to abuse the purpose of this list and launch into another of
            his wide-ranging, tangential attacks.

            I am more than willing to stick to the subject; but if provoked I will
            respond.


            |======================================================================|
            | 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." |
            |======================================================================|
          • gaerielleenay
            Hear, hear, Tip Toe! ... place. Can ... Strawman! I m ... into your ... love to ... LOL! Hilarious! I totally agree. This whole debate has been getting more
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 1, 2002
              Hear, hear, Tip Toe!


              > If only all flames were like this. The world would be a happier
              place. Can
              > you see it? "You are completely not indispensable! You
              Strawman! I'm
              > going to drown you in your own straw! I'm going to plunge my hand
              into your
              > body, rip your straw out and make a Hat from it!" (Personally, I'd
              love to
              > see this. It would make me laugh over and over again)

              LOL! Hilarious! I totally agree.

              This whole debate has been getting more and more distasteful
              to "listen" to. Can we just ban Carl now? (Again, or hasn't he been
              banned from this list yet?) Helge, please, just ignore him next
              time! I can see some of the points on both sides, but Carl's
              nitpicking and pointless faultfinding has been less then tolerable
              for a long time.

              I personally, while I prefer to be as correct as possible, don't
              feel that such a hardline stance as Carl has taken is at all
              necessary. I have used Helge's course and while he does tend to take
              a long time to say a little, at least you cannot accuse him of not
              trying to present all sides of an issue. But how can you even imply
              that it is anything like as bad Noel's book?

              Ruth Noel's book is badly researched, badly conjectured, and badly
              put together, and it widely known that it is full of errors. I knew
              nothing about Quenya when I first bought the book, and very little
              of linguistics, and yet even I saw very quickly how wrong she often
              was. Helge's course is the complete opposite.

              Of course, there may be assumptions and conjectures in it which may
              eventually prove to be invalid, but he goes out of his way to make
              sure that no one who reads the course could mistake something that
              is merely one of his own opinions for attested, published facts,
              laid down by Tolkien himself. Even the most raw student would have
              no trouble discerning which things could be taken as proven fact and
              which are hypothetical, or reconstructed. There is simply no call
              for the kind of accusations you are making. Have you even read that
              course, Carl? But of course, no, it would be beneath you to
              recognize the valid contributions of someone else. It is so much
              easier simply to attack without thinking.

              Gaeriel Leenay
            • Carl F. Hostetter
              ... That seems to be the answer for every though or opinion that you and your ilk don t want to hear: banning. Shame on you. At least what I have to say has a
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 1, 2002
                On 7/1/02 6:19 PM, "gaerielleenay" <gaerielleenay@...> wrote:

                > This whole debate has been getting more and more distasteful
                > to "listen" to. Can we just ban Carl now? (Again, or hasn't he been
                > banned from this list yet?)

                That seems to be the answer for every though or opinion that you and your
                ilk don't want to hear: banning. Shame on you. At least what I have to say
                has a basis in fact, and evidence to back up my statements, unlike your
                post.

                > Helge, please, just ignore him next time!

                Yes, please! It was _Helge_ who started this mess, with his entirely
                gratuitous and off-point slam of _An Introduction to Elvish_, and of me; all
                because I had the temerity to point out a single error in his "Quenya Corpus
                Wordlist".

                > I can see some of the points on both sides, but Carl's
                > nitpicking and pointless faultfinding has been less then tolerable
                > for a long time.

                I really think you've mixed up "Helge" and "Carl".

                > such a hardline stance as Carl has taken is at all necessary.

                What "hardline stance"?!? That _An Introduction to Elvish_ still has
                considerable value as a book on Tolkienian linguistics? How is that a
                "hardline stance", while Helge's stance -- that it is worthless -- isn't?
                Did you _read_ any of our posts, or did you dispense with that nicety before
                replying?

                > But how can you even imply that it is anything like as bad Noel's book?

                Who ever implied such a thing? Who even mentioned Ruth Noel's book?
                Certainly not me! Would you _please_ read and reply to what I actually
                wrote, instead of just making stuff up? (Fess up: Is this Helge posting
                under another guise, but using the same tactics?)

                > Even the most raw student would have
                > no trouble discerning which things could be taken as proven fact and
                > which are hypothetical, or reconstructed.

                This is an absolutely false assertion. That it is so is certainly not
                (entirely) Helge's fault -- he can't control how people will use and think
                about his work -- but it is very clear that many rely on Helge as their
                primary source, and do _not_ distinguish his hypotheticals from attested
                fact.

                > There is simply no call for the kind of accusations you are making.

                What accusations are those?!? What on earth are you talking about? (And look
                who's talking!)

                > Have you even read that course, Carl? But of course, no,

                But of course, yes!

                > it would be beneath you to recognize the valid contributions of someone else.
                > It is so much easier simply to attack without thinking.

                Oh, the irony!

                So much for your logic and rhetoric.

                <Interlabial fricative>


                |======================================================================|
                | 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." |
                |======================================================================|
              • Jesse White
                Most of you probably don t know me, but I ve been reading all of these posts. First to Carl, you need to be a little less defensive, grow up... your point
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 1, 2002
                  Most of you probably don't know me, but I've been reading all of these
                  posts. First to Carl, you need to be a little less defensive, grow up...
                  your point about Helge's work was valid, but just because he took it the
                  wrong way doesn't give you the right to be so rude to everybody who comments
                  on it!

                  Secondly to Helge, I personally don't believe that Carl's first comment
                  about your work was intended rudely at all. While all points that have been
                  made are valid, you all need to grow up and get over it!! Introduction to
                  Elvish [which I have not read] is probably a very important source for
                  anyone who plans to learn any of Tolkien's languages. But it is outdated in
                  many areas I'm sure. And any student with a brain takes Helge's course, or
                  reads any of his other material, they can easily discern between HIS opinion
                  or theory, or real actual attestations. I'm sure that there imperfections
                  in Introduction to Elvish as well, so degrading Helge's work for one [or
                  even fifty[ mistake is very stupid... but I honestly believe that the
                  original comment was not intended in any mean way, and as good as Helge's
                  work is, he should realize [as I am sure he does], that it isn't perfect,
                  and fix the error instead of getting angry, and snapping at people for
                  commenting on it.

                  Gentlemen, I think that both of you need to recognize each other as
                  fellow colleges in a field that is unstable... you are bound to disagree on
                  certain aspects of each other's work, though one, or both opinions may be
                  perfectly valid. And I'm sure one or the other of you is going to take some
                  of what I say personally, and get defensive over it, and pick apart my
                  words, and point out my spelling errors, and overall distort what I have
                  said, and if that's the way you choose to be, it shows major immaturity on
                  your part. Both of you are very smart individuals, and you both should be
                  beyond this childish bickering.

                  Namarie meldor!! Atatecen!!
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...>
                  To: <quenya@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 5:00 PM
                  Subject: Re: [quenya] Re: Centa


                  > On 7/1/02 6:19 PM, "gaerielleenay" <gaerielleenay@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > This whole debate has been getting more and more distasteful
                  > > to "listen" to. Can we just ban Carl now? (Again, or hasn't he been
                  > > banned from this list yet?)
                  >
                  > That seems to be the answer for every though or opinion that you and your
                  > ilk don't want to hear: banning. Shame on you. At least what I have to say
                  > has a basis in fact, and evidence to back up my statements, unlike your
                  > post.
                  >
                  > > Helge, please, just ignore him next time!
                  >
                  > Yes, please! It was _Helge_ who started this mess, with his entirely
                  > gratuitous and off-point slam of _An Introduction to Elvish_, and of me;
                  all
                  > because I had the temerity to point out a single error in his "Quenya
                  Corpus
                  > Wordlist".
                  >
                  > > I can see some of the points on both sides, but Carl's
                  > > nitpicking and pointless faultfinding has been less then tolerable
                  > > for a long time.
                  >
                  > I really think you've mixed up "Helge" and "Carl".
                  >
                  > > such a hardline stance as Carl has taken is at all necessary.
                  >
                  > What "hardline stance"?!? That _An Introduction to Elvish_ still has
                  > considerable value as a book on Tolkienian linguistics? How is that a
                  > "hardline stance", while Helge's stance -- that it is worthless -- isn't?
                  > Did you _read_ any of our posts, or did you dispense with that nicety
                  before
                  > replying?
                  >
                  > > But how can you even imply that it is anything like as bad Noel's book?
                  >
                  > Who ever implied such a thing? Who even mentioned Ruth Noel's book?
                  > Certainly not me! Would you _please_ read and reply to what I actually
                  > wrote, instead of just making stuff up? (Fess up: Is this Helge posting
                  > under another guise, but using the same tactics?)
                  >
                  > > Even the most raw student would have
                  > > no trouble discerning which things could be taken as proven fact and
                  > > which are hypothetical, or reconstructed.
                  >
                  > This is an absolutely false assertion. That it is so is certainly not
                  > (entirely) Helge's fault -- he can't control how people will use and think
                  > about his work -- but it is very clear that many rely on Helge as their
                  > primary source, and do _not_ distinguish his hypotheticals from attested
                  > fact.
                  >
                  > > There is simply no call for the kind of accusations you are making.
                  >
                  > What accusations are those?!? What on earth are you talking about? (And
                  look
                  > who's talking!)
                  >
                  > > Have you even read that course, Carl? But of course, no,
                  >
                  > But of course, yes!
                  >
                  > > it would be beneath you to recognize the valid contributions of someone
                  else.
                  > > It is so much easier simply to attack without thinking.
                  >
                  > Oh, the irony!
                  >
                  > So much for your logic and rhetoric.
                  >
                  > <Interlabial fricative>
                  >
                  >
                  > |======================================================================|
                  > | 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." |
                  > |======================================================================|
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Carl F. Hostetter
                  ... And what, pray tell, gives others the right to be so rude to me? For instance, to attribute to me opinions I did not express and do not hold, and to call
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jul 1, 2002
                    On 7/1/02 9:27 PM, "Jesse White" <narsil3791@...> wrote:

                    > Most of you probably don't know me, but I've been reading all of these
                    > posts. First to Carl, you need to be a little less defensive, grow up...
                    > your point about Helge's work was valid, but just because he took it the
                    > wrong way doesn't give you the right to be so rude to everybody who comments
                    > on it!

                    And what, pray tell, gives others the right to be so rude to me? For
                    instance, to attribute to me opinions I did not express and do not hold, and
                    to call for my banning as a result? I notice you are silent on that matter.
                    Why, for that matter, did "gaerielleenay" have to revive this thread, when
                    it was silent? If s/he hadn't attacked me, I would have had nothing further
                    to say on the matter. But I don't see you commenting on that, either. I will
                    be less "defensive" when Helge, "gaerielleenay", and their ilk cease being
                    deliberately _offensive_.

                    And if you mean to deny me the right to defend myself on this list from
                    personal attacks and baseless charges made on this list, then you had indeed
                    better ban me.

                    > I'm sure that there imperfections
                    > in Introduction to Elvish as well, so degrading Helge's work for one [or
                    > even fifty[ mistake is very stupid

                    First, no one was "degrading" (a very loaded term) Helge's work (don't buy
                    into and propagate "gaerielleenay"' s misrepresentation). That anyone could
                    think that pointing out an error in a work is an attempt at "degradation" is
                    puzzling and disturbing; are Helge's works somehow sacrosanct, so that
                    criticism of it is heretical? Helge would be the first to loudly protest any
                    such notion, I'm sure. Second, the relative number of errors in _Intro. to
                    Elvish_ has no bearing whatsoever on the correctness or value of Helge's
                    work. And vice versa. Third, it is by no means "stupid" to point out errors
                    in Helge's work, or _Intro. to Elvish_, or my work, or your work, or
                    anyone's work. Doing so is how we advance knowledge. What _is_ stupid is to
                    take criticism of _fact_ personally, and/or to try to silence criticism of
                    fact, or misrepresent it so as to attack the critic on matters completely
                    beside the point of fact.

                    > And any student with a brain takes Helge's course, or
                    > reads any of his other material, they can easily discern between HIS opinion
                    > or theory, or real actual attestations.

                    I dispute that claim. Either that, or there are a very large number of
                    brainless people on the Internet who nonetheless have the capacity to read
                    and write about Tolkien's languages.

                    > Gentlemen, I think that both of you need to recognize each other as
                    > fellow colleges in a field that is unstable... you are bound to disagree on
                    > certain aspects of each other's work, though one, or both opinions may be
                    > perfectly valid.

                    I don't know to whom you think this is news. Certainly not to me! I in fact
                    _welcome_ comments on and corrections to my work (which is all that I
                    offered Helge, in response to which he felt obliged to attack me). What I do
                    _not_ welcome is being attacked for daring to offer a correction, and
                    further to have my views misrepresented and misattributed, and further still
                    being threatened with banning because of it. But I don't see you commenting
                    on the "immaturity" of those things.

                    > And I'm sure one or the other of you is going to take some
                    > of what I say personally, and get defensive over it, and pick apart my
                    > words, and point out my spelling errors,

                    Or none of those, but instead simply disagree with what you are saying, and
                    find it inadequate to the situation.

                    > and overall distort what I have said,

                    Oh, so you don't like that either, eh? Welcome to my world.


                    |======================================================================|
                    | 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." |
                    |======================================================================|
                  • Jesse White
                    Carl, I was not the one who suggested baning you from the group, I personally think that that idea is EXTREMELY childish. In most aspects I wholly agree with
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jul 1, 2002
                      Carl, I was not the one who suggested baning you from the group, I
                      personally think that that idea is EXTREMELY childish. In most aspects I
                      wholly agree with you, you have every right to defend yourself, and Helge's
                      attack on you was uncalled for. But what I was trying to point out, was
                      that retaliating the way you have been, you bring yourself down to his
                      level. If you have dignity, or some feeling that you are above him in any
                      way, then be the bigger man and drop this whole thing. I for one am not
                      attacking you, I agree, and for that matter disagree, with many of your
                      comments. But I very strongly agree with you on the fact that much of what
                      you have said has been twisted and perverted to make you sound like the bad
                      guy, [and I'm not saying that you are the good guy either[ but this whole
                      thing has been blown way out of proportion. And secondly, I agree with you,
                      there many brainless students taking Helge's course. His work is very
                      valuable, in a totally different way from _Intro to _Elvish. There are many
                      people out there who don't have a clue about linguistics, who have just
                      read LotR, and think, "wow, dude, this elf talk stuff is cool, I'm going to
                      get on the Internet and try to learn it so I can speak it and scare my
                      friends." For them, learning Elvish isn't even worth it, and with all the
                      technical terms, they won't get through lesson one. Then there is the next
                      level up, where people just want to learn it for fun, and don't want to
                      become full "Tolkienian linguists"; and for them his course is perfect. For
                      people like myself, [and I pretend to have half a brain, better than most],
                      who have some desire to learn more about Tolkien's work, his matterial is a
                      good start. If it wasn't for Helge's course, I would have given up on
                      Elvish altogether, but by know means is his work all I plan to go by. I
                      currently don't have the ability to acquire much of the other matterial, for
                      those who didn't know, I'm blind, and as far as I know, Intro to Elvish is
                      not available in braille, or on the web for download. However Helge's work
                      was, and it has helped me, and through his refferences has given me a whole
                      lists of books that I want to read, that I can bug the Braille Library to
                      get. Before that, I was lost in the dark, haha.

                      Helge clearly states where something is his idea or opinion, and for the
                      student who jusst wants to learn a new cool language, thats enough. Not
                      everyone who wants to learn Quenya is as dedicated as some of us.
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...>
                      To: <quenya@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 7:49 PM
                      Subject: Re: [quenya] Re: Centa


                      > On 7/1/02 9:27 PM, "Jesse White" <narsil3791@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > Most of you probably don't know me, but I've been reading all of these
                      > > posts. First to Carl, you need to be a little less defensive, grow
                      up...
                      > > your point about Helge's work was valid, but just because he took it the
                      > > wrong way doesn't give you the right to be so rude to everybody who
                      comments
                      > > on it!
                      >
                      > And what, pray tell, gives others the right to be so rude to me? For
                      > instance, to attribute to me opinions I did not express and do not hold,
                      and
                      > to call for my banning as a result? I notice you are silent on that
                      matter.
                      > Why, for that matter, did "gaerielleenay" have to revive this thread, when
                      > it was silent? If s/he hadn't attacked me, I would have had nothing
                      further
                      > to say on the matter. But I don't see you commenting on that, either. I
                      will
                      > be less "defensive" when Helge, "gaerielleenay", and their ilk cease being
                      > deliberately _offensive_.
                      >
                      > And if you mean to deny me the right to defend myself on this list from
                      > personal attacks and baseless charges made on this list, then you had
                      indeed
                      > better ban me.
                      >
                      > > I'm sure that there imperfections
                      > > in Introduction to Elvish as well, so degrading Helge's work for one [or
                      > > even fifty[ mistake is very stupid
                      >
                      > First, no one was "degrading" (a very loaded term) Helge's work (don't buy
                      > into and propagate "gaerielleenay"' s misrepresentation). That anyone
                      could
                      > think that pointing out an error in a work is an attempt at "degradation"
                      is
                      > puzzling and disturbing; are Helge's works somehow sacrosanct, so that
                      > criticism of it is heretical? Helge would be the first to loudly protest
                      any
                      > such notion, I'm sure. Second, the relative number of errors in _Intro. to
                      > Elvish_ has no bearing whatsoever on the correctness or value of Helge's
                      > work. And vice versa. Third, it is by no means "stupid" to point out
                      errors
                      > in Helge's work, or _Intro. to Elvish_, or my work, or your work, or
                      > anyone's work. Doing so is how we advance knowledge. What _is_ stupid is
                      to
                      > take criticism of _fact_ personally, and/or to try to silence criticism of
                      > fact, or misrepresent it so as to attack the critic on matters completely
                      > beside the point of fact.
                      >
                      > > And any student with a brain takes Helge's course, or
                      > > reads any of his other material, they can easily discern between HIS
                      opinion
                      > > or theory, or real actual attestations.
                      >
                      > I dispute that claim. Either that, or there are a very large number of
                      > brainless people on the Internet who nonetheless have the capacity to read
                      > and write about Tolkien's languages.
                      >
                      > > Gentlemen, I think that both of you need to recognize each other as
                      > > fellow colleges in a field that is unstable... you are bound to disagree
                      on
                      > > certain aspects of each other's work, though one, or both opinions may
                      be
                      > > perfectly valid.
                      >
                      > I don't know to whom you think this is news. Certainly not to me! I in
                      fact
                      > _welcome_ comments on and corrections to my work (which is all that I
                      > offered Helge, in response to which he felt obliged to attack me). What I
                      do
                      > _not_ welcome is being attacked for daring to offer a correction, and
                      > further to have my views misrepresented and misattributed, and further
                      still
                      > being threatened with banning because of it. But I don't see you
                      commenting
                      > on the "immaturity" of those things.
                      >
                      > > And I'm sure one or the other of you is going to take some
                      > > of what I say personally, and get defensive over it, and pick apart my
                      > > words, and point out my spelling errors,
                      >
                      > Or none of those, but instead simply disagree with what you are saying,
                      and
                      > find it inadequate to the situation.
                      >
                      > > and overall distort what I have said,
                      >
                      > Oh, so you don't like that either, eh? Welcome to my world.
                      >
                      >
                      > |======================================================================|
                      > | 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." |
                      > |======================================================================|
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Carl F. Hostetter
                      First, Jesse, thank you for your far more temperate and balanced post. I agree with pretty much everything you said. ... As you know, I didn t say you were.
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jul 2, 2002
                        First, Jesse, thank you for your far more temperate and balanced post. I
                        agree with pretty much everything you said.

                        > Carl, I was not the one who suggested baning you from the group,

                        As you know, I didn't say you were.

                        > I personally think that that idea is EXTREMELY childish.

                        Agreed. It's not as if I do nothing but start fights on this (or any other)
                        list. If you look at my posting history, you will see that overwhelmingly I
                        _respond_ to other posts; and where I'm defending myself, it is in a
                        point-by-point reply to another's claim and representations about myself and
                        my words. If my replies are off-topic (and I agree that on this list they
                        usually are), it is only because I am defending myself from an off-topic
                        attack. Unfortunately, even when I _do_ make a completely on-topic post,
                        some people can't resist the opportunity to drag the list off-topic with an
                        opportunistic attack (a la Helge's latest).

                        > In most aspects I
                        > wholly agree with you, you have every right to defend yourself, and Helge's
                        > attack on you was uncalled for. But what I was trying to point out, was
                        > that retaliating the way you have been, you bring yourself down to his
                        > level. If you have dignity, or some feeling that you are above him in any
                        > way, then be the bigger man and drop this whole thing.

                        Understood. But you will allow, I trust, that unless you _say_ this sort of
                        thing, it appears very strongly that you are blaming me, and only me, for
                        these contretemps; and worse, _excusing (to say nothing of approving)
                        Helge's provocative behavior_. (I will also pass over the fact that I _was_
                        happily ignoring this latest thread until Gaeriel Leenay revived it, with an
                        entirely one-sided and muddled attack on me.) I might be more inclined to
                        ignore this sort of thing (and indeed did for the first year or two of
                        Elfling's existence) if they weren't so habitual and outrageous, and if
                        these attacks at least occasionally met with something other than silence or
                        endorsement from the rest of the list.

                        > His work is very valuable, in a totally different way from _Intro to _Elvish.

                        I said the same thing in one of my posts in this thread. I quite agree with
                        the rest of your comments on Helge's work. But that was not in question;
                        what was in question was the value of _Intro. to Elvish_, and Helge's
                        mocking of my endorsement of it. As you say, and as I said, the two are
                        valuable in their own ways, ways that have little or no bearing on the value
                        of the other.

                        > Helge clearly states where something is his idea or opinion,

                        I don't think this is universally true, though he certainly does make
                        qualifications and disclaimers at many points.

                        Now, if everyone (including Helge) is content to leave it at that, I am
                        content to do the same.


                        |======================================================================|
                        | 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." |
                        |======================================================================|
                      • X Y
                        Aiya ilyë yar melir Quenya! I don t suppose anyone remembers me, since I fell off the face of the earth over 3 months ago...anyway, I am in a slight dispute
                        Message 11 of 14 , Aug 25, 2002
                          Aiya ily� yar melir Quenya!

                          I don't suppose anyone remembers me, since I fell off
                          the face of the earth over 3 months ago...anyway, I am
                          in a slight dispute with someone and would like
                          clarification, once and for all. Can someone please
                          explain, or at least direct me to an explanation of,
                          the revision of the original "omentilmo" to
                          "omentielvo" (from Frodo's Greeting)in later editions
                          of LOTR? This ougfht to solve my frustrating little
                          problem with certain people.

                          Thank you,
                          Eruann�

                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                          http://finance.yahoo.com
                        • Míriel
                          ... I believe the reason that Tolkien changed this was because he changed a few things in the Quenya language (or perhaps just changed his mind on which one of
                          Message 12 of 14 , Aug 26, 2002
                            --- X Y <susiederkins6@...> wrote:
                            > Aiya ily� yar melir Quenya!
                            >
                            > I don't suppose anyone remembers me, since I fell
                            > off
                            > the face of the earth over 3 months ago...anyway, I
                            > am
                            > in a slight dispute with someone and would like
                            > clarification, once and for all. Can someone please
                            > explain, or at least direct me to an explanation of,
                            > the revision of the original "omentilmo" to
                            > "omentielvo" (from Frodo's Greeting)in later
                            > editions
                            > of LOTR? This ougfht to solve my frustrating little
                            > problem with certain people.
                            >
                            > Thank you,
                            > Eruann�
                            >

                            I believe the reason that Tolkien changed this was
                            because he changed a few things in the Quenya language
                            (or perhaps just changed his mind on which one of the
                            endings to use). If you assume that the ending -lvo
                            is the dual possessive ending of "our" and -lmo is the
                            inclusive possessive, then he decided to change the
                            meaning from "a star shines on the hour of our
                            (inclusive possessive) meeting" to "a star shines on
                            the hour of our (dual possessive) meeting." The only
                            real difference between the two is that one means that
                            Frodo was talking to all of the Elves and the latter
                            means that Frodo was just talking to the one Elf.
                            Tolkien later justifies this change by claiming that
                            Frodo originally said "omentielmo" but that _that_ was
                            actually incorrect grammer and so in later editions of
                            the Red Book the Men of (I can't really remember their
                            title...I keep thinking Westmarch?) changed it to the
                            correct greeting with "omentielvo." Which, as Helge
                            pointed out in his course, would proabably have caused
                            a few snickers from the other Elves as Gildor made his
                            remark of, "Be careful friends! Speak no secrets!
                            Here is a scholar in the Ancient Tongue." It's almost
                            a sarcastic remark in this new light...though I'm sure
                            that Gildor was just trying to be polite. ^_^

                            =====
                            "War brings sorrow, but we fight to protect our loved ones from that sorrow." -- Quatre's note to his father in Episode Zero (quite poetic and very telling of his beliefs, ne?)

                            � cen� mi hir� yanna roitaly�...

                            __________________________________________________
                            Do You Yahoo!?
                            Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
                            http://autos.yahoo.com
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.