Neckless and proofless?
 

While reading The Hobbit this weekend, I was struck by an occurrence of 'neckless' for 'necklace'.

If Tolkien had put it there, clearly there would have to be an explanation for such a use, so naturally I cross-referenced the copy I was reading with my other copies. I found that two of them have this error, but that three others do not.

What makes this interesting is that the copy in which I first found the mistake was a fourth impression of the fourth edition (George Allen and Unwin, 1983) and the only copy that duplicated it was a 1978 Guild Publishing edition that is identical to the GA&U edition even down to the pagination. However, I have an old Unwin Paperbacks copy of The Hobbit from 1983 (a late impression of a 1975 paperback edition) that does not contain the mistake. How, I wonder, did a mistake like that get into such a late edition?

I would be very interested to know if this was a mistake in the typesetting for the Allen and Unwin fourth edition, and for how many impressions and in which editions it continued. It seems clear that the mistake was not present in any copies before 1978, but I hope that the rest of you can confirm this from your own libraries.

I am not technologically aware enough to know but when did they start to move from physically typesetting books and doing it on computers. It does seem like something that slipped passed a spell checker.

Neckless
 

Not sure if it's relevant, but 'neckless' seems to be a valid word according to my on line dictionary and spell checker... That would make it an editing whoopsie, rather than the computer's fault?

That is what I meant - because it is a real world it wouldn't have been picked up by a spell checker. I have been doing genealogical research lately and mistranscriptions of the indexes into the databases are a nightmare. But unlike someone turning Diana to Deana and Doris to Davis in a list, you would hope that this error would have been spotted by a proofreader.

Well, Bilbo did get the necklace from Dain, a dwarf. And since dwarves are, by their very nature, stubby and stout, perhaps this was a Freudian slip on Bilbo's part, using the term "neckless" as an allusion to squat dwarves lacking a neck beneath their billowing beards. For a dwarf, it would not be a "necklace", but more of a...ummm..."chestlace".

A tempting hypothesis. I'd have expected Tolkien's edition of the Red Book to have at least a footnote about that, though.

Apparently around 1962. By 1978 they were on the second generation of phototypesetting machines. This probably was a computer error, but I still checked every reference book I have looking for an alternative or dialect spelling of 'necklace'.

For the record, none of my American editions contain the mistake. I have the 1977 Ballantine edition, the 1988 Houghton Mifflin annotated edition, and a recent printing of the 1973 Houghton Mifflin slipcase edition.

My guess is this is probably another one of those U.K. things. Let's face it -- you folks have a long history of creative spelling, to say nothing of your pronunciations.

The obvious comment from the usual suspect
 

Noah Webster was the man with the creative spellings. I attribute the success of his unilateral spelling reform to the general unavailability of good educational books in early nineteenth-century America. Anyway, I'd rather sound English than Californian so boo and sucks to William B. Ide. :p

I suspect that in a surprising move you're right about this particular mistake, though. I would like to confirm that it wasn't present in the third edition before I pronounce this a dead end, but apparently this is no more than a slip-up with new technology at GA&U.

I kid because I love. :) I've always preferred "grey" to "gray" for instance, which I'm almost certain traces back to Tolkien.

I estimate that one in five people in California does sound English. ;)

We love you too. We even named a road after you over in Lympstone.

http://shadowoverexmouth.files.wordp...underhill1.jpg

If it weren't for Tolkien I'd never have heard the word thrawn.

And let's not forget "flammifer", "bebothered", "flummoxed", "glede" and "confusticated". :D

I've always been very confused when people wrote "gray". I always spell it with an "e". :confused:


I didn't notice any mistake in my version of TH if it was there, and I don't have the book on me to check. But the first thing I thought upon reading the first post was a choker. :)

For what it's worth I recently discovered I use the british spelling for a LOT of words, including some I wasn't even aware HAD alternate spelling. For example I collect sea shells in particular those of the genus Cyparaea (or more acccuratly those that were in that genus before it was divided up into many smaller genera). I had always known the spelling of the common name of these shells as "cowrie", and that was how I wrote it. however when I got serios I discovered that, in American English it is considered proper to spell it "cowry". I still use the British spelling (To me it just looks better) but I had to learn to do searches under both spellings. I also tend to write "colour" and "theatre".

And we named a pub-slash-brewery after you, my friend!

http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/unde/SquatterSign.jpg

You'll have to forgive the missing apostrophe. The sign-maker is one of those artsy types who insisted on sampling the fare before setting to work on the sign so that "the energy of the place would come out in the piece". I consider it a smashing success.

If Lorenz Hart had been a Tolkien fan, maybe Ella Fitzgerald would have sung "Bewitched, Bebothered, and Confusticated" instead. One can dream.

Yeah. Not to mention "coffee","mountain", "forest", and "spider". Oh, those wacky English. ;)

Anyway, I put "neckless" down to a Freudian slip on some editor's part, looking at a colleague across the room whose head appeared to sit directly on his shoulders.

I heard about your anglophilic spelling proclivities, but all this time I thought it was just rumour.

I was quite startled on the first morning of my first visit to the States, when I queried why the bus didn't seem to be going where I expected to be told "the bus has been re-routed because it's Labo(u)r Day" You would expect one rout to be enough for a bus.. if not completely unnecessary...

I win the namesake game
 

Had I been given a choice, that's what I'd have chosen to be named after me, and the honour is overwhelming. That is the best Downs-related out-of-context reproduction of someone's business advertising that I have ever seen.

Returning by herculean effort to something like the topic: the reason I ended up starting a thread about what would otherwise be a mere collector's footnote was that it's often hard to tell with Tolkien what's a mistake and what's JRRT arguing with the dictionary. Thrawn, for example, isn't standard English; it's a Scots dialect spelling of 'thrown' in what my dictionary calls an "obsolete sense" (not in 1954 it wasn't, apparently). It appears to be common across the north of England, deriving ultimately from OE thrawan, and I suspect that JRRT liked it because phonologically it's changed less since Old English than the standard English alternative, a bit like the situation that would exist if *dwarrows had survived in a dialect form instead of being reintroduced by JRRT himself: the Oxford Dictionary of English now lists dwarves as a legitimate plural of dwarf.

All of the above means that when I find an unusual spelling in Tolkien, I have to check to make sure that it isn't deliberate. This makes a typesetting error far more annoying than it would normally be, although any kind of copyist's error is a gross irritation. I'm reminded of something Michael Drout said on his blog about (inter alia) Herman Melville.

"It's as though he has no neck at all. How can someone wear so big a collar with so little space to put it in? What was I doing again? Oh yes: '...and he brought out...'"

Something like that?

Exactly. I've known a fellow or two like that in my time. ;)

Well, my paperback copy (not the original one, that got lost having been borrowed and re-borrowed and never returned to me) in another room with kids sleeping in for me to check now, but Kindle edition does say necklace at least.

As a side note, I had to get closer to the screen to reassure myself this were a recent topic indeed - the names of the posters, they looked like something back from 2003 you know :D)

H I! Good to see you, sir! :)

I can't find my oldest copy of TH, which is no doubt buried in one of the plastic containers in my basement. I'm curious about this.

And now even more so. Any minute now, Mithadan will come along and tell us to get back on topic.

Sorry to ruin your picture of 2003...
 

...but I just checked my edition, and it says "necklace". :confused:

We has a neck, but we also has many other typos:
 

(yes, the exclamation marks are that far apart) [Edit: the site doesn't let me put them as far as I want to; it shrinks the spaces]

(Sole bene-fit... sounds like a shoe business :rolleyes:)

And from a peek into A Long Expected Party that was put as an appendix,


I have a feeling there was another gaffe that I can't locate at the moment... Will add it if I find it.

Thought that was just me. Let's do the Time Warp again!