[lindil]

Aiwendil's proposed

(#)7. It is not for us to decide what is aesthetically superior; all changes and decisions must be justified by the above principles, either:
a) with explicit indication; that is, a text of greater precedence contradicting a text of lesser precedence, or
b) with implicit indication; that is, a text of greater precedence suggesting beyond reasonable doubt a contradiction with a text of lesser precedence, or
c) in cases where two options are given precisely equal validity by the above guidelines, by a majority vote based on personal aesthetics and individual opinions.

Aiwendil, I can now see that your #7 covers Rog - although not, I think from CJRT's POV.

As I may have mentioned before he [ in a way most unlike himself] gives no evidence for his decision, leaving the impression that it was indeed based on CJRT's aesthetic sense of Sindarin.


So as long as we are willing to diverge from his principal, and use a weaker one that may acknowledge his choice, I suppose it is alright.

I do however see a your #7 as inherently anti-stylistic harmonization, even though that may not [ and I assume is not] your intent:

"It is not for us to decide what is aesthetically superior"

A stylistic harmonization is exactly that.

So even if we have [ or rather propose for adoption] a different set of principles for Stylistic harmonization, if the above proposed #7 is in place prior to that it would imply that such editing would be against the general principles.

So I think at the very least that line needs some serious modification.

Other than that I will say I prefer to modify my #7 from

" Principle #7 JRRT almost certainly would have changed/deleted it."

to

" Principle #7 JRRT almost certainly would have changed/deleted it. But we must base this on some evidence or text from JRRT or CJRT or a 2/3rd's super majority will be required to approve anything not so evidenced."

Rog is covered by your principle Aiwendil, I can now see.


As for the other examples we have been using [without necessarrily trying to resolve them] Legolas - would have been I feel have been dealt with far more realistically that we did applying either of our #7's. Due to the fact that we approached his name as 'is it valid Sindarin' instead of 'would JRRT been likely to reuse his name/character at all'.

As for the mechanical monsters we did indeed use your #7, although i think we did a less than perfect job [ for which I take blame] of researching the the HoME4 comments. Fortunately, i think the results would have been the same in this case unlike Legolas.

So perhaps a conflation of the 2 principles is in order/possible -

perhaps deleting your opening It is not for us to decide what is aesthetically superior and replacing it with my most recent ablove proposed #7 and concluding with your points A-C.

giving us [with A's bolded and mine italicized]:


JRRT almost certainly would have changed/deleted it. But we must base this on some evidence or text from JRRT or CJRT ...all changes and decisions must be justified by the above principles, either:a) with explicit indication; that is, a text of greater precedence contradicting a text of lesser precedence, or
b) with implicit indication; that is, a text of greater precedence suggesting beyond reasonable doubt a contradiction with a text of lesser precedence, or
c) in cases where two options are given precisely equal validity by the above guidelines, by a majority vote based on personal aesthetics and individual opinions.
.

I eliminated the 2/3rds clause as Aiwendil addressed it later.


Findegil, thank you for speaking up!Some encouragement was/is greatly welcomed.

I am glad someone is following this denstist visit like thread.

Aiwendil, sorry for the extreme delay, but I if the above is satisfactory [ or some close variant] then hopefully the dealys will have been justified, as I had not thought of the combining of the 2 until i was in mid-post.

I probably will not be back online till Sun PM at the earliest.

[ January 25, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]