A particularly interesting question when we look at what
is making them real. This has to be seen in the light of Tolkien's own comment:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Prof
Volapük, Esperanto, Ido, Novial, &c &c are dead, far deader than ancient unused languages, because their authors never invented any Esperanto legends.
|
And your Sindar and Noldor languages, Professor, by contrast, do have legends, songs. We can be told of undying love, misery, tragedy, merriment and heroism in the Elvish tongues. Presumably that's what you're implying? Righty-ho.
The weakness of Elvish is in fact the strength of Esperanto. Elvish cannot deal with the ghastly old practical world. We can hear of the Noldolante, but we can't book a hotel room. It's not unlike my supremely rushed Italian AS level course; I can discuss Dante for hours but struggle with ordering a cioccolata calda.
Elvish is unlike all other artificial languages. Most of those are objectionable because, like New Labour as opposed to the House of Lords which they destroyed, to grab a political analogy, they're factory-made not evolved. These languages are like some poisonous strain of cannabis grown under a lamp.
But due to the extraordinary nature of Tolkien's mind, Elvish somehow
is evolved. Archaeologists in 6000 AD might assume it was as historical as Frisian, Sardinian or Gaelic.
The problem is that it's narrow, specific, inflexible. It cannot leave its style, "high, purged of the gross" as it is. We physically cannot construct Feanor pinching Nerdanel with a lewd joke, or some irritating courtier recalling Elrond belching. Yet even this is perfectly suitable to the nature of Elves as Tolkien portrays them, unable to change, breaking not bending.
It's no coincidence, surely, that the Elves were given a character that made a rather one-sided language perfectly justifiable.