|
My argument was against Moria as an anachronism. I don't think this is the case, nor do I see the need to use the translator conceit to cover it. Glancing through various works in researching for this thread, it seems to me that "Moria" as a rule is used more or less interchangeably with "Khazad-dûm". I think the idea that it was applied only after the Balrog was roused is the anomalous one that you'd have to really work to prop up.
On the other hand, Tolkien, in HoME XII, goes into a detailed "translator" explanation about dwarf names used in a related context -- namely, in the inscription on Balin's tomb. I won't quote from it at great length. Tolkien notes, "But the names Balin and Fundin are in such a context absurd." He then proceeds with a lengthy justification for borrowing Norse names for the translation and concludes, "In consequence, such names as Balin, etc. would not have appeared in any contemporary inscription using actual Khuzdul." Or in any other contemporary language, I might add.
|