[Aiwendil]

Lindil wrote:

I admit it is a bit of a stretch, as are all other options. I however feel [at the moment at least] it is the more plausible and most consistent stretch.

I am extremely loath to countenance an obsolete Elvish name. If all are opposed, I must live with it, nothing new here, but as you point out, simple solutions elude us, so we must stretch one way or another. I will address your other options below.

You are right. There is trouble whithersoever we turn. But I think that the dubious nature of this particular idea (that "Rog" was a coarser or less cultured nickname) makes it unsuitable as justification for saying that Rog was merely a nickname or epithet. If the best justification that we have for a change is something as artificial as this, then the change should not be made.

Essentially that I feel [or, IMO] if we keep Rog we must somehow justify it in the text.

Ah. I understand now; thank you. So you would not consider leaving the text as it is on the implicit assumption that "Rog" may have been a nickname? For this option, as flawed as it is, struck me as a possibility recently. What I mean is that if "Rog" were simply a nickname (as I don't think it would be, but as others suggest) would this necessarily be stated in the text? It is quite common for characters to be referred to by their after-names with no explanation. But I take it that for you there is a problem with the jarring effect of "Rog" on a reader, one that could not be solved save by altering the text (i.e., it could merely be explained away).

To my understanding of our principles this is out of the question as per CJRT's altogether unique and express POV that Rog is not mature [read that canonical] Sindarin.

I must remain adamant on one point: it is not "out of the question" in light of our principles. There are arguments for it and against it; I don't think that our principles trivially or obviously necessitate the removal of the name.

There are a couple of subtleties that have been gone over before but that I think could stand to be reiterated. First of all, evidence that JRRT would have changed something is by itself not enough to require us to change it. Think of Myths Transformed, for example. What we need are texts of greater precedence contradicting, explicitly or implicitly, texts of lesser precedence, without introducing irreconcilable contradictions into the Legendarium.

Do we have that? Possibly. The evidence against "Rog" is that Christopher Tolkien thinks it does not fit with later Sindarin. If it could be clearly shown that this is true, there would be no question at all - "Rog" would have to go. As things actually stand, I think there is a very strong argument against "Rog". But I think that since we cannot actually explain how the name fails to fit with later Sindarin, we can at least entertain the possibility of retaining the name.

It may not have been replaced or updated and it's cognate may even linger in Balrog, but that is not an Elvish proper name.

The "-rog" in "Balrog" is not the cognate of the LT "Rog". I fear I set wrecked havoc on this whole inquiry when (two years ago or more?) I made a great fuss over a supposed connection between them. There is none, save the obvious phonological resemblance.

I should point out that nowhere (as far as I can tell) do we see anything suggesting that there were certain words or elements in Sindarin that were not suitable for proper Elvish names.

Aiwendil, do you want to, assuming you have not recently, try a specific Rog query to Elfling and the new Hostetter board?

I actually just thought of this as well. Last time I tried to get FoG name help on Elfling it was fruitless. But I'll give it another try.

Personally I see any attempt as likely to be far more tortured than an editorial justification of Rog [such as the nickname solution]

Yes, but in eliminating the name we are on far safer ground canonically.

I did receive the Qenya lexicon, and it had noting I could find re: Rog, nor did I expect it too as anything directly relating to named characters was said to be included in BoLT itself.

As I suspected. Is there anything with the sense of "strong" besides the "pol-" and "tulc-" words?

In conclusion I have no fear of the damage that a missing Rog scene would do to TftE, many wonderful, rare and fascinating things will not make the cut.
*Turin at Dagor Dagoreth

I wouldn't count that one out quite yet.

But I think you may be underestimating the damage cutting the Rog scene could do. The trouble is not only that we would lose some nice detail, but that we would have a gap in the plot of the Tale. Rog's attack plays a critical role in the course of the narrative as it now stands.

re: the 'lost name theory, this is seemingly impossible to justify if we are positing Bilbo as the source, as the very place of editaorial assembly was home to Elrond son of Earendil who doubtless new the tale of the escape and scak of Gondolin by heart as it happened when he was at the very impressionable age of 7. We would need to posit textual deterioration or somesuch to justify the name loss, and this is exactly the kind of thing Aiwendil is completely against.

Exactly (alas, for it is such an elegant proposal). I would class the lost name solution with the nickname solution. Both seem to me simply to require too much justification, too much of a stretch in believability, to be tenable.

Mithadan wrote:

However, rather than suggesting it is a nickname or attempting to create a meaning for it (which is suggested to be too close to being fan fiction) I would favor a footnote, vanilla in favor, reading along the following lines: "The name "Rog" appears to not be of proper Sindarin origin. However, it is the only name for this Elf passed down through these traditions [cites]."

Again, I see the allure of this idea (not least because it would involve so little editing). But it would still require us to posit very specific textual deterioration and such, which I do not think we can do.

[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]