6 Of Eldamar and the Princes of the Eldalië

[Findegil]

[{Ñoldor}[Noldor]: Agreed. We discussed that before, I just didn’t found the time to make that change effective in my drafts, because every instant is to be checked with the original source. I will do sooner or later.

EPE-EX-10: It has at this time be use to ferry the Vanyar and Noldor together and is know when coming back from Beleriand routed in the Bay of Eldamar, where its newly exposition to the light of the Trees differently from the first one, since it is farther away from the shore and that is described a few lines later. In the LT version Vanyar (their named Teleri) and Noldor were transported seperatly, therefore ‘two-times’ was right in that tale, but is wrong in our version.

EPE-EX-12.1: Agreed, I did only made the regular change with out any farther thought. But I would take ‘Eldamar’ as a replacement, since that seems to be the more regulary used name for the Bay.

EPE-EX-12.2: I agree on {magic}[marvellous]. But Silpion is still a valid name of the Tree. I have observed your trend to rename it in any instant, but I dout that this is necessary.

EPE-EX-12.3: Agreed.

EPE-EX-16: Your reasoning is good and I don’t think it is stylistic. It is rather due to the story line change we did introduce, so I will call it EPE-SL-02.

EPE-EX-16.1: You are right, in a way, but even in the old geography Arvalin was in the north and in the south touching the Shadowy Sea. So as it stood the text gave the infromtion only of the southern himispher and so does it as I changed it. What is the issue with that?
I agree to change {Arvalin}[Avathar and Araman] if it is fitting.

EPE-EX-16.2: Shiboleth is the later source so ‘Ingwi’ it should be.

EPE-EX-21 Is the beginning of the section taken from the Shibboleth, right before that title. So we should refer to your comment about the Sindarin names of the Valar as
EPE-EX-21.05: To have Sindarin names applied to the Valar does not render this passage untrue since they could have been invented by the Noldor after they adopted Sindarin as their dayly speech. I agree that we have to eliminate ‘(recalling the sound of his great horn)’ since that is contradicted by the story we have given at his arrival by the Elves. For the rest I am in doubt here. Could you provide the source for these names, please?

EPE-EX-21.1: We might include the full text, but probably not here. As yet it was forseen as a part of volume 3 (or not?). But even if we think it should be taken earlier, this place is too early, since all the names given here are given in a preview.

EPE-EX-21.2: I think it can stand because the footnote dose sguide the reader to the right place to look for the explaination, even so ‘Curufim’ is not mentioned.

EPE-EX-23: Agreed.

EPE-EX-23.1: I disagree to this. We discussed this before when editing the ‘Ælfwine and Dírhavel’ text for the introduction of the ‘Narn’. We produce a text in English for English readers. It is not supposed to have any Middel-earth existence as such, since we aknowledge that it is a compilation of us from different sources. So even if we remove Ælfwine and his references to Anglosaxon, we may nonetheless keep comparisions to English or German of today.

EPE-EX-23.2: That is a reference to another footnote. But as it stands it can only be filled with sensefull information when the text is in final editing. Alternatively we could remove it.

EPE-EX-29: Agreed.

EPE-EX-31.1: Good question. This is asking for in indept research if ‘Maiar’ was used in later texts and if ‘Máyar’ was used in any other place. Anybody with some time at hand, for such an endeavour?

EPE-EX-32.1: Agreed.

EPE-EX-32.5: Okay, I mist that. We will reinstall it.

EPE-EX-34.1: Okay, that was an artefact of a time when we called him ‘Maedron’. Since we came in the end back to ‘Maedros’, we can let this stand.

Respectfully
Findegil

[ArcusCalion]

Everything I do not respond to I agree with.

EPE-EX-021.05: If the Noldor simply made Sindarin versions of their names then that would contradict what is said a sentence before the excerpt I gave:

Thus the names of the Valar which they had devised in Valinor were not as a rule changed, whether they fitted Sindarin style or not.

This would mean that these Sindarin names are in origin from the Sindar themselves. On another note, whether the other names are considered no longer valid or not, how can the Sindar be said to know nothing of Ulmo, when he is said to have visited Nevrast often, and to have drawn the island with the elves (the people of Thingol chose to stay, so they saw him)? As for the sources for these names:
Ulmo = I could not find a source for these names, but he is given others in the Etymologies.
Aule = I actually cannot find a source for his, but I found other names in the Etymologies.
Yavanna = This name comes from the Etymologies, but is attested in the latest of writings, in "Of Lembas" in the compound: Ivonwin: Maidens of Yavanna, as well as the Sindarin name for the month of Yavannie: Ivanneth.
Mandos = This name comes from the Etymologies as the Sindarin equivalent.
Lorien = This name comes from an early essay on the Gnomish language found in Parma Eldalamberon.
Este = This name comes from Quendi and the Eldar in the Note on the Language of the Valar.
Tulkas = This name is from the Gnomish Lexicon, so it is quite old.
Vaire = This name comes from the Etymologies
Nessa = This name comes from the Etymologies
Of course, many of these names are not sourced from up-to-date texts, but the fact that the name of Yavanna occurs in a very very late writing and in the Lord of the Rings itself, along with the logical error that they would have no name for Ulmo, and the fact that Este is given a name in the late writing of Quendi and the Eldar all point to the fact that Tolkien had forgotten some facts about what he had published or what he had in mind changed back to its original state.
Thus, since this passage clearly cannot be said to be true, I suggest we revise it. Here is my suggestion:

The Sindar knew little of the Valar EPE-EX-21.05 {and}[but] had {no} names for {any}[all] of them, editorial addition{save} [the most common of which were] Oromë (whom all the Eldar had seen and known); and Manwë and Varda of whose eminence they had been instructed by Oromë; and the Great Enemy whom the Noldor called Melkor. For Oromë a name had been made in Primitive Eldarin {(recalling the sound of his great horn)} of which Oromë was .....

I know this editorial addition is risky, and if you have a better suggestion I would love to hear it, as this seems like a clumsy solution.

EPE-EX-23.2: why was this reference needed? was it given in the base text? Either way I would remove it, as we have no other instances of this type of thing.

EPE-EX-3.1: All I could find was its use in a footnote (also in Shibboleth) but nowhere else in the HoME texts. I do not own Vinyar Tengwar or Parma Eldalamberon, so I cannot search those documents to see if they contain it. However, I would stick to Maiar if no actual etymology can be found for the later form,as Maiar has a developed etymology, and a clear meaning, whereas the later form is ambiguous.

[Findegil]

EPE-EX-21.05: I agree that we have to change it. What about:

... The Sindar knew little of the Valar EPE-EX-21.05{and}[but] had {no }names for {any}[all] of them, {save}[as] Oromë (whom all the Eldar had seen and known); and Manwë and Varda of whose eminence they had been instructed by Oromë; and the Great Enemy whom the Ñoldor called Melkor. For Oromë a name had been made in Primitive Eldarin {(recalling the sound of his great horn) }of which Oromë was the Quenya form, ...

EPE-EX-23.2: Sure the footnote is from the used source text and from JRR Tolkien himself. If footnotes are absolutley necessary can be questioned nearly in every case. The reference is to the long footnote just above about 'KAN'. So by all probabitlity it would only be a double reference to the same footnote.

EPE-EX-31.1: For the time being we should change it to 'Maiar'. If some other informations comes up, we are any time free to revise back to Máyar.

Respectfully
Findegil

[ArcusCalion]

EPE-EX-21.05: I would use "especially" instead of "as". This flows better, and holds the meaning of the original more I think.

EPE-EX-23.2: I would recommend deleting it.

EPE-EX-31.1: sounds good.

[Findegil]

EPE-EX-21.05: Agreed.

EPE-EX-23.2: Again, in the finished text it would amount to not more then two times the same reference number attached to two places in the text. Therefore I do not seen any good reason to skip it. At the time being I would change it to

[footnote to the text: See note about KAN above]

Respectfully
Findegil

[ArcusCalion]

very well, it seems we are agreed on all points.

[ArcusCalion]

I was actually wondering, should Celeborn be inserted into the story at this point? with a note about Elmo and the rest of the family tree?

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by Findegil

I agree that we have to eliminate ‘(recalling the sound of his great horn)’ since that is contradicted by the story we have given at his arrival by the Elves.

I don't think this is a contradiction either. The footnote talks about how the Elves "made" a name for him in their Primitive Eldarin, which is supported by the 'Note on the Language of the Valar' in Quendi and Eldar, where we learn that Elves fit Valian names to their tongues by "reduction and alteration". Of Q Oromë < V Arǭmēz, we're told: "Pengolodh says that it was due to the association of the name with the native Q *rom, used of the sound of trumps or horns, seen in the Q name for the great horn of Oromë, the Vala-róma (also in Q romba ‘horn, trumpet’, S rom). ‘The Eldar,’ he says, ‘now take the name to signify “horn-blowing” or “horn-blower”; but to the Valar it had no such meaning."