![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
LH-01.5: Agreed.
DP-10b/10.5/11.5: Agreed, but I would change "after Pengolodh left" to "After Pengolodh departed Middle-earth" to be clearer and keep to Tolkien's style more. LO-03b: Agreed. LO-03.5: Agreed, but it should be 'were' not 'where.' LO-06: Yes, that is a simple slip-up on my posting in the private forum. LO-10: Very well, we can leave it as it is in the original. LO-11: I am unsure why you mention Eol here, since this marker refers to the statement that Quenya became more like Sindarin in Middle-earth. LO-17: Good catch. LO-22.5: Very nice catch Fin! Agreed. LO-24b: We may use speeches. I would rather not remove it if we do not need to. It is a minor thing, and as far as I know is not incorrect, it simply sounds unusual to me. LO-25: Agreed. It is nice not to have to remove so much information. LO-29: I agree in principle, but I would also remove the 'with' and change your 'Sindar' to 'among the Sindar.' LO-32: This seems like a riskier change but I am not entirely opposed. But I wonder if it is necessary? Why not leave it as 'ruin of their realm' and leave it to the reader to interpret the meaning? LO-37: Agreed. LO-40: Why is Children bad? LO-41: I am glad I seem to have stumbled my way to an acceptable edit here! I was not confident about the timeline at all. LO-42.5: Splendid! LO-44.5: Because of the additions from the Appendix F below, I saw this which I think can be included here: Quote:
LO-54: We can remove 'the.' As for {Uldor}[Ulfang] is that not a later change of Tolkien's? I may have been mistaken. LO-55: Yes we must be vigilant about that going forward. LO-AF-56-68/70: Agreed, we can keep the text. LO-AF-59-61: Did we not use this material elsewhere? LO-AF-61b: Agreed. LO-AF-62: We mus include the Hobbit information if we are giving the third age info, and it is in this section that the greatest amount of expansion will be found in the texts of HoME 12. I would, however, leave out the title. LO-AF-63.5: Agreed. LO-AF-66/68: Agreed. LO-AF-69/69.5: Agreed. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
![]() |
I'm glad we are including the Third Age material. To those comments I don't respond to, I agree:
DP-10b/10.5/11.5: I agree with ArcusCalion's "After Pengolodh departed Middle-earth". LO-29: I agree to "among the Sindar". LO-32: I agree with Arcus that this seems like too much of a change. I would leave it a "ruin of their realm" which is open to interpretation. LO-40: I was actually thinking something like "House" might be more appropriate. When Tolkien says "Finrodians" we are not sure if he is referring to the family/children of Finarfin or the followers of Finarfin (or both). I think House of vague enough to retain the ambiguity of the original "Finrodians". LO-42.5: This is a good idea, as "Excursus on the Languages of Beleriand" was becoming increasingly inaccurate as a sub-title. LO-44.5: Agreed to including this. LO-54: I just assumed this change was right. Looking at the HoME Index I don't think it is. LO-AF-62 I agree with using the Hobbit material but not having a separate sub-title. One small fix: in the Word document I have between LO-07 and LO-08 there is an Avari with a symbol above the second a: Avări. It should be removed. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | ||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
DP-10.5: Okay we will take ‘after Pengolodh departed Middle-earth’.
LO-03.5: Thanks for catching that typo. LO-11: Oops! Bad mistake of mine. The comment was meant for LO-12, where you changed the statement about the lake of knowledge about Avarin from ‘before the Thrid Age’ to ‘belore later Ages’. LO-29: There is big difference in meaning between ‘together with Sindar’ and ‘among Sindar’. The only example I can think of for ‘among Sindar’ are the Isle of Balar, where some Nodlor dwelt among the people of Círdan. But ‘together with Sindar’ could be said about all later refuges: Isle of Balar (see above) and Havens of Sirion as well as Amon Ereb where mixed people lived under moer or less Noldorin rulers. LO-32: Okay, I agree to let the text stand as it is. Since no new ruler was declared the death of Denethor in a way destroyed the realm. LO-40: We speak about languages. It is impossible to change a language by some Lords of the Eldar talking to some Lords of the Edain. Therefore we are her talking about the people ruled by the House of Beor living in close contact to the people ruled by the House of Finrafin. That is why I would not use ‘Children of Finrafin’. LO-44.5: Very nice addition! Agreed. LO-54: ‘Ulfang the Black’ was the father and the leader of the folk, while ‘Uldor the Accursed’ was the son and leader in the treason and with that the more prominent figure. Both are included in our text. I would let ‘Uldor the Accursed’ stand. If we change, we should change to ‘Ulfang the Black’. LO-AF-58.5, LO-AF-60.5 and LO-AF-60.6: Yes the material was used at the end of Tal-Elmar where we describe the classification of men by the Númenoreans. Nonetheless I think we should use the information here again: Quote:
Quote:
Respectfully Findegil Last edited by Findegil; 08-26-2021 at 08:14 AM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Quentingolmo
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 525
![]() |
LO-29: I see your point, so I will take 'together with'.
LO-40: Very well, 'House' works better, we can use it. LO-54: Apologies, I misread the intentions. We can leave it as Uldor. LO-AF-58.5/60.5/60.6: Agreed, this helps here greatly. Some minor repetition like this is always allowed, I think. LO-AF-62c: Yes indeed, thank you for posting the relevant edits and markers. Avari: It is indeed in the original text which is why I included it. It should be kept. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Wight
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 121
![]() |
LO-AF-58.5, LO-AF-60.5 and LO-AF-60.6: I agree to these changes.
Avari: Ahh, I missed that it was in the original text. Yes, we should keep it. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |