The Problem of Rog

[Aiwendil]

Lindil wrote:

If [ and I am not saying anyone else does]we agree w/ CJRT that Rog can not as a name exist in the canononical legendarium, then we really have lost the name, in the same spirit as JRRT writes the 1st chapter of the Hobbit and the prolouge of the LotR, that this is translated history.

I must disagree. Tempting as it is, we cannot think of the extant writings of Tolkien that we have as being the same as the extant writings within Middle-earth, available to the loremasters. Our situation is that the name Rog, used in an early version of the story, may not fit in with the later versions. A problem like this cannot be imagined to come up for the loremasters of Middle-earth. They have no "old versions" nor "new versions" to try and fit them with. One could not imagine Bilbo reading the name "Rog" in one of the accounts available to him and trying to figure out whether this Gnomish name fits into later Sindarin!

Legolas > Laegolas is a different situation; it is merely an update of the old name Legolas into later Sindarin. We would do this with Rog if we could - but of course we can't. As far as I see it at least, our decision to change Legolas to Laegolas had nothing whatsoever to do with the character in LotR; it is strictly a linguistic change.

So I'm afraid I still see a note to the effect that Rog's name was lost as fan fiction.

Aiwendil, I noticed seemingly contradictory positions in the long list of support quotes Maedhros gave for Rog.

This is because my view has changed. I now realize that I was a bit mistaken in my earlier view.

I thought that "Rog" was unsuitable because it later meant "Demon". This is mistaken for two reasons: 1. Even in the old tale, "Balrog" exists alongside "Rog" = "Strength", so clearly the two can coexist; 2. As jallanite pointed out, the word for demon is not "rog" but rather "rhaug", which becomes "-rog" in "Balrog". So there is no conflict at all.

In short, I can find no identifiable fault with the name Rog, save Christopher's word. I am, of course, not saying that Christopher's word carries no weight. But the fact is that if it were not for his rather vague footnote, we would literally have no evidence against "Rog".

Another small point: even if we accept Christopher's statement without question, a case could be made for retaining the name. That Tolkien would have changed something does not necessarily mean that we must, or even can, change it. Tolkien certainly would have eliminated the old flat world cosmology, but we are retaining it. In the end the question is not what Tolkien would have done but rather what we can do.

Rumil wrote:

While I always liked Rog, I think that his name does 'sound wrong' for an elf on general principles and if it can be construed as 'demon' causes rather a problem.

I agree that it sort of 'sounds wrong', or rather 'sounds different'. But this is simply not enough. And there are other names that survive in the later tales that to me sound a little odd or out of place - so there's nothing absolutely wrong about that.

As I explained above, I don't now see a conflict with "rhaug" = "demon".

[ August 19, 2003: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]