Name Changes?

[aravanessë]

Thank you.

Amros is also attested in a text dated from 1968 or later (in any cases, after the Shibboleth of Fëqnor), cf. The Problem of ROS.
I have not found another references of Amras in HoMe X, XI and XII that don't belong to LQ2 or to a later text.
(Moreover, what do you think about the 'five sons of Fëanor' mentioned in HoMe XI p. 329 ?)

aravanessë

[Findegil]

A warm welcome to the project aravanessë from my side as well.

Concerning Amros: A good catch by you, Aiwendil. I could alos not find any later reference to Amras, so I will take up the general change: {Díriel}[Amros] and {Amras}[Amros].

About the 5 sons of Fëanor: This is one of the hard puzzels. My take at it would be that he meant the five cheifs of realms in exil which were:
Marches of Maeðros
Maelors Gap
Himlad and the Pass of Aglon -> Celegorm
Dor Caranthir
Plian of East Beleriand -> Amros

We see Curufin only together with his older brother Celegorm, so he might be missing from thelist of rulers.

On the other hand Amros could be missing because I Ever have the feeling that East Beleriand was not realy a realm. But nor a hunting ground for the youngest of Fëanors sons.

Respectfully
Findegil

[aravanessë]

About the 5 sons of Fëanor: This is one of the hard puzzels. My take at it would be that he meant the five cheifs of realms in exil which were:
Marches of Maeðros
Maelors Gap
Himlad and the Pass of Aglon -> Celegorm
Dor Caranthir
Plian of East Beleriand -> Amros

We see Curufin only together with his older brother Celegorm, so he might be missing from thelist of rulers.

Yea, it is not stupid, all the more so in the text Curufin seems to take the main part and seems to contrast to his brother. Merci beaucoup.

aravanessë

[Galin]

My understanding is this. Originally there were to be two separate Eldarin stems, one meaning "reddish-brown" and the other meaning "spray/spindrift".

Yes, two are involved.

The change proposed in "Ros" is that there is only one stem, meaning "spray", and that this is Beorian. But this had to be dropped because of "Cair Andros".

I think that the proposed change was to lift ros 'spray, spindrift' from an Eldarin context -- leaving the other word in an Eldarin context however. Tolkien wrote that it was difficult to accept these two homophonic elements, and so I think he wanted to alter one while leaving the other. In other words, if one is lifted, Tolkien's proposed difficulty of accepting the two homophonic elements is solved.

So as I see it the change of "Maedhros" to "Maedron" does depend on the change in "The Problem of Ros". If we decide to use "Maedron" we are essentially electing to keep half of the change. But my impression is that the whole idea was rejected. Nonetheless it's an interesting question and I'm eager to hear what others have to say.

I think this change is unconnected rather -- at least specifically with respect to the failure of the essay I mean. We are given no detailed context concerning the intended change Maedros to Maedron (despite its implications) and it may be that CJRT found this a convenient place to note the change -- especially considering the first part of note 2 to The Problem of ROS, as we know that the first sentence was added by JRRT to the essay proper:

[added in the Margin: 'Though Maedros is now so long established that it would be difficult to alter'. In a later note, however, my father declared that he would change Maedros to Maedron.]

Even if this later note was attached specifically to this essay in some way, for example, the use of 'later' implies to my mind that this change was originally not connected to the specific thrust of the (failed) solution.

And if it was, I can't think why Tolkien would need to deal with both of the 'two' to solve his problem. It looks to me as if the proposed solution rather centered on a Beorian ros 'foam, white crest of waves', which could further connect to the Ship-name Rothinzil. But Andros had already been published

[Galin]

Regarding "Amrod": the sense I get from the quote is that "Amrod" is the form to be used. It is difficult to judge what he means by "whenever encountered" (if that's even what he wrote). But it is clear that "Amrod" would have been the Sindarization of the name actually used. The difference comes down to a translation of "Ambarto" vs. a translation of "Umbarto".

I guess I'll add my (unasked for) opinion here too

This is how I take the meaning of the VT description: had Ambarto lived this name probably would have been Sindarized as Amrod -- but the key thing here is 'had' he lived -- because since he died, in practice no one in Middle-earth who spoke Sindarin (as the Noldor would do later) would call Ambarussa Ambarto 'Amros Amrod'.

But even though he died, he would still need to be referred to by some name, and in Sindarin contexts he would be known as Amarthan... again because he truly 'became' (by his death) the 'fated one' and became known as such.

In the story it was said that Feanaro either thought Nerdanel had said Ambarto, or that Feanaro changed the name himself. But Amarthan became his name in Sindarin contexts, which in a sense nicely echoes that 'rightly' he was called, or 'should' have been called, Umbarto -- as Ambarussa his brother notes in the tale proper.

That's my take on these changes anyway.

I note that Tolkien decided that 'Finrod' (Finarfin) should not have a Sindarin name because he never came to Middle-earth with his son Inglor Felagund (according to Words, Phrases and Passages this seemed to be the problem at the time). But oddly enough, in the end JRRT retained Sindarized Finarfin even though he hadn't left Aman. Tolkien still felt the need to explain this internally, being yet aware that Finwe Arafinwe would hardly be called 'Finarfin' among Quenya speakers in Aman, and he was not himself in Middle-earth as well.

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Arothir

(...) Has the spelling of Maedros been discussed? As in the dh or d?

I found a discussion of 'ð' versus 'dh' anyway, where Aiwendil noted within this discussion '(...) I think the 'dh' issue is the same, and we must revert to 'Maedhros', etc.' In full context, here:

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=12834


So far I'm not sure dh or d has been discussed. Anyway, there are enough instances where d seems an anglicization, however, as far as I know, basically it's not an anglicization in The Shibboleth of Feanor.

Maedron may actually be the latest form, but this change might raise questions concerning the form Amros, and even possibly some Quenya forms depending on the details relating to this change.

[Aiwendil]

There are really three distinct issues with respect to the name 'Maedhros':

1. dh vs. ð - This is entirely an orthographic issue, and it was this that we discussed in the General Changes thread. At one point we had decided to prefer 'ð' to 'dh', but the use of 'dh' in LotR eventually convinced us to use this instead. I had thought that this issue was settled, but looking back at that thread now I'm not sure whether Findegil ever actually agreed to it. What sayst thou, Findegil?

2. dh/ð vs. d - It's not clear to me whether this is merely an issue of Anglicization or a veritable linguistic one. I'm inclined to think it's the latter, however, as normally (as far as I can remember) Tolkien does not Anglicize Sindarin 'dh' to 'd'. If it is merely an Anglicization issue, then it seems to me that we're obliged to use 'dh' since this transliteration is established in LotR. However, if it represents a real change to the Sindarin name, we must go with whatever is latest, as long as it's linguistically tenable. As far as I can tell, the form with 'd' is the later one. Note that if we adopt this, then issue 1 becomes moot.

3. -ros vs. -ron - The issue here is definitely linguistic. My understanding from XII (I don't know if any of the VT texts bear on this issue) is that "-ron" is the form that appears latest. The question, then, is whether the change from "-ros" to "-ron" is associated with the projected stem changes in "The Problem of Ros", which we must reject because of the name "Cair Andros".

Galin argued that the -ros > -ron change does not depend on the rejected points of "The Problem of Ros", but I'm not sure I agree. For one thing, the introductory statement to "The Problem of Ros" says:

The best solution of the difficulty presented by the name Elros, fixed by mention in The Lord of the Rings, and the names of the sons of Feanor: Maedros, the eldest, and Amros, now proposed as the name of both the twins (sixth and seventh) - to which a story is attached that it is desirable to retain.

So the name "Maedros" is associated with the projected changes of "Ros" by Tolkien himself. Also, Tolkien's marginal note that "Maedros" was so long established that it would be difficult to alter implies that altering "Maedros" would be a necessary consequence of adopting the projected stem changes, and it seems at least highly plausible that these changes were the one and only reason for the name change. True, Christopher Tolkien does not say where the subsequent note that did indeed adopt "Maedron" is found. However, it seems to me that this note would provide us evidence in favor of keeping "Maedron" while rejecting the "Ros" stem changes only if it definitely derives from after Tolkien noticed "Cair Andros" and rejected the proposed changes.

My preference, then, is to go with "Maedros".