The Problem of Rog

[mhagain]

A good idea to copy the posts across. We should probably also delete them from the Gondolin thread so as not to confuse matters.

Back to Rog, I would be personally inclined to agree with CT's assessment on the name. Nobody was so in tune with his fathers work - while his father was alive and actively working on it - as CT, and if we are to view his opinion as holding little authority, then surely our's must hold even less. In fact, we have one recorded instance of JRRT actually deferring to CT over a name - i.e. "Gamgee" (which CT wanted kept) vs. "Goodchild" (which JRRT wanted to change it to) - see Letters.

Apologies in advance if this next bit has been discussed in detail elsewhere, but it does form my own argument in favour of replacing the name, so here we go...

Now, it seems plain that the old element "Rog" actually was the same "rog" that eventually transformed into the second part of "Balrog". The original etymology of "Balrog" was quite different, but "rog" appears to have remained the same as the languages developed - the entry for "Rog" in the LT II list of names gives a Q(u)enya equivalent "arauka", which is obviously the same word.

In the transformed "Balrog" etymology, "Rauko" (Sindarin "Raug", "Rog") is "Demon" (published Silmarillion Appendix), whereas the "Bal" element (originally "anguish") has come to be derived from "Val-/Bal-": "power" (ditto). "Raug" is in fact given as a variant of "Rog" in LT II, strengthening the evidential position, and providing 3 points on which one can form an argument that they are the same word (rog/raug/arauka|rauko), and that the meaning of this word has changed since LT was written. To form an argument for the retention of "Rog", where the then-current linguistic element has been totally superseded seems to me to be similar (in scope, if not in actual detail) to arguing for the retention of the original story of the construction of the Lamps.

Our choices are:

1. Accept an Eldarin lord who's name means "Demon".
2. Argue that "Rog" is actually Quenya in form, and have a single Eldarin lord with a Quenya-formed name where the rest are Sindarin in form.
3. Drop the whole "Rog" element from the Tale.
4. Change the name.

Now, leaving aside the question of whether or not one objects to the "sound" of the name "Rog", of these, (1) is totally absurd, and (2) smacks of being a cop-out. (3) would be a pity, and would be also a clear case of what CT himself has condemned in his own Silmarillion editorial work - being "too ready to deal with 'difficulties' by eliminating them." (HoME X, "Valaquenta".)

That leaves us with (4), which unfortunately there are very valid arguments against, not least that it's another case of something CT condemns in his own work - overstepping the bounds of the editorial role.

But need it be?

We have a translation of "Rog" in the old GL, as "doughty, strong", so is the substition of it with another name that means the same thing, but is linguistically viable really such a crime?

[Aiwendil]

mhagain - you make a good argument. However, I am far from convinced of this:

that they are the same word (rog/raug/arauka|rauko), and that the meaning of this word has changed since LT was written.

I do agree that the whole linguistic part of the debate hinges on this. If the name 'Rog' and the element '-rog' in 'Balrog' are identical, then the later meaning of that word ('demon') makes it inappropriate for an Eldarin lord. However, if the two elements are different, then the word 'rog' meaning 'demon' cannot be taken as evidence for the unsuitability of the name 'Rog' in FoG.

I was once of the former opinion, but prior to our completion of the FoG draft, I changed my mind.

Let me set out the linguistic evidence.

From 'Names in the Lost Tales part 2' (HoMe II):

Rog GL gives an adjective r^og, rog 'doughty, strong'. But with the Orcs' name for Egnor Beren's father, Rog the Fleet, cf. arog 'swift, rushing', and raug of the same meaning; Qenya arauka.

From this it is clear that we have, at the Lost Tales stage:

1. An element 'rog' = 'doughty, strong' (explicitly in GL)
2. An element 'rog'/'raug', Q. form 'arauka' = 'swift, rushing' (surmised by CRT based on very strong evidence).

In 'Names in the Lost Tales part 1' (I) we have:

Balrog [. . . ] Separate entries give bal 'anguish (original initial consonant mb-), balc 'cruel'; and graug 'demon'. Qenya forms are mentioned: arauke and Malkarauke.

We have also, then:

3. An element 'graug' = 'demon' (explicitly in GL).

The evidence for 1 and 3 comes from a single source, GL. The evidence for 2 is partially in GL, partially in QL, and partially in the 'Tale of Tinuviel'. It is clear, then, that, unless we posit some rather intricate and baroque developments during the writing of GL, these three elements coexisted simultaneously. We have, then, not one or even two distinct words but three.

Now, after the LT stage, elements 1 and 2 are not given in any etymological discussion. Element 3 retains its meaning but is altered slightly in form in the Etymologies (V):

RUK- demon. Q ranko demon, malarauko (*ngwalarauko, cf. NGWAL); N. rhaug, Balrog.

So Gnomish 'graug' becomes Noldorin 'rhaug'. At both stages, the 'au' diphthong appears to be resolved to an 'o' in compounds.

It is worth noting, also, that the character Rog of Gondolin still appears in the 1930 Q (IV):

Of the deeds of desperate valour there done, by the chieftains of the noble houses and their warriors, and not least by Tuor, is much told in The Fall of Gondolin; of the death of Rog without the walls; and of the battle of Ecthelion of the Fountain with Gothmog lord of Balrogs in the very square of the king . . .

Taken together, I think that all this makes it quite clear that the elements 'rog' in 'Rog' and 'graug/rhaug' in 'Balrog' were distinct from the beginning. This in itself is enough to take the force out of the argument to the effect that the name 'Rog' is impermissible because it must mean 'demon'. We can further demonstrate that, as late as 1930, the elements remained distinct; otherwise the name 'Rog' would not appear in Q.

So, all evidence points to 'rog' = strength and 'rhaug' = demon being unrelated elements; there is no indication anywhere that this situation was ever altered.

[mhagain]

Thank you. You make a very compelling argument against, and are coming close to convincing me. (But not quite... )

Anyway, I'm personally inclined to give more weight to linguistic evidence post-LoTR than to linguistic evidence of even the 1930s. For starters, it's actually quite obvious from LT I that "some rather intricate and baroque developments during the writing of GL" did in fact occur:

... the intensity with which my father used this diminutive book, emending, rejecting, adding, in layer upon layer ... the stages of a rapidly expanding linguistic conception ... GL in particular closely accompanied the actual composition of the Tales ... the languages changed even while the first 'layer' was being entered in GL ...

Now, FG being the first Tale composed means that "Rog" belongs to the first 'layer'. So already the GL entry for "Rog" must be in some measure of doubt. As Element 2 ('rog'/'raug'/Q. 'arauka') evidently came later than FG, we have further doubt that "Rog = strong, doughty" (as in FG) remains valid.

Retention of the distinct element "rog" in 1930 does not imply retention at a later date. Nor does it imply that it would not be retained. So in view of the situation, use of either argument would not be evidential. The only real "hard" evidence we have for any form of "rog", which is ultimately the only thing it can stand or fall by if we are to take a strictly authorative viewpoint, is "Balrog".

The stages of development I propose are:

1. Rog = "strong, doughty",
2. Rog = "swift, rushing",
3. Rog = "demon".

I also propose that these were successive stages, and that each supplanted the previous (with a possibility of undocumented intermediate stages).

To support this:

1. The GL definition came first, and the FG entires were the first made in it (evidential)
2. The languages developed as the tales were composed, and even as the first 'layer' in GL was composed (evidential)
3. The Tale of Tinuviel was the second composed (evidential) by which point the meaning of "Rog" had changed (I would claim this as evidential, based on (4) below, and this is what the whole thing will hinge on)
4. There is no other major word for which two concurrent but completely different meanings exist in the same language in GL or QL (evidential)
5. By 1930 we had both Rog and Balrog, but there is no evidence either way to indicate that the "rog" element was the same or different in both at this time (evidential)
6. By 1937 we had "rog" derived from the stem "RUK-", meaning "demon" (evidential)
7. There is no evidence to support (or reject) the retention of "Rog" in the Gondolin material by this time (evidential)
8. In the latter (authorative) conception, we have "Balrog" where the "rog" element is "demon", and this is the sole authorative definition of "rog" that we have (evidential)

To my mind, the argument for "Rog" being retained as the name of an Elf of Gondolin rests entirely on lack of evidence, whereas the argument for "Rog" not being retained is based on actual evidence of linguistic development in successive stages, and this makes the argument for retention weaker.

[Findegil]

Mmh, seeing your second argument, I ask if this does not mean, that in the 1930 version of FoG we have an Elve named Rog with the meaning 'Demon'. And if that is the case then why was it accaptable in 1930 and should be no longer now?

Anyway I think we all agree that JRR Tolkien would probably have changed the name, had he ever worked again on FoG. But alas he has not. And so even if we had hard evidence that he proposed to change the name, this might be a case were we can not make the change because we do not know how.

Respectfully
Findegil

[aravanessë]

Argue that "Rog" is actually Quenya in form, and have a single Eldarin lord with a Quenya-formed name where the rest are Sindarin in form.

Rog can't be q(u)enya, single 'g' doesn't exist in q(u)enya. Changing the name is an unacceptable solution for me, and droping this name too. So the first solution seems to be the only possibility; but I think you don't consider all the parameters: for me, Rog doesn't mean 'demon', and I think you will be convinced after this, I have found a new element in QL.
Firstly, you assert 'rog' means 'dought, strong', but it is 'rôg'. The term 'rog' is unglossed in GL, it's a CT error. That's why (partly) I don't think CT's opinion having more authority than mine.

Secondly 'arog' is 'raug' with a- prefixed. a- is, according to GL a "prefix used in forming number of ajs and occasionally nouns – unaccented and probably of various origin". It is the 'a-' that causes the change of 'au' into 'o', there is no (established) connection between 'rog' and 'arog'. But we know Rog the Fleet, so we can think the two words are connected etymologically (but at which degree?), but with a meaning a little distinct.

But, according to QL, I quote: "ARAUKE pl. –i demon (Not really connected with arauka or rauka swift. These = Gn. raug[<<râg]) Gn. grôg." Beyond any doubts, there is no link between raug/arog (q. arauka) and rôg/grôg/graug (q. arauke).

Silmarillion appendix is made by Christopher, no? So I look it askance. Where is the term 'rog' as 'demon' attested in J.R.R. Tolkien work?
Moreover quenya 'ō' and 'au' are not connected etymologically, so Rōka and Rauk(i) are not connected.

aravanessë

[lindil]

same as it ever was I see....[img]ubb/wink.gif[/img]

Welcome to the new folks!

Now, Ecthelion and Egalmoth were retained, and we have an indication of JRRT's own aesthetics when it comes to names: "These names are also derived from primitive FG, but are well-sounding".

that 'well-sounding' bit still weighs heavy on my soul as per Rog.

THe steward idea is extremely clever, but I will offer my 2 cents and agree that now matter how clever the substitution, it is as, alas, Aiwendil said, fan-fiction.

As for eliminating it due to it being irreconcilable w/ the later Silm, that very criteria has been used probably on every text worked on. Tuor's bearskin comes right to mind.

Ultimately Rog is a detail [connected to a part of the FoG that no one wants to lose] that could easily be grounds for exclusion. I would not rule it out a priori [I looked for who said that eliminating it was not an option for them but did not see it again on review - but I would encourage an open mind as to whether or not keeping it is mandatory w/out a replacement.

Awesome scholarship boys - keep at it!

[Elmo]

(Rôg, according to the original version; but the name seems 'unelvish'. Furthermore, in the Unfinished Tales account of the creation of the Elessar, the master craftsman of Gondolin is not Rôg but Enerdhil: so he may be a more likely candidate for this position)

Found on wikipedia just adding my tuppence to a debate I know little about...