The Problem of Rog

[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...