![]() |
|
|
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
There are plenty of cases where the English translations Tolkien provides for Elvish names are somewhat loose, and plenty of cases in which he gives alternate, slightly different translations. So I don't think that 'starlight' vs. 'star of radiance' is really a matter of tremendous importance.
Moreover, I tend to think that the presence or absence of a hyphen may be more of an issue with the transliteration into the English alphabet than with the actual name. I may have simply forgotten, but is there an equivalent of a hyphen in Tengwar? In any case, we all seem to agree that 'Gil-galad' and 'star-light' are fine to use. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
![]() |
No. Hyphens aren't even represented by spaces in the Tengwar, but Tolkien used them to distinguish between different kinds of mutations in the Latin alphabet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | ||||||||||||
|
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Finally, some comments on the first section.
First, a general comment on the text: There is a lot of jumping back and forth between QS and GA here. This is to be expected, given the textual situation, and I think that for the most part it is skillfully done; but I worry a little that in trying to provide as complete and detailed an account as we can, we may be slicing up Tolkien's prose too indiscriminately. In particular, I think we must be careful not to use additions from other sources merely for the sake of added verbiage, but only when some substantive detail is gained. I will try to point out specific places where this is an issue. RB-DB-01: This is a good example of my concern above. Here we have cognate sentences in QS and GA: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
§141: There are some missing Celegorn > Celegorm changes here: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
§143: Here again some difficulties arise from the mixture of QS and GA. But first of all there is an issue of chronology. The situation appears to be that the assault on Minas Tirith was placed in 457, two years after the Bragollach, in AB 2 and in QS. In GA it was moved first to 456 and then to 455, the same year as the battle, and before the death of Fingolfin. Our text as it stands has the earlier chronology, and this at the very least must be changed. But, as previously, I'm somewhat inclined to take the bulk of the passage from GA instead of from QS. As far as I can tell, nothing of substance appears here in QS that is absent from GA. The only thing I would perhaps want to salvage from QS is the description of Sauron, which is given at greater length in QS and was revised in LQ. If we take this, then we must remove the redundant description from GA. I would therefore suggest this: Quote:
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |||
|
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,036
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
It seems discussed here a bit... http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=4479 I'm not a member of this Silmarillion project, but as a fan of Tolkien's nomenclature I'll give this a go: Ambarto becomes the youngest or 'last' child, thus matching up better with Telufinwe 'Last Finwë' (though this was not specifically marked it appears). Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Good to see you, Galin!
I will have to look into the name issue some more, but as far as I can tell you are correct. My memory is a bit hazy on some of these issues. Glancing at the Name Changes thread, though, I noticed that in fact we had (at my suggestion!) already settled on "Amros" rather than "Amras". I'm less clear on the Amrod vs. Amarthan point, as (alas) I still don't have any of the Vinyar Tengwar (maybe those ought to go on my Hanukkah/Christmas wish-list). However, my point here was simply that it is Amras/Amros who is alive and well in Beleriand at this point and Amrod/Amarthan who died at Losgar, and not the other way around. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,036
![]() ![]() |
Oops Aiwendil, yes I was essentially agreeing with you regarding the basic question I quoted.
I guess I could have made that clear enough without blathering on so much about the Amrod/Amarthan question, it's just that this question is one I have mused about myself. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |||
|
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,721
![]() |
Posted by Aiwendil:
Quote:
RB-DB-01: Agreed we take your suggestion. RB-DB-06.5: §134 ... {Third}[Fourth]: Good catch. RB-DB-07: I thought it might be helpful because the last time we have heard of Glaurung before, we were told that he was not yet full grown. But the addition might be considered superficial. §137: In this case I do not agree fully to your suggestion. In the first sentence it is better to take up GA fully, but I would still keep the first half sentence from the QS. And in the rest of the paragraph I think we loss a good deal of information by only taking one source. Quote:
RD-DB-24: Agreed, we take the addition out. {Damrod and Diriel}[Amros] it will be. §143: I did not observe the chronology issue. But I am reluctant to skip all that nice interpretation why Tol Sirion was the last fortress attacked in that battle. Also I see some info in QS that is missing in GA. Some examples in detail (No. are take from the text below): RD-DB-25.5: That Glaurung was shy of the River Sirion at this time is a motive not given eles were. Interesting that he is again in the eastern Battle in the Nirneath. RD-DB-28: That Sauron was in command of Balrogs in this battle doth strength his position among the host of Morogth. RD-DB-31.5: Well, this is new. I wish to keep the word 'necromancy'. As fare as I remember this is the only real connection you will get while reading the story of Middle-Earth chronological between Gorthaur of Beleriand and the Necromancer of the Mirkwood in The Hobbit. Even so the change might be called stylistic, I think it is important because we will have to live with The Hobbit as it is. I think connections should be strength if we can. After RD-DB-32: That the final victory came by assault and not by siege is important, since it makes Orodreth escape much more feasible. After RD-DB-33: The 'dark cloud of fear' is again a nice tie to the siege of Minas Tirith in The Lord of Rings. I think that should not be lost. Within RD-DB-34: Orodreth is no longer Finrods brother, but his nephew. But I find 'Steward' the more fitting connection here. RD-DB-35: Why should we loss this bridge to the future? Readers will remember this easier if we provide them with the information that it has influence in the future narrative. Now you could say that again I propose a stylistic change. But I think that I rather argue against a change with reasons of style. The difference is, that in Annals I would not expect such a style, in a 'Quenta' it is rather classical. And Tolkien is using this often in The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings. Thus I would edit: Quote:
Findegil |
|||
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
|
|