Name Changes?

[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".

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

(...) 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.

I think some confusion might stem from Tolkien anglicizing even the name Maidhros/Maidros. In Etymologies for example:

'N meið, maið, hence Maidhros (anglicized Maidros) = pale glitter [RUS]'

Here the Noldorin words involved end in ð, but this is no longer the derivation of the name in the Shibboleth of course.

'Maedros combines elements of Nelyafinwe's mother name Maiti- (Common Eldarin magiti- shapely, Sindarin maed) and of the epesse Russandol (C. E. russá, Sindarin ross).' Vinyar Tengwar 41

The word appears to be maed not *maedh here. I'm no expert, but generally speaking I think a voiced t (d) here makes enough sense with respect to Sindarin phonology (looking at note 15 we can see a revision of Maedhros to Maedros, but we can't know if this was but a slip, changed in light of the new concept).

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: (...) So the name "Maedros" is associated with the projected changes of "Ros" by Tolkien himself.

Yes but I would say it is associated simply because the name contains one of the two Eldarin homophones that Tolkien thinks are difficult to accept.

To my mind the -ros in Maedros, outside of being the same word in form and sound, has nothing really to do with the ros in Elros, or the connection to Rothinzil or Elwing, or to Cair Andros being the reason the solution failed (in this idea Beorian ros had an older form roth, and Elros is called Elroth at one point).

This is all the 'foam, spray' side of a solution, and I think Tolkien needed to deal with only one of these words to solve his problem.

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.

I would agree that Tolkien mused (at least briefly) about altering Maedros as a possible solution. We can note that Elros is not altered by the proposed solution, as that can't be altered aside from giving it an older form Elroth.

But to me, although it's still a 'stem change' in general, it's very much about a reassignment of languages:

'But instead of deriving them [ros, wing] from the Nandorin (or Green Elvish) of Ossiriand, it would be an improvement to derive them from the Mannish tongues: the language of Beren father of Dior; both *ros and *wing could thus be removed from Eldarin.' JRRT, The Problem of Ros

Altering Maedros is a solution that might have worked -- had Tolkien, at this point, thought it would not be difficult to alter the name -- but he did not take this path in the subsequent essay, which doesn't seem to be really concerned with anything that would necessitate altering Maedros. There should be no need to change Maedros if the solution had worked, as then these two words would not constitute Eldarin homophones.

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.

Yes there's a misty element here. I agree it's certainly possible and plausible that, having failed to characterize ros 'spray, foam' as Beorian, Tolkien later attempted to solve the very same problem in a different way, by eliminating the 'red-brown' word. Incidentally, in other forums I have asked if the issue of these homophones is really necessarily that problematic, and so far have received a very limited response.

In Sindarin Maedron may simply mean *shapely one. Tolkien might have just liked this better at some point, but if he was still trying to solve the problem of the Eldarin homophones (again, not unlikely I admit), then it seems that we, or at least I, can't really know how far reaching this change might be.

I think Maedron raises questions, but we know Maedros is paired with Amros at least, even if Maedron might be later. As I say, concerning this 'later note', the simple declaration of a change Maedros to Maedron doesn't seem much to go on. CJRT noted this in a somewhat appropriate place -- appropriate here because it shows that Tolkien changed his mind despite the earlier note that Maedros would be difficult to alter.

By the way, I hope this isn't too repetitive or annoying, but having thought about this essay and the name Maedhros for a while now, it's fun to bounce my opinions off of knowledgeable Tolkien readers in some detail.

___________________

Just for fun speculation: there's a stem RUN 'red, glowing' for example, and noting URUN 'copper' (note 61, The Shibboleth of Feanor).


Maedros was said to have worn a copper circlet and to have had red-brown hair. Again I'm no expert, but I think a C. E. *runná could yield -ron in Sindarin as well. Could part of Maedron similarly refer to hair, at least in some loose way?

But would we then also have *Ambarunna and *Runnandol? and Sindarin Maedron, Amron? or might we have some other linguistic scenario which retained certain 'russa, ros names' except for (for some reason) Maedros?

[Findegil]

1. ð vs. dh:
Even so I did not formaly declared it, I did agree to the change back from ð to dh.
I doing so I thought more about readability then anything else. For ð only a few experts will have an idea how to pronauce it correctly. For dh that is a bit better.

2. dh/ð vs. d:
If this is angelisation I am totally against it. That is for the same reason I was for dh. If we would put a simple d near to nobody would get the pronauciation right.

But if it is an linguistical issue and d is the later we should use it.

3. ros vs. ron:
This is dificult since Tolkien seems to have been switched back ward and forward. I would have to read deeper into this issu to make up my mind.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

I'll try a short version, based on Findegil's post, and perhaps it will help with clarity regarding my long-winded response above!


1. ð vs. dh:

This is a matter of orthography and I would go with dh as well (Galadhrim, Caras Galadhon).

2. dh/ð vs. d:

I belive this is anglicization in the 1930s -- 1950s, but by the time of The Shibboleth of Feanor we have maed 'shapely' and a Sindarization of a name. At this point I believe the d is simply d not anglicized dh (and the old meaning of this character's name is here certainly changed from 'pale glitter').

3. ros vs. ron:

A late change to -ron but one that raises questions as to the status of other 'russa, ros' names from The Shibboleth of Feanor (I'm not aware that Tolkien went back and forth here, as Findegil noted).


The problem of ros

JRRT thought that it was difficult to accept the two homophones occuring in the Eldarin tongues, since they were unconnected in meaning.

Tolkien's solution: characterize the ros of Elros ('foam, spray') as Beorian, leaving the other ros as in Maedros ('red-brown') as Eldarin. This failed because Cair Andros had already been published as meaning 'Ship of Long Foam' in a Sindarin (thus Eldarin) context.

Tolkien's 'later' declaration concerning a change to Maedron might be another solution to this, but the note, at least as commented on, is sparse on detail.

[Findegil]

Okay it is a long time since, but still I think we have the open question of

Maedros vs. Maedron
Posted by me:

This is dificult since Tolkien seems to have been switched back ward and forward.

That was a lose interpretation of mine. It would be true if we could prove that the note in which Tolkien change the name to Maedron was NOT the last time he wrote about that charachter. But since we have no idea when these 'later note' was written and the basis of 'later' is the already late The Problem of ROS it is absolutly possible that he wrote in that note for the last time about Maedron.

Galin, if I understand you rightly, you think that after Tolkien saw that the elegant solution of the problem of ROS that was supposed in that essay failed due to Cair Andros, he solved the problem by altering the other stem ROS, beeing 'a colour word, referring to the red, red-brown hair of the first, sixth, and seventh sons of Feanor' to RUN 'red, glowing' with the word urun meaning 'copper'.
In that way you think 'Maitimo *Runnandol' sindarized his name to 'Maedron'. Therefore and since Tolkien did not provide a fitting sindarization you supposd '*Ambarunna' to become '*Amron'.

That is also a very elagant solution, but I am not so sure Tolkien did think about it in the way you do.
Let's talk about the Quenya names first: I agree that the later mentioning of the stem RUN and word urun would replace ROS and would make the names [i]Rusco[i/], Russandol and Ambarussa unusable. For Rusco 'fox' as an eppesse of Nerdanels father we have the replacement Urundil 'copper-lover'. That said the new form for older Russandol 'copper-top' should be *Urundol, I think. And for old Ambarussa I would think we should get *Ambarun

Now lets go to Sindarin: What I miss is a prove that Maedron still had the same meaning as Maedros. Okay, Maedros might have had no proper meaning because it is an sindarized mix of Maitimo and Russandol. But it would still mean somthing like 'well-shaped copper' or less litarily 'well-shaped red one'. Does Maedron mean the same? I don't think so. I would rather think that it is a translation of Maitimo thus meaning 'well-shaped one' as in Sauron 'adhorred one' or in (Aran) Tauron 'the (king) forester'. Further names with that ending are Daeron and Gethron, but I did not check the meaning of these (if they are given at all). Thus we do neither know the proper Mothername of the twins nor the translation for it into Sindarin.

Thus Aiwendil is in a sense right: If we change Maedros to Maedron but keep Russandol, Ambarussa and Amros we do not solve the problem of ROS at all.
But I do not see how we can do better, without violating our rules.

The simple question is then: Do we consider the Maedron note to be Tolkiens last idea? (It is clearly not a case of an idea that can not be integrate, since it is easy to make and even so it does not effectly amend the problem of ROS, it does also not make it worth.)

What remains in addition are the names Russandol and Ambarussa. Do we consider them outdated with the note about the stem RUN 'red, glowing'?
Russandol we could simply skip but for Ambarussa we would need a replacment.
Any ideas?

One further point found in this thread posted by Inderjit Sanghera:

'Maelor' was used in the LQI (HoME 10) and in some notes which deal with Celebrimbor's lineage, which was given in the appendix to 'Of Dwarves and Men'. Both pre-date 'The Shibboleth of Fëanor (HoME 12), in which the name Maglor became fixed as his proper name.

That Maglor is fixed in The shibboleth of Fëanor, seems a bit overestimated. The name is only once mentioned and that is in a footnote to the text proper. Maelor was also used in the Later lay of Leithian but that does predate the Shibboleth as well. In LQ2 we have again Maglor. But in a Note written into the second edition of The Lord of the Rings Tolkien used again Maelor. The note is of course of unknown date but it is later then 1966. So Maelor was at leat not as short lifed as one could think from what Inderjit wrote.
Up to now we have adopted Maelor. Due we stick to this?

Respectfuly
Findegil