Gnomes and Fairies

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I agree, though I think Rowling has a tendency toward spoilers with the names (d'ya think a guy named Lupin might have something to do with wolves, or Sirius could be connected with dogs? ).

Not to mention Fenrir Greyback (with a first name like Fenrir, he more or less HAS to be the chief werewolf) Or Xenophilias Lovegood, he had to be a collector of curiosities (Xenophilias, "Love of the Strange/Foreign")

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

Not to mention Fenrir Greyback (with a first name like Fenrir, he more or less HAS to be the chief werewolf) Or Xenophilias Lovegood, he had to be a collector of curiosities (Xenophilias, "Love of the Strange/Foreign")

Not to mention Professor Sprout.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Not to mention Professor Sprout.

And Professor Vector, the Arithmancy teacher. We can do this all day.

Tolkien's names are descriptive enough of their subjects, at times; Gandalf, Celeborn, and Fëanor come to mind. He avoided obvious plot-spoilers though, and that was probably helped by the fact that the origins of the names would mean little to a reader not acquainted with Tolkien's linguistic prowess, he having taken the names from either obscure (to modern readers) historical, real-world languages, or his own invented tongues.

Tolkien was, by his own admission, a bit chafed by the fact that such words as "gnome" and "fairy" had been co-opted by what he considered childish and unworthy literary works, but he was stuck with the realization that no matter how he tried to distinguish his gifted, immortal Eldar from fairy-tale elves, calling them gnomes was ultimately not going to pull the public away from pre-conceived notions of them.

[Mister Underhill]

I have always been a no-spoilers kinda guy, but I must say over the years I've seen the commonly understood definition of a spoiler creep to almost absurd lengths. The color of the new Batman costume, for an example I've seen debated, is decidedly not what I'd consider a spoiler.

To the matter at hand, Rowling, after all, wants you to connect Sirius to the black dog that seems to be haunting Harry. I don't think Lupin's lycanthropy is a huge twist or anything -- it's more like: What is Snape up to and is he responsible somehow? Besides, she probably made a reasonable assumption that a fair portion of her audience would lack the grounding to make the connections in many of those cases. In the parlance of our times, they're more easter eggs than spoilers, methinks. But, you know, your mileage may vary.

I didn't really mean to spark a debate on the finer points of Rowling, but those points do speak to this question of the names of things, the vocabulary employed. Raiding and tweaking ancient or unfamiliar (to the presumed audience) languages and traditions is a time-honored method for inventing names, one that is often preferable to pure invention. We've all suffered through the apostrophe-laden creations of lesser sci-fi and fantasy writers. Sometimes a familiar word or name that's employed in a new context is spot on -- when Lucas made force into The Force, he tapped a deep vein.

Tolkien obviously borrowed names liberally. For me one of the things that makes it work is that we are given to understand that elf or dwarf are rough English translations for the real word. The old translator conceit, cover for many sins. Still, I think if Tolkien could have had it back, he would've renamed the old trio of Bert, Tom, and William, arguably the most discordant naming element in the Legendarium.

EDIT: Whoops, cross-posted with Inzila.

[Alfirin]

Quick Borrowing story from my childhood

When I was a kid I had a copy of an odd little pop-up book called "The Dwindling Party" , a present from a cousin who worked in Publishing (and who was unaware, that, regardless of formal, any book written by Edward Gorey is not exactly a kids book)

Anyhow The opening lines of the book are as follows

"A family once, by the name of McFizzit;
A mother, a father, six children in all;
Put on their best clothing, and went out the visit
The varied diversions of Hickyacket Hall"

The book then follows the family members as they are one by one abducted, eaten etc. by the varios monsters at the hall until only one is left."

The point is as follows, some years later I realized the name of the hall was a clue to what was going to happen (in my defense, I never learned Latin" There's no "k" in classic Latin and the "C" are always hard. And "Y" becomes "I" so the name then would become "HicIacet" or "Hic Iacet", "Here Lies" as in ("Hic Iacet Arturus Regina Temus Regina Mors.")

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

There's no "k" in classic Latin And "Y" becomes "I" so the name then would become "HicIacet" or "Hic Iacet" …

The letter K was used in Old Latin and survived in Classic Latin in the word kalendae, after the 5th century B.C.E., which referred to the first day of each month, and in the praenomen Kaeso, used by the Julian clan. The word and name were both abbreviated as K. Accordingly K remains as a letter in standard Latin, though used seldom.

Y was in origin the Greek letter upsilon ‘plain y’ (Υ) which was originally pronounced in Greek as [u] but later pronounced as [i] but with the lips rounded, like u in modern French and ü in German. The Romans used this letter only when borrowing Greek words and names. Since the Greek sound was not a native Latin sound, the letter was generally pronounced as [i] in late Latin and in Romance languages.

Gorey’s use of the name Hickyacket is an intentional modernized misspelling of Hic iacet, replacing i with y and c with ck.

The supposed quotation Hic Iacet Arturus Regina Temus Regina Mors makes no sense to me. I think the intended quotation is the famous Hic Iacet Arturus, Rex quondam, Rexque futurus to be translated something like “Here lies Arthur, former king, and king to be”.

[Alfirin]

Yes, was quoting from memory, memory failed (as I said, I never learned Latin)

[jallanite]

On the main point of this thread, the use of gnome as a name for the Noldor, a particular kind of elf, this does not work with Paracelsus’s meaning in which gnomes are supernatural entities who, in modern sf terms, phase though solid matter.

Paracelsus first wrote about gnomes in his paper On Nymphs, Sylphs, Pygmies, and Salamanders, which I do not find on the web. But see this short article on Paracelsus’s invention: http://blog.inkyfool.com/2010/12/par...d-rape-of.html . Paracelsus describes his gnomes as appearing as pygmies, about one foot high. Paracelsus was apparently influenced by Germanic traditions about Dwarfs. Subsequent writers of children’s fantasy accordingly sometimes used the word gnome for magical creatures of the dwarf type.

Tolkien appears to have been the only writer to use gnome to refer to handsome, human-sized elven folk and to have related Paracelsus’s gnome with Greek gnōmē, ‘saying, thought’. Gnomic poems are poems of moral maxims and have nothing to do with the supernatural creation of Paracelsus. They have existed and were so classified long before Paracelsus wrote. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomic_poetry . Paracelsus possibly misspelled Greek genomos ‘earth-dweller’ to create the word gnomus.

Considering this, Tolkien was, I think wise to drop his idiosyncratic use of gnome to refer to the Noldor. There is no genuine folklore tradition behind this use of gnome. It is best ignored, as Tolkien decided to do, beyond his imagining the word Nóm ‘Wisdom’ as a name given by Beornians in their own language to King Felagund and Nómin ‘the Wise’ as their name for Felagund’s people, which Galen has already indicated.

Another Paracelsian word is sylph, which he uses to describe a wind or air elemental. Sylphs appear in Tolkien’s the Book of Lost Tales, page 66, among the divine followers of Manwë and Varda. Tolkien writes (emphasis mine):

… and these are the Mánir and the Súruli, the sylphs of the airs and of the winds.

Sylph may derive from Greek silphe ‘butterfly, moth’.