Question for the Sindarin experts: is Meril still valid?

[Arvegil145]

Thank you for your substantial answer.

I DO realize that many of the names in the Lost Tales did not bear any meaning, or if they did little is known about it.

But if their etymology is obscure or nonexistent I would still like (since you appear to know much about the linguistic material) to have your advice on what names could be kept from Tolkien's early writings that do not contradict the later development of Sindarin or Quenya. For example (as I have written before):

- Gereth
- Evranin
- Nielthi
- Ilfiniol
- Tavrobel (studying its etymology, I have somewhat naively rendered it to "Taurobel")
- Bodruith
- Valwë
- Tulkastor
- Fankil
- Naimi

What do you make of these?

P.S. Could Voronwë in the later texts still have a son? It seems to me unlikely, but it might be possible (somehow).

[William Cloud Hicklin]

If you really think you can take down a windmill or two, then the only approach that might, sort of, work would be by "translation out and in:" analyze the meanings of BOLT nomenclature insofar as is possible using the Gnomish and Qenya Lexicons (published in Parma Eldalamberon 11 and 12) supplemented by the Early Quenya Fragments (PE 14) and the Name-list to The Fall of Gondolin, Si Qente Feanor and "Names and Required Alterations" connected with The Cottage of Lost Play (PE 15), and then re-translate back into post-LR Sindarin and Quenya attested forms or regular derivations from attested roots. Of especial value here might be Tolkien's "Words, Phrases and Passages in various tongues in The Lord of the Rings" published in PE 17. As a general guide Jim Allan's Introduction to Elvish is still very useful, although published before HME.

Avoid like the plague the various "Neo-Sindarins" and "Neo-Quenyas" peddled by certain parties, especially the Sudarin concocted for the movies. You're creating neo-Elvish yourself, no need to make it exponential.

[Arvegil145]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

If you really think you can take down a windmill or two, then the only approach that might, sort of, work would be by "translation out and in:" analyze the meanings of BOLT nomenclature insofar as is possible using the Gnomish and Qenya Lexicons (published in Parma Eldalamberon 11 and 12) supplemented by the Early Quenya Fragments (PE 14) and the Name-list to The Fall of Gondolin, Si Qente Feanor and "Names and Required Alterations" connected with The Cottage of Lost Play (PE 15), and then re-translate back into post-LR Sindarin and Quenya attested forms or regular derivations from attested roots. Of especial value here might be Tolkien's "Words, Phrases and Passages in various tongues in The Lord of the Rings" published in PE 17. As a general guide Jim Allan's Introduction to Elvish is still very useful, although published before HME.

Avoid like the plague the various "Neo-Sindarins" and "Neo-Quenyas" peddled by certain parties, especially the Sudarin concocted for the movies. You're creating neo-Elvish yourself, no need to make it exponential.

The problem is, I have no clue whatsoever about the linguistic material of Tolkien - and to take the names from the Lost Tales (along with their etymology) and "update" them, so to speak, to Quenya and Sindarin - I am not up for the task.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

But if their etymology is obscure or nonexistent I would still like (since you appear to know much about the linguistic material) to have your advice on what names could be kept from Tolkien's early writings that do not contradict the later development of Sindarin or Quenya.

None of the names you list cause any phonetic difficulties in either later Quenya or Sindarin, including Tavrobel. That does not mean that Tolkien would have considered the names valid in later Quenya or Sindarin for other reasons, or would not have.

For example Tolkien says of the name Glorfindel on page 379 of The Peoples of Middle-earth (HoME 12), bolding mine:

The name is in fact derived from the earliest work on the mythology: The Fall of Gondolin, composed in 1916-17, in which the Elvish language that ultimately became that of the type called Sindarin was in a primitive and unorganized form, and its relation with the High-elven type (itself very primitive) was still haphazard. It was intended to mean ‘Golden-tressed’,⁴ and was the name given to the heroic ‘Gnome’ (Ñoldo), a chieftain of Gondolin, who in the pass of Cristhorn (‘Eagle-cleft’) fought with a Balrog [> Demon], whom he slew at the cost of his own life.

Its use in The Lord of the Rings is one of the cases of the somewhat random use of the names found in the older legends now referred to as The Silmarillion, which escaped reconsideration in the final published form of The Lord of the Rings. This is unfortunate, since the name is now difficult to fit into Sindarin, and cannot possibly be Quenyarin.

⁴ [For the original etymology of Glorfindel, and the etymological connections of the elements of the name, see II.341.]

Helge Fauskanger at http://folk.uib.no/hnohf/ndnn.htm speculates on why Tolkien later saw the name Glorfindel to be problematical:

We are not told precisely what was "wrong" with the name Glorfindel (that is, why it did not fit Tolkien's late vision of Sindarin very well), but part of the problem may well have been that a name of this shape ought to have become *Glorfinnel by the late Third Age. The simplest solution would seem to be that it was simply an archaic First Age form, preserved or revived by its reincarnated owner (since Tolkien did decide that Glorfindel of Rivendell was the same person as Glorfindel of Gondolin way back in the First Age).

Note that Fauskangar admits this is only speculation.

All comments so far on your posts indicate that you have set yourself a task that those who have commented, and whom you recognize as more knowledgeable in Elvish linguistics than yourself, consider impossible.

P.S. Could Voronwë in the later texts still have a son? It seems to me unlikely, but it might be possible (somehow).

This is typical of your questions. What has Tolkien written that indicates that he ever necessarily thought Voronwë didn’t have a son, or a daughter, or many children? We are told nothing of any wife of Voronwë before his return to Gondolin, but that is also the case in the Book of Lost Tales. All we know is that in the later Silmarillion Littleheart was not one of Eärendil’s campanions on his final voyage in Vingilot or that Littleheart was a companion, but is named as Falathar, or Aerandil (Airandil), or Erellont, not as Ilfiniol, or Ilverin, or Elfrith, or Elbenil as in the Lost Tales. It is not definitely written by Tolkien that any of Eärendil’s mariner companions were not Elves.

I am a loss as to why you are updating “The Cottage of Lost Play” at all when apparently in Tolkien’s latest thought Eriol has no part in this, whether of Eriol’s “former names the story nowhere tells”, whether Eriol was Ottor Wǽfre the father of Hengest and Horsa who traditionally first settled the English in England, or whether Eriol was Æscwine, an 11th century Englishman.

Tolkien’s latest thought is that Silmarillion is a translation made by Bilbo Baggins in Rivendell into Westron of a traditional summary of old tales written in Gondor.

[Arvegil145]

This is typical of your questions. What has Tolkien written that indicates that he ever necessarily thought Voronwë didn’t have a son, or a daughter, or many children? We are told nothing of any wife of Voronwë before his return to Gondolin, but that is also the case in the Book of Lost Tales. All we know is that in the later Silmarillion Littleheart was not one of Eärendil’s campanions on his final voyage in Vingilot or that Littleheart was a companion, but is named as Falathar, or Aerandil (Airandil), or Erellont, not as Ilfiniol, or Ilverin, or Elfrith, or Elbenil as in the Lost Tales. It is not definitely written by Tolkien that any of Eärendil’s mariner companions were not Elves.

Surely, Littleheart was not a companion of Eärendil, but that doesn't mean that he should have been jettisoned so lightly. Voronwë was a young Elf during the War of the Jewels, and though Gondolin was a blissful place, it is said in the "Athrabeth" that the Eldar do not wed nor bear children at times of war. And if Voronwë sailed with Tuor and Idril (although that is not a sure statement), what might have been his fate during their voyages: did they indeed make it to Aman, and there dwell now in peace, or have they been lost somewhere in the seas about Aman.

And even if Voronwë made to Aman at last, and had a son there, why should his son dwell now in Tol Eressëa? And all of Littleheart's elven names strike me a bit odd - naturally - and I cannot make my mind whether to keep him in my revised version.

I am a loss as to why you are updating “The Cottage of Lost Play” at all when apparently in Tolkien’s latest thought Eriol has no part in this, whether of Eriol’s “former names the story nowhere tells”, whether Eriol was Ottor Wǽfre the father of Hengest and Horsa who traditionally first settled the English in England, or whether Eriol was Æscwine, an 11th century Englishman.

I am NOT talking about Ottor from Angeln - I am talking about Aelfwine from England and his stay at Eressëa - with needed emendations of course.

P.S. Mar Vanwa Tyaliéva - The Cottage of Lost Play - was in Tolkien's later writings referred to the House of Elrond - and its meaning was "House of Past Mirth".

And, of course, I would NOT keep the "children" in the Cottage of Lost Play - nor would I retain its name - in the end, of what purpose is the part "of Lost Play" in its name without the children of Men travelling through the Olorë Málle to taste the bliss of Aman before they die.

Limpë would of course have to go - it contradicts EVERYTHING written about the fates of Elves and Men in the later course of Tolkien's lifetime.


My idea is this - Aelfwine journeys to Eressëa; there he is greeted by the Elves and there is a description of the island - and then, travelling through the country, he comes to a house (the Cottage) - in this sense, simply an Eressëan version of the Last Homely House - and there, he is shown the various old texts, and is taught many things by Pengolodh (in which he, in the later versions, seems the primary source of Aelfwine's oral teachings).

I admit, such a project needs a lot of tinkering with the texts, but I am COMPLETELY hellbent on keeping Aelfwine and his stor(y)ies.

Tolkien’s latest thought is that Silmarillion is a translation made by Bilbo Baggins in Rivendell into Westron of a traditional summary of old tales written in Gondor.

The sheer abundancy of the mentions of Aelfwine and his teaching in the late writings, brings your claim to naught (at least in my opinion).

And wouldn't it be more likely that a script written in Old English would be preserved (if somewhat in a fragmentary form) all the way up to Tolkien's time than a book written 7000 years ago (also in a language and script completely unknown in later times - it would take a Champollion to decipher it - referring, of course, to Bilbo's books and the writing system in which they were written - Tengwar).

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Surely, Littleheart was not a companion of Eärendil, but that doesn't mean that he should have been jettisoned so lightly.

Littleheart in Tolkien’s writing is, true, not mentioned under that name in anything published outside of The Book of Lost Tales. So Littleheart still existed, unmentioned under that name, in Tolkien’s conception, or he had been written out in Tolkien’s conception.

If Littleheart still existed in Tolkien’s conception, and his role was somewhat the same, then obviously in the published Simarillion he is one of Eärendil’s three mariner companions on his voyage to Tirion in Vingilot, that is he is Falathar, or Erellont, or Aerandir. Or possibly Tolkien for some reason just dropped the character altogether. But your assumption that Littleheart was just “jettisoned” is only an unverified assumption, and I am not going to argue any unverified assumptions, for or against.

And even if Voronwë made to Aman at last, and had a son there, why should his son dwell now in Tol Eressëa?

Well, if Littleheart existed in Tolkien’s conception, then he would have to dwell somewhere. Tolkien in The Book of Lost Tales puts him in as the gong-warden in the Cottage of Lost Play in Tol Eressëa. However Tolkien says nothing about when exactly Littleheart was fathered, though Voronwë says nothing to Tuor about having a wife when he guides Tuor to Gondolin. It is only another unverified assumption by you that Voronwë later married and fathered Littleheart in Aman. Yet considering that Voronwë in Tolkien's later conception was a mature Elf, though still somewhat young, and had been born in Middle-earth, and that no Elf had gone from Middle-Earth to Aman for ages before Eärendil and Littleheart and perhaps other companions did so, I imagine that Tolkien imagined that Littleheart was born shortly after Tuor and Voronwë came to Gondolin. Presumably Voronwë married then.

Tolkien could imagine that his Littleheart was born at a time that he might have been of age to be a mariner who accompanied Eärendel to Kôr. I see nothing that speaks against Tolkien’s imagining.

Nor do I see anything in your revised fan-fiction that would cause any difficulty.

And all of Littleheart's elven names strike me a bit odd - naturally - and I cannot make my mind whether to keep him in my revised version.

A poor reason to use by someone who is concerned only that his Elvish names make sense phonetically in Quenya or Sindarin. Personally, I see nothing wrong with any of the Elvish forms given.

I am NOT talking about Ottor from Angeln - I am talking about Aelfwine from England and his stay at Eressëa - with needed emendations of course.

You mean Ælfwine, not Aelfwine, of course. Your English is as bad as your Elvish. And up until now you were not talking about this at all, only about your wish to produce a new version of “The Cottage of Lost Play.”

I admit, such a project needs a lot of tinkering with the texts, but I am COMPLETELY hellbent on keeping Aelfwine and his stor(y)ies.

The sheer abundancy of the mentions of Aelfwine and his teaching in the late writings, brings your claim to naught (at least in my opinion).

Not in my opinion. Not a surprise.

And wouldn't it be more likely that a script written in Old English would be preserved (if somewhat in a fragmentary form) all the way up to Tolkien's time than a book written 7000 years ago (also in a language and script completely unknown in later times - it would take a Champollion to decipher it - referring, of course, to Bilbo's books and the writing system in which they were written - Tengwar).

Yes, in theory that would seem to be more likely. But in fact your story is pure fiction, just as Tolkien’s The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings is pure fiction, as is Robert E. Howard’s story series about Conan the Barbarian. The backstory behind how the books came to be, as set forth by implication in the books themselves, is obviously phony, and the resultant works are none the worse for that. People expect fantasy fiction to be fictional.

I first encountered the Bilbo Baggins theory in a fanzine article soon after the Ballantine edition was first printed. I don’t recall which fanzine but I believe someone was quoting Tolkien. That the published Silmarillion was supposedly adapted from Bilbo Baggins’ Translations from the Elvish is put forth in various modern articles, not seriously of course.

Please think before you respond and see if what you want to post makes sense.

[Galin]

In his Foreword to The Book of Lost Tales Christopher Tolkien assumes the same thing that Robert Foster had published in his Complete Guide to Middle-earth, that Quenta Silmarillion was no doubt one of Bilbo's translations.

"So also I have assumed: the 'books of lore' that Bilbo gave to Frodo provided in the end the solution: they were "The Silmarillion". But apart from the evidence cited here, there is, so far as I know, no other statement on this matter anywhere in my father's writings; and (wrongly, as I think now) I was reluctant to step into the breach and make definite what I only surmised."

Christopher Tolkien, Foreword, The Book Of Lost Tales volume I

Richard Plotz talked with Tolkien on November 1, 1966, just after the second, revised edition (Allen and Unwin) had been published in October, after the Ballantine Books revised edition had been published as well.

Tolkien tells him that one of the snags delaying publication of The Silmarillion is its quasi-biblical stle, which Tolkien considers "his best, but his publishers disagree. Another problem is that of finding a story line to connect all the parts. At the moment, Professor Tolkien is considering making use of Bilbo again ... perhaps the Silmarillion will appear as his research in Rivendell."

Hammond And Scull, Chronology

I find his phrasing interesting, as it looks like Tolkien had already added his Note On The Shire Records (revised edition), which included that Bilbo's Translations From The Elvish were "almost entirely concerned with the Elder Days". And JRRT had added in Appendix A (revised edition) that the ancient legends of the First Age were Bilbo's chief interest.

Admittedly Quenta Silmarillion is not specifically noted in either of these descriptions from the second edition, but in any case this is how Plotz put it.

[jallanite]

Since the second edition of the Lord of the Rings was first published by Ballantine in 1965 while Plotz’s interview with Tolkien occurred on November 1, 1966, indeed it more than “looks like Tolkien had already added his Note On The Shire Records (revised edition), which included that Bilbo’s Translations From The Elvish were ‘almost entirely concerned with the Elder Days’.”

Thanks for verifying that this was not just my theory.

Tolkien does refer to Ælfwine still in some texts written following The Lord of the Rings and so Tolkien did at least for a time consider some version of his Ælfwine story as still valid. Possibly he considered that Ælfwine was given the complete Thain’s Book version of the Red Book of Westmarch by Pengolodh in Tol Eressëa. (Also possibly not.)

Tolkien also in some writing imagines himself as in contact with present-day Hobbits. For example in the FOREWARD to the first edition, Tolkien writes:

To complete it some maps are given, including one of the Shire that has been approved as reasonably correct by those Hobbits that still concern themselves with ancient history.

The complications of a tale that required both Ælfwine and present-day Hobbits may be sufficient to explain Christopher Tolkien’s remarks on page 5 of The Book of Lost Tales Part I (HoME 1):

The original mode, that of The Book of Lost Tales, that in which a Man, Eriol, comes after a great voyage over the ocean to the island where the Elves dwell and learns their history from their own lips, had (by degrees) fallen away. […] I think that in the end he concluded that nothing would serve, and no more would be said beyond an explanation of how (within the imagined world) it came to be recorded.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The sheer abundancy of the mentions of Aelfwine and his teaching in the late writings, brings your claim to naught.

However, I am not aware of any text in which Aelfwine* appears that postdates the 1950s, probably the first half of the decade (that is, before the publication of the Lord of the Rings), and in no event later than, at the extreme, January 1960,** still well before the Revised Edition in 1965.


-----------------
*Sorry, JA, but for forum posts, chasing down off-keyboard lenitions isn't worth the bother

**The latest possible date for Dangweth Pengolodh