The Hobbit Trolls - A Clever Parody? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Balfrog · 11-10-2017, 12:05 AM

Morthoron

How I look forward to your posts – wondering what slurs will ensue and how you'll denigrate me next. Apparently there is 'click-baiting' going on, and Ms. Seth's my 'mistress'. And then supposedly – I'm Ms. Seth herself!

Well, well. Chuckle, chuckle. Please continue with the entertaining nonsense. Your nice and beautiful personality shines fully through, and I'm sure is winning over many admirers!

Back to business. Your last post is again full of self-righteous: 'I know best – and you're ignorant'. Sorry – but the stuff you spew on Tolkien's history is elementary knowledge that I first became aware of some 30 years ago. Of the factual stuff - you told me nothing I didn't already know.

Most amusingly - apparently you have more expertise than arguably the premier expert on The Hobbit: John Rateliff. And to boot – on one count – even more than Tolkien himself. You're unsubstantiated belittling of an Oxford University professor for a supposed lack of knowledge about a London dialect of the English language, is positively cringe-worthy.

Tolkien could not possibly have known any Cockney – really???
Being in all probability the most recognizable and famous dialect in all of England, I have to shake my head – but not in despair – more in pity.

How interesting you should imply I borrowed from another post

Despite the above – I was interested in how you both came to the same conclusion about the Trolls accents having a Manchester origin. I am interested in the strength of the evidence – and couldn't give a hoot whether you plagiarized or not. I asked specifically for a Manchester dialectal dictionary where such words we are debating (e.g. blimey, blighter, lumme) exist. Unsurprisingly you provided none.

Instead a Liverpudlian comedian – who no doubt had traveled over much of Britain (Southend, Yarmouth, Aberdeen as talked about in those sketches - and picked up who knows what when) is the basis of your Mancunian argument. What tosh.

Just because I've heard a Yorkshire-man shout out 'Sacre-bleu' - doesn't make him French. Seriously, the evidence presented was beyond feeble. To be honest, it was quite pathetic.

I recommend you take note of another well respected scholar's opinion. Mark Atherton states in 'There and Back Again' the following:

'Certainly, Bill Huggin's magic talking purse with its 'ere 'oo are you? ' has the unmistakable Cockney h-dropping … Tolkien's use of of the dialect of London in The Hobbit; it is more or less intelligible', and amusing, for everyone in Britain knew about Cockney as an English accent … there was a tradition of depicting Cockney speakers in novels. At the same time, Cockney would be amusing in The Hobbit because of the sheer element of surprise: readers do not expect to hear it here.'

Oxford wasn't so 'insular' as you claim (of course as usual - without any proof). And as to:

When, precisely, did Tolkien speak at first hand with lower class Londoners for any length of time?

Why would he need to? One avenue Tolkien would have picked up knowledge of Cockney – is 'books' (as Atherton suggests). Below are examples from a couple of masterpieces:

From Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist:

The Artful Dodger – a pick-pocket (very appropriately ) is named "lummy Jack" (lummy ~ lumme)

From James Joyce's Ulysses (1922):

“God blimey if she aint a clinker.”

Now of course with your philological qualifications (which we would all love to see) – you know better than both Rateliff and Atherton. And because your philological knowledge obviously exceeds Tolkien's when it comes to dialects - is it okay if I refer to you as Professor Morthoron from now on?

Take a look at Tolkien's essay: 'Chaucer as a Philologist: The Reeve's Tale', which was submitted in 1931 – in the same time period of The Hobbit's construction. One definitely comes away with the impression Tolkien knew at the very least – something of Cockney.

And by the way - have you ever listened to Tolkien's own voice recording of 'Roast Mutton'? Can you tell us how Tolkien being so well-acquainted with Mancunian accents having served with the Lancashire Fusiliers – couldn't imitate one?

Perhaps you should re-read Ms. Seth's article and pay particular attention to Note 4. It's certainly in line with Rateliff's and Atherton's assessments. And I'd take their opinions and the uses of Cockney by Dickens and Joyce – way over your opinion and the dubious offering by way of Robb Wilton. Maybe the light-bulb will finally go on. I have a funny feeling though: yer 'ed aint workin like it awt ta !

Morthoron · 11-10-2017, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balfrog

Morthoron

How I look forward to your posts – wondering what slurs will ensue and how you'll denigrate me next. Apparently there is 'click-baiting' going on, and Ms. Seth's my 'mistress'. And then supposedly – I'm Ms. Seth herself!

Well, well. Chuckle, chuckle. Please continue with the entertaining nonsense. Your nice and beautiful personality shines fully through, and I'm sure is winning over many admirers!

Back to business. Your last post is again full of self-righteous: 'I know best – and you're ignorant'. Sorry – but the stuff you spew on Tolkien's history is elementary knowledge that I first became aware of some 30 years ago. Of the factual stuff - you told me nothing I didn't already know.

Who are you then but a cipher, Balfrog? You are either Seth or a Seth sycophant incapable of sentient separation from the mother's mottled teat.

In either case you neither post of your own volition, nor do you ever disagree with anything far-fetched from the specious Seth. You not only spam the Barrow-Downs with every article Seth disembogues from her faulty font, you do the exact same thing on the Lotrplaza.com site. You do not post on your own, you do not post to be a part of this forum. You spam, and then argue with anyone who happens to disagree with Priya's Preposterous Pronouncements. You are shilling for Seth, not contributing in any meaningful manner on the sites you encounter. You subvert the spam protocols of the forum. You are an advert.

If I show disdain for your posts it is because they are not your posts, or, worse, they are in fact your posts using a sham name to further your own interests as Seth.

Having seen you spammed yet another article from Seth today, I find it better to recuse myself from further dialogue with you as the surrogate-Seth, before things get truly ugly.

And for the record, Tolkien never mentioned his Trolls spoke Cockney; in fact, in perusing Tolkien's work I can't find him using the term "Cockney" in any manifestation. Never. Ever. The rest is conjecture. Perhaps learned conjecture, but conjecture nonetheless.

I will not reply further.

Balfrog · 12-07-2017, 11:01 PM

Morthoron

Hmm ... as to your comment below - you haven't looked hard enough:

"And for the record, Tolkien never mentioned his Trolls spoke Cockney; in fact, in perusing Tolkien's work I can't find him using the term "Cockney" in any manifestation. Never. Ever."

Obviously you are unfamiliar with one of Tolkien's works. Take a look below at an extract from Tolkien Studies 5 and my underlining and bolding.

Chaucer as a Philologist:*The Reeve’s Tale*†
J.R.R. TOLKIEN
[Read at a meeting of the Philological Society in Oxford*on Saturday,*16th May,
1931.]

" ... Plowman, where the meaning is “a small egg”. Later this word was especially
associated with London (or Londoners); but as it is never complimentary
in its application, one would naturally suppose that this use did
not develop in London, but in the East of England, which had the closest
connexion with the capital. The word can hardly be true to the dialect of
the “far North”, except as a loan, even apart from the fact that the North
used Scandinavian*egg*for English*eye,*aye.89*But Chaucer quite justly puts
it into the mouth of the Cambridge clerk. He does not wish when he gets
back to college to be called a daff, a cockney—he is, as it were, glossing
his more rustic*daff*with*cockenai, the sort of word he would easily pick up
in Cambridge; and it would be just the sort of criticism that a*testif and
lusty*north-countryman would most resent, to be called a “soft townee”."

It's a shame you're bowing out. From my part – I look forward to engaging in conversation despite your brusque demeanor.

Your seeming obsession with who I am is a little disappointing. Really it has no relevance to the debating material – namely Ms. Seth's literary articles. Whether I am a friend of Ms. Seth's or related to her shouldn't really matter. Frankly I have no interest in who you really are, but I'm kind of intrigued by the way you're fascinated with the:

'Don't you know my name' thing.

I have already stated that I proof-read her articles and also you might well guess I also engage in scholarly debate with her on the merit of her propositions. But what difference does that really make?

Anyhow – there are only c. half a dozen more articles on Ms. Seth's part to come. I had hoped that even if you didn't agree with some of her stuff – you would have understood the originality of her work. And acknowledged it too. And looked forward to the articles to come.

Can you imagine – if what she has written is mainly true – then how you, I & all the rest of Tolkien's fan base have failed to understand a large portion of the plot. How we have all failed to understand the academic foundations of some of the book's most fascinating chapters.

Those thoughts are somewhat humbling!

Perhaps an acknowledgement of how little we really know is too disconcerting and uncomfortable an admission for some of our egos to bear!

11-10-2017, 12:05 AM	#1
Balfrog Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 87	Morthoron How I look forward to your posts – wondering what slurs will ensue and how you'll denigrate me next. Apparently there is 'click-baiting' going on, and Ms. Seth's my 'mistress'. And then supposedly – I'm Ms. Seth herself! Well, well. Chuckle, chuckle. Please continue with the entertaining nonsense. Your nice and beautiful personality shines fully through, and I'm sure is winning over many admirers! Back to business. Your last post is again full of self-righteous: 'I know best – and you're ignorant'. Sorry – but the stuff you spew on Tolkien's history is elementary knowledge that I first became aware of some 30 years ago. Of the factual stuff - you told me nothing I didn't already know. Most amusingly - apparently you have more expertise than arguably the premier expert on The Hobbit: John Rateliff. And to boot – on one count – even more than Tolkien himself. You're unsubstantiated belittling of an Oxford University professor for a supposed lack of knowledge about a London dialect of the English language, is positively cringe-worthy. Tolkien could not possibly have known any Cockney – really??? Being in all probability the most recognizable and famous dialect in all of England, I have to shake my head – but not in despair – more in pity. How interesting you should imply I borrowed from another post Despite the above – I was interested in how you both came to the same conclusion about the Trolls accents having a Manchester origin. I am interested in the strength of the evidence – and couldn't give a hoot whether you plagiarized or not. I asked specifically for a Manchester dialectal dictionary where such words we are debating (e.g. blimey, blighter, lumme) exist. Unsurprisingly you provided none. Instead a Liverpudlian comedian – who no doubt had traveled over much of Britain (Southend, Yarmouth, Aberdeen as talked about in those sketches - and picked up who knows what when) is the basis of your Mancunian argument. What tosh. Just because I've heard a Yorkshire-man shout out 'Sacre-bleu' - doesn't make him French. Seriously, the evidence presented was beyond feeble. To be honest, it was quite pathetic. I recommend you take note of another well respected scholar's opinion. Mark Atherton states in 'There and Back Again' the following: 'Certainly, Bill Huggin's magic talking purse with its 'ere 'oo are you? ' has the unmistakable Cockney h-dropping … Tolkien's use of of the dialect of London in The Hobbit; it is more or less intelligible', and amusing, for everyone in Britain knew about Cockney as an English accent … there was a tradition of depicting Cockney speakers in novels. At the same time, Cockney would be amusing in The Hobbit because of the sheer element of surprise: readers do not expect to hear it here.' Oxford wasn't so 'insular' as you claim (of course as usual - without any proof). And as to: When, precisely, did Tolkien speak at first hand with lower class Londoners for any length of time? Why would he need to? One avenue Tolkien would have picked up knowledge of Cockney – is 'books' (as Atherton suggests). Below are examples from a couple of masterpieces: From Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist: The Artful Dodger – a pick-pocket (very appropriately ) is named "lummy Jack" (lummy ~ lumme) From James Joyce's Ulysses (1922): “God blimey if she aint a clinker.” Now of course with your philological qualifications (which we would all love to see) – you know better than both Rateliff and Atherton. And because your philological knowledge obviously exceeds Tolkien's when it comes to dialects - is it okay if I refer to you as Professor Morthoron from now on? Take a look at Tolkien's essay: 'Chaucer as a Philologist: The Reeve's Tale', which was submitted in 1931 – in the same time period of The Hobbit's construction. One definitely comes away with the impression Tolkien knew at the very least – something of Cockney. And by the way - have you ever listened to Tolkien's own voice recording of 'Roast Mutton'? Can you tell us how Tolkien being so well-acquainted with Mancunian accents having served with the Lancashire Fusiliers – couldn't imitate one? Perhaps you should re-read Ms. Seth's article and pay particular attention to Note 4. It's certainly in line with Rateliff's and Atherton's assessments. And I'd take their opinions and the uses of Cockney by Dickens and Joyce – way over your opinion and the dubious offering by way of Robb Wilton. Maybe the light-bulb will finally go on. I have a funny feeling though: yer 'ed aint workin like it awt ta !

12-07-2017, 11:01 PM	#3
Balfrog Haunting Spirit Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 87	Morthoron Hmm ... as to your comment below - you haven't looked hard enough: "And for the record, Tolkien never mentioned his Trolls spoke Cockney; in fact, in perusing Tolkien's work I can't find him using the term "Cockney" in any manifestation. Never. Ever." Obviously you are unfamiliar with one of Tolkien's works. Take a look below at an extract from Tolkien Studies 5 and my underlining and bolding. Chaucer as a Philologist:The Reeve’s Tale† J.R.R. TOLKIEN [Read at a meeting of the Philological Society in Oxfordon Saturday,16th May, 1931.] " ... Plowman, where the meaning is “a small egg”. Later this word was especially associated with London (or Londoners); but as it is never complimentary in its application, one would naturally suppose that this use did not develop in London, but in the East of England, which had the closest connexion with the capital. The word can hardly be true to the dialect of the “far North”, except as a loan, even apart from the fact that the North used Scandinavianeggfor Englisheye,aye.89But Chaucer quite justly puts it into the mouth of the Cambridge clerk. He does not wish when he gets back to college to be called a daff, a cockney—he is, as it were, glossing his more rusticdaffwithcockenai, the sort of word he would easily pick up in Cambridge; and it would be just the sort of criticism that atestif and lustynorth-countryman would most resent, to be called a “soft townee”." It's a shame you're bowing out. From my part – I look forward to engaging in conversation despite your brusque demeanor. Your seeming obsession with who I am is a little disappointing. Really it has no relevance to the debating material – namely Ms. Seth's literary articles. Whether I am a friend of Ms. Seth's or related to her shouldn't really matter. Frankly I have no interest in who you really are, but I'm kind of intrigued by the way you're fascinated with the: 'Don't you know my name' thing. I have already stated that I proof-read her articles and also you might well guess I also engage in scholarly debate with her on the merit of her propositions. But what difference does that really make? Anyhow – there are only c. half a dozen more articles on Ms. Seth's part to come. I had hoped that even if you didn't agree with some of her stuff – you would have understood the originality of her work. And acknowledged it too. And looked forward to the articles to come. Can you imagine – if what she has written is mainly true – then how you, I & all the rest of Tolkien's fan base have failed to understand a large portion of the plot. How we have all failed to understand the academic foundations of some of the book's most fascinating chapters. Those thoughts are somewhat humbling! Perhaps an acknowledgement of how little we really know is too disconcerting and uncomfortable an admission for some of our egos to bear!