Etymology: Isengard and Helms Deep

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

During my sophomore year in high school (I was 15 or 16) I wrote a paper on Tolkien's "sources." While I relied, in part, upon several then popular analyses, I also did some independent research, matching the Valar to the Greek and Roman pantheons (Norse and other northern European information regarding their respective pantheons were far less available then), using Greek and Latin dictionaries to seek matches for Elvish names and places, etc. I was awarded a "B" because, as I learned, my teacher was not a "fan" of Tolkien. But I remain convinced that Dwarvish is loosely based upon Hebrew... However, I have no knowledge regarding Tolkien's exposure to that language.

I no longer have a copy of that paper but I recall the analyses I cited. Each theorized that Tolkien was familiar with Finnish, Greek, Latin, Old and Middle English, Norse mythology and the Eddas, and maps, northern European geography, Egyptian architecture (or was it Mayan architecture?), the Alps, the Black Forest and possibly the Himalayas, the Andes and the dark side of the moon. Each analysis conclusively determined that Tolkien's "sources" had been identified. Yes, he had inspirations. But he wanted to tell a good story, a story that flowed from his soul and his imagination. I long ago decided that his sources were completely irrelevant. Just read his writing and appreciate it!

My problem is that someone with very limited insights are selling a halfbaked analysis as a fact. I would probably have ignored this, had Syddjurs muncipality not decided to put up signs and use this speculation to promote them selves.

He cites Finn & Hengest alot, but other than that most of his references are to Tolkien Encyclopedias etc. He really does not know his source material. I don't think he even know of HoME.

[Mithadan]

I no longer have a copy of that paper but I recall the analyses I cited. Each theorized that Tolkien was familiar with Finnish, Greek, Latin, Old and Middle English, Norse mythology and the Eddas, and maps, northern European geography, Egyptian architecture (or was it Mayan architecture?), the Alps, the Black Forest and possibly the Himalayas, the Andes and the dark side of the moon. Each analysis conclusively determined that Tolkien's "sources" had been identified.

Rune, "sar·casm (sär′kăz′əm) n. 1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to express contempt or ridicule."

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Rune Son of Bjarne

My problem is that someone with very limited insights are selling a halfbaked analysis as a fact.

This is unusual?