The Problem of Rog

[Aiwendil]

Lindil wrote:

This of course is more or less our stated aim, but I wonder if we have, for the sake of a completely understandable conservatism in regards the texts, drawn our parameters, our freedom of editing too closely to acheive the initial goal of JRRT.

You are right that this is a separate discussion. If you want to open a new thread (or reopen the infamous "Principles"), I'll certainly closely consider any proposal.

But I am very hesitant to tear down any of the principles/goals decisions that we have made thus far - for several reasons. One is simply that they have proved good so far. Certainly we could come up with less rigorous principles that would allow us to bypass some of the difficult issues we are coming up against. But I think that in the long run the project is better off for rigorously facing those issues. Also it seems to me that the introduction of greater leeway would only worsen the debates. If, for example, we were to allow some of the strict principles to be overriden in difficult cases like "Rog", I take it you would either add a footnote or explanation for his name, or change the name, or delete him. In the same scenario, I would take the greater leeway as justification for keeping the name. We would reach the same impasse but with even fewer resources to try to get past it.

A final note - I think that our project is actually very different from the revision Tolkien began and intended to carry through. Undoubtedly there are many, many things that he would have changed but that we simply cannot change. He would have been revising the the very structure of the legendarium; we are, intentionally, leaving that structure as unchanged as possible.

btw Aiwendil, your last quote in the preceding post contained a repeat of your second to last quote. Mithadan's words were lost in the last one.

Thanks. Fixed.

My understanding of the Rog dilemna [ 'The problem of Rog'- actually I will have to rename the thread that - too apropos to pass up.] does not leave room for an implicit but an applied solution, for that still leaves the reader encountering the name 'unassisted' which is the very thing pretty much all of us agree would NOT have happened in any JRRT revision.

Brilliant name, by the way.

I think we approaching this whole thing from two slightly different perspectives: you from a reader's perspective and I from a canonical perspective. Perhaps this is for the best, since it covers more angles. Anyway, if the implicit solution is not to your liking (i.e., if to you it is no better than the "leave Rog" solution - which I admit it probably isn't) then there's no need to pursue it.

MT is only partially analagous to our Rog dilemna. MT contradicts even itself, it is in a sense a record of brainstorming sessions, so our principles clearly do not require us to edit the Silm based on such. This is essentially a 'How much do we incorporate from later ideas' question. Rog is the other end of the scale, a 'how far do we bend to accomadate obsolete aspects of the Lost Tales and early Q phase.

Yes, the MT analogy breaks down very quickly. But my point was that we are not trying (for we cannot try) to produce what JRRT would have produced. "JRRT would have changed it" is not enough to force us to change something (though it is enough to force us to consider changing it).

I don't, by the way, think that our rejection of MT is based primarily on its internal inconsistencies (which it certainly has, though I think they could be worked out). In my view, MT was rejected because it was merely a proposed change with no clear indication of what specific changes we would have had to make to implement it.

First off CJRT'thinks' it is obsolete is imo far too light of a description, he did that which I do not recall him doing anywhere else in the HoM-E, he stated flat out it would not have survived, no doubts.

Fair enough. I see this point as the collision of two very compelling arguments. On the one hand, Christopher is certain that it would have been changed. On the other hand, we have not one shred of actual evidence for that conclusion. I agree that Christopher's claim makes a strong case, but bear in mind that if he had not written that one sentence, we would have left "Rog" in without a second thought.

The -goth element seems exscusvvily used or bestowed upon evil beings though. Morgoth, and Gothmog.

I see the force your point would have had if "Rog" were indeed related to "-rog" in "Balrog". But (of course) "-goth" was used only in names for evil things simply because it means "enemy".

Do you have the Goldogrin/Gnomish Lexicon?

No, alas.

I am sure we could if needed bridge the longer detailed account with a one or 2 line condensation that leaves Rog out, but his and his companies actions in. Indeed, this goes back to the old recommendation of 'Keep the company of the Hammer of Wrath' but loose it's captain suggestion. If others are as concerned about consensus as Aiwendil is, that may be the closest we come, and I must say is looking more attractive by the hour.

This may be the only viable compromise solution.

[Man-of-the-Wold]

This is no doubt a worthy thread. When I first read BoLT that name was curious then.

Nevertheless, I recommend Aiwendel's number 1 above. Minimize use of the name, but simply say Rôg when it can't be avoided. I'd vote against any footnote or explicit explanation, which I think would only add to the awkwardness (footnotes should fit within the flow). I'd suggest only that the first mention of the name have some sort of subtle gloss to imply that this may not be the guy's true or only name, however, unusual that might be.

My phrase, "don't sweat the details" was unfortunate. I did not mean, ignore the details or not be extremely thorough and meticulous, but there will be limits to how fastidious the final result will be. We just don't have all of the data.

So, what I meant is that in the end there may be imperfections, which will need to be accepted, and folks will need to step back, look at the big picture, and not fret over it, after they've done their best.

I think this question of Rôg is such a case. It is highly problematic, but the best solution seems to be to live with it. Not only do I feel that the reader gains more by having this person mentioned, however odd the name, but that canonically, the question boils down to one of preserving maximum story structure vs. linquistic purity. I think the former should trump the latter.

As for my Noldorin/Sindarin remark, I think I understand how Sindarin replaced Noldorin, as the common Elvish tongue of later ages, but Sindarin arose from an entirely different conception, and it was actually a reflection of the increased majesty of Thingol and sophistication of the former Doriath-Ilkorins. It also was ultimately decided by The Lord of the Rings, where the High Elves were increasing depicted as much rarer than Grey-Elves, who were no slouches themselves. Note, the word "Sindarin" does not appear anywhere except in the Appendices.

What you had previously was a matter of Quenya and Noldorin, which was ultimately influenced by the Ilkorin tongues in Toleressea, as well.

One might assume with this new formulation that the Noldor are supposed to have spoken Quenya as any everyday language, too, until most of them in Beleriand adopted Sindarin, and it was at that point that Quenya became relegated to lore and ceremony. But it doesn't seem as if Tolkien ever really describes the process in that exact way.

Actually, I think that he's curiously vague about the exact relationships, and in many ways tries to simplify the whole matter of what had been a multitude of Elven languages, without actually reducing them.

So, is it not possible that Quenya was in a cultivated role, already, as a type of Book Latin, and that the Noldor still used something like the formerly conceived "Noldorin" as a vernacular, until it was supplanted by Sindarin?

In this sense, Rôg might be attributed to that little known vernacular.

[ November 16, 2003: Message edited by: Man-of-the-Wold ]

[lindil]

Was just perusing The Lost Road and the AB2,[the Annal for 307 (later emmended to [507]) when I noticed CJRT saying that the LAter annals of Valinor and Beleriand were found after the publication of the QS 77/99.

What makes this of some interest to our debate is that in the Synopsis which is similar to Q30 in depth one important detail is missing re: the Battle.

We do read of Ecthelion, Glorfindel's and Turgon's death [all from Q 30 also] but our dear friend Rog is not to be found.

OF course I hardly expect this to be much of a straw on a camels back for anyone but it deserves to be noted, as the fact that Rog was in the (previously and erroneously spoken of as final) Q30 version of the FoG as still surviving.

[ 4:17 PM November 27, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

Yes - that is worth noting. But I ought to make two points:

1. Obviously, quite a bit was left out of AB. Q30 gives a much fuller account in all regards. It is also worth noting that Rog's death is also left out of AB 1, which (if I recall correctly) is roughly contemporary with Q30. We simply cannot reliably infer anything about the presence or absence of Rog from the compressed AB 2 account.

2. The difficulty we have been concerned with is Rog's name. There has been no indication that the story of Rog was to be altered. But if we are to interpret his absence from AB 2 as significant, it must be that the story was changed - for if Tolkien had decided the name was bad, all he need have done was to change the name. So in any event, Rog's absence of AB 2 cannot really have bearing on our debate, which is a debate not about the character but about the name.

[aravanessë]

I don't know if your are interested in or if you have already talked about this, but I have Parma Eldalambron XIII and this issue deals with the early writings of Tolkien and also a (too?) little bit about the etymology chiefs of the house of Gondolin like Rog : it provides us the qenya forms of their names and the names in gnomish and qenya of their houses.
Could it be helpful for you ?
I must admit that I don(t like the circumflex solution because of the persistence of names in -rog as Torog and gorog. Moreover the Noldorin World-list gives the entries rhó 'to arise' and rhôg 'strength' ; if we choose *Rô, it could be ambiguous.


Can I have please the link to the topic about the change Legolas in Laegolas, I think I won't agree with this solution too, so I want to know the arguments in favor of this decision.

aravanessë

[Aiwendil]

Thank you for the note, Aravanesse. I do not have Parma Eldalamberon XIII, nor am I familiar with its contents. Does it give any further information on the name "Rog"?

My inclination remains to allow "Rog" to stand, but I'd be interested to learn of any additional evidence to be considered.

The Legolas/Laegolas discussion is here.

[aravanessë]

Thank you for the link.

Rog eldarissa name is said to be Rōka. It is also said that he is 'lord of thlim gothodrum', traduced by eldarissa Kosartami.

We must notice that in the Early Chart of Names (seemingly contemporary) appear : RAUK(I) demons Rôg(i)
MALKARAUKI fire-demons Balrogs
The qenya forms tend to show elements rôg and rog are not connected etymologically (or at least not closely).
Moreover, in the Gnomish Lexicon, in addition of the entry rôg 'doughty, strong', there is en unglossed entry rog. And in the early noldorin compositions (word-lists, texts, grammars…) forms in –(r)og (or more generally in –g) are omnipresent (and are still present in later sindarin : gorog in Q&E).

I am a fervent upholder of the absolute respect of Tolkien invented languages (some say I am rigid and obdurate ^^).

aravanessë

[Findegil]

I think that we should concentrat the discussion about Rog here. Therefore I have copied the posts from here: Reload this Page * * Revised Fall of Gondolin pt.4 -- >end [the remaining sections] * *

posted by mhagian:

Concerning Rog

Just been reading the Problem of Rog thread, and by coincidence have also been re-reading the Maeglin chapter in HoME 11.

It's pretty obvious that Rog will not do, and the precedent - in JRRT's own words - is set by his handling of "Isfin", "Ecthelion" and "Egalmoth", which is clearly outlined in the commentary to Maeglin 1 and 4.

Now, Ecthelion and Egalmoth were retained, and we have an indication of JRRT's own aesthetics when it comes to names: "These names are also derived from primitive FG, but are well-sounding".

Both Es were used as the names of Ruling Stewards in Gondor, so if replacing the name of Rog is deemed acceptable, going to that source for a replacement may well be appropriate. It does not stretch things too far, and it follows the pattern of certain Ruling Stewards being named after heroes of Gondolin.

I favour Belecthor, if it's not already used. It's in sequence with the 2 Es (only Orodreth comes between) which may strengthen it's case.

Posted by myself:

Welcome to this slow part of the Downs mhagain!
It is really nice to see someone interested in our project. I would have given you an warm welcome early, but I found it more important to make an elaborate answere to your post, which took some time.

On topic: The problem we have with Rog is exactly that we all feel that Rog might be out of place in the later languages but that we have no hard statement of JRR Tolkien to that fact.
The statements in the "Maeglin" chapter are telling of course, but they do not address Rog. And still it is matter of personal taste if Rog is fitting in later elvish or not. And as long as we have no quote from JRR Tolkien to go with, we can not be sure about Rog.

And even if we had such a statement, as long as we would not have the name actually planed for that character it would be possible within our system of rules that we would consider the change of the name Rog a plan of JRR Tolkien that is not feasible for use due to the lack of information about it (a agree that this would be unlikely in this case).

The idea to chose a replacement name for Rog from the line of the stewards of Gondor is a good one. And I personally would also go in that direction instate of searching a linguistically invention to fit the meaning of Rog in the later language. But here again we get a problem: There are a lot of names of the stewards of Gondor that are not (jet) used in the earlier legends:

Pelendur
Vorondil
Mardil
Eradan
Herion
Belegorn
Cirion
Hallas
Belecthor
Beregond
Thorondir

How do we chose the right one, and isn't any choice we make a kind of fan-fiction?
A first reduction could be argued by the linguistical evidence:
The Gnomish lexicon gives 'rog' as 'doughty, strong'.
In the "Etymologies" we find:
"BEL- strong. Cf. BAL(?). Stem not found in Q. T belle (physical) strength; belda strong. Ilk. bel (*belē) strength; Beleg the Strong, name of Ilkorin bowman of Doriath. *bélek, *béleka, ON beleka mighty, huge, great; EN beleg great (n.b. this word is distinct in form from though related to Ilk. name Beleg); cf. EN Beleg-ol [GAWA] = Q Aule; Belegoer Great Sea [AY], name of sea between Middle-earth and the West; Belegost Great City [os], name of one of the chief places of the Dwarves. T belka 'excessive' is possibly from ON; ON belda strong, belle strength (EN belt strong in body, bellas bodily strength) are possibly from T. Cf. name Belthronding of Beleg's yew-bow: see STAR, DING."

Thus a name with the first element of Beleg[c]- is near to the earlier Rog in meaning. But this leaves us still with:
Belegorn and Belecthor

I agree that Belecthor is the more likely since -orn means 'tree' and I can't see any good connection between the character of Rog and a tree (beside his wooden club maybe ). In the "Etymologies" we find for -thor:
"THOR-, THORON- Q soron (and sorne), pl. sorni eagle; N thor and thoron, pl. therein - thoron is properly old gen. sg. = ON thoronen, Q sernen, appearing in names as Cil-thoron, or Cil-thorondor [KIL]. Ilk. thorn, pl. thurin. Q Sorontar (name of) King of Eagles, N Thorondor, Ilk. Thorntor = Torthurnion. [Added:] Cf. name Elthor(o)n = eagle of sky.
[The following was added in hastily above the entry THOR, THORON:
'THOR- = come swooping down; cf. Brilthor. Adj. thôr swooping, leaping down; thórod torrent.' I take this to be an indication of the root-sense of THOR eagle.]“

Thus the second element „-thor“ could be connected to the action Rog did in the battle – swooping down on the Balrogs.

All this is very nice, but does it convince us that we have found the replacement for Rog that JRR Tolkien had in mind? I hesitate to answer this questions with „yes“. At least I would like to hear other minds comment on this.

Aiwendil, you had been most adamant on not changing Rog with an invented name. Does Belecthor suit you more?

Respectfully
Findegil

Posted by Aiwendil:

It's good to see that you're interested in the project, mhagain.

Using the name of a steward for Rog is an interesting and novel idea. It's my opinion, though, that this would constitute too major and too arbitrary a change to be justifiable within the scope of our project. If we rename "Rog" as "Belecthor", we are inventing a fact in JRRT's fictional world.

The chief problem with almost any alteration of the name "Rog" is, as I see it, the arbitrariness of any replacement. Even if we had indisputable evidence that "Rog" would have been rejected, we could not replace it unless we had some clear indication of what name Tolkien would have used to replace it. Guesswork, however ingenious, remains guesswork.

So my view remains this: we should either keep "Rog" (as is done in the current version of FoG) or alter the narrative in such a way as to eliminate the name entirely.