* * Principles of editing the Fall of Gondolin/Translations from the Elvish * *

[lindil]

All quotes are from Aiwendil's last post [#39]

I think (and I suspect that you agree) that this is not the place for in-depth arguments on Rog, Legolas, and mechanical dragons. Nor do the specific arguments in each case have much bearing on the present issue.

I agree that the specifics of the above 3 examples are only to illustratte our respective points. As for them having much bearing, Rog certainly is a central figure around which this principle currently seems to revolve.

I am seeking a principle that will allow us to apply something like CJRT's own 'principle' I have quoted above n my proposed principle #7.

I think that we are in complete agreement on the fundamental point: there are certain pieces of implicit or soft evidence that should be considered in making our choices - like Christopher's statement about Rog and the fact that Legolas appears in LotR. I want to emphasize that I completely agree with you on this (though on how to interpret that evidence, and on what our choices should ultimately be, we of course may disagree).

Yes.

I do not mean ...[CJRT] necessarily had hard evidence that "Rog" was unsuitable as later Sindarin. It may be that he simply felt the name was out of keeping with the sound of later names. This still entails an implied contradiction with later Sindarin. And I agree that in such a situation we are perfectly justified in making an argument (as Christopher does) based on such implied evidence. But we must not lose sight of the fundamental reason for the argument: a contradiction (even if not a direct one) with a text or texts of greater precedence.

While I agree in theory, I find this such a stretching of our previous principles and our use of them that in this particular case the the principles are unrecognizable.

Much easier [other than this debate!] to have a principle that does not need to do a backflip or 2 to be discernably applicable.

I think that all three of the controversial changes fall under principles 1 and 2. "Rog" may be unsuitable because priority is to be given to the latest ideas found in Tolkien's writings - so later Sindarin takes precedence over Gnomish (#2). "Legolas" may be no good because first priority is given to published works (#1). Mechanical dragons may be unsuitable because they are not present in later works (#2).

w/ Rog no later idea is found, at all.

So we end up according to this scheme, to allow CJRT to use my principle #7 for us!

Much better to use it ourselves and document any other byzantine permutations as support or rebuttal. This is I feel far more transparent and honest a solution.

The problem that I think you have with this, and one that I am sympathetic to, it that in none of those three cases is there explicit contradiction with later, or with published, works. Both of our proposed principles solve this problem, and allow us to use implied evidence.

actually with Legolas I would say there is, but I have agreed to let this sleeping dog lay for the time being.

A small side-note: I don't think that we "danced around with Sindarin" in discussing Legolas. There was a completely separate Legolas>Laegolas substitution that had nothing to do with the main issue; but the main argument was whether the appearance of "Legolas" in LotR implied the disappearance of "Laegolas" from FoG.

I will for the time being in order to not open a pandora's box in the midst of chaos [ or at least potentially overwhelming detail] refrain from further comment upon the laegolas issue. My thoughts on it are available a few posts up for those who really want it.

Again, if when you return you could look at my proposal and express any specific objections to it, I would appreciate that. I favor it only because it spells out the point in greater detail, and forbids both making and rejecting changes with no reason at all. I know that this group is very careful and rational about all things, but that's no reason not to also be careful and precise in the principles.

Well another week has passed and I am off again and not likely to finish this till Monday. I did want to address some of it so as to not leave this a complete hanging thread for to long [ just in case someone else is following this [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].

I wonder if anyone else has had the endurance to put up with this debate? If so, comments or questions would be most appreciated.

upon this last point Aiwendil and I are in complete agreement !!! Maybe it is not confrontational enough and needs to be more like the Aragorn's anscestors/Kings of the Noldor threads!


sorry for not getting to the heart of the issue which is a careful review of your proposal. It shall, I hope be first on my list of online to-do's upon my return.

[ January 11, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]