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.

[Findegil]

After a frustating search that didn't brought up what I wanted, I am to pharaphrase what I wanted in quote.

"Rôg" (with a circumflex) was an idea I brought up after reading some parts in Parma Eldalamberon. I argued that it would only be a return to an older name. But the idea did neither suit the fraction that were agianst "Rog" as a name of an Elf of Gondolin nor the fraction that argued that we have no reason good enough to justify the change of the name.

As fare as I am aware of the stand of the discussion - and as the one that is in the moment building the physical body of the text, I try to keep upto date with it - the decision was not to change the name Rog as all.

Respectfully
Findegil

[mhagain]

A good idea to copy the posts across. We should probably also delete them from the Gondolin thread so as not to confuse matters.

Back to Rog, I would be personally inclined to agree with CT's assessment on the name. Nobody was so in tune with his fathers work - while his father was alive and actively working on it - as CT, and if we are to view his opinion as holding little authority, then surely our's must hold even less. In fact, we have one recorded instance of JRRT actually deferring to CT over a name - i.e. "Gamgee" (which CT wanted kept) vs. "Goodchild" (which JRRT wanted to change it to) - see Letters.

Apologies in advance if this next bit has been discussed in detail elsewhere, but it does form my own argument in favour of replacing the name, so here we go...

Now, it seems plain that the old element "Rog" actually was the same "rog" that eventually transformed into the second part of "Balrog". The original etymology of "Balrog" was quite different, but "rog" appears to have remained the same as the languages developed - the entry for "Rog" in the LT II list of names gives a Q(u)enya equivalent "arauka", which is obviously the same word.

In the transformed "Balrog" etymology, "Rauko" (Sindarin "Raug", "Rog") is "Demon" (published Silmarillion Appendix), whereas the "Bal" element (originally "anguish") has come to be derived from "Val-/Bal-": "power" (ditto). "Raug" is in fact given as a variant of "Rog" in LT II, strengthening the evidential position, and providing 3 points on which one can form an argument that they are the same word (rog/raug/arauka|rauko), and that the meaning of this word has changed since LT was written. To form an argument for the retention of "Rog", where the then-current linguistic element has been totally superseded seems to me to be similar (in scope, if not in actual detail) to arguing for the retention of the original story of the construction of the Lamps.

Our choices are:

1. Accept an Eldarin lord who's name means "Demon".
2. Argue that "Rog" is actually Quenya in form, and have a single Eldarin lord with a Quenya-formed name where the rest are Sindarin in form.
3. Drop the whole "Rog" element from the Tale.
4. Change the name.

Now, leaving aside the question of whether or not one objects to the "sound" of the name "Rog", of these, (1) is totally absurd, and (2) smacks of being a cop-out. (3) would be a pity, and would be also a clear case of what CT himself has condemned in his own Silmarillion editorial work - being "too ready to deal with 'difficulties' by eliminating them." (HoME X, "Valaquenta".)

That leaves us with (4), which unfortunately there are very valid arguments against, not least that it's another case of something CT condemns in his own work - overstepping the bounds of the editorial role.

But need it be?

We have a translation of "Rog" in the old GL, as "doughty, strong", so is the substition of it with another name that means the same thing, but is linguistically viable really such a crime?

[Aiwendil]

mhagain - you make a good argument. However, I am far from convinced of this:

that they are the same word (rog/raug/arauka|rauko), and that the meaning of this word has changed since LT was written.

I do agree that the whole linguistic part of the debate hinges on this. If the name 'Rog' and the element '-rog' in 'Balrog' are identical, then the later meaning of that word ('demon') makes it inappropriate for an Eldarin lord. However, if the two elements are different, then the word 'rog' meaning 'demon' cannot be taken as evidence for the unsuitability of the name 'Rog' in FoG.

I was once of the former opinion, but prior to our completion of the FoG draft, I changed my mind.

Let me set out the linguistic evidence.

From 'Names in the Lost Tales part 2' (HoMe II):

Rog GL gives an adjective r^og, rog 'doughty, strong'. But with the Orcs' name for Egnor Beren's father, Rog the Fleet, cf. arog 'swift, rushing', and raug of the same meaning; Qenya arauka.

From this it is clear that we have, at the Lost Tales stage:

1. An element 'rog' = 'doughty, strong' (explicitly in GL)
2. An element 'rog'/'raug', Q. form 'arauka' = 'swift, rushing' (surmised by CRT based on very strong evidence).

In 'Names in the Lost Tales part 1' (I) we have:

Balrog [. . . ] Separate entries give bal 'anguish (original initial consonant mb-), balc 'cruel'; and graug 'demon'. Qenya forms are mentioned: arauke and Malkarauke.

We have also, then:

3. An element 'graug' = 'demon' (explicitly in GL).

The evidence for 1 and 3 comes from a single source, GL. The evidence for 2 is partially in GL, partially in QL, and partially in the 'Tale of Tinuviel'. It is clear, then, that, unless we posit some rather intricate and baroque developments during the writing of GL, these three elements coexisted simultaneously. We have, then, not one or even two distinct words but three.

Now, after the LT stage, elements 1 and 2 are not given in any etymological discussion. Element 3 retains its meaning but is altered slightly in form in the Etymologies (V):

RUK- demon. Q ranko demon, malarauko (*ngwalarauko, cf. NGWAL); N. rhaug, Balrog.

So Gnomish 'graug' becomes Noldorin 'rhaug'. At both stages, the 'au' diphthong appears to be resolved to an 'o' in compounds.

It is worth noting, also, that the character Rog of Gondolin still appears in the 1930 Q (IV):

Of the deeds of desperate valour there done, by the chieftains of the noble houses and their warriors, and not least by Tuor, is much told in The Fall of Gondolin; of the death of Rog without the walls; and of the battle of Ecthelion of the Fountain with Gothmog lord of Balrogs in the very square of the king . . .

Taken together, I think that all this makes it quite clear that the elements 'rog' in 'Rog' and 'graug/rhaug' in 'Balrog' were distinct from the beginning. This in itself is enough to take the force out of the argument to the effect that the name 'Rog' is impermissible because it must mean 'demon'. We can further demonstrate that, as late as 1930, the elements remained distinct; otherwise the name 'Rog' would not appear in Q.

So, all evidence points to 'rog' = strength and 'rhaug' = demon being unrelated elements; there is no indication anywhere that this situation was ever altered.

[mhagain]

Thank you. You make a very compelling argument against, and are coming close to convincing me. (But not quite... )

Anyway, I'm personally inclined to give more weight to linguistic evidence post-LoTR than to linguistic evidence of even the 1930s. For starters, it's actually quite obvious from LT I that "some rather intricate and baroque developments during the writing of GL" did in fact occur:

... the intensity with which my father used this diminutive book, emending, rejecting, adding, in layer upon layer ... the stages of a rapidly expanding linguistic conception ... GL in particular closely accompanied the actual composition of the Tales ... the languages changed even while the first 'layer' was being entered in GL ...

Now, FG being the first Tale composed means that "Rog" belongs to the first 'layer'. So already the GL entry for "Rog" must be in some measure of doubt. As Element 2 ('rog'/'raug'/Q. 'arauka') evidently came later than FG, we have further doubt that "Rog = strong, doughty" (as in FG) remains valid.

Retention of the distinct element "rog" in 1930 does not imply retention at a later date. Nor does it imply that it would not be retained. So in view of the situation, use of either argument would not be evidential. The only real "hard" evidence we have for any form of "rog", which is ultimately the only thing it can stand or fall by if we are to take a strictly authorative viewpoint, is "Balrog".

The stages of development I propose are:

1. Rog = "strong, doughty",
2. Rog = "swift, rushing",
3. Rog = "demon".

I also propose that these were successive stages, and that each supplanted the previous (with a possibility of undocumented intermediate stages).

To support this:

1. The GL definition came first, and the FG entires were the first made in it (evidential)
2. The languages developed as the tales were composed, and even as the first 'layer' in GL was composed (evidential)
3. The Tale of Tinuviel was the second composed (evidential) by which point the meaning of "Rog" had changed (I would claim this as evidential, based on (4) below, and this is what the whole thing will hinge on)
4. There is no other major word for which two concurrent but completely different meanings exist in the same language in GL or QL (evidential)
5. By 1930 we had both Rog and Balrog, but there is no evidence either way to indicate that the "rog" element was the same or different in both at this time (evidential)
6. By 1937 we had "rog" derived from the stem "RUK-", meaning "demon" (evidential)
7. There is no evidence to support (or reject) the retention of "Rog" in the Gondolin material by this time (evidential)
8. In the latter (authorative) conception, we have "Balrog" where the "rog" element is "demon", and this is the sole authorative definition of "rog" that we have (evidential)

To my mind, the argument for "Rog" being retained as the name of an Elf of Gondolin rests entirely on lack of evidence, whereas the argument for "Rog" not being retained is based on actual evidence of linguistic development in successive stages, and this makes the argument for retention weaker.

[Findegil]

Mmh, seeing your second argument, I ask if this does not mean, that in the 1930 version of FoG we have an Elve named Rog with the meaning 'Demon'. And if that is the case then why was it accaptable in 1930 and should be no longer now?

Anyway I think we all agree that JRR Tolkien would probably have changed the name, had he ever worked again on FoG. But alas he has not. And so even if we had hard evidence that he proposed to change the name, this might be a case were we can not make the change because we do not know how.

Respectfully
Findegil

[aravanessë]

Argue that "Rog" is actually Quenya in form, and have a single Eldarin lord with a Quenya-formed name where the rest are Sindarin in form.

Rog can't be q(u)enya, single 'g' doesn't exist in q(u)enya. Changing the name is an unacceptable solution for me, and droping this name too. So the first solution seems to be the only possibility; but I think you don't consider all the parameters: for me, Rog doesn't mean 'demon', and I think you will be convinced after this, I have found a new element in QL.
Firstly, you assert 'rog' means 'dought, strong', but it is 'rôg'. The term 'rog' is unglossed in GL, it's a CT error. That's why (partly) I don't think CT's opinion having more authority than mine.

Secondly 'arog' is 'raug' with a- prefixed. a- is, according to GL a "prefix used in forming number of ajs and occasionally nouns – unaccented and probably of various origin". It is the 'a-' that causes the change of 'au' into 'o', there is no (established) connection between 'rog' and 'arog'. But we know Rog the Fleet, so we can think the two words are connected etymologically (but at which degree?), but with a meaning a little distinct.

But, according to QL, I quote: "ARAUKE pl. –i demon (Not really connected with arauka or rauka swift. These = Gn. raug[<<râg]) Gn. grôg." Beyond any doubts, there is no link between raug/arog (q. arauka) and rôg/grôg/graug (q. arauke).

Silmarillion appendix is made by Christopher, no? So I look it askance. Where is the term 'rog' as 'demon' attested in J.R.R. Tolkien work?
Moreover quenya 'ō' and 'au' are not connected etymologically, so Rōka and Rauk(i) are not connected.

aravanessë

[lindil]

same as it ever was I see....[img]ubb/wink.gif[/img]

Welcome to the new folks!

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".

that 'well-sounding' bit still weighs heavy on my soul as per Rog.

THe steward idea is extremely clever, but I will offer my 2 cents and agree that now matter how clever the substitution, it is as, alas, Aiwendil said, fan-fiction.

As for eliminating it due to it being irreconcilable w/ the later Silm, that very criteria has been used probably on every text worked on. Tuor's bearskin comes right to mind.

Ultimately Rog is a detail [connected to a part of the FoG that no one wants to lose] that could easily be grounds for exclusion. I would not rule it out a priori [I looked for who said that eliminating it was not an option for them but did not see it again on review - but I would encourage an open mind as to whether or not keeping it is mandatory w/out a replacement.

Awesome scholarship boys - keep at it!

[Elmo]

(Rôg, according to the original version; but the name seems 'unelvish'. Furthermore, in the Unfinished Tales account of the creation of the Elessar, the master craftsman of Gondolin is not Rôg but Enerdhil: so he may be a more likely candidate for this position)

Found on wikipedia just adding my tuppence to a debate I know little about...