A word by any other name ...

[Bêthberry]

Gandalf did use a white light to chase off the Nazzies once on the Pelennor Fields, and so we can assume that he had knowledge of optics.

So says alatar on the Denethor's Plunge thread in Movies. alatar's nickname for the baddies got me thinking a bit (just a bit, so my question might be one of those out, out brief light kind of thing ).

What is the source for Tolkien's word Nazgul? How did Tolkien derive it? Why would he have picked it? It's his created language after all. Surely he would have been aware of just how similar a word it is to the name of the dreaded enemy of WW II, Nazi.

In the Forward to LotR, Tolkien denies that his story is any kind of allegory of the Second World War. He provides a fitting argument which dismisses any easy kind of equivalence between the Free Peoples of Middle-earth and the Allies of the Western World. So, if he didn't want readers to make this kind of connection, why did he employ a word for his baddies which is so similar to the name of the Allies' enemies?

We are so used to taking Tolkien's side here and defending his argument that LotR has little to do with the wars of his world. But can we blame readers for thinking along those lines when he allows such verbal similarity? It is almost a superficial propaganda.

If Gandalf had knowledge of 'optics', so certainly did Tolkien. What's with his use of Nazgul?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

That doesn't seem that striking a similarity to me, Beth. Unlike Winston Churchill, who insisted on 'narzy', Tolkien could pronounce 'nazi' properly, which makes it sound completely different from nazgûl. A closer real-world connection is that between the Gaelic word nasc, 'ring', and Black Speech nazg, 'ring', on which connection I posted some time ago.

Of course, in terms of the narrative setting, nazgûl is simply Black Speech for 'Ring-wraiths'. I'm very sceptical of any reference to the National Socialist German Workers' Party, even though Tolkien did express a profound dislike of several senior Nazi figures. When I get back home tonight, I'll try to find out when the term nazgûl emerged, and see if it corresponds to political events in contemporary Germany. I have a feeling that it won't.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

That doesn't seem that striking a similarity to me, Beth. Unlike Winston Churchill, who insisted on 'narzy', Tolkien could pronounce 'nazi' properly, which makes it sound completely different from nazgûl. A closer real-world connection is that between the Gaelic word nasc, 'ring', and Black Speech nazg, 'ring', on which connection I posted some time ago.

Of course, in terms of the narrative setting, nazgûl is simply Black Speech for 'Ring-wraiths'. I'm very sceptical of any reference to the National Socialist German Workers' Party, even though Tolkien did express a profound dislike of several senior Nazi figures. When I get back home tonight, I'll try to find out when the term nazgûl emerged, and see if it corresponds to political events in contemporary Germany. I have a feeling that it won't.

Thanks for the great link, Squatter on the Gaelic sources for the word. Winnie was just playing dismissive word games; he knew better I betcha.

I'm quite sure that Tolkien the philologist would have an impeccable derivation for his word that has nothing to do with the name of the German political party. Still, I'm less sanguine than you that some won't see a superficial similarity between the pronunciation of Nazi and Nazgûl even with a correctly employed t, particularly with the short, plosive double syllabic. They sound so much like nasty, you see, that some are bound to make the association, correct or not.
nasty has been posited as a Middle English derivation of the Old French villenastre (not originally a villain as in the baddie, but uncouth, a rough sort of fellow). There's also the Dutch nesti meaning "dirty," lit. "like a bird's nest" and the Swedish dialect naskug "dirty, nasty". In fact, the word Nazi itself has an interesting history and isn't a name that the German political party willingly took up.

Of course, I'm using dic.com here as I don't have time for an OED followup. My point is simply that the words can be confused. Such confusions occur often in linguistic history. Completely unscholarly associations take root and voila a word assumes a new direction.

I suppose that Tolkien was scholar enough to insist upon his derivations rather than bow down to such linguistic slovenliness. Still, it does provide a bit of grist to the mill, eh.

[alatar]

After I wrote that, I wondered the same thing but then got too tired/distracted to explore the word association further. Thanks for picking up the baton!

Personally, I think that, regardless of the all of the Tolkien and real world etymology, there're certain letter combinations that sound harsher than others, such as naz, which could help characterize the evil folk by the sound of their name. Much better for inspiring fear and nastiness than bombadil-gul.

[davem]

Have to admit that the Nazgul/Nazi connection stuck out like a sore thumb for me on my first reading. Its an idea I had to break myself of early on. Mind you, I'm not sure its a case of Tolkien 'allowing' such a verbal similarity. Tolkien's approach to language invention was more complex - once he had Nazg=Ring he couldn't just change the word root because of primary world Nazis - he would have had to invent another word, account for its origin, its historical development & make it 'fit'.

Which is not to say that he didn't smile to himself about the similarities....

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

If I were to say something for myself, I never thought about it that way. Most probably because the Z in "Nazgul" is certainly pronounced Z (as in "Zoom"), while in "Nazi" it is generally pronounced as C (as in... erm... oh, you English barbarians, why don't you ever pronounce "C" correctly! As in "Caesar" if it is pronounced with correct Latin spelling).

[davem]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

If I were to say something for myself, I never thought about it that way. Most probably because the Z in "Nazgul" is certainly pronounced Z (as in "Zoom"), while in "Nazi" it is generally pronounced as C (as in... erm... oh, you English barbarians, why don't you ever pronounce "C" correctly! As in "Caesar" if it is pronounced with correct Latin spelling).

Well, if one's first encounter with Tolkien was via the movies or an audio book/radio dramatisation, one wouldn't make that mistake, but when one first experiences the names as words on the page its different. Tolkien, as a calligrapher, understood that the 'shape' of a word on the page was as important as its sound - hence his replacement of K by C - as in Keleborn>Celeborn - done even at the risk of readers mispronouncing the name as Seleborn, because 'Celeborn' looks more attractive & less 'harsh' than Keleborn.

Hence, on the page, the 'identity' of 'Naz-' in both Nazgul & Nazi is bound to strike many readers.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, if one's first encounter with Tolkien was via the movies or an audio book/radio dramatisation, one wouldn't make that mistake, but when one first experiences the names as words on the page its different. Tolkien, as a calligrapher, understood that the 'shape' of a word on the page was as important as its sound - hence his replacement of K by C - as in Keleborn>Celeborn - done even at the risk of readers mispronouncing the name as Seleborn, because 'Celeborn' looks more attractive & less 'harsh' than Keleborn.

Hence, on the page, the 'identity' of 'Naz-' in both Nazgul & Nazi is bound to strike many readers.

Yes, that makes sense. You might be right. I was speaking only for myself though, and in my mother language even the written form of "Nazi" is "Nacisté" Of course, the original is English... but every time I hear "Seleborn" or "Feenor" (I can't believe some people are even able to pronounce it like this with the ä there!) I feel like I am going to jump out of my skin.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

If I were to say something for myself, I never thought about it that way. Most probably because the Z in "Nazgul" is certainly pronounced Z (as in "Zoom"), while in "Nazi" it is generally pronounced as C (as in... erm... oh, you English barbarians, why don't you ever pronounce "C" correctly! As in "Caesar" if it is pronounced with correct Latin spelling).

Precisely my point. In German, z is pronounced roughly ts, whereas in English (and apparently Black Speech) it's pronounced as you describe. Of course, not all of Tolkien's readers would know that, but my point was that Tolkien did know it, and had known it for a very long time before he decided that nazg would be Black Speech for 'ring'.

I promised that I would at least try to track down the word nazgûl, but it's proven more difficult than I expected. It would appear that the first time it occurs in The History of Middle-earth outside Christopher Tolkien's notes is in VII.389, where the word is used by JRRT in some rough notes for the continuation of his plot. As was Tolkien's regular habit during the composition of LR these notes were written in pencil and then partially inked over, almost certainly immediately afterwards. Christopher Tolkien notes:

In those passages where the original text was inked over the underlying text can be largely made out, and it is seen that Haradwaith was present... On the other hand Nazgûl, here first met with, was not, and nor was Dagorlad (the pencilled text had only Battle Plain)

HME VII, The Treason of Isengard, p.389 (The Riders of Rohan).

Using JRRT's habit of idly writing out names and phrases from the newspaper in elaborate calligraphy, CRT has dated this period of work to Winter 1941-2, so the first use of Nazgûl is at some time in late 1941 or early 1942. The nearest I can come to knowing what was on Tolkien's mind at this time comes from the doodled phrases used to date the notes and drafting for the previous chapter: 'Chinese bombers', 'North Sea convoy', 'Muar River', 'Japanese attack in Malaya' (HME VII.379). It was the Japanese offensive in Thailand and Northern Malaya in December 1941 and the crossing of the Muar River in January 1942 which dated these jottings.

This is scant evidence for ascribing a source to the word, particularly since Tolkien seems to have been unable to remember how he thought of it by 1967. From his letter he sounds fairly convinced that the Gaelic word is a likely source for his, but I suppose this will never be known. Personally I feel that the Gaelic origin is the more likely, due to its greater similarity in appearance and pronunciation. If Tolkien did use Nazi as his source then it seems an unusually and unwontedly clumsy link for him to make; and with his vehement denial of the connection between Moria and Morīah as a caveat, I'm inclined to treat the connection under discussion as extremely suspect.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

I'm inclined to treat the connection under discussion as extremely suspect.

So then, an answer to my first question, of when Tolkien created the word, has been suggested.

But what of my second question? The connection is still easily and plausibly made by many, many readers. Tolkien's comments in the Forward takes pains to dismiss the allegorical reading of LotR as "about" World War II. Yet why did he still use a word which would suggest and support this kind of false allegory?

Originally Posted by davem

Which is not to say that he didn't smile to himself about the similarities....

So, was he having his cake and eating it too? He wouldn't be the first writer to play tricksome.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

So, was he having his cake and eating it too? He wouldn't be the first writer to play tricksome.

Synchronicity maybe?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Yet why did he still use a word which would suggest and support this kind of false allegory?

It only supports the false allegory in the same way that Moria supports the idea of a biblical allegory, or Gondor suggests that Tolkien preferred open-plan offices. Readers can plausibly connect Moria and Morīah or Gollum and Golem as well. Then, since we're choosing only to notice the first syllables of words, there's Fangorn and fang, even Aragorn and arrogant. Perhaps Tolkien left in those references because he didn't think they were there in the first place; because he couldn't second-guess every association that might be made by every reader.

I don't like to keep bringing up Moria and Morīah, but Tolkien's comments on the proposed link bear heavily on the instance under discussion. The two place-names are far more similar than nazgûl and Nazi, and more readers would probably make the connection if more people read the Bible.

I utterly repudiate any such significances and symbolisms. My mind does not work that way; and (in my view) you are led astray by a purely fortuitous similarity, more obvious in spelling than speech, which cannot be justified from the real intended significance of my story.

Letter #297, August 1967 (emphasis mine)

What Tolkien says here as clearly as he can is that he simply would not deliberately make associations between words on the sole basis of a similarity in written form. It even seems to me that he was as irritated by the assumption that he would as I would be by the assumption that my use of the word route in a set of directions was intended to insult those directed by implying rout. This example has added complexities, since as I speak English the two words sound completely different, but I know that they could be homophones to an American.

Perhaps it would be useful to point out that philologists are very pedantic about accents, pronunciation and spelling. It's a survival trait in a field which has many pitfalls for the unwary, a good number of which concern the similarity of written forms. To pick a field in which Tolkien had much early experience, when deriving a dictionary etymology, a completely inaccurate result can be reached by the mistaken association of two words in different languages which look similar on the page. Tolkien's early history with the New English Dictionary, if not his earlier training under one of the greatest English philologists of his era, would have beaten out of him the fuzzy thinking that grasps at obvious connexions at first sight. Time and again he shows us his abiding interest in the meaning of a word, which is only natural given that in mediæval texts one can encounter anything up to a dozen different spellings of a single word without its meaning or pronunciation varying once, a stylistic feature that even affects proper nouns.

What I am trying to point out is that Tolkien is highly unlikely to have noticed a similarity between Nazgûl and Nazi, even though many readers have made that connexion. He was so accustomed to careful and precise reading that he would have found it very difficult to make the sort of associations that less thoroughly trained readers find equally difficult to avoid. Moreover he was more accustomed than any of us to regard the sound, written form, meaning and history of a word as aspects of a whole, all of which must agree for an association to exist. He spoke disdainfully of "an age in which almost all auctorial manhandling of English is permitted (especially if disruptive) in the name of art or 'personal expression'": in short, he was a man obsessed with precision and detail, so that when he wanted to give a name a hidden meaning he simply translated it into another language or an earlier version of English. Since he would have demanded complete consistency with contemporary politics if he intended his Ringwraiths to have any conceptual link with Hitler, and since his entire intellectual history had been leading away from superficial correspondences of form, I don't think that Tolkien would even have noticed this supposed link unless someone pointed it out to him. For all his howlers, I notice that Mr. Rang never did.

I think it important to remember at all times when reading Tolkien that his side of English studies is very different from the study of literature even today. In Tolkien's youth, philology was considered a science, not an art; and all of the empirical, systematic instincts of Victorian academic method are embodied in its practice. Victorian philology was not a matter of opinion, but of fact; it was not a matter of metaphor or allusion but of laws and their application; and it was a matter not of free expression or association but of solid logical reasoning and painstaking research. Not only can I not imagine Tolkien spotting some of the associations that have occurred to his readers (I have to say that I didn't see the link under discussion either), but I can't imagine any other philologist of his day seeing it either. Philology demands a different style of reading from that of literary criticism, and for someone like Joseph Wright, Walter Skeat or Kenneth Sisam a connexion between two words not supported by sound, sense or narrative context would have been no connexion at all.

[davem]

While accepting everything Squatter says I'm sure that English speaking readers in the mid fifties particularly would not have failed to make the (albeit erroneous) connection Nazgul/Nazi - particularly at a time when most people still got their news from newspapers & would have been as used to seeing 'Naz'i as well as hearing Natzi. I find it difficult to believe that at no point did the 'similarity' even cross Tolkien's mind - only to be instantly dismissed admittedly.

Of course, its possible that Tolkien didn't make the connection - but didn't his editors or proof-readers? Point being that (some/many) readers do make that connection - however unfortunate that may be in terms of encouraging 'applicability'.

Personally, I don't think its that big a deal - the two words look similar when written down, Tolkien probably noticed it, smiled about it & then forgot the whole thing.

A more interesting question, it seems to me, is what he would have done if Quenya or Sindarin had produced the name 'Jeezuls' for his monsters - you see, both Nazgul & Nazi apply to thoroughly nasty pieces of work, so the connection is not so much of a problem even if the reader makes it. If the name for Sauron's servants had been too close to the name of ultimate good, would he still not have noticed, or would he have changed it?

What I'm asking is, did Tolkien notice the similarity between Nazi & Nazgul, but feel that it was not necessary to make a fuss over it because both refer to something 'bad'?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

It wouldn't have been as simple as that. Tolkien's languages aren't just sounds picked out of the air. They follow the same rules of development as natural languages, so that to change the form of one word would be to demand a re-think not only of that word's morphological and phonological history, but also those of all related words and forms. It may seem obvious to change nazgûl to nascûl (although that does encourage a theory that his book is about NASCAR), but this affects the sound of the word, which must be accounted for in the phonological development not only of nazg -> nasc but also of all related forms and like sounds.

What worries me about this theory is that it's not one which I can find to have been addressed by any of Tolkien's correspondants in the 1950s, which suggests to me that this link is one deriving from what appears to be an obsession in English-speaking countries with Nazi Germany; a morbid curiosity that seems to be growing when time ought to have set it on the wane. Unbelievable though it may be, it's possible that the word 'Nazi' is used more nowadays than it was in the 1940s: at school almost the first thing British children ever learn about Germany is that malevolent Austrian dwarf and his disastrous chancellorship; the most over-subscribed history special subjects at my university were Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, which weren't even on the curriculum in the 1950s. What we have is a situation in which events sixty and seventy years ago are more present in the collective consciousness than they were half a century in the past, which is unhealthy in the extreme. We have no evidence whatsoever that anyone in the 1950s ever noticed this similarity of form, but I notice from a brief trawl of Google that it's referred to fairly regularly now.

Far more interesting to me than twentieth-century totalitarianism is the following extract from an article about the Topkapi Palace Harem.

The passion for garden flowers became evident everywhere, on clothing, furnishings and in architectural decoration, and extending even to the names of the harem women, who began to be given melodious Persian names like Laligül (Ruby Rose) and Nazgül (Shy Rose) that suggested they were as beautiful and graceful as flowers.

I also note that in Kazakh ghul, gul, goul means 'flower'. Did Tolkien mean to suggest that Kazakh is an evil and degraded language? Probably not, but I've just noticed a similarity, so obviously he must have too. Perhaps the whole thing is a Times crossword clue and 'flower' really means 'river', ironically referring back to the Ringwraiths' dislike of running water. It's not long before this sort of reasoning leads to insanity, and it needs to be nipped in the bud. Tolkien was not omniscient, and what seems obvious to us may not have been so to him. In fact this particular link is so erroneous that he might have needed it repeated to him before he could even credit it.

Now, clearly I do think that this is a big deal, because it suggests a mindset for Tolkien that simply isn't supported by things that we know about him, and suggests links between his invented world and the primary world that just do not, did not and could not exist. Moreover it perpetuates the ridiculous notion that any crackpot theory deserves to be considered just because it was someone's honest reaction. What if someone's honest reaction to a history of the Boer War is that the relief of Mafeking actually happened in Mafeking Street, Whitley Bay? Are we to give that credence? There was actually more evidence behind Mr. Underhill's link between the One Ring and marriage than there is behind this fascist Nazgûl theory, but nobody is asking why Tolkien left that potential invitation to allegory in his book.

What would Tolkien have done if Black Speech had thrown up Jeezûl? Well, it's very unlikely that it would (the phonology is all wrong), but if it did, he would either have had to change the entire language to remove it or leave it in place. If he personally thought it looked to be connecting Christ and evil I think that he would have re-written the entire book rather than let the similarity stand, but that's a different matter. What worries me is the search for symbolism where none is required to understand something, followed by the suggestion that Tolkien must have had a reason for leaving in the supposed symbolism: it's a circular argument, and can be applied to any foolishness. For example, in the first edition of LR, the sixth line of Book VI, chapter 6 is the beginning of a speech by Aragorn, the sixth word of which is 'come'. Does this imply a satanic message that all should worship at the feet of the Great Beast? Or am I just indiscriminately reading meanings into arbitrary patterns? I really wish I didn't now expect some fundamentalist loony to use that as a reason not to read Tolkien.

[davem]

I don't think its either significant, nor insignificant that some readers make the Nazi/Nazgul connection - some readers just do, & I can't believe that it never once, for one second, struck Tolkien too, before he dismissed it. The similarity between the two words is interesting, especially considering the period in which LotR was written. Noting the similarity between the words does not imply the whole book is an allegory. I'm not arguing that Tolkien was implying Nazgul=Nazis/Fascists. I'm simply arguing that some readers will make that connection, that possibly it struck Tolkien too, & that it doesn't actually mean very much except to show that people make those kinds of connections. Of course 'Good sense matters', but simply to mentally note ''Nazgul' looks like 'Nazi' & isn't it curious that both refer to sick/evil/twisted beings?' & then pass on (which is what I did on first reading LotR involves neither good nor bad sense - it was just what popped into my head at the time) doesn't actually involve 'sense' at all. However, if someone took up the idea & ran with it in order to 'prove' LotR was nothing but an allegory of WWII thye would have 'left the path of wisdom'.

As to the 'Mafeking' thing, actually I would find that quite an interesting example of how the popular imagination appropriates stories & localises events, in effect making their local area more significant & magical (if you look at how many sites across Western Europe are associated with King Arthur you perhaps see the same process).

Or am I just indiscriminately reading meanings into arbitrary patterns?

Yes, but its still interesting to see how people's imaginations work & the connections they make, & what a story means to them.

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

That doesn't seem that striking a similarity to me, Beth. Unlike Winston Churchill, who insisted on 'narzy', Tolkien could pronounce 'nazi' properly, which makes it sound completely different from nazgûl. A closer real-world connection is that between the Gaelic word nasc, 'ring', and Black Speech nazg, 'ring', on which connection I posted some time ago.

Of course, in terms of the narrative setting, nazgûl is simply Black Speech for 'Ring-wraiths'. I'm very sceptical of any reference to the National Socialist German Workers' Party, even though Tolkien did express a profound dislike of several senior Nazi figures. When I get back home tonight, I'll try to find out when the term nazgûl emerged, and see if it corresponds to political events in contemporary Germany. I have a feeling that it won't.

I agree.

[alatar]

Note that, like many 'Mericans my age, I pronounce the word for the WWII National Socialists as knot-zeez. I'm not sure that my British cousins will read/hear this correctly as I'm trying to explain it (I was horrified to learn how y'all pronounce the letter Z and the number 0). Visually, looking at the letters on the page, I can easily connect the two words, but on hearing the word for the Ringwraiths, the connection with the Nazis would be weaker.

The connection may or may not exist for some. Still, I think that the spoken 'harshness' of the word Nazgul was intentional.

*Note that, as an 'Merican, the reference to and the exist of the Oxford English Dictionary, noted here, sends chills up my spine like no undead ever could...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

*Note that, as an 'Merican, the reference to and the exist of the Oxford English Dictionary, noted here, sends chills up my spine like no undead ever could...

Puff n stuff, alatar. The ever so distinguished Mr. R.W. Burchfield, of OED and Fowler's fame, could lecture quite humourously on the number of definitions which American dictionaries blatently pilfered from the OED. Oh, lexicography makes a great lair for a larcenist's license, it does. Mr. Baggins would have made a right proper lexicographer and probably did once he sailed West.

Squatter makes an eloquent plea for the heroic formulation of Tolkien's languages and the impecable scholarship (although not quite science) of philology. Yet, sadly, I am also reminded of the famous observations on words by one of Lewis Carroll's characters:

Originally Posted by Humpty

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'

And before you declaim that it is the reader who is playing Humpty, let me hasten to add that there are many ways through which words are created and readers of LotR who may not have access to what is now an arcane academic discipline, splintered even afar off from linguistics, are within their rights as speakers of their tonque, to apply whatever forms of word meaning and derivation they have learnt when faced with a newly coined word. And it would absolutely amaze me if The Professor was ignorant of the various ways in which words are formed, in addition to their development from historical origins.

Oh, and, as an aside, the Seige of Mafeking led to the use of the verb maffick, as a back-formation from Mafeking, meaning to celebrate publicly. Well, according to the OED. People are always making up new words and can hardly be faulted for trying out comparisons when faced with what at first might appear to be a portmanteau word--the gullible nasties who fell prey to Annatar. After all, Smaug sounds so much like smoke and fog, eh? Who's to say that a fire breathing dragon ain't going to produce pollution? It's only us devious Tolkien fans who know the little joke there.

[davem]

And its all very well dismissing a reader who reacts to the word 'Nazgul' by conjuring up connections with 'Nazis', but some words beg such connections, & they are perfectly understandable - in the context of that particular reader. Tolkien may or may not have noticed the similarity in appearance between the words, but many readers cannot help but do so. Some unintended/unwished for 'connections' will happen in the reader's mind & there is nothing the author or reader can do about it. No English speaker encountering the Telerin version of Celeborn's name for the first time can avoid a smirk without a great effort of will.

[Aiwendil]

Oh my. Are my eyes deceiving me or is davem arguing for the primacy of the reader's individual experience over the authority of the author?

[Bêthberry]

In addition to all these variations of pronunciation mentioned by Legate and alatar, Squatter has mentioned Moria and Morīah, and Gollum and Golem, and davem brings Tele***** into the question. Then there are the Púkel-men, a name which Thenamir has not exactly confused, but rather parodied in REB. In fact, any quick perusal of REB will suggest how fraight is Tolkien's language with these other associations.

Given what seems to be an ever-increasing list of words which suggest associations which apparently are irrelevant, I suppose it can be explained, in keeping with Tolkien's own insistance that these are not intentional, as a clear sign that his sub-creation is independent of the Primary World. It can be said, then, that Middle-earth's language shows Middle-earth to be a parallel or alternate universe, with strikingly different derivations and etymologies of even words which seem most familiar. This would work against the idea that The Silm, TH, and LotR are simply set in an earlier age of our own world.

[Aiwendil]

Bethberry wrote:

This would work against the idea that The Silm, TH, and LotR are simply set in an earlier age of our own world.

Not necessarily. If Tolkien's Legendarium is purportedly our own world, it is our own world some 6,000 years ago (by his estimate in Letter 211). This would put the fall of Barad-dur somewhere around 4000 B.C.E., which is just about at the furthest extreme of our knowledge of European language. Quenya, Sindarin, Westron, and so forth as presented in LotR would have been (very roughly) contemporary with proto-Indo-European. So one can in fact self-consistently pretend that these languages existed in our distant past but are, largely or entirely, unrelated etymologically to any modern language.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

So one can in fact self-consistently pretend that these languages existed in our distant past but are, largely or entirely, unrelated etymologically to any modern language.

This would be one of the gaps then in the Legendarium. We could thus posit some sort of Babel myth in the Legendarium to explain why the languages are unrelated, although clearly this would impact on the Translator Conceit discussed in an earlier thread. That might involve a Rosetta Stone story.

The fan fiction or RPG possibilities expand.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Oh my. Are my eyes deceiving me or is davem arguing for the primacy of the reader's individual experience over the authority of the author?

No - he's merely pointing out that it happens. One struggles against it. The 'Tele*****' thing is a good example. We all have to supress the smirk first time, because we inevitably make the 'connection'. No difference with a reader seeing 'Nazgul' for the first time & thinking 'Nazi'. Its just the way the mind works. To then run off with the idea that LotR is an allegory of WWII (or that Celeborn was the M-e equivalent of Hugh Heffner) is where the reader would go wrong.

[Child of the 7th Age]

We could thus posit some sort of Babel myth in the Legendarium to explain why the languages are unrelated, although clearly this would impact on the Translator Conceit discussed in an earlier thread. That might involve a Rosetta Stone story.

Bethberry - Regarding Babel....you are closer to the truth than you know. On at least one occasion, Tolkien expressed a fondness for the debacle of Babel and the resulting dispersal of tongues. In Angles and Britons, the O'Donnel Lectures (published in 1963), while discussing English and Welsh, Tolkien praised the diversity of language with this comment: O felix peccatum Babel (Oh, lucky sin of Babel). I think he would have been delighted to see the conundrum we've got here!

You guys are impressive. And I thought I was the only one. But now that I'm in your company, I want to take a different strategy.
The mythology of the Silmarillion and of the War of the Ring is bigger than Tolkien.
Pray for the Spirit of Truth to reveal these Questions to you. I cannot support many of my opinions and I can't deny some of my opinions are contrary to the man himself. Does this disqualify me? I dare say, no. I read in this thread; and I became interested in ent-o-mology after reading Tolkiens bio, that Tolkien wrote in some letter that his world was around four thousand B.C. [I hate that B.C.E. cr##, leave it the way it is/was] but Tolkiens world is many millennium. So we must assume that the 4000 B.C. sighted was, what? end of third age, right? Come on people. Of certainty the Tolkien languages are related, to the european langauges, even down to the dialetic regional variations of some ten square miles of soil, geographically and temporally isolated, whether or not there exist phonetic simularity. I believe; as strongly as any martyred protestant; that Tolkiens revelation was historical. Far beyond ancient. An spiritual echo, of something . . . distant and yet so present, all around me, and yet . . . unreachable.
I am not jewish.
I am not a chosen son of God
I am a European American.
This is my religion.