![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#81 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
Lets count which oppions we have so fare:
Gondowe has offer a no in some way Aran has said no clearly Aiwendil is abivalent leaning to no. I myself offer a clear yes. Counting we have: 2.5 no 1.5 yes Even if Maedhros would give a clear yes we only could reach a patt. In that situation savety has to rule. And that means we will not take the additions from the Lay up into our text of the Narn. I will restore them as part of the appendix, which documents the essential parts of our discussions here. I think we are done with this part of the Narn. Lets move on to Beleg & Falivirn. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#82 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
I hate to let the rule here be by majority rather than unanimity, but I suppose there's little sense in having a protracted debate about this. If someone changes his mind, it's easy enough to put those excerpts back in.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#83 | |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
![]() |
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#84 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 245
![]() |
Hello again
As to the matter above, Findegil is rigth with my vote as I explained, I think the Narn is overall, the final view of the history by Tolkien, and with the finished parts I think we must not do anything. Not with the parts not finished, that fortunately were left in the Lay, (as a premonition, I like to think).
One can say, "so for what reason in a "finished work" like the Valaquenta, you add parts of the LT?". Because I think the descriptions of the houses of the Valar, etc, relly adds a worthwhile information. Greetings. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#85 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Looking back at this I realize there are problems with the excerpt from the Lay used at Mim's death:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#86 | |||||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
Oh yes, these lines were a bit rough edited.
696: I do not like your solution over much what about: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Findegil |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#87 | |||
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
I also changed "an cruel" to "a cruel," and proposed my own change to the "blood of his brothers" line. Here's an unmarked version: Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#88 | |||||||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Line 696: Findegil's suggestion is:
Quote:
Quote:
697: Aran suggests changing the line to remove the syllabic '-ed'. While I can certainly see the temptation to do so, I think that there is no justification for that in our principles - our goal is not to correct or improve on what Tolkien wrote. So I'm for keeping the original line here. 700: We have Findegil's suggestion: Quote:
Quote:
A possibility is: Quote:
Quote:
Aran suggests adding the line: Quote:
702: Findegil's suggestion (with Aran's correction of 'an' to 'a'): Quote:
Quote:
I also think that we might do away with the editorial 'and it is sung that'. So my suggested text is: Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Aiwendil; 04-15-2009 at 06:36 PM. |
|||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#89 | ||||
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The only problem I still have is with "the traitor Mîm." That line still doesn't flow as well. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#90 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
Woo, that is a fast development to a better editing!
I just wonder, can't we us 'trunk' in line 696 and leave 'tree' in line 699? I am okay with line 697 unaltered. Also 'guests' for Turin, Beleg and band is okay for me. 'his curse' could even refer to his curse on Andróg, since what came home was the counter curse of Andróg. I would have wished for Andrógs name to be mentioned here to make the referenc clearer (only a view lines above Mîm curses the hoard of Glaurung), but I can go without. Should the readers work it out by themselves! If you don't feel we need the bridge, I supose it can go. Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#91 | ||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Findegil wrote:
Quote:
But Aran, I believe you still have reservations about "the traitor Mim" in line 696? Do you have an alternative suggestion? We could use any of several variations with the 'tr' alliteration, e.g.: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#92 | |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
![]() |
Quote:
I did however realize I have two other problems: 1. This is a small thing, but the editorial bridge must either go or be altered, because Tolkien stressed at least twice that the Narns were not "sung." 2. This is more major. How can we justify having this portion of the Lay at all? After all, the later conceptions of the lay ended before the Wanderings of Húrin! I don't see where this fragment comes in. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#93 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Aran wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
But I imagine it very likely that there was a lay that told of Hurin's visit to Nargothrond. For one thing, I find it remarkable that the 'Atanatarion' would cover all the later tales of Beleriand with the sole exception of the Ruin of Doriath. More convincingly, Tolkien called 'The Wanderings of Hurin' the link to 'Sigil Elu-naeth', 'The Necklace of the Woe of Thingol'. Now, we don't know that the tale of 'Sigil Elu-naeth' was a 'Narn' in the same meter as the Narn i Chin Hurin, but it's at least plausible that it was, and that our excerpt comes from that lay. Personally, I imagine the 'Narn e'Rach Morgoth' to consist of two parts, the 'Narn i Chin Hurin' and the 'Narn Sigil Elu-naeth', just as the 'Narn en-El' consists of 'Narn e-Dant Gondolin' and 'Narn Orthad en-El'. But of course this is just my own fancy. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#94 | |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 245
![]() |
Quote:
When I worked on the final chapter and divided in two, I consider in include it after the narn Gondolin, but it's difficult, and still doubt. Greetings |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#95 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
First to the text:
'traitorous' sounds by itsself a bit blocky but it alliterates nicely. I understand why 'trunk' is not good in line 696, but couldn't we use 'beech' from line 696 in line 699? The editorial bridge is gone, save the closing phrase of Húrins direct speech. The 'singing' in these phrases must be contrilled in the others. Since Aiwendil put the in question generally, I will to have to have a look at them any way. 'Narn Sigil Elu-naeth' as of the Atanatarion: Seem not like a fancy to me but a nice theory. It explains why in the 'Narn i·Chîn Húrin' Húrins further actions are not told. So the overall structer might have looked like this: ATANATÁRION .Narn Beren ion Barahir or Narn e·Dinúviel .Narn e·mbar Hador ..Narn e·'Rach Morgoth ...Narn i·Chîn Húrin ...Narn Sigil Elu-naeth ..Narn en·Êl ...Narn e·Dant Gondolin ...Narn Orthad en·Êl Nice, but the more I look at this the more I can understand what dounted the old Professor. If we agree on this I will have to look in to the chapter structer of 'Translation from the Elvish', if it changes anything there. Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#96 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#97 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
A very small thing I just noticed, but might as well point it out before I forget.
NA-TI-15.5: Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#98 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
![]() |
I personally would rather not. Why loose the effect of the full alliteration when not necessary? It could be also argued that the fact of the tree being a beech was significant due to the fact that the death originally occurred in Doriath, where beeches seem to have been held in high esteem, if not revered. Perhaps it is even so suggestive of Doriath that it needs to go?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#99 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Well, 'tree'/'trunk' doesn't alliterate in line 699 so that shouldn't be an issue. But you may have a point about the beech being tied to the earlier location of the scene. Beeches are apparently common in and around Doriath but I don't recall any references to them near Nargothrond. Of course, that's not to say that they couldn't have been there.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#100 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
A small thing I just noticed: At NA-EX-21 the word 'Enfeng' ('Longbeards') appears several times for the Dwarves of Belegost. Since it was later decided that the Longbeards were Durin's folk from Khazad-dum and not the Dwarves of Belegost, this must be changed. I think we can simply replace it with 'Dwarves' in this case.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#101 | ||
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#102 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
I think the discussion of the seven kindreds of Dwarves in 'Of Dwarves and Men' makes it clear that the Dwarves of Belegost and Nogrod are the 'Broadbeams' and 'Firebeards' as opposed to the 'Longbeards' of Khazad-dum - i.e. that each of the three kingdoms is the home of a different kindred. I think that in the earlier post-LotR writings, however, Tolkien may have envisioned more or less what you suggest - a single 'good' race of Dwarves inhabiting both Belegost and Moria.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#103 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
![]() |
But am I incorrect in thinking that that text was ultimately replaced with a different one?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#104 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
Well the text was never even considered for publication, but it was never replaced or updated as fare as I remember.
Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#105 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Halls of Mandos
Posts: 86
![]() |
Oh, right. I was confusing it with another text.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#106 | |||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
After editing the text with all the changes we agreed upon here, I feel the lose of the passages from the Lay more haevily then before. And since not all members old and new have given us their oppinion about these additions I would like to restart the discussion on them. I give them here in full again for your convinience:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For commentaries too the needed changes see my post #23. For the discussion the relevant postings are: post #32, post #33, post #34, post #35, post #36, post #72, post #73, post #75, post #76, post #77, post #78, post #79, post #80, post #81, post #82, post #83 and post #84 Respectfuly Findegil |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#107 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
Looking into this thread again, I see that it is not so nice to let you jump from post to post by links. I therefore will giv here a summary of the discussion:
So what we discuss about are 4 passages from the Lay. The first is the treatment of Húrin before the talk with Morgoth. The second is the journey to Doriath and the song of Lúthien, the third is the guided entrance to Doriath with the rest at Belegs lodge and the fourth is the praising of Turins powers in the warfare at the marches. In each part information are given that are not in the text of the Narn. Some of course are only minor details. But especially the first two seem to be more substantial. The Argument against them was brought forward by Aiwendil: "This is, after all, one of the relatively few places where we have a late, complete 'long version' by Tolkien, and in such cases I think that generally the policy should be (and has been) not to insert earlier material for the sole purpose of elaboration." That sound principle is established by the meaning of our general principles 2 made clear by the statement at the beginning of principal 3: “2. Secondary priority is given to the latest ideas found among Tolkien's unpublished texts and letters, except where they: a. violate the published canon without specifically correcting an error or b. are proposed changes that do not clearly indicate the exact details that must be changed and how they are to be changed. 3. If no sources that fall under number 2 can be used to form the actual narrative of a section, …” But it is in part contradicted by the last sentence of our general principles: “A corallary is that we may not disregard any text or note, old idea or projected change, by JRRT unless it is invalidated by one of the above principles, explicitly or implicitly; that is, we must have a REASON for rejecting something.” This does of course open a wide field of argumentation. Aiwendil answerd to this: "But I think a reasonable counter-argument would be that the relevant portions of the lay are contradicted, implicitly, by the Narn. In many cases we must make the difficult judgement of whether a certain detail that appears in an early source but not in a late one was rejected by Tolkien or merely omitted. When the late text we’re dealing with is the Quenta Silmarillion or the Annals, it’s often easy to argue that the detail in question was merely omitted due to compression of the narrative (hence, our retention of the mechanical dragons for example). But here, the late text is the full ‘Narn i Chin Hurin’, the long version of the longest tale of the Elder Days and intended, as we may suppose from ‘Aelfwine and Dirhaval’, as a prose translation of the same primary source that the old lay was supposed to be verse translation of. It seems, then, very reasonable to me to think that when Tolkien omitted a detail that was found in the alliterative lay, it was because he had rejected it. Despite this argument, I’m still of two minds about this and, to be honest, there are some lovely details in the passages of the lay you excerpt. Maybe we need a third opinion on this (Maedhros, if you happen by here, perhaps you could give us your thoughts?)" Aran added this thought to the discussion: "It seems to me that the Lay was largely displaced by the Narn. And it cannot be thought to be the "Lay" Ælfwine (or Bilbo) translated either, as many of its details do not match the Narn. Even when it does match and provides more detail, I hesitate in using it, because Tolkien seems to have thought most of the Narn to be finalized. (At least, as final as any of his works ever got!)" To which Aiwendil added: "If Tolkien omitted from the Narn a detail found in the alliterative Lay, I think there's at least a reasonable case to be made that he did so because that detail had been rejected. In contrast to the more common situation where we have an older 'full version' and a briefer, more compressed later version, here we have a late full version. So I think the usual argument that details found in the older text were not rejected but merely suppressed holds less weight." Findegil countered that by: "I can see the point of the argument of course. It is just that I do not agree fully to it. Especially when the portions of the Lay that I used replace portions of the Narn that read like summary of the Lay. Let us look at the cases in turn: NA-EX-25.02: We skip "he[Morgoth] sought to daunt him[Húrin] with his eyes. But Húrin could not yet be daunted, and he defied Morgoth. Therefore Morgoth had him chained and set in slow torment; but after a while he came to him,". Exactly the same story comes along in the Lay more fully told. NA-EX-25.06 & NA-EX-25.12: We skip: "at last, weary and haggard, they reached the confines of Doriath. But there they became bewildered, and were enmeshed in the mazes of the Queen, and wandered lost amid the pathless trees, until all their food was spent. There they came near to death, for winter came cold from the North; but not so light was Túrin's doom. Even as they lay in despair they heard a horn sounded. Beleg the Strongbow was hunting in that region, for he dwelt ever upon the marches of Doriath, and he was the greatest woodsman of those days. He heard their cries and came to them, and when he had given them food and drink he learned their names and whence they came, and he was filled with wonder and pity." Which is again what we have in the Lay elobarted. NA-EX-27.04: Skipt are: "Then many wondered, saying: ‘Can the spirit of Hador or of Galdor the Tall return from death; or has Húrin of Hithlum escaped indeed from the pits of Angband?’ One only was mightier in arms among the march-wardens of Thingol at that time than Túrin, and that was Beleg Cúthalion; and Beleg and Túrin were companions in every peril, and walked far and wide in the wild woods together." Which is again what is told in the protion of the Lay that I added. Now your argument is that Tolkien did not use the details of the Lay by propose. But I am not so sure about this. I think we have no evidence that he acctually had the Lay infront of him composing the Narn, and this, I think, would be a needed to be sure that Tolkien found the details not fiting in the later story (for what ever reason). My impression is that Tolkien wrote the Narn based on his memory and the shorter text he had writen to fit the different versions of The Silmarillion, the Annals and probably his plot sysnopsis. In such a work parts that were told elaborated to his satisfaction before hand would probably catch his mind less then spots that he had not jet told in great maner, or were he felt that a change was needed. I think that once you have told the part fully to your satisfaction the (motion-)picture is definied in your mind and you might be able to recapture it for yourself with only a fiew words. But if you have to work out the secne for yourself you will for sure need more words and therewith transport the scene better to a reader unfamillar with it. If we could find some internal reasons to doubt the valibity of the scenes in the portions of the Lay I added, I would agree that we can not use them. But the outer reason that we have a shorter version in later writen fully told story does not fully convince me." Aran: "But you see, I don't think Tolkien need even have rejected the details. He just left them out. He told the story one way in the Lay, and another in the Narn. Apparently, he thought the Narn passages sufficient. He was not trying to relate the whole story in all its detail, he was trying to relate the story as it was formed in that particular text. For instance, the Annals of Aman and the Quenta Silmarillion are parallel often, but Tolkien put details in one that were not in the other. This is not because he rejected the details, or even because he thought that they should be left out. It is simply because they were different documents." Findegil: " But we do not try to creat the Narn as Tolkien would have written it. Our goal is to tell the story of Middle-Earth in the most possible detailed, 'canon' friendly version. With this goal I don't think it is enough that Tolkien told the story without this details in his latest version of the Narn." Aiwendil then tried to summe up the counter arguments: "I think there are three distinct arguments being made by Aran and me: The Canonical concern: Details omitted from the Lay may have been rejected. The Literary concern: Introducing excerpts from the Lay mars the cohesive narrative of the Narn. The Textual concern: The Narn and the Lay represent different texts within Middle-earth that should not be mixed. The Textual argument is, in my opinion, not really a valid one within the context of this project, since we are not making a 'veritable' Narn i Chin Hurin; that is, we're not claiming that the text we produce actually represents the text written by Dirhaval. I would further argue that the Narn and the Lay should not actually be considered distinct intra-Middle-earth documents, but rather that when Tolkien wrote the Narn he intended it as a replacement for the Lay. The Literary argument is stronger, I think, but again it's not compelling. Granting that the additions detract from the literary value of the Narn (which is debatable), one could argue that our goal is not a text of literary value; rather, it's a text telling the 'true' history of Arda as fully as possible. Now, there has historically been a certain tension inherent in the project between the literary view and the 'true history' view (and I'm sure if Lindil were around he'd argue eloquently in favour of the former). But at least this throws doubt on the argument that the Canonically valid portions of the Narn cannot be altered or added to because they represent Tolkien's finished text (though I admit the argument does have some force for me personally). We're left with the Canonical argument which at the very least is clearly relevant. But Findegil counter-argues rather persuasively that the further details found in these portions of the Lay are relatively few and that they seem to make explicit things passed over quickly in the Narn, rather than to add any new substance. Of course, for those very reasons, one could ask whether anything is really to be gained by adding them. If we view them simply as longer-winded ways of saying what's already less explicitly said in the Narn, then adding them adds nothing of substance to the text (one could argue that it adds something of literary quality to the text, but this is of course question-begging). Not really a critical issue in the end, but this is proving (to me at least) a somewhat vexing question. I remain ambivalent (which I know is not very helpful, but so it goes)." To this must be added that Findegil had made a faint support argument of Literary concern: "I thought that the inclusion of parts of the poem in the earlier parts of the Narn would help to make the, in my view inascapable, changes between poesy and prosa in the later part more bearable. And I only included parts were the poem has some points of detail to add to the text of CoH and/or Narn. Gondowe then explained his view in short: "I think the Narn is overall, the final view of the history by Tolkien, and with the finished parts I think we must not do anything. Not with the parts not finished, that fortunately were left in the Lay, (as a premonition, I like to think). One can say, "so for what reason in a "finished work" like the Valaquenta, you add parts of the LT?". Because I think the descriptions of the houses of the Valar, etc, relly adds a worthwhile information." At this point of the debate we counted votes: Gondowe has offer a no in some way Aran has said no clearly Aiwendil is abivalent leaning to no. Findegil offer a clear yes. Counting we had: 2.5 no 1.5 yes Neither Aiwendil nor I myself were happy with having to decised by voting. So I thought it might be good to look into this discussion again. Now I ask any member who has not overed his opinion to let as have his voice if he likes to. Respectfuly Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#108 |
Wight
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 245
![]() |
Good to read you again Findegil, we still are going on.
Well, for me it could be easier to include these parts of the Lay because I can make them prose and insert into the body of the Narn, as was made in the central chaptes of the Narn (here the whole Lay) or in other parts of the TftE. You could make the same. Greetings |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#109 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
Hi Gondowe,
I think the arguments agianst these inserts had not so much to do with the fact that they are verse. It was more focused on the Narn being a very completed text in these parts. In addition we only in very special cases tried to change prose to verse or the other way. And when ever we did the result was at least questionable. That is better in your case since you are more free with the text since you have to translate them anyway. Respectfuly, Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#110 | |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
While working on other texts I found that I possibly over did it in the intro to the Narn. I eliminated all references to English even so some were to the actual text we produce. Since our Product is clearly in English we should probably keep these references. The second § taken von Aelfwine & Dírhaval A would read then:
Quote:
Respectfully Findegil |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#111 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
I think this point needs some consideration. But I think I'd like to hold off on revisiting 'Turin' for the moment - simply because I noticed that some points in my notes on this chapter required further work before I post them. Unless there is an objection, I am hoping to post some notes on 'Tuor' tonight, and tackle the revision of that chapter first.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#112 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
That is okay with me. I just wanted to document my thoughts here.
Respectfully Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#113 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tol Morwen
Posts: 331
![]() |
Considering the addition of the parts of the Lay, I think I agree with Findegil that they should be included - for the sole reason that those parts of the Narn are very brief - indeed one of the main goals of this project is to give as detailed account possible, as long as the additions do not contradict the later Tolkien's ideas. After all, we are making as detailed account as possible, and, of course, our version of "The Silmarillion" is probably not what Tolkien would have wrote, if he continued working on it. But, unfortunately, we have to do with what we have.
P.S. I don't think that Andróg's "curse" would ever come to fulfilment - to me it's simply a Mannish equivalent of "Ishkhakwi ai durugnul".
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Arvegil145; 09-09-2015 at 05:00 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#114 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tol Morwen
Posts: 331
![]() |
I have included the parts of the Lay in my version, and, in my opinion, they work PERFECTLY! Beautiful details - at least according to me - omitted from the Narn for the sake of what I have no clue about - but since Tolkien is not any more in the world of the living - and we are NOT Tolkien - we should include those parts of the Lay.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#115 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tol Morwen
Posts: 331
![]() |
And yes - what about Lungorthin? Is he still "canon"?
__________________
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#116 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
Do you see anythink speaking against Lungorthin being still valid? As yet nobody here spoke up with such a reason against the passage including him.
Respectfuly Findegil |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#117 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tol Morwen
Posts: 331
![]() |
No, but I always want to double-check the concepts in such early stages of development.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#118 | ||||||||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
I'm going to post my notes on the Narn text in this thread, even though they apply to the whole text, not just the section on Turin's fostering. Hopefully that doesn't cause too much confusion.
Looking at these notes again, I see that I had intended to take a more detailed look at the "Union of Maedhros" section, since I note that I see some problems with it but don't go into specifics. So looking at that section again is something I will try to do. Quote:
|
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#119 | |||
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,714
![]() |
Introduction: I like your version, but why skip 'modern' and the part about the analphabetic use of English? I don't think we should skip this completly. What we edit is english and our readers are english speakers, so why we should skip this?
NA-EX-40.4: Corrected. NA-RG-29: Your version reads good. Finduilas/Gwindor/Turin: I do not agree that all the passages you mentioned are redundant. Some parts my be but not everything in it. It would be good if you could be more specific. NA-TI-28: I agree to use GA here. But I we have taken the statement of Orodreth giving Túrin more honore when he learned his Identity: Quote:
NA-EX-58: Why not insert the Dragon-helm? Quote:
Quote:
Findegil |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#120 | ||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
The other phrase here, "that is forms of English intelligible to living users of the English tongue (who have some knowledge of letters, and are not limited to the language of daily use from mouth to mouth)", is an explanation of the word 'modern' for a non-linguistic audience. That is, Tolkien is explaining that he doesn't mean "modern" in the sense of current slang, but "modern" in the sense of English that is intelligible to living, literate, speakers. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Aiwendil; 10-08-2017 at 07:38 PM. |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |