* * Revised Fall of Gondolin pt 1 [General Revisions & 'Of Tuor' Revisions]* *

[antoine2]

I think it s time now to check each changes of our revised Fall of Gondolin

BoLT 1 The Book of Lost Tales 1 (HoME 1).
FG "The Fall of Gondolin" from The Book of Lost Tales 2 (HoME 2).
TE "The Tale of Eärendel" from The Book of Lost Tales 2 (HoME 2).
Q30 "The Quenta", written in 1930, from The Shaping of Middle-earth (HoME 4). Quotations are from §16 and from §17 in the Q2 version including later emendations as per the notes.
AB 2 "The Later Annals of Beleriand", written about 1936?, from The Lost Road (HoME 5). Unknown to Christopher Tolkien when he produced QS77.
Tuor "Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin", written about 1951 from Unfinished Tales
TO refers to the brief notes given in note 59 to to the later Tuor in UT.
Elessar The Elessar from "The History of Galadriel and Celeborn" in UT.
TY "The Tale of Years", (1951-52), from The War of the Jewels (HoME 11)
PG The Parentage of Gil-galad, a long note by Christopher Tolkien appended to SF, containing material by his father on this matter.
SF "The Shibboleth of Fëanor", Feburary 1968 or later, in the chapter of the same name from "The Peoples of Middle-earth" (HoME 13).
QS77 Quenta Silmarillion as published in The Silmarillion edited by Christopher Tolkien in 1977.
TO refers to the brief notes given in note 59 to to the later Tuor in UT.


General changes

FG-01
Bansil to Belthil per QS77

FG-02
Cristhorn to Cirith Thoronath per QS77

FG-03
Eärendel to Eärendil per QS77 and LR.

FG-04
Elfinesse to Elvenesse per Tolkien's general change of Elfin to Elven from earlier to later writings.

FG-05 KO
Fountain to Fountains in any reference to Ecthelion per QS77 and "Huor and His Coming to Gondolin".

FG-06
Glingol to Glingal per QS77.

FG-07
Gondothlim to Gondolindrim per QS77.

FG-08
Indor to Galdor

FG-09
Inwë to Ingwë per QS77.

FG-10
Isfin to Aredhel per QS77.

FG-11
Kôr to Túna Per QS77. In BolT Kor corresponds to both the later Tirion and Túna, being the name of both the city and the hill on which it stands. In the sole mention in "The Fall of Gondolin" it is the hill that is mean.

FG-12
Malkarauki to Valaraukar per "Valaquenta" published with QS77.

FG-13
Meglin to Maeglin per QS77.

FG-14
Melko to Morgoth per QS77. After BoLT, Tolkien almost never uses Melkor in narration of events following Fëanor's invention of the name Morgoth, except in a back-reference to ancient times.

FG-15
Noldoli to Noldor per QS77. Noldoli, though possibly still a valid form, is not used at all in QS77 or late Tolkien writings.

FG-16
Orc/Orcs to Ork/Orks following Tolkien's stated preference and use in his latest writings.
The spelling change, if made, would be far less troublesome to readers than is Tolkien's change from goblin in The Hobbit to orc in LR.
In Morgoth's Ring (HoME 10), Myths Transformed, IX, Tolkien first indicates the change of spelling:
Its application (in all Elvish tongues) specifically to the creatures called Orks ** so I shall spell it in The Silmarillion ** was later.
And again, at the end of section X:
The word seemed in itself, very suitable to the creatures that I had in mind. But Old English orc in meaning ** so far as that is known ** is not suitable. Also the spelling of what, in the later more organized linguistic situation, must have been a Common Speech form of a word or group of similar words should be ork. If only because of spelling difficulties in modern English: an adjective orc + ish becomes necessary, and orcish will not do. In any further publication I shall use ork.
This was not a one-time impulse as essays in the following two HoME volumes show.
That this was a desired change by Tolkien, and that he would have made it had he published anything more during his lifetime, might be enough to convince.
The logic behind the change also should convince. But Tolkien covers it very hastily above.
Ork is should be an English word, as it stands for a word from Weston, the Common Speech, not from the Elvish tongues. But English words that end with a k sound are always spelled so as to end with the letter k (or ke), not c, unless they are loan words from Latin or another language. No native English word descended from pure Old English ends with c. If Old English orc had descended to us unbroken, then it would today be spelled ork, just as French porc became English pork. Ork feels right as an English word in a way that orc does not.
Ork is superior to Orc in much the same ways as Elven is superior to Elfin, or Dwarves to Dwarfs, or Elvenhome to Faërie, less artificial, stronger and more real. The taste of words does matter. There is magick in words.

FG-17
Peleg to Huor per QS77 and "Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin".

FG-18
Place of the Gods to Place of the Ainur. Tolkien almost entirely drops "Gods" as a English translation in later writings. One would normally change "Gods" to "Valar", but the Elvish form Gar Ainion specifically refers to the Ainur, that is, not just to the Valar but also to the Maiar and to the Ainur who remained outside Eä. The English translation should be equally wide. "Place of the Holy Ones" would be a full translation, but is perhaps too cumbersome.

FG-19
Sorontur to Sorontar per "The Etymologies" (under THOR-, THORON-) and "The Wanderings of Hrúin" in The War of the Jewels (HoME 11).

FG-20
Thorndor to Thorondor per QS77 and LR.

FG-21
Tumladin to Tumladen per QS77.

FG-22
Amon Gwareth to Amon Gwared per The War of the Jewels (HoME 11), Part Two The Later Quenta Silmarillion, 12, "Of Turgon and the Building of Gondolin". Christopher Tolkien notes:
To this my father made some corrections: Nivrost to Nevrast as in the preceding chapters; Eryd Wethion to Eryd Wethrin; Handir to Huor (see above); and Amon Gwareth to Amon Gwared.

FG-23
Compare the similar and possibly related use of Echoriad instead of earlier Echoriath in "The Wanderings of Húrin". This needs investigation.

FG-24
Gnome/Gnomes to Elf/Elves or Noldo/Noldor. "Gnomes" was dropped by Tolkien in LR and later writings, often replaced by Noldor. It would be better artistically to retain the original variation Gnome/Gnomes and Noldo/Noldoli which can be best done by replacing Gnome/Gnomes by Elf/Elves except where a general refenence to Elves would not fit, as in "the Gnomes were exiles at heart, haunted with a desire for their ancient home that faded not." Then use Noldor.

FG-25
house of the Swan to House of Hador

FG-26
Lothlim to Lothrim

FG-27
Salgant to Talagand per "The Eytmologies". Under the stem ÑGAN-,ÑGÁNAD- 'play (on stringed instrument)' which produces various forms meaning 'harp' or 'harp-playing', is found:
talagant harper (* tyalañgando), cf. Talagant [*/ ] of Gondolin [TYAL].
Under TYAL- 'play' is:
Cf. tyalañgando¯ = harp-player (Q tyalangan): N Talagand, one of the chiefs of Gondolin (see ÑGAN).
Christopher Tolkien adds a note to ÑGAN-, ÑGÁNAD-:
Talagant appears in no literary source, but cf. Salgant in the tale of The Fall of Gondolin, the cowardly but not wholly unattractive lord of the People of the Harp: II. 173, 190-1, etc.
Talagand was almost certainly Tolkien's planned replacement form for Salgant the lord of the People of the Harp.

FG-28
Thornhoth to Thoronhoth. This latter is the probable correct Sindarin form.

FG-29
Thorn Sir to Thoron Sîr. This updates the two elements for the name from Gnomish to their QS77 and LR Sindarin forms, but I'm not sure the syntax of this later name is valid.

FG-30
Bad Uthwen, the Elvish name of the "Way of Escape". "The Etymologies" gives:
BAT- tread. * báta : ON bata beaten track, pathway; EN bâd.
But does Uthwen still exist in Sindarin in any form? If kept, it probably should appear as Bâd Uthwen with the circumflex accent. Can be dropped as uncertain.

FG-31
Gar Ainion. I originally thought to retain this. The logic was that Gar Lossion 'Place of Flowers' occurs as the Gnomish name of Alalminórë, replacing an earlier Losgar. This would not necessarily mean Losgar was incorrect, rather that Tolkien had replaced one correct form with another using the same Elvish words, 'Flower-place' by 'Place of Flowers'. Since Losgar occurs in the later Silmarillion tradition as the name of the place where Fëanor burned the ships, presumably gar is still valid Sindarin meaning 'place'.
However upon closer examination the later 'Losgar' cannot mean 'Flower-place' which would be Lothgar. If gar means 'place' still, it might mean 'Snow-place' or 'Snow-white place'. But I find nothing anywhere indicating what meaning Tolkien intended for this place-name, and the fact that the first element must now have a different meaning does not give me any confidence that the last element has the same meaning as in Gnomish.
Indeed from "Etymologies" from GAR-, listed under 3AR-, there is only Noldorin/Sindarin garo- , gerin I hold, have; garn 'own', property.
Nothing indicating 'place', and no form gar. Accordingly should almost certainly be dropped. It only occurs twice, both times in apposition to "the Place of the Ainur", so removal creates no problems

FG-32
Gwarestrin. This must stand as there is nothing newer and nothing in published Sindarin corpus that helps in either determining its validity in Sindarin or in creating a possibly more correct Sindarin form. At least gwar- seems still valid as in Amon Gwareth/Gwared upon which Gondolin is built. Also valid is the stem TIR- which is contained in -estrin according to the explanation of the name in BoLT 1, Appendix.
- Nost-na-Lothion. Translated 'Birth of Flowers'. In "Etymologies" under NO¯- 'beget' occurs Noldorin form noss 'house', example Nos Finrod 'House of Finrod'. In BolT 1 under Duilin, appears nos 'house' as well as related forms nosta- 'be born', nost 'birth; blood, high birth; birthday', and nôs 'birthday'. Nost appears only in this citation and the name Nost-na-Lothion, none of the 'birth' forms appears later, so it is not at all clear that Tolkien would have considered it still valid. But no other words meaning "born" or "birth" are given by Tolkien, so this might still stand.

FG-33
Tarnin Austa, the Elvish name for the festival "Gates of Summer". Neither of the elements appears in extant later Sindarin. But there is also no conflict. (The place name Tarn Aeluin is a mixed form in which tarn is the English word meaning 'small mountain lake'.) Sindarin tarn meaning 'gate' might exist. Austa is not impossibly an alternate name for 'summer' alongside laer. Can be dropped as uncertain.

FG-34
Gloomweaver to Ungoliant

FG-34
Legolas Greenleaf to Laegolas


Of Tuor and his coming to Gondolin

RS-TCG-01
Letter k in the phrase Anar kaluva tielyanna! and the name Elemmakil to be changed to c following JRRT's decision, after the writing of this manuscript but before actual publication of LR, to always use c in Elvish in Latin latter transcriptions of Elvish words and names (except it would seem for names of the Valar (Melkor, Tulkas, Kementári).

RS-TCG-02
Echoriath to Echoriad per The War of the Jewels (HoME 10), "The Wanderings of Húrin". Warning: I have NO explanation for this change!

RS-TCG-03
Possibly remove the words I have underlined from the following passage:
They are the folk of Thorondor, who {dwelt once even on Thangorodrim ere Morgoth grew so mighty, and} dwell {now} in the Mountains of Turgon {since the fall of Fingolfin}.
Christopher Tolkien has a note on this passage which concludes:
In all probability the conception of Thorondor's dwelling at first upon Thangorodrim, which is found also in an early Silmarillion text, was later abandoned.
In particular Christopher Tolkien points out that in the chapter "Of the Ruin of Beleriand" in QS77 Thorondor is already described as having "his eyrie among the peaks of Crissaegrim" when he rescues Fingolfin's body. Therefore, if Thorondor had changed his dwelling, it must have been before before Fingolfin's death, not after.
Also, at the beginning of the earlier chapter "Of the Noldor in Beleriand" there has been reference to the vale of Tumladen being surrounded by "a ring of mountains tall and sheer, and no living thing came there save the eagles of Thorondor." This suggests that even then Thorondor's eagles dwelt in those mountains. But perhaps only some did.
But before the breaking of the Siege and death of Fingolfin it is difficult to find any point where "Morgoth grew so mighty" that Thorondor felt he had best remove himself from Thangorodrim for that reason.
Thorondor might have moved after Dagor Agloreb, the Glorious Battle, which was indeed a great victory for the Noldor, but could have proved less happy for Thorondor when "fire came from fissures in the earth, and the Iron Mountains vomitted flame."
We could restore the phrase "dwelt once even on Thangorodrim" and the word "now" and leave vague when and why Thorondor changed his dwelling.
That is currently my preference on the principle that if you don't have to remove it, then keep it.
It seems to me to be equally valid to remove "ere Morgoth grew so mighty" and "now" and "since the fall of Fingolfin" from Voronwë's speech, or to remove "from Crissaegrim" from the QS77 account. In the late LQ 1 and LQ 2 manuscripts Tolkien often did correct word-forms without properly correcting the story, while "Of Tuor" is a fully considered revision and a full account (not a summary) to which in every other respect all later material is brought into accord. (I may say that it also seems more sensible that Thorondor would fly a short distance from an eyrie on Thangorodrim or the Iron Mountains to the battlefield then all the way from Crissaegrim. What tidings would have come to him in time that he would know to make that flight?)

RS-TCG-04
In note 13 to "Of Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin" Christopher Tolkien notes that his father had indicated elsewhere that Turgon maintained a secret refuge on the Island of Balar, but later rejected that idea. The reason for this note is Voronwë's account that Turgon had sent a few folk to Sirion's mouth who had built some ships and established lonely dwellings on the Isle of Balar.
But there is actually no contradiction here. Though JRRT rejected the idea that Turgon founded a permanent refuge on Balar and that Círdan's people later mingled with Turgon's people there, none of his published writings oppose a settlement on Balar during Turgon's failed attempt to build seaworthy ships. That is all that Voronwë's account mentions. He says nothing that even suggests that the settlement was more than temporary. The reference should be kept unchanged.



[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: antoine2 ]

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: antoine2 ]

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: antoine2 ]

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: antoine2 ]

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: antoine2 ]
-moderator note-
please Note I edited the Title of the thread to reflect a splitting up of the sections of FoG into their own threads so they do not become an unmanagable sprawl of corrections and counter corrections.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[antoine2]

7 names of Gondolin

FG-7-01
Gondost, Stone City

FG-7-02
Gondothlimbar City of the dwellers in stone

FG-7-03
Gondolin, Stone song

FG-7-04
Gwarestrin Tower of the Guard

FG-7-05
Garthoren, Fenced Fort

FG-7-06
Loth, Flower

FG-7-07
Loth-en-laden, Lily of the plain
The prose could be rendered:
but those who love me most greatly /*Lay , saying [Tirion] is born again,*/ call me Loth, for like a flower am I, even {Lothengriol, the flower} /*Lay {Loth-a-ladwen} [Loth-a-laden], the Lily*/ that blooms on the plain
I think Loth-a-ladwen is intended to mean the flower we call Lily-of-the-Valley, used metaphorically of Gondolin, whence the translation "Lily of the Plain" which would be the literal meaning of the Elvish name. Since this translation appears in "The Lay of the Fall of Gondolin" it should be used as the most up-to-date, as well as agreeing with the original BoLT entry Lósengriol in the Appendix to BoLT 2 as 'flower of the vale or lily of the valley'. Possibly merge the information from the Lay which reads:
Loth, the Flower, they name me, saying 'Côr is born again, even in Loth-a-ladwen, the Lily of the Plain.'

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: antoine2 ]

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[antoine2]

Some informations about this ...

The following symbols are used:
[ ] Material added
{ } Material deleted.
/* */ Material inserted from secondary source.

When we put KO near a suggested change it s because we reject this change.


Antoine

Trois pour les Rois d'Elfes sous le ciel d'azure,
Sept pour les Seigneurs Naîns dans leurs demeures de pierre,
Neuf pour les Hommes mortels destinés au trepas,
Un pour le Seigneur des Tenèbres sur son sombre trone,
Dans le pays de Mordor ou s'étendent les ombres.
Un Anneau pour les gouverner tous, un Anneau pour les trouver,
Un Anneau pour les amener tous et dans les tenèbres les lier
Au pays de Mordor ou s'étendent les Ombres.

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: antoine2 ]

[lindil]

Ok begining my humble attempts to grapple w/ this.

first off, there are a number of links to various revisions, I am using the latest one in the sept 22 thread entitled Antoine and Co.'s Fall of Gondolin [ w/ UT Tuor] of the Translations from the Elvish forum. it took me a good bit of time to sort out the many texts in the private forum so just in case anyone lse felt confused about where to start or what version was being commented on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FG -16 - is everyone agreed on Ork/s [replacing the published Orc/s]?

While I agree on most princciples [not the aesthetic ones] we will be departing from the LotR.

FG 23 So JRRT changed -iath to iad in a
late[r] note, What exactly are the implications for *Doriath* then?

FG - 31 remove

Fg 34 is a def improvement [ to me at least] are we ruling out a Q or S replacemnet form of 'greeleaf' ?

I hope to tackle the RS TCG - o2 section tomorrow, if not I will aim for sunday.

Maedhros - is it possible for you to insert the section markers [ FG-M-04 for instance] in your version? that would make it far more usable for editing.

[Tirinvo]

Firstly, i believe Legolas was Silvan for 'greenleaf', so the Quenya or Sindarin would be a redundancy, like saying Arwen Evenstar Undómiel, not to mention, if i remember correctly, JRRT never referred to Legolas as 'Legolas Greenleaf', that might have been a CT mistake. Also, why 'Laegolas'?;

Secondly, Doriad(i guess) would be the correct way considering the preference of JRRT; and

Thirdly, ork(s) logically would be correct, but consider that maybe Tolkien put a little Elvish influence(such as Celeborn), i doubt it, but it is something to consider.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Tirinvo ]

[lindil]

If it using the -iad really turns Doriath --> daoriad, then I vote no, for any iad changes as I see this as already a fixed element in my LotR index Doriath appears 2X, so I see it as yet another case [ like Celboern as teleri] of JRRT forgetting/ not considering the textual ramifications. [and ... just doriad sounds lame]
So I guess I am voting no for any iath [--> iad changes [ Echoriath, Doriath, etc all should stay -iath]

As for the Legolas change somewhere way back in the jallanite era we covered it pretty intensly w/ out [ in my opinion resolution] I was of the opinion that like mechanical dragons and scores of balrogs, Legolas greenleaf would not have lasted, so any feasible and justifiable name change was an improvement. I met some resistance on that, but it was left an resolved issue. as for the actual justifying it linguistically, perhaps Aiwendil or Antoine can explain, I am dashing off for now, but if it remains un-answered till tonight I wll try and dig it up. BoLT Fog has some good info in the back notes if I recall.

I see your point about greenleaf = redundancy, but Ido not think L. greenleaf appearing in BoLT has anything to do w/ CRT editorializing. perhaps I misunderstand.

btw Tirned it is great to have another activemember here, W/ aiwendil, yourself, antoine and Maedhros [all recently invoved] we have a good nucleus to work with. [sorry if I forgot anyone!]

as for the orc/k thing we were close to having a member poll before, and unless there is an overwhelming consensus either way we should do it up on the TftE forum.

[Aiwendil]

FG -16 - is everyone agreed on Ork/s [replacing the published Orc/s]?

I am not. We have here two important principles conflicting: JRRT's latest wish was clearly to go with Ork, but to adopt this would contradict LotR's Orc. I am inclined to keep Orc, though I certainly understand the argument in favor of Ork.

FG 23 So JRRT changed -iath to iad in a late[r] note, What exactly are the implications for *Doriath* then?

Excellent question. I'll have to check the Etymologies on both Doriath and Echoriath and see if they shed any light on this. Just off the top of my head: "Doriath" is I think "(n)dor-" = "land" and "iath" = "fence", "Fenced Land". I believe (though I could very well be wrong) that the "-iath" in "Echoriath" is also from the "fence" root. Even if it is not, we also have "Amon Gwareth" to "Amon Gwared", indicating, it seems, that the change is not in the root but rather a mutation for final -th.

I definitely agree that "Doriath" should remain. This obviously suggests that we retain "Gwareth" and "Echoriath". I can think of one possible explanation for making the change to those latter two and not to Doriath: perhaps final -th became -d only in later Sindarin. It would make sense for "Doriath" to be a more archaic name; it is an old name, first of all, and also it is said that the Sindarin spoken in Doriath was a more archaic form than that spoken elsewhere (the manner of speech that Turin never rid himself of).

as for the actual justifying it linguistically, perhaps Aiwendil or Antoine can explain, I am dashing off for now, but if it remains un-answered till tonight I wll try and dig it up. BoLT Fog has some good info in the back notes if I recall.

I can't recall the details of the argument at the moment. The central problem is that Elves tend not to reuse names. This is not (despite one note of JRRT's that says it is) a fixed rule - cf. Galdor, Haldir. It has been argued that Thranduil would not have named his son after a Noldorin prince. I'm not certain that he wouldn't have. There may be some clever way around this problem relying on the fact that "Legolas" has a double-meaning: "keen-sight" and "greenleaf".

[lindil]

Comments on the proposed RS-TCG changes


Antoine :RS-TCG-02
Echoriath to Echoriad per The War of the Jewels (HoME 10), "The Wanderings of Húrin". Warning: I have NO explanation for this change!

lindil: see above, by myself and Aiwendil re: Doriath. Confliction w/ established [canonical] LotR/RGEO Sindarin.

OK I get it now, The changes listed are direct from jallanite's original list, but without his caveat's [ such as 'questionable Elvish' and 'somewhat dubious substitutions'

[ thanks for pointing that out Aiwendil!]

so most def the -iath --> iad change is not for us.

old comments on Legolas

lindil:looking legolas up in the name list on p.216 I
read:'named by the eldar there [in Tol Eressea]
Laiqalasse'
So he has already been given a 'Quenya' name by JRRT!
there is then a reference to an extended note in I
wherein we read CRT saying
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'the following Note is of
great interest' "Laigolas =green-leaf,......legolast
i.e.keen-sight...but perhaps both were his names as the
gnomes delighted to give similar sounding namesof
dissimilar meaning, legolas-the ordinary form is a
confusion of the 2."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So we are given 2 options that I can see [and I do not
excpect anyone to rely on me for linguistic skills!]

A 'quenya' - Laiqalasse'
or an uncorrupted 'sindarin' - Laigolas Legolast.
a third option could be just Laigolas -


Aiwendil:I don't think 'Laigolas' is usable, at least not if it is meant to represent a different word from 'Legolas'. It seems most probable to me that it was merely an alternate spelling. But anyway, if we accept the etymology of Legolas (as we must), then 'Laigolas' lacks an etymology entirely.

Tar Elenion :Actually there is an etymology of sorts.
"Legolas means 'green-leaves', a woodland name - dialetical form of pure Sindarin laegolas: *lasse [with overscore on the 'e'] (High-elven lasse, S. las(s)) 'leaf'; *gwa-lassa/*gwa-lassie 'collection of leaves, foliage' (H.E. olassie [w/ overscore on 'e'], S. golas, -olas); *laika 'green' - basis LAY as in laire 'summer' (H.E. laica, S. laeg (seldom used, usually replaced by calen), woodland leg)."
Quoted from Letter 211.
"'Technically' Legolas is a compound (according to rules) of S. laeg 'viridis fresh and green, and go-lass 'collection of leaves, foliage'."
Quoted from Letter 297.

'ae' and 'ai' are often interchangeable (eg Aeglos, Aiglos (Gil-galad's spear)).

Aiwendil:What I meant was that 'Laigolas' is really not a different name at all from 'Legolas'. However, 'Legolast' might be used, if it could still represent 'keen-sight' (I doubt if it could, but we might change it to a more suitable form).

lindil:Re: legolast /laigolas etc. I am for anything other than duplicating legolas /legolas greenleaf.
The others are such close variants that perhaps the Quenya version should be used despite it standing out.

Cian <mod note- linguist, does anyone know how to query him still? end mos note>:

I'd go with Laegolas for the "pure Sindarin" that JRRT offers, in the letter quoted by Tar-Elenion.

Laica (LAY) is cognate with S. laeg ~ Helge F. prefers to also honor "older" word laiqua as a viable Quenya word as well. Laiqa shows old "Qenya" orthography.

Tolkien gave the next elements in both High and Grey Elven (S. golas, -olas Q. olassië) as denoting a collection of leaves. Cheers~

later Cian posted:
Re: keeping the form Legolas ~ remember that this form shows Silvan dialect.

Lindil, yes an "updated" situation can (may) be considered:

Quenya laiqua (LAYAK) Sindarin cognate *laeb (Noldorin lhoeb in Etym.)
Quenya laica (LAY) Sindarin cognate laeg (Cf. Q&E WotJ laegel, Laegrim)

The term Laiquendi "Greenelves" was likely originally conceived of as resulting from laiqua+quendi. But laica can also "fit" here, so to speak ~ according to Helge F., the first element may be a reduced form of _laica_ , or prefixed _lai_ may represent only the base itself (LAY), or maybe even laica+quendi > Laiquendi considering rocco+quén > roquen "knight".

Lindil: I vote for Cian's proposal Laegolas
[ unless someone can convince me otherwise]

Aesthetically I would prefer smething even farther removed as I think JRRT would have altogether changed it, but any change is better than recycling legolas, imo.

do we need a legolas vote, along w/ Orc/k vote [ we might as well do them all at once]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

edit - deletion of Rog material, moved to pt 4 - edit
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
on Thorondor: RS-TCG-03

the quote on the thorondor passage above was not Jallanite's last word on Thorondor, in his following post he suggests [ and I concur] "We could restore the phrase "dwelt once even on Thangorodrim" and the word "now" and leave vague when and why Thorondor changed his dwelling."

That is currently my preference on the principle that if you don't have to remove it, then keep it.
this would, I think,leave us with:

They are the folk of Thorondor, who dwelt once even on Thangorodrim , and dwell now in the Mountains of Turgon .

so those are my thoughts on the above.

I will aim for going over the Transition proposals/draft in the next day or 2.

Now that I actually understand the source of the changes [I know Antoine, you mentioned it before in a very early post to me but I failed to put 2 and 2 together]I will try and go back and look over the general changes.

also as for the 'rude bear string harp',I say no go. The whole feel of that does not to me match the UT description wherein we here that Tuor was raised even as the princes of the edain by the Sindar of Mithrim. So if anything he may well have had a nice classical stlye sindarin harp.
I think that is def an ommision JRRT would not have restored even if he had had the BoLT version in front of him.

and come to think of it, I will bet that is why JRRT stopped work on 'Of Tuor and his Coming', because he wanted to in some way reference BoLT for the rest of the story
and he never dug it out of wherever it was hiding.

Should we go ahead and post a poll for ORC/K
and la/egolas ?

It might be easier, I now think if we just deal w/ a couple of things at a time than 100 all at once. Unless I hear a couple of nays in the next few days i will put it up in the both the TftE forum [ the 'binding vote from members' and inthe Silm forum for the general observers.

[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[lindil]

Re:

FG-30
Bad Uthwen [ way of esacape] 2 possibilities:
not using an elvish pjrase at all but simply 'the way of escape'.

Bad Uthwen simply feels and looks like 'Noldorin' not Sindarin.

Another possibility is provided
from Quettaparma Quenyanna [ an extensive English --> Elvish wordlist Aiwendil turned me onto]
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Part....html#Heading6

Way tië (path, course, line, direction, road), #vanda (isolated form Qualvanda "Road of Death" in LT1:264; cf. vand- "way, path" on the same page. Yet vanda means "oath" in UT:317, so this old [TLT] word is doubtful. Use tië, or tëa "road") -TE3/RGEO:67, LT1:264

Escape (vb) usin (glossed "he escapes" in LT:251, but in mature Quenya it would have to mean, if anything, *"I escape" - 1. pers. aorist); ESCAPE (noun) uswë (issue) -LT1:251

If we want to go this route, i have no clue as to the grammar required to put the words together w/ 'of'

I do not know if we have pondered substituting a Quenya for [obsolete] noldorin before. It is out on a limb, but could be at least partially justified in that Idril may well ahve used Q. for a close circle secret.

and we already w/ Elemmacil and Voronwe, quenya names popping up inexplicably in the midst of the general Sindarin and/or sindarinized Quenya.

I will try and give these points the appropriate tags [FG-34 or somesuch] w/ my next post and to collect all of it in order. Sorry for any confusion of presentation.

[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Tar Elenion]

The central problem is that Elves tend not to reuse names. This is not (despite one note of JRRT's that says it is) a fixed rule - cf. Galdor, Haldir.

Please provide citation for the note where JRRT says that the non-reusing of names is a fixed rule.

[lindil]

that quote may have originally come from jallanite. see 'the FoG- A Project' thread, I think.

Also as Aiwendil pointed out to me, all of the points posted by Antoine are in fact from the previous threads compiled by the team. See the mechanical monsters, Bye bye balrogs and FoG ~a project threads.

I do not think Antoine added anything to those [ he could perhaps tell us] but as Aiwendil pointed out to me in a PM, it was a lrge editorial job.

So the quote you are requesting info on was made way back and prob now, no one still holds that opinion.

Hope that make some sense.

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Tirinvo]

I do not know if we have pondered substituting a Quenya for [obsolete] noldorin before. It is out on a limb, but could be at least partially justified in that Idril may well have used Q. for a close circle secret.

Replacing Noldorin with Quenya would, in my eyes, remove a little of the history and evolving culture of the Elves. This is not to say that it is a complete no-no, but rather a taboo. We could toss around the idea of putting both, or add footnotes. Just an idea.

As for the poll(s): sound like a good idea to get an idea on where everone stands(if we don't know already) and put things into perspective, or in a clearer format.

[Aiwendil]

so most def the -iath --> iad change is not for us.

For right now, I guess not. I still don't perfectly understand the change, though. Maybe I'll inquire about it on Elfling.

also as for the 'rude bear string harp',I say no go. The whole feel of that does not to me match the UT description wherein we here that Tuor was raised even as the princes of the edain by the Sindar of Mithrim. So if anything he may well have had a nice classical stlye sindarin harp.

Agreed.

Should we go ahead and post a poll for ORC/K
and la/egolas ?

I'm not so sure the Orc/k matter needs to be cleared up right now; it's really a general change that has nothing to do with the other specific changes in FoG. A Legolas poll might be a good idea, though.

I do not know if we have pondered substituting a Quenya for [obsolete] noldorin before. It is out on a limb, but could be at least partially justified in that Idril may well ahve used Q. for a close circle secret.

I'd rather not coin new terms like this, honestly. It's one thing to update a Noldorin name to its Sindarin equivelant; it's another to start playing around with new roots and such. We could try to reconstruct a Sindarin form based on the Quenya in Quettaparma, getting around the problem of mixing Quenya and Sindarin names. That would, however, not be especially valid. I'm for either going with Bad Uthwen or removing the name entirely.

Please provide citation for the note where JRRT says that the non-reusing of names is a fixed rule.

Okay, I may have been wrong about this one. I may have had in mind this quote from "Glorfindel II" in PoMe: "No other major characters in the Elvish legends as reported in The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings has a name borne by another Elvish person of importance." I may have had another quote in mind that I'm now unable to find.

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[lindil]

Poll is a go. on legolas' name change proposals: I will include all of the debate as it has gone thus far.

Hold off on Orc/k till later

Aiwendil wrote:
I'd rather not coin new terms like this, honestly. It's one thing to update a Noldorin name to its Sindarin equivelant; it's another to start playing around with new roots and such. We could try to reconstruct a Sindarin form based on the Quenya in Quettaparma, getting around the problem of mixing Quenya and Sindarin names. That would, however, not be expecially valid. I'm for either going with Bad Uthwen or removing the name entirely.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

Well as the passages stand now I say we eliminate Rog and leave his Company, as far as that is possible. I will ty and post a draft of this soon.

To be honest, I am still in favor of keeping "Rog". I really don't see any problems with it in terms of later Sindarin; the only possible complaint I can see, that later names shouldn't end in "-g", is countered by the name "Forweg". And if "Balrog" is possible, I don't see why "Rog" shouldn't be.

Regarding "Bad Uthwen": I'm really tempted to keep this, too. "Bad" could, as jallanite suggests, easily be rendered with a circumflex; it would then fit the Etymologies perfectly. Nothing like Uthwen is attested later, but that doesn't mean that it is unsuitable.

[Maédhros]

FG-16
Orc/Orcs to Ork/Orks following Tolkien's stated preference and use in his latest writings.

I would agree with this change althought as Aiwendil points out, it contradicts with LOTR.

FG-34
Legolas Greenleaf to Laegolas

I'd go with Laegolas for the "pure Sindarin" that JRRT offers, in the letter quoted by Tar-Elenion.

I go with Laegolas too.

RS-TCG-01
Letter k in the phrase Anar kaluva tielyanna! and the name Elemmakil to be changed to c following JRRT's decision, after the writing of this manuscript but before actual publication of LR, to always use c in Elvish in Latin latter transcriptions of Elvish words and names (except it would seem for names of the Valar (Melkor, Tulkas, Kementári).

Where is this exactly, and why change the name?

RS-TCG-04
Though JRRT rejected the idea that Turgon founded a permanent refuge on Balar and that Círdan's people later mingled with Turgon's people there, none of his published writings oppose a settlement on Balar during Turgon's failed attempt to build seaworthy ships. That is all that Voronwë's account mentions. He says nothing that even suggests that the settlement was more than temporary. The reference should be kept unchanged.

Agreed.

FG-T-05 KO
horses were brought {(a grey horse for Tuor)} [, one white for Voronwë and one grey for Tuor;]
I may have taken too much liberty in adding that Voronwe's horse was white, but I can't think of any other reasonable way to introduce the fact that Tuor's horse was grey; all other horses used by the Eldar seem to be white. We might simply use: . . . horses were brought, a grey horse for Tuor . . .; I don't know if that's really awkward or not.

Is it really that important to say that his horse was white? Do we even know that? There is a reference that says that elves also used grey horses.
From Of Tuor and his Coming to Godolin:

Thus he stood and spoke no word. Silent upon either hand stood a host of the army of Gondolin; all of the seven kinds of the Seven Gates were there represented; but their captains and chieftains were upon horses, white and grey.

Maedhros - is it possible for you to insert the section markers [ FG-M-04 for instance] in your version? that would make it far more usable for editing.

lindil: I'm not exactly sure what you mean? I'm kind at a loss with the section marker thing?

[Tirinvo]

I'd rather not coin new terms like this, honestly. It's one thing to update a Noldorin name to its Sindarin equivelant; it's another to start playing around with new roots and such. We could try to reconstruct a Sindarin form based on the Quenya in Quettaparma, getting around the problem of mixing Quenya and Sindarin names. That would, however, not be especially valid. I'm for either going with Bad Uthwen or removing the name entirely.

I must agree with Aiwendil on the fact that reconstucting the names would do more harm than good and that it would take focus off more important matters.

Regarding "Bad Uthwen": I'm really tempted to keep this, too. "Bad" could, as jallanite suggests, easily be rendered with a circumflex; it would then fit the Etymologies perfectly. Nothing like Uthwen is attested later, but that doesn't mean that it is unsuitable.

I think that is very true. It does not mean it is a complete compatibility, though.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FG-T-05 KO
horses were brought {(a grey horse for Tuor)} [, one white for Voronwë and one grey for Tuor;]
I may have taken too much liberty in adding that Voronwe's horse was white, but I can't think of any other reasonable way to introduce the fact that Tuor's horse was grey; all other horses used by the Eldar seem to be white. We might simply use: . . . horses were brought, a grey horse for Tuor . . .; I don't know if that's really awkward or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Is it really that important to say that his horse was white? Do we even know that? There is a reference that says that elves also used grey horses.

I believe that JRRT had his own purposes for that detail, maybe not. Notwithstanding, I think that this detail must stay, relevant or not.

As for the orc/k situation:
We could either take care of it now and not have to worry about it later, or we can put it off and concentrate on the more important matters at hand. I go for the latter.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Tirinvo ]

[lindil]

remember folks please put your votes re: legolas in the private forum.
If anyone who considers themselves an active member has not been given the passwords please make sure you have signed up w/ the project as per the thread
" An intro to the forum and project" and then PM me.

[Aiwendil]

Where is this exactly, and why change the name?

While I'm not aware of any explicit note (though there may be one), all of Tolkien's writings show a change from 'k' to 'c' in Quenya beginning toward the end of the 1940s. This is not a change to the Quenya at all, merely to the Roman alphabet representation of Quenya; presumably he though the 'k' looked 'uncouth' and he preferred a more Latin-looking 'c'.

Is it really that important to say that his horse was white? Do we even know that?

This was a grave error that I have thoroughly repudiated. I thought at the time that the TO, the outline I was using for much of the transition, needed expansion here. I was wrong. This change has already been revoked and does not (I think) appear in the draft.

[lindil]

Please note the re-organization of the entire thread " Revised Fall of Gondolin".
It has been divided into 4 parts for a couple of what I hope are practical reasons.

the foremost is so that we can finalize [ this phase at least] our discussions and decisions for each section of FOG before moving onto the next. This I am thinking can also aid us by cosolidating all questions that must be voted on into a "section 1 [or 2 or whatever section] poll.

If anyone has comments re: all of this post em here or PM me.

point 2 is that I am hoping that each of us will move over any comments we may have made regarding the transition sections to the RFoG pt. 2 thread.

I can do it by cutting and pasting but I would like each person's comments to be under their own name to minimize confusion.

The section markers "FG-T-01" or "FG-T-13" or
any FG-T-xx indicates that the passage under question is from the transitional section which will have to weave FoG and UT together. Please move all of your comments on these setions to Prt 2

Thanks - I hope all of this snipping and shuffling will create a smoother flowing project, but I apologize for any intervening chaos.

lindil

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[lindil]

OK back to the texts.

I was reading back over the Principles of editing thread [ and I will need to do it a few more times] but one thing everyone but me [almost everyone] seems to agree on is not substituting any Quenya for Sindarin names, as in
Laiqalasse for Legolas or a quenya Way of Escape, etc. So I will abide by that. I imagine at the least it would create a minor uproar in what might be an otherwise favorable review from the ELF community.

As for Bad Uthwen and Rog, I have serious problems with them as they, as I have said before stand out like sore thumbs. They look and feel like Lost Tales Elvish not mature [LotR and later] Elvish.

Now this is clearly trading into the area of editing principles, and is one area where I do not think any serious consensus was reached the Principles thread.

I know Aiwendil and I have polar views on this, though we see eye to eye on virtually all else, so I suppose a vote is the best way to handle it.

What does everyone think?

How far [if at all] should 'aesthetics' play a part. I use the word to describe things like Rog. As a principle it will come far more heavily into play if there is a stylistic editing phase. But for now there are a few things such as the 2 names in question which to my eyes and ears do not seem/feel like any Elvish in the LotR and beyond Phase.

I will of course abide by the group on this but I wonder of it would be best to vote on the use or not [ and limitations] of Aesthetics/ Archaisms sooner rather than later and then be able to get on w/ things.

Other than those 2 points I am w/ Aiwendil and I think Tirinvo on all changes proposed.


I say we hash these points out to our satisfaction and then move on to pt. 2

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Tirinvo]

as i have stated my opinions on these subjects before, so shall I again: Rog seems to be odd, yes, but that is not to say that it could not stay, or if that is the soul icon of another language, yet I do not quite remember all the laguages JRRT created.

[lindil]

I propose leaving Rog aside till pt 4 when we must deal w/ the battle. He may not survive that anyway. [ no pun intended].

That leaves I think only Bad Uthwen.

I will try and read up tomorrow in Maedhros new version as to wether using English is acceptable.

Otherwise if no one else has comments or proposals are we ready to start on pt 2 ?

[Aiwendil]

I submitted the -iad question to Elfling and a very obvious point that we'd missed was made: the changes from Gwareth to Gwared and Echoriath to Echoriad cannot imply a change from Doriath to Doriad, because _Doriath_ appears in "The Wanderings of Hurin" alongside _Echoriad_. This is, then, not a universal change from final "th" to "d". I suppose it must merely be two independent changes to the specific names "Echoriath" and "Gwareth".

In light of this, I think we probably should use "Echoriad" and "Gwared".

[lindil]

Weird but OK I guess. I suupose I will look up the Wanderings of Hurin footnotes and see what CRT says.


At least Elflingites responded to this one though.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[lindil]

I looked in 11 for CRT's notes [#27 p.302] and he only says that the Wandering of Hurin [Echoriad] is textually much later than the later Of Tuor [Echoriath].

Suprisingly brief for CRT!

[Aiwendil]

Suprisingly brief for CRT!

I find his brevity in some places in XI and XII quite frustrating. I suppose we can forgive him though; he was just nearing the end of a truly monumental task (one that had occupied him for about 20 years!)

[Eruhen]

A little question about Bad Uthwen: could we not just use either English or Quenya, instead of the "Noldorin" that is in the BoLT? Now, I know that everyone seems to hate using Quenya, but, could we not use Quenya, seeing as Gondolin was the last place where Quenya was actually spoken as a living vernacular. Understand, everyone, that I am jumping into this with both feet and I hope that I have my facts straight. I have a history of not having my facts right, so I'm ready for criticism. Bring it on, fools!!!!!

[lindil]

I am for English over Bad Uthwen, quenyaization of Sindarin has little support though it seems to be growing : ).

Bad Uthwen fits into the problem category for me.

Aiwendil's #4 category from the laegolas thread.

I think using the way of escape is much preferable.

[Aiwendil]

I'm torn between leaving Bad Uthwen in (with a circumflex over the a) and dropping it entirely. I do not favor trying to replace it with Quenya. I am not adamantly against Quenyanization in general, but I tend to view it with skepticism and I definitely don't think it's appropriate here. There are several reasons for this:

1. Only a very few Gondolin-related names were changed to Quenya in later years by JRRT, and none of these was (as far as I recall) a place name.

2. I'm pretty sure that Quenya was not used in daily speech in Gondolin. There is a passage in the Grey Annals saying that Quenya was retained in daily use in Gondolin, but this is struck out. This seems to be associated with the change in the Grey Annals whereby the population of Gondolin went from being mainly Noldor to being a mix of Noldor and Sindar. There is some room for doubt here, since in the Late Writings in XII, there is mention of Gondolin being mainly Noldor. This is usually assumed to be a mere slip of the pen.

3. My main problem with Quenyanization: it's difficult. It's no easy matter to come up with Quenya equivelants of Gnomish names. Usually the best we can do is to come up with three or four possibilities. Where are we then? We're forced to choose one more or less arbitrarily. In short, there's a lot of room for error in this kind of translation, and there can never be a lot of justification for the final choice.

[Maédhros]

How is the mole sable thing is going to be addressed?

[Aiwendil]

How is the mole sable thing is going to be addressed?

I don't see any pressing need to change it. I admit that it seems just a bit out of place, but not, I think, sufficiently so to justify its elimination. It would, at any rate, be odd to retain such detail on all the other captains, and let Maeglin's company go nameless and bannerless.

[Eruhen]

Right now, if I had to make a choice, I would say going with either "Way of Escape" or, if by some freak chance, people approved using something like "Tië Leryalo" (Path of Freedom), I would go with that.

Overall, I really do agree with not Quenyaizing names if we can avoid it. I just like to show other paths (no pun intended), even though they do usually get struck down.

I, however, definitely do not want to keep Bad Uthwen unaltered. Something needs done, and even though I lean toward the English, if a consensus was reached for dropping the name entirely or changing it to Sindarin through the Etymologies, if would go with it.

As it stands now, I would as we should go with "the Way of Escape".

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Eruhen ]

[Aiwendil]

I would definitely not support _Tie Leryalo_ for the Way of Escape. It (or any other Quenyanization) is simply too much liberty to take with the name. Neither _tie_ nor _leryalo_ is related to either _bad_ or _uthwen_ etymologically; further, the meaning of the second element would be changed from 'escape' to 'freedom'. There can be no justification for that.

Not that I think it's a bad translation - rather, this will be a problem in any attempt to give it a Quenya name.

I wonder if someone could set out the case against _Bad Uthwen_? This is not meant as a challenge; I would honestly like to have the argument against it neatly summed up so that I (and others) can weigh the matter. The main point of contention must, I suppose, be against _Uthwen_; _Bad_ (with a circumflex) is a perfectly valid Sindarin word, and is even given in Etym. Does anyone know some particular reason that _Uthwen_ should no longer be valid?

[Tirinvo]

The Bâd Uthwen choice would propose the least change from the origional yet the Quenya would provide the a logical definition, though the Bâd Uthwen does provide that Etymological feel that does the job. Objectional as I try to be, Bâd Uthwen is my choice, for it is the most unaltered.

[Eruhen]

Tië Leryalo wasn't intended to be the change that I would suggest. It's just the best that I could translate (remotely) the Noldorin into Quenya.

I didn't imagine that my suggestion would stand, but, hey, I think we should just stay with "The Way of Escape" and escape all the problems with Tolkienian languages altogether, by going with the English translation.

[Aiwendil]

Tië Leryalo wasn't intended to be the change that I would suggest. It's just the best that I could translate (remotely) the Noldorin into Quenya.

Understood. My objection isn't to that name in particular. Rather, the fact that such a name is, in all likelihood, the best we can do as far as a Quenya translation goes indicates that a Quenya translation is not the best option.

[lindil]

It being current with the Eytm. is a strong point in it's favor.

I would ask this of Eruhen and Aiwendil and any others that feel competent to answer - I recall CRT saying that Eytm was updated through the early phases of the LotR.

So that being the case, how obsolete are many of the entries when compared to LotR/ RGEO Elvish?

What I am driving at is - if the Etym. supports Bad Uthwen or any other word not found in later writings - how indicitative is that of it still being harmonious with 'mature Quenya/Sindarin'?

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

I would ask this of Eruhen and Aiwendil and any others that feel competent to answer - I recall CRT saying that Eytm was updated through the early phases of the LotR. So that being the case, how obsolete are many of the entries when compared to LotR/ RGEO Elvish?

I feel only minimally competent to answer, but I'll try.

This is (of course) not a simple question. The Etymologies were apparently begun around 1937, making them roughly contemporary with QS. They were evidently worked on through 1938 but with decreasing frequency; some work was done simultaneously with the few chapters of LotR, but by a year or two later they had been abandoned.

The question of the date is of course not the only one that needs to be considered. I think it is reasonable to say that Tolkien's languages changed less between 1937 and 1973 than they did between 1914 and 1937. The real question is: how closely does the Elvish given in the Etymologies resemble that of the LotR-era (when bits of Elvish were first put into print, and therefore "fixed")? To give a short answer to a long question: there is a fairly close resemblance. There are, of course, significant differences. I'm not an expert and I cannot provide a catalogue of these differences. Things like grammar were constantly fluctuating.

However, in two more important ways (for us), Etymologies-era Elvish was, I think, quite similar to later Quenya and Sindarin. These are phonology and etymology. Most of the Noldorin words given in Etym. are perfectly valid later Sindarin from a phonological viewpoint. Of course, this can only be asserted as far as we know the rules of later Sindarin phonology! There are, though, few definite phonological differences. The other close resemblance (though perhaps a little less close) is in etymology. Most of the roots given in Etym. appear to be valid later on. Working in the other direction, I'd say at least a good 50 percent of attested later Quenya or Sindarin words appear to come from roots given in Etym.

I am, as I have said, not an expert. I may have erred in my above assessment. If so, I welcome correction.

So, what does this mean for Bad Uthwen? In my opinion, it makes Bad (with circumflex) about 95 percent valid. The question is Uthwen, which does not appear in the Etym. This does not mean that it had ceased to exist in 1937; Etym. is nowhere near a comprehensive etymological dictionary. It does mean, however, that we have no evidence for the existence of a word uthwen later than the Lost Tales. On the other hand, there is, as far as I know, nothing to suggest that it was not valid later.

The question then is this: in the absence of later evidence, do we consider Lost Tales era word valid or invalid (unless someone can provide evidence against "uthwen")? It is my opinion that we should let it stand. That is, after all, what we have provisionally decided to do with, for instance, Gwarestrin. I could see a case being made, though, that we should err on the side of not erring (if you take my meaning). That is, in questionable situations we should drop the term rather than including a word that may be questionable.

The answer then: undecided (as usual).

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Aiwendil]

I think that if we want to move this project along we should probably go for a vote (or a decision of some kind) on Bad Uthwen soon.