*A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin*

[lindil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeker of the Straight Path
Posts: 609</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
I have been giving a fair bit of thought to this one for a while and in a sense I think the FoG may have the most to gain from a reworking spanning books 11, 1v,v, UT and 77

I propose:
a] using the UT coming of Tuor for the first section possibly begining to incorporate the older versions in the delivering of the message of Ulmo.
b]using 77 / 11/ 1v and v for the remainder - the most interesting aspect would be incorporating the lost tales [11] material for the battle and flight
--- this would entail updating names, eliminating inconsistencies [mechanical dragons], excess balrogs and such deleting any passages that are too stylistically painful.

In this tale more than any other from lost tales I think there is much text that is still servicable.

Since there are several new folks on board since the last struggling attempt at a group effort I thought I would put this out there.

I suggest several possible levels of involvment:

~~Full-scale involvement and full - vote
~~~Involvement in a specific aspect for instance updating the names of the many leaders of the houses and other elvish words. full vote in this area and review/recommendations [ no vote ] in other areas.
~~~Literary review, no obligation/commitment to write but willing to proofread/ and offer suggested ammendments - vote on areas of ammendment, input [ no vote ] on other area's.
~~~peanut gallery <img src=smile.gif ALT=" [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]"> - can review/ offer input no vote on final outcome.

as to the further details see some of the older postes such as the locked thread of DoV and literary considerations .

Any takers or questions?



</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000076>lindil</A> at: 6/9/01 6:52:03 pm


[ February 19, 2003: Message edited by: lindil ]

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 18</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
A project ? - revising the Fall of Gondolin

And how will it be decided into which of the above categories each of us falls? I'd be interested in contributing somehow - I'd be glad to write a portion of it, if my services are required, and a full vote would be most appreciated.

As for how to integrate UT with II: I don't think it's necessary to alter any of the &quot;later Tuor&quot;; I would have a mild objection to that on the principle that it was his latest writing on the subject, and is fully consistent with the rest of the Silm. canon. I agree that 11 can be brought into harmony with it, but I think it will require a little more tinkering than just updating names and eliminating mechanical dragons and such.

I too have given this some though; it seems to me that one of the weakest links is right at the point of transition from UT to 11. To begin with, we have not only a huge gap in style, but also a huge gap in fullness of the narrative. As detailed a story as FoG is, it is not as detailed as the later Tuor. Complicating the matter a little is the existence of a few notes on the continuation of the narrative in UT.

I would humbly suggest that this problem could be fixed by as little as one page of semi-creative writing, covering Tuor's meeting with Turgon. The suggestions in the notes from UT could be followed, and the text of 11 gradually moved into. I know that there's a general resistance to altering Tolkien's words - a principle I agree with - but I think that here, there is far more to be gained than could be lost.

</p>

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 16</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ? - revising the Fall of Gondolin

I don't think the archaic language in the Lost Tales version of the Fall of Gondolin should be altered. Rather, start a new chapter at that point.

A scribe is now introducing into the work a different source, one more archaic, the old classic Fall of Gondolin which cannot be touched.

(Of course I have done a lot of reading of medieval English literature, and perhaps don't feel the contrast in style as much as many readers.)

The mechanical dragons unfortunately are part of the very life of the Fall of Gondolin, one of its points of distinction. Removing them would gut the work. I can see changing them to real dragons in a few cases. But leave the style of the story alone!. There's no point in letting consistancy of style and coherence with the rest of the work reduce such good writing and a unique vision to watered-down blandness. This is the real thing, not to be thrown away because of tension with some summaries, or because some editor cannot appreciate Tolkien's style here. Changes should be minimal.

The multitude of Balrogs isn't hard to manage, though. In most cases they can be replaced by a single Balrog at the point in the tale with no harm to the account.

A major problem is the mention of Legolas, since we are elsewhere told Elves do not reuse names. He actually could be the Legolas of The Lord of the Rings. Not that I believe it. Galdor can be the Galdor of the Havens in The Lord of the Rings with no problems.

</p>

[Voronwe]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 240</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ? - revising the Fall of Gondolin

The problem, though, is that if Tolkien had ever finished the later Tuor he would almost certainly have taken the mechanical dragons out. In fact, he'd probably have written the Fall of Gondolin again from scratch without even referring to the lost tale. It's just such a shame he never completed 'Of Tuor and his coming to Gondolin'.

But I suppose we have to work with what we have. And what we've got is the 'later Tuor' from UT, the brief account in the Quenta (the basis for the 77 chapter) and the Fall of Gondolin itself, the first Lost Tale Tolkien ever wrote.

If we're going to use the Later Tuor at all, we'll have a significant style change when it ends whatever we choose to put after it, without resorting to creative writing. I think we have three options if we want to use only existing texts - either a very short account similar to the one given in 77, or the 'later Tuor' with the modified FoG taking up where it leaves off, or else the 'later Tuor' followed by a rather disappointingly brief account of the city's fall.

I think it would be interesting to at least attempt to revise the Fall of Gondolin text to bring it into line with Tolkien's later ideas. I'm not even sure if it's possible, but someone should perhaps give it a shot.


-Voronwë
<font size="2">Down the sunlit breath of Day's fiery death
He sped from Westerland.</p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 106</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ? - revising the Fall of Gondolin

--------------------------
Quote:
The multitude of Balrogs isn't hard to manage, though. In most cases they can be replaced by a single Balrog at the point in the tale with no harm to the account.
----------------------------

The problems with the Balrogs in FoG are several. The Balrogs (which are not Maiar in this Tale) there are too many and too many are slain. This makes them much weaker than later conceived. Only two Balrogs are slain in the later accounts of the fall of Gondolin, Ecthelion slays Gothmog and Glorfindel slays an unnamed Balrog. Possibly replace the multitude of Balrogs with the 'Boldog' type spirits from Morgoth's Ring.

----------------------------
Quote:
A major problem is the mention of Legolas, since we are elsewhere told Elves do not reuse names. He actually could be the Legolas of The Lord of the Rings. Not that I believe it. Galdor can be the Galdor of the Havens in The Lord of the Rings with no problems.
----------------------------------

Actually we are not told that, and there are cases of the Elves reusing names (Rumil for example, or Finwe naming all of his sons Finwe). JRRT refers to having 'merely a reduplication of names' which seems to indicate it is not a big deal. Writing of Glorfindel he says 'the repetition of so striking a name is possible though not credible' . See PoME 'Last Writings' for JRRT's statements.




Tar-Elenion--------------------- I will come with Fire and Sword, and put your cities to the Torch, your men to the Blade, your women and children in Chains</p>

[lindil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeker of the Straight Path
Posts: 622</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ? - revising the Fall of Gondolin

Aiwendil posted:


And how will it be decided into which of the above categories
each of us falls?
Lindil: by each person.
a side note to clear any confusion that may exist or arise: unfortunately I wear the dual hats here of moderator and participant, oftimes chief instigator [by default - not design]. But in terms of any group project[s] I am a reg. joeseph schmo! no one will be banished from the group or slandered because I don't agree or some such.


Aiwendil posted:I'd be interested in contributing somehow - I'd
be glad to write a portion of it, if my services are required, and
a full vote would be most appreciated.

lindil: your on. <img src=smile.gif ALT="">


Aiwendil posted:
As for how to integrate UT with II: I don't think it's necessary
to alter any of the &quot;later Tuor&quot;; I would have a mild objection to
that on the principle that it was his latest writing on the
subject, and is fully consistent with the rest of the Silm. canon.

lindil: I was not suggesting it [altering the UT Tuor] I did mention that work will have to be done to meld the transition of later Tuor into 77/IV/II in the delivering of the message as we have scraps of notes and full versions w/ much conflict of details.So something will have to give here , I have not studied that particular transition enough to offer a guess yet, but I imagine that transition will be darn near the first order of business.

Aiwendil posted: I agree that II can be brought into harmony with it, but I think
it will require a little more tinkering than just updating names
and eliminating mechanical dragons and such.

Lindil: &quot; and such &quot; is the operative phrase covering alot of possibilities.As we see from the posts following yours aiwendil there are already differences apparent in how to treat the Lost Tales material.

Aiwendil posted:I too have given this some thought; it seems to me that one of
the weakest links is right at the point of transition from UT to
11. To begin with, we have not only a huge gap in style, but
also a huge gap in fullness of the narrative. As detailed a story
as FoG is, it is not as detailed as the later Tuor. Complicating
the matter a little is the existence of a few notes on the
continuation of the narrative in UT.

Lindil: agreed - see above.
---------------
jallanite posted:

I don't think the archaic language in the Lost Tales
version of the Fall of Gondolin should be altered. Rather,
start a new chapter at that point.

A scribe is now introducing into the work a different
source, one more archaic, the old classic Fall of Gondolin
which cannot be touched.
lindil : that certainly is one approach. I am still at this point leaning towards de-emphasizing the archaisms as much as possible w/in the confines of the working rules, as they to my mind distract one from the tale at this point being rather jarring after the very polished UT Tuor.Much will inevitably remain certaainly enough to tell it is from a more archaic source. and a series of numbers w/in the chapters to differentiate the major sections/stylistic changes might well be a useful thing.
I propose that we will all [who wish that lvl of involvement that is] have to come up w/ some examples of what we mean , I think and then vote on the way we want to handle the II material .
~~~
jallanite posted:
The mechanical dragons unfortunately are part of the
very life of the Fall of Gondolin, one of its points of
distinction. Removing them would gut the work. I can see
changing them to real dragons in a few cases.


Lindil: agreed w/ changing them to real dragons when possible


Jallanite continues:But leave
the style of the story alone!. There's no point in letting
consistancy of style and coherence with the rest of the
work reduce such good writing and a unique vision to
watered-down blandness. This is the real thing, not to be
thrown away because of tension with some summaries,
or because some editor cannot appreciate Tolkien's style
here. Changes should be minimal.

The multitude of Balrogs isn't hard to manage, though. In
most cases they can be replaced by a single Balrog at the
point in the tale with no harm to the account.

Lindil: agreed on the Balrogs [I think! <img src=smile.gif ALT=""> ] I am sure some Balrog scholars will have much more to say about their numbers and such.
Re: style and how much to save and use and how much to cut, as I said above, that will have to be a point of serious discussion and compromise or consensus.

Jallanite continues: A major problem is the mention of Legolas, since we are
elsewhere told Elves do not reuse names. He actually
could be the Legolas of The Lord of the Rings. Not that I
believe it. Galdor can be the Galdor of the Havens in The
Lord of the Rings with no problems.

lindil: I wonder wether we can use a quenya version of Legolas. Galdor I can live with he is such a minor voice in the Rivendell council that it doesn't jar me to see his name again, but Legolas I think will have to be altered somehow. I rather suspect the prof. would not have let that stand.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Voronwe posted :
The problem, though, is that if Tolkien had ever finished
the later Tuor he would almost certainly have taken the
mechanical dragons out.
Lindil : agreed

Voronwe posted : In fact, he'd probably have
written the Fall of Gondolin again from scratch without
even referring to the lost tale.
lindil : you may be right but I imagine such things as the duel w/ Ecthelion and the fall of Glorfindel would have been largely similar.And perhaps much of the battle.
Voronwe posted :
... But I suppose we have to work with what we have. And
what we've got is the 'later Tuor' from UT, the brief
account in the Quenta (the basis for the 77 chapter) and
the Fall of Gondolin itself, the first Lost Tale Tolkien ever
wrote.

L: yep
_______
Voronwe posted : If we're going to use the Later Tuor at all, we'll have a
significant style change when it ends whatever we
choose to put after it, without resorting to creative
writing. I think we have three options if we want to use
only existing texts - either a very short account similar to
the one given in 77, or the 'later Tuor' with the modified
FoG taking up where it leaves off, or else the 'later Tuor'
followed by a rather disappointingly brief account of the
city's fall.

I think it would be interesting to at least attempt to
revise the Fall of Gondolin text to bring it into line with
Tolkien's later ideas. I'm not even sure if it's possible, but
someone should perhaps give it a shot.

Lindil : that's what Aiwendil, myself and whomever else wishes to join on will try and do.

Tar Elenion posted:

Only two Balrogs are slain
in the later accounts of the fall of Gondolin, Ecthelion
slays Gothmog and Glorfindel slays an unnamed Balrog.
Possibly replace the multitude of Balrogs with the 'Boldog'
type spirits from Morgoth's Ring.
lindil: Do we know for sure wether Boldog was a type/title or a proper name?

----------------------------
Quote:
A major problem is the mention of Legolas, since we are
elsewhere told Elves do not reuse names. He actually
could be the Legolas of The Lord of the Rings. Not that I
believe it. Galdor can be the Galdor of the Havens in The
Lord of the Rings with no problems.
----------------------------------
Writing of Glorfindel he says 'the repetition of so
striking a name is possible though not credible' .

lindil: I would say the same is true for Legolas - it is a striking name and one , obviously w/ lots of associations, wheras Galdor is [to my mind] neither striking or seriously evocative.

A great start I will say we have identified the general points to be dealt w/ from the get go. I propose those who wish to- to post a few samples of how they would use the II material [ other than not changing it all] so we can debate the relative merits of each style, while waiting a bit to see if others want to join in.

btw, please feel free to noise this about to whomever you feel might be interested. Due to time constraints I do not get around to other boards as much as some of you may.




Lindil is oft found on posting on the Silmarillion Project at the Barrowdowns and working on yet a 2nd new Elven/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a> 'The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night, and awaken early before dawn- exchanging lore and wisdom such as they possessed , so that they should not fall back into the mean and low estate of those , who never knew or more sadly still, had indeed rebelled against the Light.' </p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000076>lindil</A> at: 6/8/01 7:25:48 pm

[Telchar]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 341</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ? - revising the Fall of Gondolin

jallanite posed splitting the tale after Tuors comming to Gondolin. And then starting a new chapter. I think this is a very good idear! for two reasons: 1 there is a shift in the sourse of material, style ect. - 2 There is the timespan from Tuor entering Gondolin and the FoG proberly some 10 or 15 years in which much else happend in Beleriand. I for one would not have a problem with putting in at chapter or two that was not conserned with FoG - for instance The fall of Nargothrond was during this period of time.

I have not yet read all the has been written in this SILM Canon forum, but have it ever been suggested to make a &quot;Tale of Years&quot; in the end of a SILM Canon - like in the end of LOTR? I think it would be a good idear - though not a easy task.

Conserning the Balrogs - As I remember - in the earlier version Tuor is credited for slaying two (which I think has to be a bandoned) Secondly I remember Michael Martinez stating that JRRT changed his opinion on the number of Balrogs to only seven, which to me seems much more reasonable.

I have not yet HoME XII - is there anything in there on this subject?

I will not comment too closely on this topic before I have reread the full material available - but I intend to do so soon.

<img src=smokin.gif ALT=":smokin"> Telchar



Anar kaluva tielyanna!</p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 107</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ? - revising the Fall of Gondolin

Re: 'Boldog':
In a footnote to the 'Orcs' text in Myths Transformed JRRT writes &quot;Boldog ... is a name that occurs many times in the tales of the War. But it is possible that Boldog was not a personal name, and either a title, or else the name of a kind of creature: the Orc-formed Maiar, only less formidable than the Balrogs.&quot;
I find the Balrog/Boldog comparison interesting. It leads one to wonder what JRRT had in mind when he wrote this. Possibly using Boldogs in place of the numerous Balrogs of the earlier versions?

Re: Legolas
I think what the JRRT was getting at is that the 'Legolas' of Gondolin was not a character of major importance (compared to Glorfindel or the later Legolas). Or perhaps he would have changed the name. Using the Quenya version of Legolas might be inappropriate however, as the Exiles all took names in Sindarin form.

Re Balrog numbers:
There is a marginal (handwritten) note on the typescript copy of the Annals of Aman (ie probably 1958 or later) (see Annal 1099 and the associated end notes) that JRRT wrote stating that 'there were 3 or at most 7 that ever existed'. The earlier versions all have a multitude (at least 1000) Balrogs. The problem with retaining 1000 Balrogs is obvious (there is no way that the Noldor could have held off 1000 Balrogs as they were later conceived). 3 is too few (2 slain in Gondolin and one in Moria, this leaves none to be slain in the War of Wrath). 7 is about right. But off hand this is the only explicit reference to the reduction of the number of Balrogs that I recall. The earlier references (up through about 1952 or so) indicate a multitude.

Tar-Elenion--------------------- I will come with Fire and Sword, and put your cities to the Torch, your men to the Blade, your women and children in Chains</p>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 22</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
A project ? - revising the Fall of Gondolin

Regarding balrog numbers: One problem with the figure of 7 (or 3) is that in one of the LotR appendices it says something about some of the balrogs fleeing Thangorodrim and hiding - I don't have the book at hand right now, so I can't give an exact quote, but as I recall, it pretty clearly suggests at least a decent sized host of balrogs still existing at the War of Wrath; I think the figure of 7 would therefore violate our 1st law of canon: the published material is always right.

I might be remembering this incorrectly, though - it's something to check into, anyway.

</p>

[lindil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeker of the Straight Path
Posts: 624</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
A project - revising the Fall of Gondolin

T E posted:I find the Balrog/Boldog comparison interesting. It leads
one to wonder what JRRT had in mind when he wrote this.
Possibly using Boldogs in place of the numerous Balrogs
of the earlier versions?
Lindil: itis def. interesting and indeed makes &quot;sense&quot; but I am loathe to introduce such a hypothetical substitution that has no textual basis. I feel better eliminating the balrogs that do not play a direct cmbat roll against specific characters. If the group is all in favor of baldogs I can live w/ it however.

T E posted: Re: Leg... Using the Quenya
version of Legolas might be inappropriate however, as
the Exiles all took names in Sindarin form.

true - I had already considered that, but it is ,at the moment the least compromised solution I can thnk of. Some names wee sindaizations more than sindar proper.

I favor the idea of once we have a new text submitting the names that need updating to elfling [along w/ our attempts] and see what this produces. I imagine the results would be fascinating, both the new names and their opinion and responses to what we are doing. Might even get a recruit or 2.

The more I think on the separate chapters for Tuor's Coming and the Fall of Gondolin the better a solution it becomes. We still have to smoothly wind up the delivering of the message, I read over the various texts today in II,IV,V, 77 and UT and it is a tangle .



Lindil is oft found on posting on the Silmarillion Project at the Barrowdowns and working on yet a 2nd new Elven/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a> 'The dwindling Men of the West would often sit up late into the night, and awaken early before dawn- exchanging lore and wisdom such as they possessed , so that they should not fall back into the mean and low estate of those , who never knew or more sadly still, had indeed rebelled against the Light.' </p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 108</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ? - revising the Fall of Gondolin

------------------------------------
Quothe Aiwendil:
Regarding balrog numbers: One problem with the figure of 7 (or 3) is that in one of the LotR appendices it says something about some of the balrogs fleeing Thangorodrim and hiding - I don't have the book at hand right now, so I can't give an exact quote, but as I recall, it pretty clearly suggests at least a decent sized host of balrogs still existing at the War of Wrath; I think the figure of 7 would therefore violate our 1st law of canon: the published material is always right.

I might be remembering this incorrectly, though - it's something to check into, anyway.
-----------------------------------------

Yes, you are misremembering.
The mention you are recalling is from the published Silmarillion: &quot;The Balrogs were destroyed save some few that fled and hid themselves...&quot;, The Voyage of Earendil (this is taken from HoME 5 Conclusion to the Quenta Silmarillion chapter 17 paragragh 16, this is from ca. 1937). In Letter 144 (1954) JRRT says that the Balrogs &quot;...were supposed to have been all destroyed in the overthrow of Thangorodrim... But it is here found [in Moria] that one had escaped...&quot;.
Here JRRT could be implying that only one escaped.

Tar-Elenion--------------------- I will come with Fire and Sword, and put your cities to the Torch, your men to the Blade, your women and children in Chains</p>

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 17</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

[Revised by jallanite 2001.07.22 to add entries Gar Ainur and Nost-na-Lothion into &quot;Questionable Elvish&quot;.]

I've looked through the later part of &quot;The Fall of Gondolin&quot;, beginning from the point where &quot;Huor and His Coming to Gondolin&quot; ceases, and tried to find all name substitutions for an updated text. I've checked corresponding names appearing in QS77 with texts in the HoME series for preferrable forms. I have not bothered with &quot;Entries in the Name-list to the Fall of Gondolin&quot;.

Forms not listed here I believe can stand as given, including Rog (what would we change this to?) and Legolas Greenleaf (let the readers make of him what they will).


<u> STRAIGHTFORWARD SUBSTITUTIONS:</u>

Bansil to Belthil per QS77.

Bronweg to Voronwë. The Quenya form of his name is used throughout in QS and &quot;Huor and His Coming to Gondolin&quot;.

Cristhorn to Cirith Thoronath per QS77.

Eärendel to Eärendil per QS77 and LR.

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

Fountain to Fountains in any reference to Ecthelion per QS77 and &quot;Huor and His Coming to Gondolin&quot;.

Gar Thurian to Garthoren per &quot;The Etymologies&quot; under 3AR-, section GARAT-. The text is:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> GARAT-** Q arta fort, fortress.* N garth : cf. Garth(th)oren 'Fenced Fort' = Gondolin*** distinguish Ardh-thoren = Garthurian.<hr></blockquote> Garthurian now has a different meaing as appears under the stem THUR- where it is an Ilkorin form and applies to Doriath, not Gondolin. The entry reads:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Cf. Ilk. Garthurian Hidden Realm (= Doriath), sc. garð-thurian; Noldorinized as Arthurien, more completely as Ar(ð)*thoren*:* thoren (* tháure¯na¯) pp. of thoro- fence [see 3AR].<hr></blockquote>So in the mature language system Gar Thurian or Garthurian is now a dialectical North Sindarin name for Doriath (with a proper Sindarin counterpart Ardh-thoren) and Garth(th)oren has taken its place as one of the by-names of Gondolin.

Glingol to Glingal per QS77.

Gondothlim to Gondolindrim per QS77.

Gondothlimbar to Gondothrimbar per &quot;The Etymologies&quot; under GOND-, this later form properly rendering the meaning 'City of the Dwellers in Stone' in Sindarin.

Inwë to Ingwë per QS77.

Isfin to Aredhel per QS77.

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 &quot;The Fall of Gondolin&quot; it is the hill that is mean.

Lothengriol to Loth-a-ladwen per The Lay of the Fall of Gondolin in &quot;Poems Early Abandoned&quot; in The Lays of Beleriand (HoME 3).

Malkarauki to Valaraukar per &quot;Valaquenta&quot; published with QS77.

Meglin to Maeglin per QS77.

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.

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

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

Peleg to Huor per QS77 and &quot;Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin&quot;.

Place of the Gods to Place of the Ainur. Tolkien almost entirely drops &quot;Gods&quot; as a English translation in later writings. One would normally change &quot;Gods&quot; to &quot;Valar&quot;, 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. &quot;Place of the Holy Ones&quot; would be a full translation, but is perhaps too cumbersome.

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

Thorndor to Thorondor per QS77 and LR.

Tumladin to Tumladen per QS77.



<u> SOMEWHAT DUBIOUS SUBSTITUTIONS:</u>

Amon Gwareth to Amon Gwared per The War of the Jewels (HoME 11), Part Two The Later Quenta Silmarillion, 12, &quot;Of Turgon and the Building of Gondolin&quot;. Christopher Tolkien notes:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> To this my father made some corrections: Nivrost &gt; Nevrast as in the preceding chapters; Eryd Wethion &gt; Eryd Wethrin; Handir &gt; Huor (see above); and Amon Gwareth &gt; Amon Gwared.<hr></blockquote> Compare the similar and possibly related use of Echoriad instead of earlier Echoriath in &quot;The Wanderings of Húrin&quot;. This needs investigation.

Gnome/Gnomes to Elf/Elves or Noldo/Noldor. &quot;Gnomes&quot; 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 &quot;the Gnomes were exiles at heart, haunted with a desire for their ancient home that faded not.&quot; Then use Noldor.

Salgant to Talagand per &quot;The Eytmologies&quot;. Under the stem ÑGAN-,ÑGÁNAD-*'play (on stringed instrument)' which produces various forms meaning 'harp' or 'harp-playing', is found:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> talagant* harper* (* tyalañgando),*cf. Talagant [&gt; ] of Gondolin [TYAL].<hr></blockquote>Under TYAL- 'play' is:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Cf. tyalañgando¯ = harp-player (Q tyalangan): N Talagand, one of the chiefs of Gondolin (see ÑGAN).<hr></blockquote>
Chrstopher Tolkien adds a note to ÑGAN-, ÑGÁNAD-:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> 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.<hr></blockquote> Talagand was almost certainly Tolkien's planned replacement form for Salgant the lord of the People of the Harp.

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

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.



<u> QUESTIONABLE ELVISH:</u>

Bad Uthwen, the Elvish name of the &quot;Way of Escape&quot;. &quot;The Etymologies&quot; gives:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> BAT-* tread. * báta*: ON bata beaten track, pathway; EN bâd.<hr></blockquote> 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.

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 &quot;Etymologies&quot; 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 &quot;the Place of the Ainur&quot;, so removal creates no problems

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 &quot;Etymologies&quot; 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 &quot;born&quot; or &quot;birth&quot; are given by Tolkien, so this might still stand.

Tarnin Austa, the Elvish name for the festival &quot;Gates of Summer&quot;. 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.



<u> TO BE DROPPED:</u>

Annon, found in the phrase &quot;for such were the words of Annon the prophet of old&quot;. At the least this should be changed to &quot;words of the prophecy of the North&quot;; or &quot;words of the prophecy of Annos&quot; if the place name Annos is to be retained from BoLT. Tolkien never mentions a prophecy of the Fall of Gondolin after BoLT, probably rejecting the motif that the fall of Gondolin by name was part of the prophecy. If the prophecy had been so specific, it is difficult to see why Turgon would be so stupid as to give the name Gondolin to his city.

Bablon, Ninwi, Trui, Rûm found in the phrase: &quot;Nor Bablon, nor Ninwi, nor the towers of Trui, nor all the many takings of Rûm that is greatest among Men.&quot; If we understand the account of the Fall of Gondolin to be taken from the Red Book, then it would have been written before Babylon was founded, even more, Nineveh, Troy, and Rome. Of course it is possible that this phrase could be a note added very long after the Third Age. The phrase might be changed to &quot;Not all the many takings of cities that were greatest among Men&quot;.

</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000212>jallanit e</A> at: 7/22/01 3:07:14 pm

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 23</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

Good work, jallanite, very thorough. One minor point: I don't think we should change Orcs to Orks. Despite Tolkien's later idea about the spelling, it is spelled with a 'c' throughout LotR (and in its one or two appearances in the Hobbit) - I think this is grounds for disregarding the later change, even if it is more trivial than, say, the Galadriel/Celeborn business.

</p>

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 19</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

The spelling Orc or Ork is of course something to be decided for the entire project, not just for one section of it.

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:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Its application (in all Elvish tongues) specifically to the creatures called Orks*** so I shall spell it in The Silmarillion*** was later.<hr></blockquote>And again, at the end of section X:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> 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.<hr></blockquote>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.



</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000212>jallanit e</A> at: 6/10/01 10:53:15 pm

[lindil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeker of the Straight Path
Posts: 633</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

Jallanite, I can but echo Aiwenil's sentiments in agreeing that your compilation is both seemingly [I say only because my linguistic knowledge is so such that I can not readily judge such efforts] comprehensive and extraordinarily well laid out, and rapidly produced.

1&gt;On the matter of Orks, I can go either way - if CRT would have gone ahead and authorized such a change in LotR there would be no question , but in this case we have competing versions of an obviously frequent word:
Ork as JRRT's stated, but unrealized [in a canonical publication] preference; and
Orc as the universal usage in LotR, which we wish to be in harmony with. I agree w/ your historical conclusions re; porc/orc and it's pref. as in Elven,Dwarven etc. As for magick, I fancy that if JRRT knew of the original backing for that spelling he would on principle stick w/ orc!
...but I digress - I think you are right in that the word will have to be voted on.


A few other q's arose in my mind .
2&gt;
If we have a Quenya Voronwe - from a Sin. Bronweg; why not a sindarin Legolas Greenleaf - I do not know if the vocabulary exists to facilitate it - but if so it seems the easiest remedy to the problem. From what we read in UT it seems highly unlikly that Thrandiul would name his Sindarin/Sylvan son after a Noldorin captain [ or at least a captain from a Noldorin City.]

3&gt;It seems that I read re: Rog that JRRT was planning / would have changed the word - if he had ever rewritten the story, which seems to very likely, it is simply to coarse a word for a name in elvish, sounds like an ork name actually! maybe some of the folks at Elfling might have an idea - or even the Vinyar tengwar folks might have read an as yet unpublished solution to the [in my mind] dilemna. I simply can not see using Rog as a proper name for an Elf of Gondolin, and would [sadly] vote for it's elimination if no suitable substitution could be found.

There were a couple of other points I am wondering about, but I will put those off for a day or two.

4&gt; If you [Jallanite] and Aiwendil would send me your email addresses , I have a couple of items reserved for project members which you might find extremely useful. My email can be found by clicking on Lindil and hitting the link on my Public profile [ or you can
post your own email on your pub. profile.

again great work -
are you related to Tar-Elenion? <img src=smile.gif ALT="">




Lindil is oft found on posting on the Silmarillion Project at the Barrowdowns and working on yet a 2nd new Elven/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a> , and http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</A>. and Finrod saith " Therefore Eru,if He will not relinquish His work to Melkor...then Eru must come in to conquer him. </p>

[lindil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeker of the Straight Path
Posts: 637</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

With the excellent paper on th elvish names at hand we have a few different possibilities , I think to consider for the next stage of FoG.
I would like to dismiss the 'each of us taking sections and then edit as a group' approach as it seemed to be a rather miserable failure w/ the Darkening of Valinor.
We could:
A] precede paragraph by paragraph thrpugh LT-FoG incorporating 77,and IV as we go or...
B] create a sectional outline of what each version covers and then precede one section at a time w/ everyone who wants to be a full participant sounding off and voting and non-voting commenters to comment on as we come to decisions.
C] other possibilities ?

Lindil is oft found on posting on the Silmarillion Project at the Barrowdowns and working on yet a 2nd new Elven/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a> , and http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</A>. and Finrod saith " Therefore Eru,if He will not relinquish His work to Melkor...then Eru must come in to conquer him. </p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 109</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

------------------------
Quote:
If we have a Quenya Voronwe - from a Sin. Bronweg; why not a sindarin Legolas Greenleaf - I do not know if the vocabulary exists to facilitate it - but if so it seems the easiest remedy to the problem. From what we read in UT it seems highly unlikly that Thrandiul would name his Sindarin/Sylvan son after a Noldorin captain [ or at least a captain from a Noldorin City.]
------------------------------

I dont have BoLT 2 handy. Which House is Legolas said to be from? If JRRT had kept him I personally think he would have been a Sinda.



Tar-Elenion--------------------- I will come with Fire and Sword, and put your cities to the Torch, your men to the Blade, your women and children in Chains</p>

[Telchar]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 386</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

If I remember correctly he is said to be of the House of the Flower, but I could be wrong.

Anar kaluva tielyanna!</p>

[lindil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeker of the Straight Path
Posts: 641</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

p.189 HB ...led by Legolas Greenleaf of the House of the
Tree.

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 <blockquote>Quote:<hr> 'the following Note is of
great interest' &quot;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.&quot; <hr></blockquote>

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 -

this is different enough to pass my 'aesthet- o'meter'
test <img src=smile.gif ALT="">
other thoughts- please.

-lindil



</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000076>lindil</A> at: 6/13/01 4:18:36 am

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 24</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

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.

</p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 110</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

Actually there is an etymology of sorts.
&quot;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).&quot;
Quoted from Letter 211.
&quot;'Technically' Legolas is a compound (according to rules) of S. laeg 'viridis fresh and green, and go-lass 'collection of leaves, foliage'.&quot;
Quoted from Letter 297.

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

Tar-Elenion--------------------- I will come with Fire and Sword, and put your cities to the Torch, your men to the Blade, your women and children in Chains</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000211>Tar Elenion</A> at: 6/13/01 7:02:54 pm

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 111</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

Has any thought been given to how to divide up the various Houses of the Gondolindrim between the Noldor and Sindar (presuming that the version gone with is that in which there are both Noldor and Sindar therein).

Tar-Elenion--------------------- I will come with Fire and Sword, and put your cities to the Torch, your men to the Blade, your women and children in Chains</p>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 26</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

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).

</p>

[lindil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeker of the Straight Path
Posts: 643</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

Re; the sindar and noldor unless there is text that is somehow suitable for inclusion in the Tale it is I think an academic question - as opposed to a practical one.
where is the source for the comepeting Noldor only/Noldor - Sindar houses. Quendi and Eldar? - Shibboleth? I think it is briefly mentioned in the UT tuor notes.
If we keep Voronwe as given in UT Tuor it seems we are obliged to have Sindar in Gondolin - if not their ' houses'.

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.

Textually [as opposed to specific words] our first question is here and how do we end UT Tuor and start FoG? any thoughts?


I will try and work on an outline of all the major sections of IV,77 and FoG w/ a few notes as to obvious work needing to be done.



Lindil is oft found on posting on the Silmarillion Project at the Barrowdowns and working onthe 2nd Elven/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a>, and Gilthalion's http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</A>. and Finrod prophecieth to Andreth " Therefore Eru,if He will not relinquish His work to Melkor... must come in to conquer him. </p>

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 15</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

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

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

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



</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000317>cian</A> at: 6/29/01 6:07:25 am

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 112</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

--------------------------------
Quote:
where is the source for the comepeting Noldor only/Noldor - Sindar houses. Quendi and Eldar? - Shibboleth? I think it is briefly mentioned in the UT tuor notes.
-------------------------------------

If I am recalling correctly in the original version of FoG (Lost Tales), there were only Noldoli/Gnomes present in Gondolin, there were no Sindar (or rather Ilkorin Elves who later became the Sindar). In the Grey Annals in HoME 5 it only mentions Turgon taking the Noldor to Gondolin (a third of Fingolfin's people). In the GA in HoME 11 (excursus on Languages, And Annal for year 67) the initial writings have Gondolin peopled by the Noldor only. This concept was discarded in rewrites of the passages. Annal 116 says the Sindar out numbered the Noldor in Gondolin. However in the Glorfindel essay in Last Writings (HoME 12) JRRT mentions that Gondolin was peopled almost entirely by the Noldor. I have had debates with some who say that this was JRRT's final conception he was changing this back to the long held original version and is thus 'canon'. I however think it may have just been some fogetfulness on his part (these late writings show a variety of 'errors' attributable to the Professors age and 'memory being no longer retentive'). There is a few lines later the consideration that Glorfindel could have been a Sinda.
In any event Gondolin having a Sinda population is much more consistant overall, though it may necesitate some change to the Lost Tales version.

cian is one of the more knowledgeable 'linguistic' types (at least of those that commonly post on boards on other than the linguistic boards).


Tar-Elenion--------------------- I will come with Fire and Sword, and put your cities to the Torch, your men to the Blade, your women and children in Chains</p>

[lindil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeker of the Straight Path
Posts: 645</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: legolas /Sindar or Noldor/Cian

I re-read the UT Tuor yesterday and as I remembered that Voronwe was 1/2 Sinda &amp;1/2 Noldo is clearly stated by and in the passing through of the gates - the third gate - of bronze was peopled mostly by the Sindar.

T-E has said <blockquote>Quote:<hr>
in Last Writings (HoME 12) JRRT mentions
that Gondolin was peopled almost entirely by the Noldor. I
have had debates with some who say that this was JRRT's
final conception he was changing this back to the long held
original version and is thus 'canon'. I however think it may
have just been some fogetfulness on his part (these late
writings show a variety of 'errors' attributable to the
Professors age and 'memory being no longer retentive').
There is a few lines later the consideration that Glorfindel
could have been a Sinda.
In any event Gondolin having a Sinda population is much
more consistant overall, though it may necesitate some
change to the Lost Tales version.<hr></blockquote>

I think you are right. It is a similar case to the final conceptions of Galadriel, as interesting as they might be there is too much disruption of excellent text to include a final ponderings and drafts that were evidently never considered in the light of the larger Legendarium or in the case of Galadriel of the published LotR/RGEO.

I put forth [in the absence of further evidence] that this conception is firmly enough embedded into the UT text that removing it due to dueling and differently interpreted linguistic texts is counter-productive. The individual linguistic notes are more easily deleted [if they have a place at all] than trying to resettle the question by manipulating the last version of Tuor, which I think has a coherence and majesty of story that is best left untampered with.

Welcome Cian - if you have read the 'Introduction to the forum' thread you may know your participation here is most welcome - I hope we see you regularly here, especially as the thornier linguistic issues come up. Let us know if you wish to be counted as a voting member [in linguistic area's or on the project in general] - there is more re: this in the 'Intro to the Forum &amp; Project ' thread.

A linguistic question re: the legolas name issue- is the Quenya listed in the notes to LT [ I am not sure iif it is in the back or after FoG] under the Legolas entry [that I quoted above] the later version of quenya? I am not looking at Cian and my posts simaltaneously but I think the spelling of the Q. version of legolas differs. Are we translating different roots or is it due to different era's of quenya.









Lindil is oft found on posting on the Silmarillion Project at the Barrowdowns and working onthe 2nd Elven/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a>, and Gilthalion's http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</A>. and Finrod prophecieth to Andreth " Therefore Eru,if He will not relinquish His work to Melkor... must come in to conquer him. </p>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 27</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

Regarding splitting the story into 2 chapters: Regardless of whether we actually do this, I don't think it's a solution to the style problems. That is, IF we break up the story, I think we should do it for reasons of the overall aesthetic sense of the book rather than as sort of a &quot;quick fix&quot; to the problems of splicing together II and UT. For a couple of reasons:

1. Even if we interpose another chapter (which I suppose would be some or all of the Ruin of Doriath/Nauglamir segment), we STILL have a stylistic problem. It'll be little less disorienting for the drastic change in style to occur at a chapter break rather than in the middle of a chapter; and the Lost Tales material will still feel rather out of place in the context of the whole book.

2. We still would have to alter the Lost Tales material to bring it in line with the later story (more on this below), and we'd still have a problem with the transition; there are rough notes for Tuor's riding to Gondolin and his meeting with Turgon in UT, which we'll have to try to work into the FoG narrative no matter where we put the chapter break.

I'm not saying I don't think that Tuor should be two chapters - I'm just saying that doing that wouldn't really solve our problem.

Anyway, I think probably the best way to use the FoG in II (and probably any other stuff from BolT or other early sources that we end up using anywhere) is to first agree on a detailed, canon outline of events, using the latest sources possible (77, X and XI, and sometimes the QS), then to follow the earlier narrative, altering it where we have conflicts. I've worked up sort of a rough outline for Tuor mostly from the 77 and from the Tale of Years in XI. Here it is:

1. The coming of Tuor to Gondolin - directly from UT
2. From notes in UT:
a. Tuor asks the name of the city and is told its 7 names
b. Ecthelion orders the sounding of the signal, and trumpets are blown on the towers of the Great Gate, echoing in the hills.
c. After a hush, they hear far of answering trumpets blown upon the city walls.
d. Horses are brought (a grey horse for Tuor); they ride to Gondolin
e. Description of Gondolin: Stairs up to its high platform, the great gate, mounds of mallorns, birches and evergreens, the place of the fountain, the king's tower on a pillared arcade, the king's house, the banner of Fingolfin
f. Turgon appears, &quot;tallest of all the Children of the World, save Thingol&quot; - description of his white and gold sword in a ruel-bone sheath
g. Turgon welcomes Tuor; Maeglin is seen standing on the right of the throne and Idril is seated on the left.
h. Tuor speaks the message of Ulmo (either in the hearing of all or in the council-chamber)
i. Ulmo's cloak vanishes
j. Explanation of why there is no queen in Gondolin (which I assum means the story of Elenwe dying on the Helcaraxe)
k. Emphasis when Tuor first sees Idril that he had known or even seen few women in his life - most of the women and all the children of Annael's company were sent away south; and as a thrall he had seen only the barbaric women of the Easterlings or unhappy slaves
3. Turgon ponders the counsel of Ulmo and remembers the words spoken to him at Vinyamar, but he is proud and does not heed the warning.
4. Tuor stays and lives in Gondolin
5. After 7 years, Tuor weds Idril and there is a feast
6. Earendil is born
7. Morgoth becomes aware of the region of Gondolin because of Hurin, and bends all his thought to its destruction; Maeglin is lost, taken prisoner by Orcs, and brought to Angband, where he buys his life by making a deal with Morgoth.
8. When Earendil is 7 years old, Morgoth looses upon Gondolin Balrogs, Orcs, wolves, and dragons
9. On a night of festival, the people of Gondolin see a red light in the hills in the north
10. The forces of Morgoth cannot be stayed until they are beneath the very walls of Gondolin
11. The battle (here is where the 77 has the least, and II can be used to fill in a lot of details):
a. Ecthelion fights Gothmog in the square of the King and they slay each other.
b. Turgon's tower is defended by the people of his household until it is overthrown
c. Tuor seeks to rescue Idril, but Maeglin has layed hands on her, and on Earendil. Tuor fights with Maeglin on the walls and casts him far out, and his body strikes the slopes of Amon Gwareth 3 times.
12. Tuor and Idril lead such remnants of the people of Gondolin as they can gather down the secret way; the captains of Angband know nothing of this passage and do not think that any fugitives would take a path north, to the highest mountains and the closest to Angband. Their escape is hidden by the fumes and smoke.
13. In Cirith Thoronath they are ambushed by Orcs and a Balrog. Glorfindel duels with the balrog and both fall into the abyss. Eagles come and drive back the Orcs, and Thorondor bears Glorfindel's body out of the abyss; he is buried.
14. Tuor leads them over the mountains and into the vale of Sirion; they flee southward to Nan-tathren and rest there. Then they make a feast in memory of Gondolin and Tuor makes a song for Earendil (which is found in IV)
15. Idril and Tuor depart from Nan-tathren (presumably with many or most of the rest of the fugitives) and go to the mouths of Sirion; there they meet Elwing and the fugitives from Doriath.
16. Morgoth thinks that his triumph is fulfilled, but by Sirion and the sea the remnants of Doriath and Gondolin mingle
17. Ulmo speaks to the Valar, urging them to aid the people of Beleriand, but Manwe is unmoved.
18. Tuor and Idril depart on Earrame.


</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000320>Aiwendil </A> at: 6/17/01 10:53:22 am

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 114</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

You may wish to add in a '15a' wherein the Exiles from Gondolin are greeted by Elwing and joined to her company at the Havens of Sirion.

Tar-Elenion--------------------- I will come with Fire and Sword, and put your cities to the Torch, your men to the Blade, your women and children in Chains</p>

[lindil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeker of the Straight Path
Posts: 646</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

Regarding splitting the story into 2 chapters: Regardless
of whether we actually do this, I don't think it's a
solution to the style problems. That is, IF we break up
the story, I think we should do it for reasons of the
overall aesthetic sense of the book rather than as sort
of a &quot;quick fix&quot; to the problems of splicing together II and
UT. For a couple of reasons:

1. Even if we interpose another chapter (which I
suppose would be some or all of the Ruin of
Doriath/Nauglamir segment), we STILL have a stylistic
problem. It'll be little less disorienting for the drastic
change in style to occur at a chapter break rather than in
the middle of a chapter; and the Lost Tales material will
still feel rather out of place in the context of the whole
book.

2. We still would have to alter the Lost Tales material to
bring it in line with the later story (more on this below),
and we'd still have a problem with the transition; there
are rough notes for Tuor's riding to Gondolin and his
meeting with Turgon in UT, which we'll have to try to
work into the FoG narrative no matter where we put the
chapter break.

I'm not saying I don't think that Tuor should be two
chapters - I'm just saying that doing that wouldn't really
solve our problem.

Excellent outline, I am very glad you beat me to it.

I have appended a couple of points to T-E 's comment.

from the outline: j. Explanation of why there is no queen in Gondolin
(which I assum means the story of Elenwe dying on the
Helcaraxe)
lindil- yes although I think it best told if it is literarily feasible in the crossing itself.
from the outline: 7. Morgoth becomes aware of the region of Gondolin
because of Hurin, and bends all his thought to its
destruction - 8.
lindil:somewher within 7 and 8 Maeglin is captured by Orks and betrays Gondolin


Tuor makes a song for Earendil (which is
found in IV)
Lindil: I could not find it - what page?



Tar Elenion posted : You may wish to add in a '15a' wherein the Exiles from Gondolin are greeted by Elwing and joined to her company at the Havens of Sirion.


Lindil is oft found on posting on the Silmarillion Project at the Barrowdowns and working onthe 2nd Elven/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a>, and Gilthalion's http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</A>. and Finrod prophecieth to Andreth " Therefore Eru,if He will not relinquish His work to Melkor... must come in to conquer him. </p>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 28</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

I've corrected the omission of Maeglin's capture in my outline, and added a note of the meeting of Tuor and Idril with Elwing. Perhaps the next step is to figure out which sections of FoG to use for each of the items on the outline?

Regarding Tuor's song: It's found in IV, in the 2nd appendix to the Quenta (p. 264 in my copy). Of course, if we use it, we'll correct Ylmir to Ulmo (I don't think this is a problem, since it doesn't change the meter). Some of the details are undoubtedly different from those in UT, but I think that's acceptable - Tuor undoubtedly took a little creative license.

</p>

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 20</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

Changes to my previous posting of names

I have edited my previous posting to include three forms accidently omitted: Indor to Galdor (a definite change), house of the Swan to House of Hador (a dubious change), and Lothlim to Lothrim (a dubious change), since it is better to have all this data in one place.


Explanation of Bronweg to Voronwë

The proper corresponding Sindarin form to Gnomish Bronweg is actually Bronwë per &quot;The Grey Annals&quot; §298, Commentary on &quot;The Grey Annals&quot; §257 in The War of the Jewels (HoME 11) and &quot;The Etymologies&quot; under BORÓN- and WEG-.

In the linguistic situation of the original &quot;Fall of Gondolin&quot; the Gnomish form must have been his &quot;real&quot; name at the time of the story: it is mentioned as his alternate name when he first appears, and the statement that he named himself as Bronweg at the gate of Gondolin simply recognizes that this would be the form of the name he must have used. It is as if I were writing an account of Christopher Columbus, mostly using that form of the name, but were to say at one point, &quot;He introduced himself as Cristobal Colon, a learned navigator, born in Genoa.&quot; But nothing indicates why in &quot;The Fall of Gondolin&quot; this Elf alone should be mainly called by his Qenya name.

In the Silmarillion and Annal texts covering the Tuor story, Tolkien switches to the form Bronweg &gt; Bronwë except for the very last revisions made after he had written &quot;Of Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin&quot;. These are found in &quot;The Grey Annals&quot; §257, §299, and there he reverts again to Voronwë and they in every other way follow all the innovations in &quot;Of Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin&quot;.

Has Tolkien now decided that Voronwë is truly his use name at the time of the tale? Perhaps he had already come to the conclusion, only recorded later, that in Gondolin the speaking of Quenya had been revived. Elenmakil, captain of the Guard, also bears a Quenya name. But Tolkien seems not to have intended to replace all the names with Quenya forms, for Ecthelion reappears from the old tale with a name that we can only interpret as Sindarin under the new linguistic background, and which is listed accordingly as Noldorin in &quot;The Etymologies&quot; under STELEG- and is also identified as Sindarin in a late note in The War of the Jewels (HoME 11) in the chapter &quot;Maeglin&quot; §4. The notes for the continuation of the tale also introduce Turgon, Idril and Maeglin by their normal Sindarin names.

But Voronwë seems very strongly presented as that Elf's use name in &quot;The Coming of Tuor to Gondolin&quot;. The actual form &quot;Voronwë&quot; appears first prophetically from Tuor's mouth and is used several times in the conversation with Elenmakil. A sudden change to Bronwë when the Elf names himself again at the gate of Gondolin would be very hard to account for. Either he should also name himself Voronwë at that point, or Voronwë in the conversations (conducted presumably in Sindarin) with Elenmakil should be changed to Bronwë).

What we can be certain of is that Voronwë was the form Tolkien decided in 1951 to use in the tale, that he kept to it afterwards, and it should be maintained unless extremely good cause can be found to change it. So leave it as Voronwë throughout.




Changes to be Made in &quot;Of Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin&quot;


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).


Echoriath to Echoriad per The War of the Jewels (HoME 10), &quot;The Wanderings of Húrin&quot;. Warning: I have NO explanation for this change!


Possibly remove the words I have underlined from the following passage:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> They are the folk of Thorondor, who <u>dwelt once even on Thangorodrim ere Morgoth grew so mighty, and</u> dwell <u>now</u> in the Mountains of Turgon <u>since the fall of Fingolfin</u>.<hr></blockquote>Christopher Tolkien has a note on this passage which concludes:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> 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.<hr></blockquote>In particular Christopher Tolkien points out that in the chapter &quot;Of the Ruin of Beleriand&quot; in QS77 Thorondor is already described as having &quot;his eyrie among the peaks of Crissaegrim&quot; 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 &quot;Of the Noldor in Beleriand&quot; there has been reference to the vale of Tumladen being surrounded by &quot;a ring of mountains tall and sheer, and no living thing came there save the eagles of Thorondor.&quot; 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 &quot;Morgoth grew so mighty&quot; 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 &quot;fire came from fissures in the earth, and the Iron Mountains vomitted flame.&quot;

We could restore the phrase &quot;dwelt once even on Thangorodrim&quot; and the word &quot;now&quot; 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.



In note 13 to &quot;Of Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin&quot; 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.



I would personally like to add from the primtive &quot;Fall of Gondolin&quot; a phrase which I italicize to one of the sentences in &quot;Of Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin&quot; as follows:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Then he took up his rugged harp of wood and the sinews of bears which he bore ever with him, being skilled in playing upon its strings, ...<hr></blockquote>There may be other such phrases from the primitive account which contradict no later details and that it would be a shame to lose.



Comments on Changing and Retaining Names

In &quot;The Shibboleth of Fëanor&quot; in The Peoples of Middle-earth (HoME 12), Note 30, Tolkien explains that Ingoldo was the mother-name of both Finarfin and Finrod and then continues:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> The name spread from his kin to many others who held him in great honour, especially to Men (the Atani) of whom he was the greatest friend among the Eldar.<hr></blockquote>This provides a precedent for reuse of other names to set against Tolkien's claim that it would not be credible for there to be two separate Elves named Glorfindel ( ibid. &quot;Glorfindel&quot. Christopher Tolkien also records on the Glorfindel comment that his father in a later note questioned his conclusion that reuse of the name would not be credible.

So Legolas can stay as Legolas. Changing the name to a variant form is too obviously a silly trick, unless someone can demonstrate it is the form that Tolkien would have changed it to. And I don't think we have the right to make such changes without authorization or some kind of analogical indication that the new form is more correct. Dropping the name and making the Elf anonymous, or dropping the passages in which he appears, would be more in line with the idea that this project is not to create new material. But I don't see any need to drop Legolas or to change his name. There is no actual conflict, whether he is taken to be the same or different from the Legolas son of Thranduil.

As to Rog, the final 1930 version of Tolkien's Silmarillion account of the Fall of Gondolin as published in The Shaping of Middle-earth (HoME 4), &quot;Quenta&quot;, §16, contains the passage:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Of the deeds of desperate valour done there, by the chieftains of the noble houses and their warriors, and not least by Tuor, is much told in The Fall of Gondolin; of the death of Rog without the walls; and of the death of Ecthelion of the Fountain with Gothmog Lord of Balrogs in the very square of the king, ...<hr></blockquote>.
In BoTL 2, &quot;The Fall of Gondolin&quot;, Commentary (v), The array of the Gondothlim, Christopher Tolkien remarks in a footnote:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I removed the reference to Rog ( The Silmarillion p.*242) on the grounds that it was absolutely certain that my father would not have retained this name as that of a lord of Gondolin.<hr></blockquote>I also guess JRRT would have changed it. I equally guess he would have changed much else as evidenced by how much he changed the tale of Tuor's coming to Gondolin. But to take this tack means it is impossible to include anything.

So, keep Rog, both name and deeds. The readers to this composite Silmarillion know they are reading a composite work. At least let it be as full as it can be with as many details as can possibly be kept.

Christopher Tolkien again and again in HoME speaks of his regrets in making too many changes in The Silmarillion text for reasons of style or consistency. To remove the one mention of Rog from the short summary of The Fall of Gondolin was unimportant. To remove him, the first to ever slay a Balrog, from the full Fall of Gondolin is a major excision. I suppose he could simply be named as the Lord of the Hammer.

But without evidence, we don't actually know that JRRT would have changed that name.

Again, should not the rule be when in doubt keep it? Otherwise almost everything will be jettisoned.



On Mechanical Dragons

The final 1930 Silmarillion version of Tolkien's account of the Fall of Gondolin as published in The Shaping of Middle-earth (HoME 4), &quot;Quenta&quot;, §16, contains the passage:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... and he loosed upon Gondolin his Orcs and his Balrogs and his serpents; and of these, dragons of many and dire shapes were new devised for the taking of the city.<hr></blockquote>Christopher Tolkien in his notes on this passage remarks:<blockquote>Quote:<hr> In the reference to the 'devising' (rather than 'breeding') of new dragons by Morgoth for the assault on the city there is even a suggestion of the (apparently) inanimate constructions of the Tale (see II.213).<hr></blockquote>In QS77 this becomes (emphasis mine):<blockquote>Quote:<hr> ... and he loosed upon Gondolin his Balrogs, and his Orcs, and his wolves; and with them came dragons of the brood of Glaurung, and they were become now many and terrible.<hr></blockquote>I cannot find textual justification for these changes in HoME. This may be simply rewriting as Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay imagined JRRT might have done.

Can anyone find firm textual support for these changes?




Inclusion of the poem &quot;The Horns of Ylmir&quot;


As it stands it would need major fan-fiction style rewriting or dropping of lines, as Tuor in the original story and the poem encounters Ulmo in the summer in the marshes of the Land of Willows where he is first enchanted by inland musics and then by Ulmo's music. In the later story it is on the seacoast by Vinyamar at the approach of winter and Ulmo plays no music.

And there are other differences. Including much of the poem is going to be very difficult.

</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000212>jallanit e</A> at: 6/18/01 7:19:35 pm

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 16</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

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

Lindil, yes an &quot;updated&quot; situation can (may) be considered:

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

The term Laiquendi &quot;Greenelves&quot; was likely originally conceived of as resulting from laiqua+quendi. But laica can also &quot;fit&quot; 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 &gt; Laiquendi considering rocco+quén &gt; roquen &quot;knight&quot;.

Thanks to you and Tar-E for the welcome Btw. Unfortunately I haven't even had time to properly read all the messages re: the project, let alone contribute much or vote; but I thought I'd pop in, being lured from an occasional look into &quot;Langs&quot; as I was <img src=smile.gif ALT=""> Looks like a lot of great work going on in any event ~ I'd suggest bringing any forms in question to the Master linguists of Elfling, if possible. Cheers~

Almarë elyen

P.S. re: Echoriad
From David Salo (1995, from a proposed etymology of Eriador) *iâd might have a similar meaning to iâth ~ Echoriad is indeed &quot;later&quot;. Quote:

&quot;Evidently its meaning, in whatever way it differs from iâth, was thought to be more appropriate. It is notable that in both Echoriad and Eriador that the 'iâd' is a line of mountains; while the iâth of Doriath was a magical zone of deception and bewilderment.&quot;





</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000317>cian</A> at: 6/29/01 6:05:59 am

[lindil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeker of the Straight Path
Posts: 647</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

Jallanite posted:Changes to my previous posting of names

I
house of the Swan to House of Hador (a dubious
change),
L: seems reasonable, the alternative is to introduce a previously unmentioned motif for the pre-eminent family of warriors of the edain. I would w/out further evidence go w/Hador instead of swan even though it is an 'indirect' substitution if you will. I suppose elimination of the reference altogether is another possibility.


Jallanite posted: What we can be certain of is that Voronwë was the form Tolkien decided in 1951 to use in the tale, that he kept to it afterwards, and it should be maintained unless
extremely good cause can be found to change it. So leave it as Voronwë throughout.

Lindil:Sounds good, as a theoritcal aside - perhaps some 1/2 sindar and some full sindar disagreed w/ Thingol and thought his stance was capricious and foolish, and thus ignored [especially in Gondolin/Noldorin co.] Thingols ban on Quenya. This seems even more plausible in those of the Sindar who would be willing to leave Nevrast and remove to Gondolin acknowledging fealty and undoubtedly swearing oath's of secrecy to Turgon. Sounds like a good suite 101 article for MM actually<img src=smile.gif ALT=""> .

Jallanite posted: Changes to be Made in &quot;Of Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin&quot;


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).
sounds good in theory. But I think [and this will come up later]exceptions to the rule might be acceptable .

Jallanite posted: Echoriath to Echoriad per The War of the Jewels (HoME 10), &quot;The Wanderings of Húrin&quot;.

lindil: probably time to decide what to do re: sending queries to Elfling- my thoughts on i are this. Obviously they are a rel. large functioning group and we will prob. get v.good answers. the catch aws I seeit is that some of these folks, esp. the editors of Vinyat tengwar - must be on familiar terms w/ CRT and we are inviting official notice of our project at an extremely early stage at which a cease and desist order or negative reaction from CRT is more likely than if we send a finished FoG [not too mention a finished Silm.
Any other thoghts on this? I don't think the project will suffer appreciably from finishing FoG at the least before sending notice to elfling, for a full review of both our new text and a docket of our changes and conversations re: them.
In short I say hold off. If a majority favors sending a list of Q's off now or soon, then as with all group choices , I am happy to go w/ it. [more on the group choices thing in a bit.]

Jallanite posted: We could restore the phrase &quot;dwelt once even on
Thangorodrim&quot; and the word &quot;now&quot; 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.

Lindil:I agree w/ the principle and the choice in specific , I read this passage the other day and pondered the same things. His dwelling on top of a non-volcanic thangoridrim would make sense if the eagles main role was spying on Morgoth.


Jallanite posted:... 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.

Lindil: yea

Jallanite posted: I would personally like to add from the primtive &quot;Fall ofGondolin&quot; a phrase which I italicize to one of the
sentences in &quot;Of Tuor and His Coming to Gondolin&quot; as
follows:

Quote:

Then he took up his rugged harp of wood
and the sinews of bears which he bore ever
with him, being skilled in playing upon its
strings, ...

L:I liked that also, I might lean towards eliminating 'rugged' as it was most likely made by and or under the tutelage of the Sindarin Elves, and ruggedness is not the first quality that comes to mind.
Jallanite posted:There may be other such phrases from the primitive
account which contradict no later details and that it
would be a shame to lose.

Lindil: this brings up an interesting dilemna I faced in the Darkening of valinor wher I added the LT version of parts of the Procession of the Noldor and Vanyar to the X account. Reads reasonably well and certainly does not contradict, but we have just made a change to JRRT's final conception in cases where he had produced relativly full treatments. I personally faviorite it a fair # of instances but in principle I have to acknowledge it is a little shaky. we will have to come to an agreement on this and several other similar points.
Re: Rog and Legolas's name your points are all valid , but I think an equally strong case can be made [and which CRT certainly agreed w/. that JRRT simply would have found both untenable, in the case of Rog we would be introducing a name which clearly is out of keeping w/ th entire aethetic edifice of Elven language. and w/ legolas , well... I find it impossible for him to be the son of thranduil even if it is not explicitly stated so. As for use of the re-use of name, again we have it in Galdor and w/ Edain esp. Gondorians recycling hero's names, , but if we keep Legolas , esp.L. greenleaf we have as I mentioned earlier a a pretty deep implicit conflict. Thranduil was a doriathrin refugee either 1st or 2ng generation and we know from UT that he was not pleased w/ noldor taking up in Lorien, we can deduce some anti-noldorin sentiments [just as he was prejudiced against the Dwarves ] in general from this whichmakes it unlikely that he would name his sonw. a combination Leg.Gr. exactly the same as used by a 'prince' of Gondolin [we can i think assume that the tale would be widely known in all sindarin circles, prob w/ a neg. attitude since some of the godolithrim were sindar, who may have had a reputation as mentioned above for usiong Quenya despite Thingol's ban.] So.... I find Legolas difficult aesthetically and historically. I would prefere Quenya , an innovation i know but one that solves what i perceive as a problem w/ the least fuss, and it has precedent w/ Voronwe. A group vote will def. be needed. And i will briefly point out that prob. none of us will see this chapter[s] exactly as we might like , the cost of a group effort is compromise and I am sure the final product will more than overcome any reservations any of us as individulas may have.OPlus - what we do here will most likely be I hope a calling card for a greatercouncil , wherein FoG will possibly be gone over again.
Jallanite posted:. But to take this tack means it is impossible to
include anything.

lindil: I don't quite think it is black and white as I mentioned above , we will have to decide as a group whether aesthetics is a factor.

Jallanite posted: So, keep Rog, both name and deeds. The readers to this
composite Silmarillion know they are reading a
composite work. At least let it be as full as it can be with
as many details as can possibly be kept.

Christopher Tolkien again and again in HoME speaks of
his regrets in making too many changes in The
Silmarillion text for reasons of style or consistency. To
remove the one mention of Rog from the short summary
of The Fall of Gondolin was unimportant. To remove him,
the first to ever slay a Balrog, from the full Fall of
Gondolin is a major excision. I suppose he could simply
be named as the Lord of the Hammer.

Lindil : l' of the Hammer ,while a noble attempt at a compromise is w/ out looking at the passages , prob a weak solution as you point out.
Re; the pro Rog points you made I think they are cogent arguments and in principle I agree , until I imagine seeing the word Rog in the Silm .<img src=smile.gif ALT=""> If a majority goes for it, i can stand by this though.

Jallanite posted:
But without evidence, we don't actually know that JRRT
would have changed that name.

lindil:No, but we can see that none of the 'crude' [to use the first word that comes to mind] elvish words survive from LT era into the post LotR phase. - this is of course subjective, but I think most will agree that JRRT at each change, both his improvments in the euphony of the languages, and the beauty of the story telling. Voronwe is more beautiful than Bronweg.Tolkien was extremely sensitive to such matters and i think we would be immulating a likely wish by coming up w/ a Rog alternative. As for the slaying of the Balrog's - we have already agreed that we have too many B'rog deaths .
If we have only seven:
Moria
ecthelion's
Glorfindil's
I believe the plural is used in the war of wrath, but I just realized a point in your favor- as maia they would be capable of re-embodyment, after a period of yearts [maybe too long to be of use in the war of Wrath].

Jallanite posted: Again, should not the rule be when in doubt keep it?
Otherwise almost everything will be jettisoned.

Lindil: I think we need to have a 'principles of revision' thread, and proceed to work on the Silm according to that , re-examing the issues as needed.


Unfortunately I have run out of time to adress the other points, hope to finish tonight, and ask the wight to create a private forum for the posting of texts.

Iwant to say though that even though there are clearly preferences that each of us has, I have never seen such focused and consistent posting here on the project , especially from such a diverse group. i am encouraged greatly!



Lindil is oft found on posting on the Silmarillion Project at the Barrowdowns and working onthe 2nd Elven/Christian discussion board<a href="http://pub72.ezboard.com/bosanwe" >Osanwe</a>, and Gilthalion's http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</A>. and Finrod prophecieth to Andreth " Therefore Eru,if He will not relinquish His work to Melkor... must come in to conquer him. </p>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 29</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

Regarding Rog: The problem isn't that 'Rog' is unsuitable in later Quenya or Sindarin; on the contrary, it's found in the Sindarin compound 'balrog'. The problem is that it has a fairly clear meaning in modern Sindarin - 'Demon'. The Etymologies give RUK- as the root, with Q ranko and N rhaug. I think we can all agree such a name is unsuitable for an elf. The Gnomish lexicon gives 'rog' as 'doughty, strong', though CRT notes in BolT that it probably also meant 'fleet, swift'. Since 'strong' is the gloss that JRRT gives, however, I'd be inclined to think that Rog in FoG means 'strong'. Later Quenya for 'strong' might be *polda - at least, this is given in the Etym. (with stem POL-, POLOD- ) and is nowhere contradicted. Possible names from this stem might be Poldon (cf. saura, Sauron), Polwe (cf. Elwe, Finwe, Voronwe, etc.), or perhaps just Polda. Of these, my first choice would be to go with Poldon; the -we suffix seems to have been used mostly in older names (the notable exception being Voronwe).

Re: adding things from FoG to the 'later Tuor': I think there's a difference between adding things here and adding things to DoV, etc. The later Darkening of Valinor was considered by Tolkien merely part of the QS; there are thus many details that were left out that in a longer account would have been put in. With Tuor, we actually have what JRRT would have considered the detailed, full, account. I don't know if we should add details that he chose to leave out. Having said that, I agree in this instance that the detail would enhance the narrative - but on principle, I'm not sure if we should add it.

Quothe Lindil: I would prefere Quenya , an innovation i know but one that solves what i perceive as a problem w/ the least fuss, and it has precedent w/ Voronwe.

Aiwendil: It's definitely possible that the Legolas of FoG could have had a Quenya name in the later tale - however, this wouldn't solve the problem. It's the same name, whether its in Sindarin or Quenya, and if Thranduil cared enough not to name his son directly after someone from Gondolin, I don't think he would have been satisfied merely to translate the name into his own language. But I don't see a problem with reusing Legolas. Thranduil may have cared - but he may not have. And among Elves, I don't think the repetition of a name is necessarily meant as a tribute to the first person with that name, as it is among humans. We have Galdor repeated, without any indication that the 2nd was named for the 1st. Same thing for Gildor.

Re balrog numbers: I'm still not so sure that JRRT's note about 7 balrogs is valid. Even if we assume that only 2 died in the first age before the War of Wrath, leaving only 4 to die at Thangorodrim and 1 to escape to Moria, we still have a problem. The note says that probably no more than 7 ever existed - but then we have none to have been killed by the Valar in the War of the Powers. I think the 7 balrog note is a little like the one making Gil-Galad Fingon's son; it was no more than a passing thought. While it's true that there's nothing later to specifically contradict it, I don't think it can be taken without a grain of salt.

</p>

[jallanite]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 21</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

On Rog

In &quot;The Etymologies&quot; under RUK- the N ( = Sindarin) form is rhaug, not rog. That is significant. If the form is thought to exist in Sindarin it is probably not from RUK-. Of course for rhaug or * raug the au diphthong will and does resolve to o in compounds such as Balrog, and will fall together with rog, which would encourage the disappearance of rog words whatever stem they come from. (If it meant &quot;strong&quot; and mreged with RUK- it would increasingly be understood as brutish strength, as monstrous strength, and then as simply a variant of rhaug).

Admittedly there is no obvious stem choice in &quot;The Etymologies&quot;. (Maybe RAW- 'lion'?) But &quot;The Etymologies&quot; does not contain every stem.

I would certainly change Rog if an obvious choice came up, but am bothered at the idea of substituting any names or forms without solid justification for that form.

For example, on the basis of Bronweg to Bronwë we could change Rog to Rô (with lengthening of vowel to compensate for loss of final consonant in a monosyllable). This would assume that Noldorin/Sindarin rog does not derive from an earler form * rok in which case the final g would probably remain.

But to change Rog to Rô is just as arbitrary as to change Rog to Poldon or to Polwë. I am sure there are many other possible forms we could postulate. Unforunately many would be equally acceptable. This becomes linguistic fan fiction.

We know Rog is probably wrong, that Tolkien would probably have changed it, but can we change it?


On the Tuor's Harp

I was assuming the harp was rough in shape because made by himself after his escape from thralldom.


On the House of the Swan

I may not have been clear that I edited and placed this and the other two additions into my original post with extra comments on this particularly. Tolkien has actually rather cleverly kept the swan motif by giving it to Annael's people, who then might be called the House of the Swan. At the moment I am leaning toward the &quot;fosterling of the House of the Swan&quot; interpretation rather than House of Hador. But, as usual, no decision is right.

</p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 115</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

re 'K' to 'C':
I think the 'k'should stay. There is a passage in Letters (IIRC) where JRRT mentions regreting using the 'c' in LotR. I will attempt to find it when I have the chance.

Re Balrog numbers:
I am not sure that the idea was ephermeral. The earlier 1000+ Balrogs were much weaker than they became. It was about this time that JRRT was upgrading them to major Maiarin spirits. Thereare only 2 of the later and powerful Balrogs being slain prior to the War of Wrath (Glorfindel and Ecthelion). I doubt that Rog would have been kept as slaying one. 1000+ Balrogs in Beleriand with the power they had would have been odd to say the least. This is why I mentioned the Boldogs earlier.

re Dragons and CT and GGK:
I doubt there is anything in HoME backing up that passage in the published Sil., as JRRT did not ever revisit the Fall of Gondolin (unfortunately). However CT saw that it was rather obvious that JRRT would not have kept the mechanical Dragons of the earlier tale.

Re House of the Swan:
I am missing something here. What is the problem with this? Why change it? I cant find it in earlier posts to see what was meant.

Tar-Elenion--------------------- I will come with Fire and Sword, and put your cities to the Torch, your men to the Blade, your women and children in Chains</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000211>Tar Elenion</A> at: 6/19/01 6:43:33 pm

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 31</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

I don't see a problem with the name 'Rog' as such - it is likely he would have changed it, but we do have examples of other primitive names that remained, e.g., Eol. And we have Sindarin names that end in -g (Forweg, for instance). Perhaps, then, we should leave it as it is, under the supposition that there is another root it's based on (though I have trouble imagining what root this might be; ROK- is given as 'horse').

Regarding balrog numbers: I agree that the thousands of balrogs were gone for good, and that their obvious increase in power was accompanied by a decrease in number. I'm just saying that the exact figure of 7 is not necessarily a firmly entrenched idea. A few reasons: 1. This is the only mention of that number; 2. Even the note itself uses the word 'probably'; 3. It looks like he later CORRECTED this figure to '3' - and 3 obviously doesn't work; 4. There still must be some that were killed in the War of the Powers.

Regarding dragons: I'd suggest we (obviously) eliminate the mechanical dragons, but remove the words 'of the brood of Glaurung' from CRT's version - it sort of implies a distinction between dragons that were of the brood of Glaurung and those that weren't.

</p>

[Tar Elenion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 116</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

--------------------------------
Quote:
Regarding balrog numbers: I agree that the thousands of balrogs were gone for good, and that their obvious increase in power was accompanied by a decrease in number. I'm just saying that the exact figure of 7 is not necessarily a firmly entrenched idea. A few reasons: 1. This is the only mention of that number; 2. Even the note itself uses the word 'probably'; 3. It looks like he later CORRECTED this figure to '3' - and 3 obviously doesn't work; 4. There still must be some that were killed in the War of the Powers.
--------------------------------

7 may not have been a firmly entrenched idea but to use another numer would be to make it up (or do you suggest going following CT's lead and giving no numbers?).

1), 2) and 4). One could presume the 7 to be those that the Elves knew of (ie in Beleriand) any others slain previously are what is meant by 'supposed' (where does JRRT use probably?). Then again maybe the Balrogs could have re-embodied. Or even why must any Balrogs be slain in the War of Powers?

3) What are you refering to as the 'later correction to 3'? The passage says '3 or at the most 7' and does not indicate a later correction to 3.


Tar-Elenion--------------------- I will come with Fire and Sword, and put your cities to the Torch, your men to the Blade, your women and children in Chains</p>

[Aiwendil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 33</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
A project ~~~~Revising the Fall of Gondolin

&lt;&lt;3) What are you refering to as the 'later correction to 3'? The passage says '3 or at the most 7' and does not indicate a later correction to 3.&gt;&gt;

Dreadfully sorry about that. I should really try to stop quoting from memory. Anyway, my point is that since the number 3 was obviously generated without much thought or reference to the rest of the legendarium, I wouldn't put too much faith in the number 7 either.

&lt;&lt;Or even why must any Balrogs be slain in the War of Powers?&gt;&gt;

I'm not going to make this claim with certainty without the book in front of me, but I'm almost sure that one of texts in MR - either LQ or more likely AAm refers to the death of a number of balrogs before the onslaught of the Valar.

&lt;&lt;or do you suggest going following CT's lead and giving no numbers?&gt;&gt;

That's precisely what I suggest. I agree that we obviously cannot merely make up a different number; but I think that there's sufficient doubt about the figure of 7 that we need not mention it. I also think we can still have Rog slay a balrog (or else we'll have to cut out a very significant portion of the battle scene, and we'll be left with nothing about Rog at all). That would still allow 3 to have been killed in the War of Wrath, if we assume that the total of 7 must be kept.





</p>