"Philological Inquiries"

[Sharkû]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hungry Ghoul
Posts: 0</TD><TD><img src=http://www.innotts.co.uk/gwde/Pictures/Fantasy/Vampire/0406020706700.jpg WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
Considering the philologist's background of JRRT, there are two things in his fiction which I find peculiar.
I noticed the first one earlier today when I read the question about the names of Turin in the Quiz Room, and immediately afterwards the random quote by Gwindor: &quot;The doom lies in yourself, not in your name.&quot;
Many examples in Middle-Earth show us the opposite, that doom does lie in one's name, be it as unchangeable fate which hits the likewise named person, or be it that the name given to a person was chosen out of a premonition of things to come. The fate of name-giving all the while lay of course in the hands of JRRT, but in the context of his myth it did not. Examples are easy to find for both cases, seeming coincidence and premonition: Èarendil, the Sea-lover, most famous of all mariners; Arvedui, the Last King, Malbeth chose this name for him with hindsight; Melkor, the mighty Rebel; Tar-Palantír, who proved his name right with his prophecy; Féanor, restless fire-spirit; the kings of Rohan, whose are Anglo-Saxon expressions for rulers and kings. Doom clearly lay in their names, and there are many more.
Yet what is it with Túrin? The argument would be that fate is unchangeable, be it tied to a name or not. Changing the name cannot change fate. This is it what Gwindor means anway I presume. Still I believe that another reason was more important to JRRT personally: that one cannot choose his own name; that language, and philology, are much higher to be estimated than as a mere instrument of the speaking peoples. Names are fate-bearing marks which cannot be removed, but more can be added by those conscious of fate.

Nothing new as this may have been, I still have pondered over another peculiarity for a while: languages and their creation. Normally one would argue that a philologist such as JRRT would despise unnatural languages which did not grow in time in connection to a people, their history, stories, and fate. I have a strong suspicion that JRRT disliked the idea of Esperanto which cannot be a language for anyone who connects things such as menories, tales, and a certain (national) identity with a language. For the books, however, a compromise had to be made: the peoples of Middle-Earth got their full-wrought languages, and those even have origin and development. Undoubtedly, there must be a philogist figure in The Lord of the Rings? Frodo and especially Bilbo Baggins would be good examples.
But, what now really matters is: the only person in the books who comes close to the author in the regard that he invented a language all by himself is the person the author despied most, and his language was made to be an anti-language of linguistically disgusting appearance and sound: Sauron and the Black Speech. I could easily accept this as being rooted in the philological dislike, maybe even hatred, of inventing languages. One who breaks the rules of philology by making a tongue up without history, cannot do good in this, and cannot be good himself. This would sound logic to me. Yet it is not so when looking to JRRT who invented the languages himself.
What can we take as the absolute truth here, if there is one? That inventing names and languages is alright as long as it is bound to certain rules? Then which rules did Sauron, and did Túrin break?


</p>

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Irksome Hobgoblin
Posts: 0</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/bluepal.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: &quot;Philological Inquiries&quot;

I have often wondered about your first question too, Sharku.
Regarding the name Melkor, Mighty Rebel, Iluvitar chose this name for him and as he (Melkor) was created by Eru personally, the name could have been given with foresight easily. As for Feanor, Fire-Spirit, remember what Miriel the mother of Feanor said after she had given birth: 'Never again shall I bear child; for the strength that would have nourished the life of many has gone forth into Feanor.' Knowing this, she could have named him adequately. Tar-Palantir's name was originally Inzilduin, he changed it himself 'for he was far-sighted both of eye and of mind'. And Rohan: although the Prof was undoubtedly possesed of an ingenius mind, I don't think he could completely make up everything in his works. Either that, or the other theory that the world of Tolkien's creation eventually developed into this world. He said that himself. So the language that Rohan was named in might have been the foundation for the Anglo-Saxxon tounge. (Impossible, of course, but then so is the whole idea of Tolkien's world.)
However for Earendil and Arvedui I have no explanation. Probably Tolkien never gave the matter any thought, he just named them as he designed their lives to turn out. He also mentioned in one of his works that there were many mistakes in his books, great and small, but most of them only he would be able to find. Maybe this is one of the 'mistakes' he saw afterwards.

</p>

[Taimar]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spirit of the Downfallen West
Posts: 0</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/bluepal.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: &quot;Philological Inquiries&quot;

Earendil and Arvedui were both the subject of prophecy.

In Earendil`s case, Huor says to Turgon,(approximately),

&quot;From you and I hope may come.&quot;

Ulmo also said that the only hope of elves and men comes from &quot;across the sea&quot;.

Tuor would probably have been aware of both statements when naming his son, so perhaps this explains why `Earendil` was so apposite. I think a similar argument could also be put forward for Arvedui.

Prophecy plays a highly significant part in JRRT`s work. I think Sharku`s point about nomenclature is closely linked to it.

Look into the http://www.fortunecity.co.uk/library/classiccourt/77/Mirror of Desire.</a> </p>Edited by <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000099>Taimar</A>&nbsp; <IMG SRC=http://www.ezboard.com/ezgfx/gicons/black_ball.gif BORDER=0 WIDTH=10 HEIGHT=10> at: 9/5/00 5:52:27 pm

[Mister Underhill]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 0</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/bluepal.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: &quot;Philological Inquiries&quot;

To me, the concept of predestination seems to be even more significant than mere prophesy in Tolkien's works. The Ainulindale indicates that the world is complete as far as Eru is concerned -- the whole history of Ea was written in the music of the Ainur (as an aside, I love the idea of a world conceived in music). Eru's not one for spoilers, though, and isn't letting anyone else in on all the secrets, especially the end. So the doom of all is known to Eru, but unknowable to others. In this light, a particular character's name may foreshadow his doom, but the doom doesn't lie in the name. A tricky piece of semantics, but perhaps you see what I mean. An analogy lies in the same text -- &quot;Therefore, the Valar may walk, if they will, unclad... But when they desire to clothe themselves the Valar take upon them forms some as of male and some as of female; for that difference of temper they had even from their beginning, and it is but bodied forth in the choice of each, not made by the choice, even as with us male and female may be shown by the raiment but is not made thereby.&quot;

As for your philological question, Sharku, it makes me think of a broader question that I often wonder about -- why would the good professor, a student of history, no doubt, as well as language, invent, not only a language (or two, or three...), but a whole imagined world and attendant history/mythology? Why would a spiritual man invent an imagined religious pantheon? I like to think that JRR's scholarship, while considerable, was subordinate to a storyteller's heart. Like a singing Ainu himself, he couldn't help but imitate his creator and became a creator himself. I doubt that he had the pure and humorless scholar's disdain for an invented language, though I admit I've never read any biographical materials on him nor any of his letters and just base this on my own intuition of the man.

As for Sauron, I daresay he broke *all* the rules when he made up the Black Speech! <img src=wink.gif ALT=""> It's just the kind of guy he was. Seriously, though, I think perhaps Sauron's true violation, if one may be cited, is that he didn't truly invent anything new. He merely made a corrupted mockery of a beautiful and elegant tongue. This is what the Valaquenta says of Melkor, and I imagine that it holds true of Sauron as well: &quot;Melkor spent his spirit in envy and hate, until at last he could make nothing save in mockery of the thoughts of others, and all their works he destroyed if he could.&quot;


</p>

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Irksome Hobgoblin
Posts: 0</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/bluepal.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: &quot;Philological Inquiries&quot;

You're on something there, Master Underhill. Welcome to the board! From that post I can see that you are going to be a valuable addition to the downs.

As regards your second Inquiry, Sharku, I have an idea that builds upon what Underhill has just stated. After writing the Hobbit, JRRT began to elaborate on what he had written, forming Silma. From those ideas and from The Hob's beginnings he wrote LotR. He continued working on Silma until his death. It is obvious that he had a consuming passion for his invented world, and simply couldn't stop.

</p>

[Mister Underhill]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 0</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/bluepal.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: &quot;Philological Inquiries&quot;

A simple and obvious thought has occurred to me on the supposed contradiction of JRRT's philological love/hate of invented languages -- if his work on the Silmarillion began as far back as his high school days, then wouldn't the roots of his invention of Elvish also date to those days? So he invented his language or at least began the invention long before he ever became the bona fide philological scholar he was to become. Perhaps it was even his interest in developing Elvish which led him to his studies in the field.

</p>

[Sharkû]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hungry Ghoul
Posts: 0</TD><TD><img src=http://www.innotts.co.uk/gwde/Pictures/Fantasy/Vampire/0406020706700.jpg WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/bluepal.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: &quot;Philological Inquiries&quot;

I am glad that I am not the only one to ponder about such things.
As for Tolkien's early invention of Elvish languages, I think the idea of creating those only were only sparked by love for other languages before; a love built from tales and stories he had already read back then. But I would doubt that he had the perceptions of a full-fledged philologist already, this I can readily admit.

</p>

[quam]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 0</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/bluepal.jpg" align=absmiddle> elven language roots

In C.Humphrey's Tolkien biography the autor says that Tolkien spent part of his young life in in idyllic Wales, not understanding anything of welsh,and wanted to make his own bright and happy language,probably working it out later and naming it Elven.After a while he could have thought about making a whole world around it.

</p>

[Mister Underhill]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 0</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/bluepal.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: elven language roots

The prof himself says in his foreword to the revised edition of FOTR that the Silmarillion &quot;was primarily linguistic in inspiration and was begun in order to provide the necessary background of 'history' for Elvish tongues.&quot;

</p>

[Mister Underhill]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 0</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/bluepal.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: elven language roots

Sorry, can't seem to resist reviving this thread. Sharku, if you want to read the thoughts of someone who has spent a lot of time pondering philological issues in JRRT's work, check out this link:

http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/www.uib.no/People/hnohf/</a>

The site's author has some interesting and much more insightful thoughts into your question: what rules, if any, did Sauron break (in creating the Black Speech)? Here's a sample: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> &quot;The orcs and goblins had languages of their own, as hideous as all things that they made or used, and since some remnant of good will, and true thought and perception, is required to keep even a base language alive and useful even for base purposes, their tongues were endlessly diversified in form, as they were deadly monotonous in purport, fluent only in the expression of abuse, of hatred and fear&quot; (PM:21). Indeed &quot;these creatures, being filled with malice, hating even their own kind, quickly developed as many barbarous dialects as there were groups or settlements of their race, so that their Orkish speech was of little use to them in intercourse between different tribes&quot; (LotR Appendix F). Hence there is no single &quot;Orkish&quot; language for us to analyze. The only thing that seems to be true of all Orkish languages at all times is that they were &quot;hideous and foul and utterly unlike the languages of the Quendi&quot; (LR:178) . Indeed &quot;Orcs and Trolls spoke as they would, without love of words and things&quot; (Appendix F). Hence their attitude towards Language was totally different from that of the Elves, who loved and cultivated their tongue. Tolkien was himself a philologist, which title literally implies lover or friend of words, and in his invented world, total absence of love for language could only be a characteristic of evil.

The diversity and mutability of the Orkish tongues was of course an obstacle for a Dark Power using Orcs as its storm-troopers. So for the purpose of efficient administration (sc. absolute totalitarianism), Sauron took the time to make an Esperanto for his servants - the sole known constructed language in Arda, if we don't count the sign-language (iglishmêk) of the Dwarves<hr></blockquote>



</p>Edited by <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000005>Mister Underhill</A> at: 9/10/00 10:46:55 am

[Sharkû]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hungry Ghoul
Posts: 0</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/bluepal.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: elven language roots

Thanks, but I already know that one.
But what is still left to me is the question why Sauron's invention of a speech was evil and the Prof's not. The Black Speech itself may be full of hatred and malice, and Sauron's intention surely was, too, but the act of inventing a language is not. why then did JRRT give it, in the person of Sauron, such negative attributes?

</p>

[Mister Underhill]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 0</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/bluepal.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: elven language roots

Hmm... I don't know if it was the actual act of invention which was so odious. Maybe you've read something I haven't. It seems to me it was more the methods of and the reasons for the Black Speech's invention which so affronted the prof. Besides, I think a case might be made that Sauron wasn't the only one in Ea who cooked up a new tongue. The Silmarillion at least implies that Aule authored the Dwarvish speech -- &quot;...Aule's work was complete, and he was pleased, and began to instruct the Dwarves in the speech that he had devised for them...&quot; JRRT doesn't seem to have a beef with Aule or Khuzdul like he does with Sauron and the Black Speech.

</p>

[Sharkû]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hungry Ghoul
Posts: 0</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/bluepal.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: elven language roots

Yes, of course, I forgot Khuzdul.
But the bad taste which the Black Speech projects unto invented languages is still there.

</p>

[HerenIstarion]

quoting lindil frome another poked out from a dusty corner thread:

up

[littlemanpoet]

I just got done reading "The Uruk Hai" chapter out of The Two Towers. It's sprinkled full of words taken from the Black Speech.

It's pretty clear to me that Sauron did not "break all the rules". Not even Sauron can make a language that breaks all rules, for then there would not be language, but nonsense. Lugburz. Snaga. Grishnakh. Ugluk. Its ugliness aside, the Black Speech has its own elegance, so to speak. Tolkien, it seems to me, did not endeavor to have Sauron make a language that was corrupt in its grammar, but in its sound. Quite simply, it's not pleasant to the ear. This is an aesthetic judgment, and it probably deserves saying that it is not pleasant to an English speaker's ear. There may be people in the world whose language bears some resemblance in sound choice, and they might actually like some of it. So just as the Elvish languages are aesthetically pleasing to the ear, the Black speech is aesthetically displeasing to the ear. And thus Tolkien achieves his purpose of showing the corruptness of the Black speech. Azh nazg gimbatul and all that. Come to think of it, "gimbatul" is a pretty interesting word in its own right, no? As I said, the sound, meaning, and grammar of it come together in an elegantly pleasing way - but when placed along side of all the other Black speech woreds, the aesthetics make for a harsh sounding speech.

[HerenIstarion]

I think the following may be found of interest:

Personally I am a believer in an 'artificial' language, at any rate for Europe - a believer, that is, in its desirability, as the one thing antecedently necessary for uniting Europe, before it is swallowed by non-Europe; as well as for many other good reasons - a believer in its possibility because the history of the world seems to exhibit, as far as I know it, both an increase in human control of (or influence upon) the uncontrollable, and a progressive widening of the range of more or less uniform languages. Also I particularly like Esperanto, not least because it is the creation ultimately of one man, not a philologist, and is therefore something like a 'human language bereft of the inconveniences due to too many successive cooks' - which is as good a description of the ideal artificial language (in a particular sense) as I can give.

The linguistic faculty - for making so-called articulate noises -is sufficiently latent in all for them (caught young as they always are) to learn, more or less, at least one language with merely or mainly practical object. It is more highly developed in others, and may lead not only to polyglots but to poets; to savourers of linguistic flavours, to learners and users of tongues, who take pleasure in the exercise. And it is allied to a higher art of which I am speaking, and which perhaps I had better now define. An art for which life is not long enough, indeed: the construction of imaginary languages in full or outline for amusement, for the pleasure of the constructor or even conceivably of any critic that might occur. For though I have made much of the secrecy of the practice of this art, it is an inessential, and an accidental product of circumstances. Individualistic as are the makers, seeking a personal expression and satisfaction, they are artists and incomplete without an audience. Though like this or any other society of philologists they may be aware that their goods have not a wide popular appeal or a market, they would not be averse to a competent and unbiassed hearing in camera.

This idea of using the linguistic faculty for amusement is however deeply interesting to me. I may be like an opium-smoker seeking a moral or medical or artistic defence for his habit. I don't think so. The instinct for 'linguistic invention' - the fitting of notion to oral symbol, and pleasure in contemplating the new relation established, is rational, and not perverted. In these invented languages the pleasure is more keen than it can be even in learning a new language - keen though it is to some people in that case -because more personal and fresh, more open to experiment of trial and error. And it is capable of developing into an art, with refinement of the construction of the symbol, and with greater nicety in the choice of notional-range

all the quotes from J.R.R.T.'s "Secret Vice"

[Evisse the Blue]

Well - wonderful thread and ideas, but I'm still baffled as to why some of you compare JRRt's creation of a language with Sauron's. To me they are essentially different, in the same way that surgery and mutilation are different (well - maybe that was a poor simile, but the only one that I can think of now. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ).

Besides what littlemanpoet said about the difference in aesthetics, I have to add the difference in purpose. While Sauron created Black Speech for the sole purpose of controlling and enslaving the people; JRRT did it simply for the sake of creating something beautiful (it was his passion, his vice - as understood from the quotations Bethberry posted). For Tolkien, the linguist, creating a language was had a purpose in itself, he did not have ulterior motives, good or bad. As I believe you already know, all the races, the lands and the stories of ME came chronologically after the creation of the languages, in order to bring the languages 'to life'.

Also, a widely held idea is that languages changes the people who speak them, or, better said, the language spoken by a certain nation is in concordance with the mentality of the people, of their 'character' as a whole. This is in close connection to the aesthetics of the language (can you picture hobbits speaking Black Speech?). This is why I was surprised that Tolkien liked the idea of Esperanto - to me, this kind of artificial language contradicts the above idea, that Tolkien seemed to adhere to.

[Eldar14]

Tolkien created his language for the reason that he enjoyed creating languages and enjoyed the sounds of his languages, and he did this by giving the history and depth. Sauron "created" his languages for the purpose of just helping his enslavement of those beneath him, and he did this by taking the beautiful languages of Tolkien's creation and twisting them into simingly hideous and distorted forms. Tolkien created beauty from nothing. Sauron soiled and destroyed beauty to create hideousness. I personally don't see how the two can be compared to much of a degree.

Also, if one is looking for someone to compare to Tolkien in his love for language, I just started re-reading HoME I and Rumil seems like a pretty good candidate.

[HerenIstarion]

by Eldar 14

Tolkien created beauty from nothing.

Though I can agree with the spirit, can't with this particular sentence - nothing is out of question

Evisse the Blue - would you be so kind to read with more care? thanks

[Matthew2754]

Melkor does not mean Mighty Rebel or whatever you said. It means "He who arises in might". I think it is a pefectly good name for the second in command of the universe.

[Bêthberry]

In a clever display of typing competence, fuelled by frustration over various arguments, I thoughtlessly nuked this post yesterday. I had first posted it on October 7, just after H-I bumped this thread up. Since Sharkû has complimented me on it, I will repost it here, not being vain or anything at all like that. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Originally posted October 7/02:

>>>
*pushes aside cobwebs and dust to enter this ancient barrow full of treasures*

I would be inclined to view the initial question here in terms of Tolkien's larger attitude towards making and creating. The distinction is articulated in the Ainulindalë through the very different motivations of Melkor and Aulë. Melkor desires

rather to subdue to his will both Elves and Men, envying the gifts with which Ilúvatar promised to endow them; and he wished himself to have subjects and servants, and to be called Lord, and to be a master over other wills.

Compare this with

but the delight and pride of Aulë is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work.

The distinction is important--I would even argue crucial--to Tolkien, for he uses it to defend his enigma, Tom Bombadil. In the draft of Letter 153, to Peter Hastings, Tolkien alludes to this difference between pure enjoyment in the act of creation and the desire to manipulate the thing created. Tolkien in fact contrasts Tom Bombadil with the Elves:

[Tom represents] the spirit that desires knowledge of other things, their history and nature, because the are 'other' and wholly independent of the enquiring mind, and entirely unconcerned with 'doing' anything with the knowledge...Even the Elves hardly show this: they are primarily artists.

Sauron, of course, breaks the rules to create Black Speech in order to gain domination over others. Such was not Tolkien's intent in his creation of languages, but rather the pure enjoyment of the act of creating.

There is a tradition of skeptical criticism of Art as enclosure, restriction, bondage and it is that tradition which I think Tolkien has in mind here.

But I bow to the wisdom of others on this thread, whose knowledge of Tolkien is much greater than mine.
<<<

Bethberry

[Eldar14]

Just curious, but why do you say that nothing is out of the question?

[HerenIstarion]

Thanks Bb

Eldar14, at the very least nothing in this case is compiled of J.R.R.T.'s head and its contents, which is hardly nothing as far as I understand [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Evisse the Blue]

Sorry, H-I, I picked up the bad habit of 'horizontal reading' since my time on the net is so limited. still, I can't help hopping in the middle of a brilliant discussion.
I realize my mistake now. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[HerenIstarion]

ah, Evisse , you are welcome to hop in any time [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

*bows