Criticism of Neo-Eldarin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words. You can help Wikipedia by improving weasel-worded statements. |
|
|
Please see the discussion on the talk page. |
 |
This article or section may contain original research or unattributed claims. Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the talk page for details. |
A certain amount of controversy attaches to Neo-Eldarin efforts, i.e. attempts to actually use the Eldarin or "Elvish" languages invented by British author J.R.R. Tolkien, especially Quenya and Sindarin. As discussed in the article on Neo-Eldarin, Tolkien's material would have to be edited and normalized, and also supplemented with newly-coined words, to achieve even semi-useable languages.
Tolkienian linguists whose approach to Tolkien's languages is primarily academic (i.e., they study his linguistic material from a descriptive and historical perspective) do not necessarily object to "updating" and "editing" the material -- like transforming Noldorin rhoeg into extrapolated Sindarin *raeg. They do, however, express concern that one should not blur the distinction between such normalized material and Sindarin as it appears in the primary sources, or cite normalized forms in scholarly contexts without clearly identifying them as such.
Neo-Eldarin writers may respond that their efforts are in no way intended to supplant or supersede the original sources, least of all for the purpose of academic studies. They merely want to suggest what a possible normalized version of Tolkien's Elvish could look like, if one wants to compose in such a language. Even if they decide to ignore certain manuscripts altogether (because the ideas expressed appear to them incompatible with a normalized grammar), this does not imply any spiteful "rejection" of these ideas as inherently inferior.
Critics have also expressed concern that heavy-handed editing of Tolkien's languages may eliminate variations that are only seemingly incompatible, robbing the languages of the full richness, complexity, and expressiveness that the author gave them. Homophony, synonymy, archaisms, irregularities, syncretism, etc., are the hallmarks of natural language, and serious cultivators of Tolkien's Elvish would have to recognize this fact.
Nevertheless, some claim that even for scholarly and academic purposes, normalized versions of Quenya and Sindarin would be useful. New students could then study tidied-up versions of these languages and get an impression of their general structure before they try to tackle the potentially daunting complexities of the primary sources with their many layers of shifting ideas. In a similar vein, ancient languages like Old Norse are often taught in a normalized version that is quite idealized compared to the actual ancient manuscripts and inscriptions.
Most critics of Neo-Elvish agree that such normalized courses are valuable pedagogical resources that may be recommended as introductory works. They nevertheless maintain that the never-ending changes in Tolkien's conception of his languages are an integral part of his work on them. This also applies to the semantic and grammatical nuances, contrasts, variations, and (apparent) irregularities. Such features Tolkien placed within even specific, self-consistent conceptual stages of his languages, so that they would appear both natural and ancient. To the extent "Elvish" is over-regularized by later editors, it would become unsuited as the basis for scholarly and academic works, and can be no substitute for Tolkien's own writings.
Comparisons have been made with the Silmarillion, a book Christopher Tolkien edited together from manuscripts of varying age, even writing certain paragraphs himself. It was still received as his father's work, published posthumously. People supporting a Neo-Eldarin standard may therefore argue that even if editors produce normalized versions of Quenya and Sindarin (even supplementing Tolkien's original work with newly-derived words), the resulting tongues may still be thought of as being essentially the languages Tolkien invented. But just like literary scholars analyzing the Silmarillion may opt to focus on Tolkien's immediate text rather than the edited version, Tolkien-linguists whose interest is primarily academic would likely focus on the primary sources, not on normalized forms of the languages.
Tolkien himself wrote that "of interest to some, and agreeable to me" would be "an historical grammar of Quenya and Sindarin and a fairly extensive etymological vocabulary of these languages" (The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, p. 381). He never got around to publishing such a work, but if he had, it would presumably have presented "definite" versions of the languages. Supporters of Neo-Eldarin may cite this as evidence that Tolkien was not in principle opposed to such "standard" versions. However, he obviously meant that it was he himself, and not some later editor, that would write the grammar envisioned. Since this was not to be, Neo-Eldarin enthusiasts may regard a carefully edited/normalized grammar as the second-best thing, though it could not have absolute Tolkienian authority.
As for post-Tolkien compositions, controversies continue as to whether Tolkien's languages either can or should have any existence beyond the author's own life, and outside the invented world associated with them. Some critics refuse to recognize any post-Tolkien Eldarin composition as actual Quenya or Sindarin, even if all the vocabulary is Tolkien-made and the grammar employed is quite uncontroversial.
For instance, there are probably few Tolkien-linguists (of any camp) who would deny that i Elda lende i ciryanna is a plausible way of expressing "the Elf went to the ship" in Quenya. Some nonetheless do not consider even such simple constructions to necessarily be grammatical and idiomatic Quenya. They note the many open questions of syntax, semantics, and idiom in Tolkien's languages that constrain such simple sentences in natural languages; hence they feel that only Tolkien could produce material that is unquestionably correct.
Neo-Eldarin authors may claim that to the extent it is possible to reconstruct and understand the structure of Tolkien's languages, it must also be possible to actively use this knowledge to write fresh texts in them. Most critics do not dispute this, but contend that even the best such texts do and must rely on numerous guesses and assumptions regarding syntax, semantics, and idiom. In the case of extinct real-world languages, no linguist would claim to be able to fully reconstruct them if the sources were as limited as the source material for Tolkien-linguistics is.
Neo-Eldarin authors may point out that the "complete" versions of these tongues (as spoken in Middle-earth) are quite fictional. In reality, Tolkien's material is all there is. Writers may therefore feel that unless it is possible to argue from Tolkien's existing writings that a certain Neo-Eldarin composition is incorrect, then it should be regarded as correct. Even so, many critics regard post-Tolkien attempts to write in his languages as of inherently questionable correctness, no matter how accurately a text may seem to reproduce Tolkien's grammar. The question is greatly complicated by the fact that "Tolkien's grammar" only exists as a string of shifting conceptions, not as a fixed and unchangeable entity by which post-Tolkien compositions can be judged. The commonest attitude among Neo-Eldarin writers would be that even though they do their best to reproduce Tolkien's Elvish, they make no grandiose claims of total success.
Focusing on the languages as they exist "synchronically" and trying to develop (semi-)useable forms of Quenya and Sindarin is criticized by some as a project that little resembles Tolkien's own work. Christopher Tolkien notes that "my father was perhaps more interested in the processes of change than he was in displaying the structure and use of the languages at any given time" (The Lost Road, p. 342). If so one could argue that a project which focuses on the "contemporary" version of the languages (rather than their evolution through ages of imaginary time) would differ significantly from Tolkien's own perspective: The focus would shift from diachronic to synchronic linguistics.
Neo-Eldarin practitioners may respond that no one is obliged to consider these languages only from the angle Tolkien himself possibly preferred. Moreover, the more accomplished among them do study and appreciate "the processes of change" Tolkien envisioned, actively using this knowledge to derive new words from his Primitive Elvish roots. Enthusiasts may indeed be committed to preserving the interrelationship between Quenya and Sindarin that Tolkien intended, developing their Neo-Eldarin incarnations in parallel to make sure they do not become a mismatched couple.
Since grammar must be reconstructed from relatively few Tolkien examples, many conclusions must remain tentative, but for Neo-Eldarin purposes a certain grammatical theory may be treated as "fact" and used as the basis for new texts. At the same time, it must be remembered that it is only a "theory" if one is studying Tolkien's languages from an academic angle. A potential criticism of Neo-Eldarin is therefore that it can lead the unwary to believe that certain theories are actually well-established facts. Even some of the proponents of Neo-Eldarin have been known to complain that whenever they put forward some possible interpretation of Tolkien's material (as a contribution to academics rather than Neo-Eldarin efforts), many other people soon treat this suggested interpretation as absolute fact, no matter how many disclaimers were originally included.
See also: Neo-Eldarin
[edit] External links
- Elvish.org FAQ — Article by Carl F. Hostetter. Presents a succinct counterpoint citing Tolkien's own views of the purpose, completeness and usability of his languages.
- "Elvish as She Is Spoke" — Article by Carl F. Hostetter. A thorough examination of Tolkien's purposes in inventing his Elvish languages and his practices in describing them, their consequent nature, and the inherent pitfalls in any attempt to "speak Elvish". Republished with permission from The Lord of the Rings 1954–2004: Scholarship in Honor of Richard E. Blackwelder (Marquette, 2006), ed. Wayne G. Hammond and Christina Scull.
