Talk:Neo-Eldarin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien and his legendarium. Please visit the project page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles. | |||||||||||||
|
Assessment
|
||||||||||||||
Technically, aren't _all_ Eldarin texts not directly penned by John Tolkien, Neo-Eldarin? 203.208.251.205 04:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- That is correct. I have written a few "Neo-Eldarin" texts myself, and quite widely known (Helge Fauskanger listed two of them in the Neo-Eldarin literature article). But never should one claim them to be authentic, as only Tolkien's texts can only be considered as such. Be it as it may, this won't stop others from creating such texts as they see it (as I do) as a work of art and worthy of emulation. RashBold Talk 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- So, if there is a word X and a plural Y also attested in (say) the same paper (by Tolkien), but the actual X+Y is not attested. If somebody puts X+Y together, is this Neo-Eldarin? Shot info 02:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
-
Copied from the Neo-Eldarin literature discussion page:
IN FACT, what critics of Neo-Eldarin (language and compositions) chiefly object to are:
1) The highly artificial and over-regularized character of Neo-Quenya and Neo-Sindarin, in direct affront to Tolkien's own desire to make his languages appear as natural as any other historical language, which are characterized by many apparent "exceptions" and "irregularities". For example: Quenya has _two_ main plural types (general and particular), yet you will almost _never_ see any plural but the general in any Neo-Quenya text. Indeed, you would never guess that there was any plural _but_ the general judging from Neo-Quenya texts. This is somewhat similar to declaring a sentence like "He loves little mouses and childs" to be "authentic" English. For another example: both Quenya and Sindarin have two main past-tense formations (weak and strong), but again, you almost _never_ see any but the weak past-tense in Neo-Quenya and Neo-Sindarin. This is tantamount to declaring a sentence like "He speaked a strange tongue and thinked it English" to be "authentic" English.
2) The achievement of this artificial and over-regularized character by selective dismissal of what Tolkien actually wrote, either by declaring something that does not fit one's favored "theory" of the languages as a mistake on Tolkien's part (cf. Salo's claim that Tolkien erred in writing _bo Ceven_, which Salo "corrects" to _bo Geven_" in order to make it fit his "theory" that all words following prepositions ending in vowels _must_ show lenition, regardless of the syntactic or semantic situation -- again, flying square in the face of Tolkien's own statement about the conditioning of lenition), or by inventing grammar out of whole cloth (cf. Salo's plural gerunds, which are _nowhere_ attested in Sindarin OR Noldorin OR Gnomish OR Q(u)enya, and which many languages lack, e.g. Latin and German), or by simply silently ignoring it.
All of which results in objection:
3) The needless, unjustified, misleading, and inaccurate application of the adj. "authentic" to these texts, as it lends to them an assumption of agreement with Tolkien's own languages and usages that is in fact notably lacking in the majority of them, and even in the best of them.
cfh 14:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
What I and at least my closest colleagues most certainly do NOT object to is the attempt to use Tolkien's languages for new and original composition.
My colleagues and I have ALL offered Neo-Eldarin compositions ourselves: we all recognize that it can be fun and even instructive to do so. We have no wish whatsoever to stop anyone from engaging in it. But we WOULD like to see it done better than it is, namely by being more aware of what Tolkien himself wrote in and about his languages, and the nuances of his vocabulary and grammar -- most of which are not in evidence in most Neo-Eldarin compositions, and far too much of which is absent from the various distillations of (supposedly) Elvish grammar found on the web and in Salo's book.
I have offered my own critique of all this, **AS WELL AS my suggestions for how to improve these attempts***, in an essay, "Elvish As She Is Spoke", published in the recent proceedings of the Marquette conference titled The Lord of the Rings 1954–2004: Scholarship in Honor of Richard E. Blackwelder, and I would ask Helge and anyone else who presumes to make representations of my positions on and criticisms of Neo-Eldarin to read this essay before doing so, particularly as the attitudes I've seen attributed to me so far rarely ever match my actual position.
cfh 14:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
What's so particularly disheartening about all this is that I've stipulated these things before, clearly, and more than once, in forums where Helge has participated, and yet he persists in failing to acknowledge these positions, and instead sets up various straw-man positions that he attributes to me and/or always unnamed and unlinked-to "some". It's very easy to seem to address criticisms when you get to make them up only to knock them down, instead of addressing actual statements.
cfh 16:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Another suggestion
What might be more helpful is if the parties concerned document the history and the published material on Tolkien's languages, plus links to webpages containing information (rather than opinion). This would allow the reader to make up their own minds about things. Might I also point out other articles on Tolkien linguistic studies here. Those articles need expanding and new articles created. Once that is done, then arguments can begin again about the nuances and exact wording of the articles. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Assertions: facts or opinions?
As currently written (May 26, 2006), the section entitled "Criticism and controversy" has, in my humble opinion, a quite serious problem regarding its point of view. Whether disputed or not (as non-neutral per previous comments above), it mostly asserts opinions without any references of evidence. This is embarassing for at least two reasons: (a) an encyclopedia, as stated in Wikipedia's core rules, should be concerned with facts rather than mere opinions, and (b) a section about controversy should especially link the (controversial) facts to their sources.
Just to quote a few points where the problem is prominently appearing:
"Tolkienian linguists whose approach to Tolkien's languages is primarily academic do not necessarily object to "updating" and "editing" the material..."
Who are these Tolkienian linguists? Are we referring here to some precise definition of group(s) with publication(s) where such an approach has been formalized, or is this just a bold assertion of opinion that some supposedly Tolkienian linguist MAY possibly think as expressed here (but not always?)
"Neo-Eldarin supporters may respond that such efforts..."
They MAY? What does this mean? Who are these Neo-Eldarin supporters and have they actually stated somewhere that they DO respond the abovementioned way? As in the previous point, we are presented a controversy where actually the oponents of different approaches are not well defined, and likewise have no clear position.
"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."
Is this a statement of value? Then who here is judging that "this does not imply such an such"?
"In the 1990s, terms like "mature" and "immature" were to some extent applied to Tolkien's manuscripts, "immature" referring primarily to pre-LotR material."
Where have these terms ("mature" and "immature") been used and by whom?
"Critics have also expressed concern that heavy-handed editing..."
Again who are these Critics and where such statement were made? This presentation of the controversy seriously lacks references.
"Nevertheless, some claim that even for scholarly and academic purposes,..."
Same problem as in previous point. "Some claim" looks as an unattested assertions rather than a clear fact with verifiable evidences.
"Comparisons have been made with the Silmarillion,..."
Who and where? (Again)
"People supporting a Neo-Eldarin standard may therefore argue that even... Critics may reject the analogy, feeling that editing a book is something quite different..."
They both MAY do this or this - As previously stated, I don't feel this formulation is clear enough. They MAY, but DO they?
"Also, Christopher Tolkien later expressed doubts about whether producing a unified Silmarillion was the right thing to do; he came to regret some of his editing decisions."
Seriously, such a statement and judgement REQUIRES a reference. Perhaps the author of this sentence is implicitely thinking to CJRT's notes following the commentary of the Wanderings of Húrin in The War of the Jewels? Perhaps he has other sources in mind, unknown to me (and other readers)? Anyhow, this rather looks as an interpretation of CJRT's opinions, rather than a factual quote.
"(Tolkien) never got around to publishing such a work, but if he had, it would presumably have presented "definite" versions of the languages."
Er... "If he had"? But he hasn't, so the above is necessarily an opinion, not a fact, isn't it?
... And so on for almost all this rather ambiguous section, where we are presented a controversy without any solid ground to judge it, understand it and balance its point of view. I'd encourage the initial author to fix these points, so that other can contribute and comment on precise facts. Dongann 17:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neo-Eldarin?
I'm just wondering if Neo-Eldarin would be the best blanket term for Neo-Quenya and Neo-Sindarin. Quenya was spoken by the Eldar, but the Sindar are separate from the Eldar. Perhaps Neo-Quendian would be more accurate.
- Quite wrong. The Sindar were Eldar—all Elves who went on the Great March were, regardless of wether or not they made it to Valinor or not. -- Jordi·✆ 22:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References problem
It seems that Wikipedia is not the best place for posting such articles. Although I have been a witness of some of those claims, it's really hard to find references for them Pictureuploader 18:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neo-Eldarin "names"
Just wandering through TolkLang et.al gives a variety of names for the "derived" Tolkienesque languages. Just putting them here for some history on how Neo-Eldarin got it's groove.
“Coirea Quenya, Neo-Quenya” used in Elfling message 90 by Graham Hart (20 oct 1998) 32.38 Re: Modern Elvish - 08 Sep 1998
Neo sindarin in 27/6/2000 (Elfling message 2870) David Salo
Neo-Quenya - 6 Mar 2002 (Elfling message 11546) Helge K. Fauskanger (responding to CFHs use of “Helquenya”)
Initial TolkLang articles about “vinyakaarie” (from a post from A Appleyard): 1.03, 1.04, 1.05, 1.06, 1.08, 1.09, 3.14, 3.67, 3.70, 3.70, 3.71, 3.74, 3.74, 3.78, 3.80, 3.84, 3.90, 3.91, 3.93, 3.95, 8.22, 8.28 (in favour of), 8.29, 8.32 (reply to 8.28), 8.34, 8.35, 8.36, 8.44, 8.48, 8.84. See also 6.80. Shot info 07:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External links
I've added external links to my two chief articles that present my actual views on "Neo-Elvish", in the hopes that they will be used to balance and improve the presentation of the criticisms of "Neo-Elvish" on Wikipedia and around the web, and particularly improve discussions of my own views, which I barely recognize in the the attitudes and claims ascribed to me in most discussions of the matter. cfh 15:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
