Talk:Neo-Eldarin literature

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, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles. Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
Assessment Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

if I can address Helge directly here: I actually find much of what you've written in this and the other "Neo-Eldarin" article to be fairly balanced and moderate compared to previous statements and to certain other related Wikipedia articles. As such, I am eager to work with you to make these both as accurate and balanced as the two of us can, since getting as close to the truth of these matters is obviously in the best interest of everyone who reads these articles. So:

"The most conservative view would be that only Tolkien himself could ever write an "authentic" text in any of his invented languages;"

This may be "conservative", but it is also respects the definition of "authentic": "adjective 1 of undisputed origin; genuine : the letter is now accepted as an authentic document". You can dismiss this as "hair-splitting", but no one else is bound to agree with your assessment of the point, least of all those who disagree with the use of the term, so doing so is inherently POV.

"thus the most vocal critics have dismissed texts written by others as fabrications, or even as forgeries."

What do you mean by "dismiss"? Who says that all such texts are "dismissed", or are considered "fabrications"? Do you dispute that at least _some_ such texts _do_ contain "fabrications", i.e., unauthentic forms and grammar, i.e., that are unattested in Tolkien's writings? And who has _ever_ labelled any such texts "forgeries"? That would imply someone trying to pass off a text _as a composition by Tolkien_: to my knowledge, no one has ever done so, nor used the term "forgery" of _any_ such text.

" The most liberal view would be that a text faithfully reproducing Tolkien's grammar and using Tolkienian vocabulary is just as "authentic" as Tolkien's own compositions."

"Liberal" it may be, but it would also be inaccurate, as it flies in the face of the definition of "authentic" as it applies to texts.

Further, this assumes your conclusion: that the texts in question do in fact "faithfully reproduce Tolkien's grammar and use Tolkienian vocabulary". The heart of the "dispute" is that the texts _rarely_ do so, and further that the grammars offered by Fauskanger and Salo in fact do _not_ accurately reflect the details or the themes of Tolkien's own attested forms and usages. This article fails to appreciate or reflect this fact.

cfh 23:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

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 16:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

> I am eager to work with you to make these both as accurate and balanced

Speaking to Hostetter and the rest of the guys who may be reading this: If he is serious about this, let him demonstrate his supposed good will by removing or seriously rewriting some of his latest contributions to the Neo-Eldarin article (i.e. the attempt to trace virtually all Neo-Eldarin activity back to the inspiration of David Salo and myself). There are NO statistics available for where most writers learnt whatever they know about Eldarin.

People were trying to write in these languages long before David and I came along. (There is even the poem _Valinorenna_ in a certain "indispensable" book that was published when I was 7 years old!) Very often, details in the Neo-Eldarin poems floating around differ from the grammar I would have used (though sometimes the alternative grammar is equally Tolkien-compatible, and then I have no reason to complain). Also, quite a few of the currently active writers often participate in discussions demonstrating that they definitely own, read and study many primary sources for themselves. Trying to trace all of this activity back to two (2!) "promulgators" is absurd.

The only Sindarin course out there is written by Thorsten Renk -- not by David Salo, and certainly not by me.

> And who has _ever_ labelled any such texts "forgeries"? That would imply someone trying to pass off a text _as a composition by Tolkien_: to my knowledge, no one has ever done so, nor used the term "forgery" of _any_ such text.

Hostetter's knowledge is imperfect, even as regards other members of his group. See direct quote from Patrick Wynne in the Neo-Eldarin article.

As for the never-ending "Authentic" discussion: If somebody asks, "How to say 'the Elf watched the Dwarf' in Quenya?", I will maintain that the answer _i Elda tirne i Nauco_ is very much authentic in the same sense _Garble Gurble Gook_ is NOT authentic. Both are "unauthentic" in the sense that neither is written by Tolkien, but one does use authentic (and I believe uncontroversial) grammar and vocabulary. It is of "undisputed origin, genuine" because all these words, as well as the SVO word order, unquestionably existed in Tolkien's conception of Quenya. Thus the whole sentence is, in _this_ sense, authentic.

Of course, nobody claims the sentence would go just like this in ALL conceptual phases Tolkien went through (for instance, in the Lexicon of 1915, the past tense "watched" was not _tirne_ but _t�re_), but the fact that no long texts can be written that agree with ALL of Tolkien's papers is explicitly acknowledged in the articles as I wrote them.

But Hostetter's own preferred definition of "authentic" is also noted in the article, so why must he make an issue out of this? Again?

> What do you mean by "dismiss"?

Let us, for instance, consider the "forgery" quote from Patrick Wynne. We may add some other charming remarks of his as well (http://www.elvish.org/Tengwestie/editorials/20040404.phtml):

> [Online] Tolkienian linguistics [...] is still for the most part pointlessly spinning its wheels in a juvenile obsession with speaking languages that were never meant to have a life outside of Tolkien's mythology... Will Tolkienian linguistics, online and off, ever grow up and put away childish things, abandoning its current fascination with tattoos, wedding-band inscriptions, translated newspaper headlines, and blockbuster movies in which Hollywood heartthrobs declaim lugubriously in faux Sindarin? Will Tolkienian linguistics ever become mature and organized? Only time will tell.

If this is not a dismissal of Neo-Eldarin, God help us if Wynne decides to produce a REAL dismissal one day.

As for accusations of grammatical errors, oversimplification etc... -- all this is a direct consequence of the fact that most of us have never seen more than a tiny fraction of Tolkien's writings. Hostetter is one of the extremely few people in the world who can do something about this situation. Unfortunately he seems to be spending much of his time complaining about the best efforts of others instead.

It is, of course, highly likely that Hostetter is able to spot certain palpable errors and misinterpretations in the conventions often used by Neo-Eldarin writers. He does, after all, sit on THOUSANDS of pages of material that the rest of us may not see in decades (if ever). Maybe even certain published details that many researchers now think of as belonging to earlier conceptual phases, actually survived into Tolkien's later conception as well. Maybe this is quite evident from material gathering dust on Hostetter's shelves. But based on the evidence available to _us_, there is no way we can be sure.

As I wrote them, the articles already refer to 1) the fact that the publication of more material may lead writers to adopt conventions significantly different from the ones often used today, as well as 2) the fact that current Neo-Eldarin efforts must be tentative and preliminary because so much material still cannot be considered. So why is Hostetter making noises? More controversy just for the sake of it?

If Hostetter is so dissatisfied with current Neo-Eldarin efforts, may one suggest that he _stops complaining_ and rather channels his energies into the publication project? In particular, could he be bothered to publish post-LotR manuscripts that would throw light on things he feels are imperfectly understood today?

Make the evidence available, and Neo-Eldarin will improve correspondingly. As long as Hostetter fails to do this, despite the crushing responsibility he ought to feel given his near-unique opportunity to actually do it, he is the last person in the world who has any right to complain about errors in other people's texts.

Contents 1 = 2 A suggestion 3 Question 4 Wikipedia admin roles 5 External links

[edit] =

Well, this is sadly characteristic of Helge. He pretends to have forgotten what he wrote, and what is plain from reviewing it: Pat Wynne did NOT use the term "forgery": HELGE did. As usual, HELGE inserts terms into the debate, and then pretends that others supplied them.

I can't say I'm surprised, though I am once again disappointed at Helge's unwillingness to put aside his agenda for the sake of truthfulness and accuracy. Obviously, Helge has no interest in supplying an accrurate article to Wikipedia, only in advancing his agenda with his usual mixture of misrepresentations and (at best) half truths.

Note well what happens when one tries to work _with_ Helge, and hence the futility of all such attempts. So be it.

One does not have to have access to ONE SCRAP of unpublished material to spot the manifold and manifest errors in Helge's and Salo's Neo-languages: one has only to compare what they ASSERT with what Tolkien actually wrote. I've listed plenty of examples of such errors with recourse only to the published materials, as have others (e.g., Thorsten Renk, who has NO access to unpublished material, and yet has done a MUCH MORE thorough job of demolishing Fauskanger and Salo's "theories" than have I or Pat); and this just scratches the surface. Helge's "big lie" is that there are no such demonstrable errors in his/Salo's work, that one has to have access to unpublished materials to find any fault with his/Salo's work. Whereas the reality is that ANYONE can see the errors for themselves, if only they make the minimal effort to compare their "theories" with Tolkien's actual words. Sadly, few do, as is evident from the vast bulk of "Neo-Elvish" compositions and forums.

Indeed, if Helge (or Salo) spent one-one-hundredth as much effort in considering criticisms of his work and correcting it accordingly as he does "defending" it by further misrepresentations and ad hominem attacks, there would be little need for me to write here.

As for Helge's weird and self-serving fixation on calling Neo-Elvish "authentic" -- seemingly so as to mask the differences between Tolkien's Elvish and Neo-Elvish -- why not be precise, instead of misusing English terms misleadingly? I would call the Neo-Eldarin sentence Helge cites ("_i Elda tirne i Nauco_") (at best) POTENTIALLY GRAMMATICAL Qenya (as the past-tense verb _tirne_ derives from the Qenya of _The Etymologies_, NOT from later Quenya, and as the syntax and idiom are unproven, e.g. in the use of the definite article: they certainly mimic the English source, as it typical and characterstic of Neo-Elvish, but do not NECESSARILY reflect Quenya (or Qenya) idiom, so far as we can tell), or even "grammatical Neo-Quenya" (as it accords with the grammar of Neo-Quenya, i.e., of the language constructed by Fauskanger); but I would NEVER call it "authentic Quenya", as that implies a degree of certitude in the grammar, syntax, and idiom of Quenya that is simply lacking, and probably always WILL be lacking, given the nature of Tolkien's language. (Helge and Salo often assume to themselves the "authority" to redfine Tolkien's words for their students; unfortunately for them, they don't enjoy similar authority in redefining _English_ words.) It is odd that Helge cannot (or will not) grasp this simple and plain fact, just as he refuses to address the specific critiques I have suppled: would Helge call "He speaked a strange tongue and thinked it English" _authentic_ English? What about "Me go close-eye this-time"? And yet these would HAVE to be considered "authentic" English if we apply the same criteria as Helge does for Quenya: they use attested English vocabulary, formations, and syntax. Clearly, though, if "authentic" can be applied to these "Neo-English" sentences, then the word has lost any useful meaning.

Would any linguist call Tolkien's "_Bagme Bloma_" "authentic" Gothic? Of course not! It can fairly be called "Gothic", loosely and in informal setting; but to call it "authentic" Gothic would deliberately imply a nature that the poem manifestly does not have: it is NOT an authentic product of a speaker of Gothic, but rather a theoretical construct of _potentially grammatical_ Gothic (though by no means _certainly_ grammatical) by a student of that long-dead and far-from-fully attested language.

Or, consider this bit of "authentic" Neo-Elvish: In "Galadriel's Lament" we find the adjective _vanwa_ 'lost'. And as a result, Neo-Quenya writers happily use _vanwa_ to translate English 'lost' IN ANY AND ALL OF ITS SENSES. But both the context and the etymology of the word indicate that it means 'lost' only in ONE sense of the English word: "2. denoting something that has been taken away or cannot be recovered" (as it derives from the same stem _van-_ 'depart' ALSO evidenced in "Galadriel's Lament" in _avánier_ 'they have passed away'). Yet _vanwa_ is used even by "experts" in Neo-Quenya to translate 'lost' in the sense "1. unable to find one's way; not knowing one's whereabouts", QUITE erroneously. One does NOT have to have access to any unpublished materials to see the blatant error in this usage: one has only to consider the word and its translation IN CONTEXT, AS TOLKIEN USED AND DEFINED IT, and IN CONNECTION WITH TOLKIEN'S OWN ETYMOLOGIES: in other words, PRECISELY what Neo-Elvish writers so typically fail to do.

Helge will, of course, continue to refuse to acknowledge or to address these simple diagnostic tests, in favor of his usual rhetoric of assertion, misuse of English terms, and ad hominem attacks.

cfh 02:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, firstly "Neo-Eldarin" needs to be defined. And whether or not "Neo-Eldarin" is non-authentic Eldarin or authentic Neo-Eldarin is largely an arguement in semantics. The use of English as an example of "authentic" though is a bit of a laugh, which English? Standard English, RP, BEV (much less say English spoken in Norway, or the US for that matter). All are "authentic" for a given level of whatever "authentic" actually means.

Mind you, all this is really POV, particularly when it comes down to one person's opinion against another. Remember it is important to realize that in contributing to Wikipedia, users are expected to be civil and neutral, respecting all points of view, and only add verifiable and factual information rather than personal views and opinions. "The five pillars of Wikipedia" cover this approach and are recommended reading before editing.

By the way, some of Hostetter's arguements with "Neo-Eldarin" are addressed on the Quenya mailing list (see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quenya/message/1809)Shot info 05:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that Mr. Hostetter's criticism of my use of vanwa is valid. But I would like to comment that I understood the contextual meaning as denoting "something that has been taken away or cannot be recovered" when I wrote this poem, although "unable to find one's way; not knowing one's whereabouts" is much more sound in this context. Finnish has two different words for the different denotations: eksynyt (act. past partic. of eksyä) "unable to find one's way; not knowing one's whereabouts", kadonnut (act. past partic. of kadota) "denoting something that has been taken away or cannot be recovered". My translation of "All that is gold does not glitter" is an old one and I have always noticed that it is not very good in numerous points, including this one. I am not an expert in Neo-Quenya, I have only been claimed to be such by some. If I am, then the state Neo-Quenya is not in very good shape, as I am only a humble dabbler aware of making mistakes all the time.

So are we all, Petri. One of the problems with Neo-Elvish is that pretty much anyone with a website on the subject is regarded as an expert (whether they present themselves as one or not) by the hordes of Elvish enthusiasts who rely solely on the web for their information on Tolkien's languages, rather than consulting Tolkien's own writings, with the result that whatever they say or do is treated as just as "authentic" as Tolkien's own writings, and the distinction is lost (no pun intended).

But hey, Petri, you certainly ARE an expert, as such things go in this field: your knowledge of Tolkien's languages FAR outstrips that of the vast bulk of enthusiasts. (What's more, I actually do like your Neo-Elvish translations, despite some disagreements in particulars: you at least have the rare good sense to choose suitably beautiful/serious/Tolkienian texts and subjects for your translations, as opposed to the banal/new-agey/downright profane texts so often offered!)

I should meliorate my comments a bit: in truth, it remains technically POSSIBLE that Tolkien might have used _vanwa_ to translate 'lost' in the sense of "unable to find one's way; not knowing one's whereabouts" if the occassion to translate that sense arose; the problem, though, is that the evidence we have for its etymology, meaning, and usage supports ONLY its use as "something that has been taken away or cannot be recovered". So we are on very firm ground using it in this latter sense, but on very shaky ground using it in the former. The problem is that Neo-Elvish writers (and even promulgators) RARELY observe such distinctions between what the evidence SUPPORTS and what is otherwise only theorectically possible. Worse, Neo-Elvish writers very often employ "dictionary translation", whereby if an Elvish word is glossed in a dictionary with the English word X, then it is assumed that that Elvish word can be used to translate that English word in ALL of its English senses. Any teacher of a foreign language will be painfully aware of this phenomenon among students!

Indeed, as I have observered numerous times in the past, one of the hallmarks of Neo-Elvish in distinction to Tolkien's Elvish is how slavishly correspondent it is to English syntax, semantics, and idiom (and sometimes even grammar...).

cfh 13:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion

Might I suggest that instead of arguing over the use of the term "authentic", that you both (and the others involved in this controversy) find another way to phrase this - one that is acceptable to all sides? The way I would put it is to say, that as an invented language, Elvish can never be truly authentic (to be that, it would have to be handed down through several generations and evolve, during that time, through stages, into a mature, fully-fledged language). Tolkien may have, in his constructions, imitated some of this, but it is clear that any later work can only extend Tolkien's work, or analyse what he did. To talk of authentic Neo-Eldarin is silly. To talk of different levels of skill in understanding Tolkien's work would be more accurate, if also requiring what may be subjective judgements. Carcharoth 13:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm perfectly happy with calling these things Quenya and Sindarin in informal usage (i.e., in distinction to Black Speech or Grelvish or German). Where more precision is needed or appropriate, what's wrong with Neo-Quenya and Neo-Sindarin? To my knowledge no one has objected to these terms, and they avoid the implication of "authentic" by making explicit the post-Tolkien nature of these languages. In fact, so far as I can see Helge is the only one who has argued for the use of "authentic", and the only one to apply it to Neo-Quenya and Neo-Sindarin. One might well ask him why he feels it so important to preserve and promote this term over "Neo-"?cfh 13:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Maybe this isn't really the right forum to be discussing this, but let us ask the question nevertheless: Could Carl F. Hostetter even _imagine_ a normalized Eldarin grammar that he would regard as an acceptable, representative cross-section of Tolkien's (late) ideas about his languages? A grammar he would not lambaste as over-simplified or distorted, but just "normalized", plain and simple?

Although Helge consistently refuses to answer any of MY questions, I'll nonetheless answer his: yes, of course! Neo-Elvish is perfectly acceptable AS NEO-ELVISH. It is however NOT acceptable as "authentic" Elvish, the term YOU keep trying to apply to the construct. I have said repeatedly -- and Helge has repeatedly ignored my saying -- that I have NO OBJECTION WHATSOEVER to the construction and use of Neo-Elvish, SO LONG AS IT IS KEPT DISTINCT FROM TOLKIEN'S OWN, and so long as it is not used as the basis for making false claims about Tolkien's languages, as HE constructed them. Really, why is this so hard for Helge to accept or even acknowledge? cfh 14:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

CFH asks:

> Where more precision is needed or appropriate, what's wrong with Neo-Quenya and Neo-Sindarin?

These terms are in common use already, and I use them all over. There is nothing "wrong" with them. They refer, very simply, to any post-Tolkien attempt to write in Quenya or Sindarin. The terms imply no judgement whatsoever as to whether such attemps are actually _successful_ or whether they are _authentic_ Tolkien-elvish. On that point, an encyclopedia should simply note the fact that opinions differ. (I have explained ad nauseam what I mean by "authentic" in this connection, but to CFH it seems to be an intolerable idea that any other definition than the one preferred by himself should ever be publicly mentioned, even in an article that fully acknowledges his own preferred definition as well.)

One suspects, however, that if CFH is suddenly very fond of the Neo-terms, this is because he wants to use them to CONTRAST (say) Quenya and Neo-Quenya, implying that one is the real thing and the other is just a pale imitation or forgery (as when Patrick Wynne speaks of "faux Sindarin" -- don't tell me that THIS is something I put into his mouth!) If Quenya is regarded as an actual language, Neo-Quenya in its various forms is simply its latest manifestation(s), and the "Neo-" prefix merely refers to the chronological fact that the language has entered the post-Tolkien era.

There is no "suspicion" involved: I have STATED OPENLY, including in these pages, that I prefer the term "Neo-" so as to maintain a distinction between what Tolkien actually wrote in and about his languages, and what others write. As such, this involves no necessary value judments as Helge wants to attribute to me (I'll thank him not to pretend to be able to read my mind): not all distinctions, simply as distinctions, imply value judgments, only that there are differences. As for what Helge calls "my" definition of "authentic", it is that supplied by standard dictionaries; the fact the he feels free to create and assert "his" own definition, in preference to and distinction from the standard definition, does not obviate the standard definition, nor remove the resultant confusion or objection. cfh 14:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

CFH writes:

> I have NO OBJECTION WHATSOEVER to the construction and use of Neo-Elvish, SO LONG AS IT IS KEPT DISTINCT FROM TOLKIEN'S OWN

Ah, exactly! Just as I suspected: CFH's real object is, as always, to deny Neo-Eldarin its Tolkienian status. It is to be dismissed as _another_ language altogether, an "artificial construct" that the unwary may perhaps mistake for the real thing, but at the end of the day, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien was the only person in CFH's universe who could ever juxtapose two Eldarin words and rightly call the result Quenya/Sindarin in the unqualified sense.

More Fauskangerian self-serving nonsense. My "real object" is exactly what I stated. But I thank Helge for making plain his willingness to reject and distort the actual words and positions of others to serve his agenda: a useful reminder that one cannot trust Helge's claims about ANYTHING. ALWAYS CHECK WHAT HELGE SAYS AGAINST THE FACTS, PEOPLE. cfh 15:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So let me ask once more: Can CFH imagine a normalized grammar that is still thought of as describing essentially _Tolkien's_ language, in the same sense the published Silmarillion is fairly universally regarded as _Tolkien's_ book, even though it was edited by others, and its published form is not simply a direct transcript of one single, continuous Tolkien manuscript?

(You of course mean "ask instead", as you've now changed the terms of the question, though as usual you prefer to pretend othewise). The answer is, Yes, it is certainly possible to write a _descriptive_ grammar of _Tolkien's_ language_s_, at each of their various stages, by sticking solely to what Tolkien wrote, and by considering ALL that he wrote. Certainly, you and Salo have not even come close to doing so; but equally certainly, it is POSSIBLE to do so. cfh 15:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not object to the current wording of Assessment, but will you seriously call the following NPOV?

> Wynne and Hostetter note that it is instructive to compare the two to see how greatly Neo-Eldarin compositions, even skillful ones, must inevitably differ from what Tolkien himself would produce.

"Wynne and Hostetter note..." -- "note" implies objective observation as opposed to POV, which it really is.

"Even skillful ones" -- in the context, this may seem to refer to your own original translation. Self-praise.

"Must inevitably differ" -- here you are expressing your VIEW that no post-Tolkien writer can successfully emulate Eldarin (even presenting your POV as "inevitable" fact!)

Could not your translation differ from Tolkien's for any number of reasons, including the simple fact that two people will never use the exact same words to translate a long text? Indeed, Tolkien HIMSELF made not one definite but a whole string of Lord's Prayer translations.

The wording I suggested, and which you promptly deleted, was on the other hand a neutral description of your view, allowing you to make your point but not presenting it as objective "fact". I will therefore restore the wording I suggested, which is in no way a misrepresentation or putting words into your mouth. Then I must sign off for now for now (and maybe you have important work to do for NASA, Carl?) If you change it again, I will ask a Wikipedia administrator to have a look at this.

Helge, my notation against the entry for our translation of the Lord's Prayer accurately REPORTS what Pat and I actually said about out translation. AS SUCH, as a REPORT, IT IS INHERENTLY NPOV. Your mangling of what we actually said about it, however, is NOT an accurate report, and DOES represent YOUR inherently NON-NPOV. And yes, please, BY ALL MEANS, can we have a Wikipedia admin. look at this stuff? PLEASE? cfh 15:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia admin roles

As I understand it, Wikipedia admins don't get involved in content dispute. They won't be able to say what should be said here - that is for people knowledgeable in this area to do (if they can reach agreement on it). What Wikipedia admins will do is rule in cases where edit warring is taking place, and will look at the conduct of the editors. From what I've seen, neither side is covering themselves in glory, but then this is just the latest stage in a long-running dispute, from what I've heard elsewhere.

For what it is worth, I would suggest starting from a short set of statements that you can both agree on, and expanding it from there, rather than either side writing long essays that get picked apart by the other side. Carcharoth 16:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Your suggested approach is precisely what I was seeking with my intiial overture toward Helge, to work with him to produce a balanced and accurate article. You can see how Helge reacts to such an approach. Alas. cfh 18:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think cfh is the one over reacting here what with the attempting defining without actually defining non-authentic Eldarin vs. authentic Neo-Eldarin and the over use of CAPITALs and the endless reiteration of arbitary POV arguements. Why is that this user makes edits, reverts other peoples edits (both in this article and on several others see elfcon as an example), ready to slap a NPOV label on others edits, but refuses to even entertain that maybe, just maybe other wikieditors consider his edits NPOV, and then finally asks for moderator intervention? I recommend that all editors remember "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." without endlessly asking for a moderator. Shot info 00:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: I am not to edit Helge's writing; but I am faulted for not providing a definition of "authentic Eldarin vs. authentic Neo-Eldarin"; this despite having edited the article precisely to clarify that definition, only to have it repeatedly reverted by Helge; but I am not to revert his changes; but we shouldn't participate in Wikipedia unless we're prepared to have our writing mercilessly edited; and so long as Helge reverts my contributions I should just accept that its because I'm POV but he isn't; but he can say anything he wants about me and ascribe any views and motives to me he wants, and I don't dare disagree with it or express what my views actually are, because Helge's opinions are of course entirely NPOV; and I'm to be faulted for calling for a moderator, even though I was only echoing Helge's own call, which he made first, but that's OK because... well, because. Uh... got it. Well, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how inconsistent, contrary-to-fact, and just plain non-sensical. cfh 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet another example of "over reacting". It is pointless discussing anything with you as you only seem to endlessly reiterate your talking points. Incidently, thank you for your concern over my opinion (remember to assume good faith). You too are entitled to your POV, just not in the article. Can I encourage you to read (or reread) Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:List of guidelines (this goes for other editors as well). As Carcharoth suggested, start with a short set of statements that you can both agree on, and expanding it from there, rather than either side writing long essays that get picked apart by the other side. Shot info 02:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but it is another example of your cluelessness. As noted above, I began this discussion page trying to do just what Charcharoth suggested: you can see how Helge reacted to it. If, that is, you bother to read this discussion, as your comments continue to demonstrate you haven't. cfh 02:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Cluelessness"...nice

At your invitation, "Shot info", I've reviewed the guidelines and policies. Here's a list of what I found of relevance:

1) "It is a faux pas to write about yourself in Wikipedia. This is a guideline that has been upheld by both Jimmy Wales [1] and the Arbitration Committtee [2]. You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest."

Helge has violated this in spades: as a chief promulgator of Neo-Elvish, these articles he has suppled recently are all "about subjects in which he and his website is [very] personally involved". (Personally, I don't mind, as Helge does have considerable and in some aspects unique experience with the issues involved -- but then again, SO DO I. That's why I thought he and I could work together to make this a truly accurate, balanced, and illuminating article: hence my initial overture when creating this talk page. Helge wasn't interested in striving for this overarching Wikipedia goal, however, as he has demonstrated at length in his responses. Alas.)

Always about Helge, Helge does this, Helge does that.

Helge wrote this article. Are you saying that this does NOT involve Helge? Actually, considering your apparent attitude in singling me out for (contrary-to-fact) criticism, namely, that Helge can do no wrong and I can do no right, I think that really IS what you are saying.

2) "No personal attacks Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse."

Guess you haven't read that one.

Continuing in your line of thinking, it could be argued that you started it. Remember, assume good faith.

I happily assume good faith in editing when others extend the same courtesy to me. Something you jumped right in violating. Nonetheless, good-faith or no, accuracy is the goal here, and is all I'm striving for. Pursuing that goal is not, in itself, and despite your assertion, a violation of good-faith assumptions.

Further, your repeated avoidance of the actual points I make in favor of lobbing ad hominem attacks my way it makes it clear that you STILL haven't read this particular guideline, so let me emphasize it again: ***"Comment on content, not on the contributor."***

3) "Sock puppetry Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block; nor ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone."

<koff>

?

4) "Ownership of articles You agreed to allow others to modify your work. So let them."

Guess that agreement doesn't extend to me, though.

You will note that I have asked all to remain civil etc. etc. but I do note that you have decided to turn your "blow torch" of attention onto myself. You will have to note that it is you that have made the majority of the comments, changes, reverts etc. It is only natural that comments on your conduct is more that other editors.

Smell the irony (BTW: what is _your_ middle name?). I made the majority of changes because Helge had his extensive say up front, as the author of these long articles. It was then for me to correct his mistakes and provide balance to his representations. OBVIOUSLY that puts me in the position of having to make many small edits. Your math here reflects the original authorship and manner of its presentation; but you seem to have allowed it to distract you from the fact that I am responding to a huge mass of claims, opinions, and characterizations _all made by Helge all at once_.

5) "Verifiability We cannot check the accuracy of claims, but we can check whether the claims have been published by a reputable publication. Articles should therefore cite sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

Funny, there seems to be a real dearth of source citation in Helge's many claims regarding the actual positions of Neo-Elvish critics, but a real wealth of unsupported claims and characterizations.

So start adding them.

WHAT DO YOU THINK I'VE BEEN DOING? I wish you'd make up your mind: do I make TOO MANY edits, or NOT ENOUGH? What IS the right number of edits, BTW? Funny, I thought the right amount was however many it took to correct errors and make for an accurate and balanced article. I didn't know there was a quota or ration.

6) "Harassment Don't stop other editors enjoying Wikipedia by threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information."

My educational background and even my middle name seem to be of considerable interest to you.

This has little to do with harassment. Why are you getting worked up about this? For some strange reason all other linguists in Wikipedia have descriptions of qualification and middle names are spelt out. Your article is rather short, but as dab points out we will have to let you be a rather mysterious individual :-)

It is not true at all, as even a cursory glance shows, that "all other linguists in Wikipedia have descriptions of qualification and middle names are spelt out". (Further, my entry doesn't even categorize me AS a linguist, so I don't even fit your weirdly restrictive category of entries that require middle names. Oh, and I see too that my entry and my list of qualifications is actually much longer than those of the vast majority of hose for linguists) Would you care to concoct a different explanation for your interest in my education and my middle name?

And best of all:

7) "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles. Wikis develop faster when people fix problems, ... add facts, make sure the language is precise, and so on. We expect everyone to be bold. It's okay. It is what everyone expects. .... Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit the article — it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. If someone writes an inferior article ... or outright patent nonsense, don't worry that editing it might hurt their feelings. Correct it, add to it, and, if it's total nonsense, replace it. That's the nature of a Wiki. And, of course, others here will boldly and mercilessly edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be."

Exactly my goal in offering to work with Helge on these pages. A goal he -- and you -- clearly have no interest in.

Still all about Helge. I like how you continual exhort others not to put words in your mouth, yet you have no compuntion about doing so yourself. Wiki has an article about that.Shot info 07:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep: because Helge still wrote this article. (Weird how that works). And once again, you avoid addressing the actual point in order to lob another ad hominem attack my way.

cfh 04:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"It is pointless discussing anything with you as you only seem to endlessly reiterate your talking points." Shot info 23:38, 25 May 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 15:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)