|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Oct 19 2007, 3:51am
Post #1 of 28
(2636 views)
Shortcut
|
|
**LotR Discussion: The Forewords (I)**
|
Can't Post
|
|
For many years, the LotR first edition foreword of 1954 (link will only work after main site is restored) was available only in long out-of-print editions of LotR. From 1996, most of it was available in The Peoples of Middle-earth (the final volume of HoMe). The whole thing has now been republished in The Lord of the Rings: A Reader’s Companion. This is how it begins:
This tale, which has grown to be almost a history of the great War of the Ring, is drawn for the most part from the memoirs of the renowned Hobbits, Bilbo and Frodo, as they are preserved in the Red Book of Westmarch.
He continues with some comments on the supposed provenance of the story, similar to what now appears in the “Note on the Shire Records” section of the Prologue. One imaginary text that he mentions here is absent from the later Note, however: the “Book of the Kings”.
Does its later absence repudiate the existence of such a work? If so, how, within the conceit of the story, could Tolkien have later explained its reference here?
Tolkien says that The Hobbit came from earlier chapters of the Red Book, much emended by himself, as they had been written by Bilbo, who “was not assiduous, nor an orderly narrator, and his account involved and discursive, and sometimes confused”. Bilbo’s skill is much upgraded in the “Note” of 1965: his Elvish translations (i.e. The Silmarillion) are said to be “a work of great skill and learning”. How does that mesh with his opinion of Bilbo here?
The change in tone between the two books is also explained this way:
Since my children and others of their age, who first heard of the finding of the Ring, have grown older with the years, this book speaks more plainly of those darker things which lurked only on the borders of the earlier tale, but which have troubled Middle-earth in all its history. It is, in fact, not a book written for children at all; though many children will, of course, be interested in it, or parts of it, as they still are in the histories and legends of other times (especially in those not specially written for them).
What parts of LotR most and least interest children? Do children really prefer history written for adults?
Tolkien dedicates LotR to the Inklings, his four children, and “all admirers of Bilbo”. Why did he drop this from the revised foreword? He also criticizes his own writing, of which he says, “If 'composition' is a just word, and these pages do not deserve all that I have said about Bilbo's work.”
There are passages where real life and fiction intertwine. As mentioned above, Tolkien writes that LotR is “drawn for the most part from the memoirs” of Bilbo and Frodo. He says the Inklings’ patience “almost leads me to suspect they have hobbit-blood in their venerable ancestry”. Notes from Hobbit fans have “surprised and delighted” him by showing the “interest in this almost forgotten history” that is “not yet universally recognized as an important branch of study”. The map of the Shire “has been approved as reasonably correct by those Hobbits that still concern themselves with ancient history”. Later Tolkien explained why he replaced this foreword: “confusing (as it does) real personal matters with the ‘machinery’ of the tale, is a serious mistake”. Do you agree? Are there points where the second edition foreword does the same thing?
Tolkien briefly describes the appendices, “for those who like such lore”, then concludes:
But not all are interested in such matters, and many who are not may still find the account of these great and valiant deeds worth the reading. It was in that hope that I began the work of translating and selecting the stories of the Red Book, part of which are now presented to Men of a later Age, one almost as darkling and ominous as was the Third Age that ended with the great years 1418 and 1419 of the Shire long ago.
Is the world today more or less “darkling and ominous” than 1954? And what effect does the state of the real world have on the appeal of LotR?
A footnote provides a brief pronunciation guide for Elvish words (e.g., “The diphthongs ai (ae), and au (aw), represent sounds like those heard in brine and brown, and not those in brain and brawn”) though Tolkien writes of readers “who do not need such information” that “they may, of course, pronounce as they like”.
Would you prefer the pronunciation guide at the beginning of LotR, as it once was? Why did Tolkien remove it? And what does Tolkien have against brain and brawn?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Oct. 15-21 for the Maps, Foreword, and Prologue.
|
|
|
elostirion74
Nargothrond
Oct 19 2007, 8:42am
Post #2 of 28
(2179 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm happy he changed the Foreword
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Judging by your extracts, the first Foreword is much more affected by the process of writing the story and a feeling of relief that the work has, after all, been finished and published. It's also seems to be tainted by Tolkien's "stories being handed down, rewritten and amended conceit" which I think is more suitable for the introduction than a Foreword.
I won't guess at which parts of the story would be most or least interesting to children. Perhaps most children would be more interested in the story in itself and how it ends for the main characters and care less about things like landscape? I don't know really. Children can certainly enjoy stories primarily written for adults, even if they do not understand or appreciate everything.
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Oct 19 2007, 12:10pm
Post #3 of 28
(2189 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Tolkien later regretted combining the fictional and real histories of LotR
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
in the Foreword to the First Edition. He wrote a new foreword primarily for copyright purposes after Ace pirated the First Edition, but commented that he was glad to replace the original foreword.
What parts of LotR most and least interest children? Do children really prefer history written for adults?
I certainly enjoyed LotR as a child, and I think many precocious children do, although it is beyond the reading level of many children. Except for the length and vocabulary and lack of pictures, I see nothing in LotR that would not appeal to children, although they might miss subtexts intended for adults. Of course that is one of the chief criticisms of LotR, but the critics who dismiss LotR as an overblown children's tale may also miss the subtexts intended for adults, while at the same time underestimating the value of children's tales.
Tolkien briefly describes the appendices, “for those who like such lore”, then concludes: But not all are interested in such matters, and many who are not may still find the account of these great and valiant deeds worth the reading. It was in that hope that I began the work of translating and selecting the stories of the Red Book, part of which are now presented to Men of a later Age, one almost as darkling and ominous as was the Third Age that ended with the great years 1418 and 1419 of the Shire long ago. Is the world today more or less “darkling and ominous” than 1954? And what effect does the state of the real world have on the appeal of LotR?
I never realized it before, but Tolkien himself may have contributed to the theories that the Ring was a symbol of the Atomic Bomb with this section of his original foreword, comparing end of the Third Age to 1954! And I do think the world was more darkling an ominous then than now. Two world wars had been fought, and many people expected a third to be fought with nuclear weapons. As awful as it is to fear that a terrorist will obtain and explode one atomic bomb, in the 1950s many people expected nuclear war involving many atomic bombs. But I think the appeal of LotR is timeless, which is why it was a mistake for Tolkien to make reference to the worries of the times, a mistake he rectified in the Foreword to the Second Edition.
A footnote provides a brief pronunciation guide for Elvish words (e.g., “The diphthongs ai (ae), and au (aw), represent sounds like those heard in brine and brown, and not those in brain and brawn”) though Tolkien writes of readers “who do not need such information” that “they may, of course, pronounce as they like”.
Would you prefer the pronunciation guide at the beginning of LotR, as it once was? Why did Tolkien remove it? And what does Tolkien have against brain and brawn?
There is alot more to that footnote than the note about dipthongs! And yes, I really wish he had included a note about pronunciation in the Second Edition. I resent having to relearn how to pronounce everything after I read the appendices. At the very least he could have said something about the hard "c" in Celeborn and Cirith Ungol.
Why did he omit it in the Second Edition? Well, as I commented below, the Foreword to the Second Edition reads more like an afterword, for those who have already read the book. And even in the First Edition he doesn't seem to have much hope that readers will be interested in pronunciation, since he puts the guide in a tiny footnote, and does so almost apologetically. He probably did not want to intimidate anyone, but underestimated the interest in such a guide.
Furthermore the Second Edition was published as a set, rather than one volume at a time, so readers really interested in pronunciation could consult the appendices. I just wish he had said something at the beginning about the fact that his book included nonstandard pronunciations, and perhaps directing the reader to the appendices.
To be fair to Tolkien, for a long time I didn't care about pronunciation even though I knew perfectly well it was non-standard. So perhaps I would have ignored the note even if it had appeared at the beginning. I still have to think about how Tolkien's invented words are pronounced, but fortunately these days I can consult one of the many resources on the internet.
|
|
|
visualweasel
Nargothrond
Oct 19 2007, 8:55pm
Post #4 of 28
(2159 views)
Shortcut
|
A footnote provides a brief pronunciation guide for Elvish words [..] Would you prefer the pronunciation guide at the beginning of LotR, as it once was? Why did Tolkien remove it?
Well, I always thought that Tolkien provided this footnote solely because the appendices were not yet published. I suspect he originally meant the note only as a year-long stopgap. He also writes in the first edition foreward that "[t]hese remarks do not apply to the names of the Hobbits or their Shire, which have all been anglicized, for reasons later explained" (italics mine). Is Tolkien referring to his own Appendix E, not yet published, here? For myself, I don't think one needs both the note and Appendix E; the latter is, of course, much more thorough, and I'm perfectly happy with it following the text, rather than preceding it. I think that's where people normally expect to find glossaries, family trees, pronunciation guides, and other supplementary material, isn't it?
On the other hand, I do recognize that habits formed over 2,000 pages can be hard to break, so I can understand the argument for some kind of prefatory comment on pronunciation. It's a little bit moot, perhaps, for all of us to be questioning where the pronunciation ought to be explained, since we've all read the book so many times. For a first-timer, though, I imagine it's an issue of some moment.
A related question: should Tolkien have expanded his Appendix E discussion of pronunciation to cover the names derived from Old English and Old Norse? Many people I talk to, in the absence of more explicit instruction from Tolkien, have fallen into the trap of pronouncing the names of Rohan and Rhovanion according to the "Elvish" rules in Appendix E. I even got an email the other day asking me whether the final sound in "Westmarch" should be pronounced like the ch in church or the ch in archipelago. Clearly, pace Tolkien, some readers are still confused.
But maybe this is a question to table until the discussion of the appendices.
Jason Fisher
Lingwë - Musings of a Fish
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Oct 19 2007, 10:57pm
Post #5 of 28
(2151 views)
Shortcut
|
I even got an email the other day asking me whether the final sound in "Westmarch" should be pronounced like the ch in church or the ch in archipelago. Clearly, pace Tolkien, some readers are still confused.
That's rich. Or is it rick? 
Many books do have pronunciation guides in the front, in my experience. I would at least like something directing me to the appropriate appendix. But what I really like about the note to the First Edition Foreword is that it was short and did not make my eyes glaze over like the appendix did. So I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a short guide in the front for lazy readers like me, and a long one in the back for those with more interest.
Of course, I admit that even now I usually consult the internet for the correct pronunciation, and often just pronounce Tolkien's words however I please, since I'm not having a verbal discussion. So I would have liked a really, really short guide I could consult with ease, or else a really, really long guide with list of every single invented word and how to pronounce it, or both. But that's okay, I like the book anyway. 
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Oct 20 2007, 5:50am
Post #6 of 28
(2147 views)
Shortcut
|
Judging by your extracts, the first Foreword is much more affected by the process of writing...
You should now be able to access drogo's 2005 post here.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Oct. 15-21 for the Maps, Foreword, and Prologue.
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Oct 20 2007, 2:34pm
Post #7 of 28
(2253 views)
Shortcut
|
|
How far would this short pronunciation guide get you?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Now that we can access drogo's post, here's the complete pronunciation guide from the first foreword:
The letters c and g are always 'hard' (as k, and g in get), even before e, i, and y; ch is used as in Welsh or German, not as in English church.
The dipthongs ai (ae), and au (aw), represent sounds like those heard in brine and brown, and not those in brain and brawn.
Long vowels are all marked with an accent, or with a circumflex, and are usually also stressed. Thus Legolas has a short o, and is meant to be stressed on the initial syllable.
So what are some examples of non-standard pronunciation in LotR? The prominent examples that come to mind are Celeborn, Cirith Ungol, Cirdan, Sauron, and Legolas.
I can't think of any examples of the "ai" dipthong, off hand. Oh, wait, there's Dunedain, of course. So it is Dunedine. I get that one wrong in my head all the time!
What are some examples of the non-standard pronunciation of "ch"? I'm sure there are some, but none come to my mind.
I could apply the rules to Gimli, and it would work for the hard "g" because it isn't pronounced Jimli, but Gimli is not Elvish, so is it just a coincidence that the same rules apply? And isn't the second "i" in Gimli pronounced differently from the first, like a long "e" rather than a short "i"? And why did I always pronounce Gimli as Tolkien intended, without a guide? Is it because of "gibbon"?
What about the "oi" in Gloin? For some reason I always pronounced Gimli right, without the guide, and always pronounced Gloin with two syllables, which I think is wrong. Should Gloin rhyme with loin, as in loin of lamb?
What about Gandalf? Again, this is not Elvish. Should they be short "a"s or "ah"s? I still tend to rhyme "Gan-" with ran, but I think it should rhyme with dawn.
How far do these rules get us? Can you think of any words that would be mispronounced according to Appendix E if we applied these short rules? For example, what about Minas Tirith? Should it be a short "i" or a long "ee" sound where the "i" appears? Either way, for years I pronounced Minas with a long "i," as in minus. A short "i" would have been closer.
What about Saruman? I believe it is pronounced Sahrumahn, but I don't think you would get that from the short rules. Is Saruman Elvish?
Don't these rules apply to Elvish and Elvish only? If so, why didn't Tolkien say so? Is it because many of the names in and near Gondor are in Elvish, but not identified as Elvish?
The more I think about it, the more I see why Tolkien would be unhappy with this brief guide. But Appendix E still makes my eyes glaze over, and even that may be too short. Linguists or would-be linguists want to know more about Tolkien's languages, while I would prefer a list of every non-standard pronunciation in the book, so that I don't have to apply the rules. As I recall, Tolkien's pronunciation of "Smeagol" on the audio tapes he made don't necessarily follow the rules for the "ea" dipthong. I think Tolkien pronounces it Smeegol, but perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong.
I wonder if someone out there could improve upon Tolkien's short guide, based on a condensed version of Appendix E that would not make my eyes glaze over, or if there are simply too many rules for a condensed version.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Oct 20 2007, 6:28pm
Post #8 of 28
(2155 views)
Shortcut
|
|
How very Germanic it all seems
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
summed up this way. German pronounces all 'c's and 'g's as hard, pronounces the 'ai' and 'au' diphthongs the way Tolkien wants them, and of course (as he mentions) has the 'ch' pronunciation that he prescribes.
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Oct 20 2007, 6:45pm
Post #9 of 28
(2136 views)
Shortcut
|
*unglazes eyes*
Glóin: is indeed gló - in, due to that accent mark over the "o", making it "long". At least, I figure that's why it's there!
Dunedain, rhymes with brine, sounds awfully Cockney to me...
I found some "ch"-words: Carach Angren, Carchost and Narchost, Eilenach, Torech Ungol. Tolkien was not overly-fond of that hard sound.
I always pronounced "Khazad" as chaz-ad, until the movies came out...
"Curunír" is Elvish, "Saruman" is - um, Common Speech? Like Gandalf. So the pronunciation is a free-for-all, depending on your regional dialect.
And you're quite right: Tolkien does not pronounce "Sméagol" according to his own instructions! Unless he's voicing an incredibly brief "ah" sound...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
"It struck me last night that you might write a fearfully good romantic drama, with as much of the 'supernatural' as you cared to introduce. Have you ever thought of it?"
-Geoffrey B. Smith, letter to JRR Tolkien, 1915
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Oct 20 2007, 7:08pm
Post #10 of 28
(2124 views)
Shortcut
|
For some reason, I've never been eager to look up such answers myself.
I'm glad to hear it isn't Gloin as in loin of lamb. I thought that might be correct, but I didn't like it.
Gosh, none of those "ch" words are particularly prominent, and most of them are in Mordor. No wonder I didn't think of them.
Isn't Gandalf really Norse, like many of the dwarves' names from The Hobbit? How did the Norse pronounce it?
Thanks for confirming my recollection of what someone told me about Tolkien's tape, and his pronunciation of "Sméagol."
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Oct 20 2007, 8:24pm
Post #11 of 28
(2128 views)
Shortcut
|
Or more specifically, Old Mercian, I think. Tom Shippey discusses the name somewhere. And as Curious notes, "Gandalf" (like the Dwarves' names in LotR and The Hobbit (and unlike those in the "Silmarillion" stories) is Old Norse. I don't think Tolkien provided the "genuine" Westron versions of their names.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Oct. 15-21 for the Maps, Foreword, and Prologue.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Oct 20 2007, 8:42pm
Post #12 of 28
(2131 views)
Shortcut
|
I think Tolkien's chief concern is that the second 'a' should be properly pronounced as a short 'a' - i.e. the name shouldn't come out 'Gandolf'. It is after all formed from the two words 'gand' (wand/staff) and 'alf' (elf), and both words should be pronounced fully.
This is carefully observed in the movies (as opposed to the BBC radio drama, for example). In fact, I think the movie pronunciations were so carefully researched and implemented that the films are probably the best pronunciation guide available.
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
(This post was edited by FarFromHome on Oct 20 2007, 8:43pm)
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Oct 20 2007, 9:14pm
Post #13 of 28
(2126 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, the movies are good for something.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Says the book purist. 
|
|
|
a.s.
Doriath
Oct 21 2007, 12:28am
Post #14 of 28
(2134 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I would have liked a pre-guide
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I didn't read the appendices until I'd read the book many times (hey, I was a teenager! give me a break, man). I would have liked some very short guide in the beginning (as many modern books have) with AT MINIMUM a guide to how to pronounce the major character and place names.
Or I wouldn't still be tempted to read "Celeborn" as "Sell-eh-born". I KNOW it's wrong, but my brain is difficult.
a.s.
"an seileachan"
"Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we must be saved by love."
~~~Reinhold Niebuhr
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Doriath
Oct 21 2007, 2:55pm
Post #15 of 28
(2122 views)
Shortcut
|
(if you're a book purist) is that you'd have to watch them! 
...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Oct 21 2007, 5:34pm
Post #16 of 28
(2105 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Nah, there are clips on YouTube./
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
visualweasel
Nargothrond
Oct 22 2007, 2:37pm
Post #17 of 28
(2120 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Several comments on pronuncation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I suppose I should preface this (and N.E.B. is no doubt vigorously nodding his head behind my back :) by saying that I'm really quite obsessed with the pronunciations. I don't normally correct people unless they ask, but since I've "made a special study" of how to pronounce the words and names aloud, I thought I'd reply to a few of the posts that have appeared since my last.
So what are some examples of non-standard pronunciation in LotR? The prominent examples that come to mind are Celeborn, Cirith Ungol, Cirdan, Sauron, and Legolas.
None of these is "nonstandard" (i.e., if "standard" means "according to Tolkien's instructions in Appendix E"). Why do you call them nonstandard, Curious? I'm just curious! What exactly do you mean by that? I'm scratching my head, but perhaps (for you) "nonstandard" means "not according to Curious's intuition." Is that it?
I could apply the rules to Gimli, and it would work for the hard "g" because it isn't pronounced Jimli, but Gimli is not Elvish, so is it just a coincidence that the same rules apply?
Yes, coincidence, in a sense. I'll come back to this.*
Should Gloin rhyme with loin, as in loin of lamb?
No! And if it did, what about his relative Gróin? Ack! 
Don't these rules apply to Elvish and Elvish only?
Yes and no. The "rules" apply primarily to the Elvish languages, yes, but also to some extent to languages derived from them. Adûnaic, for instance, shows very marked influence from the Elven tongues; consequently, its pronunciation is largely governed by the same rules (though it has its own distinct phonological elements as well).
As I recall, Tolkien's pronunciation of "Smeagol" on the audio tapes he made don't necessarily follow the rules for the "ea" dipthong. I think Tolkien pronounces it Smeegol, but perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong.
You recall correctly, and this (sorry, Professor) has always bugged me! In pointing to an Elvish "ea" diphthong, however, you've once again veered off the track. It should be a diphthong, but an Old English one. But yes, Tolkien himself pronounces it as if it were spelled Smígol (or even Smígl).
I wonder if someone out there could improve upon Tolkien's short guide, based on a condensed version of Appendix E that would not make my eyes glaze over, or if there are simply too many rules for a condensed version.
Rather than making it better (from your perspective), I'd probably make it worse!
How very Germanic it all seems summed up this way. German pronounces all 'c's and 'g's as hard, pronounces the 'ai' and 'au' diphthongs the way Tolkien wants them, and of course (as he mentions) has the 'ch' pronunciation that he prescribes.
For the Elven tongues, the influences are mainly Finnish for Quenya and Welsh for Sindarin. But the majority of the languages of Europe have similar phonologies (though not identical, of course). One example very often given for the pronunciation of the ch is, after all, loch, a Scottish word, closely related to Welsh, another Celtic language.
I always pronounced "Khazad" as chaz-ad [..]
Good heavens, why?!
Isn't Gandalf really Norse, like many of the dwarves' names from The Hobbit? How did the Norse pronounce it?
Yes! Though in the Old Norse original (a section of the Völuspá called the Dvergatal), it's spelled Gandalfr (the final –r is a grammatical element and not, strictly speaking, part of the name). A viking would pronounce the first syllable as rhyming with the Modern English word "ran" and the second syllable just like the name of that sit-come TV alien, Alf. The stress falls on the first syllable. Plus, for the final –r, this is an unvoiced sound not present in Modern English, rather like whispering a short r with barely a schwa in front of it. But you can forget about that part!
"Saruman" is Old English. Or more specifically, Old Mercian, I think.
Yes, that's right, and I imagine you could look up and post the Shippey reference as easily as I. Tolkien preferred the Old Mercian dialect of Old English because it was geographically situated in the West Midlands, where we grew up. Had it been in the more "literary" West Saxon dialect, I believe it would have been Searuman. Likewise, Shadowfax would have been Sceadufax.
* I said I'd come back to this, so ...
The correct thing to do — at least, for those who care  — is to pronounce each name according to the phonology of its source language. That is, the Quenya and Sindarin names according to the guidelines in Appendix E (note that there are a few differences even between the Elvish languages); the "outer" names of the Dwarves, such as Thorin, Glóin, and Gimli, according to the rules of Old Norse; the names in the Riddermark according to the rules of Old English (and specifically, for sticklers, Old Mercian); the names in the ancient history of Rhovanion, such as Vidumavia, according to — how to put this? — Gothic as prouncounced by an early medieval Briton or Viking; Khuzdul, Adûnaic, Black Speech, Orkish, Genuine Westron, etc., according to the general rules of Appendix E, but with the noted exceptions and phonological differences (e.g., kh, th, z, etc.). Tolkien didn't provide a lot of specific detail on these, individually; however, there is some. For interested parties, Adûnaic is discussed in Sauron Defeated, and there's is some new material on Black Speech, Orkish, and Khuzdul in the recently published journal, Parma Eldalamberon #17.
So, Curious (and everybody else). Eyes glazed over? Good! My work here is done.
Jason Fisher
Lingwë - Musings of a Fish
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Oct 22 2007, 2:54pm
Post #18 of 28
(2180 views)
Shortcut
|
|
*vigorously nods head behind vw's back*
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I can't speak to all of Curious's comments, but I'd guess that he like me and many others assumed the "standard" pronunciation for "Celeborn", "Celebrian", and "Celebrant" included an initial c as pronounced as in "celery". And "Sauron" was like "saurian".
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Oct. 22-28 for "A Long-expected Party".
|
|
|
visualweasel
Nargothrond
Oct 22 2007, 3:05pm
Post #19 of 28
(2111 views)
Shortcut
|
I can't speak to all of Curious's comments, but I'd guess that he like me and many others assumed the "standard" pronunciation for "Celeborn", "Celebrian", and "Celebrant" included an initial c as pronounced as in "celery". And "Sauron" was like "saurian".
This highlights a very interesting difference between us, then, doesn't it? For a language nut like me, "standard" means in accordance with the phonology of the source language; whereas, for normal people, hahae, "standard" means in accordance with the phonology of their own native language.
Jason Fisher
Lingwë - Musings of a Fish
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Oct 22 2007, 3:06pm
Post #20 of 28
(2119 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I mean nonstandard according to modern English pronunciation,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
which, of course, has many, many exceptions. But it isn't just my intuition that says, absent a guide, that in modern English Celeborn, Cirith Ungol, Cirdan, Sauron, and Legolas are pronounced one way, while according to Tolkien's guide they are pronounced a different way.
You were my last hope for a short but comprehensive guide to pronunciation! Oh well, the internet does provide plenty of guidance regarding individual words, although unfortunately there's plenty of incorrect information out there as well.
By the way, do you agree that the movie generally got pronunciations right, and provides a good guide? Are there some notable exceptions?
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Gondolin
Oct 22 2007, 3:39pm
Post #21 of 28
(2097 views)
Shortcut
|
the "phonology of the source language" when we first encounter those names --and I expect most first-time readers, when just encountering these names in the text, haven't noticed that there's an explanation of pronunciation* at the back of the third volume-- and so default to the rules of our native language.
*And as noted elsewhere in this thread, there are also aspects of pronunication that Tolkien takes for granted but most speakers of English will not understand: the difference between long and short vowels, for instance.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Oct. 22-28 for "A Long-expected Party".
|
|
|
visualweasel
Nargothrond
Oct 22 2007, 3:51pm
Post #22 of 28
(2154 views)
Shortcut
|
You were my last hope for a short but comprehensive guide to pronunciation!
Hahae, but of course, isn't "short but comprehensive" an oxymoron?
By the way, do you agree that the movie generally got pronunciations right, and provides a good guide? Are there some notable exceptions?
Yes, they generally did an excellent job. Especially the rolling of the r's, as in "Morrrdorrr". Excellent, and extra-creepy, wouldn't you agree?
I remember noticing a few mispronunciation, mainly minor, when I saw the films, but it's been a while, and the memory has faded. A couple I do recall are Sméagol (which, of course, Tolkien himself "mispronounces") and Éowyn. I will say that the correct pronunciation of Éowyn is a little bit clumsy for most people. They pronounced it about as well as could be expected under the circumstances. Also, some of the vowels were lengthened a little more than they ought to have been (e.g., "eeSEEELdur").
But yeah, overall, they did a great job. And primarily because they took the time to enlist, and then listen to, an actual scholar of the languages, David Salo.
Jason Fisher
Lingwë - Musings of a Fish
|
|
|
visualweasel
Nargothrond
Oct 22 2007, 4:01pm
Post #23 of 28
(2086 views)
Shortcut
|
Those are good points. To which I would also add another: that Tolkien's examples apply to British English — which is too often forgotten. Think about Tolkien's explanation that "the sounds were approximately those represented by i, e, a, o, u in English machine, were, father, for, brute, irrespective of quantity." Were and for, the examples for e and o, are pronounced quite differently in British English than in American English. (And let's not even open the can of worms of differentiating between the many different British accents.)
As if the uninitiated didn't have enough trouble!
Jason Fisher
Lingwë - Musings of a Fish
|
|
|
Curious
Gondolin
Oct 22 2007, 4:23pm
Post #24 of 28
(2094 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I wonder if they followed the Professor's tape
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
when pronouncing Sméagol, rather than the rules. It seems likely that Salo would be aware of the issue, and perhaps they made a deliberate choice to say it the way the Professor did.
Short but comprehensive is what I always strive for in my writing. But I will admit I find it hard to achieve.
|
|
|
Saelind
Menegroth
Nov 29 2007, 2:25am
Post #25 of 28
(2087 views)
Shortcut
|
He continues with some comments on the supposed provenance of the story, similar to what now appears in the “Note on the Shire Records” section of the Prologue. One imaginary text that he mentions here is absent from the later Note, however: the “Book of the Kings”.
Does its later absence repudiate the existence of such a work? If so, how, within the conceit of the story, could Tolkien have later explained its reference here? *Good question. He might have been able to work in a mention in the Appendices. I don’t think it repudiates the existence of the Book of the Kings per say. I think it reflects his shifting views of his “framing” device.
Tolkien says that The Hobbit came from earlier chapters of the Red Book, much emended by himself, as they had been written by Bilbo, who “was not assiduous, nor an orderly narrator, and his account involved and discursive, and sometimes confused”. Bilbo’s skill is much upgraded in the “Note” of 1965: his Elvish translations (i.e. The Silmarillion) are said to be “a work of great skill and learning”. How does that mesh with his opinion of Bilbo here? *Bilbo wrote the Red Book for himself and his close family/friends and so was not concerned with being orderly or clear in his writing. It was his diary/remembrance of his adventures. The Elvish translations were translations of Elven lore and so demanded more attention to detail. It’s sort of like reading the diary of a Civil War soldier (Sam Watkins: “Company Atch” from Ken Burns CW series) versus reading Shelby Foote’s “Civil War” history volumes. Also Bilbo wrote about his adventures when they were relatively fresh in his mind. Bilbo was older and presumably wiser when he did his Translations.
What parts of LotR most and least interest children? Do children really prefer history written for adults?
*I would say the action sequences would appeal more to children than the sometimes endless landscape descriptions. I also think it depends on the child. Some are capable of comprehending history written for adults some are not. But most children like tales and legends which LOTR resembles more than straight history.
Tolkien dedicates LotR to the Inklings, his four children, and “all admirers of Bilbo”. Why did he drop this from the revised foreword? He also criticizes his own writing, of which he says, “If 'composition' is a just word, and these pages do not deserve all that I have said about Bilbo's work.”
*Perhaps he didn’t feel it necessary to include such personal references after all. His conception of the “book within a book” frame changed over time. I think comparing the two forewords demonstrates the change in how he viewed the Red Book. His disparaging of his own writing may come from his own belief that the book wouldn’t sell. This is the foreword to the original editions before his popularity soared in the US.
Later Tolkien explained why he replaced this foreword: “confusing (as it does) real personal matters with the ‘machinery’ of the tale, is a serious mistake”. Do you agree? Are there points where the second edition foreword does the same thing?
*The mixing of real life and fiction can be confusing but Tolkien almost gets it right here. He stopped short of committing to the “fiction” and so loses the reader’s willingness to suspend disbelief.
Is the world today more or less “darkling and ominous” than 1954? And what effect does the state of the real world have on the appeal of LotR?
*I think the world is much more “darkling and ominous” today. There is more “garbage” available for people to take in thanks to the Internet. And the willingness to commit suicide and take innocent lives with you is also a frightening development.
A footnote provides a brief pronunciation guide for Elvish words (e.g., “The diphthongs ai (ae), and au (aw), represent sounds like those heard in brine and brown, and not those in brain and brawn”) though Tolkien writes of readers “who do not need such information” that “they may, of course, pronounce as they like”.
Would you prefer the pronunciation guide at the beginning of LotR, as it once was? Why did Tolkien remove it? And what does Tolkien have against brain and brawn?
Yes, actually I would. I spent the entire story mispronouncing things and it’s hard to break the habit once it’s entrenched. I don’t think he had anything against brain or brawn. It may to do with how they were pronounced and that he didn’t want anyone pronouncing “his” words like that. Remember part of Tolkien’s fascination with language came from its sound.
|
|
|
|
|
1
