tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post4811687755094032857..comments2023-11-07T06:20:12.181-08:00Comments on Tolkien: Medieval and Modern: Fragments from Wednesday's Discussion"Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"http://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-56902164716951967282014-06-07T19:10:48.073-07:002014-06-07T19:10:48.073-07:00~y-w-y (again I was blogging on the same so doesn&...~y-w-y (again I was blogging on the same so doesn't really count...)"Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"https://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-46419810031213344142014-06-03T18:49:06.904-07:002014-06-03T18:49:06.904-07:00While I do believe that the Elvish languages are a...While I do believe that the Elvish languages are alive now considering that they have a considerable number of speakers, I do take issue with Tolkien’s assertion that they were alive as much as any other language when he was writing that letter. Yes, the languages did change, and yes, Mr. Tolkien was an excellent linguist who understood how languages evolved. But the fact of the matter is, Tolkien was the only person altering the language. Yes, he was trying to do it as organically as possible, but oftentimes languages evolve due to children. When children do not understand an aspect of a language, that is usually when the language begins to morph and become truly alive. The Elvish languages only had one man pulling at the strings and though they were changing as Tolkien intended them to, it could never be quite as organic as a truly natural language. Sure, it may have bizarre unexplained peculiarities, but when those peculiarities are carefully calculated by a single man crafting a language, I really question how alive that language is. <br /><br />-N. LurquinAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01388310553669556529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-35587414460713263452014-05-05T11:50:02.891-07:002014-05-05T11:50:02.891-07:00signature?signature?"Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"https://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-51803848640852092512014-04-29T00:44:18.567-07:002014-04-29T00:44:18.567-07:00Hi DCT~
I found the idea of "relative primary...Hi DCT~<br />I found the idea of "relative primary reality in the secondary reality" very interesting. Our secondary reality is the characters' primary reality, but if the characters share so many similar traits with us, they should also have the same need of sub-creation, which we have seen in their languages, poetry, crafts and so many more. But do they have the same need of Fantasy as well? Specifically, do Elves, who are especially good at creation, ever write fantasies? Do they need fantasies? Or in general, will characters in a Fantasy need a Fantasy just like we do? What would be a Fantasy to them? If exist, how will an Elvish Fantasy look/sound like? In your example, the Elves seem to create a Fantasy for Frodo, one that is powerful enough to "intrude" into Frodo's primary reality. Is it also Fantasy to the Elvish singers? Or is it just a part of their primary reality? These were actually questions for one of my ideas for the final project, but I could not find an answer to them...Perhaps "perception" questions as such cannot have a definite answer and hence are not very useful...<br />I also like the idea that Elvish inherits some power from the Valarian, which I think corresponds well to the "Splintered Light" theory. I found myself wondering about the nature of this world going on this train of thought: does the idea that "the sounds may still be the same sounds" implies a matching between a "true name" and the object described? That the object will come into being of some sort when the true name is vocalized? In Frodo's case, we can say that he confuses the primary reality with the song because the rivers do no actually spring into existence (as it might be if it is the Higher Beings who are singing...?) But what is the primary reality to someone? Should it be defined as sensations? Or is there a relatively objective standard for all beings co-existing? Would there be a distinction between primary and secondary reality to the Higher Beings.....? ...Um I think I am going on the dangerous track of skepticism and probably should brake it from here.... "Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"https://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-83187952460393569322014-04-28T18:05:30.336-07:002014-04-28T18:05:30.336-07:00DCT,
I'm glad that you brought up the Ents! I...DCT,<br /><br />I'm glad that you brought up the Ents! I think they add a very interesting dynamic to Wednesday's discussion. While the mystery of the Ents' etymological history is perplexing, I think the far more interesting aspect of their language in this regard is its defining characteristics. It is very easy to recall that the Ents have a very longwinded dialect. It is never too "hasty". But also in book III chapter IV of the Lord of the Rings, treebeard is describing his language and says, "Real names tell you he story of the things they belong to in my language, in the Old Entish you might say." He goes on to explain that this is the reason that it takes so long to speak in Entish, because all names are simply a history. I find this passage astounding considering our discussion on Wednesday. As we concluded, names can serve the place of adjectives and carry stories with them. Our exemplars of this were Aragorn with his many facets and Gandalf. But I think this look at Entish brings another aspect to the discussion. Ents believe that names bear the responsibility of telling the entire history of a thing. Any thoughts on what this means?<br /><br />Steven VincentAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541332761482399729noreply@blogger.com