Tolkien Gateway

Tolkien Gateway is 10 years old. Sign up today to edit TG and help us grow for years to come.

Forum:Articles on words

Revision as of 20:18, 10 August 2011 by Gamling (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

I would like to see if everyone is with me (or if anyone has an opinion) on these general guidelines for our articles on words:

  • Words should be analyzed and categorized according to the (invented) language in which they appear (e.g., no Noldorin -> Sindarin, or Qenya -> Quenya). However, this doesn't necessarily exclude a mention of any Neo-elvish suggestions.
  • Reconstructed forms, which for example appear in compound names in The Lord of the Rings, may have an article of their own. It should be clearly noted, however, that the form is only attested in the particular compound(s) (and is therefore only an unattested, "theoretical" form).

--Morgan 18:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Would it be useful to add something like [[Category:Invented words]] or [[Category:Elvish words by alphabetical order]] to our articles on words? This way we could have a powerful (and automatic) "Elvish"-English dictionary (and we already have similar "lists" for [[Category:Publications by title]] and [[Category:People by name]]). --Morgan 23:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
1) So you're basically suggesting saying you want to scrap Noldorin and Qenya categorisation? Is that an accurate portrayal of Tolkien's languages?
2) Are there examples where scholars disagree about such reconstructed forms?
3) Isn't this was "Category:Quenya words", e.g. is for?
Sorry, I've provided more questions than answers. I need to feel "clued-up" in order to answer. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 19:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply - I can see now that I didn't write so clearly as I had hoped - you have interpreted it in the opposite way from what I intended!
1) Not by any means! ;-) by "no Noldorin -> Sindarin" I meant that we shouldn't treat Noldorin (or Qenya) words as Sindarin (or Quenya) words automatically (which has often been the case on TG).
2) I have encountered three type of scholarly approaches to this problem: (a) not listing/treating "reconstructed" forms at all - the purist approach (b) noting such reconstructed forms with an asterisk - half-purist, à la Hisweloke, etc (c) list them as Sindarin or Quenya without problematization (Neo-Elvish)
3) The problem is that we divide "Category:Quenya words" into sub-categories, and you get no overview of the words - it is this overview (like "Cat:Publications by title") which I'm looking for.--Morgan 19:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with all 3, or rather 1, 2-b, and 3. 1. We can list Noldorin and Qenya words but label them as such and distinguish them from Sindarin and Quenya. 2-b, the "half-purist" version, gives the users the most information; nothing left out (option a) but nothing not identified (option c). 3. Overviews or "dictionaries" would be most useful to the users. --Gamling 20:16 , 10 Aug 2011 (UTC)