Tolkien Gateway

Talk:An Introduction to Elvish

Revision as of 13:00, 6 December 2011 by Sage (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

I restored the section on early proto-Eldarin theories. IMO the examples are an encyclopedic note on how the pre-Etymologies scholarship envisioned comparative linguistics. If something is wrong with the essay-like tone and the lack of references let's work to fix it.

I don't know how way off from TG's mentality and rules I am getting, but I understand that TG isnt exactly following Wikipedia's strict rules. Sage 02:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Without having access to the book, I've kept what I suspect would be non-controversial claims (that is, "facts") about the Proto-Eldarin articles in the book. Sage, why do you think we need to have specialized, unreferenced linguistic information here, which a general reader will not understand? TG is not a place to discuss or review contents of something (for that, there are forums, blogs, home pages, etc) - our goal should be to summarize facts and trustworthy (or otherwise valuable) opinions. --Morgan 21:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
In other words, in order to keep anything of those faults/corrections of the Proto-eldarin theories you restored (which I've removed now again), we would need something like "Linguist/Author X has remarked that ....<ref>[...]</ref>", otherwise the information provided is at best original research.--Morgan 21:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I understand that my writing is less than perfect when judged against the recent strict policies but: I was providing specific examples from the book. "*winjā > *weiny > -wain" is a real example taken directly from the book. Same thing concerning the (interesting but wrongly theorized) example about the loss of the ultimate sound from PE, here shown with "*galdar > alda, *galdari > aldar". I was contrasting the above with what we now know about PE. Published examples vs. facts. Is this original research?
Secondly, I believe that each article is addressed to anyone interested. A 'general reader' can peruse the articles about Beren, Frodo and Aragorn if he wishes so, and if he wants something more, there can be something more. The 'specialized' articles I wrote such as sundocarme or lenition or i-affection are perhaps not for the 'general reader', but for a reader who wishes to know about sundocarme, lenition etc. Now, if a 'general reader' happens to gain some extra useful knowledge about linguistics, folklore or mythology from our articles, that would be awesome. If I didn't possess the ITE book, yes, I would be curious about how a couple of 1970s scholars envisioned the Elvish origins, and it would be great to find some examples in the wiki I am browsing.
Personal rant/whining follows
Lastly, you say that TG is not a place to discuss such things. When I joined here, there was some room for essay-like writing and educated speculation in the articles, and still TG was not a blog. I found such articles and I expanded them or wrote my own and I loved how TG was not like Wikipedia. We were, and are, a bunch of people who know what we are writing about. If anyone wished to project his own 'winged Balrog' personal universe over another's 'wingless Balrog' personal universe, there was enough common sense. Now we are still a bunch of people who know what we are writing about, but we now have borrowed some extra rules from Wikipedia to protect TG from ourselves. As if hundreds of visitors vandalize the articles with POV and OR, and common sense is not enough.
A wonderful and neat job has been done during the past year but I wish that did not necessitate the loss of information. I don't care if OR is anathema for Wikipedia and its real-world articles, educated speculation on Tolkien is still information for me. Sometimes I think that I am still in the "previous", immature and imperfect TG, and that's my mistake. Sage 02:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was a bit narrow-minded when removing your text in this article - I've read your arguments above carefully and also discussed the issue with other editors in the IRC chat. I restored your version, with a few changes. I have a few questions:
  • The abbreviation "PE" - does this (here) always refer to "Proto-Eldarin"?
  • The usage of "*" and "**" - can we change the former to "reconstructed" and the latter to "invented"?--Morgan 21:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for your time considering all this!
  • In the section you restored there is no such abbreviation but I guess it woul refer to Proto-Eldarin.
  • Actually my thought is "*" = reconstructed/hypothesized and "**" = wrong example or disproved/mistaken reconstruction. I admit I have been a bit inconsistent in this. Sage 13:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Another question: Does the statement "Proto-Eldarin, the common language of the Elves 'of the First Age'." reflect how the authors define Proto-Eldarin? As the definition refers to the First Age, it seems to be a little strange, doesn't it? --Morgan 23:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The introduction of the article says that the similarities of Quenya and Sindarin necessitate the existence of a common ancestor language, "dubbed" Proto-Eldarin. The articles show the evolution of Eldarin sounds "from the First Age till the end of the Third Age". Can you be a little more clear on what you find a little strange? Sage 13:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)