Tolkien Gateway

Talk:Lebethron

(Difference between revisions)
(Finger Oak: You need a source)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
First, these speculations were written before we had PE17 providing Tolkien's late reinterpretations (including a wholly new root, RUN). Secondly, this might still not be so "questionable" (an oak tree is still possible nevertheless). Moreover, various other alternatives where studied in the referred article (e.g. various chestnut trees), and the form ''oron'' was even mentioned (though deduced, at the time) in part 2 of the article. That is to say, the writing just removed was not very neutral anyhow.  
 
First, these speculations were written before we had PE17 providing Tolkien's late reinterpretations (including a wholly new root, RUN). Secondly, this might still not be so "questionable" (an oak tree is still possible nevertheless). Moreover, various other alternatives where studied in the referred article (e.g. various chestnut trees), and the form ''oron'' was even mentioned (though deduced, at the time) in part 2 of the article. That is to say, the writing just removed was not very neutral anyhow.  
 
For the record, my old article was revised for publication, in ''Tolkien, le façonnement d'un monde'', vol. 1 (2011), pp. 85-98, taking into account Tolkien's revised etymology, as well as other possibilities (e.g. a rather similar name is found in Gnomish, ''lepthindros'', a horse chestnut). I am not sure however, would such analyses and subtleties pertain to this encyclopedic article? - [[User:Drakon|Drakon]] 19:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 
For the record, my old article was revised for publication, in ''Tolkien, le façonnement d'un monde'', vol. 1 (2011), pp. 85-98, taking into account Tolkien's revised etymology, as well as other possibilities (e.g. a rather similar name is found in Gnomish, ''lepthindros'', a horse chestnut). I am not sure however, would such analyses and subtleties pertain to this encyclopedic article? - [[User:Drakon|Drakon]] 19:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 +
 +
:I don't know about this specific question, but my issue with your edit is that you have added speculation without reference, speculation I would be mindful to remove: "''It may suggest that the wood is naturally dark, or that it has high enough tannin content and can thereafter be darkened by chemical processes (e.g. with ammonia), so that to confer a black finish to pieces of furniture.''" It needs a source or it needs to go. --{{User:Mith/sig}} 08:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:56, 3 April 2015

Finger Oak

For the record, I have removed the following mention from the "Etymology" section:

Didier Willis has speculated that it was the "finger-oak", or Quercus Digitata,[1] though the identification of the second element as oron rather than doron, "oak", made that interpretation questionable.
  1. Didier Willis, "Un arbre mystérieux : le lebethron" (original, in French), "Behind the leaves of the lebethron: Tree and Oak" (English draft), Hiswelokë, 2003

First, these speculations were written before we had PE17 providing Tolkien's late reinterpretations (including a wholly new root, RUN). Secondly, this might still not be so "questionable" (an oak tree is still possible nevertheless). Moreover, various other alternatives where studied in the referred article (e.g. various chestnut trees), and the form oron was even mentioned (though deduced, at the time) in part 2 of the article. That is to say, the writing just removed was not very neutral anyhow. For the record, my old article was revised for publication, in Tolkien, le façonnement d'un monde, vol. 1 (2011), pp. 85-98, taking into account Tolkien's revised etymology, as well as other possibilities (e.g. a rather similar name is found in Gnomish, lepthindros, a horse chestnut). I am not sure however, would such analyses and subtleties pertain to this encyclopedic article? - Drakon 19:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about this specific question, but my issue with your edit is that you have added speculation without reference, speculation I would be mindful to remove: "It may suggest that the wood is naturally dark, or that it has high enough tannin content and can thereafter be darkened by chemical processes (e.g. with ammonia), so that to confer a black finish to pieces of furniture." It needs a source or it needs to go. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 08:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)