Subject: On the Elvish languages (non-technical discussion)
Author:
Posted on: 2014-06-23 16:01:00 UTC
(Though I'd love to have a technical discussion, too...)
I've recently discovered that there seems to be a long-running, slow-burning, and extremely virulent war between the two sides of the discussion of Tolkien linguistics.
On the one hand, you have people like David Salo (who did the Sindarin for the films) and Helge Fauskanger (Ardalambion); they take the stance that it's possible and desirable to collate standardised versions of Sindarin and Quenya, which can be treated like, say, Basque - people can take a course, read a dictionary, and write in them.
On the other foot, you have the view of the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship: Carl F. Hostetter (Vinyar Tengwar) and the editorial team for Parma Eldalamberon. They believe that Tolkien's languages should be seen as an evolving process (which is part of why PE is publishing Tolkien's linguistic papers in chronological order), and according to Hostetter's Elvish as She Is Spoke (top link on that page), that:
'the best way to develop real linguistic knowledge of the Elvish languages as Tolkien thought about and described them [...] is this: [...] Engag[ing] first in deep and thoughtful study of all that Tolkien himself wrote, of the modes of expression that he employed in his Elvish compositions, and of the subjects of expression that interested him, [...] will provide [...] both the inspiration and the means to make new expression in the languages as they actually are...' (Paraphrased from the final page before the footnotes).
The implication seems to be that, while one can make some effort at using the Elvish languages now, the best way to do it would be to wait for absolutely everything to be released, then read through it all in order, possibly with a degree in linguistics to help out.
And, I suppose, I agree - that would lead to the best results. But on the other hand, I don't think it's reasonable to ask me to wait fifty years and take a few university courses before I'm allowed to try my hand at Quenya. I have no doubt that Ardalambion has errors, both in its assumptions and in that it doesn't account for unpublished material - but it's there now, and the linguistic papers aren't. Nor will they ever be, for me - I just don't have the skillset to learn Quenya from the original texts. I'd rather make a few mistakes and play with something beautiful now.
But if I were just stating that, I wouldn't need to post here. ;) What does anyone else think? This is delving into linguistic philosophy, I guess. For that matter, what do you think Tolkien would have thought? Would he even have wanted people using his languages? If he'd lived to today, would he have settled on a final form yet? (Iiiii'm gonna say no) What does it all MEAN?!?!?
Er, sorry. Got a little carried away with that last.
hS