Pippin Skywalker had a wonderful idea, and we’re really pleased that she sent this in to us:
“I found this site where you can ask philologists your questions…so I helped myself to one large Tolkien portion…and got a five course meal! Here inclosed are my questions and THEIR answers. Enjoy! 🙂 “
“What are your thoughts on Tolkien’s linguistic skills? Also…what is the secret of the art of mixing two languages to make a new one? Tolkien used Finnish and Welsh to create Elvish.”
ANSWER # 1: By Suzette Hadin Elgin
Tolkien was a scholarly philologist long before he began constructing Elvish, and his skills were impressive. However, there is no “secret of the art” that we could identify for you, no specific and systematic method for “mixing two languages to make a new one.” When you construct a new language you have to meet the specifications _for_ a language, as human beings understand them; there’s no way to do that except to select things you find desirable in existing human languages. Even when writers think they’ve invented some linguistic feature from scratch for their fiction, we can be 99 99/100% certain that it is already a feature of some existing Terran language. What’s satisfying is that in writing science fiction and fantasy the constraints on language-creation are so relaxed.
I’m not at all certain that Tolkien relied only on Finnish and Welsh, but let’s suppose that he did, for the sake of discussion. He would have selected from each of those languages the features that he felt best suited his purposes, and he would have combined them into a new language using the principles of Terran phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics. Because he was both a skilled philologist and a skilled writer, his choices were based on both linguistic science and esthetic judgment. As I’m sure you are aware, his purpose in writing the fantasies was to provide a showcase for his constructed languages.
ANSWER # 2: By Robert A. Papen, Ph.D. Professor
I’m not an expert on the artificial mixing of two languages (as Tolkien did) but I can tell you that quite a few social groups (or peoples if you wish) have created new languages by mixing two languages. There are more than 30 of these mixed languages spoken around the world. The most “common” ones are the mixed languages of the Roms or Gypsies. For example, in Great Britain, the Gypsies use a Romani (an original Indian – from India – language) grammar but English vocabulary. In the Basque country, they use a Romani grammar but with Basque vocabulary, and so on.
Other mixed languages that have been “discovered” by linguists during the past few years is a language called “media lengua” (middle language) which is a mixture of Quechua (native amerindian language of Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador) grammar and Spanish vocabulary;michif, spoken in WesternCanada and North Dakota, a mixture of Cree grammar and French vocabulary (actually, the noun
phrases are in French and the verbs are in Cree) and Copper Island Aleut, which is a mixture of Aleut and Russian. In all cases, the mixture is always the grammar of one language and the vocabulary of another. How (and why!) these languages were created remains a relative mystery but one thing is for sure….the inventiveness of the human mind is more than amazing when it comes to language!
ANSWER # 3: By Carl Mills
J.R.R. Tolkien was a linguist, philologist, folklorist, editor, and student of medieval English literature. I still treasure his edition of Sir Gawain and the Grene Knight that I was required to read in graduate school. I understand that he also produced some minor fictional works of some interest.
Carl Mills
Linguistics Program
Director of Undergraduate Studies
Department of English and Comparative Literature
University of Cincinnati
ANSWER # 4: By Larry Trask
Not quite. Tolkien incorporated *elements* of Welsh and of Finnish into his Elvish languages, but the larger part of these constructed languages derives neither from Welsh nor from Finnish. (In fact, there were at least three Elvish languages: Quenya, Sindarin, and the solely reconstructed Proto-Eldarin.) As a linguist, Tolkien knew how to construct a natural-looking language while incorporating any features he took a fancy to. His invented languages are far more plausible than are most such creations. Perhaps only Marc Okrand’s Klingon comes close, but Okrand was somewhat handicapped by being obliged to incorporate into his language various Klingon noises produced arbitrarily in the early films and given English translations.
You can find some useful information about Tolkien’s use of Finnish and Welsh in this book, if you can get hold of it:
Jim Allan (ed.). 1978. An Introduction to Elvish.
Hayes, Middlesex:
Bran’s
Head. ISBN 0-905220-10-2.
Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK
ANSWER # 5: By Geoffrey Sampson
When you say that Tolkien mixed Finnish and Welsh t0 create Elvish, it seems to me that this cannot mean more than that the overall appearance of the words was vaguely reminiscent of these two languages. It can’t mean that the individual vocabulary items were directly borrowed from either “real” language, surely. I have read the Tolkien books and while I don’t know more than three or four words of Finnish I do know quite a lot of Welsh, and if Tolkien had based his Elvish language to any substantial extent on Welsh I feel sure I would have spotted that.
I can’t comment on Tolkien’s prowess as a scholar of philology, but he was evidently regarded as up to the mark by Oxford University which is a better reference than any I could give! His “hobby” with his Inkling friends of inventing languages and mythologies, and writing novels in order to exemplify them, is something I feel more negative about. When there are so many fascinating real languages to study and increase our knowledge about, the idea of spending large amounts of time making up a hypothetical language (not for purposes of international communication, like Esperanto, but just as a hobby) strikes me as a colossal waste of human ingenuity, like building a model of Chartres Cathedral out of used matchsticks.
And although I don’t think the languages themselves were as closely related to actual languages as you suggest, the mythology — the dwarves and hobbits in Middle-Earth and all that — was quite obviously a close pastiche of the Norse myths, with even many of the names being taken over directly. To my mind it is far more worthwhile to study and make accessible the real body of myths which played a central role in the intellectual life of real societies for many centuries, than to make up a sort of private modified and tidied-up version, eliminating all the elements of “love interest”, etc. To me i t all smacks of the kind of false priorities which lead some people these days to become so fascinated by the workings of computers that they don’t get round to engaging with real life.
G.R. Sampson, Professor of Natural Language Computing
School of Cognitive & Computing Sciences
University of Sussex
Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QH, GB
Posted in:
Share:
Huw finishes off the story that Harry from AICN began, explaining the situation in Japan and why the movies will be released so late. [More]
Posted in:
Share:
Ringer Huw did some research and got the rest of the story for Japanese Tolkien fans:
“It looks like LOTR fans in Japan will have a lot longer to wait for the first movie than in other countries.
The first teaser trailer is only now making an appearance in Japanese movie theaters ahead of current releases such as “Fifteen Minutes”, and a senior source within the local distributor says that FOTR will NOT be released in Japan until next year around 2002 March, if not even later.
The delayed release schedule is totally contrary to New Line’s stated goal of a worldwide simultaneous release on December 19th with the minimum necessary number of countries slipping into the New Year. The exception is particularly striking considering Japan’s status as the world’s second-largest economy and one of Hollywood’s biggest and most lucrative overseas markets.
As an independent New Line historically used a number of distribution companies in Japan including Gaga and Shochiku-Fuji. Despite now being part of AOL Time Warner, New Line continues to use different distributors for each picture rather than Warner Japan, and FOTR is being distributed by Herald Japan
A Japanese LOTR movie site has recently been set up to promote the movie here
A potential reason for the delayed release in Japan is the relative lack of popularity and awareness of LOTR. New Line may get better results if LOTR becomes a phenomenon elsewhere then arrives in Japan as the “next big thing from the West” (an old marketing ploy which continues to work well). Although the delay may make sense commercially, it is a kick in the face for fans who have been waiting in the expectation that FOTR will be shown here on December 19th or shortly thereafter, when it will open in every other market worth mentioning.”
Posted in:
Share:
Our topic: Fellowship of the Ring Chapter Nine: At the Sign of The Prancing Pony
The Hall of Fire keeps on glowing with our live chats of The Fellowship of the Ring. Come on down to one of our three discussions this weekend as we talk about one of Middle-earth’s great meeting places.
A great section to be sure, with all kinds of goings on and characters to discover, chapter nine is a pivotal part of the journey to Rivendell. If it’s your first time or your fiftieth, this chat is bound to rock!
Place: #thehalloffire on theonering.net server; come to theonering.net’s chat room Barliman’s and then type /join #thehalloffire .
Saturday Chat: 7:00 pm ET (19:00) [also 12:00 am Sunday (0:00) GMT and 9:00 am Sunday (09:00) AET]
Sunday Chat: 8:00 pm (20:00) AET [also 11:00 am (11:00) GMT and 6:00 am (06:00) ET]
Sunday Chat: 6:00 pm (18:00) GMT [also 1:00 pm (13:00) ET and 3:00 am (03:00) Monday morning AET]
ET = Eastern Time, USA’s East Coast
GMT = Greenwich Mean Time, Western Europe
AET = Australian Eastern Time, Australia’s East Coast
Questions? Topics? Send ‘em here.
Posted in:
Share:
Yesterday’s Village Voice published some literary criticism directed at LOTR which appeared to rain fire on it and its readers from a great height; not surprisingly our email heated up as a result (not to mention theirs, I suspect). Here’s some of the letters we received about them. [More]
Posted in:
Share:
Village Voice Rebuttal.
Not surprisingly, the link to the Village Voice articles yesterday here and here heated up our email somewhat. Here are some responses – first from Grond:
“Just a quick note. I tend to agree about the point of the articles that you’ve referenced. They really sound alot like people feeling the overwhelming need to say *something* without really having any sense of why they are saying it beyond perhaps an unscratchable *itch* engendered by a phenonemon in which they cannot participate. Some part of their sense of wonder, perhaps their innocence has atrophied to a point that they’ve got a downright pathological need to belittle it.
The first article says nothing louder than *smarm*. It seems so obvious that the writer is talking to a small self important clique of fashionably jaded dorks that an outside reader can’t help but wonder what exactly he’s on about. It’s interesting to note that while at the same time as he brands the Tolkien fan community as *geeks* he then also (twice) equates them with *everyone* thus reducing them to the great herd of humanity who are unlike his audience the great unwashed masses. A laughable double standard.
The second article similarly seems to exist largely so that the reader might admire her own cleverness while missing the point entirely. She appears to fire around in the dark without actually touching on the simple fact that the Professor’s work is first rate *mythology*. That despite the critics and the self absorbed naval gazing of recent (read 20th century) *literati* Tolkien remains relevant as something that speaks to a usually sleeping part of our selves that sees the truth, if you will, in the proceedings of the tale.”
Next up is Karl Proctor:
We need some sort of rallying cry or slogan to herald the movement. “Tolkienism” or some such is too vague sounds like so many other “isms” that have gone before. “Ringers” is clever and sounds clandestine. We must think of something, for…
To Geek Or Not To Geek? That is the question. And if we be Geeks, then is it Ill or Well? If to be Geek is
an Ill thing, and we have Geeked, then what are we to do? And if we have not yet Geeked, But Should, do we begin, and if so, How?
I had written briefly to Turgon on this topic of literary snobbery on the East Coast. This seems to me to be more of the same sort of thing. The grand “Journalist” trying vainly to explain away the immense popularity of the works of the Good Professor and succeeding only to vilify those of us who read and enjoy those works, referring to us as “geeks”. The Journalist can not, or will not, see the forest for the trees. Neither will the Journalist understand that the Good Professor was interested in topics that span all peoples, times and places: good and evil, life and death, love, honor and betrayal, the corruption that power brings with it, and the transience of life. The Journalist is concerned with their personal popularity with their Journalistic peers, writing “cleverly” (many times with disregard for fact or accuracy) and with whatever the tawdry issues of the moment may be.
If this is what it is to be Geek, then Geek I am. Geeks unite! Spit in eye of the Journalist. Thumb one’s nose at the Snob. And remember, how can they possibly be having as much fun as we are?”
The second is from Michael Lubin; he sent this to the editors of Village Voice:
“Thank you for two utterly pretentious articles about Tolkien. “Hobbit Forming” takes three paragraphs to say absolutely nothing. It reads like People Magazine with a larger vocabulary. “Lord of the Geeks” takes ten paragraphs to say slightly more. The only sustained idea in it seems to be author Julian Dibbell’s peculiar definition of what a geek is. Dibbell may well believe that “the 20th-century cultural mainstream” consists of those naive enough to take seriously literary critics’ self-proclaimed status as the guardians of literature. But when I was a child and the Star Wars
movies came out, their fans were the in-crowd and anyone interested in
literary criticism (which at that time included me) was a geek. I doubt this has changed. Perhaps a less grossly unbalanced picture of society might also lead to an analysis that would replace snobbish dithering with substance. This would, unfortunately, require Dibbell to actually read Tolkien, rather than merely repeating what others have said about him.”
Thomas Kelly also wrote to the editor of Village Voice:
“I enjoyed your two pieces on Tolkien mania for the most part. Although I found them a bit reductive and misguided at times, there was enough substance to them. Still, concerning Biddell’s piece, I think he was rather incorrect about Tolkien’s treatment of evil. Why is it that critics and journalists when writing about the “Lord of the Rings” always seem to throw the character of Gollum right out the door, before they go on to claim Tolkien’s concept of evil is childish? Gollum is only the key character to understanding the whole emotional complexity of the book. It is in his character that Tolkien not only argues that most of us are not innately evil but corrupted, and that there is a grey area influenced by the tides of personal need, but that “evil” itself has a crucial role in the interplay of nature itself, and even in the outcome of “good.” Obviously, Gollum is a foil of Frodo, and if you don’t get Gollum, then you don’t get Frodo, and therefore you don’t get the books whatsoever. Moreover, often Tolkien’s idealized forms and characters are simplistic, but they are more archetypal than anything if we remember he is writing in the spirit of myth. For every simple theme or character, there is a wine-dark deep and complex counterpoint. I wholeheartedly believe that Tolkien’s world is a varied and rich landscape, that is a dialectical mythos often lost on the conventional and prejudiced reader. And being half-Japanese, I’m growing tired of the allegations that Tolkien was some kind of racist-in-the-closet just because his orcs are described as swarthy and slant-eyed. Ask any Asian-American who has read and enjoyed the books and he’ll tell you, really, he finds the need of so-called “enlightened” white critics not at all welcome. It’s not that I don’t want to be reminded of it, it’s just I’m an adult and I can see when someone is hijacking an important social evil to make some lame point about a book that is in no way intentionally out to make me feel like I’m less than human. There are enough sensitive treatments of this grey area and a solid moral system in the book to assuage the more reasonable leftist. And if I have to read one more article that characterizes Tolkien’s books and his readership as juvenile idiots I’m going to kill someone! People love his books, who cares, big deal, get over yourself! Why are taste-nazis so threatened by that? And why must journalists who obviously read and enjoyed the books at one time feel the need to be apologetic about it? Are we all ten-year olds, embarassed about what our Harvard peers will think of us if we like certain “geeky” things? Come on! What is truly childish is the maintenance of an attitude that sanctifies snickering at another’s choice of creative mode and truth, and that reads the fantastical forms of myth as mere child’s play. How wrong can an unadventurous mind be!? But don’t get me wrong, I think the two pieces you posted are for the most part good, and I thank you for running them. Even though O’Hehir’s recent essay on Tolkien and the “Lord of the Rings” at Salon.com has it’s own faults, I recommend it as a good starting point when calibrating your next pieces on the subject. Sorry for my displeasure–I did enjoy your two pieces–but I am interested in thorough, reasonable and good criticism on the subject. Thank you for hearing me out.”
And this last from John Sutton:
“It amazes me how these mentally limited people start coming out of the woodwork when some big project comes about. Why do they feel the need to rub their two cents together and come up with some kind of “constructive criticism”? They go about looking down their noses and labeling everyone geeks and nerds…..and for what reason? Maybe they do this to take away from the pain of knowing they will never accomplish anything as meaningful in their lives. That their best in life will only amount to something…….average! Maybe they’re just mad at the world because at one point in their lives they were labeled a geek or a nerd. I think most of it stems from plain old jealousy. Jealousy that someone can have an effect on so many people and not even really mean to. When you take away all the fancy words they used, what was left……………they called millions of people geeks! ????????? “
Posted in:
Share:
