EJK: “Mais il est impossible, à mon avis, comme l’écrivent Hammond et Scull que “Tolkien mispelled agh as akh” puisque Tolkien utilisa la tengwa quátaina dans son tout premier texte en langue noire et qu’il le translittère correctement par kh.”
This is a misrepresentation of both the actual historical situation, and of the evidence in the very source Edouard cites. As can easily be seen in Art of the Lord of the Rings, p. 23 (fig. 7), Tolkien’s drafts for the Ring inscription, prior to what he sent as printer’s proofs, already have the spelling agh rather than akh (which does indeed appear in the first tengwar versions he made in his own typescript of The Lord of the Rings). However, while preparing the actual printer’s block for reproduction in the book itself, he reverted to the spelling akh, and did so inadvertently, as he himself says in a letter quoted in The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide (entry for 3/24/1954, p. 448 in the new edition): “Also, alas! at this eleventh (or twelfth) hour I have discovered an error in it — one that seems serious to me. I cannot think how I came to make it (in many successive versions) and to pass it.” H&S detail this (and as it turns out a few other errors) in their Reader’s Companion (p. 83) and further note the corroborating fact (which Edouard omits) that in the transliterated Black Speech inscription, in “The Council of Elrond”, the word is spelt agh. There is thus no doubt at all that Tolkien in fact corrected the Ring inscription calligraphy because he really had decided, between typescript and printer's block, that the conjunction in the BS is agh.
EJK: “Si vous lisez les Vinyar Tegwar et les Parma Eldalamberon, vous apprendrez que J.R.R. Tolkien ne se trompa pas et en fait changea d’avis sur la forme des pronoms P5 entre les deux éditions (par exemple: “resulted also in the shift of -lm- to -lv- as the marker of the pl. inclusive” VT:43, p. 6 ou encore “omentielmo originally inclusive, but by 1965 become exclusive” VT:49, p. 38). Cette idée me semble reposer sur une terrible incompréhension des notes linguistiques de J.R.R. Tolkien qui écrit bien que Frodo s’est trompé (angl. wrong) et non pas que lui, Tolkien, changea d’avis.”
This is likewise a misrepresentation, which moreover again neglects to mention the evidence in the very sources Edouard cites. Charts of Quenya pronominal endings, from both before and after Tolkien revised Frodo’s greeting in 1965, have already been published in Vinyar Tengwar that demonstrate that “Tolkien changea d’avis” — see e.g. VT49 p. 48 for a chart from 1964, in which -lme is inclusive; and VT49 p. 51 for a chart from c. 1968, in which -lme is exclusive. Moreover, as Christopher Gilson himself points out (PE17 p. 5), in a letter from 1964 Tolkien explicitly analyzed Frodo’s omentielmo as inclusive: “He also explains the form as o-men-tie ‘coming together of journey-path’ + lma ‘of you and us’ (genitive lmo) in a letter to Mr. W. R. Matthews, dated 13–15 June 1964, a carbon copy of which Tolkien placed with the draft letter to David Masson mentioned above, next to the collected word-lists (see III 405)”. So, as late as 1964, Tolkien himself was still using and labelling -lme as inclusive. Again, there is thus simply no doubt at all that Tolkien in fact changed his mind as to what the forms of the inclusive and exclusive pronominal endings of Quenya were, sometime between 1964 and 1965.
Finally, I note that there is a remarkable disjunction in Edouard’s logic between these two arguments. In the first, he dismisses Tolkien’s own statement that he had made a mistake; while in the second he insists that Tolkien’s statement that Frodo had made a mistake must be taken at face value, rather than acknowledge the ample evidence that Tolkien himself had changed his mind. (How do you say “You can’t have it both ways” in French?)
Carl F. Hostetter
P.S. Please forgive my writing in English, but my French is virtually nonexistent. Feel free to translate this for the other forum readers, if you think it worthwhile.
P.P.S. Since as I said my French is virtually nonexistent, I have to allow that it's possible that EJK is being obviously tongue in cheek when he says these things but that the irony is not surviving Google Translate: if so, please let me know and I'll retract this post (though hopefully the details of the actual situations presented here will be nonetheless helpful to some).
This is a misrepresentation of both the actual historical situation, and of the evidence in the very source Edouard cites. As can easily be seen in Art of the Lord of the Rings, p. 23 (fig. 7), Tolkien’s drafts for the Ring inscription, prior to what he sent as printer’s proofs, already have the spelling agh rather than akh (which does indeed appear in the first tengwar versions he made in his own typescript of The Lord of the Rings). However, while preparing the actual printer’s block for reproduction in the book itself, he reverted to the spelling akh, and did so inadvertently, as he himself says in a letter quoted in The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and Guide (entry for 3/24/1954, p. 448 in the new edition): “Also, alas! at this eleventh (or twelfth) hour I have discovered an error in it — one that seems serious to me. I cannot think how I came to make it (in many successive versions) and to pass it.” H&S detail this (and as it turns out a few other errors) in their Reader’s Companion (p. 83) and further note the corroborating fact (which Edouard omits) that in the transliterated Black Speech inscription, in “The Council of Elrond”, the word is spelt agh. There is thus no doubt at all that Tolkien in fact corrected the Ring inscription calligraphy because he really had decided, between typescript and printer's block, that the conjunction in the BS is agh.
EJK: “Si vous lisez les Vinyar Tegwar et les Parma Eldalamberon, vous apprendrez que J.R.R. Tolkien ne se trompa pas et en fait changea d’avis sur la forme des pronoms P5 entre les deux éditions (par exemple: “resulted also in the shift of -lm- to -lv- as the marker of the pl. inclusive” VT:43, p. 6 ou encore “omentielmo originally inclusive, but by 1965 become exclusive” VT:49, p. 38). Cette idée me semble reposer sur une terrible incompréhension des notes linguistiques de J.R.R. Tolkien qui écrit bien que Frodo s’est trompé (angl. wrong) et non pas que lui, Tolkien, changea d’avis.”
This is likewise a misrepresentation, which moreover again neglects to mention the evidence in the very sources Edouard cites. Charts of Quenya pronominal endings, from both before and after Tolkien revised Frodo’s greeting in 1965, have already been published in Vinyar Tengwar that demonstrate that “Tolkien changea d’avis” — see e.g. VT49 p. 48 for a chart from 1964, in which -lme is inclusive; and VT49 p. 51 for a chart from c. 1968, in which -lme is exclusive. Moreover, as Christopher Gilson himself points out (PE17 p. 5), in a letter from 1964 Tolkien explicitly analyzed Frodo’s omentielmo as inclusive: “He also explains the form as o-men-tie ‘coming together of journey-path’ + lma ‘of you and us’ (genitive lmo) in a letter to Mr. W. R. Matthews, dated 13–15 June 1964, a carbon copy of which Tolkien placed with the draft letter to David Masson mentioned above, next to the collected word-lists (see III 405)”. So, as late as 1964, Tolkien himself was still using and labelling -lme as inclusive. Again, there is thus simply no doubt at all that Tolkien in fact changed his mind as to what the forms of the inclusive and exclusive pronominal endings of Quenya were, sometime between 1964 and 1965.
Finally, I note that there is a remarkable disjunction in Edouard’s logic between these two arguments. In the first, he dismisses Tolkien’s own statement that he had made a mistake; while in the second he insists that Tolkien’s statement that Frodo had made a mistake must be taken at face value, rather than acknowledge the ample evidence that Tolkien himself had changed his mind. (How do you say “You can’t have it both ways” in French?)
Carl F. Hostetter
P.S. Please forgive my writing in English, but my French is virtually nonexistent. Feel free to translate this for the other forum readers, if you think it worthwhile.
P.P.S. Since as I said my French is virtually nonexistent, I have to allow that it's possible that EJK is being obviously tongue in cheek when he says these things but that the irony is not surviving Google Translate: if so, please let me know and I'll retract this post (though hopefully the details of the actual situations presented here will be nonetheless helpful to some).
