# Tolkien as linguist



## AlisaGoldielock (Sep 14, 2005)

All of you consider Tolkien to be an outstanding linguist.But why did not he create a fundamental theory such as Sarear"s linguoculturelogy,Chomsky"s generative grammar,Trubetskoy"s pphonology,Helmslev"s glossosemantics,Iakobson"s functional grammar,bridge meaning theory by Potebnia?


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 14, 2005)

Do all of us 'consider Tolkien to be an outstanding linguist'?

For my part I consider him to have been a very good linguist but an outstanding storyteller who was able to tell his stories equally well by voice or printed word.

One reason that he did not 'create a fundamental theory' such as those you mentioned is that he was busy with other concerns Most noteably The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings  Though it could be said that the work he did on his invented Elven Languages and the way they changed through time was an illustration of a fundamental theory of language development.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Sep 14, 2005)

Well, first of all, as Tolkien recognizes in letter 180, he is more interested in the aesthetic aspect of language, rather than its functional aspect. Anyway, if by linguist we understand someone who speaks several languages fluently, he indeed was outstanding, having created a dozen of them. I think that he really understood that a language implies a cosmology; he also states, in that same letter, that "a living language depends equally on the 'legends' which it conveys by tradition" - this being the reason why Volapuk, Esperanto, Ido, Novial and other "invented" languages are far deader than ancient languages, since there are no legends written in these "new" languages. While some great linguists, as Chomsky, point out that language is political, Tolkien points to its mythological aspect.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 15, 2005)

AlisaGoldielock said:


> All of you consider Tolkien to be an outstanding linguist.But why did not he create a fundamental theory such as Sarear"s linguoculturelogy,Chomsky"s generative grammar,Trubetskoy"s pphonology,Helmslev"s glossosemantics,Iakobson"s functional grammar,bridge meaning theory by Potebnia?



Why do you think he didn't, and why do you think he should have?

Barley


----------



## AlisaGoldielock (Sep 16, 2005)

*Do you know who they were?*

Thorondor,do you know who Chomsky,Potebnia,Helmslev,Trubetskoy,Sapear and Iakbson were.Do you know anything about their linguistic theories?


----------



## Thorondor_ (Sep 16, 2005)

Of all those you mentioned, I think Tolkien was closest to Potebnia, in the sense that the internal, subjective form of words is restored through myths/literature. I think that there is a good deal of resemblance between osanwe/tengwesta and Chomsky's deep/surface structures (though I am more into mr. Noam's political writings  ). I haven't read much about phonology since I believe its scope to be too technical for my tastes. "Linguoculturelogy" (I think I'll break my tongue if I try to speak this out loud) and "glossosemantics" are unknown terms to me, but then again, my readings into linguistics are almost accidental, just as a Tolkien fan. You seem to be well into linguistics, but what is your point? Thousands of "laymen" became enamored with his languages and their universe and logic; you seem to give little if any value to at least this "indirect" contribution of Tolkien to the general development of linguistics.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 18, 2005)

For those who care to delve into the above-named linguists, I offer the following search results:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=potebnia
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=chomsky
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=trubetsky+linguistics&lr=lang_en
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=jakobson&spell=1
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=sapir+linguist&lr=lang_en

It would have helped the search had Goldie at least supplied the _correct spelling_ of some of these (evidently to some at least) Linguistic Gods...methinks we may be in the presence of someone whose desire is to impress with rarified esoteric knowledge. It ain't workin'.

As for Tolkien, the whole point is to _enjoy the tales he spun._ Anything else, sez I, is beside the point in varying distance. 

Barley


----------



## Inderjit S (Sep 21, 2005)

Tolkien was a good linguist, who spent a lot of his spare time inventing languages, I guess.

Phililogy may be important in some respect, but my god it is boring, I guess some are turned on by it's esoteric nature, and of using big little-known words to impress people (and perhaps detract from the argument), something which Montaigne warned us against.


----------



## Walter (Sep 22, 2005)

AlisaGoldielock said:


> All of you consider Tolkien to be an outstanding linguist.But why did not he create a fundamental theory such as Sarear"s linguoculturelogy,Chomsky"s generative grammar,Trubetskoy"s pphonology,Helmslev"s glossosemantics,Iakobson"s functional grammar,bridge meaning theory by Potebnia?



Hello AlisaGoldielock 

Well I for one certainly did consider Tolkien an outstanding linguist. But even more so an outstanding philologist...

But then again, I am easily impressed, dimwit that I am, when someone says something that sounds clever or learned.  

Was I mistaken, was my assumption regarding Tolkien's renown as a linguist and philologist unwarranted?

Now I don't even dare trying to spell one of those tongue-breaking words, but maybe you can enlighten us some, what these fundamental theories are and when something is a considered a "fundamental theory"?





Oh ... and when you mention Potebnia, why not Barfield or Cassirer? Or why Chomsky and not Ogden and Richards? I'm just curious...

And have you perchance read Tolkien's essay "A secret vice" or maybe his article 'Sigelwara Land' published in Medium Aevum (1932 resp. 1934)? Did you get an idea what it was, Tolkien was after?

I would love to hear what a learned linguist has to say about Tolkien's approach to language, its origins and its connexion to the early myths. And also why his approaches regarding this - or also regarding artificial languages - should not be considered a "fundamental theory"?

Also, I was of the impression that Tolkien's various artificial languages - if not complete - get a lot of attention. I don't know whether or not Esperanto gets more...

Looking forward to your elaborations... 

----
Edit: 

P.S.: That one term of yours "glo..." "glosso..." ... anyway, that word next to H(j)elmslev ... had me quite puzzled. "Glosso" & "semantics" tried to figure the meaning of "tongue-semantics"...

Luckily _glossematic_ did the trick for me, then...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 22, 2005)

Walter said:


> That one term of yours "glo..." "glosso..." ... anyway, that word next to H(j)elmslev ... had me quite puzzled. "Glosso" & "semantics" tried to figure the meaning of "tongue-semantics"...
> 
> Luckily _glossematic_ did the trick for me, then...



Holy polysyllabiciousness! 

Barley


----------



## Walter (Sep 23, 2005)

> Anothet question for Walter-do you know of any authors, linguists, philologists or annoyingly boring pedantic pseuds with nothing better to do than to write long, esoteric and complicated essays about words who had made up or developed as many languages as Tolkien? I also wonder whether we will see Tolkien's unpublished linguistical manuscripts which various people and organisations refuse to share with the public.
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9902/unpub.html


Sorry, no, none come to my mind...

IIRC Nöm introduced that link a while ago here, until then I was only familiar with the bits and pieces published in VT. But to be honest, the linguistic aspects are not of great interest to me, what interests me more are the roots of language and their connexion to myths resp. religion and - to some degree - the symbolic aspects of words or langauge...

But I would certainly be happy to get a chance to spend a few days at the Bodleian or Marquette (if I was to be given access to these documents)...


----------



## Inderjit S (Sep 23, 2005)

To be honest what interests me the most is 'lore' rather than language, unless a linguistical essay deals with lore-like Quendi and Eldar and The Shibboleth of Feanor-the latter interests me greatly, especially the House of Finwe. Do you know of any unpublished tidbits from the Vinyar Tengwar about the Noldor or the House of Finwe?


----------



## Walter (Sep 24, 2005)

VT deals for the better part with linguistic issues rather than "lore" in general. From the top of my head I only recall the App. D of Quendi and Eldar in VT39 (I suppose you have that one since it also contains the Ósanwe-kenta) and an article about The Shibboleth of Feanor in a later issue.

I'd have to have another look, since the VT issues have been gathering dust on a bookshelf somwewhere for almost 2 years now...


----------



## AlisaGoldielock (Sep 26, 2005)

*Re: quiestions to puzzle*

Gotmog,Barliman,Thorondor,Inderjit what are you?Where have you found out information about outstanding linguists and their theories?Why are you interested in this subject?Why are you fond of philosophy?
And some riddles for you...

Who wrote "Faust"? 
Where is Ghana?
What is the official language of Jibouti?
Enumerate great british writers
Who was the first real king of England?What was his name?


----------



## Walter (Sep 26, 2005)

*Re: quiestions to puzzle*

And as you're on it, Gotmog, Barliman, Thorondor, Inderjit:

What are the philosophical consequences of spin-parity and who eventually disproved the first EPR experiment (a hint: EPR=Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen)?

What were the Indo-European influences on Pelasgian culture and their myths?

What is the particle size frequency distribution of ground coffee and how does the laser diffractometry (which is used to measure it) work?

What colo(u)r has the 3rd pair of socks (from the left) in my drawer?

You can't answer all of those? Shame on you! 

But still, I am somehow disappointed that good Alisia hasn't graced me (or better: any of the questions in this post) with an answer, I'm sure we all could benefit a lot from her/his deep insight on linguistic matters regarding Tolkien's works...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 26, 2005)

*Re: quiestions to puzzle*



AlisaGoldielock said:


> Gotmog,Barliman,Thorondor,Inderjit what are you?Where have you found out information about outstanding linguists and their theories?Why are you interested in this subject?Why are you fond of philosophy?
> And some riddles for you...
> 
> Who wrote "Faust"?
> ...



I think now, Alisa, it is your turn. You generate questions and riddles with consummate ease, yet you are woefully deficient in supplying any answers of your own. Is this a game with you? 

We four guys have made somewhat a game of our own here which evolved _past_ your questions. My question to you: _Why_ are you asking these questions, just to see what we will say? You remind me of a beginning chess player who pushes pieces around just to see what will happen...

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Sep 26, 2005)

Walter said:


> And as you're on it, Gotmog, Barliman, Thorondor, Inderjit:
> 
> What are the philosophical consequences of spin-parity and who eventually disproved the first EPR experiment (a hint: EPR=Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen)?



Well, I actually _tried_ to find out something about the first part of your question — but everywhere I went on the Internet I was _denied entrance _to anything that might supply an answer! What kind of classified info are we dealing with here? You’re scaring me, Walter...



> What were the Indo-European influences on Pelasgian culture and their myths?



I’m afraid this will have to do:

*“Pelasgians” From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

Ancient Greek writers used the name "Pelasgians" (Gk. Pelasgoí, s. Pelasgós) to refer to groups of people who preceded the Hellenes and still dwelt in several locations in mainland Greece, Crete, and other regions of the Aegean, as neighbors of the Hellenes, into the 5th century. The Greek references to Pelasgians are unanimously in agreement that they spoke a language or dialect that was different enough from Greek dialects so as not to be intelligible to Hellenes. Whether Pelasgian was pre-Indo-European or not, and the extent to which Pelasgian was a single language are modern disputes that are colored by contemporary nationalist issues. Scholars have since come to use the term "Pelasgian", somewhat indiscriminately, to indicate all the autochthonous inhabitants of these lands before the arrival of the Greeks, and in recent times some may apply "Pelasgian" to the indigenous, pre-Indo-European peoples of Anatolia as well.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelasgian



> What is the particle size frequency distribution of ground coffee and how does the laser diffractometry (which is used to measure it) work?





*Particle Size Analysis No.66

Measurement of Particle Size Distribution of Canned Black Coffee*

In recent years, particle size distribution measurement has also been frequently performed in the food industry for the purposes of research and development and quality control, etc. The importance of particle size measurement has been widely recognized, especially in fields relating to beverages, because the distribution and concentration ratio of particulates contained in beverages greatly influence their taste.

The report in this issue is dedicated to an introduction of tests of particle size distribution of canned black coffee (4 brands) analyzed with the Laser Diffraction Particle Size Analyzer SALD-2101.

<snip>

The intensity distribution of scattered light from the sample also provides information about the particle concentration, such that the greater the particle quantity, the higher the intensity of the scattered light. [T]here is a significant difference in particle quantity among the four brands of canned coffee. People say that the bitterness of coffee depends on the particle quantity and size distribution. *(see chart below)*

Source: http://www.shimadzu.com.br/analitica/aplicacoes/analisadores/sald/66.pdf

_*God’s Holy Wounds!*_ Would that _politicians_ put as much effort into ridding the world of war, poverty, disease and famine — to say nothing of themselves! (It’s a good thing I’m retired — otherwise I’d never have the time to get into this stuff...) Actually this whole thing reminds me of something that happened in a Los Angeles divorce court not long ago: During a divorce trial, a woman came out of nowhere bearing a steaming pot of coffee, and proceeded to walk through the courtroom with it, disrupting the entire proceedings.

"Young woman, what are you doing here with that coffeepot???!!!" roared the judge.

"Your honor, I'm getting a divorce, _*and these are my grounds!"*_



> What colo(u)r has the 3rd pair of socks (from the left) in my drawer?



Well that’s obvious: That pair of socks is _mismatched_ and each sock is a different colo(u)r! _*Cheap trickery will get you nowhere, Walter!*_ (I know about the socks because I was able to distance-view them using my specially-configured _orgone box, _ coupled in parallel with my Wimshurst static electricity generator, connected to special nodes attached to my skull going directly into my _corpus collosum_ therebye utilizing both halves of my brain.)



> You can't answer all of those? Shame on you!



*Who says????!!!* (Just — give me a moment — I must calm down...)



> But still, I am somehow disappointed that good Alisia hasn't graced me (or better: any of the questions in this post) with an answer, I'm sure we all could benefit a lot from her/his deep insight on linguistic matters regarding Tolkien's works...



Somehow I doubt it...

Barley


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 26, 2005)

*Re: quiestions to puzzle*



AlisaGoldielock said:


> Gotmog,Barliman,Thorondor,Inderjit what are you?Where have you found out information about outstanding linguists and their theories?Why are you interested in this subject?Why are you fond of philosophy?
> And some riddles for you...
> 
> Who wrote "Faust"?
> ...


Perhaps I should first remind you of my small contribution to this thread.


> Do all of us 'consider Tolkien to be an outstanding linguist'?
> 
> For my part I consider him to have been a very good linguist but an outstanding storyteller who was able to tell his stories equally well by voice or printed word.
> 
> One reason that he did not 'create a fundamental theory' such as those you mentioned is that he was busy with other concerns Most noteably The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings Though it could be said that the work he did on his invented Elven Languages and the way they changed through time was an illustration of a fundamental theory of language development.


So on to your questions.
what are you?
A person of small knowledge and less wisdom.

Where have you found out information about outstanding linguists and their theories?
I have no knowledge of any outstanding linguists nor indeed what constitutes such a being. As for theories, I have never read nor commented on any.

Why are you interested in this subject?
I am not. I was interested in the manner in which you first posted.

Why are you fond of philosophy?
It helps to fill in that portion of the space/time between what we refer to as birth and death. It also helps give my thumbs a rest from twiddling.


----------



## Walter (Sep 27, 2005)

Just in case anyone hasn't noticed, my previous post was made "tongue-firmly-in-cheek"! 

Nonetheless I appreciate your Googleing-efforts Barley  , but since I already feel guilty of having led this thread astray at least once, I'd rather not reply here, after all this used to be one of the more serious Tolkienish sections..

But if, maybe, a moderator can split this thread and move the off-topic parts -- beginning with the discussion of Socrates' .... umm ... debt -- to S&B, then I would reply to your questions, Barley - if you're interested, that is....


----------



## Gothmog (Sep 27, 2005)

Yes this is intended as a more serious section. And hopefully This will turn into an interesting and informative thread with the help of the thread starter.

I Have split the Thread. The new thread can be foundHere
I have edited a couple of posts to split them to fit the threads.

I have left in the Tounge in Cheek question and Barly's answer to show that even in fun a lot of work is put in by the members to answer questions as fully as possible.


----------



## AlisaGoldielock (Oct 24, 2005)

*Re: well*

Excuse me my being absent!Let's carry on.What are your professions?May be all of your are linguists as me.If it is so--no quiestions.To know About Chomsky & Potebnia is your duty.
Revenons a nos moutons!In Russia many linguists think Tolkien as neither good linguist,nor good writer.GREAT linguist must create a fundamental theory or make an outstanding discovery.


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 24, 2005)

*Re: well*



AlisaGoldielock said:


> Excuse me my being absent!Let's carry on.What are your professions?May be all of your are linguists as me.If it is so--no quiestions.To know About Chomsky & Potebnia is your duty.
> Revenons a nos moutons!In Russia many linguists think Tolkien as neither good linguist,nor good writer.GREAT linguist must create a fundamental theory or make an outstanding discovery.



I have already answered you question as to what I am. Seems that you could not find the post. It is four posts above this one. 

Well each person is entitled to make up their own mind as to the value of the linguistic work of Tolkien and also that of his other books. However, personally I am not the least bit interested in hearing vauge second-hand comments about 'many linguists in Russia' none of which are on-site to confirm the claim.

Perhaps you would be willing to provide us with your own personal view of Tolkien as a Linguist, Philologist and writer.

Views on what is 'Greatness' vary greatly.


----------



## Walter (Oct 24, 2005)

*Re: well*



AlisaGoldielock said:


> Excuse me my being absent!Let's carry on.


No problem...

How about - for a start - you carefully re-read this thread? You will find that you have been asked some questions in return. And then - maybe - you could grace some of us with an answer?


----------



## AlisaGoldielock (Oct 26, 2005)

*I am a*

future interpretress!But who are all of you?Engineers?teachers?computer programmers?And by, the way not to answer my riddles?especialy last one is a kind of disgrace.Not to know your history...


----------



## Gothmog (Oct 26, 2005)

*Re: I am a*



AlisaGoldielock said:


> future interpretress!But who are all of you?Engineers?teachers?computer programmers?And by, the way not to answer my riddles?especialy last one is a kind of disgrace.Not to know your history...


Why is it important to you what each of us are?

And by the way, not to answer your 'riddles' is not a disgrace of any kind. It was a choice. They were un-connected to Tolkien or this thread.

As for your personal questions, each answered in the manner they prefered either with comments or silence.

I will repeat my answers in this post as you seem not to have noticed them.

So on to your questions.
what are you?
A person of small knowledge and less wisdom.

Where have you found out information about outstanding linguists and their theories?
I have no knowledge of any outstanding linguists nor indeed what constitutes such a being. As for theories, I have never read nor commented on any.

Why are you interested in this subject?
I am not. I was interested in the manner in which you first posted.

Why are you fond of philosophy?
It helps to fill in that portion of the space/time between what we refer to as birth and death. It also helps give my thumbs a rest from twiddling.

Perhaps my answers in some way disqualify me from participating in this discussion? If so perhaps you could tell me why?


----------



## Walter (Oct 26, 2005)

I have also issued a few questions in a previous post, Alisa

As soon as you have answered them, I'll gladly go on conversing with you...




Walter said:


> Hello AlisaGoldielock
> 
> Well I for one certainly did consider Tolkien an outstanding linguist. But even more so an outstanding philologist...
> 
> ...


----------



## AlisaGoldielock (Nov 1, 2005)

*It seems to me*

that you are NOT ENGLISHMEN AT ALL!I think all of you are my former compatriots.Gotmog is from Moscow,Thorondor is from Saint-Petersburg,Barliman Butterbur is a Tatar from Kazan and Inderjit is from Ulan-Ude.Englishmen who are not linguists can know nothing about Potebnia and Chomsky.


----------



## Gothmog (Nov 1, 2005)

*Re: It seems to me*



AlisaGoldielock said:


> that you are NOT ENGLISHMEN AT ALL!I think all of you are my former compatriots.Gotmog is from Moscow,Thorondor is from Saint-Petersburg,Barliman Butterbur is a Tatar from Kazan and Inderjit is from Ulan-Ude.Englishmen who are not linguists can know nothing about Potebnia and Chomsky.


Well you are correct that I am not an Englishman. However, I am not one of your former compartiots and am not from Moscow. I am infact Welsh and come from South Wales in the UK. 

While I do know nothing about Potebnia and Chomsky myself, there are many on this board who's wide-ranging interests do. I am however willing to learn of new ideas about Tolkien and his works.


----------



## Thorondor_ (Nov 1, 2005)

> Gotmog is from Moscow,Thorondor is from Saint-Petersburg,Barliman Butterbur is a Tatar from Kazan and Inderjit is from Ulan-Ude


Say what??


----------

