Post DWGEB4e1qXt

Tamas Ferencz Aug 11, 2014 (08:58)

Don't you just love it when you read an article in Vinyar Tengwar, and the editors mention something like in an essay on this-and-this found in a box written on A&U waste paper from 1968 and then proceed to quote one single sentence from said essay? And you go on wondering what other things could still be in there? I've counted at least three of those whilst reading VT49 yesterday. Ah, the torture:)

Fiona Jallings Aug 12, 2014 (23:58)

Effective marketing?

Tamas Ferencz Aug 13, 2014 (09:09)

+Fiona Jallings
not that the kind of us would need much encouragement to buy any subsequent volumes of said journal:)

Matt Dinse Aug 15, 2014 (00:02)

These are quite torturous; I'm tantalized by mentions of a 1930s Noldorin historical grammar (I think the only quote was -ch for "we" several PEs ago? it seems therefore distinct from TQ1), 1940s Quenya conjugations and declensions (like -l for ablative and pronouns before verbs instead of as suffixes), 1960s Quenya verb material (airitáne etc.), declensions (talasse, talse) ... once I reread more of the VTs and PEs I will have more to add to my wishlist. Though I expect we may see some of the 1930s stuff in subsequent PEs if they continue to publish chronologically.

The Taliska historical grammar and Hungarian-style Elvish (Mágo/l) are mouth-watering as well. But I'd love to know the rest of what's out there for 1930s Noldorin so the material in Etymologies can be used more accurately for poetry/translations instead of Sindarin-mining.

Ицхак Пензев Aug 17, 2014 (14:37)

I would call what they do with publishing materials, a perversion.

Matt Dinse Aug 17, 2014 (23:25)

I wouldn't say that; referring (even if briefly) to relevant parts of other documents gives additional evidence/context for whatever main material they're publishing/discussing in the issue. Sure, the ET could have discussed (e.g.) téna in VT49:14 without mentioning late essays on the future tense and on homophonic stems, but it would be our loss, whether mentioning the form/date but not source/context (not as scholarly) or nixing the references altogether. Sure, the hints towards what else is out there are tantalizing, but I think their inclusion is for the better. Why limit editorial discussion of a text when they have other resources to shed light upon it?

Although, I could have entirely misunderstood what you meant by "perversion" and this post could be a giant strawman. ;)

Ицхак Пензев Aug 18, 2014 (17:29)

Inclusion is good. Publishing material with 20 pages per year is bad.

Tamas Ferencz Aug 19, 2014 (13:15)

We don't know the nature of the agreement between the Editorial Team and the Estate; don't know what rate of publication they have permission for. But let's suppose they have unlimited access and permission: even though perhaps I personally would follow a different policy, looking at the few facsimile examples they've included in the various PE and VT issues I am not at all surprised that it takes ages to produce a coherent and well researched article from those myriad scraps of paper.