A Gateway to Sindarin by David Salo

[Alatar]

I was "recommended" this by Amazon's website. Its something I've often thought of looking into more. However, the two very different reviews make it difficult to judge.

This one seems very encouraging.

5.0 out of 5 stars Thorough and creative scholarship, July 5, 2007
By Robert E. Romanelli "elf-friend" (Goleta, CA United States)

David Salo's humble attitude regarding his intensely thorough research has produced a work of profound and astounding scholarship. This book is exciting to the point of being breathtaking, for, again, it raises the expectation that Middle Earth was indeed peopled by speakers of i-lambi Eldaron and rich with a living, thriving culture in which the powers of Light finally overcame the forces of darkness. Elvish is aesthetically thrilling, but getting a handle on this tongue, i.e., actually allowing tangible use of Sindarin makes this "linguist" jump for joy. The organization of the book moves the reader through what might easily be one of the most interesting graduate courses in language that any elf-friend has ever taken in higher education. Hannon lle, David Salo!

But this one is downright damning.

1.0 out of 5 stars Misleading Title, Unscholarly Contents, May 30, 2008
By H. Grace (Boston, MA) -

Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to give this item zero stars.

Sadly, this book lives up to neither its title nor its promise. For anyone who knows anything about J.R.R. Tolkien's invented languages, this book is not a reliable 'Gateway to Sindarin'. Rather, it is an unacknowledged mishmash of Noldorin of the 1930s (fr. 'The Etymologies'), Sindarin of the 1950s (fr. 'The Lord of the Rings'), and numerous inventions of David Salo himself. It is therefore misleading to call this book 'A Gateway to Sindarin'. It would have been more accurate to call it 'An Introduction to David Salo's Synthetic Reinterpretation of Tolkien's Gnomish-Noldorin-Sindarin language'.

(One might charitably suppose that this was in fact Salo's preferred title, but that there simply wasn't room on the stylized Moria Gate on the cover of his book to accommodate such a lengthy phrase. Perhaps the switch from a Beleriandic mode of vowel-representation to one accommodating vowel-pointing tehtar might have saved some room?)

In all seriousness: the unacknowledged, uncredited, and therefore (one presumes) copyright-violating use of Tolkien's 'Moria Gate' drawing on the cover of 'Gateway to Sindarin' is just the tip of the iceberg. While the book does have an "Annotated Bibliography" (pp.416-435), this is no substitute for a proper citation and referencing strategy. One searches in vain for any accreditation of earlier scholars of Tolkien's languages, not least the editors of Vinyar Tengwar and Parma Eldalamberon, whose publications and analyses of much original Tolkien linguistic material this book silently mines for forms without acknowledging any of their theoretical or methodological contributions. If this book isn't already tied up in court proceedings then it certainly should be.

There are several reviews of this deeply-flawed and pseudo-scholarly work online; I urge all would-be purchasers to consult them before supporting the publication of this book (and those like it).

The problem is, it's very had to know if either are accurate. The first guy might be a friend, and the second could be a disgruntled competitor. Its very hard to know. Also, David Salo has not endeared himself to a lot of people over the years, and some would love to knock him down a peg or two.

Any thoughts?

[solicitr]

Alatar, you've stumbled into a minefield here. There is something of a war, dating back years, between adherents of Salo's and adherents of the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship.

There's no point in rehashing any of that here; it's easy to research if you're interested. If we distill the politics out, the two reviews mark two very different approaches to the Eldarin tongues, and the approach you prefer will tell you whether you want Salo's book or not.


The essential problem is that Tolkien never actually created "Sindarin," if by that one means a usable vehicle for communication, like Klingon. Tolkien was a philologist, and what interested him was the development of words. Syntax and grammar were of less interest; and vocabulary limited, usually invented on the fly. And then (as always) he was never happy with it- everything changed constantly. On top of everything else, as the second review alludes, the decision in the 1950s to convert Noldorin into Telerin-based Sindarin brought with it another philological overhaul. Somewhat reminiscent of the old joke, "No language ever changed as rapidly as Proto-Indo-European during the 1870's."

The incompleteness and inconsistency of the Elvish legends, as Tolkien left them, aren't a patch on the incompleteness and inconsistency of the Elvish languages. No linguistic analogue to the 1977 Silmarillion is or will ever be possible.


Therefore arose the divide: to study 'Sindarin' (or Quenya) as Tolkien left it, or to take all the available material, fill in the (many) gaps, and create a usable 'neo-Elvish?' This latter has been Salo's approach, culminating in his work on the movies (for which he wound up inventing a lot of vocabulary- that's not a slam, just an observation on the limitations of Tolkien's material). Of necessity he has, as the second review points out, had to corral together elements from many different 'phases' of Tolkien's work.

Some have claimed that Salo's book doesn't distinguish all the time between attested forms and inventions; some have said he silently 'corrects' Tolkien the better to fit his own theories. I'm not linguist enough myself to judge if this true. It does seem that Salo has become the 'reference standard' for neo-Sindarin among those who like to write or speak in it.

I suppose Salo's work can be compared to Evans' 'reconstruction' of the Minoan palace at Knossos.

[Impenitent]

Is the difference akin to a complete cross-referenced 'museum piece' vs a restored and reconstructed tool for use?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I very much hope that Aelfwine (a new member who has not yet posted) will comment on this, since I know he is very knowledgable about the subject.

[Aelfwine]

I think that "solictr"* has summed up things pretty well. I would just add that the issue here is the same facing any interested layman that wants to learn more about an author's work: your best indicator of the reliability of any expert is to compare what they claim about the author's work against what that author actually wrote. That's what those critics of Salo's work that are themselves scholars of Tolkien's languages have done, and the results speak for themselves: it's hard to dispute the critics that point out the many places where Salo says "X" but Tolkien actually says "Y". See, for example, Thorsten Renk's critique of "Gateway" here: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/elvish/s ... ssion.html.

* Can I use real names when I know them? Or is that bad form here?

-- Carl F. Hostetter[/url]

[solicitr]

Impy, the best analogy I can come up with would be the various working 'replicas' of Roman artillery: we have some incomplete written descriptions (from different centuries), we have bits and pieces of the metal hardware; but to make something that actually hurls a stone requires a lot of guesswork.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Welcome, Carl! I'm very pleased to see you here (obviously). To answer your question, it's better to stick with user names even if you know the person's real name (though clearly if you choose to sign your posts with your real name it would be silly for me to address you with your user name).

The one thing that I would add is that people who are interested in learning more about Tolkien's languages might want to click on Carl's website (http://www.elvish.org/) and track down copies of the issues of the journals Vinyar Tengwar (available by subscription ) and Parma Eldalamberon, in which he and his colleagues have edited and published some of the vast materials that Tollkien left behind regarding his linguistic creations. And to patiently await new materials as they become available.

I'm not a linguist myself (as Carl himself can attest to, having attended my talk at MythCon 38, and politely avoided snickering at some of my poorer pronunciations), but I do have a lot of respect for the truth. To the extent that people like David Salo are misrepresenting what Tolkien himself said, I have a pretty big problem with that.

[MithLuin]

But Impy makes a good point, too, about intentions - if the intention is to scholarly study what information we do have, you are going to be a lot more content with gaps and inconsistencies and saying "we simply don't know."

If the intention is recreating something for use, you are much more likely to say, "I don't care about all that; I just want to know how to say 'I love you,' in Sindarin - as accurately as possible, of course." So it's not just a disagreement on how best to reconstruct something, it can even be a different goal entirely. Reconstruction has very understandable limits, and would never be definitive. I certainly admire all the work that went into writing 'Attolma i menelessië'...but it didn't match Tolkien's version (which was later published) very closely, because of the myriad of decisions that go into something like that.

There will always be people who have no interest in becoming scholars of Tolkien's language, no real background in linguistics...but an interest in Quenya and Sindarin. The TORc language forum has consistent inquiries about translations for tattoos and role-playing, or just the invention of names for fantasy settings. There is nothing wrong with this - and therefore nothing wrong with someone attempting a manual aimed at this audience.

I am not saying it is okay to take someone else's work without acknowledgement (because obviously it is not), but my guess is that the book in question is a good bit more solid than Ruth Noel's, and would appeal to a layman more than a scholar. Since Salo did work on the movie, his version of things is at least mainstream, even if it is hardly the only approach to Sindarin.

There will always be different approaches to things. The last linguist I spoke to in real life lamented that skilled linguists 'wasted' their time and effort studying languages like Klingon or Quenya when there are real, dying languages in the world that have yet to be studied. I can't say I agree with him, because I think people should study what they love, but he is entitled to his views.

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

I pre-ordered a copy of Salo's book when it was first offered on Amazon.com, and I agree that it has a very attractive cover.

Seriously, I'm not a linguist nor am I an expert in Tolkien's invented languages. I do, however, have some interest in them and have studied them casually for my own purposes. As a singer and one who enjoys the sound of the spoken word, I have made an effort to learn to pronounce the words correctly even if I am not knowledgeable of the mechanics of the language such grammar, syntax, etc. I've also dabbled with the Elvish-script known as Tengwar.

One thing I find very interesting is that both Sindar ('grey-elves') and Teleri ('those who come last', or as Fëanor derisively calls them, "faint-hearted loiterers"), the terms we are most familiar with for the third Elven kindreds are the Noldorin (Quenya) words for those people. Furthermore, we are told that these folks called themselves Lindar ('singers') yet this, too, is a Quenya word. Given the antipathy of the Teleri/Sindar towards the language of the kinslayers, I find this particularly ironic.

I assume, naturally, that the Lindar refererred to themselves as 'singers' in their own language, which I'm told would something along the lines of Glinnil, Lindil, or Lindedhil.

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

The problem is, it's very had to know if either are accurate.

I pulled my copy off the shelf last evening just before going to bed. Mr. Salo's book appears to be a very scholarly work. He notes the sources for his findings and provides explanations for his methods. I found the introductory material both interesting and very well-written.

Yes, the arch design on the cover is reminiscent of Moria's West-gate, but it is far from being an exact duplicate. There are vines entwined about the pillars on either side (not trees), and there are Tengwar letters across the top of the archway. The design does not bear a crown, a hammer and anvil, or the stars seen in Tolkien's design. Tolkien did not invent the arch form.

The writer of the negative review apparently has an axe to grind, as one may have gathered from what I deem to be the rather rude and petty tone of the review. The arguments in favor of and against Salo's work seem to me to be very much like the purist and revisionist camps we have seen in regards to Jackson's movie adaptation of The Lord of the Rings.

[solicitr]

The arguments in favor of and against Salo's work seem to me to be very much like the purist and revisionist camps we have seen in regards to Jackson's movie adaptation of The Lord of the Rings.

That's not a bad analogy at all--

except that PJ never pretended that his movies were anything other than revisionist. I don't mind if anyone makes a Stradivari copy - most violinmakers do. The problem is when one sticks an 'Antonius Stradivarius' label in it.

[sauronsfinger]

unless of course you have paid Antonius for the legal right to do so.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

sf, I'm afraid I don't understand your comment in the context of this discussion. Can you explain what you mean?

[Aelfwine]

Mr. Salo's book appears to be a very scholarly work. He notes the sources for his findings and provides explanations for his methods.

The fundamental problem with Salo's book is that he does not in fact "note the sources for his findings", because far too often there is no source other than his own inventiveness: thus Salo's book does indeed "appear to be a very scholarly work", but this is an appearance only.

But again, don't take my word for it, read Thorsten Renk's extensive and detailed review at: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/elvish/s ... ssion.html

-- Carl F. Hostetter

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks, Carl. I hope that people do in fact take the time to read the review. It is not to say the Salo's work is worthless; I most definitely don't believe that. It's just that people should be clear as to what his work really is. If I have a complaint, it is that he himself does not really make that clear, so one has to go to other sources to discover it.

[Galin]

(...) I assume, naturally, that the Lindar refererred to themselves as 'singers' in their own language, which I'm told would something along the lines of Glinnil, Lindil, or Lindedhil.

When the Nandor arrived in Beleriand it is said (in Quendi And Eldar anyway) that the Lindar called themselves Lindi at this time, and:

'The Sindar quickly recognized the Lindi as kinsfolk of Lindarin origin (S Glinnil), using a tongue that in spite of great differences was still perceived to be akin to their own; and they adopted the names Lindi and Lindon, giving them the forms Lindil (sg. Lindel) or Lindedhil, and Lindon or Dor Lindon.'

Nandor, Quendi And Eldar, War of the Jewels

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks for that, Galin. Quite interesting.

[Old_Tom_Bombadil]

except that PJ never pretended that his movies were anything other than revisionist. I don't mind if anyone makes a Stradivari copy - most violinmakers do. The problem is when one sticks an 'Antonius Stradivarius' label in it.

In the Preface to his book Salo wrote with all due humility:

This volume is not and cannot be the last or most accurate word in Sindarin. Although it is as consistent as possible with the published material, it has not been possible to take the large amount of unpublished material into account. This book must therefore contain errors large and small.

I hardly call that a "Strativarius label".

As far as Jackson' thoughts on his own work, I recall in the commentaries on one the DVDs him saying that he created the films for Tolkien in the way that Tolkien would have wanted them or something like that. (I nearly choked when I heard him say that.) It was obviously a bit of hyperbole.

[solicitr]

The problem with Gateway is that it doesn't simply contain "errors large and small," but some outright fabrications. While there is nothing wrong with the (necessary) practice of filling in JRRT's many, many gaps, the plaster matrix should be made clearly distinguishable from the original marble

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Exactly!

Old Tom, nice to see you around again. Don't be such a stranger!