Elfs and Dwarfs - Political correctness gone mad!

[Sinisalo]

Uh.. why Elfs and not Elves?. Is this Political Correctness cos i'm not aware of any equalities issues with non-existent fantasy species?

And don't get me started on war sword (?!)

No really what is going on with this mangling of the English language? Is this some sort of American idiom?. You know, like saying "can i get?" instead of "please may I have".

 

[captrooper]

Aldryami and mostali? Poor English is the answer IMO (and maybe poor sub-editing with the latest edition). All was fine in RQ2, sometimes okay in RQ3, sometimes wrong. Put up with it, the game is actually worth it!
There are other, much worse Gloranthan mistakes (not spelling, but things like Balazar being marked as such on a map too early for it to exist). I'd rather have the 2nd age stuff in print than not, so minor crap like this I can live with. As an ex-sub-editor myself, I can guess why it annoys you, but let go... it's a game... and I defy you to find a novel that is perfectly edited these days (actually don't bother, I won't check - I was making a point.)

PS: EX sub-editor, I don't care if my post has spelling or grammatical errors. Don't bother to lame me.

 

[Loz]

Wikipedia has this to say on the subject:

The plural form dwarfs has been traced to the 17th century. The alternative plural dwarves has been recorded in the early 18th century, but was not generally accepted until used by philologist J. R. R. Tolkien in his fantasy novel The Hobbit. Neither spelling represents the regular phonetic development of the Old English plural dweorgas, namely dwarrows; rather, they descend from a new plural formed in Middle English from the singular stem. Similarly, the old inherited plural dwarrows acquired a singular dwarrow.[1] Although dwarrow has passed from the language, both dwarfs and dwarves are in current use. Many grammarians prefer dwarfs, many fantasists prefer dwarves. The form dwarfs is generally used for real people affected by dwarfism; the form dwarves is used for the mythical people described by Tolkien and others.

Elf can be pluralised as both elves and elfs. Something associated with elves or the qualities of elves is described by the adjectives elven, elvish, elfin or elfish. According to a convention of modern fantasy, the 'v' in elven or elvish refers to human-sized elves (who correspond more closely to those of the old Germanic paganism), whereas the f in elfin or elfish refers to tiny-sized elfs (who correspond more closely to the folklore of the Renaissance and Romantic Eras).

So takes your choice...

 

[elgrin]

Loz
First I didn't think they knew that 5:29am existed in Herts - My daughter lives there and to wake her before the clock strikes nine is a mortal sin.
Second thanks for the clarification, the whole Dwarfs/ves, Elfs/ves thing has been bugging me for years without me being able to find a decent source to give an clear and comprehensive explanation.

elgrin

 

[Loz]

Loz
First I didn't think they knew that 5:29am existed in Herts - My daughter lives there and to wake her before the clock strikes nine is a mortal sin.
Second thanks for the clarification, the whole Dwarfs/ves, Elfs/ves thing has been bugging me for years without me being able to find a decent source to give an clear and comprehensive explanation.

elgrin

Not only does 5.29am exist, it positively brims with potential. I'm a habitual early riser and with a cup of sweet tea inside me, I'm good to go.

5.29pm is a different matter altogether. I'm usually dead on my feet and ready for my strong, sweet cocoa.

 

[Sinisalo]

Oh my god I'm completely wrong aren't I?

Elf can be pluralised as both elves and elfs. Something associated with elves or the qualities of elves is described by the adjectives elven, elvish, elfin or elfish. According to a convention of modern fantasy, the 'v' in elven or elvish refers to human-sized elves (who correspond more closely to those of the old Germanic paganism), whereas the f in elfin or elfish refers to tiny-sized elfs (who correspond more closely to the folklore of the Renaissance and Romantic Eras).

It's been a while since I've started an argument and started off with such complete and utter bollox. I really do have a red face sitting here.

 

[Loz]

Oh my god I'm completely wrong aren't I?


It's been a while since I've started an argument and started off with such complete and utter bollox. I really do have a red face sitting here.

Don't beat yourself up Sinisalo - I was curious myself about the elf/elves, dwarfs/dwarves thing and just Googled it - I really wasn't trying to prove you wrong! Its interesting how the two words have evolved from Tolkien's usage though.

 

[captrooper]

Looks like I was wrong on too! Interesting stuff from the wikipedia.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Dear All,

Well according to the "Daddy" of all books on the subject of Norse mythology, and one of the chief sources that the writer of the entry in Wikipedia probably cribbed off - the 'Dictionary of Northern Mythology' by Rudolf Simek (professor of the Scandinavian section of the German dept University of Bonn) has the following (and I cut out huge amounts of unrelated stuff - here's just the bits on etymology):

Dwarfs (OE dweorg, ON dvergr, OHG zwerc, gitwerc).
... The etymology of 'dwarf' is obscure. On the one hand scholars have referred to Norwegian dvergskot 'animal disease' and Old Indian drva- 'weakness, sickness' which would lead back to an Indo-Germanic root *dhuer- 'damage', but on the other hand considerations have centred on Old Indian dhvaras 'demonic being'. Also the Indo-Germanic root *dhreugh (leading to German Traum 'dream', Trug 'deception') has been considered, in which case 'deceptive picture' would be the more original meaning.

Elves (OE elfen, ON alfen, OHG elben, alben)
... In the late Middle Ages and in modem times the Scandinavian alfar and the dwarfs merged into the more general concept of the huldufólk. Likewise, the elves have never played a great role in German folk-belief. However, a strong tradition was preserved in England and it is from here that these beings were re-borrowed into German speaking areas only in the 18th century (through Bodmer, Wieland, Herder). This is the reason why the borrowed form Elfen is more common in German today than the original Elben or Alben.

There is nothing in the entries on anything beyond "deworg/dvergr" and "elfen/elben/alben - which strikes me as being pre-16th century. So take your pick....

Regards

 

[Sinisalo]

which would lead back to an Indo-Germanic root *dhuer- 'damage', but on the other hand considerations have centred on Old Indian

Which leads us on merrily to my favourite subject to bore people with in the pub (apart from the last episode of the Sopranos, that is), the Aryan Invasions of Europe and India....

...any real evidence?

***DISCLAIMER****
The people who invaded India in the Bronze Age called themselves Aryans. We know this because of Indian oral tradition that was written down in the middle ages. The Vedas was likely composed in the Bronze Age. This is nothing to do with Hitler! Don't even start!

So, linguists have real evidence that ancient German, Greek and Latin comes from the same root language as Indian Sanskrit. Do we have a massive wave of migration/invasion spanning Eurasia in the Bronze Age, or not?

 

[Mongoose Gar]

Don't beat yourself up Sinisalo - I was curious myself about the elf/elves, dwarfs/dwarves thing and just Googled it - I really wasn't trying to prove you wrong! Its interesting how the two words have evolved from Tolkien's usage though.

There are some *fantastic* rants in the Letters of JRR Tolkien where he complains about over-eager copy-editors changing his elves to elfs, dwarves to dwarfs and so on.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Dear all,

So, linguists have real evidence that ancient German, Greek and Latin comes from the same root language as Indian Sanskrit. Do we have a massive wave of migration/invasion spanning Eurasia in the Bronze Age, or not?

Ooh you are getting into one of my specialities....

Yes, they are related linguistically - anyone with a passing knowledge of Sanskrit and a few other Indo-European languages can work that one out!

As to an actual physical invasion with hordes of moving people and trudging livestock... unlikely. It's a great story and there are a few modern Indian extremist political parties that would simply love it to be true.

However, in reality the "so-called" Aryan Invasion was probably an "invasion" largely in a form similar to that of the Celts - a cultural and linguistic spread of "more advanced" and culturally "more vibrant" ideas that the vast majority of the already present locals adopted.

There may have been a small shift of population in Northern India (unlike with the Celts, which was a cultural group rather than a ethnic entity - you could become "Celtic" by merely adopting the shared beliefs and culture). However, any population migration was small - the locals have too stable a DNA base, one that has not changed hugely over too long a time period (until the 4th-11th centuries CE).

And no, the culture that gave the world both the 'swastika' and 'star of David' has nothing to do with Hitler.

Regards

p.s. this is really getting off-topic....!

 

[Grrrr]

Keeping on the topic of being off topic.

Ideas, language and made items have always travelled well.

Example I have a Mac in my study but that doesn't mean that I migrated from Cupertino california (or indeed China where it was assembled)



Grrrr

 

[kintire]

However, in reality the "so-called" Aryan Invasion was probably an "invasion" largely in a form similar to that of the Celts - a cultural and linguistic spread of "more advanced" and culturally "more vibrant" ideas that the vast majority of the already present locals adopted.

Well you say that, and I realise that it is currently the ruling theory that the Celtic expansion was peaceful. However, you can't get away from the fact that all of the Celtic movements that we have documentation for, eg the moves into northern Greece and modern Turkey, the migration into northern Italy and the migration of the Helvetii from Switzerland into southern France were, in fact, violent conquests. I realise this is a tiny proportion of the total, but there is good evidence of widespread warfare in Europe over much of the prehistoric period, albeit on a very small scale. While the DNA evidence is very useful, its one strand among many, and I feel its being given too much prominence just now, possibly due to the newness factor.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Dear All,

You actually list nearly all the exceptions, and as you say those warband adventures, and movements as a result of poor land conditions, were a tiny proportion. However, they were the ones that were recorded, as they impacted literate cultures. They were far from typical and generally were results of unusual circumstances.

One of the problems is that convincing a neighbour that tartan and lime-washed hair is "cool" simply doesn't have the same dramatic appeal to modern popular culture (and particularly TV history programme makers).

And after all, unless you are Chinggis Qan, one simply can't kill all those pesky people in the way... and after a while even he gave up (OK, he was considering starting up again just before he died). Winning them over to your way of thinking is, in the end also far more lasting.

Regards

 

[Sinisalo]

Can I change the name of this thread to "Bronze Age Migrations/Invasions - Political Correctness Gone Mad"?

My wife, who is Indian, tells me that the Aryans didn't march in and kill everybody, they took over, became the new ruling class and started lording it over the locals. Which is why, according to her, Brahmins are pale skinned and everybody else is dark.

The DNA record of England wasn't much changed by the Norman invasion but nobody tries to suggest that was simply a migration or that the English had been persuaded it was cooler to speak French than English. The Normans came in became the new ruling class and lorded it over the locals.

What annoys me just a little bit is all the archeological and written evidence of a protracted bitter conflict between the Anglo-Saxons and Romano-British. Oh no ignore all that, these german types came over set up an allotment next to their new british cousins and exchanged knitting patterns over the garden fence. Not a shot was fired!

Lastly, waves of horse riding migrants have been appearing in Europe from the steppes quite regularly in recorded history why not in prehistory?

Oh, according to Michael Wood off the telly the Aryans came from Turkmenistan which should really piss off those Indian extremists.

Anyway judging by my recent record in talking bollox the above is, of course, my own opinion

 

[captrooper]

The DNA record of England wasn't much changed by the Norman invasion but nobody tries to suggest that was simply a migration or that the English had been persuaded it was cooler to speak French than English. The Normans came in became the new ruling class and lorded it over the locals.

The Norman ruling class was mostly "civilised" vikings plus the various Franks and other Germanics that had bred in with the Gaulish and Briton locals of northern France over time. Not that much different from what you would expect to be in England at the time, so no wonder there's no genetic change!

What annoys me just a little bit is all the archeological and written evidence of a protracted bitter conflict between the Anglo-Saxons and Romano-British. Oh no ignore all that, these german types came over set up an allotment next to their new british cousins and exchanged knitting patterns over the garden fence. Not a shot was fired!

What written evidence? Reliable, and from temporally close enough to count (i.e., not Bede's axe grinding for his own purposes)? There ain't much. And what archaeological evidence?
This is the age of the comitatus - and none were so big that the land around could not support them. There are no great armies clashing in a protracted Anglo-Saxon vs Celtic war. Yeah, there are some bush wars, but the take over appears to be more cultural than military (although military might is important in the A-S culture). Maybe lots of small local fights, but if it's not a cultural invasion then why the complete change in language so quickly? Why the change in material culture? Religion?

Makes me want to start a mythic Britain Invaded RQ campaign
RQ's got to be the perfect system for Dark Ages stuff!

 

[Sinisalo]

Makes me want to start a mythic Britain Invaded RQ campaign
RQ's got to be the perfect system for Dark Ages stuff!

Me too. Have you got the Warhammer Historical Arthur book?. It's very good. Another book I read on holiday that I *highly* recommend on the period is AD500 by Simon Young (ISBN 0-75381-946-5) a fictional travel guide written by a fictional Romano-Byzantine. It's very entertaining and covers the whole British and Irish Isles. I nicked a load for my Orlanthi game.

I hear what you're saying I just don't believe anyone gives up their culture, rights, property and religion without a fight. Not all of them all at once.

 

[captrooper]

Makes me want to start a mythic Britain Invaded RQ campaign
RQ's got to be the perfect system for Dark Ages stuff!

Me too. Have you got the Warhammer Historical Arthur book?. It's very good. Another book I read on holiday that I *highly* recommend on the period is AD500 by Simon Young (ISBN 0-75381-946-5) a fictional travel guide written by a fictional Romano-Byzantine. It's very entertaining and covers the whole British and Irish Isles. I nicked a load for my Orlanthi game.

I hear what you're saying I just don't believe anyone gives up their culture, rights, property and religion without a fight. Not all of them all at once.

I have the Warhammer historical one - I thought I had the other, but on checking don't. I must have nearly bought it at some time. I'll make sure I pick it up now though.

It's not that overnight... two maybe three generations - even four. It perhaps starts with treaty marriages to these new, militarily and in terms of metal weapon technology, tougher, neighbours. The kids from those marriages prefer the dominant culture, i.e., the one that calls the shots. That'll be the newcomers. They arrive armed and ready to farm. They were probably invited as kin by people who had already been around a while (probably Germanic mercenaries manning the coastal forts at first).
They call the shots because they don'y pay the local head guy off. They gift give like equals and if offended fight hard and as they are a more militaristic culture tend to win.
You also get the toughs from the native culture want to join the newcomer warbands - it's natural, they want the best handouts and be on the winning side, so they are early adoptors.
You start getting crossovers (it's not a one way cultural takeover completely by any means). The new guys even respect the land. They call the spirits funny names, but they understand it. By now you have inter-marrying and it's all over.
Please note, when I say dominant culture, I'm not value judging best or better, just saying who won out.
Not a great description (or even all that accurate, but it kind of gives you the gist). And a great Orlanthi land grab campaign too I daresay!

Of course, that's not to say that the cultural takeover is the correct theory, just to me, and taking all the evidence into account, the most likely. It certainly influenced my Third Age Glorantha play. I became a lot more interested in how the Lunars assimilated the Orlanthi after hostilities than the hostilities themselves.

This kind of migratory history lends itself so well to RPG campaigns because you can have military conflict, cultural conflict, and spiritual/religious conflict between the natives and the imigrants - it's all there, on the wild frontier!

 

[kintire]

You actually list nearly all the exceptions, and as you say those warband adventures, and movements as a result of poor land conditions, were a tiny proportion. However, they were the ones that were recorded, as they impacted literate cultures. They were far from typical and generally were results of unusual circumstances.

They are 100% of the ones we actually know something about... You can't just say "they were far from typical"!

And after all, unless you are Chinggis Qan, one simply can't kill all those pesky people in the way... and after a while even he gave up (OK, he was considering starting up again just before he died). Winning them over to your way of thinking is, in the end also far more lasting.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Celts, or the Saxons, engaged in mass genocide. That, in many ways, is the problem. The current fad for DNA evidence ignores the fact that a "Conquest" would have involved knocking over the enemy miltary aristocracy. Migration of peasantry and mingling of population would follw. Of course, some invaders did go in for massacre and repalcement of population, but they are rarer. The DNA evidence establishes that the Celts and the Aryans did not go in for that, but its going to far to claim that it shows they didn't invade forcibly at all.

What written evidence? Reliable, and from temporally close enough to count (i.e., not Bede's axe grinding for his own purposes)? There ain't much. And what archaeological evidence?

All of your written evidence, from Gildas through Nennius through Bede... all of it concurs that the conquest was violent. So does the oral tradition from both sides. The evidence of refortification is clear. Not only that, but it wasn't a new phenomenon. Saxons had been attacking south eastern Britain since well before the Romans left, and the Saxon Shore defences are well attested, both historically and in terms of remains.

This is the age of the comitatus - and none were so big that the land around could not support them. There are no great armies clashing in a protracted Anglo-Saxon vs Celtic war. Yeah, there are some bush wars,

Serious, high grade and long lasting wars do not require "Great Armies". Early (and indeed middle and late) Medieval wars didn't work like that. Battles were rare, small scale actions very common. You won (usually) by making land to dangerous for your opponent to live in, and preventing him from doing the same to you, not by smashing his army in battle, although if you could do that it was a win. Even then, what about Badon and Dyrham?

if it's not a cultural invasion then why the complete change in language so quickly? Why the change in material culture? Religion?

This is exactly why it looks military. If too cultures merge you expect both cultures to contribute to the result. The fact that the emergent culture and language was almost totally Germanic militates against cultural conquest not for it.