The Shibboleth of Fëanor

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In the quote from the Myths Transformed section of Morgoth's Ring that I cited in the moral universe thread, Tolkien points out that "In The Lord of the Rings Sauron is said to have devised a language for them."

[Faramond]

Yes, I thought I remembered something like that.

In fact, there's a whole thing in the appendix of LOTR.

I'll edit it in here in a bit.


edit: On second, thought, maybe it's not necessary. The language of orcs is ranging a bit far from the subject of this thread, perhaps. Anywhere, there's a whole page about it in the Appendix F in LOTR.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think this statement, from Appendix F, is relevant to this discussion:

... these creatures, being filled with malice, hating even their own kind, quickly developed as many barbarous dialects as there were groups or settlements of their race, so that their Orkish speech was of little use to them in interxcourse between different tribes.

[Alatar]

My impression is that orcs speak in Black Speech, which was devised by Sauron, and a debased version of the common tongue. I have no idea what they would have spoken in Beleriand when Sindarin would have been the "common tongue" and Black Speech was not yet devised.

Perhaps HoME has some info. Voronwë?

[Túrin Turambar]

The Appendicies of LotR talk about varieties of Orc-speech. Forgive me for not digging up the quote, but they made up their own languages, which were not very sophisticated yet very numerous.

Edit: See Voronwë's post above.

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

Shibboleth is the Hebrew word that literally means "torrent of water" or "stream".

The Shibboleth is a symbol of language as a divider. But language is how we communicate with each other, one way we bridge the gap. I really think there is something ... dismaying ... about language also being something that can be used to drive people apart.

There is something from LOTR that I would call an anti-Shibboleth, a moment of language working again as it should, by creating understanding where before there was none. In fact, it is not right that this should be called an 'anti' of anything ... it really deserves its own name, but I know not what.

Actually, you do know what. And you named it, without realizing it.

As shibboleth means "torrent of water" or "stream", which is something that requires a means to cross over, so the anti-shibboleth should have a meaning that provides that means to cross over.

A bridge is the thing that gets you over the stream. As you said: "But language is how we communicate with each other, one way we bridge the gap."

Therefore, the anti-shibboleth is a bridge, literally and figuratively.

A bridge connects two regions that are separated by something (like a stream/shibboleth, for example) and permits communication and intercourse between those regions.

So you did know what. Maybe we need the Hebrew word for bridge to be the "true" anti-shibboleth.

BrianIs AtYou

[Jnyusa]

The Hebrew for 'bridge' is 'gesher'

Let me see if I can find an Elvish dictionary that would have it.

Jn

edit: yes. In Quenya it is 'yanta.'

Or 'iant'. The second word has no Q/S designation - don't know the difference between them.

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

It would be interesting, perhaps, to look at these two opposites Shibboleth and Gesher. Stream and Bridge.

If the Silmarillion is fundamentally about Shibboleth, then LOTR is about Gesher, and this may explain Tolkien's early desire that the two be published together, as they are philosophical and narrative complements.

The Shibboleth-centered tale is primarily concerned with Catastrophe (philosophically), and the Gesher-centered with Eucatastrophe, though elements of both are present in each tale.

BrianIs AtYou

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That pretty much sums up what I think, Brian. Well said!

[Faramond]

That's a great observation, Brian.

[Jnyusa]

There was a thread on TORC long ago about "Doors" in LotR. We should examine the role of Bridges ....

Is the first the bridge of Mitheithel - where Glorfindel leaves the stone? (Yes, I had to look up the name)

The had crossed the Brandywine by boat and it was the absence of a bridge that saved them there.

Later the stone bridge over the chasm in Moria - Khazad-dûm

Again, it was the a bsence of a bridge over Nimrodel that protected Lothlorian, and I don't recall any bridges over the Anduin until Osgiliath

There are plenty of narrow passes though between Rivendell and Mordor!

Jn

[Voronwë the Faithful]

it was the absence of a bridge over Nimrodel that protected Lothlorian, and I don't recall any bridges over the Anduin until Osgiliath

And then there is the bridge at Nargothrond, that Ulmo counseled Orodreth (through the Elves Gelmir and Arminas) to destroy:

'Hear the words of the Lord of Waters!' said they to the King. 'Thus he spoke to Círdan the Shipwright: "The Evil of the North has defiled the springs of Sirion, and my power withdraws from the fingers of the flowing waters. But a worse thing is yet to come forth. Say therefore to the Lord of Nargothron: Shut the doors of the fortress and go not abroad. Cast the stones of your pride into the loud river, that the creeping evil may not find the gate."'

Orodreth was troubled by the dark words of the messengers, but Túrin would by no means hearken to the these counsels, and least of all would be suffer the great bridge to be cast down; for he was become proud and stern, and would order all things as he wished.

That proved ill, of course:

In that day the bridge over Narog proved an evil; for it was great and mightily made and could not swiftly be destroyed and the enemy came readily over the deep river, and Glaurung came in full fire against the Doors of Felagund, and over-threw them, and passed within.

There are some times when its better not to a bridge.

Hmmmmm?

[Athrabeth]

What a wonderful read!

Thank-you, all!

You know, this discussion brought me to re-read the final pages of the Athrabeth, where Finrod and Andreth talk about "the gulf that divides the kindreds":

"Across the gulf that divides our kindreds!" said Andreth "Is there no bridge but mere words?" and then she wept again.

(In replying, Finrod says)....."But why dost thou say 'mere words'? Do not words overpass the gulf between one life and another? Between thee and me surely more has passed than empty sound? Have we not drawn near at all?"

If ever there was a work that illustrated the power of a shared language, this is it. A bridge of words, of understanding, of experience shared and new perspective discovered - of discovering oneself in "the other" and seeing "the other" in oneself.

There are some times when its better not to bridge.

Hmmmmm?

But that bridge was built as part of an offensive strategy, was it not?...not as a means of connecting two similar parts, two common, yet separate, experiences/landscapes.

And that makes makes me consider the "bridgeless" entry into Lothlórien a little differently.......absolutely separate from all that surrounded it, "incommunicado"......outwardly perilous, feared, distrusted, misunderstood; inwardly safe, "good", self-sustaining, unstained.........enclosed, embalmed, static.

Bridges, I think, are indeed important to consider.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I've been thinking about this thread recently. So often, disagreements come from the different sides differing perspectives about the use of language. Often one will take offense at something in what the other person said that the other person did not mean to suggest, simply because they are thinking about two different things. This happens in political dialogue, religious discussions, and even in every day life.

Symbols are, of course, imperfect, and there is no real way for two minds to directly connect to each other (although sometimes it seems to be remarkably close to happening in some cases). All too often, things that are meant to be bridges become barriers.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I've been thinking about this thread recently. So often, disagreements come from the different sides' differing perspectives about the use of language. Often one will take offense at something in what the other person said that the other person did not mean to suggest, simply because they are thinking about two different things. This happens in political dialogue, religious discussions, and even in every day life.

Symbols are, of course, imperfect, and there is no real way for two minds to directly connect to each other (although sometimes it seems to be remarkably close to happening in some cases). All too often, things that are meant to be bridges become barriers.

[Primula Baggins]

I think that deserves to be posted on a quarterly basis.

It's not that the wisdom wears out; it's that people get to thinking about other things. . . .

[solicitr]

Boss:

'iant' is Sindarin. cf Iant Iaur the 'Old Bridge' north of Doriath.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Interestingly, most of the bridges in LOTR speak of conflict or menace. The Nazgûl passing over the Buckland bridge and the warning of the horns, the Moria bridge, the bridge before the Hornburg, the bridges at Osgiliath, the bridge before Minas Morgul and the bridge after Cirith Ungol that Frodo and Sam threw themselves off in desperation.
King Elessar will not pass the Brandywine bridge when he visits the Shire.

[River]

A bridge is something that can do either way in terms of conflict. Being able to breach a gap builds trust and friendship. It provides a mean of easy transport for goods and ideas. At the same time, it's a weak point, a breach in the wall for an enemy to exploit. LOTR was set in a time of war, so it naturally follows that the bridges would have served as points of contention. Yet, before the war, were these bridges such bad things? All of the bridges cited in LOTR served to connect places to the outside world, or hold kingdoms together. Maybe in wartime it would be better that the bridges never existed, but would the gain of not having the bridges in a war truly offset not having them in times of peace? Would peace even be truly achievable if bridges, both physical and cultural, did not exist?

I never saw King Elessar's refusal to cross the Brandywine as an act of contention. He had ordained that the Shire whould have self-rule and made it off-limits to Men. In refusing to cross the bridge and enter the Shire, he was holding himself to his own laws. It was a tremendously symbolic act, really, because a King can enter any part of his domain. By not entering, he further established that the Shire was outside his kingdom. Yet the hobbits could come and meet him at the bridge, and they did just that.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that Elessar's act was one of contention, merely another interesting symbolic role for a bridge.