tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post6770785687407973665..comments2024-03-11T16:29:13.619-05:00Comments on Lingwë - Musings of a Fish: Tookish musingsJason Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-14726291799359077842010-08-16T21:26:48.671-05:002010-08-16T21:26:48.671-05:00In a strictly internal viewpoint of Took vs. Tuckb...<i>In a strictly internal viewpoint of Took vs. Tuckborough, I think that not umlaut but the FOOT-STRUT split is operating. In modern Northern and Midlands English accents, [...]</i><br /><br />But that isn’t an internal viewpoint at all. You’re applying the geography of Primary World accents and the processes that differentiated them to Tolkien’s Secondary World. (I admit I was doing something similar when I said it might be “meant to represent a kind of umlaut”, but I was much more circumspect about it. :)<br /><br /><i>So northern Took </i>/tʊk/<i> might well phonologically correspond to Southern Tuck </i>/tʌk/<i> in the Shire as in England [...]</i><br /><br />But of course, it’s <i>not</i> /tʊk/ in the Shire, but rather /tu:k/. It must be if it is the anglicization of Tûk, as Tolkien writes. Took rhymes with <i>kook</i>, not <i>cook</i>.<br /><br />Moreover, the Tooks were concentrated not in the north or the south, but in the west of the Shire. And don’t forget: there is Tuckborough, but there is also Tookbank and Tookland (not *Tuckbank and *Tuckland). Tookbank appears only on the Shire map and never in the text; however, Tookland does occur a few times in the text. The reason I suggested something like umlaut, as opposed to variation in regional accents, is precisely because both forms, <i>took–</i> and <i>tuck–</i>, occur side by side.<br /><br />Anyway, this is all guesswork, and we should resist the temptation of applying too systematically to Middle-earth the processes of sound change and accent differentiation we have observed in our own history. Tolkien used them as a very broad blueprint, but with many exceptions and lots of pure invention.Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-21407489377506428042010-08-16T18:05:19.851-05:002010-08-16T18:05:19.851-05:00The words "after taking thought" in FGoH...The words "after taking thought" in FGoH must refer to how long it took for the OED to be published.<br /><br />In a strictly internal viewpoint of <i>Took</i> vs. <i>Tuckborough</i>, I think that not umlaut but the FOOT-STRUT split is operating. In modern Northern and Midlands English accents, the division of Early Modern English short u into separate phonemes /ʊ/ and /ʌ/ did not occur, with the result that most words containing /ʌ/ in other accents (such as <i>cut, mud, blood</i>) continue to be pronounced with /ʊ/. Even in the splitting accents, however, /ʊ/ remained when preceded by a labial consonant, as in <i>put, foot</i>; English has the minimal contrast <i>put/putt</i> because <i>putt</i> is borrowed from Scottish varieties where the split affected even postlabial /ʊ/.<br /><br />So northern <i>Took</i> /tʊk/ might well phonologically correspond to Southern <i>Tuck</i> /tʌk/ in the Shire as in England, quite independent of whether the two names <i>Took(e)</i> and <i>Tuck</i> have the same origin or not.<br /><br />There are varieties of Northern English in which words in <i>-ook</i> have the GOOSE vowel rather than the FOOT vowel, and perhaps that is why in the films Pippin calls his family the /tuks/. In Scottish English there is a general merger of GOOSE and FOOT.John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-64602422257987126172010-08-16T10:34:39.896-05:002010-08-16T10:34:39.896-05:00Hi, Renée! Thanks for these additions. Probably al...Hi, Renée! Thanks for these additions. Probably all coincidence as far as Tolkien is concerned. It’s nice to think of <i>tolk</i> “interpreter, translator” as the first element in Tolkien, since it resonates beautifully with the translation conceit he adopted for <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>, but it may just be wishful thinking. Even if it turned out to be the real story behind the name, it’s certainly not what Tolkien believed, and I would be reluctant to gainsay him without very strong evidence. :)Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-79003286506999186662010-08-15T09:09:47.275-05:002010-08-15T09:09:47.275-05:00For what it's worth, 'tolk' has been t...For what it's worth, 'tolk' has been the Dutch word for interpreter since the 16th century. Both my Dutch etymological dictionaries mention Lithuanian 'tulkas' in the lemma for 'tolk', but according to one of them, this is in its turn derived from an Old Russian word meaning translator. In modern Russian толк means sense. <br />Interestingly, in modern German the word ended up as the first part of Dolmetscher (interpreter), with a voiced instead of a voiceless dental stop. <br /><br />RenéeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-86341833350501945942010-08-13T09:56:35.987-05:002010-08-13T09:56:35.987-05:00The posts at Elendilion were indeed very interesti...The posts at Elendilion were indeed very interesting, and the /tolk/ “interpreter” theory seems like a pretty sound possibility. Not definitive, of course (as the author admits).<br /><br />Where I have a little more difficulty is with the final step, where it is suggested that the Germanized form of the Prussian name became <i>tollkühn</i> under the influence of folk etymology. Why would it? The word carries a negative connotation. Even if the composite meaning were taken to be “bold” in a positive sense, the underlying meaning remains pretty clearly negative. For example, in their entry for <i>tollkühn</i> in the <i>Deutsches Wörterbuch</i>, the Grimms refer us also to <i>dummkühn</i>, which is even more negative (comprising “stupid” + “bold”).<br /><br />I find it hard to see why anyone would embrace such a connotation. If Prussians were trying to blend in with Germans or Poles, such a name would have made them more, not less conspicuous. I suppose another possibility is that the meaning could have been <i>imposed</i> on them, insultingly, by an ethnic or cultural majority, and that it eventually stuck and was subsequently forgotten. Hmm ... It bears further research, but I am excited to see where it might lead.<br /><br />By the way, when Tolkien writes of /tolk/ “an interpreter or spokesman” that “[i]t was never adopted in English”, he must mean Old English. It was definitely adopted into Modern English; it’s the source of the verb <i>to talk</i>. :)Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-9471886033958848692010-08-13T09:11:21.434-05:002010-08-13T09:11:21.434-05:00Hi, Eva. At a glance, those look great! I’m pretty...Hi, Eva. At a glance, those look great! I’m pretty sure I recall seeing these posts announced on Facebook, and I’m sure I meant to read them. But in the event, they slipped off my radar, so thank you for the reminder!Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-67155071164781564352010-08-13T06:46:32.088-05:002010-08-13T06:46:32.088-05:00Jason, perhaps you may find it interesting to take...Jason, perhaps you may find it interesting to take a look at something Ryszard Derdzinski posted on Elendilion a few months ago. <br /><br />http://www.elendilion.pl/2010/02/02/does-the-tolkien-family-come-from-warmia-i/<br /><br />http://www.elendilion.pl/2010/02/02/tokiny-in-warmia-a-nest-of-the-tolkien-family-ii/Evanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-21897659985033699422010-08-12T18:42:37.276-05:002010-08-12T18:42:37.276-05:00Sure, Alex. In Farmer Giles of Ham, there’s a pass...Sure, Alex. In <i>Farmer Giles of Ham</i>, there’s a passage where Tolkien writes:<br /><br />“So he pulled on his breeches, and went down into the kitchen and took his blunderbuss from the wall. Some may well ask what a blunderbuss was. Indeed, this very question, it is said, was put to the Four Wise Clerks of Oxenford, and after thought they replied: `A blunderbuss is a short gun with a large bore firing many balls or slugs, and capable of doing execution within a limited range without exact aim. (Now superseded in civilised countries by other firearms.)’”<br /><br />The “Four Wise Clerks of Oxenford” is Tolkien’s cheeky way (paraphrasing Chaucer) of referring to the four original editors of the Oxford English Dictionary — James Murray, Henry Bradley, William Craigie, and Charles Onions. For more details, see the notes in Christina Scull and Wayne Hammond’s 50th anniversary edition of the book. Tom Shippey has also made the same observation.Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-21453833493073451122010-08-12T17:15:36.599-05:002010-08-12T17:15:36.599-05:00Hey, can you explain the "four wise clerks of...Hey, can you explain the "four wise clerks of Oxenford" reference? I don't get it, lol.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13721162340739400165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-11139260825307420232010-08-12T11:28:33.545-05:002010-08-12T11:28:33.545-05:00Welcome, Silima. Thanks for the comments!
[F]rom ...Welcome, Silima. Thanks for the comments!<br /><br /><i>[F]rom your latest musings, I understand that you still believe that the family name Tolkien is of Old Norse origin.</i><br /><br />What did I say to give you this impression? I definitely do not think that Tolkien is a Norse name! :) Regarding the question of folk etymology for Tolkien > Tollkühn, can you point me to any sources for more information on this?<br /><br />I found your comments on Tulkas quite interesting! I may have to look into that a little more closely. Thanks for pointing that out. For the record, I don’t think I have claimed to have discovered any semantic relationships here, certainly not definitively. I’ve done no more than offer some thoughts on possible sources for Took, etc.Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-75276424064429775702010-08-12T10:10:45.739-05:002010-08-12T10:10:45.739-05:00Dear Jason,
from your latest musings, I understand...Dear Jason,<br />from your latest musings, I understand that you still believe that the family name Tolkien is of Old Norse origin. Sorry, but that's not the case. You have been looking to the wrong corner of the (Old) world!<br />In fact, Tolkien is a family name (and place name) from Old Prussian, an extinct Baltic language. The German name "Tollkühn" is a folk etymology of Prussian "Tolkien", and goes back to times when Prussians tried to veil their origins in order to appear German (or Polish). Many of them "germanized" their names, although most of the resulting names are slightly "odd" because they often do not adhere to the morphological rules of name-formation in German. (In Germany, there are thousands of families with such names, although the Tolkiens/Tollkühns are quite rare.) So, in contradistinction to what Tolkien wrote himself, "Tolkien" is NOT an English malapropism of German "Tollkühn", but German "Tollkühn" is a folk etmology of Prussian "Tolkien".<br />And I have an inkling :) that Tolkien may have known more that he divulged:<br />The silimarity to Tulkas is NO chance. The Prussian word tolk "translator" has a Lithuanian cognate tulkas (still in use today, with the same meaning). So, it appears to be just one of those philological hoaxes or auto-references that Tolkien loved so much!<br /><br />This argument does not preclude that some of the semantic relationships you claim to have discovered are not valid nevertheless. After all, Tolkien loved multiple etymologies and meanings, e.g. the name "Saruman"! But I just wanted to get the etymology of his family name straight.<br />Best wishes,<br />SilimaUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08953057731976484653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-23289247186031785102010-08-12T09:57:11.086-05:002010-08-12T09:57:11.086-05:00Oh, and regarding your side note (Tucca ~ Bucca), ...Oh, and regarding your side note (Tucca ~ Bucca), that’s an interesting point. Nice catch! Tolkien knew Weekley’s work (and could well have known the name Tucca from other sources). It does seem possible Tolkien might have landed on Bucca because of its similarity to the forms of other ancient names.<br /><br />Buck and its variations follow a number of different paths, but notable among them is the French name, Bouc or Buc, which (in spite of Tolkien’s professed dislike of French) is very close to Bucca phonologically. Intersting ...Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-59707818515039834852010-08-12T09:46:39.353-05:002010-08-12T09:46:39.353-05:00But I’m sure he would have appreciated the joke.
...<i>But I’m sure he would have appreciated the joke.</i><br /><br />I hope he would have, but he could be really cranky about his nomenclature, couldn’t he? As he wrote to Rayner Unwin in 1956:<br /><br />“I hope you […] will forgive my now at length writing to <i>you</i> about the Dutch translation. The matter is (to me) important; it has disturbed and annoyed me greatly, and given me a good deal of unnecessary work at a most awkward season … <i>In principle</i> I object as strongly as is possible to the ‘translation’ of the <i>nomenclature</i> at all (even by a competent person). I wonder why a translator should think himself called on or entitled to do any such thing. That this is an ‘imaginary’ world does not give him any right to remodel it according to his fancy, even if he could in a few months create a new coherent structure which it took me years to work out.” (italics original)<br /><br />Ouch, right? :)Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-86642266703737994662010-08-11T18:43:38.042-05:002010-08-11T18:43:38.042-05:00Sorry, I didn't mean that the Took/Tuckborough...Sorry, I didn't mean that the Took/Tuckborough pair had any bearing on the discussion about the real-world origin of 'Took(e)' and 'Tucker'; 'overlook' was ill-chosen. I was still thinking in terms of what triggered the whole story, i.e. the presence of 'Took' in the Shire. It would be rash to suggest that Tolkien thought of a common (real-world) origin just because of the Took/Tuckborough pair.<br /><br />As regards the translation: Tolkien did appreciate those funny misunderstandings phonetic changes bring about, especially in anthroponyms and toponyms, where the resulting form can be naturally interpreted as something wholly different from the original meaning. 'Cotton' is perhaps the best known examples of this, as shown by the fact that he toyed with the idea of making it mean both 'cot-town' and 'down, wool' in the Common Speech too (PME). Other examples of this may be 'Nobottle' or 'Pincup'. Also 'buck' in Buckland, Brandybuck etc. Anyway, the internal origin of Took/Tuckborough is unlikely to have anything to do with clothes, and so even if there is some kind of joke behind the name the translation shouldn't let that shade of possibility be predominant. But I'm sure he would have appreciated the joke.<br /><br />Side note: If Tolkien ever related the 'Tuck' in 'Tuckborough' to AS 'Tucca', it's a funny coincidence that 'Buck' comes from one 'Bucca of the Marish'.Hlafordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01570318115206193131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-78895070716205666172010-08-11T17:08:03.830-05:002010-08-11T17:08:03.830-05:00From a story-internal point of view, yes, certainl...From a story-internal point of view, yes, certainly Tuckborough is related to Took. I think the vowel change you see there is meant to represent a kind of umlaut. And yes, I would agree that “the element Tuck is a variant of the clan name Took”, but that doesn’t say anything at all about the relationship (if any) between Modern English Tuck(er) and Tooke, does it? What do you think I’m overlooking? What do you think Took and Tuckborough suggest?<br /><br />I do think it would be a mistake to suppose that Tolkien’s Took is meant to evoke <i>tuck</i> = “a fold or pleat”, etc., simply because of the vowel in Tuckborough. Not that I’m suggesting <i>you</i> think this. But I definitely don’t. It is interesting to see that Spanish translators have made this assumption. According to Tolkien’s own instructions for translators — which they are, of course, free to ignore (and many have) — Took ought to have been left alone. I think <i>Tukborgo</i> would have met with his approval; <i>Alforzaburgo</i> would not. Don’t you think?Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-46372776356293072912010-08-11T16:33:39.710-05:002010-08-11T16:33:39.710-05:00You may be overlooking something: Tolkien may have...You may be overlooking something: Tolkien may have related 'Took' and 'Tuck' in the name 'Tuckborough' "chief village of the Tooks at [the] west-end of the Green Hill Country" (Index, RC:27; Hammond-Scull accept the relationship: "The element Tuck is a variant of the clan name Took").<br /><br />A curiosity about "fiber surnames": 'Tuckborough' was variously translated into Spanish as 'Alforzada', 'Alforzaburgo' and 'Tukburgo' ('Tuk' being the form used for 'Took' throughout). Now, 'alforza' is obscure for most Spanish speakers, and to some may suggest 'fuerza' (strength). Actually, it means 'tuck' in the sense "A fold or pleat in drapery" (apparently from Sp. Arabian '(al-)húzza' < 'hazz' "to cut").Hlafordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01570318115206193131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-59360369838195770322010-08-11T09:27:09.676-05:002010-08-11T09:27:09.676-05:00Hi, boinky. Thanks for your thoughts. :)
As I wro...Hi, boinky. Thanks for your thoughts. :)<br /><br />As I wrote in note #5 above, I’m not so sure that Took(e) and Tuck(er) are related names. Some say yes, some say no. Weekley says that Old English Toca > Tooke, but Tucca > Tuck(er). Now, I’m not so sure Weekley is right to identify Tucca as Anglo-Saxon <i>in origin</i> — it’s a name known in Latin from antiquity (and taken up again in the Renaissance) — but the name could easily have come to Roman Britain from the Mediterranean. Anyway, like I said, it’s not clear to me that Tooke and Tucker are mates.<br /><br />But an additional note — while you’re right that Tucker (like Fuller) is a name deriving from the sartorial vocations, Tucker sometimes represents a <i>different</i> name: originally Tutquor or Tutquere ( < the French name, Toutcœr = “all heart”). For discussion of this point, see Weekley’s <i>Surnames</i> (New York: Dutton, 1916), p. 323. In the same way, though possibly of different origins, Tooke and Tucker could easily have become confused later on, especially in the clashing of regional pronunciation (the point Shippey is making).<br /><br />You made a nice observation about the number of ‘fiber’ names associated with Sam. And remember that in Lórien, Sam is very interested in the Elven rope, <i>hithlain</i>. I wonder if anyone has ever looked into this imagery more closely. Sam is more often considered in the context of gardens and gardening.Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-47825411764759251242010-08-10T20:24:19.269-05:002010-08-10T20:24:19.269-05:00other variations of Took are Tuck and Tucker.
Too...other variations of Took are Tuck and Tucker.<br /><br />Took means "fool" (similar to Tolkein, wise fool)<br /><br />But Tucker/tooker is an old name for "fuller", i.e. a fuller of cloth.<br /><br />There are a lot of fiber surnames connected with Sam: Gamgee (cotton wool), Cotton and Andy Roper. But there doesn't seem to be a geneological connection with the Took clan, so I assume he is using the name that implies foolishness.,Nancy Reyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14910134058143426327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-61635073929709713542010-08-10T10:38:09.024-05:002010-08-10T10:38:09.024-05:00Ah, there we are! That is certainly helpful for at...Ah, there we are! That is certainly helpful for attempting to transform possibilities into plausibilities. Thanks for noting this, Hlaford. Were there world enough and time, this was on my list of things to go through with a fine-toothed comb, along with Tolkien’s <i>YWES</i> essays, and one or two other things. I had also thought to look through Jesperson and some other philological works of the period, on which Tolkien commented in those essays. Crowd-sourcing will certainly save me some time. :)Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-27877727642755625232010-08-10T10:26:18.253-05:002010-08-10T10:26:18.253-05:00The OED quotes "H. Tooke - Purley" very ...The OED quotes "H. Tooke - Purley" very often (60 times or so), especially for his usage of 'grammar' words ('adjective', 'adsignification', 'conditional', 'connotation', 'etymology' etc.), so there you have a work Tolkien knew well :) Tolkien may not have referred to these entries, but you can reasonably assume that Tooke's work was in use in the Old Ashmolean.<br /><br />[A quick glance at Tooke's book with Tolkien's lexicographical work in mind didn't produce anything worth noticing, but closer comparison may do better. A footnote in the 1857 edition (by Ch. Robinson), p. 514, mentions the supposed relationship between 'horse' and 'walrus', a suggestion which Tolkien dismisses in his own entry for the OED. According to 'The Ring of Words' p. 23 he kept studying this word afterwards, as attested by a notebook 'containing many pages of notes on walrus'. (The notebook dates from the Leeds period, and is now in the Bodleian.)]Hlafordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01570318115206193131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-37377997877196066462010-08-10T08:37:44.576-05:002010-08-10T08:37:44.576-05:00Fascinating! Thank you for sharing that, Jonathan....Fascinating! Thank you for sharing that, Jonathan. The obverse of that coin would have probably made a better illustration for this post, had I known of it. To pursue this further, I’d like to find a conspicuous reference to Tooke in a work we know Tolkien knew, since I know of no direct references by Tolkien himself. It’s always possible that unpublished notes and letters might bring a direct reference to light in the future; but until then, however likely that he knew of him, we lack direct evidence.Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-49533271275024941652010-08-10T07:28:00.205-05:002010-08-10T07:28:00.205-05:00It would be quite easy to have heard of Horne Took...It would be quite easy to have heard of Horne Tooke, as he was famous for more than his philology: he was put on trial for treason in November 1794 and acquitted. Tokens were issued commemorating this, and <a href="http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/opac/search/cataloguedetail.html?&priref=164401" rel="nofollow">you can see one here</a>; not too much importance should be placed on that, as the lawyers in question liked to celebrate their victories this way, but there are at least multiple routes that might have brought him to the notice of antiquarians.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-61476762780846785972010-08-09T18:33:42.077-05:002010-08-09T18:33:42.077-05:00Thanks for that correction, John. I’ve made some s...Thanks for that correction, John. I’ve made some small adjustments here and there to take this into account (I will note that Lynda Mugglestone indexed him under T, not H.). Do you have any special reason to assume Tolkien was familiar with him? I agree it seems likely, but without documentary evidence, it’s still just a guess.Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-58943241897605182252010-08-09T17:14:23.643-05:002010-08-09T17:14:23.643-05:00Despite the garblings of Wikipedia, "Horne To...Despite the garblings of Wikipedia, "Horne Tooke" was his adopted surname, not just "Tooke". I don't doubt that Tolkien knew perfectly well who he was.John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.com