Questions for the Lore Masters.

It's very obvious Hobbit slang but I couldn't come up with an origin. I'd narrow it down to Tuckborough, though. Higher density of relations.

{{ You are both on the right sort of lines, it is from the Shire, and does have something to do with relations. I will give you a clue. You would not use it favourably of a cousin. }}

{{ Any more guesses or should I just give the answer? }}

Then it must be the Sackville-Bagginses.

{{ Nope not Sackville's, though they strike as the type to be.

Answer-

Spoiler:

}}

Where's that from?

{{ Letters. No. 214. Its a good letter, written in response to a reader who wondered why, if hobbits give presents on their birthday, Smeagol was expecting Deagol to give him a present on his birthday (turns out hobbits do also receive gifts on their birthdays, but it happens in private and before the event itself which is why its not mentioned in LotR's (apparently hobbits would be socialy mortified by something as vulgar as displaying birthday or wedding gifts).


But heres another question (its from same letter if you want to cheat on the answer! But where's the fun in that?}}

What in the Shire are 'faunts'? }}

Though I'm often annoyed by Men of the West videos, I think he makes a good point in this one. Sauron put on the One Ring before he knew where the 16 were bestowed. It seems like an error in judgement because he should have his pieces in place before he reveals his backstab manuever. Perhaps he was just testing and didn't think it through. Any comments on this?

I would make the assumption that as Sauron was very aware of the 16s making and how they were made, he expected to be able to locate them without being perceived by their holders.

The 3 were made in secret and were made differently. There was no way Sauron would have known about them let alone their capabilities. This is what caused the problem.

Any one if the 16, possibly, could have been given to the same 3 Elves and maybe they wouldn't have perceived Sauron when he put the one on...?

{{ Didn't Sauron capture all but the Three when he sacked Eregion? Then he distributed them, so he'd know exactly where they were. Given he couldn't very well pretend to be nice and gift the elves some now he presumably felt if he could get control of men and dwarves combined with his own forces, the ever diminishing numbers of elves would not be an issue, and they'd be more likely to hasten their leaving than stay to challenge him again. Which given the state of Elvenkind in ME by the late Third Age not an unreasonable assumption.

Fo me the interesting gap is around the Nazgul, and who they were. I dont mind Tolkien left it a mystery but what was Saurons plan there with those Rings? - we know after Sauron gave them Rings they became powerful lords, rulers, kings and sorcerers. So surely the aim there was to have them corrupt those kingdoms they ruled and turn to him. This would seem to be the case in the East and presumably Khamul the Easterling Nazgul played a part in that bit of ME falling under Saurons sway. And perhaps the same can be said of Harad, or Far Harad. He supposedly gave some to Numenoreon lords. So why didn't a Ring-Lord arise in Gondor to take control and try to corrupt it as seems to have happened in the East and South?
Or was his plan all along just to corrupt those 9 people and turn them into slaves to his will? But by which time they'd be invisible to mortals and come with a sense of horror and dread about them, making them pretty useless in terms of rulers any more. It's always puzzled me why he gave 9 rings to men if all he wanted were some slaves that couldn't be corrupted. It somehow seems too small for such extremes as making the Rings.}}

I don't think the supernatural powers bestowed to the 9 need become evident until they've outlived their mortal bodies. At first they'd just be very powerful, if wicked, men. The rings were distributed after the war in Eregion, if I remember it correctly; in which case everybody in Gondor would know what he was about. But to the Easterlings and Southerlings all this was him just knocking their natural enemies about, so they see Sauron in a different light. Why the dwarves would accept the rings after all that is another question.

We never get inside the palaces of East and South in Tolkien's writings, and I had high hopes the Rings of Power could make hay of the distribution of the rings. But since they've ruined everything they've touched my hopes are dashed even if they do show that bit of tantalizing mystery.

{{ While sketching a copy of Tolkien's Hobbiton picture, well The Hill bit, I had my attention drawn to something I'd noticed before but never actually given any thought to, a question.

Do hobbit holes have chimneys?

You see in Tolkien's illustration there is not a single chimney coming out of any hobbit hole. Including Bag End which we know for certain had a fireplace inside it, which naturally assumes a chimney. But then again the roof of a hobbit hole is turf, so would you need a chimney?
Round houses of the Bronze Age for example with their conical thatched roofs had no hole to let smoke out from the central hearth as the smoke would slowly seep out through the thatch, with the added benefit it kept bugs out of it. Could the same be true for hobbit holes and turf roofs?

It's not like there are no chimneys in the illustration, the farm house behind the Mill on the road to The Hill has quite clear chimneys, so it seems Tolkien chooses to put chimneys on the above ground structures, but not the underground ones in this illustration.
Is an actual chimney mentioned? I seem to recall a mantelpiece in Hobbiton which the letter to meet at the Green Dragon is left upon for Bilbo, which would imply a chimney, if smoke were just going up in general to seep through the turf it would need to be an open fire. }}

My guess is Tolkien didn't think it through.

{{ It is true his narrative descriptions of Bag End and his illustration dont match up in all regards, Bilbo's gardens, whilst extensive, lack the flowers, potato beds and such described in the book amongst other details. And I doubt the gardens sloped quite so steeply down as they appear to in the illustration. }}

I have to say I've never been a fan of that particular drawing. No romance in it. I much prefer the ones of Bilbo on a barrel, or the trolls. This one is too well ordered, and despite the description of Hobbits as liking well ordered fields and such there should be winding roads like you'd see in an English landscape. It all looks too regimented for hobbits.

I'll take the title of this vid as an unasked question. I think he makes some good points.

{{ I dont even know if any Lore Masters still pop by, but a rather random stray thought entered my mind, or rather a question that suggested an answer.
When Greenwood the Great became Mirkwood, who named it such?

Way I see it there are three main contenders living there at the time- men, hobbits and elves.
It doesn't sound very elvish tome, so I am favouring men or hobbits, and whilst it could be either a bit in RoK came to mind, when after Scouring the hobbits are discussing what to call the new row of hobbit holes to replace Bagshot Row, and the Gaffer chides their fancy names and goes for something with hobbit sense - name it what it is - New Row.
And it occurred that Mirkwood is very much a name that says what it is. As a name it echoes hobbit sense in the naming. So could hobbits before they were forced Westward have given the forest its new name? }}

Hum, why do I recall a line about this, in which men are referenced as now calling the place "Mirkwood"...

The Elves renamed the place "Taur-nu-Fuin", which is translated into Mannish as "Mirkwood". If you recall, this is also the name for the erm... fallen Elven kingdom that Sauron fled to in his bat form and made so horrible in the First Age.
Seems to me like the Elves must have named it!

Interestingly enough, "Mirkwood" first showed up in an English publication in William Morris' The House of the Wolfings in 1888. The book from which Tolkien may have also lifted the idea of the "Red Arrow" and the "Mark".

I've got to pick up some William Morris.

{{ I don't buy the elvish naming of it, not the common tongue version. Taur-nu-faun translates to something like Forest of Darkness or Forest of the Night. Mirkwood just doesn't have an elvish ring to it for me as a translation made by them from their own name for it. It sounds more mannish or hobbitish to me. }}

If as a translator you saw a translation of a compound name (Taur-nu-faun) that came out as "Forest of Darkness" you would be well justified in converting this to the compound "Mirkwood". Literal translations are crap. Saying the literal translation of an elvish name doesn't match exactly is a deeply flawed argument. The source of Mirkwood could still be elvish, with a mannish translation that best captures the meaning.

{{ I'm not doubting an elvish source, I'm doubting it was the elvish who did the translating into the common tongue, Mirkwood just doesn't seem like something they would come up with. I'm wondering if the translator, the coiner of the common tongue version was either one of the still present hobbit tribes in the region, or one of the clans of men in the area who we know had trade relations with the elves, such as the ancestors of the Rohirrim, it does sound like the sort of name they might use. }}

Well it wouldn't have been Radaghast, as he came to Mirkwood after it was erm... called "Mirkwood".

{{ I was favouring hobbits, in that it does what it says on the tin, which is very hobbit like. But on the other hand, thinking about it, the Rohirrim call Fangorn by the simpler and more accurate Entwood. It's a wood, with ents in it. And Mirkwood is a wood that is mirky. Does seem to fit their naming convention. Least for woods. }}