Re: Dweomer,etc.

Dan Clore wrote:

>>> in the form he used rather than that Tolkien used, but still insisted 
>>> that he must have found the word through Tolkien.
>>
>>
>> See above.  No, in fact until you brought it up, I had forgotten about 
>> the book, one I read over 25 years ago.
>>
>>> Offhand I only see one reference to the OED, though that probably 
>>> does count as "the most often cited dictionary in the book".
>>
>>
>> Pages 64, 195, 196, and appears twice in the bibliography.
> 
> 
>  From the pagination I can tell that you're using the same edition that 
> I am (having just ordered it due to Gygax, who I have to thank). This 
> edition combines the Poplollies book with another by the same author. 

Probably true.  I borrowed the book when I first read it.  For this 
discussion I went to Amazon and used their "Look Inside" feature. 
Still, from what I can tell of the original book, the OED is still the 
most cited by the author in the original text.  In fact, it is the only 
entry under "dictionary" that comes up in the search in Poplollies.




> Same story.

Indeed it is, your objections notwithstanding.

>>>>>>> Though he could of course have found it through Tolkien, 
>>>>>>> discovered the original, and then stuck with that instead of the 
>>>>>>> forms that Tolkien devised.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doubtful.  If from either one, his next stop was simply the OED.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   In any case, whether he found the word family through Tolkien
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or not, Gygax had to have had another source of information to 
>>>>>>> give him the forms he used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He invented all the ones said "not in OED" except of course the 
>>>>>> one that says not in OED but actually IS.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is what?
>>>>>
>>>> See my original post.
>>>
>>>
>>> Okay: you claimed that dweomercraeft, used as a verb, is in the OED. 
>>> It is not.
>>
>>
>> Ah, the lack of clarity in usenet.....I claimed that the form was in 
>> the OED, not the function.  You in fact confused me by claiming that 
>> it wasn't in the OED when you had just cited it!  But I see now what 
>> you mean and that I read too hurriedly.  Personally I'm uncomfortable 
>> with the posited verb formation, but oh well.
> 
> 
> I do have some reservations about the form, as I've only come across the

> derivatives dweomercraefting and dweomercraefter, both noun forms. 


Yes.  "Craft" can be used as a verb, obviously, but seems to refer to 
something constructed or made.  "Dweomercraft" seems to me to be akin to 
"witchcraft" where we can say "She practices witchcraft" but not "She 
witchcrafted you".

(I
> may change the way I deal with these.) The same goes for the form 
> dweomered, which clearly has the form of a participial adjective, but 
> with no corresponding verb.
> 

Yes.  Like witchcraft and warlocks and wizards we don't really have in 
English terms to verbalize their actions.  A wizard might cast a spell 
or practice his craft etc but a wizard doesn't seem to wizard someone. 
There is however to bewitch someone (which isn't to practice witchcraft 
in the literal sense, but to affect someone with witchcrft) and so 
"bewitched."  So you might coin a new verb on that analogy and use 
"bedwimmer" and "bedwimmered."