Re: Dweomer,etc.

Dan Clore wrote:
> Larry Swain wrote:
> 
>> Dan Clore wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Swain wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kaos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 08:48:56 -0500, Larry Swain
>>>>> <theswain@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kaos wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:19:18 -0500, Larry Swain
>>>>>>> <theswain@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan Clore wrote:
> 
> 
>>>> Some were, some weren't.  The ones that weren't, and are the most 
>>>> im****tant are:  The forms cited can only be found in the OED.  At 
>>>> the time that Gygax was originally writing, the MED was not yet 
>>>> published, and the general didn't know such a project was underway, 
>>>> and the only Old English dictionary to consult was Boswroth and 
>>>> Toller, a work difficult and not readily available and not contaiing 
>>>> the forms that Gygax uses.  Therefore, he could only have derived 
>>>> those forms from the OED.  QED.  Whether he arrived at the OED 
>>>> through Tolkien, or through another avenue, is really immaterial to 
>>>> the point.  Furthermore, though, it isn't an assumption.  If one 
>>>> moves from Tolkien's dwimmerlaik to dweomercraeft, one MUST even now 
>>>> use the OED to do so unless one is versed in Old and Middle 
>>>> English.  Thus, the premise "Tolkien would lead him to the OED" is 
>>>> not mere supposition.  You may question whether the premise is TRUE 
>>>> (I.E. DID Gygax move from Tolkien's forms?  Certainly possible since 
>>>> Gygax read Tolkien.  We've since found out that he also consulted 
>>>> another book.) but that isn't the same thing as saying it is 
>>>> "supposition."  In any case, the conclusion is demonstrated: he can 
>>>> not have found all those forms in any place other than the OED.
>>>
>>>
>>> I've already cited another possible source:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2g7u6d
>>>
>>> Note that this was published in 1891 (reprinted many times since, the 
>>> latest I know of in 1967, probably not hard for Gygax to find ten 
>>> years later) and it gives the form "dweomer-cræft", defined as "magic 
>>> art". As all of the forms used by Gygax are derivatives of this or 
>>> dweomer (or these words themselves), this source provides everything 
>>> that Gygax needed to know: he had no need to consult the OED.
>>
>>
>> I need you to clarify your original post then.  It looks to me from 
>> that post that you are citing Gygax when you post:
> 
> 
> Okay, let me clarify:
> 
>> dweomer, n. [< OE *dweomer, *dwimer, *dwimor in ¼edweomer, ¼edwimer, 
>> ¼edwimor, illusion, magic, sorcery, phantasm (cf. J.R.R. Tolkien's use 
>> of gedwimora for "visions" in his partial Old English translation of 
>> an early version of the Quenta)] An enchantment. Cf. dweomercræft, 
>> dweomercræfter, dweomered, dwimmer-crafty, dwimmerlaik. (Also cf. 
>> J.R.R. Tolkien's Dwimorberg ("haunted mountain") and Dwimordene 
>> ("haunted valley", Lothlórien).)
>> [Not in OED.]
> 
> 
> The above is my own definition (same for the other dictionary-style 
> entries, except the following from Gygax's glossary).

Ok, if you said that before, I missed it.  I assumed that since the 
first reference in the post was to Gygax that all the above was too.  My 
statements have been based on that assumption.
> 
>> DWEOMER -- From dweomercræft, the art (cræft) of magic (dweomer).
>> Gary Gygax, Dungeon Master's Guide (1979)
> 
> 
> This, as the citation indicates, is Gygax.
> 
> I explained this before.
> 
>> In which case, citing the 19th century Stratman dictionary doesn't 
>> provide the forms given above and so can't be the source. Only the OED 
>> does.
> 
> 
> Yup: I used the OED, as I always do in this work.


Exactly my point: we're now talking hypothetically, but if Gygax, or 
anyone else is looking for odd and strange words, one of the tools they 
are undoubtedly going to consult is the OED, as you do, rather than 
Stratman.
> 
>> Further to cite Stratmann, one has to know Stratmann.  It is always 
>> possible that Gygax had a course at some point in which he was 
>> introduced to this work, but I rather doubt it, esp. since the OED is 
>> available in most libraries and gives better and more complete 
>> information.  So it is always possible that he stumbled on Stratman, 
>> but I rather doubt it.
> 
> 
> Seems to me like it would be easy enough: go to a university library, 
> look in the card catalogue for dictionaries of Middle English, look the 
> word up. From the number of times Stratmann is listed as having been 
> reprinted, I would guess that it is a reasonably common work (for a work

> of this type).

That's part of the point though isn't it?  The casual researcher isn't 
going to go to the library and look up "Middle English dictionary" or 
more properly, Dictionary, Middle English in the card catalog, esp. 
since to look for Middle English one has to know a) what Middle English 
is and b) what to look for once there.  Since the OED covers that 
material better and in more detail, most librarians are going to point 
the researcher that direction rather than to Stratmann.  Always possible 
that he stumbled across it, but unlikely.

> 
>> Now take a close look at the Stratmann entry.  It gives you dwimer in 
>> brackets, with no citations and says sb dwimor...then in regular print 
>> gives dweomercraeft and dweomerlak.  In your citaations in the 
>> original post the only "dwimer" given is in the forms with an asterix, 
>> in as noted pretty much the same order as the OED posited forms.  If 
>> from Gygax, that order and the inclusion of the other forms means he 
>> didn't get this from Stratmann. 
> 
> 
> Not from Gygax, my own work (using the OED among other sources).

Yes, thank you, I didn't know that before.

> 
>> In addition, the next form you give from Gygax is NOT dwimer nor 
>> dwimor which Stratmann points us to, but rather dweomer.  If Gygax got 
>> this from Stratmann, one would have expected the noun form to conform 
>> to the Stratmann entry dwimer, not the following compound forms.  NOte 
>> further that Gygax claims that his "dweomer" comes from 
>> dweomre-craeft, if he consulted Stratmann he would have seen in fact 
>> that dwweomercraeft comes from dwimer, a phantasm.  So on your 
>> suggestion we have to suppose that Gygax consulted Stratmann and then 
>> ignored it utterly.
> 
> 
> I'm not following your logic. Gygax, finding dweomercraeft defined as 
> "magic art" as in both the OED and Stratmann, analyzes it to dweomer + 
> craeft. He naturally used the form dweomer and its derivatives 
> consistently. (Aside from later changing craeft to craft.)

Well, since we've established that the forms to which I'm referring are 
the results of *YOUR* consultation of the OED and not Gygax, I'd submit 
that for what you've cited from Gygax he need have gone no further than 
Poplollies which gives the form and the definition.  I doubt now, 
knowing now that the material I was citing was not from Gygax, that 
Gygax himself ever consulted the OED or Stratmann or anything else.
> 
>>> In addition, even if someone else hasn't already posted proof that 
>>> your claim is false (as I did the day before Larry made this post), 
>>> it is always *very* unwise to claim that no source for a piece of 
>>> information existed.
>>
>>
>> I didn't.  It is even more unwise to put words in someone's mouth.  I 
>> said that reading Tolkien would lead him to the OED to account for 
>> those forms. 
> 
> 
> Look at the material quoted at the top of this post.

I still stand by that.  If one is referring to various forms of "dwimor" 
  in Old English along with the Middle English forms etc the only source 
currently in print is the OED to account for all the forms that you cite 
(which I thought was Gygax, as I thought I've made clear all along).  If 
we now ****ft the discussion to YOU, I think even you have to admit that 
neither Poplollies nor Stratmann nor even the MED or Bosworth and Toller 
nor even the Dictionary of Old English will give you the forms: 
dweomer, n. [< OE *dweomer, *dwimer, *dwimor in gedweomer, gedwimer,
 >> gedwimor where "g" stands for the yogh.  The OED, as I pointed out, 
gives you all these forms, and with one exception, in that order.  So to 
get all those forms in that order you had to have consulted the OED.

> 
>> As for Gygax, it remains true that the forms he uses as well as some 
>> of the meanings did not come from Stratmann because Statmann would 
>> have told him that dweomercraeft came from dwimer, OE dwimor, not from 
>> OE dweomer as the OED does.
> 
> 
> Again, this just seems bizarre. Just because Stratmann indicates that 
> dweomer came from dwimer is no reason for Gygax to use the latter.

Actually it would be bizarre to consult a work of reference and then to 
ignore the information it gives you in favor of something else entirely. 
    To trace "dweomer" as if from "dweomercraeft" in contradiction to 
Stratmann IF THAT WORK were consulted by either you or Gygax seems to me 
to be the bizarre behavior.

> 
>>   > So, in short, while Gygax would have needed another source, we do
not
>>
>>> what that source was.
>>
>>
>> But based on the forms he uses, the meanings he gives, and the fact 
>> that the source he tells us he used cites the OED and not Stratmann, 
>> and general availibility, the indications are that we can make a 
>> pretty good guess at what that source was IF he gives the forms that 
>> you cite.  On the other hand, if he only gives dweomercraeft and then 
>> goes back from there to dweomer, and uses it as a verb, and dweomered 
>> as participial construction and gives none of the forms at the head of 
>> your citation, then I'd say he just looked in Poplollies.
> 
> 
> The latter is the case.
> 
> I've asked Gygax if he remembers any other source he might have used, 
> such as the OED or Stratmann. If he does, maybe we can settle this.
> 

No need to have disturbed him again.  Making clear that the material 
from the OED was *YOUR* material and not his offered all the 
clarification necessary.