Re: Dweomer,etc.

Dan Clore wrote:
> Larry Swain wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> Well, the assumption doesn't make any sense in the first place,

Yes it does.  Other than the brackets (see below) you did NOTHING to 
indicate what was your material and what was Gygax.


  and I
> did correct it before.

First, allow me to quote myself: "Ok, if you said that before, I missed 
it."  I'm not sure what isn't clear about the statement, much less the 
previous statement: "I need you to clarify your original post then.  It 
looks to me from  that post that you are citing Gygax when you post..." 
  These statements seem very clear and easy to understand to me and from 
your responses to you too.  So I fail to see the problem.




  You seem to specialize in making arguments based
> on nothing but your own poor reading,  and then go on and on trying to
> prove that you were right. It gets rather annoying.

It has been my experience that characterizations such as this one have 
more to do and better describe the the one posting the comment rather 
than the person at whom it is aimed.  I think this will be made clear
below.
> 
> Now take the entry above, and look at the arguments we've been having 
> and see if they make any sense. You mistakenly thought that I had 
> credited this entry to Gygax, and have hence been arguing that (1) 
> Gygax, as author, would have had to come to the word family in question 
> through Tolkien;

Nope.  Until you wrote to him and asked him where he got it, I simply 
maintained that this was a viable possibility. "Oh, I don't know, it 
isn't hard to remember the "dwimor" words in Tolkien, go look them up 
and then play with them."  Apparently I'm not the only one who bases 
arguments on "poor reading".



  and (2) would then have had to consult the OED.

Yes, to include forms dweomer, dwimor, dwimer, geswimer etc he would had 
to have.  In any case, the point has been moved up a level: Gygax 
didn't, you did, so the point I made is still proven.


  As to
> (1), it wouldn't make much sense to counter that Gygax (if he were the 
> author) had no need to know Tolkien's uses or remember them, since 
> they're cited right there; 

In brackets and parantheses.  It is customary for an editor when 
interjecting editorial material into a cited text to use brackets. 
Thus, the cited forms from the OED from your original post appear to be 
Gygax.


further, Gygax could not have cited all of
> the Tolkien references there, as one of them would not be published for 
> decades after Gygax had been writing;

a) the Tolkien references were in parantheses and brackets, see above 
and b) so sorry, but I'm not a D&D person, I have no clue who Gygax is 
or what's he's written or when and don't care to.  All I know I've 
gleaned from this thread.  Thus, if this were an im****tant point it 
would be immaterial.

Another example of a poor reading on your part.


  as to (2), the entry notes that
> the OED has no entry for the word "dweomer", so of course the author 
> would have had to have consulted the OED.

Once again, in brackets.  See above.
> 
> But I have to wonder whether you really did misread the post this way, 
> as all of the statements that you made were consistent with the 
> supposition that you had correctly understood what I had posted and 
> actually meant the actual quotation from Gygax,


Really?  Let's look at my very first statement: Well, hmmm, no.  dweomer 
  Essentially Gygax has here cheated a bit.  He
seems to have looked up in the OED "dwimmer" and didn't find it but did
find dweomercraeft, and looked at the etymology (for which his <OE etc>
is mostly taken, although he transposes "*dweomer" and "*dwimer".  The
rest up to "phantsm" is taken straight out of the OED."  That reads to 
you that I think that YOU entered the material from the OED and not 
Gygax?  Talk about examples of very, very poor reading comprehension 
skills!!!!  It might have occurred to you that I didn't respond to your 
"corrected" post and that therefore all the subsequent statements, such 
as "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. "

My next post after that one reads:
  "I need you to clarify your original post then.  It looks to me from 
that post that you are citing Gygax when you post:

dweomer, n. [< OE *dweomer, *dwimer, *dwimor in ¼edweomer, ¼edwimer, ...."

That reads to you that I know that *YOU* contributed the material in 
question, not Gygax?  How very stupid can you be?  Explicitly stating 
multiple times that Gygax contributed those forms indicates to you that 
I actually in reality think that Gygax didn't and that you did?  Talk 
about basing an argument on POOR READING!!!  And what's worse, you're 
condemned by YOUR VERY OWN WORDS!


  whereas you never
> mention obvious considerations like the above, which one would expect 
> had you misread what I posted in the manner you claim.

A conclusion based on several examples of poor reading.  What an idiot.
> 
> I doubt that anything else is worth bothering with at this point.


Indeed, you're a waste of time.  Not only can you not write clearly, you 
haven't the basic literacy skills, and when you're failure is pointed 
out to you, you imply that your respondant is a liar.  Truly, you are 
not worth bothering with any further.
>