physical description of elves?

[Falagar]

From Michael Martinez' suit101 article: A funny thing happened on the way to the canon

Other bizarre ideas have gotten thrown into the canonical soup, such as the "fact" that Elves have pointed ears. There is nothing in The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, The Road Goes Ever On, The Silmarillion, or Unfinished Tales which suggests or hints that they might have pointed ears. From 1937 until 1987, the world of Tolkien scholarship had no reason to believe or suspect that any Tolkien Elf might have an ear which didn't look like the ear of a man. Tolkien's characters distinguished between Elves and Men by looking at their eyes, their faces, or listening to their voices.

But in 1987, Christopher Tolkien published The Lost Road and Other Writings; included in its profound revelations was "The Etymologies", an attempt by JRRT to document the Elven languages he was using in the pre-LOTR years. He updated some portions of "The Etymologies" in the first years of writing The Lord of the Rings, but eventually abandoned the work. And in "The Etymologies", one finds the bombshell "las-" entry where are inscribed the fateful words "Some think this is related to the next and *lasse 'ear'. The Quendian ears were more pointed and leaf-shaped than [?human]."

That "[?human]" construction at the end of the sentence is not from J.R.R. Tolkien. It's from Christopher Tolkien. In his introduction to "The Etymologies", Christopher writes "My own contributions are always enclosed within square brackets. A question mark standing within such brackets indicates doubt as to the correctness of my reading, but in other cases is original." Well, some people insist, if JRRT didn't mean to write "human", what could he have intended? Who knows? It's not clear from the text that he intended the remark to stand. He was certainly introducing his own doubt about the allegation with the first sentence "Some think this is related to the next and *lasse 'ear'." Little did the old boy know how seriously his philologist's sense of humor would be taken.
(...)
The canons often become intertwined under the strangest circumstances. The pointy-ears crowd, for example, will often cite a letter Tolkien wrote in 1938 to the Houghton Mifflin Company, his American publishers. They wanted to know how to draw a Hobbit. Tolkien told them "A round, jovial face; ears only slightly pointed and 'elvish'; hair short and curling (brown)." The letter is treated with the respect accorded a Papal Bull. All well and good, I suppose, but the reference to "elvish" is certainly not to a Tolkien Elf, which no one at Houghton Mifflin had ever seen. There is nothing in the text of the book which suggests that the Elves do (or don't) have pointed ears. Tolkien's comment was intended to be taken in the context most familiar to the publishers that is, everyone knew that Elves had pointed ears. At the time, there was no connection between The Hobbit and Tolkien's Elvish legends (which the HMCo people hadn't read), except for a few borrowings Tolkien had made to liven up the story.

Nonetheless, we are told with great solemnity how this letter proves that Tolkien's Elves have pointed ears. The complete and total lack of reference or relevance to any Elf in any Tolkien story aside, the letter must prove that Tolkien's Elves have pointed ears. Why else would he have used the word "elvish"? It couldn't possibly be that he knew a popular conception about Elves would provide a convenient reference, could it? The canon of the pointed ear has even been extended to allege that Tolkien was the first person to use "Elves" and "Elvish". I have occasionally pointed out that Shakespeare used those words, too.

[Artanis]

Is Martin Martinez in any way related to Michael Martinez?
Sorry, couldn't resist

And for the record: I don't believe Elves have pointed ears The thought of it never came to me until the movies came out.

[Ruinel]

How funny. I grew up with the exact opposite belief. That is, that Elves have pointed ears. But only slightly more so than a Man's ear. Certainly not the spear-ears shown in the picture in the thread about Fingolfin's rage (lol). And I've been reading JRRT for a pretty long time now. It was just an image I kept in my mind as I read the stories.

[Falagar]

Is Martin Martinez in any way related to Michael Martinez?

I think it's his brother

Edit: Martin Martinez? Where? Can't see him

[Sister Golden Hair]

Who in blazes is Martin Martinez?

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Ruinel
How funny. I grew up with the exact opposite belief. That is, that Elves have pointed ears.

One tend to stay true to the first mental picture, I think.

Edit: Martin Martinez? Where? Can't see him

Cheater!

Who in blazes is Martin Martinez?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Who in blazes is Martin Martinez?

LOL!

I already knew that the bracketed words were those of C. Tolkien, and I've already sighted the Martinez article. However, I do think there is still reasonable doubt as to whether elves had pointy ears or not. Afterall, Martinez has not actually seen these etymologies in person as far as I know; all we have to go off is C's (and editor) version of what Tolkien's writing says. There is enough doubt that I can safely say, IMO, that elves may have had pointy ears; at least in the earlier versions of Tolkien's writing.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I've already sighted the Martinez article

Article sighted! Prepare to fire!

[cian]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
... but I read over in Xenite that somebody mentioned that one of the early etymologies contained a word for ear that, and I'm recalling from a very dusty memory here, a word for ear translated as leaf shaped. Anyway, my point is, that this is the only reference we have to elves having pointy ears, and it's from the early developments of the First Age (Book of Lost Tales era), so that in itself is extremely dubious. Anyway, if anyone wants to verify that (I think it's in BoLT 2)... if not, I might be inspired to have a look myself.

Earlier in this thread I gave _time_-reference info regarding Etymologies, and some general time frames as to 'entries' ... generally, Tolkien made some entries to the document during the writing of LOTR (but see my earlier post for more detail). Also my earlier post has been revised a bit for better clarification on the 'pre-LOTR' status of Etymologies regarding the linguistic 'scenario' -- and as such appears differently from the now 'quoted' version subsquently.

Revised to make it clear that I am only looking at LoTR word-forms and seeing a relationship between them. The 'Pre-LOTR' document Etymologies does not 'prove' the point (pun intended) about Quendian ears. I contribute the info 'cause I think it interesting to note that the ear-detail 'lived within' the earlier scenario regarding the same stems (LAS1&2) 'apparently' brought forward into LOTR.

¤

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Artanis
One tend to stay true to the first mental picture, I think. Cheater!

Yes, absolutely.

I have no idea who either of the Martinez' (Martini?... Martinae?) are.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Article sighted! Prepare to fire!

Okay! *Promptly sets fire to GW's butt*

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by cian
Well granted you said 'somewhat' but the note seems legible enough, though one word appears in brackets. It reads:

'LAS-1 (...) (Some think this is related to the next and *lassé 'ear'. The Quendian ears were more pointed and leaf-shaped than [?human].)'

The word 'human' is in question, and Christopher Tolkien notes:

'A question mark standing within such brackets indicates doubt as to the correctness of my reading, but in other cases is original. Where I have found words totally illegible or can do no better than a guess (a very small proportion of the whole, in fact) I have usually omitted them silently, and so also with scattered jottings where no meaning is attached to forms, or where no clear connections are given.' ~CT

So CT 'indicates doubt' as to his reading of the word 'human' but he evidently did not find it totally illegible, and it's not a mere 'guess' or he probably would have (as at least was usual) omitted it silently. In any case, what word fits well here? what is the most likely thing Tolkien was comparing 'Quendian ears' to? and which word looks enough like 'human' for CT to, at least, include it in brackets.

As to your statement that Etymologies belongs to 'the old mythology and the book of Lost Tales' ... Etymologies generally reflects the linguistic situation envisaged in the Lhammas and, for example, the 'Celtic inspired' language represented within is 'Noldorin' at least, not early 'Gnomish'.

Yes Etymologies is basically a 'pre-LOTR document', but additional entries can be found, albeit 'hasty' and not fully explained, from the earlier part of LOTR itself (generally before the breaking of the Fellowship). Christopher Tolkien notes that his father made 'desultory' entries into Etymologies for two or three years as new names emerged in The Lord Of The Rings, and:

"Clear cases from later in LOTR do occur (so Palantir under PAL and TIR, Dolbaran under BARÁN), but they are very few." ~CT

So yes, certain care must be taken with Etymologies. But Tolkien apparently had it 'available' as a document and made entries into it at certain points during the (mostly early) writing of LOTR.
_____

The question of whether words, arguably derived from stems LAS-1 and LAS-2, are used in LOTR as published may also be of interest. Elvish 'leaf-words' that arguably derive from stem LAS(1) can be found in LOTR, and according to language expert David Salo (unless he's revised his conclusion since, though I'm not aware of such) the word lasto 'listen' for example, is to be considered as deriving from stem LAS(2). It might be noted that according to Ardalambion author Helge Fauskanger JRRT likely added a further stem *S-LAS into the mix, 'in update', from which lhaw is currently theoried to derive ~ Amon Lhaw 'Hill of Hearing'.

Keeping in mind that in Etymologies: stem LAS-1 generally produces 'leaf-words', stem LAS-2 generally 'listen-words', and noting again the parenthetical note from Tolkien on Quendian ears.

No I can't (and am not trying to) prove that Tolkien would have (re)written the same or similar parenthetical note (as quoted above) as a 'mythic detail' related to the appearance in LOTR of such forms as lasto 'listen' and lassi 'leaves'. Seems quite 'Tolkien-ish' to me if he had -- that is, I think JRRT the philologist would enjoy dealing with such a 'detail' in this manner, though that is pure opinion on my part of course. To speculate, perhaps a similar note maybe would have found its way into the Appendices? we know that Tolkien was rushed with them anyway.

In any case I think Etymologies is quite an interesting document with regards the 'ear-question'

¤

Thanks, Cian. I'll re-post it here.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Okay! *Promptly sets fire to GW's butt*

No, not THAT!

-quickly pats fire out-

-in revenge, sprays silly-string all over BoP- (Hey, did you expect better from a halfwit?

[BeardofPants]

Hah. That's nothing.

*SUPER-glues super pointy vulcan ears (tm) onto GW*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

You...you monster!

-attempts to devise deviously devious plan-

-bonks BoP over head with her own LOTR collection-

[BeardofPants]

I may have a sore head, but at least I don't have vulcan ears stuck to my head. Er... What was the topic again?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

says physical description of elves.

Drat, my next retaliation was gonna be -spams the topic to death-.

[cian]

Just a bit more from Bill Weldon on the Etymologires quote:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I am looking at a second generation photocopy of the relevant sheet of Etymologies. The handwriting is fairly legible, but the end of the word in question is scrawled. The first two letters are clearly "Hu" and the final letter "n". What ought (by logical deduction) to be "ma" is in fact only two humps (like a stretched-out hand-written "n").

The sentence is thus: Some think this is rel. to next and lassé = ear ? The Quendian ears were more pointed and leaf-shaped than Hu??n.

It seems absurd to dismiss the first ten words of this sentence on the basis of the final word. Clearly, Tolkien is saying the Quendian ears were pointed and leaf-shaped, moreso than some referent. If "Human" is not a possibility, for other reasons, then what?

The sentence, by the way, was added between the two "LAS" entries after both of them were written, and so cannot be dated to the time of the original writing of Etymologies. Many entries in Etymologies were modified during the course of writing the early chapters of LotR." ~Bill Weldon

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Ruinel]

OH, mercy! What have I started? GW's butt is on fire, he's got some weird pointy things stuck to his head, BeardOfPants has a lump on her head. It's getting very violent in here! *ducks unidentified flying object*

[Wayfarer]

Interesting Factiod:

Elros was given, by tolkien, a height of 7'8". Thingol, the tallest of elves, was at one time given a height of nine feet.

Elves are certainly /not/ short, whatever else they may be.