Tolkien on Gaelic

**Bugbear** · 13th January 12, 11:07 AM

I'm sorry; it wasn't clear from the quote I posted. Tolkien is saying, nasc or nasg, is the only Gaelic word he could find that was used in the languages he created, being nazg, though borrowed unintentionally.

**Meggers** · 13th January 12, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Bugbear

I'm sorry; it wasn't clear from the quote I posted. Tolkien is saying, nasc or nasg, is the only Gaelic word he could find that was used in the languages he created, being nazg, though borrowed unintentionally.

like in nazgul? What is nasc in Gaelic?

**Bugbear** · 13th January 12, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by MeghanWalker

like in nazgul? What is nasc in Gaelic?

Going by Tolkien's explanation that I quoted, it means both a ring or a bond in Gaelic. In the constructed languages, "nazg: the word for 'ring' in the Black Speech" (see OP citation.)

**Meggers** · 13th January 12, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Bugbear

Going by Tolkien's explanation that I quoted, it means both a ring or a bond in Gaelic. In the constructed languages, "nazg: the word for 'ring' in the Black Speech" (see OP citation.)

ahhh...and Nazgul means "ring wraith" so..there ya go!

**Bugbear** · 13th January 12, 05:36 PM

Ok, I'm looking back at The Lord of the Rings, sorry I'm going so slowly. Nazg is also used on it's own on the ring's inscription or what ever you call the fire writing; plenty of other places too. It is from the Black Speech of Mordor, which was created by Sauron, according to a language appendix. It looked like the Black Speech was created to control the orc, or something along that line.

So he says it wasn't an intentional borrowing of the Gaelic word, but the rest of what he says about Gaelic in that passage I quoted in the first post does show why he might use it for the Black Speech of mordor. Guess it makes sense.

**OC Richard** · 14th January 12, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by MeghanWalker

If your language is harsh...

If your language is soft, flowey, romantic...

...tough languages, very strong and "rough".

I reject that there is any truth to the suggestion that there is, or can be, such a thing as a "harsh lanuage", or a "soft language", or a "strong language", or a "rough language".

I believe that these attributes are within the mind of the beholder and are projected onto the language, usually by a person not brought up speaking it.

In addition I am uneasy about the ethnic stereotypes which were put forward.