Hello AlisaGoldielock
Well I for one certainly did consider Tolkien an outstanding linguist. But even more so an outstanding philologist...
But then again, I am easily impressed, dimwit that I am, when someone says something that sounds clever or learned.
Was I mistaken, was my assumption regarding Tolkien's renown as a linguist and philologist unwarranted?
Now I don't even dare trying to spell one of those tongue-breaking words, but maybe you can enlighten us some, what these fundamental theories are and when something is a considered a "fundamental theory"?
Oh ... and when you mention Potebnia, why not Barfield or Cassirer? Or why Chomsky and not Ogden and Richards? I'm just curious...
And have you perchance read Tolkien's essay "A secret vice" or maybe his article 'Sigelwara Land' published in Medium Aevum (1932 resp. 1934)? Did you get an idea what it was, Tolkien was after?
I would love to hear what a learned linguist has to say about Tolkien's approach to language, its origins and its connexion to the early myths. And also why his approaches regarding this - or also regarding artificial languages - should not be considered a "fundamental theory"?
Also, I was of the impression that Tolkien's various artificial languages - if not complete - get a lot of attention. I don't know whether or not Esperanto gets more...
Looking forward to your elaborations...
----
Edit:
P.S.: That one term of yours "glo..." "glosso..." ... anyway, that word next to H(j)elmslev ... had me quite puzzled. "Glosso" & "semantics" tried to figure the meaning of "tongue-semantics"...
Luckily
glossematic did the trick for me, then...

Bookmarks