On 23 Feb 2012, at 14:19, BPJ wrote:

> On 2012-02-23 21:31, Michael Everson wrote:
>> But the Ardalambion crowd are interested in Neo-Quenya, which is a very different thing from the study of what Tolkien actually did. That scholarly work is ongoing; see
> But which might be an interesting topic in its own right to an academic studying conlangs as a phenomenon.

Perhaps, but it's still not Tolkien's work. 

> BTW one can be interested in Tolkien's languages from both a paleo- and a neo- angle. And how come reviving a conlang would be bad, while reviving a natlang would be good?

You can't "revive" Quenya. Or Sindarin. Or Goldogrin. Or Khuzdul. Or the Black Speech. You can make up stuff to fill in the gaps, but the result is never "authentic", in Tolkien's terms. But it's making up stuff. And may contradict the actual etymological data (inconsistent as that may be).

I suppose I have no great objection to new works being written in these languages, so long as anything Neo- is labelled as Neo-.

Personally, though, I think I would not publish an Alice in Neo-Quenya, because of the honour and respect I hold for Tolkien, whose work, which I read at a formative time in my life, helped to make me the person I am today. To me, a Neo-Quenya Alice would not be authentic.

> That the two crowds don't go well together is because of personal chemistry issues rather than the two pursuits being antithetical. It's not like no one can do the other if anyone does the one.

I guess. Ursula Le Guin tells of being asked by various writers and aspiring writers for permission to write stories set in her Ekumen. Her answer was "No, go invent your own universe."

Another excellent resource for Tolkienian linguistics is Vinyar Tengwar: 

Michael Everson *