The last thread for the culture of Khamul (please come in)

[norrinradd]

We know that: in INDEXS and Part3 (Hunt for the Ring) of UT; Khamul has had 3 epithets (“Second Chief and the Black Easterling”: in the note regarding the rejected version of Tale of Years - “Shadow of the East”: in the note regarding the present version of the Tale of Years).

We have a knowledge about certain epithet of Khamul which is Shadow of the East, even if we say Black Easterling won't be considered because it was in the rejected version (still, I do not think that way; because Christopher Tolkien clearly stated in the INDEX part of UT that one of Khamul's epithet is Black Easterling with Shadow of the East, showing the number of pages); This title or epithet (Shadow of the East) give us some vague knowledge of Khamul: even if he was not an Easterling, he was clearly one of the eastern peoples (Khand, Rhun, Near Harad or etc. Of East), wasn’t he? Thanks for your comment now 🙏🙏🙏

??

 

[Firawyn]

We know that: in INDEXS and Part3 (Hunt for the Ring) of UT; Khamul has had 3 epithets (“Second Chief and the Black Easterling”: in the note regarding the rejected version of Tale of Years - “Shadow of the East”: in the note regarding the present version of the Tale of Years).

We have a knowledge about certain epithet of Khamul which is Shadow of the East, even if we say Black Easterling won't be considered because it was in the rejected version (still, I do not think that way; because Christopher Tolkien clearly stated in the INDEX part of UT that one of Khamul's epithet is Black Easterling with Shadow of the East, showing the number of pages); This title or epithet (Shadow of the East) give us some vague knowledge of Khamul: even if he was not an Easterling, he was clearly one of the eastern peoples (Khand, Rhun, Near Harad or etc. Of East), wasn’t he? Thanks for your comment now 🙏🙏🙏

??

I would simply say that clearly it's not clear at all. I believe that is the whole point you are making, my friend. One of the very frustrating aspects of being a Tolkien fan is in the fact that there are so very many little details that JRRT never did get around to fine tuning and working out the particulars of. That task was left to his son, who has made some valiant effort, but ultimately Middle Earth was not his creation, so all Christopher can do is the same that we can - best guess.

And my best guess is as good as yours.

 

[norrinradd]

I would simply say that clearly it's not clear at all. I believe that is the whole point you are making, my friend. One of the very frustrating aspects of being a Tolkien fan is in the fact that there are so very many little details that JRRT never did get around to fine tuning and working out the particulars of. That task was left to his son, who has made some valiant effort, but ultimately Middle Earth was not his creation, so all Christopher can do is the same that we can - best guess.

And my best guess is as good as yours.

Thanks for the best and kind guesses, you too

Some say that: "Note 1 also explains that "The Second Chief (the Black Easterling)" appears in a rejected version. A rejected version of the passage that refers to "Khamul" as "the Shadow of the East". I would say that Tolkien's "Black Easterling" might have been rejected for "Shadow of the East"" Do you think like that?

Even if it is on the rejected version,there is no doubt that these two epithets belong to Khamul by using “Second Chief” and “the Black Easterling” epithets together, I think that Christopher Tolkien also stated these notes and in last pages of UT (chapther of INDEXS); there are 2 notes that are “the Black Easterling, see: Khamul” and the other one is “Khamul:.... EPITHETS: Shadow of the East, the Black Easterling”. In the INDEX part in UT; Christopher Tolkien stated clearly that Khamul's epithets are BE and SE (When he stated that is BE epithet, Do you think he opposes his father's will here, or does he actually agree with his father?)

Thanks...

 

[Olorgando]

Do you think he opposes his father's will here, or does he actually agree with his father?
Thanks...

We will never know his Father's (JRRT's) will nor Christopher's opinion of it. Just accept this.

 

[norrinradd]

We will never know his Father's (JRRT's) will nor Christopher's opinion of it. Just accept this.

"Shadow of the East" shows us that Khamul is eastern (maybe Khand or Rhun etc), even if "Black Easterling" was rejected and even if Khamul is not an Easterling, we know that he is not from Numenorian, but there is no future from another kingdom or culture except East. Maybe you can accept it because you are stubborn and you started to give false information from the Tolkien's work because of your stubbornness, I think correct yourself.

We will never know his Father's (JRRT's) will nor Christopher's opinion of it. Just accept this.

And Also, even in the institution where BE was rejected to SE; SE alone shows us that Khamul is one of the eastern, even if he is not an Easterling according to "BE was rejected to SE". Three Nazguls are said to be from Numenour and Khamul is not counted. We already know a certain number of human kingdoms in the second age. Only the eastern part remains. (Khand or Rhun etc ...)

 

[Olorgando]

You are obviously not a native speaker of English. Your at least last ten, perhaps twenty posts (including PM) on Khamûl have been utterly pointless.

 

[Firawyn]

You are obviously not a native speaker of English. Your at least last ten, perhaps twenty posts (including PM) on Khamûl have been utterly pointless.

There is nothing pointless in trying to work out an unclear detail. It is not norrinradd's fault that that there is not enough information to go on, nor is there anything wrong with being a Tolkien fan who is, perhaps, not a native English speaker. JRRT created a world that housed many cultures and many languages, and would be offended by such bigotry, as am I. Your call-out regarding your fellow member's English skills was completely uncalled for.

Do you think he opposes his father's will here, or does he actually agree with his father?)

While of course it is all speculation, I'd postulate that where as John spent his formative years in a war, and that very much shaped who he became as a man and what Middle Earth ultimately developed into, Christopher did not have that experience. As a trauma survivor myself, I can tell you first-hand that the perspective of someone who has seen both the best and worst that humanity has to offer - seen those extremes - is something very unique and difficult for someone who has not had that perspective to identify with. As such, whereas I do not see it as an opposition of his father's will, I do believe that John and Christopher Tolkien would have had very different outlooks on life, as their formative years were drastically different, and John's included horrors that Christopher simply would not have had the ability to understand, through no fault of his own.

 

[norrinradd]

You are obviously not a native speaker of English. Your at least last ten, perhaps twenty posts (including PM) on Khamûl have been utterly pointless.

Since you couldn't make any logical explanations and this situation was forced to you; actually, there was no other choice but to speak to my English level.

 

[Olorgando]

There is nothing pointless in trying to work out an unclear detail. It is not norrinradd's fault that that there is not enough information to go on, nor is there anything wrong with being a Tolkien fan who is, perhaps, not a native English speaker. JRRT created a world that housed many cultures and many languages, and would be offended by such bigotry, as am I. Your call-out regarding your fellow member's English skills was completely uncalled for.

I have spent (wasted) well over a page of a PM trying to explain what I meant with a hypothetical possibility left open, not implausibly, by exactly this lack of information. I also stated that I myself consider Khamûl to probably, (much) more plausibly be in origin an Easterling than not - but that that does not imply 100% certainty, as it simply cannot. That appears to me to be something norrinradd does not understand, despite a curt post of mine near the end of the PM, and in my second-to-last post here, tried to make clear. My last post in the PM was that I was ending the discussion; I received three more, increasingly long and pointless posts after this, which was basically, yes, telling him (?) to shut up. That is my damn right. Not all of norrinradd's obstinacy can be explained by not being a native speaker. I have no idea what can explain this obstinacy, nor, to be truthful, do I care.

 

[norrinradd]

I have spent (wasted) well over a page of a PM trying to explain what I meant with a hypothetical possibility left open, not implausibly, by exactly this lack of information. I also stated that I myself consider Khamûl to probably, (much) more plausibly be in origin an Easterling than not - but that that does not imply 100% certainty, as it simply cannot. That appears to me to be something norrinradd does not understand, despite a curt post of mine near the end of the PM, and in my second-to-last post here, tried to make clear. My last post in the PM was that I was ending the discussion; I received three more, increasingly long and pointless posts after this, which was basically, yes, telling him (?) to shut up. That is my damn right. Not all of norrinradd's obstinacy can be explained by not being a native speaker. I have no idea what can explain this obstinacy, nor, to be truthful, do I care.

I guess you are forgetting how evil spreads in the Tolkien Universe. What is the difference between people who fight Sauron and those who join Sauron? If you take into account Khamul's epithets while answering this question, it is high that you think he is one of the eastern people, warrior, or king. However, you stated that with hatred and irrationally with absurd reasons, Khamul could not be an Easterling or an eastern people (with these arguments you've used: "he was sent by Sauron to be his lieutenant there (east) and he was not in origin an Eastern"). While suggesting this absurd reason, you shared the content of the sources of JRRT's works that are not related to the reason you suggested, and you said it again by using "hypothetical possibility". Please do not interpret JRRT's works to the extent of your persistence.

 

[Firawyn]

I have spent (wasted) well over a page of a PM trying to explain what I meant with a hypothetical possibility left open, not implausibly, by exactly this lack of information. I also stated that I myself consider Khamûl to probably, (much) more plausibly be in origin an Easterling than not - but that that does not imply 100% certainty, as it simply cannot. That appears to me to be something norrinradd does not understand, despite a curt post of mine near the end of the PM, and in my second-to-last post here, tried to make clear. My last post in the PM was that I was ending the discussion; I received three more, increasingly long and pointless posts after this, which was basically, yes, telling him (?) to shut up. That is my damn right. Not all of norrinradd's obstinacy can be explained by not being a native speaker. I have no idea what can explain this obstinacy, nor, to be truthful, do I care.

I will merely point out that it was and remains your decision to reply to a poster whom you find frustrating. End of the day, if you continue to engage in an activity which causes you frustration, and you are a big enough fool not to walk away, then buddy, that is on you. It does not give you the right to make a remark which is clearly demeaning of another person.

 

[Olorgando]

I will merely point out that it was and remains your decision to reply to a poster whom you find frustrating. End of the day, if you continue to engage in an activity which causes you frustration, and you are a big enough fool not to walk away, then buddy, that is on you. It does not give you the right to make a remark which is clearly demeaning of another person.

Have you ever considered, fact is that norrinradd opened that PM thread, not me, that I have been patient, trying to explain? Be it in US high school (early 1970s) or in the last 20 years of my duties with my former company (1997-2017, I'm now retired), it has been considered by most to be what I do well. I utterly failed with norrinradd as to the concept "hypothetical", just look at his (?) post above. I have also, in those last 20 years with my company doing explaining, become sensitive to where the breakdown in communications can occur. This was computer stuff, and I more than once had to explain up (to the programmers) why the people down applying their stuff were making the same mistake all to often (not always).
I posted that there are (for the Nazgûl) huge gaps in the slightest detail about them in JRRT's writing, leaving huge areas of speculation - wich could still be filled with plausible explanations. norrinradd again and again, against this clear statement, asked for explicit writings by JRRT. And a t some point. I just get totally sick of such behavior, and then, I would state aggressively, calling and idiot an idiot is not demeaning. PC be damned, there are morons on this planet.

 

[norrinradd]

Have you ever considered, fact is that norrinradd opened that PM thread, not me, that I have been patient, trying to explain? Be it in US high school (early 1970s) or in the last 20 years of my duties with my former company (1997-2017, I'm now retired), it has been considered by most to be what I do well. I utterly failed with norrinradd as to the concept "hypothetical", just look at his (?) post above. I have also, in those last 20 years with my company doing explaining, become sensitive to where the breakdown in communications can occur. This was computer stuff, and I more than once had to explain up (to the programmers) why the people down applying their stuff were making the same mistake all to often (not always).
I posted that there are (for the Nazgûl) huge gaps in the slightest detail about them in JRRT's writing, leaving huge areas of speculation - wich could still be filled with plausible explanations. norrinradd again and again, against this clear statement, asked for explicit writings by JRRT. And a t some point. I just get totally sick of such behavior, and then, I would state aggressively, calling and idiot an idiot is not demeaning. PC be damned, there are morons on this planet.

I condemn you as a result of calling me moron, but I give you another chance to make plausible explanations and interpretation in everyone. I understood you a lot, do not worry and now I’m going to fill with plausible explanations below.However, I have doubts that you will not use slang words to me or interpret JRRT and Christopher’s works logically.

The fact that the BE epithet is in the rejected version but the SE epithet is in the present version does not indicate that BE was rejected (unlike the numbers of Nazguls at the time in Dol Guldur) because I think that if BE was rejected, there would be nothing related to the eastern word in the present version as “Shadow of the East”. Tolkien might have just liked SE epithet more than BE while rewriting the present version or BE epithet may not have remembered while rewriting the present version, because Tolkien is not someone who stands on Nazguls too much, it seems much more likely that he did not care, than he rejected BE epithet. Therefore, I think that even finding nicknames of Khamul's, notes in the rejected version, should guide us to Khamul's culture and the other things.

 

[Olorgando]

You obviously still not yet understand the word plausible. Until you do, any discussion is useless.

 

[norrinradd]

You obviously still not yet understand the word plausible. Until you do, any discussion is useless.

You are closed to other ideas, there is no need to argue with you. Also, I am happy that everybody saw that you failed.

 

[Firawyn]

Have you ever considered, fact is that norrinradd opened that PM thread, not me, that I have been patient, trying to explain? Be it in US high school (early 1970s) or in the last 20 years of my duties with my former company (1997-2017, I'm now retired), it has been considered by most to be what I do well. I utterly failed with norrinradd as to the concept "hypothetical", just look at his (?) post above. I have also, in those last 20 years with my company doing explaining, become sensitive to where the breakdown in communications can occur. This was computer stuff, and I more than once had to explain up (to the programmers) why the people down applying their stuff were making the same mistake all to often (not always).

Right now the only thing that I'm considering is that, as I already pointed out, you are an adult who should have better life skills that to continue engaging in a perceptively fruitless debate. If you feel you are banging your head against a brick wall, then by all means, cease doing so. No one is compelling you to continue. The singular thing you are being compelled to do is to stop strutting about arrogantly as if your answer is the end all to beat all, and be damned if that explanation isn't good enough. It is not your God given right to dictate what is or is not the end of a discussion on this forum. TTF exists to explore the details of Tolkien's works to whatever short or long amount of circling about we wish. How dare you try to take that away from any one of us? If you do not wish to participate, then don't. That's fine. That is your choice. But do not tell others they cannot debate the finer points till the cows come home if they would like to. Some debates last years.

To Balrogs have wings? Yes or no? Have you any idea how long that debate has been going on? Twenty years. It was one of the very first questions posted on this forum after the movies came out and Jackson's idea of the Balrog showed it with wings, but the text of Fellowship of the Ring indicated "His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings." The argument has lasted two decades, and we enjoy it. It has become a running joke at this point. So do not tell me that enough is enough. There is always going to be one more circle to go around for some people. There will always be a new fan to jump into the mix and get excited about what we might view as old news. Just because you think the point has been argued to death doesn't mean everyone has had their fill. If you don't care for the conversation, then leave the conversation. The only thing keeping you engaged is your own hot-headedness.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Perhaps it's time for everyone to calm down?

Just a suggestion.

 

[Olorgando]

It is not your God given right to dictate what is or is not the end of a discussion on this forum.

It is my right to terminate a Personal Message thread when I damn well please when I find any further discussion pointless. NO one can force me to continue what I consider a pointless discussion of that sort. And have you read my post above? I'm talking , and have from the word go, about P L A U S I B I L I T Y. Not about certainty. I do not have an answer to norrinradd's obsession with Khamûl at all, let alone one that is "the end all to beat all.", a totally alien concept to me. And I told norrinradd so. He (?) did not let it be at that, for whatever reason.
If you think my repeated postings "I do not know!!!" is my answer meaning it "is the end all to beat all, and be damned if that explanation isn't good enough" then for perhaps other reasons you may have a blind side. I'll be happy to trade my 1972/73 SAT / Achievements tests scores in English with yours (not that I think they would be really relevant). But (just in case you haven't noticed) I take no prisoners on some topics.

 

[Olorgando]

Perhaps it's time for everyone to calm down?
Just a suggestion.

I have posted with icy(!) calm above - not that that is such a good thing.

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Yeah, well, all I'll say is, "calm" isn't the word I'd apply to this thread.