Lidless Eye

[Jerry Friedman]

What do you think Sauron had at the time of the War of the Ring?

One eye, which was lidless and as Frodo saw it in the Mirror of
Galadriel?

Two eyes, both of which were lidless and as Frodo saw?

Two eyes, one of which was lidless and as Frodo saw, and one of which
was much like a normal human eye?

Two eyes, both of which were much like normal human eyes? "Lidless
Eye" would be a metaphor or symbol or emblem that was seen only by
magic (whatever that means) or only by recipientss of Rings of Power.

Something else?

There's a discussion at

https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-Sauron-has-a-physical-Lidless-Eye-or-two-Do-you-think-his-Lidless-Eye-is-something-only-characters-with-Rings-of-Power-perceive

[Julian Bradfield]

Post by Jerry Friedman
What do you think Sauron had at the time of the War of the Ring?

I prefer the idea that the lidless eye rimmed with fire was more of a
projection.
Just looking round the net for images of Sauron, I quite like those of
gerwell on deviantart :

http://gerwell.deviantart.com/

though presumably the 3rd age Sauron had blackened skin, as reported.

I also suppose if that you were forced to hold his gaze, and he was
interested in you, you would see the Eye as perceived mentally by
Frodo et al. I take it that Gollum was either easily cowed by other
means, or possibly actually too mentally stubborn to be easily projected
at - a weird thought, perhaps, but Gollum is a very tough character!

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Julian Bradfield

Post by Jerry Friedman
What do you think Sauron had at the time of the War of the Ring?

I prefer the idea that the lidless eye rimmed with fire was more of a
projection.
Just looking round the net for images of Sauron, I quite like those of
http://gerwell.deviantart.com/
though presumably the 3rd age Sauron had blackened skin, as reported.
I also suppose if that you were forced to hold his gaze, and he was
interested in you, you would see the Eye as perceived mentally by
Frodo et al. I take it that Gollum was either easily cowed by other
means, or possibly actually too mentally stubborn to be easily projected
at - a weird thought, perhaps, but Gollum is a very tough character!

Thanks. Are you thinking that if Gollum had seen the Lidless Eye,
he would have mentioned it when the subject of Sauron's missing
finger came up?

On the subject of his toughness, /Unfinished Tales/ says, "From Gollum,
even under pain, he [Sauron] could not get any clear account, both
because Gollum indeed had no certain knowledge himself, and because
what be knew he falsified. Ultimately indomitable he was, except by
death, as Sauron did not fully comprehend, being himself consumed by
lust for the ring. Then he became filled with a hatred for Sauron
greater than his terror, seeing in him truly his greatest enemy and
rival. Thus it was that he dared to pretend that he believed that
the land of the Halflings was near to the places where he had once dwelt
beside the banks of the Gladden."

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 17 May 2017 04:59:21 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman
What do you think Sauron had at the time of the War of the Ring?

<snip>

Post by Jerry Friedman
Two eyes, both of which were much like normal human eyes? "Lidless
Eye" would be a metaphor or symbol or emblem that was seen only by
magic (whatever that means) or only by recipientss of Rings of Power.
Something else?

Many snakes have lidless eyes, so it suggests something reptilian.

https://www.natgeocreative.com/photography/1281525

There was also Argus in Greek mythology whose epithet "Panoptes" means
"all seeing".

So a lidless eye never shuts, and is thus watching all the time.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 17 May 2017 04:59:21 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman
What do you think Sauron had at the time of the War of the Ring?

<snip>

Post by Jerry Friedman
Two eyes, both of which were much like normal human eyes? "Lidless
Eye" would be a metaphor or symbol or emblem that was seen only by
magic (whatever that means) or only by recipientss of Rings of Power.
Something else?

Does snipping all but one of my alternatives mean you prefer that one?

Post by Steve Hayes
Many snakes have lidless eyes, so it suggests something reptilian.

All snakes, but relatively few other reptiles.

Post by Steve Hayes
https://www.natgeocreative.com/photography/1281525

Here's a Common European Adder:

Loading Image...

That's pretty consistent with the description in "The Mirror of
Galadriel". As I just realized, the "glazed" appearance might
suggest the transparent covering of a snake's eye (which I also
just learned is called a brille).

"The eye was rimmed with fire, but itself glazed, yellow as a
cat's, watchful and intent, and the black slit of its pupil opened
on a pit, a window into nothing."

When I asked at Quora, a participant named Thomas Snerdley
pointed out that in /The Silmarillion/, the dragon Glaurung
puts Turin into a trance with his "serpent-eyes", also described
as "lidless eyes".

Post by Steve Hayes
There was also Argus in Greek mythology whose epithet "Panoptes" means
"all seeing".
So a lidless eye never shuts, and is thus watching all the time.

And its possessor is denied sleep that knits up the raveled sleeve
of care.

[Paul S. Person]

On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:47:59 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Steve Hayes
There was also Argus in Greek mythology whose epithet "Panoptes" means
"all seeing".
So a lidless eye never shuts, and is thus watching all the time.

And its possessor is denied sleep that knits up the raveled sleeve
of care.

Sauron Never Sleeps

[Wayne Brown]

Post by Paul S. Person
On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:47:59 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Steve Hayes
There was also Argus in Greek mythology whose epithet "Panoptes" means
"all seeing".
So a lidless eye never shuts, and is thus watching all the time.

And its possessor is denied sleep that knits up the raveled sleeve
of care.

Sauron Never Sleeps

This reminds me of a "Tonight Show" skit I saw many years ago in
which Johnny Carson played Superman. He said, "I didn't get any
sleep last night. It's MURDER when you can see through your eyelids."

[Thomas Koenig]

Post by Wayne Brown
This reminds me of a "Tonight Show" skit I saw many years ago in
which Johnny Carson played Superman. He said, "I didn't get any
sleep last night. It's MURDER when you can see through your eyelids."

This is getting far from Tolkien, but...

Larry Niven wrote an essay "Man of Steel, Women of Kleenex" on that kind
of topic. Take any superpowers seriously, you end up in serious trouble.

Tolkien leaves the powers of the Great in Middle-Earth vague, which is
at it should be.

Did we discuss "What would Aragorn have done with the Ring" or
"What did Sauron think that Aragorn was doing with the Ring" recently?

[Stan Brown]

Post by Thomas Koenig
Did we discuss "What would Aragorn have done with the Ring" or
"What did Sauron think that Aragorn was doing with the Ring" recently?

I don't know about "recently" -- given the low traffic, that could
mean within the past five years. :-)

I don't think we know what Aragorn _would have done_ with the Ring,
but we know what he _did_ -- nothing, but protect the Ring-bearer at
the risk of his own life.

I think I recall that somewhere Gandalf told someone that Sauron
thought Aragorn had seized the Ring and was raising an army of
conquest, because that's what Sauron would have done himself. But
IDHTBIFOM, so I might be mistaken.

[Michael Ikeda]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Thomas Koenig
Did we discuss "What would Aragorn have done with the Ring" or
"What did Sauron think that Aragorn was doing with the Ring"
recently?

I don't know about "recently" -- given the low traffic, that
could mean within the past five years. :-)
I don't think we know what Aragorn _would have done_ with the
Ring, but we know what he _did_ -- nothing, but protect the
Ring-bearer at the risk of his own life.
I think I recall that somewhere Gandalf told someone that Sauron
thought Aragorn had seized the Ring and was raising an army of
conquest, because that's what Sauron would have done himself.
But IDHTBIFOM, so I might be mistaken.

In the chapter "The Last Debate", Gandalf says that when Sauron sees
their army approaching "he will think that in such rashness he sees
the pride of the new Ringlord".

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:47:59 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 17 May 2017 04:59:21 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman
What do you think Sauron had at the time of the War of the Ring?

<snip>

Post by Jerry Friedman
Two eyes, both of which were much like normal human eyes? "Lidless
Eye" would be a metaphor or symbol or emblem that was seen only by
magic (whatever that means) or only by recipientss of Rings of Power.
Something else?

Does snipping all but one of my alternatives mean you prefer that one?

Not necessarily, just that that's the one I'm going to discuss.

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Steve Hayes
Many snakes have lidless eyes, so it suggests something reptilian.

All snakes, but relatively few other reptiles.

Post by Steve Hayes
https://www.natgeocreative.com/photography/1281525

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dP0nMi7RZbE/hqdefault.jpg
That's pretty consistent with the description in "The Mirror of
Galadriel". As I just realized, the "glazed" appearance might
suggest the transparent covering of a snake's eye (which I also
just learned is called a brille).
"The eye was rimmed with fire, but itself glazed, yellow as a
cat's, watchful and intent, and the black slit of its pupil opened
on a pit, a window into nothing."
When I asked at Quora, a participant named Thomas Snerdley
pointed out that in /The Silmarillion/, the dragon Glaurung
puts Turin into a trance with his "serpent-eyes", also described
as "lidless eyes".

Post by Steve Hayes
There was also Argus in Greek mythology whose epithet "Panoptes" means
"all seeing".
So a lidless eye never shuts, and is thus watching all the time.

And its possessor is denied sleep that knits up the raveled sleeve
of care.

Eternal vigilance is the price of something or other.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Paul S. Person
On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:47:59 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 17 May 2017 04:59:21 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman
What do you think Sauron had at the time of the War of the Ring?

<snip>

Post by Jerry Friedman
Two eyes, both of which were much like normal human eyes? "Lidless
Eye" would be a metaphor or symbol or emblem that was seen only by
magic (whatever that means) or only by recipientss of Rings of Power.
Something else?

Does snipping all but one of my alternatives mean you prefer that one?

Not necessarily, just that that's the one I'm going to discuss.

...

Okay. As far as I could see, Tolkien's could have chosen to describe
the Eye as resembling a snake's whether he thought of Sauron as
literally having such an eye or not.

[bill van]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Paul S. Person
On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:47:59 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 17 May 2017 04:59:21 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman
What do you think Sauron had at the time of the War of the Ring?

<snip>

Post by Jerry Friedman
Two eyes, both of which were much like normal human eyes? "Lidless
Eye" would be a metaphor or symbol or emblem that was seen only by
magic (whatever that means) or only by recipientss of Rings of Power.
Something else?

Does snipping all but one of my alternatives mean you prefer that one?

Not necessarily, just that that's the one I'm going to discuss.

Okay. As far as I could see, Tolkien's could have chosen to describe
the Eye as resembling a snake's whether he thought of Sauron as
literally having such an eye or not.

Perhaps Sauron had nictitating membranes.

[Steve Morrison]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Paul S. Person
On Thu, 18 May 2017 08:47:59 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 17 May 2017 04:59:21 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman
What do you think Sauron had at the time of the War of the Ring?

<snip>

Post by Jerry Friedman
Two eyes, both of which were much like normal human eyes? "Lidless
Eye" would be a metaphor or symbol or emblem that was seen only by
magic (whatever that means) or only by recipientss of Rings of Power.
Something else?

Does snipping all but one of my alternatives mean you prefer that one?

Not necessarily, just that that's the one I'm going to discuss.

...
Okay. As far as I could see, Tolkien's could have chosen to describe
the Eye as resembling a snake's whether he thought of Sauron as
literally having such an eye or not.

He did, of course, say that it resembled a cat's eye.

[Fred Smith]

Post by Steve Morrison
He did, of course, say that it resembled a cat's eye.

Wasn't Sauron originally the Prince of Cats or somesuch? Way back
in the very early drafts.

[Paul S. Person]

On Fri, 19 May 2017 23:42:21 +0000 (UTC), Fred Smith

Post by Fred Smith

Post by Steve Morrison
He did, of course, say that it resembled a cat's eye.

Wasn't Sauron originally the Prince of Cats or somesuch? Way back
in the very early drafts.

In a sense, yes.

That is, they occupied somewhat similar positions vis-a-vis
Melkor/Morgo/Morgoth and had somewhat similar roles, at least if
regarded on a high enough level of abstraction.

But they were otherwise quite different characters.

And I don't think Tivaldo (??), Prince of Cats would ever have become
a Dark Lord. Or made rings.

[Wayne Brown]

Post by Paul S. Person
On Fri, 19 May 2017 23:42:21 +0000 (UTC), Fred Smith

Post by Fred Smith

Post by Steve Morrison
He did, of course, say that it resembled a cat's eye.

Wasn't Sauron originally the Prince of Cats or somesuch? Way back
in the very early drafts.

In a sense, yes.
That is, they occupied somewhat similar positions vis-a-vis
Melkor/Morgo/Morgoth and had somewhat similar roles, at least if
regarded on a high enough level of abstraction.
But they were otherwise quite different characters.
And I don't think Tivaldo (??), Prince of Cats would ever have become
a Dark Lord. Or made rings.

LOTR said that Sauron sometimes referred to Shelob as "my cat" so
perhaps he had a fondness for them.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Wayne Brown
LOTR said that Sauron sometimes referred to Shelob as "my cat" so
perhaps he had a fondness for them.

Are you referring to this sentence:

"And sometimes as a man may cast a dainty to his cat (his cat he
calls her, but she owns him not) Sauron would send her prisoners that
he had no better uses for: he would have them driven to her hole, and
report brought back to him of the play she made."

I don't parse that as Sauron calling Shelob his cat. I read "he" in
"he calls her" as referring back to "a man", not Sauron. In other
words, Tolkien is likening Sauron + Shelob to a man + a cat. But "she
owns him not" means "she does not acknowledge him as her owner", in a
now obsolete usage of the verb "own"(*) -- just as a man tosses
treats to a cat who does not acknowledge him, Sauron tosses prisoners
to Shelob, who is not loyal to _him_.

(*) The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't even
list this meaning, and neither does the 5th(**). But there's an old
hymn in my Lutheran hymnal -- it dates back to the early 1970s, so
they're all old -- with the line "I own no other master", meaning "I
acknowledge no other master" than Jesus.

(**) https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=own

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Wayne Brown
LOTR said that Sauron sometimes referred to Shelob as "my cat" so
perhaps he had a fondness for them.

"And sometimes as a man may cast a dainty to his cat (his cat he
calls her, but she owns him not) Sauron would send her prisoners that
he had no better uses for: he would have them driven to her hole, and
report brought back to him of the play she made."
I don't parse that as Sauron calling Shelob his cat. I read "he" in
"he calls her" as referring back to "a man", not Sauron. In other
words, Tolkien is likening Sauron + Shelob to a man + a cat. But "she
owns him not" means "she does not acknowledge him as her owner", in a
now obsolete usage of the verb "own"(*) -- just as a man tosses
treats to a cat who does not acknowledge him, Sauron tosses prisoners
to Shelob, who is not loyal to _him_.
(*) The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't even
list this meaning, and neither does the 5th(**). But there's an old
hymn in my Lutheran hymnal -- it dates back to the early 1970s, so
they're all old -- with the line "I own no other master", meaning "I
acknowledge no other master" than Jesus.
(**) https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=own

The Four Wise Clerks of Oxenford own it. Definition 6c (2nd ed.), 4c (3rd).

[Bill O'Meally]

Post by Stan Brown
I don't parse that as Sauron calling Shelob his cat. I read "he" in
"he calls her" as referring back to "a man", not Sauron. In other
words, Tolkien is likening Sauron + Shelob to a man + a cat. But "she
owns him not" means "she does not acknowledge him as her owner", in a
now obsolete usage of the verb "own"(*) -- just as a man tosses
treats to a cat who does not acknowledge him, Sauron tosses prisoners
to Shelob, who is not loyal to _him_.
(*) The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't even
list this meaning, and neither does the 5th(**). But there's an old
hymn in my Lutheran hymnal -- it dates back to the early 1970s, so
they're all old -- with the line "I own no other master", meaning "I
acknowledge no other master" than Jesus.
(**) https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=own

Sure it does Stan. Under the heading for "verb tr.", 2. "to admit as
being in accordance with fact, truth, or a claim; achnowledge"

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Stan Brown
I don't parse that as Sauron calling Shelob his cat. I read "he" in
"he calls her" as referring back to "a man", not Sauron. In other
words, Tolkien is likening Sauron + Shelob to a man + a cat. But "she
owns him not" means "she does not acknowledge him as her owner", in a
now obsolete usage of the verb "own"(*) -- just as a man tosses
treats to a cat who does not acknowledge him, Sauron tosses prisoners
to Shelob, who is not loyal to _him_.
(*) The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't even
list this meaning, and neither does the 5th(**). But there's an old
hymn in my Lutheran hymnal -- it dates back to the early 1970s, so
they're all old -- with the line "I own no other master", meaning "I
acknowledge no other master" than Jesus.
(**) https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=own

Sure it does Stan. Under the heading for "verb tr.", 2. "to admit as
being in accordance with fact, truth, or a claim; achnowledge"

No, the meaning in question is, “To acknowledge as having supremacy,
authority, or power over oneself”, which the determinedly middlebrow AHD
does not include.

[Bill O'Meally]

Post by John W Kennedy
No, the meaning in question is, “To acknowledge as having supremacy,
authority, or power over oneself”, which the determinedly middlebrow
AHD does not include.

OK. Where is that definition from? It goes a step beyond simply "to
acknowledge", indeed, including it in the definition.

[Paul S. Person]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 09:37:36 -0400, Bill O'Meally

Post by Bill O'Meally

No, the meaning in question is, “To acknowledge as having supremacy,
authority, or power over oneself”, which the determinedly middlebrow
AHD does not include.

OK. Where is that definition from? It goes a step beyond simply "to
acknowledge", indeed, including it in the definition.

I don't know where it came from, but it does capture the apparent
meaning of "own" in the text cited.

And what else could it mean? The cat certainly does not possess
("own") the man.

And I hardly thing the cat "owns" the man in the sense of "owning" its
feelings.

OTOH, you have a good question here, as the need to elaborate "own"
beyond "acknowledge" is not clear. Perhaps the concept of /implied
meaning/ has vanished on rabt.

[Bill O'Meally]

Post by Paul S. Person
I don't know where it came from, but it does capture the apparent
meaning of "own" in the text cited.

That I know. The question is whether, in this case, "own" means simply
"to acknowledge" vs. "to acknowledge as being superior" or something
along those lines.

Post by Paul S. Person
And what else could it mean? The cat certainly does not possess
("own") the man.
And I hardly thing the cat "owns" the man in the sense of "owning" its
feelings.
OTOH, you have a good question here, as the need to elaborate "own"
beyond "acknowledge" is not clear. Perhaps the concept of /implied
meaning/ has vanished on rabt.

I think that Shelob not even acknowledging Sauron takes it to the next
degree of apathy than simply not acknowledging him as her Lord or
superior.

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 19:06:10 -0400, Bill O'Meally

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Paul S. Person
I don't know where it came from, but it does capture the apparent
meaning of "own" in the text cited.

That I know. The question is whether, in this case, "own" means simply
"to acknowledge" vs. "to acknowledge as being superior" or something
along those lines.

It means that the cat does not acknowledge or accept the relationship
that the man implies by calling it "his" cat.

My dictionary (COD) has "acknowledge authorship, paternity or
posession" or "admit as existent, valid, true etc" as in "owns his
deficiencies" "owns himself indebted" etc.

[Paul S. Person]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 19:06:10 -0400, Bill O'Meally

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Paul S. Person
I don't know where it came from, but it does capture the apparent
meaning of "own" in the text cited.

That I know. The question is whether, in this case, "own" means simply
"to acknowledge" vs. "to acknowledge as being superior" or something
along those lines.

As in "acknowledge his existence"? I suppose that is a possible
meaning.

The problem then is, of course:
if we have two possible meanings for "own him", one being "acknowledge
his existence" and the other being "acknowledge him as master", how
can we choose between them? What contextual clue would tip it one way
or the other?

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Paul S. Person
And what else could it mean? The cat certainly does not possess
("own") the man.
And I hardly thing the cat "owns" the man in the sense of "owning" its
feelings.
OTOH, you have a good question here, as the need to elaborate "own"
beyond "acknowledge" is not clear. Perhaps the concept of /implied
meaning/ has vanished on rabt.

I think that Shelob not even acknowledging Sauron takes it to the next
degree of apathy than simply not acknowledging him as her Lord or
superior.

Fair enough.

[Bill O'Meally]

Post by Paul S. Person
if we have two possible meanings for "own him", one being "acknowledge
his existence" and the other being "acknowledge him as master", how
can we choose between them? What contextual clue would tip it one way
or the other?

Well said. That is exactly what I have been trying to ask.

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 20:32:02 -0400, Bill O'Meally

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Paul S. Person
if we have two possible meanings for "own him", one being "acknowledge
his existence" and the other being "acknowledge him as master", how
can we choose between them? What contextual clue would tip it one way
or the other?

Well said. That is exactly what I have been trying to ask.

The contextual clue is in the context, where else would it be?

The relationship between Shelob and Sauron is likened to the
relationship between a man and his cat. The man thinks of the cat as
"his", but the cat does not see the relationship in those terms. The
cat is aware of the man's existence, but does not acknowledge him has
her master or owner. The cat is self-possessed and independent.

It is not the existence of the "owner" that the cat does not
acknowledge, but his status.

[Paul S. Person]

On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 04:59:41 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 20:32:02 -0400, Bill O'Meally

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Paul S. Person
if we have two possible meanings for "own him", one being "acknowledge
his existence" and the other being "acknowledge him as master", how
can we choose between them? What contextual clue would tip it one way
or the other?

Well said. That is exactly what I have been trying to ask.

The contextual clue is in the context, where else would it be?
The relationship between Shelob and Sauron is likened to the
relationship between a man and his cat. The man thinks of the cat as
"his", but the cat does not see the relationship in those terms. The
cat is aware of the man's existence, but does not acknowledge him has
her master or owner. The cat is self-possessed and independent.

And you have some evidence that the cat knows his owner exists?

Since it is an analogy we are dealing with, I will defer the question
of whether Shelob knows that Sauron exists.

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 09:08:33 -0700, Paul S. Person

Post by Paul S. Person
On Wed, 07 Jun 2017 04:59:41 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 20:32:02 -0400, Bill O'Meally

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Paul S. Person
if we have two possible meanings for "own him", one being "acknowledge
his existence" and the other being "acknowledge him as master", how
can we choose between them? What contextual clue would tip it one way
or the other?

Well said. That is exactly what I have been trying to ask.

The contextual clue is in the context, where else would it be?
The relationship between Shelob and Sauron is likened to the
relationship between a man and his cat. The man thinks of the cat as
"his", but the cat does not see the relationship in those terms. The
cat is aware of the man's existence, but does not acknowledge him has
her master or owner. The cat is self-possessed and independent.

And you have some evidence that the cat knows his owner exists?

About as much evidence as I have for the owner knowing that the cat
exists.

That's really a question you should ask Tolkien, since we're
discussing what he wrote (if he existed).

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by John W Kennedy
No, the meaning in question is, “To acknowledge as having supremacy,
authority, or power over oneself”, which the determinedly middlebrow
AHD does not include.

OK. Where is that definition from? It goes a step beyond simply "to
acknowledge", indeed, including it in the definition.

Quoted verbatim from the OED 3rd Edition.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Stan Brown
I don't parse that as Sauron calling Shelob his cat. I read "he" in
"he calls her" as referring back to "a man", not Sauron. In other
words, Tolkien is likening Sauron + Shelob to a man + a cat. But "she
owns him not" means "she does not acknowledge him as her owner", in a
now obsolete usage of the verb "own"(*) -- just as a man tosses
treats to a cat who does not acknowledge him, Sauron tosses prisoners
to Shelob, who is not loyal to _him_.
(*) The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't even
list this meaning, and neither does the 5th(**). But there's an old
hymn in my Lutheran hymnal -- it dates back to the early 1970s, so
they're all old -- with the line "I own no other master", meaning "I
acknowledge no other master" than Jesus.
(**) https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=own

Sure it does Stan. Under the heading for "verb tr.", 2. "to admit as
being in accordance with fact, truth, or a claim; achnowledge"

Related, but not the same, I think. The cited meaning is not
consistent with a person as direct object of the verb "own".

[Bill O'Meally]

Post by Stan Brown
Related, but not the same, I think. The cited meaning is not
consistent with a person as direct object of the verb "own".

Have you seen a definition where the object is specifically a person?

Granted, it was probably not until my 3rd or fourth reading of LotR
that I read the passage correctly. I had always read it (in my noggin,
that is) as "His cat he calls her but *he* owns her not", using *owns*
as meaning *posesses*. The word "own" as meaning "acknowledge" was new
to me in my teens, but I got the meaning. Does the object being
acknowledged being a person vs. fact, truth, or claim change the
meaning that much? "His cat he calles her, but she [acknowledges] him
not".

[Stan Brown]

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Stan Brown
Related, but not the same, I think. The cited meaning is not
consistent with a person as direct object of the verb "own".

Have you seen a definition where the object is specifically a
person?

Definition, no. Usages, yes, though the hymn was old and Tolkien
deliberately uses semi-archaic language. In both cases, the direct
object was not a proposition, as in your definition, but a person.

[Bill O'Meally]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Stan Brown
Related, but not the same, I think. The cited meaning is not
consistent with a person as direct object of the verb "own".

Have you seen a definition where the object is specifically a
person?

Definition, no. Usages, yes, though the hymn was old and Tolkien
deliberately uses semi-archaic language. In both cases, the direct
object was not a proposition, as in your definition, but a person.

But my example, which you snipped, was consistent with the usage.
Shelob did not acknowledge Sauron.

[Bill O'Meally]

Post by Stan Brown
Definition, no. Usages, yes, though the hymn was old and Tolkien
deliberately uses semi-archaic language. In both cases, the direct
object was not a proposition, as in your definition, but a person.

Ah, I stand corrected, or at least enlightened. From Dictionary.com of
all places:

5. to acknowledge as one's own; recognize as having full
claim,authority, power, dominion, etc.:
He owned his child before the entire assembly. They owned the king as
their lord.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/own

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 10:14:59 -0400, Bill O'Meally

Post by Bill O'Meally

Post by Stan Brown
Definition, no. Usages, yes, though the hymn was old and Tolkien
deliberately uses semi-archaic language. In both cases, the direct
object was not a proposition, as in your definition, but a person.

Ah, I stand corrected, or at least enlightened. From Dictionary.com of
5. to acknowledge as one's own; recognize as having full
He owned his child before the entire assembly. They owned the king as
their lord.

And from a hymn somewhere:

and things in hell's abyss abhorred,
May bend the knee and own him Lord.

[John W Kennedy]

Related, but not the same, I think.The cited meaning is not
consistent with a person as direct object of the verb "own".
Have you seen a definition where the object is specifically a person?

You mean like the one I cited in this very thread a day ago?

Granted, it was probably not until my 3rd or fourth reading of LotR that
I read the passage correctly. I had always read it (in my noggin, that
is) as "His cat he calls her but *he* owns her not", using *owns* as
meaning *posesses*. The word "own" as meaning "acknowledge" was new to
me in my teens, but I got the meaning. Does the object being
acknowledged being a person vs. fact, truth, or claim change the meaning
that much? "His cat he calles her, but she [acknowledges] him not".
--
Bill O'Meally

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 22:01:21 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Wayne Brown
LOTR said that Sauron sometimes referred to Shelob as "my cat" so
perhaps he had a fondness for them.

"And sometimes as a man may cast a dainty to his cat (his cat he
calls her, but she owns him not) Sauron would send her prisoners that
he had no better uses for: he would have them driven to her hole, and
report brought back to him of the play she made."
I don't parse that as Sauron calling Shelob his cat. I read "he" in
"he calls her" as referring back to "a man", not Sauron. In other
words, Tolkien is likening Sauron + Shelob to a man + a cat. But "she
owns him not" means "she does not acknowledge him as her owner", in a
now obsolete usage of the verb "own"(*) -- just as a man tosses
treats to a cat who does not acknowledge him, Sauron tosses prisoners
to Shelob, who is not loyal to _him_.
(*) The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't even
list this meaning, and neither does the 5th(**). But there's an old
hymn in my Lutheran hymnal -- it dates back to the early 1970s, so
they're all old -- with the line "I own no other master", meaning "I
acknowledge no other master" than Jesus.

I must really be obsolete then, since I don't regard that use of "own"
as obsolete, and I'm sure it wasn't so regarded when Tolkien wrote it.
But then I can remember the 1970s, and perhaps it seems obsolete to
those born after that time.

When I was a child, the term "own up" was quite common, meaning to
acknowledge that one had done something wrong. Does no one use it
nowadays?

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 31 May 2017 22:01:21 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Wayne Brown
LOTR said that Sauron sometimes referred to Shelob as "my cat" so
perhaps he had a fondness for them.

"And sometimes as a man may cast a dainty to his cat (his cat he
calls her, but she owns him not) Sauron would send her prisoners that
he had no better uses for: he would have them driven to her hole, and
report brought back to him of the play she made."
I don't parse that as Sauron calling Shelob his cat. I read "he" in
"he calls her" as referring back to "a man", not Sauron. In other
words, Tolkien is likening Sauron + Shelob to a man + a cat. But "she
owns him not" means "she does not acknowledge him as her owner", in a
now obsolete usage of the verb "own"(*) -- just as a man tosses
treats to a cat who does not acknowledge him, Sauron tosses prisoners
to Shelob, who is not loyal to _him_.
(*) The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't even
list this meaning, and neither does the 5th(**). But there's an old
hymn in my Lutheran hymnal -- it dates back to the early 1970s, so
they're all old -- with the line "I own no other master", meaning "I
acknowledge no other master" than Jesus.

I must really be obsolete then, since I don't regard that use of "own"
as obsolete, and I'm sure it wasn't so regarded when Tolkien wrote it.
But then I can remember the 1970s, and perhaps it seems obsolete to
those born after that time.

The Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Edition) lists it as “somewhat archaic”.

Post by Steve Hayes
When I was a child, the term "own up" was quite common, meaning to
acknowledge that one had done something wrong. Does no one use it
nowadays?

That’s not precisely the same meaning. The one we’re discussing is “Own”
4c. “Own up” is a separate entry, and marked “U.S. colloquial”.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 23:24:12 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Steve Hayes
On Wed, 31 May 2017 22:01:21 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Wayne Brown
LOTR said that Sauron sometimes referred to Shelob as "my cat" so
perhaps he had a fondness for them.

"And sometimes as a man may cast a dainty to his cat (his cat he
calls her, but she owns him not) Sauron would send her prisoners that
he had no better uses for: he would have them driven to her hole, and
report brought back to him of the play she made."
I don't parse that as Sauron calling Shelob his cat. I read "he" in
"he calls her" as referring back to "a man", not Sauron. In other
words, Tolkien is likening Sauron + Shelob to a man + a cat. But "she
owns him not" means "she does not acknowledge him as her owner", in a
now obsolete usage of the verb "own"(*) -- just as a man tosses
treats to a cat who does not acknowledge him, Sauron tosses prisoners
to Shelob, who is not loyal to _him_.
(*) The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't even
list this meaning, and neither does the 5th(**). But there's an old
hymn in my Lutheran hymnal -- it dates back to the early 1970s, so
they're all old -- with the line "I own no other master", meaning "I
acknowledge no other master" than Jesus.

I must really be obsolete then, since I don't regard that use of "own"
as obsolete, and I'm sure it wasn't so regarded when Tolkien wrote it.
But then I can remember the 1970s, and perhaps it seems obsolete to
those born after that time.

The Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Edition) lists it as “somewhat archaic”.

Post by Steve Hayes
When I was a child, the term "own up" was quite common, meaning to
acknowledge that one had done something wrong. Does no one use it
nowadays?

That’s not precisely the same meaning. The one we’re discussing is “Own”
4c. “Own up” is a separate entry, and marked “U.S. colloquial”.

Not precisely, no, but in the same general sense. And even though my
dictionary says "colloq", that implies that it is not obsolete.

And in the more formal sense, a Google search from "own him Lord" will
produce quite a lot of results.

And a search for "owns him not" will show that there has been quite a
lot of discussion of this very topic. It also produces the example
sentence:

"In all the years he'd served her, she'd never owned him until three
weeks ago."

I take that to mean that she'd never acknowledged his service, but it
could be read another way.

[Paul S. Person]

On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 04:21:14 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 4 Jun 2017 23:24:12 -0400, John W Kennedy

<snippo>

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
When I was a child, the term "own up" was quite common, meaning to
acknowledge that one had done something wrong. Does no one use it
nowadays?

That’s not precisely the same meaning. The one we’re discussing is “Own”
4c. “Own up” is a separate entry, and marked “U.S. colloquial”.

Not precisely, no, but in the same general sense. And even though my
dictionary says "colloq", that implies that it is not obsolete.
And in the more formal sense, a Google search from "own him Lord" will
produce quite a lot of results.
And a search for "owns him not" will show that there has been quite a
lot of discussion of this very topic. It also produces the example
"In all the years he'd served her, she'd never owned him until three
weeks ago."
I take that to mean that she'd never acknowledged his service, but it
could be read another way.

It certainly could.

For example, it could mean that she finally finished paying the slave
dealer she bought him from off and so owns him free-and-clear.

[Wayne Brown]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Wayne Brown
LOTR said that Sauron sometimes referred to Shelob as "my cat" so
perhaps he had a fondness for them.

"And sometimes as a man may cast a dainty to his cat (his cat he
calls her, but she owns him not) Sauron would send her prisoners that
he had no better uses for: he would have them driven to her hole, and
report brought back to him of the play she made."
I don't parse that as Sauron calling Shelob his cat. I read "he" in
"he calls her" as referring back to "a man", not Sauron. In other
words, Tolkien is likening Sauron + Shelob to a man + a cat. But "she
owns him not" means "she does not acknowledge him as her owner", in a
now obsolete usage of the verb "own"(*) -- just as a man tosses
treats to a cat who does not acknowledge him, Sauron tosses prisoners
to Shelob, who is not loyal to _him_.
(*) The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't even
list this meaning, and neither does the 5th(**). But there's an old
hymn in my Lutheran hymnal -- it dates back to the early 1970s, so
they're all old -- with the line "I own no other master", meaning "I
acknowledge no other master" than Jesus.
(**) https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=own

I agree with your interpretation of "she owns him not" but I see it
as referring to Shelob and Sauron rather than to the hypothetical man
and his cat. That is, I read it as equivalent to "And sometimes as
a man may cast a dainty to his cat (and by the way, Sauron refers
condescendingly to Shelob as 'his cat' even though she doesn't
acknowledge him as her master)..."

[Stan Brown]

Post by Wayne Brown
I agree with your interpretation of "she owns him not" but I see it
as referring to Shelob and Sauron rather than to the hypothetical man
and his cat. That is, I read it as equivalent to "And sometimes as
a man may cast a dainty to his cat (and by the way, Sauron refers
condescendingly to Shelob as 'his cat' even though she doesn't
acknowledge him as her master)..."

I don't think that's Sauron referring to her as "his cat"; I think
it's the narrator. This is one of the spots where it's not really
clear to me who _is_ meant to be the narrator. Somehow I don't think
it fits with the idea of Frodo narrating, though I suppose it's not
impossible.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Wayne Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Wayne Brown
LOTR said that Sauron sometimes referred to Shelob as "my cat" so
perhaps he had a fondness for them.

"And sometimes as a man may cast a dainty to his cat (his cat he
calls her, but she owns him not) Sauron would send her prisoners that
he had no better uses for: he would have them driven to her hole, and
report brought back to him of the play she made."
I don't parse that as Sauron calling Shelob his cat. I read "he" in
"he calls her" as referring back to "a man", not Sauron. In other
words, Tolkien is likening Sauron + Shelob to a man + a cat. But "she
owns him not" means "she does not acknowledge him as her owner", in a
now obsolete usage of the verb "own"(*) -- just as a man tosses
treats to a cat who does not acknowledge him, Sauron tosses prisoners
to Shelob, who is not loyal to _him_.
(*) The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't even
list this meaning, and neither does the 5th(**). But there's an old
hymn in my Lutheran hymnal -- it dates back to the early 1970s, so
they're all old -- with the line "I own no other master", meaning "I
acknowledge no other master" than Jesus.
(**) https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=own

I agree with your interpretation of "she owns him not" but I see it
as referring to Shelob and Sauron rather than to the hypothetical man
and his cat. That is, I read it as equivalent to "And sometimes as
a man may cast a dainty to his cat (and by the way, Sauron refers
condescendingly to Shelob as 'his cat' even though she doesn't
acknowledge him as her master)..."

But whether it be Tolkien or Frodo who is writing, the jump in tense is
neither normal English nor at all typical of The Lord of the Rings.
Sauron is known to be dead, and Shelob is at least presumed dead.

[Stan Brown]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Wayne Brown
I agree with your interpretation of "she owns him not" but I see it
as referring to Shelob and Sauron rather than to the hypothetical man
and his cat. That is, I read it as equivalent to "And sometimes as
a man may cast a dainty to his cat (and by the way, Sauron refers
condescendingly to Shelob as 'his cat' even though she doesn't
acknowledge him as her master)..."

But whether it be Tolkien or Frodo who is writing, the jump in tense is
neither normal English nor at all typical of The Lord of the Rings.
Sauron is known to be dead, and Shelob is at least presumed dead.

Can you say more about the jump in tense you're referring to? I must
be missing something. I see "Sauron would send" and "the play she
made", both appropriate for events in the past. "A man may cast" and
"he calls her" are both, I think, appropriate for a general rule --
the narrator is referring to a hypothetical man and cat, not any
particular individuals.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Wayne Brown
I agree with your interpretation of "she owns him not" but I see it
as referring to Shelob and Sauron rather than to the hypothetical man
and his cat. That is, I read it as equivalent to "And sometimes as
a man may cast a dainty to his cat (and by the way, Sauron refers
condescendingly to Shelob as 'his cat' even though she doesn't
acknowledge him as her master)..."

But whether it be Tolkien or Frodo who is writing, the jump in tense is
neither normal English nor at all typical of The Lord of the Rings.
Sauron is known to be dead, and Shelob is at least presumed dead.

Can you say more about the jump in tense you're referring to? I must
be missing something. I see "Sauron would send" and "the play she
made", both appropriate for events in the past. "A man may cast" and
"he calls her" are both, I think, appropriate for a general rule --
the narrator is referring to a hypothetical man and cat, not any
particular individuals.

That’s my point.

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:38:02 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Wayne Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Wayne Brown
LOTR said that Sauron sometimes referred to Shelob as "my cat" so
perhaps he had a fondness for them.

"And sometimes as a man may cast a dainty to his cat (his cat he
calls her, but she owns him not) Sauron would send her prisoners that
he had no better uses for: he would have them driven to her hole, and
report brought back to him of the play she made."
I don't parse that as Sauron calling Shelob his cat. I read "he" in
"he calls her" as referring back to "a man", not Sauron. In other
words, Tolkien is likening Sauron + Shelob to a man + a cat. But "she
owns him not" means "she does not acknowledge him as her owner", in a
now obsolete usage of the verb "own"(*) -- just as a man tosses
treats to a cat who does not acknowledge him, Sauron tosses prisoners
to Shelob, who is not loyal to _him_.
(*) The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't even
list this meaning, and neither does the 5th(**). But there's an old
hymn in my Lutheran hymnal -- it dates back to the early 1970s, so
they're all old -- with the line "I own no other master", meaning "I
acknowledge no other master" than Jesus.
(**) https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=own

I agree with your interpretation of "she owns him not" but I see it
as referring to Shelob and Sauron rather than to the hypothetical man
and his cat. That is, I read it as equivalent to "And sometimes as
a man may cast a dainty to his cat (and by the way, Sauron refers
condescendingly to Shelob as 'his cat' even though she doesn't
acknowledge him as her master)..."

But whether it be Tolkien or Frodo who is writing, the jump in tense is
neither normal English nor at all typical of The Lord of the Rings.
Sauron is known to be dead, and Shelob is at least presumed dead.

At which point is Sauron known to be dead?

At that point in the story both Shelob and Sauron were alive. I don't
see any jump in tense that would imply that they were not. It is part
of the "backstory", explaining to the reader the origin of Shelob,
into whose lair Frodo and Sam have been led by Gollum.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:38:02 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Wayne Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Wayne Brown
LOTR said that Sauron sometimes referred to Shelob as "my cat" so
perhaps he had a fondness for them.

"And sometimes as a man may cast a dainty to his cat (his cat he
calls her, but she owns him not) Sauron would send her prisoners that
he had no better uses for: he would have them driven to her hole, and
report brought back to him of the play she made."
I don't parse that as Sauron calling Shelob his cat. I read "he" in
"he calls her" as referring back to "a man", not Sauron. In other
words, Tolkien is likening Sauron + Shelob to a man + a cat. But "she
owns him not" means "she does not acknowledge him as her owner", in a
now obsolete usage of the verb "own"(*) -- just as a man tosses
treats to a cat who does not acknowledge him, Sauron tosses prisoners
to Shelob, who is not loyal to _him_.
(*) The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't even
list this meaning, and neither does the 5th(**). But there's an old
hymn in my Lutheran hymnal -- it dates back to the early 1970s, so
they're all old -- with the line "I own no other master", meaning "I
acknowledge no other master" than Jesus.
(**) https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=own

I agree with your interpretation of "she owns him not" but I see it
as referring to Shelob and Sauron rather than to the hypothetical man
and his cat. That is, I read it as equivalent to "And sometimes as
a man may cast a dainty to his cat (and by the way, Sauron refers
condescendingly to Shelob as 'his cat' even though she doesn't
acknowledge him as her master)..."

But whether it be Tolkien or Frodo who is writing, the jump in tense is
neither normal English nor at all typical of The Lord of the Rings.
Sauron is known to be dead, and Shelob is at least presumed dead.

At which point is Sauron known to be dead?
At that point in the story both Shelob and Sauron were alive. I don't
see any jump in tense that would imply that they were not. It is part
of the "backstory", explaining to the reader the origin of Shelob,
into whose lair Frodo and Sam have been led by Gollum.

At the point where either Frodo or Tolkien is writing the story. The
narrative of “The Lord of the Rings” is plain-vanilla past tense, as is
the overwhelming majority of English-language fiction. But this one
parenthetical remark is in present tense. By all the normal rules of
English grammar, this can apply to nothing else but the hypothetical man
with his hypothetical cat.

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:32:10 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:38:02 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Wayne Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Wayne Brown
LOTR said that Sauron sometimes referred to Shelob as "my cat" so
perhaps he had a fondness for them.

"And sometimes as a man may cast a dainty to his cat (his cat he
calls her, but she owns him not) Sauron would send her prisoners that
he had no better uses for: he would have them driven to her hole, and
report brought back to him of the play she made."
I don't parse that as Sauron calling Shelob his cat. I read "he" in
"he calls her" as referring back to "a man", not Sauron. In other
words, Tolkien is likening Sauron + Shelob to a man + a cat. But "she
owns him not" means "she does not acknowledge him as her owner", in a
now obsolete usage of the verb "own"(*) -- just as a man tosses
treats to a cat who does not acknowledge him, Sauron tosses prisoners
to Shelob, who is not loyal to _him_.
(*) The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't even
list this meaning, and neither does the 5th(**). But there's an old
hymn in my Lutheran hymnal -- it dates back to the early 1970s, so
they're all old -- with the line "I own no other master", meaning "I
acknowledge no other master" than Jesus.
(**) https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=own

I agree with your interpretation of "she owns him not" but I see it
as referring to Shelob and Sauron rather than to the hypothetical man
and his cat. That is, I read it as equivalent to "And sometimes as
a man may cast a dainty to his cat (and by the way, Sauron refers
condescendingly to Shelob as 'his cat' even though she doesn't
acknowledge him as her master)..."

But whether it be Tolkien or Frodo who is writing, the jump in tense is
neither normal English nor at all typical of The Lord of the Rings.
Sauron is known to be dead, and Shelob is at least presumed dead.

At which point is Sauron known to be dead?
At that point in the story both Shelob and Sauron were alive. I don't
see any jump in tense that would imply that they were not. It is part
of the "backstory", explaining to the reader the origin of Shelob,
into whose lair Frodo and Sam have been led by Gollum.

At the point where either Frodo or Tolkien is writing the story. The
narrative of “The Lord of the Rings” is plain-vanilla past tense, as is
the overwhelming majority of English-language fiction. But this one
parenthetical remark is in present tense. By all the normal rules of
English grammar, this can apply to nothing else but the hypothetical man
with his hypothetical cat.

I don't see anything abnormal about it.

The whole passage of which it forms part is a kind of aside to the
reader to explain what Sam and Frodo didn't know at the time. So much
of it is in a tense describing something that happened in the past but
continues in the present. It explains that neither Sauron nor Gollum
were in cahoots with Shelob (thought Gollum appears to have had some
sort of understanding with her), but knew what she was like, and that
she could be expected to behave in certain ways. Gollum expected her
to devour Frodo and spit out the pips, and hoped that his precious
would be among them. But whatever she did, Shelob would feel under no
obligation to let Sauron know what had happened. Shewas not beholden
to him in any way.

But I've never seen anything odd about the construction of the tense.

Aside: is it merely a random coincidence that there are two films on
monstrous spiders being shown on TV this week -- Lavalantulas and
Arachnoquake?

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:32:10 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:38:02 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Wayne Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Wayne Brown
LOTR said that Sauron sometimes referred to Shelob as "my cat" so
perhaps he had a fondness for them.

"And sometimes as a man may cast a dainty to his cat (his cat he
calls her, but she owns him not) Sauron would send her prisoners that
he had no better uses for: he would have them driven to her hole, and
report brought back to him of the play she made."
I don't parse that as Sauron calling Shelob his cat. I read "he" in
"he calls her" as referring back to "a man", not Sauron. In other
words, Tolkien is likening Sauron + Shelob to a man + a cat. But "she
owns him not" means "she does not acknowledge him as her owner", in a
now obsolete usage of the verb "own"(*) -- just as a man tosses
treats to a cat who does not acknowledge him, Sauron tosses prisoners
to Shelob, who is not loyal to _him_.
(*) The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't even
list this meaning, and neither does the 5th(**). But there's an old
hymn in my Lutheran hymnal -- it dates back to the early 1970s, so
they're all old -- with the line "I own no other master", meaning "I
acknowledge no other master" than Jesus.
(**) https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=own

I agree with your interpretation of "she owns him not" but I see it
as referring to Shelob and Sauron rather than to the hypothetical man
and his cat. That is, I read it as equivalent to "And sometimes as
a man may cast a dainty to his cat (and by the way, Sauron refers
condescendingly to Shelob as 'his cat' even though she doesn't
acknowledge him as her master)..."

But whether it be Tolkien or Frodo who is writing, the jump in tense is
neither normal English nor at all typical of The Lord of the Rings.
Sauron is known to be dead, and Shelob is at least presumed dead.

At which point is Sauron known to be dead?
At that point in the story both Shelob and Sauron were alive. I don't
see any jump in tense that would imply that they were not. It is part
of the "backstory", explaining to the reader the origin of Shelob,
into whose lair Frodo and Sam have been led by Gollum.

At the point where either Frodo or Tolkien is writing the story. The
narrative of “The Lord of the Rings” is plain-vanilla past tense, as is
the overwhelming majority of English-language fiction. But this one
parenthetical remark is in present tense. By all the normal rules of
English grammar, this can apply to nothing else but the hypothetical man
with his hypothetical cat.

I don't see anything abnormal about it.
The whole passage of which it forms part is a kind of aside to the
reader to explain what Sam and Frodo didn't know at the time. So much
of it is in a tense describing something that happened in the past but
continues in the present. It explains that neither Sauron nor Gollum
were in cahoots with Shelob (thought Gollum appears to have had some
sort of understanding with her), but knew what she was like, and that
she could be expected to behave in certain ways. Gollum expected her
to devour Frodo and spit out the pips, and hoped that his precious
would be among them. But whatever she did, Shelob would feel under no
obligation to let Sauron know what had happened. Shewas not beholden
to him in any way.
But I've never seen anything odd about the construction of the tense.

In literate English, you don’t suddenly jump out of the past tense into
the present tense for one sentence while still speaking of past events.

“Hitler despised Communism in all its forms, and Operation Barbarossa
was his ultimate plan all along. He hates Stalin. Therefore, even though
his fight against Britain was still undone, he attacked on Sunday, 22
June 1941, in full force.”

If your elementary-school English doesn’t tell you that “hates” should
be “hated”, above, I can’t help you.

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:41:45 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Steve Hayes
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:32:10 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:38:02 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Wayne Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Wayne Brown
LOTR said that Sauron sometimes referred to Shelob as "my cat" so
perhaps he had a fondness for them.

"And sometimes as a man may cast a dainty to his cat (his cat he
calls her, but she owns him not) Sauron would send her prisoners that
he had no better uses for: he would have them driven to her hole, and
report brought back to him of the play she made."
I don't parse that as Sauron calling Shelob his cat. I read "he" in
"he calls her" as referring back to "a man", not Sauron. In other
words, Tolkien is likening Sauron + Shelob to a man + a cat. But "she
owns him not" means "she does not acknowledge him as her owner", in a
now obsolete usage of the verb "own"(*) -- just as a man tosses
treats to a cat who does not acknowledge him, Sauron tosses prisoners
to Shelob, who is not loyal to _him_.
(*) The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't even
list this meaning, and neither does the 5th(**). But there's an old
hymn in my Lutheran hymnal -- it dates back to the early 1970s, so
they're all old -- with the line "I own no other master", meaning "I
acknowledge no other master" than Jesus.
(**) https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=own

I agree with your interpretation of "she owns him not" but I see it
as referring to Shelob and Sauron rather than to the hypothetical man
and his cat. That is, I read it as equivalent to "And sometimes as
a man may cast a dainty to his cat (and by the way, Sauron refers
condescendingly to Shelob as 'his cat' even though she doesn't
acknowledge him as her master)..."

But whether it be Tolkien or Frodo who is writing, the jump in tense is
neither normal English nor at all typical of The Lord of the Rings.
Sauron is known to be dead, and Shelob is at least presumed dead.

At which point is Sauron known to be dead?
At that point in the story both Shelob and Sauron were alive. I don't
see any jump in tense that would imply that they were not. It is part
of the "backstory", explaining to the reader the origin of Shelob,
into whose lair Frodo and Sam have been led by Gollum.

At the point where either Frodo or Tolkien is writing the story. The
narrative of “The Lord of the Rings” is plain-vanilla past tense, as is
the overwhelming majority of English-language fiction. But this one
parenthetical remark is in present tense. By all the normal rules of
English grammar, this can apply to nothing else but the hypothetical man
with his hypothetical cat.

I don't see anything abnormal about it.
The whole passage of which it forms part is a kind of aside to the
reader to explain what Sam and Frodo didn't know at the time. So much
of it is in a tense describing something that happened in the past but
continues in the present. It explains that neither Sauron nor Gollum
were in cahoots with Shelob (thought Gollum appears to have had some
sort of understanding with her), but knew what she was like, and that
she could be expected to behave in certain ways. Gollum expected her
to devour Frodo and spit out the pips, and hoped that his precious
would be among them. But whatever she did, Shelob would feel under no
obligation to let Sauron know what had happened. Shewas not beholden
to him in any way.
But I've never seen anything odd about the construction of the tense.

In literate English, you don’t suddenly jump out of the past tense into
the present tense for one sentence while still speaking of past events.
“Hitler despised Communism in all its forms, and Operation Barbarossa
was his ultimate plan all along. He hates Stalin. Therefore, even though
his fight against Britain was still undone, he attacked on Sunday, 22
June 1941, in full force.”
If your elementary-school English doesn’t tell you that “hates” should
be “hated”, above, I can’t help you.

There's no need to be insulting.

Of course my elementary school English tells me that, but that is in
no way analogous to the passage in "The Lord of the Rings" that we are
discussing.

Try this:

“Hitler despised Communism in all its forms, and Operation Barbarossa
was his ultimate plan all along. He hated Stalin (as a man hates
someone who is more similar to him than he cares to admit). Therefore,
even though his fight against Britain was still undone, he attacked on
Sunday, 22 June 1941, in full force.”

Try putting the parenthesis I have added into the past tense and see
how good it looks.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:41:45 -0400, John W Kennedy

If your elementary-school English doesn?t tell you that ?hates? should
be ?hated?, above, I can?t help you.

There's no need to be insulting.
Of course my elementary school English tells me that, but that is in
no way analogous to the passage in "The Lord of the Rings" that we are
discussing.
?Hitler despised Communism in all its forms, and Operation Barbarossa
was his ultimate plan all along. He hated Stalin (as a man hates
someone who is more similar to him than he cares to admit). Therefore,
even though his fight against Britain was still undone, he attacked on
Sunday, 22 June 1941, in full force.?

That is much more on point. And of course "as a man hated" would be
quite wrong.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 06:28:38 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:41:45 -0400, John W Kennedy

If your elementary-school English doesn?t tell you that ?hates? should
be ?hated?, above, I can?t help you.

There's no need to be insulting.
Of course my elementary school English tells me that, but that is in
no way analogous to the passage in "The Lord of the Rings" that we are
discussing.
?Hitler despised Communism in all its forms, and Operation Barbarossa
was his ultimate plan all along. He hated Stalin (as a man hates
someone who is more similar to him than he cares to admit). Therefore,
even though his fight against Britain was still undone, he attacked on
Sunday, 22 June 1941, in full force.?

That is much more on point. And of course "as a man hated" would be
quite wrong.

The grammatical point being that it is quite possible, and sometimes
necessary, for a parenthesis to have a different tense from the rest
of the sentence.

If people are having trouble grasping that, no wonder they are having
difficulty in parsing Tolkien's aside about the cat, which is
bog-standard English usage.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 06:28:38 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:41:45 -0400, John W Kennedy

If your elementary-school English doesn?t tell you that ?hates? should
be ?hated?, above, I can?t help you.

There's no need to be insulting.
Of course my elementary school English tells me that, but that is in
no way analogous to the passage in "The Lord of the Rings" that we are
discussing.
?Hitler despised Communism in all its forms, and Operation Barbarossa
was his ultimate plan all along. He hated Stalin (as a man hates
someone who is more similar to him than he cares to admit). Therefore,
even though his fight against Britain was still undone, he attacked on
Sunday, 22 June 1941, in full force.?

That is much more on point. And of course "as a man hated" would be
quite wrong.

The grammatical point being that it is quite possible, and sometimes
necessary, for a parenthesis to have a different tense from the rest
of the sentence.
If people are having trouble grasping that, no wonder they are having
difficulty in parsing Tolkien's aside about the cat, which is
bog-standard English usage.

Of course it can. But you are saying that with one element in the past
tense (Sauron and Shelob) and one in the present (the hypothetical man
with his hypothetical cat), that a parenthetical in the present tense
can be taken to be in reference to the former.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 21:10:08 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 06:28:38 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:41:45 -0400, John W Kennedy

If your elementary-school English doesn?t tell you that ?hates? should
be ?hated?, above, I can?t help you.

There's no need to be insulting.
Of course my elementary school English tells me that, but that is in
no way analogous to the passage in "The Lord of the Rings" that we are
discussing.
?Hitler despised Communism in all its forms, and Operation Barbarossa
was his ultimate plan all along. He hated Stalin (as a man hates
someone who is more similar to him than he cares to admit). Therefore,
even though his fight against Britain was still undone, he attacked on
Sunday, 22 June 1941, in full force.?

That is much more on point. And of course "as a man hated" would be
quite wrong.

The grammatical point being that it is quite possible, and sometimes
necessary, for a parenthesis to have a different tense from the rest
of the sentence.
If people are having trouble grasping that, no wonder they are having
difficulty in parsing Tolkien's aside about the cat, which is
bog-standard English usage.

Of course it can. But you are saying that with one element in the past
tense (Sauron and Shelob) and one in the present (the hypothetical man
with his hypothetical cat), that a parenthetical in the present tense
can be taken to be in reference to the former.

Sorry, you've lost me there.

What I am saying is that my parenthesis in your example paragraph
functions in the same way as Tolkien's parenthesis in his description
of the relations between Sauron and Shelob.

It functions as a simile -- comparing the relations between Hitler and
Stalin on the one hand, and Sauron and Shelob on the other, with
something more general.

Tolkien is not (as you seemed to imply) making a grammatical error
that a child in elementary school would know enough to avoid.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 21:10:08 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 06:28:38 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:41:45 -0400, John W Kennedy

If your elementary-school English doesn?t tell you that ?hates? should
be ?hated?, above, I can?t help you.

There's no need to be insulting.
Of course my elementary school English tells me that, but that is in
no way analogous to the passage in "The Lord of the Rings" that we are
discussing.
?Hitler despised Communism in all its forms, and Operation Barbarossa
was his ultimate plan all along. He hated Stalin (as a man hates
someone who is more similar to him than he cares to admit). Therefore,
even though his fight against Britain was still undone, he attacked on
Sunday, 22 June 1941, in full force.?

That is much more on point. And of course "as a man hated" would be
quite wrong.

The grammatical point being that it is quite possible, and sometimes
necessary, for a parenthesis to have a different tense from the rest
of the sentence.
If people are having trouble grasping that, no wonder they are having
difficulty in parsing Tolkien's aside about the cat, which is
bog-standard English usage.

Of course it can. But you are saying that with one element in the past
tense (Sauron and Shelob) and one in the present (the hypothetical man
with his hypothetical cat), that a parenthetical in the present tense
can be taken to be in reference to the former.

Sorry, you've lost me there.
What I am saying is that my parenthesis in your example paragraph
functions in the same way as Tolkien's parenthesis in his description
of the relations between Sauron and Shelob.
It functions as a simile -- comparing the relations between Hitler and
Stalin on the one hand, and Sauron and Shelob on the other, with
something more general.
Tolkien is not (as you seemed to imply) making a grammatical error
that a child in elementary school would know enough to avoid.

No, I’m talking about the perverse and impossible reading upthread in
which the present-tense parenthesis is applied to Sauron and Shelob,
rather than to the hypothetical man and cat. It /would/ be a grammatical
error if he had meant that, but prefer to believe that his grammar is
perfectly correct, and that the parenthesis applies to the latter. To
expand it, he is saying, “The man may indeed call the cat, ‘his cat’,
but the cat doesn’t admit to the ‘his’ part. The cat is her own. She is
not a housepet; she is a free cat.”

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 13:52:11 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 21:10:08 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 06:28:38 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:41:45 -0400, John W Kennedy

If your elementary-school English doesn?t tell you that ?hates? should
be ?hated?, above, I can?t help you.

There's no need to be insulting.
Of course my elementary school English tells me that, but that is in
no way analogous to the passage in "The Lord of the Rings" that we are
discussing.
?Hitler despised Communism in all its forms, and Operation Barbarossa
was his ultimate plan all along. He hated Stalin (as a man hates
someone who is more similar to him than he cares to admit). Therefore,
even though his fight against Britain was still undone, he attacked on
Sunday, 22 June 1941, in full force.?

That is much more on point. And of course "as a man hated" would be
quite wrong.

The grammatical point being that it is quite possible, and sometimes
necessary, for a parenthesis to have a different tense from the rest
of the sentence.
If people are having trouble grasping that, no wonder they are having
difficulty in parsing Tolkien's aside about the cat, which is
bog-standard English usage.

Of course it can. But you are saying that with one element in the past
tense (Sauron and Shelob) and one in the present (the hypothetical man
with his hypothetical cat), that a parenthetical in the present tense
can be taken to be in reference to the former.

Sorry, you've lost me there.
What I am saying is that my parenthesis in your example paragraph
functions in the same way as Tolkien's parenthesis in his description
of the relations between Sauron and Shelob.
It functions as a simile -- comparing the relations between Hitler and
Stalin on the one hand, and Sauron and Shelob on the other, with
something more general.
Tolkien is not (as you seemed to imply) making a grammatical error
that a child in elementary school would know enough to avoid.

No, I’m talking about the perverse and impossible reading upthread in
which the present-tense parenthesis is applied to Sauron and Shelob,
rather than to the hypothetical man and cat. It /would/ be a grammatical
error if he had meant that, but prefer to believe that his grammar is
perfectly correct, and that the parenthesis applies to the latter. To
expand it, he is saying, “The man may indeed call the cat, ‘his cat’,
but the cat doesn’t admit to the ‘his’ part. The cat is her own. She is
not a housepet; she is a free cat.”

Ah, thank you. Now I think we are on the same page.

And with that I am in entire agreement.

[Stan Brown]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Steve Hayes
If people are having trouble grasping that, no wonder they are having
difficulty in parsing Tolkien's aside about the cat, which is
bog-standard English usage.

Of course it can. But you are saying that with one element in the past
tense (Sauron and Shelob) and one in the present (the hypothetical man
with his hypothetical cat), that a parenthetical in the present tense
can be taken to be in reference to the former.

John, I truly don't understand your difficulty, and if you'll pardon
my saying so you have not made it clear despite invitations from more
than one person. I asked you to explain towards the start of this
discussion, and you gave a snappy response but didn't explain.

Let's look back at the passage in question:

"And sometimes as a man may cast a dainty to his cat (his cat he
calls her, but she owns him not) Sauron would send her prisoners that
he had no better uses for:"

I don't see how you can even question that the parenthesis refers to
"a man" and "his cat". There's nothing else that "he" could refer
back to, and "her" has nothing else to refer but "his cat". To hammer
it home, "his cat" is repeated in the parenthesis. "His" can't
possibly refer to Sauron there, but must refer to "A man".

And I STILL don't see the tense shift you refer to. "Just as a man
may" is present, not past. so the parenthesis matches. And the whole
business before the word "Sauron" is a simile, likening the
particular behavior of Sauron to a general rule, so present tense is
appropriate.

This is really so clear that I begin to suspect you're just
pretending to disagree with if, but for what purpose I cannot
imagine.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Steve Hayes
If people are having trouble grasping that, no wonder they are having
difficulty in parsing Tolkien's aside about the cat, which is
bog-standard English usage.

Of course it can. But you are saying that with one element in the past
tense (Sauron and Shelob) and one in the present (the hypothetical man
with his hypothetical cat), that a parenthetical in the present tense
can be taken to be in reference to the former.

John, I truly don't understand your difficulty, and if you'll pardon
my saying so you have not made it clear despite invitations from more
than one person. I asked you to explain towards the start of this
discussion, and you gave a snappy response but didn't explain.
"And sometimes as a man may cast a dainty to his cat (his cat he
calls her, but she owns him not) Sauron would send her prisoners that
he had no better uses for:"
I don't see how you can even question that the parenthesis refers to
"a man" and "his cat".

I’m not questioning it. I’m bloody well insisting on it against the
reading, days ago, that flat-out denied it.

Post by Stan Brown
There's nothing else that "he" could refer
back to, and "her" has nothing else to refer but "his cat". To hammer
it home, "his cat" is repeated in the parenthesis. "His" can't
possibly refer to Sauron there, but must refer to "A man".
And I STILL don't see the tense shift you refer to. "Just as a man
may" is present, not past. so the parenthesis matches. And the whole
business before the word "Sauron" is a simile, likening the
particular behavior of Sauron to a general rule, so present tense is
appropriate.
This is really so clear that I begin to suspect you're just
pretending to disagree with if, but for what purpose I cannot
imagine.

[Paul S. Person]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 20:54:15 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by Stan Brown
John, I truly don't understand your difficulty, and if you'll pardon
my saying so you have not made it clear despite invitations from more
than one person. I asked you to explain towards the start of this
discussion, and you gave a snappy response but didn't explain.
"And sometimes as a man may cast a dainty to his cat (his cat he
calls her, but she owns him not) Sauron would send her prisoners that
he had no better uses for:"
I don't see how you can even question that the parenthesis refers to
"a man" and "his cat".

I’m not questioning it. I’m bloody well insisting on it against the
reading, days ago, that flat-out denied it.

Perhaps, if he didn't kill-file everyone he finds annoying, he would
have seen that post and so understood yours.

Alternately ... perhaps his memory is fading.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:41:45 -0400, John W Kennedy

If your elementary-school English doesn?t tell you that ?hates? should
be ?hated?, above, I can?t help you.

There's no need to be insulting.
Of course my elementary school English tells me that, but that is in
no way analogous to the passage in "The Lord of the Rings" that we are
discussing.
?Hitler despised Communism in all its forms, and Operation Barbarossa
was his ultimate plan all along. He hated Stalin (as a man hates
someone who is more similar to him than he cares to admit). Therefore,
even though his fight against Britain was still undone, he attacked on
Sunday, 22 June 1941, in full force.?

That is much more on point. And of course "as a man hated" would be
quite wrong.

But your “a man” takes us back to Tolkien’s hypothetical cat owner.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 21:11:23 -0400, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 17:41:45 -0400, John W Kennedy

If your elementary-school English doesn?t tell you that ?hates? should
be ?hated?, above, I can?t help you.

There's no need to be insulting.
Of course my elementary school English tells me that, but that is in
no way analogous to the passage in "The Lord of the Rings" that we are
discussing.
?Hitler despised Communism in all its forms, and Operation Barbarossa
was his ultimate plan all along. He hated Stalin (as a man hates
someone who is more similar to him than he cares to admit). Therefore,
even though his fight against Britain was still undone, he attacked on
Sunday, 22 June 1941, in full force.?

That is much more on point. And of course "as a man hated" would be
quite wrong.

But your “a man” takes us back to Tolkien’s hypothetical cat owner.

And your point is?

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 19 May 2017 19:17:31 -0000 (UTC), Steve Morrison

Post by Steve Morrison

Post by Jerry Friedman
Okay. As far as I could see, Tolkien's could have chosen to describe
the Eye as resembling a snake's whether he thought of Sauron as
literally having such an eye or not.

He did, of course, say that it resembled a cat's eye.

The picture of an adder's eye in the link posted by Jerry resembles a
cat's eye, at least in the shape of the iris. More people have
probably seen cat's eyes that have seen snakes' eyes for long enough
to notice the shape of the iris.