Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2023 October 8
| Miscellaneous desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < October 7 | << Sep | October | Nov >> | October 9 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
October 8
editWhat is the correct word when referring to Tolkien, as Dickensian is used for Dickens.
editIs it Tolkienesque or Tolkien-esque? 2600:1700:D80:7480:CC5F:DE74:3B0:6B94 (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- OED has Tolkienesque. DuncanHill (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks 2600:1700:D80:7480:954E:6904:93CA:510D (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- So does Wiktionary. Compare also Kafkaesque, Mondrianesque, Rubenesque. --Lambiam 07:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- ...because -esque is a suffix, not a separate word. Shantavira|feed me 08:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- However, there is Agatha Christie-esque as an alternative form of Agatha Christiesque. --Lambiam 17:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Because "Christiesque" might promote mispronunciation and "Christieesque" looks weird: Spellings (with or without hyphens) shouldn't rigidly adhere to 'rules' of construction if the results are actively misleading; most adjectives of this particular type start off with hyphens when coined, and lose them with increasing familiarity. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230;195} 90.220.114.13 (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- We shouldn't rigidly adhere to 'rules' of construction especially since these 'rules' are a closely guarded secret. For example, why have the rule gods decided it should be Aesop-like with a hyphen? What makes bonus-less acceptable and boss-less not? --Lambiam 06:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- OED has Aesopian or Aesopic. DuncanHill (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- We shouldn't rigidly adhere to 'rules' of construction especially since these 'rules' are a closely guarded secret. For example, why have the rule gods decided it should be Aesop-like with a hyphen? What makes bonus-less acceptable and boss-less not? --Lambiam 06:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Because "Christiesque" might promote mispronunciation and "Christieesque" looks weird: Spellings (with or without hyphens) shouldn't rigidly adhere to 'rules' of construction if the results are actively misleading; most adjectives of this particular type start off with hyphens when coined, and lose them with increasing familiarity. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230;195} 90.220.114.13 (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- However, there is Agatha Christie-esque as an alternative form of Agatha Christiesque. --Lambiam 17:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- The Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction lists Tolkienian (from 1954 - C S Lewis, no less) and Tolkienesque (from 1967). -- Verbarson talkedits 08:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- To me, these two terms are not fully equivalent. Tolkienian can refer to the personality of Tolkien, such as his attitudes and habits, whereas Tolkienesque is restricted to his style. The section "Tolkienian and Tolkienesque" in The Ring of Words agrees. --Lambiam 12:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think Dickensian is more typically used to talk about the sort of situation Dickens wrote about (extreme poverty for example), rather than Dickens's writing style or personality. Compare Orwellian, which tends to mean heavy-handed government surveillance and/or motivated reasoning, rather than anything closely connected with Orwell as a person or writer. If we're really trying to make a corresponding adjective for Tolkien, I suppose it would have something to do with magic and lots of ancient sentient races, or something. --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- In this article, seeking to find "hope beyond hopelessness" is called "a thoroughly Tolkienian attitude". And here we can read about "a Wordsworthian rather than a Tolkienian approach to mythopoesis". Here, George R. R. Martin's brutal world of violence chiselled out of the historical and imaginary medieval past is contrasted with "the more nostalgic Tolkienian vision of the period". In these cases, Tolkienesque is less appropriate. --Lambiam 07:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think Dickensian is more typically used to talk about the sort of situation Dickens wrote about (extreme poverty for example), rather than Dickens's writing style or personality. Compare Orwellian, which tends to mean heavy-handed government surveillance and/or motivated reasoning, rather than anything closely connected with Orwell as a person or writer. If we're really trying to make a corresponding adjective for Tolkien, I suppose it would have something to do with magic and lots of ancient sentient races, or something. --Trovatore (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- To me, these two terms are not fully equivalent. Tolkienian can refer to the personality of Tolkien, such as his attitudes and habits, whereas Tolkienesque is restricted to his style. The section "Tolkienian and Tolkienesque" in The Ring of Words agrees. --Lambiam 12:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)