Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fenrir]

I have a few unanswered questions about the true nature of dwarfs.

1. Are they short?
2. Are they the dark counterpart of elves (dark elves)?
3. Is the plural of the word "dwarfs" or "dwarves"?

1. Are they short?
I read that there is no evidence recovered from the Viking Age to suggest that dwarfs were short. Of course, most of our information about the Old Norse myths comes from the Poetic Edda, written by Snorri Sturluson hundreds of years after the Viking Age had supposedly ended, so that could be said about many things from Norse myth.

2. Are they the dark counterpart of elves (dark elves)?
Dwarfs turn to stone when exposed to sunlight. It's a fact, I own a copy of the Poetic Edda. In another game, Hammer of the Gods, a 1994 turn-based-strategy game developed by New World Computing for MS-DOS, states that the dwarfs' home is Svart-alf-heim. "Svart" is the Old Norse word for "black", and "alf" is Old Norse for "elf". I also read that dwarfs and black elves may have been the same creature.

3. Is the plural of the word "dwarfs" or "dwarves"?
In the copy of "The Hobbit" that I own, it says in the preface that the true spelling of the word was "dwarfs" and that "dwarves" was only used to refer to the descendants of Thrain (or somebody, I forget exactly whom). It also said that the reason for this was explained in a later book. I never got around to reading the rest of them.
When I spellcheck this post with the Google Toolbar, every mention of the word "dwarves" is marked as incorrect. When I click on the word for a list of correction, it gives me "dwarfs".

(FYI: Tolkien got the name for every single dwarf in Bilbo's party from the Poetic Edda. Did I mention that I own a copy? Obviously he did too. Show of hands, who else does?)

[Janoveck]

If you intend to examine the nature of fictional 'Dwarfs' then youll have to make a distinction on which author has license, my opinion of them was formed by Tolkien, though I also recognise the less characterised examples of 'dwarfs' such as Games Workshops Warhammer, Blizzards 'dwarfs', Pratchet has his own humorous take on the concept of the miniture miners etc. Different interpretations can have contradicting characteristics.

More relevant to your third point, in the appendicies to LOTR Return of the Kind, Tolkien states his opinion the true plural of Dwarf is Dwarrow/Dwerrow, in the same vein as Man and Men, Goose and Geese. Although he uses Dwarves in his writing to avoid confusing the reader, there are some examples of Dwarrows IE Moria is also known as the Dwarrowdelf.

[Wiles]

The inherent problem with your question "Fact or Fiction" is that it is all fiction. Some of it very old fiction, but fiction nonetheless.

Stories change over time. You tell someone a story, when they retell it they may tell it differently. That is the nature of storytelling. Stories evolve. So it's not so surprising that the dwarves and other mythical beings we have in our stories today are different than their counterparts of the past.

Another example of change is the banshee. Banshee (bean sídhe) means woman of the fairy hill. If you heard a banshee wail, it would be the fortelling of a death in the family. The banshee was not causing death, just warning of it. Banshees in video games of today are represented as undead women who kill living beings with her wail. Quite a bit different than the banshee of the past!

[Fenrir]

quote:Originally posted by Wiles:
<STRONG>The inherent problem with your question "Fact or Fiction" is that it is all fiction.</STRONG>

You don't believe in dwarfs?  :eek: Throw him into the magma vent!

Yeah, I see what your saying. When I say "fact" I mean the way the original authors, the Vikings, created them. Tolkien angers me. It would have been great if he had made his tales about the Viking mythological world, or had created unique characters, but he just warped Viking myth. I want to preserve the original material. Damned plagiarist...

[Wiles]

quote:Originally posted by Fenrir:
<STRONG>
You don't believe in dwarfs?  

I find it fascinating that stories that are centuries old are still part of todays culture. I think storytelling would have been rather dull if the storyteller just re-hashed the same old stories over and over. New takes on myth, or even incorporating bits and pieces makes for an interesting twist of an old tale.

[HOTMACHINA]

Well, as pointed out above we are unable to establish any facts about Dwarves as they are a thing of fantasy, however in the real world a real evolutionary arm called Homo floresiensis did exist, commonly compared more to Hobbits they do however share a lot of the prerequisits for what I would associate with fantastical Dwarves, more info here:

Pic

(3rd from the left)

[Wooty]

---

[Fenrir]

quote:Originally posted by Wiles:
<STRONG>
That brings up the question - Are the stories from the poetic edda the "original" version?   </STRONG>

That drives me nuts, but it's as close to the original as I'll ever get, so I will just have to deal with it.

I'm more willing to believe that mystical, weapon-forging, beer-drinking, beard-wearing beings are living in the mountains than that evolutionary bullshit, but that's another topic.

EDIT: I was typing when Wooty posted.
I'm not suggesting that the originals are a good idea for Dwarf Fortress, however. If the dwarfs turned to stone every time they stepped outside, that would be a major pain.

[ December 23, 2007: Message edited by: Fenrir ]

[Dreamer]

Dwarfs are real, though.  If you don't believe me, go look up "Little People, Big World".  

Humor aside, the typical fantasy dwarf did evolved from being Dark Elves.  I'm not sure how, but I guess they both lived underground.

[Red Jackard]

'Dwarves' is more appropriate for English. 'Dwarfs' makes you sound like an idiot.

I know which one I'll be using.

[Red Jackard]

quote:Originally posted by Fenrir:
<STRONG>"true nature"

"it's a fact"

quoting a game of all things instead of looking up where the word they used came from

using naming scheme specific to The Hobbit as part of your reasoning

spellcheck for a fictional word</STRONG>

This thread is such an incredible eye-roller.

[ December 23, 2007: Message edited by: Red Jackard ]

[qwertyuiopas]

What makes you think Toady is working off any specific stereotype of a "dwarf"?

[DR]

quote:Originally posted by Red Jackard:
<STRONG>'Dwarves' is more appropriate for English. 'Dwarfs' makes you sound like an idiot.

I know which one I'll be using.</STRONG>

Unless you're referring to people with Dwarfism, in which case "dwarfs" is, in fact, correct and if you call them "dwarves" you'll sound like a pillock.

[Red Jackard]

quote:Originally posted by DR:
<STRONG>Unless you're referring to people with Dwarfism, in which case "dwarfs" is, in fact, correct and if you call them "dwarves" you'll sound like a pillock.</STRONG>

Since you are the first person to bring them up, obviously we are not.

[ December 23, 2007: Message edited by: Red Jackard ]

[Sappho]

quote:Originally posted by Red Jackard:
<STRONG>'Dwarves' is more appropriate for English. 'Dwarfs' makes you sound like an idiot.

I know which one I'll be using.</STRONG>

Linguistically speaking, "dwarfs" is the correct English plural of dwarf.  The only reason people tend to use "dwarves" is because Tolkien invented that spelling with his books, and they were so popular that it stuck.

In any case, I don't see how it matters where the dwarf originated.  It always fascinates me that humans are so obsessed with the earliest version of something somehow being the most important, or accurate.  That's not to say that I'm not guilty of it myself - I get angry when I see fabulous books, like the Lord of the Rings, turned into movies because they are never "right," even though the movies are good in their own way.  It's just a tendency we have I suppose.

Still, it's strange.  I think our dwarves are awesome, and I think the original dwarves were probably awesome too.  I don't think either is more "accurate," though it can be interesting to note how the myth has evolved over time.