Board Thread:Suggestions forum/@comment-28852094-20160720050444/@comment-26347028-20160721141713

Dinopizzagamer wrote: I'd like to point out that nothing I've made no personal attacks on anyone here. I only seek to state my views. I'd prefer not to get sassy or sarcastic answers in return. As for being influenced by the movies, I would say that that is undoubtedly the case, though that doesn't make it non-canon. As for the annotated map however, I would like to point out two things about Tolkien.

1. Tolkien often wrote things which were later revised. For example, when The Hobbit states that hobbits are still around but are hiding from us, or that orcs are responsible for the machines of suffering in the world.

2. Tolkien used certain words interchangeably. For example, the words goblin and orc. I would honestly assume that Tolkien was referring to Mumakil when he mentioned elephants at Minas Tirith. This doesn't mean that Mumakil are elephants, just that they are being referred to as such due to their obvious similarities. Alright, in answer to your first paragraph, a little bit of wit goes a long way in an argument. Sarcasm may be its lowest form, but a small amount of it hurts no one.

1. Although there's nothing being changed here. Even then, considering how fairly late the annotations are you could consider it to have changed to that.

2. And goblin and Orc are synonymous, your example contradicts your hypothesis. You mention different names, but he cases in which they're used are for the same things. In this case, it was only the Hobbits using any form of word related to "Elephant" (it's archaic form, Oliphaunt). It was only Tolkien himself that called them Elephants, so we can presume that's what they are but in a different language. The Sindarin name is different still to the Haradhric name.