XPost: alt.fan.tolkien, rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: bredband.net@ojevind.lang   
      
   "Sean_Q_"  skrev i meddelandet   
   news:h7m011$89p$1@aioe.org...   
   > Öjevind Lång wrote:   
   >   
   > >> 1. It is a live tree.   
   > >   
   > > Well - yes and no. OK, call me an Elf if you wish!   
   >   
   > Uh oh. My 1st Q and your A was...   
   >   
   > >> Is it a complete, living tree/shrub/vine/bush/reed/tussock/   
   > >> shoot/sprout/frond/grass/whatever?   
   > >   
   > > Yes.   
   > >   
   > > Öjevind   
   >   
   > (?)   
      
   It was alive before it was dead.   
      
   >>> By the same reasoning we can eliminate any other tree of unknown type,   
   >>> unless it explicitly appears at least twice in the story, of which once   
   >>> is in a forest and once isn't.   
   >   
   >> Hm. It could be a tree of unknown type. That is to say, Tolkien never   
   >> tells us what species it belongs to.   
   >   
   > Here following is a tree which is located in tree-sprinkled grassland,   
   > not forest (those few trees that are present being outliers which lie   
   > outside the approaching woods):   
   >   
   >   They had been jogging along again for an hour or more when Sam stopped   
   >   a moment as if listening. They were now on level ground, and the road   
   >   after much winding lay straight ahead through grass-land sprinkled   
   >   with tall trees, outliers of the approaching woods.   
   >   
   >   Frodo hesitated for a second: curiosity or some other feeling was   
   >   struggling with his desire to hide. The sound of hoofs drew   
   >   nearer. Just in time he threw himself down in a patch of long grass   
   >   behind a tree that overshadowed the road. Then he lifted his head   
   >   and peered cautiously above one of the great roots.   
   >   
   > Well I am saying that our objective could not be this particular tree,   
   > whose species (although tall) is unknown and for all we know might not   
   > ever be found in a forest.   
   >   
   > In fact it might be of a particularly anti-social type which stubbornly   
   > refuses to grow anywhere else but in grass-lands with an absolute   
   > maximum tree sprinkling density and prefers at the very most to be an   
   > outlier. Plant another tree within the radius of its comfort zone and   
   > it either expires from overcrowding, fights the new tree or indignantly   
   > gathers up its roots and stalks off in a huff when no one is watching.   
   >   
   > I'm not saying for certain that it is of this unsociable type. However   
   > it *could* be, because the author doesn't say otherwise. So we can't say   
   > with absolute certainty that this type can be found in a forest.   
      
   LOL. I don't think my particular tree could be called either social or   
   unsociable. Though (ahem) one might associate it with social occasions.   
      
   Öjevind   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)