Talk:Rohan
|
|
I'm not sure whether Tolkien coined 'Rohan' independently, but it is a common name in Sanskrit/Hindi, (cfr [1] (http://babynames.indiaserver.com/indian-baby-names-boy-r.html)) -- Gyan
Well, the Riders' language is supposedly based on Old English, so I doubt he was looking for a Sanskrit source. -- Zoe
Quite possible. According to this page (http://www.rebeccasspace.com/boynamesr.html), it is also an Irish word. -- Gyan
I thought that it was a region in Brittany -- Error
The Ducs de Rohan are a major French noble family. Not sure where from, exactly. john 09:36 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
- From what I read, there is a Rohan castle somewhere in Brittany. The castle was the house (manor?) of the Rohan family which rose in the aristocratic ladder. -- Error
- Quite possibly. There are actually two Rohan families. The Ducs de Rohan are from the Rohan-Chabot family, who are not technically Rohans, but Chabots descended from the Rohans in the female line. The actual Rohan family seems to mostly live in Austria and Belgium nowadays. Perhaps we should add stuff about these families and disambiguate? john 03:32 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
- Probably, but I couldn't tell much without infringing copyright. My paper Encyclopedia had an article for the family with at least 13 names. The branches seem to be the Porhoët (the original), Rohan-Chabot, Rohan-Guémenée, Rohan-Rochefort, Soubise and Rohan-Rohan. Deserving an individual article Henri II, duke of Rohan (also named Henri I (!?) ), Louis, knight of Rohan, Louis René Edouard, prince of Rohan and Maria Bertha of Rohan -- Error
- A question: using a paper encyclopedia for *factual information* can't be illegal, can it? For instance, if I use Britannica to discover when Henry Campbell-Bannerman was elected to parliament, that isn't any kind of copyright violation, because the copyright only extends to the words used, not to the information contained in those words. Or is that wrong? john 01:11 May 10, 2003 (UTC)
- You're quite right - facts cannot be copyrighted, only the presentation of those facts. We wouldn't get very far if we had to rely on primary sources! --Camembert
- Be careful, though. Your source is now another encyclopedia, and that doesn't look very good. Ok for verification, bad as source. GayCom
- Mmm...primary sauces! (-- All responsibility for the preceding remark is disavowed by Lee M 19:07, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC))
Should this article maybe be merged with Rohirrim, and just have one redirect to the other?