# Talk:Rohan, Middle-earth

Rohirrim (or more properly Rochirrim) is Sindarin for "Horse-lords," and Rohan (or Rochand) means "Land of the Horse-lords".
Roch-hir-rim is "horse-master-folk", and Roch-and is "horse-land"; is "Land of the Horse-lords" given in canon? —Tamfang (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed, the etymology section is sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is the title listed as Rohan, Middle Earth? You could use brackets for ME. JEDIMASTER2008 (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Recap: In 2012 it was moved from Rohan to Rohan (Middle-earth), and in 2022 to Rohan (Tolkien) and then Rohan, Middle-earth. I express no preference. —Tamfang (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't seem much to bother about really. In this case, Rohan is an actual place in Middle-earth, so the latter is a geographical designation like Oxfird, England not a general disambiguator. So, while feeling that the matter is small, the current form is preferable, and I certainly think that the fewer parentheses the better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The Duke's of Rohan, Henri II, 'Duke of Rohan' 'Prince of Leon' as the Wikipedia article of said forementioned informs is real[1]. I do understand this article is about J.R. Tolkien's presentation of the name and location but this article considers an important historical figure, leader of the Huguenots.
I do not like the title as it is simply because it is not directly about the fictional story of J.R. Tolkien; of his use within the story line of 'Lord of the Rings' which I think should be within the title, this then distinguishes the article from the actual non-fictional, real-world Rohan family. 
And isn't Rohan, Middle Earth encompassing 'Kent' London' 'Berkshire' 'Buckingham' etc.?2600:6C47:A07F:EDEC:D01A:82F0:13FD:4614 (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)jodirbrennan

See Rohan.  Tolkien expressly denied that the coincidence of name was significant.  I do not understand your last paragraph. —Tamfang (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. The key point here is that Wikipedia works only from reliable sources, i.e. written evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi ChiswickChap, if there should be a conjunction, shouldn't it be "and"? There is no correlation between Theoden's horse falling and Éowyn killing the leader of the Ringwraiths, right? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for discussing. Well, two things, and I'm sorry to pull the 'native British speaker' card but you leave me little choice. Firstly, yes there is; Tolkien has finely balanced gain and loss: the battle seems hopeless, Rohan's cavalry arrives; the Lord of the Nazgûl has the gate of the city broken, but backs off; Théoden is killed, Éowyn kills the Nazgûl. So yes, there's a scorekeeping. Secondly, this is British English. We use 'but' not only for direct contradictions (English is never so simple), but for many kinds of conjoining. Tottenham scores, but Arsenal's keeper makes three fine saves: the saves do not neutralize the score or reverse the victory, but they are a scorekeeping of a kind. Just like here, actually. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! Busy days, I'll try to reply as soon as possible. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
It's not just British English; you can find that usage throughout the English-speaking world. -- Elphion (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)