Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

> Second, no one to my knowledge has proposed that the _diphthong_ is
"reversed": rather, the proposal I made was that _aen_ reflects *_an_ +
_i_, just as _nai_ is _na_ + _i_.

But then he also wrote:

> Well, that didn't come out quite right, did it? I don't mean to say that
the development was *_an_ + _i_ > *_ani_ > _aen_ (since that wouldn't work
phonologically); what I did propose in _VT_ 31 was that given Quenya _nai_,
we might assume a common *_nai_, with a "reversed" form *_ain_ (which would
indeed yield S. _aen_). So, I guess that in that sense I could be said to
have proposed that the "diphthong was reversed". Sorry for my confusion.

I appreciate that Hostetter didn't "defy" me to demonstrate that he had
indeed written what he had written, but set the record straight himself. It
saved us all some time.

No, primitive *_ani_ cannot produce Sindarin _aen_. It would first yield
Common Eldarin and Old Sindarin *_ane_, in turn becoming *_ân_ in Sindarin.
As for *_anii_ with a long final vowel, it would produce Old Sindarin
_ani_, Middle Sindarin _ein_ and Third Age Sindarin _ain_ (or that is my
understanding of these things). We cannot get from _ain_ to _aen_. True,
OLDER _ai_ produces Sindarin _ae_, but if a contemporary form _ain_ can
turn into _aen_, we must ask why (say) _erain_ "kings" doesn't turn into
**_eraen_...

The Sindarin cognate of Quenya _nai_ would normally be assumed to be
*_nae_. Why the diphthong would, at any stage, migrate to the other side of
the consonant is not clear to me. I don't think there is any parallel to
this in the entire published Tolkien-linguistic corpus.

I think we all agree that _nai_ represents _na + i_ "be (it) that..." There
is a morpheme boundary in the middle of the diphthong _ai_. The _a_ is
intimately connected to the preceding consonant, forming a unitary root.
Considering how conscious Tolkien meant the Eldar to be about the basic
structure of their language, it seems strange that _nai_ could be scrambled
into *_ain_ > _aen_. In effect, the root NA is reversed and the quite
distinct _i_ = "that" morpheme is jammed into the middle of it! While
infixion is well known in Eldarin, it does tend to follow certain rules...

No, Quenya _nai_ as such cannot be the cognate of _aen_. Yet the
Etymologies does provide some evidence for AN as an alternative version of
the NA = "be" root, and Hostetter himself has published writings where
Tolkien speaks of _i_-infixion in certain "desiderative" formations.
Perhaps there can be a primitive form *_ain-_ having to do with what one
"desires to be (real)", and maybe this is the origin of Sindarin _aen_ as a
kind of wishing-particle: *_I Eledh linnatha_ "the Elf will sing", but *_i
Eledh linnatha aen_ "Wish that the Elf will sing!" In semantic terms this
would certainly be comparable to Quenya *_nai i Elda linduva_, but there
would be no direct genetic relationship between _nai_ and _aen_. At best
they reflect variations of the same root (NA vs. AN); it is virtually out
of the question that _nai_ and _aen_ can descend from the same Common
Eldarin form.

Hostetter wrote:

> How is this any less far-fetched? Can you point to any similar
constructions or particles in any Eldarin tongue? I can with my theory.

(Really? Migrating diphthongs and all?) As for Eldarin mode particles,
Welden in his "Negation in Quenya" revealed that Quenya has a particle
_kee_ indicating uncertainty -- much like English "perhaps", I guess. It is
hardly the only particle of this kind.

Hostetter also has some comments on the fact that I taped some fragments of
the Jackson movie:

> but that he felt compelled to tell us about it and rationalize his
actions, right up front, before anyone had even questioned his actions,
shows that he knows what he did is wrong, and requires justification.

I must thank Carl F[reud?] Hostetter for helping me to identify my
sub-conscious guilt complexes. You know, I was under the impression that I
simply wanted to let the Elflingers know that I have been able to study in
some detail what we really hear in the movie (instead of having to rely on
a single, passing impression). Now I know better, of course. How could I
fail to realize what was really going on deep down in my soul? I was
probably mislead by a quaint local tradition: if you know that you have
done something wrong, you very often make sure NOT to tell anyone...

>By the way, on the subject of The Movie: Can I have a copy of your copy of
The Movie? It's purely for scholarly purposes of course. But I do intend to
redistribute it to all interested scholars -- you know, to generously offer
my help to Peter Jackson and New Line.

Ah! I'm sure Jackson and New Line would appreciate your concern, Carl. But
there is one tiny problem. It has to do with the fact Mr. Jackson might
conceivably hesitate to recognize what I have as a genuine _copy_ of his
movie. Indeed one could argue that if the general experience of the
audience is what matters, the recording I have must be considered a quite
_different_ movie. Quite inadvertently, I seem to have produced one.

Since Hostetter, Aidan Grey and other list members have demonstrated such
an unexpected interest in my humble recordings, I thought I would provide
them with a full review of very nearly the whole thing. Of course, it isn't
quite proper that _I_ review my own results. Since I don't intend to let
others see the recording, I have no choice but to briefly assume the
persona of another individual. So let us imagine that I really did intend
to distribute my recording, and that the following is a review written by a
sympathetic, though uninformed critic...

"Having just returned from a screening of H. K. Fauskanger's _The Popcorn
Eaters_, I still find myself immersed in the peculiar atmosphere of this
strange surrealist film. It must however be admitted that this brief movie
(8 minutes) is hardly successful on all levels. Daringly, the director has
opted for a handheld camera, possibly inspired by the recent Scandinavian
Dogma movies. He may be aiming for the 'raw documentary' effect employed ad
nauseam in _The Blair Witch Project_. While he is not entirely
unsuccessful, tighter editing would probably have benefited his movie.
Nonetheless, a thinking person can hardly miss the message of Fauskanger's
_The Popcorn Eaters_.

The movie begins abruptly, and we are not really introduced to the main
characters. Indeed we never even get to see them clearly. We only see the
silhouettes of their backs and heads: nameless, dark shapes, never moving
except to cram a seemingly endless supply of popcorn into their unseen
mouths. On the surface level, the popcorn eating is all that happens in the
entire movie. The main characters have few (indeed no) lines, and the
minimalist popcorn-eating plot makes no discernable progress. For a young
director like Fauskanger, it is daring and ambitious to aim for Kubrickian
resonance in such a way.

Except for the popcorn eating, such action as there is takes place
_behind_, not to say _beyond_ the main characters. They are perpetually
silhouetted against a luminous, moving blur, which occasionally comes into
focus to reveal brief, tantalizing glimpses of the lovely features of Liv
Tyler. Seemingly very distant, she hovers above the popcorn-eaters like a
ghostly apparition, uttering strange, incomprehensible words. The
popcorn-eaters just keep chewing, apparently indifferent to her presence.

The director is unwilling to explain the profound symbolism underlying this
surrealistic scene, but we shall not err much if we assume that Fauskanger
wants to make a statement about the jaded and insensitive nature of
post-modern society. The dark shapes of the popcorn-eaters represent
ordinary urban people of the twenty-first century -- dark, shallow
personalities, void of color and depth. When they never stop chewing
popcorn, this is clearly a symbol of mindless consumerism.

The spectral, fleeting apparition of Liv Tyler is obviously a symbol of
Life and Beauty. Beauty appears to the jaded popcorn-eaters in an attempt
to reawaken their joy of life. However, when Beauty addresses them, her
speech is incomprehensible to them -- powerfully symbolizing that their
hearts are closed to her. In accordance with the updated techno-surrealist
symbolism employed throughout Fauskanger's movie, there are _subtitles_
indicating what Beauty is trying to say to the shadowy popcorn-eaters.
However, these subtitles are obscured behind the dark shapes of the
popcorn-eaters themselves, and we only glimpse a few words. I think
Fauskanger's message is clear: Even if ordinary people of the twenty-first
century try to break free from mindless consumerism to seek the deeper
meaning of life, they just get in their own way. Because they cannot escape
the rat-race, they cannot get the message either: the words of True Beauty
must forever remain a mystery to them. (The fact that Liv Tyler hardly ever
stays in proper focus likewise indicates that modern people are unable to
focus on true values.)

Abruptly, the glowing apparition hovering above the popcorn-eaters changes.
Suddenly we see a ghastly vision of Hugo Weaving with pointed ears!
However, the dark shapes in the foreground still do not seem to be
affected. Undisturbed, the popcorn-eaters just keep chewing! The director
holds up a symbolic mirror for us all: We just keep consuming, ignoring
environmental damage that leads to the perishing of Beauty. Even when faced
by the ugly consequences of our own acts (symbolized by Hugo Weaving's
hovering shape), we are not prepared to turn aside from our mad,
life-denying course.

Near the end of the movie, the apparitions change yet again. Now we see an
old, bearded man, standing before a glowing gate with a strange inscription
-- which he is trying to interpret. I believe the director is here
exploring the themes of futility, old age and death. The gate before which
the old man is standing clearly represents Death. But the old man does not
understand this; this is symbolized by his inability to properly interpret
the inscription above it. Attempting to open the gate, he tries one
invocation after the other, not realizing that his eventual success must be
his own undoing. Characteristically, the cynical popcorn-eaters in the
foreground do not seem to be much concerned about the horrible fate
awaiting the old man. They just keep chewing, as they always do. They do
not realize that the old man represents their own future selves! His
tragedy is the logical ending-point of their entire hedonistic civilization
-- a civilization mindlessly pressing on until by massive environmental
damage it encounters and breaks down the Door of Death itself, thus
perishing.

And do we, the audience, in turn dare to realize that the popcorn-eaters
represent ourselves? This is the disturbing question raised by this
8-minute movie. Rarely have we seen so much meaning and depth packed into
so few minutes.

Fauskanger's ambitious _The Popcorn Eaters_ will hardly enthrall a mass
audience: After all, it addresses serious issues that most people are not
prepared or even able to consider. The intricate symbolism and profound,
disturbing message of the movie also take some time to figure out, and few
modern moviegoers are prepared to think very much at all (which, of course,
is the entire point of the young director). Yet _The Popcorn Eaters_ may
well be an instant cult classic."

- HF