--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "elenyona" <sp12@...> wrote:
>
> --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "dreamingfifi" <elvenswordsmith@> wrote:
> >
> > So, I haven't just missed something. How is the pronunciation I suggested
otherwise?
>
> I certainly don't expect people who are familiar with IPA or some global
languages BESIDES English to have problems with the representation provided...
;)

I have tried every phonetic transcription there is, just about. IPA was the only
one that worked consistently. If people are confused by it, they can see the
description of it in the Pronunciation pages.

I've been doing this massive recording project, and working with a bunch of
people who have never used IPA before. They actually found it easier to sound
out than the orthographic version - even though they didn't know a lot of the
symbols - because the syllable boundaries were marked and the stress marking
system was very easy to learn. If they got lost, they could compare the
orthographic version with the IPA version to figure out what sound a symbol
stood for. IPA is close enough to our own writing system to be able to get a
gist of what most letters stand for.

And finally, it's better than what I had before, which was nothing but the
description of the pronunciation, separate from the phrases all together.

So, I use IPA. Perhaps it will have the happy influence that more people will
learn it.

Fiona

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, Menelion Elensuule <menelion@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Fiona,
>
>          d> Is this acceptable?
>
> Concerning pure Elvish dialects, yes.  Not  sure about Human dialects, though
(maybe
> someone more experienced will tell you about them).

Someone? Anyone?

Well, I've updated and uploaded the changes to the phrasebook. Check them out,
tell me what you think.

Fiona

'm trying to finish a version of the Letter of James for my Neo-Quenya
New Testament project.

There are two terms that are somewhat problematic. Shrewd neologisms
will be required.

"Bridle" (needed for 3:3).

Qui panyalve [???] mir roccoron anto, carieltan ve merilve, turilve
yando quanda hroalta.
If we put _bridles_ into the mouth of horses, for them to do as we wish,
we control also their entire body.

Also we need some term for "creeping animal" or "reptile" in 3:7. The
Greek word is _herpeton_ (presumably used for Hebrew _remes_ -- all
sorts or "creep", apparently broadly denoting reptiles, non-flying
insects, and the like).

The basic idea of creeping or crawling is difficult to render as well. I
don't think Tolkien left us any root or derivation closely touching on
these ideas.

How was the root LOK (SLOK), yielding words for dragon and worm, defined
in the Silmarillion Appendix? I only have the Norwegian translation with
me just now. Sloping, curving?

Or could we go for something based on the idea of "moving animal" or
"teeming animal"? I believe I have seen such translations of _remes_.

- HKF

Hi!

Not long ago appeared the question on this list, wondering how much of
Tolkien's linguistic works are still unpublished. For example, can anyone
tell if there are still waiting new words to be published?

And a question to Throrsten Renk: the Pedin Edhellen 3.0 is last updated
more than two years ago. Is there a possibility that it will be updated
(even if not with new materials, but corrections etc.) before the premiere
of the new Hobbit Movie in December?

I think with the new movie there will be many fans again who want to learn
sindarin/quenya.
*
*
Farewell,
*Glanthor (�kos Szab�)*


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Helge K. Fauskanger" <helge.fauskanger@...>
wrote:

> There are two terms that are somewhat problematic. Shrewd neologisms
> will be required.
>
> "Bridle" (needed for 3:3).
>
> Qui panyalve [???] mir roccoron anto, carieltan ve merilve, turilve
> yando quanda hroalta.
> If we put _bridles_ into the mouth of horses, for them to do as we wish,
> we control also their entire body.

A stirrup in Sindarin is a talraph (foot-rope? foot-strap?). S raph must
represent something like *rappa or *grappa > (a)rappa in Quenya.  Perhaps a
bridle could be a pérappa, a "mouth-rope/strap"; pé here meaning "visible part
of mouth, lips".

Helge K. Fauskanger scripsit:

> Also we need some term for "creeping animal" or "reptile" in 3:7. The
> Greek word is _herpeton_ (presumably used for Hebrew _remes_ -- all
> sorts or "creep", apparently broadly denoting reptiles, non-flying
> insects, and the like).

Would not "leuca" do? "Herpetos" is "serpens" in
Latin, and you are translating the New Testament
which is written in Greek, not some hypothetical
Hebrew source of the New Testament.

Lukas

Perhaps we can work backwards. The PIE root *serp- gave rise to two
separate groups of words (we know about serpent, Sanskrit sarpati, &c).
However, the other group shows up in the other langauges (such as greek
herpes, latin herpes) as a skin disease of some sort.

I am not up on the latest, so I can't make a suggestion as to the exact
words, but what skin diseases are attested in the lexicon. Can we work back
from there?

--
Often wrong, never in doubt (Ivy Baker Priest, Green Grows the Ivy, 1958)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello,



I’ve been lurking on this group for some time, but it is the
first time I’ve decided to write something.

My problem is as follows. Recently I’ve become interested in the
language-forming processes from Prim. Quendian to Quenya and Sindarin.
Unfortunately, while the description of the development of Quenya
(wholly) and of Sindarin up to Old Sindarin is available for free on the
Internet (thanks to H.K.Fauskanger and others), the processes occurring
in the period from Old to Classical Sindarin, as far as I am aware, are
described only in “Gateway to Sindarin”, which I
don’t have and, frankly, am unable to acquire just yet (and the
same with VT and PE). So I tried to deduce these processes by myself.



My first question is if there exists the proper periodisation of
Sindarin in any published Tolkien’s material, and if not, what
the most accepted periodisation is. For now I have tentatively separated
the language following the Old Noldorin/Sindarin of the Etymologies into
the following periods: Late Old Sindarin, Middle Sindarin and Classical
Sindarin. As to what historical periods they relate to, and which
processes belong to which period, I can only guess.  In my mind, the
Late Old Sindarin relates to the period up until the end of the 1st Age,
as this is when the most serious changes occur; the Middle Sindarin is
the language of the 2nd and the first half of the 3rd Age, and the
Classical Sindarin is the language of the late 3rd and the early 4th
Age.  Is this wrong?



Second, is there any information about the Noldor’s contribution
to Sindarin? I don’t mean just the normalisation of Sindarin, but
the ideas which would not have appeared otherwise. I am aware only of
two things: borrowing of LE and the plural marker �"R (and does
that mean that the attested verb CUINAR (‘they live’)
would have been *CUINAI (or *CUINI) in Sindarin beforehand?)

Third, below I have listed all the language changes I was able to
deduce, mostly from the Etymologies, with examples (first vowels, then
consonants; vowels with the colon following are long).  If it’s
not too much trouble, could you look through them? Do you think they are
correct? Do they refer to the correct period? Are there any other
changes that I have missed?



Thank you for your help.



Late Old Sindarin

1. Loss of final vowels. (phelga -> felg; baraha -> barah)

If the resulting word was monosyllabic and ended in a single consonant,
the stem vowel was lengthened unless the word was used in a compound or
an ending was added to it. (nele -> ne:l; pele -> pe:l)

The resulting final -W -> -U after a consonant. (pathwa -> pathw ->
pathu; kurwe -> curw -> curu)

2. A-umlaut (I -> E, U -> O). (smalina -> malen; kapita -> cabed; runda
-> rond; jura -> iôr; khithwa -> hethu)

3. I-umlaut (A -> E, E -> I etc.). (ammalinde -> emmelind; Arjante ->
Eriant)

4. AK/AP -> AE (most likely, through AI), EK -> EI, UK -> UI before
spirants (TH, DH, F, V, S). (pelthaksa -> pelthaes; jaktha -> iaeth;
apsa -> aes; lapse -> laes; tektha- -> teitha-; ekthele -> eithel;
juktha- -> iuitha-; nuktha- -> nuitha-. Also: júkale -> iuial ->
uial; nakma -> naef. But: ekthelga -> ecthel/egthel)

5. AI -> AE. (aiwe -> aew; ail -> ael)

6. �" -> AU. (po:r(e) -> paur; ko:lo -> caul; ro:da -> raudh)

7. IO -> UI. (snioma -> nuif)

8. In some cases, EI/IE -> I:. (eide -> i:dh; neiti -> ni:d)

9. Shortening of long vowels in polysyllables. (khi:ril -> hiril;
hjatthe:la -> hathel; But: círdan (possibly due to I: <- AI))

9. (P)PH -> PH, (T)TH -> TH, (K)KH -> CH. (alpha -> alph; apphata- ->
aphada-; orthor- -> orthor-; battha- -> batha-; ekkhuiwe -> echui(w))

10. Lenition. (kap- -> cab-; beleka -> beleg; Ngolodo -> Golodh; lab- ->
lav-; dram(a)- -> drav(a)-)

11. Liquid mutation. (golba -> golf; gorme -> gorf; sthalga -> thalgh)

12. Loss of S in initial consonant clusters SKH, SM, SN, SPH etc.
(sphara- -> fara-; smalina -> malen)

13. Initial KH -> H. (khalatirno -> heledir; But: khrasse -> r(h)ass
(possibly, KHR -> HR -> R(H); I’m not sure whether it should be
rass or rhass))

14. Initial HJ -> H. (hjatthe:la -> hathel; hjalma -> half)

15. Initial W -> GW. (waide -> gwaedh; watha -> gwath)

16. Initial ND -> D, MB -> B, NG -> G. (ndakro -> dagr; ndangwetha ->
dangweth; ngalambe -> glamb)

17. Initial SL -> LH, SR -> RH. (slaiwa -> lhaew; srip- -> rhib-; sri:we
-> rhi:w)

18. Medial S(T)L -> THL, S(T)R -> THR. (ostlonde -> othlond; lasra- ->
lathra-)

19. NGW -> MB, NKW -> MP. (ninkwita- -> nimpida-; nengwi -> nemb; gengwa
-> gemb)

20. Loss of the initial and medial GH. (jaghu -> iaw; Di:rghel ->
Di:riel (the second I might be either vocalisation or echoic I, like in
Sirion); tulughme -> tuluf)

21. Loss of final GH.

a) Total loss. (ri:gh -> ri: (possibly, through vocalisation I:GH -> I:I
-> I:)

b) Vocalisation (GH -> A/I depending on surroundings). (thalgh -> thala;
felgh -> fela; filgh -> fili)

22. Irregular changes. (wúia -> uia -> ui; u:bano -> u:van -> u:an)

Middle Sindarin

23. EI -> AI in the final syllable. (teith -> taith, but teitha-; erein
-> erain, but Ereinion; But: eilph)

24. O-infix before a syllabic consonant. (agr -> agor; dagr -> dagor;
magl -> magol)

25. In some cases, UI -> Y/Y: (especially, when UI <- O due to umlaut).
(emuin -> emyn; nuif -> ny:w; buir -> by:r)

26. In some cases, initial L/R -> GL/GR. (lir- -> glir-; ling- ->
gling-; loss -> gloss; rond -> grond)

27. Loss of final H. (pelih -> peli; barah -> bara)

28. Changes of nasalised stops.

a) Intervocalic NT -> NN, NC -> NG, MP -> MM. (renkui -> rengy
(archaic); hampa- -> hamma-)

b) ND -> NN. (Balandor -> Balannor; Endor -> Ennor)

Exception: ND did not change in the following cases.

* In prominent names of the 1st Age (archaisms). (Gondolin; Glorfindel;
Nargothrond; Beleriand)

* At the end of fully accented monosyllables. (thond; rond)

* In compounds:

** where the word consists of two syllables. (Morthond)

** where N and D belong to different morphemes.

*** in proper names often in use. (Gondor; Baranduin; Mithrandir)

*** where D <- T. (and + taith -> an(n)daith)

* before R unless there is D later in the word. (Landroval; andrand ->
anrand)

c) MB -> MM. (remb -> remm; lamb -> lamm)

29. Loss of final F [V] after AU/U. (tuluf -> tulu; nauf -> naw; eruf ->
eru; tinduf -> tinnu) (See also WJ:414)

30. In some cases (most likely, after front vowels A, E, I, Y), final F
[V] -> W. (nuif -> ny:w; haef -> haew; laef -> glaew)

Sindarin

31. OE -> E. (oeryd -> eryd; arnoediad -> arnediad; Goelydh -> Gelydh)

32. Simplification of double consonants.

a) MM -> M. (remm -> rem; lamm -> lam)

N.B. M <- MM counted and was written as MM in the following cases.

* When stress was in doubt. (rem -> galadhrEmmin (not **galAdhremin)

* When the endings were added. (lam -> lammen)

b) Simplification of other double consonants.

* At the end of polysyllabic words. (Caradhrass -> Caradhras; periann ->
perian)

* Before long vowels. (tinnu:viel -> tinu:viel)

* In monosyllables, after long vowels and diphthongs. (ri:ss -> ri:s;
laiss -> lais)

* At the end of the first element in compounds and word combinations
(usually, proper names) before consonants. (anndaith -> andaith; lass ->
Eryn Lasgalen; toll -> Tol Brandir; criss -> Crissaegrim (SS is before a
diphthong, so doesn’t change))

33. Assimilation: NR -> DHR, NS -> SS, NM -> MM in secondary contact.
(caran + rass -> Caradhras; aran + suil -> Arassuil; an + men -> ammen)

34. In Gondor, CH -> H except at the end of words and before T.
(Rochirrim -> Rohirrim; orchal -> orhal)



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Helge K. Fauskanger" <helge.fauskanger@...>
wrote:
> Also we need some term for "creeping animal" or "reptile" in 3:7. The
> Greek word is _herpeton_ (presumably used for Hebrew _remes_ -- all
> sorts or "creep", apparently broadly denoting reptiles, non-flying
> insects, and the like).
>
> The basic idea of creeping or crawling is difficult to render as well. I
> don't think Tolkien left us any root or derivation closely touching on
> these ideas.
>
> How was the root LOK (SLOK), yielding words for dragon and worm, defined
> in the Silmarillion Appendix? I only have the Norwegian translation with
> me just now. Sloping, curving?

The root LOK was glossed "bend, loop" in both SA and on PE17/160, though in the
Etymologies it was glossed "great serpent, dragon". In one place (PE17/160) its
derivative Q. (h)l�ce was glossed "reptile, snake, worm", so if I had to pick a
word for "reptile", I'd use that.

Q. leuca "snake" is from the root LEWEK "worm" (PE17/160). Similarly Q. ango
"snake" is root ANGWA "snake". I doubt either could be used more generally for
reptile. It may be that (h)l�ce could be used generally for "bending or
slithering creature", however.

Since the latin serpens was borrowed from Greek herpton with  sound changes how
about a similar sounding word built around the various Quenya words for fingers
but adding an 'o"? (fingers are sort of similar inshape to the snake:

Lepeno (from middle finger) or
Lepeto (from first finger)
Lepento (from fourth finger)




  lepent�
	 [lepend�] noun "middle finger", also lepenel (VT47:10, VT48:15; struck out)
	 lepenel noun "middle finger", also [lepend�] (VT47:10, VT48:5; lepend� was
struck out, VT48:15)
	 lepent� noun "fourth finger" (counted from the thumb) (VT48:5, 14, 15), also
lepecan
	 leper (pl. leperi given) noun "finger" (VT44:16, VT47:10, 14, 24, VT48:5; an
older source gives the word for "finger" as leps�, q.v.)
	 lepetas noun "first or index finger" (VT47:10, VT48:5, 14). Stem lepetass- (pl.
lepetassi, VT47:11)



--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Helge K. Fauskanger" <helge.fauskanger@...>
wrote:
>
> 'm trying to finish a version of the Letter of James for my Neo-Quenya
> New Testament project.
>
> There are two terms that are somewhat problematic. Shrewd neologisms
> will be required.
>
> "Bridle" (needed for 3:3).
>
> Qui panyalve [???] mir roccoron anto, carieltan ve merilve, turilve
> yando quanda hroalta.
> If we put _bridles_ into the mouth of horses, for them to do as we wish,
> we control also their entire body.
>
> Also we need some term for "creeping animal" or "reptile" in 3:7. The
> Greek word is _herpeton_ (presumably used for Hebrew _remes_ -- all
> sorts or "creep", apparently broadly denoting reptiles, non-flying
> insects, and the like).
>
> The basic idea of creeping or crawling is difficult to render as well. I
> don't think Tolkien left us any root or derivation closely touching on
> these ideas.
>
> How was the root LOK (SLOK), yielding words for dragon and worm, defined
> in the Silmarillion Appendix? I only have the Norwegian translation with
> me just now. Sloping, curving?
>
> Or could we go for something based on the idea of "moving animal" or
> "teeming animal"? I believe I have seen such translations of _remes_.
>
> - HKF
>

Thanks for feedback regarding the root LOK.

Pfstrack wrote:

  > The root LOK was glossed "bend, loop" in both SA and on PE17/160,
though in the Etymologies it was glossed "great serpent, dragon". In one
place (PE17/160) its derivative Q. (h)l�ce was glossed "reptile, snake,
worm", so if I had to pick a word for "reptile", I'd use that.

I must confess that in my mind, _(h)l�ce_ is so bound up with the
meaning "dragon" that I find it hard to use it for the general meaning
"reptile". But I guess it is the best option.

- HKF

Hi there, good work :)


I am sorry that I can't read all your details and verify them, someone else
perhaps could. For starters I would say that the canonical sources after the
Etymologies don't describe the stages of Sindarin and don't give a timeframe.
Most changes must have happened already before the Battles of Beleriand and
Sindarin was already fully formed.

Somewhere I have read that the FA Sindarin differed from the TA Sindarin in very
minor details. For example ch- became h-, and -nd became -n. The name of Huurin
was perhaps *Chuurind in the First Age. Unfortunately I don't remember the
source. However even this stage was well past the stage of Old Sindarin and
"Middle Sindarin".

Secondly, have in mind that the Etymologies describe Noldorin which is somehow
different from Sindarin. For example there are many words starting from rh- and
lh-, many oe's whereas we should expect ae's, words ending in -w instead of -u,
words ending in -gr and -gl etc. On the other hand, the Noldorin forms give
insight on the intermediate stages which what we could call "Middle Sindarin".

And finally, perhaps you could find an old verion of Didier Willis' Sindarin
dictionary, specifically the edition "Cabor", where each entry had etymological
information. Unfortunately those were removed from recent version as they were
too speculative and at points were contradicted in chaotic ways by newer
material which was incompatible to the Etymologies. If you can find it, it must
prove insightful for you.


>________________________________
> ���: bondarenko.tatjana <bondarenko.tatjana@...>
>����: elfling@yahoogroups.com
>��������: 6:14 �.�. �������, 10 ��������� 2012
>����: [elfling] Language changes in Sindarin
>
>

One possibility to avoid confusion with dragon is to use the word nosse or
nostale with it. The Neo-quenya wordlist at Wikia uses these two terms as
'genus' and 'species'. So there is already some neo-quenya community word
building with these concepts.

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Helge K. Fauskanger" <helge.fauskanger@...>
wrote:
>
> Thanks for feedback regarding the root LOK.
>
> Pfstrack wrote:
>
>  > The root LOK was glossed "bend, loop" in both SA and on PE17/160,
> though in the Etymologies it was glossed "great serpent, dragon". In one
> place (PE17/160) its derivative Q. (h)l�ce was glossed "reptile, snake,
> worm", so if I had to pick a word for "reptile", I'd use that.
>
> I must confess that in my mind, _(h)l�ce_ is so bound up with the
> meaning "dragon" that I find it hard to use it for the general meaning
> "reptile". But I guess it is the best option.
>
> - HKF
>

winterhavik wrote:

  > One possibility to avoid confusion with dragon is to use the word
nosse or nostale with it. The Neo-quenya wordlist at Wikia uses these
two terms as 'genus' and 'species'. So there is already some neo-quenya
community word building with these concepts.

Interesting. But the context I needed the word for in James 3:7
_already_ mentioned the word _nostale_:

An ilya nostale hravani celvaron ar aiwion ar hl�cion ar onnaron earesse
anaier c�rine n�ror Atanion.

= For every kind of wild animals and of birds and of _hl�ci_ on earth
have been made servants of Men.

Anyway, the whole thing is available now:

http://folk.uib.no/hnohf/James.doc

Another problem is how to render the word "letter" (rather relevant when
I am trying to translate New Testament letters). _Tengwa_ I take to mean
"letter" in the sense of "character in writing", not "epistle". A word
explicitly meaning "epistle" (or "epistola"), _tenna_, turned up in
Parma 19:86, but only in a deleted note, and the clash with _tenna_
"until" is unfortunate.

I have now used the word _tecet_ from the Qenya Lexicon, simply glosed
"letter", but we can never be sure if the intended meaning is
"character" or "epistle". It is, indeed, similar in form to the later
term _sarat_ of a R�milian character.

- HKF






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello Helge,


HKF> Another problem is how to render the word "letter" (rather relevant when
HKF> I am trying to translate New Testament letters). _Tengwa_ I take to mean

             Why not to use the word "menta":
                    menta (2) noun "sending" or "message" as in sanwe-menta
"thought-sending, mental message" (VT41:5)

For  instance, in Russian Bible all of the letters are called послание
(poslaniye) meaning "message", "sending" and coming from  the  verb 
"послать"  (poslat'), meaning "to
send".


--
Menelion.

Hello again!

I'm writing so soon as there is an idea plaguing my thoughts that haven't given
me peace for a couple of days, so I thought that discussing it with you might
help :). I haven't seen it anywhere, but if it appeared on Elfling or elsewhere
before, please forgive me for that unwilling repetition. I might have seen hints
of this idea in several places, but no description. If I'm right, I'd like you
to confirm that; if I'm wrong, feel free to poke holes in it.

This idea appeared thanks to Palatinus sending me the pages from `The
Introduction to Elvish' dealing with sound changes from Proto-Elvish to Sindarin
and Quenya. When I was looking through them, I realised that the changes listed
in my previous post do not account for words _kirja_ and _winja_ becoming _cair_
and _(g)wain_. I could see that _cair_ < _ceir_ and _(g)wain_ < _gwein_, but why
does _j_ disappear and why does _i_ become _ei_, as normally the result of
A-umlaut of _i_ is _e_?

Then a possible solution came to me. Could it be that when _j_ becomes final
after loss of the final _a_, it combines with the preceding consonant
(thereinafter Co) so that _j_ itself disappears but Co becomes palatilised and
at a later stage realises itself as _i+Co_? So we have _cer^j_ > _ceir_, and
_(g)wen^j_ > _(g)wein_ (here and after _^j_ is meant to be _j_ in superscript)

Well, I decided to check if this process is relative only to those two words, or
if it's more widespread. With the help of the Quenya Reverse wordlist (courtesy
of H.K. Fauskanger), which gives the sources of the words mentioned there, I
looked up the nouns and adjectives ending in _ja_ in the Etymologies (as the
verbs behave differently, with final _a_ remaining).
The words I found I separated into three groups (I won't mention all the cases,
just some examples):

1) The words that behave exactly like _cair_ and _gwain_, e.g.
_gilja_ > _geil_ > _gail_,
_slinja_ > _lhein_ > _lhain_ (_thlein_ in the Etym.)
_ulja_ > _oeil_ > _eil_ > _ail_ (while it is a verb, and I didn't try to look up
verbs, it also fits),
_forja_ > _foeir_ > _feir_ > _fair_ (where _oe_ is not a diphthong but an
umlauted _o_, as in the previous example) etc.

2) The words with _i_ as the stem-vowel that have i: as the final result, e.g.
_kilja_ > _ci:l_, _linja_ > _li:n_. Here I am confused, because I can see
several possibilities and I don't have enough knowledge to say which is right.
Or maybe I am wrong and there is some other mechanism at work?

a) _kilja_ > _kelj_ > _ke-il_ > _ki-il_ (I-umlaut) > _ci:l_
But this variant raises a question why I-umlaut doesn't occur in the words of
the 1st group.

b)  _kilja_ > _kelj_ > _keil_ > _keel_ > _ke:l_ > _ki:l_ (based on _eide_ >
_e:de_ > _i:dh in WJ:404, assuming, of course, that _E:de_ is the archaic form
of this word and not a simple later adaptation of the Quenya name _Este_ )
Again, why doesn't this happen in the words of the 1st group?

I am guessing here, but I assume that these possibilities are also valid for
possessive pronouns.
E.g. _menja_ (`our' excl.) > _menj_ > _mein_ > _miin_ > _mi:n_
or _mein_ > _meen_ > _me:n_ > _mi:n_

c) the forms with i: were the original forms, but JRRT rethought the idea, made
the addition to the stem GIL but forgot about others. But again, this doesn't
explain the pronouns, as they appear in later sources.

3) The words with _a_ as the stem-vowel. E.g. �_madja_ > _meidh_ > _maidh_,
_banja_ > _bein_ > _bain_, _kalarja_ > _celeir_ > _celair_ etc. At first I
almost discounted them because I thought them as a result of a simple I-umlaut,
and not the palatalisation of the final consonant (and THAT was the reason why I
had missed all those cases when deducing my list of changes). After all, all
sources on Sindarin that I've read state quite unequivocally that _a_ in the
final syllable turns into _ai_. But again, what causes the umlaut here? Does _j_
turn into _i_ when final, umlauts all the _a_ and then disappears, e.g. _banj_ >
_bani_ > _beini_ > _bain_? If so, then why not _kirja_ > _cerj_ > _ceri_ > 
_ciri_ > _cir_/_ci:r_ (with possible lengthening of the vowel to compensate for
the loss of the syllable)?

At this point I tried to remember what little I know about the general
principles of umlaut. And then I asked myself a question: why do diphthongs
appear as the result of the umlaut at all? _A_ turning into _e_ is logical, as
is _e_ turning into _i_ only in the final syllable etc., all according to the
phonetic chart of vowels. But where does _ei_ come from?

Around 2 AM a possible answer hit me like a ton of bricks (only a possible, mind
you, I'm not 100% sure). What if _ei_ is actually the result of the
palatalisation of the final consonant (Co+j > Co^j > i+Co) in the first place?
The change would go like this:
  _kalarja_ > _kala-r^j_ (possibly through the stage _kala-ri_) > _kala-ir_ >
_cele-ir_(with both _a_ umlauting to _e_) > _celeir_ (with sound combination
_e+i_ turning into diphthong _ei_) > _celair_

But again, why do we not see the umlaut in the case _cer^j_ > _ceir_ and such?
The reason for that might be simple. This last change appears to occur at the
stage where Sindarin has the diphthong _ei_ but doesn't have the diphthong _ai_,
as the primitive _ai_ has already turned into _ae_, but _ei_ hasn't turned into
_ai_ yet. So the combination _e+i_ turns into a diphthong, and this diphthong
doesn't cause the umlaut. But the combination _a+i_ is simply a combination, so
_i_ is `free' to umlaut other vowels.

And the palatalisation of the final consonant might, according to my idea,
actually explain why we see _nern_ and _feng_ as plurals of _narn_ and _fang_.
H.K. Fauskanger in his work `Sindarin � the Noble Tongue' expressed the idea
that this is due to the final clusters _rn_  and _ng_. I would agree � partly. I
would say that if the final consonant cluster can be palatalised, then we'll
have _ai_ < _ei_ in the plural. But if it can't � then we'll have a simple _e_.
Personally, for me it is easier to pronounce _can^jt^ji_ (>_caint_) than
_canti_, and on the contrary, much easier to pronounce _fangi_ (> _feng_) than
_fan^jg^ji_, and pronouncing _nar^jn^ji_ is almost impossible. I'm not saying
that it would be that way for anyone, but still :).

So, what do you think of my idea? Feel free to critisize :)

By the way, while we are speaking about _cair_. Is it possible that in compounds
_ai_ in this word turns not only into _i:_ (as in _Ci:rdan_) but also into short
_i_? And if so, do you know if there is any connection between this word and the
name Cirion? Or the name Erchirion, for that matter?

Thanks for reading my midnight ramblings :)

Tanya

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "bondarenko.tatjana" <bondarenko.tatjana@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello again!
>
> I'm writing so soon as there is an idea plaguing my thoughts that haven't
given me peace for a couple of days, so I thought that discussing it with you
might help :). I haven't seen it anywhere, but if it appeared on Elfling or
elsewhere before, please forgive me for that unwilling repetition. I might have
seen hints of this idea in several places, but no description. If I'm right, I'd
like you to confirm that; if I'm wrong, feel free to poke holes in it.
>
> This idea appeared thanks to Palatinus sending me the pages from `The
Introduction to Elvish' dealing with sound changes from Proto-Elvish to Sindarin
and Quenya. When I was looking through them, I realised that the changes listed
in my previous post do not account for words _kirja_ and _winja_ becoming _cair_
and _(g)wain_. I could see that _cair_ < _ceir_ and _(g)wain_ < _gwein_, but why
does _j_ disappear and why does _i_ become _ei_, as normally the result of
A-umlaut of _i_ is _e_?
>
> Then a possible solution came to me. Could it be that when _j_ becomes final
after loss of the final _a_, it combines with the preceding consonant
(thereinafter Co) so that _j_ itself disappears but Co becomes palatilised and
at a later stage realises itself as _i+Co_? So we have _cer^j_ > _ceir_, and
_(g)wen^j_ > _(g)wein_ (here and after _^j_ is meant to be _j_ in superscript)

This is basically right, though there are a number of ways in which this could
be treated as a matter of analysis (which is slightly different from what might
actually have been the "historical" development).

You have *kirjaa, *winjaa > *kerja(a), *wenja(a) by lowering of the high vowel i
-- part of an assimilation to the low -aa ending.
Now, the easiest way to get to *keir, *wein is simply metathesis: *kerja >
*kejra > *keir, *wenja > *wejna > *wein. "Easiest", that is, in terms of
describing the process, which is why I described it that way in "Gateway" 4.99.
But I've always felt uncomfortable about it as a statement about the actual
sound that the words would have had, in the mouths of speakers. Although
metathesis does occur in real languages -- usually with a period of variation in
which both sequences 1,2 and 2,1 are in use (e.g., "ask" beside "aks") -- the
idea of a free variation between *kerja and *kejra feels slightly unnatural. I
think it more likely that the intermediate stages would have been *ker'r'a,
*wen'n'a > *kejr'a, *wejn'a (where r', n' are palatalized consonants) with the
sound gradually going from postpalatalized, to palatalized, to prepalatalized --
the prepalatalization naturally resolving itself as a diphthong with the
preceding vowel.
This change only takes place, however, before the last vowel of the word, and
it's reasonable to connect it to the incipient apocope -- i.e., that as the last
vowel got weaker and weaker, possibly already being deleted in some speech
contexts, the palatalization -- no longer manifestable on the last vowel --
progresses back through the consonant.


> 2) The words with _i_ as the stem-vowel that have i: as the final result, e.g.
_kilja_ > _ci:l_, _linja_ > _li:n_. Here I am confused, because I can see
several possibilities and I don't have enough knowledge to say which is right.
Or maybe I am wrong and there is some other mechanism at work?
>
> a) _kilja_ > _kelj_ > _ke-il_ > _ki-il_ (I-umlaut) > _ci:l_
> But this variant raises a question why I-umlaut doesn't occur in the words of
the 1st group.
>
> b)  _kilja_ > _kelj_ > _keil_ > _keel_ > _ke:l_ > _ki:l_ (based on _eide_ >
_e:de_ > _i:dh in WJ:404, assuming, of course, that _E:de_ is the archaic form
of this word and not a simple later adaptation of the Quenya name _Este_ )
> Again, why doesn't this happen in the words of the 1st group?

I think it's more likely here that the final vowel in Old Sindarin was different
from Quenya; perhaps *kilja, *linja rather than *kiljaa, *linjaa -- or perhaps
another vowel altogether. In any case, it seems that the i's did not lower to e;
thereafter, the development would be normal: *kilja > *kil'l'a > *kijl'a >
*ki:la > ki:l "cîl"; *linja > *lin'n'a > *lijn'a > *li:na > li:n "lîn".

>
> I am guessing here, but I assume that these possibilities are also valid for
possessive pronouns.
> E.g. _menja_ (`our' excl.) > _menj_ > _mein_ > _miin_ > _mi:n_
> or _mein_ > _meen_ > _me:n_ > _mi:n_

No, menja should have > mein > main, as indeed is shown by Q minya = S mein,
main. I'm more inclined to think that mi:n arises simply from lengthening of the
vowel: *me:na > *mi:na > mîn.


> c) the forms with i: were the original forms, but JRRT rethought the idea,
made the addition to the stem GIL but forgot about others. But again, this
doesn't explain the pronouns, as they appear in later sources.
>
> 3) The words with _a_ as the stem-vowel. E.g. �_madja_ > _meidh_ > _maidh_,
_banja_ > _bein_ > _bain_, _kalarja_ > _celeir_ > _celair_ etc. At first I
almost discounted them because I thought them as a result of a simple I-umlaut,
and not the palatalisation of the final consonant (and THAT was the reason why I
had missed all those cases when deducing my list of changes). After all, all
sources on Sindarin that I've read state quite unequivocally that _a_ in the
final syllable turns into _ai_. But again, what causes the umlaut here? Does _j_
turn into _i_ when final, umlauts all the _a_ and then disappears, e.g. _banj_ >
_bani_ > _beini_ > _bain_? If so, then why not _kirja_ > _cerj_ > _ceri_ > 
_ciri_ > _cir_/_ci:r_ (with possible lengthening of the vowel to compensate for
the loss of the syllable)?

I don't think these are two different things. The palatalization *is* the
"umlaut", or rather one step in it: 1) raising of e, a, o > i, e, u; 2) fronting
of o, u > ö, y; 3) palatalization of the last consonant leading to the
formation of diphthongs with a final -i component, some of which simplified,
probably automatically (e.g. yi > y - *orodi > *orudi > *örydi > *öryid >
öryd > eryd; ii > i - *eleni > *elini > *eliin > elin).

The change *kerja > *kerj > *keri > *kiri doesn't take place because of
ordering; a-affection (the lowering of i and u to e and o before a) comes
*after* the raising component of the "umlaut", and so can't "feed" it. So
instead we have
*kirja
RAISING (which doesn't affect the i in *kirja, because it's already as "raised"
as it can be)
A-AFFECTION > *kerja
PALATALIZATION/DIPHTHONGIZATION > *kejra
APOCOPE > keir
DISSIMILATION > kair.

> At this point I tried to remember what little I know about the general
principles of umlaut. And then I asked myself a question: why do diphthongs
appear as the result of the umlaut at all? _A_ turning into _e_ is logical, as
is _e_ turning into _i_ only in the final syllable etc., all according to the
phonetic chart of vowels. But where does _ei_ come from?
>
> Around 2 AM a possible answer hit me like a ton of bricks (only a possible,
mind you, I'm not 100% sure). What if _ei_ is actually the result of the
palatalisation of the final consonant (Co+j > Co^j > i+Co) in the first place?
The change would go like this:
>  _kalarja_ > _kala-r^j_ (possibly through the stage _kala-ri_) > _kala-ir_ >
_cele-ir_(with both _a_ umlauting to _e_) > _celeir_ (with sound combination
_e+i_ turning into diphthong _ei_) > _celair_
>

My explanation is as follows:
*kalarja
RAISING > *kalerja
A-AFFECTION (no change)
FRONTING (no change)
PALATALIZATION/DIPHTHONGIZATION > *kalejra, *kaleira
INTERNAL FRONTING > *keleira
APOCOPE > *keleir
DISSIMILATION > *kelair


> But again, why do we not see the umlaut in the case _cer^j_ > _ceir_ and such?
The reason for that might be simple. This last change appears to occur at the
stage where Sindarin has the diphthong _ei_ but doesn't have the diphthong _ai_,
as the primitive _ai_ has already turned into _ae_, but _ei_ hasn't turned into
_ai_ yet. So the combination _e+i_ turns into a diphthong, and this diphthong
doesn't cause the umlaut. But the combination _a+i_ is simply a combination, so
_i_ is `free' to umlaut other vowels.

I'm not sure I follow the argument. The _ei_ in *ceir has already experienced
exactly the same mutation as in other "umlauted" nouns, the only difference
being that it ended in an -a rather than an -i.  The plural, by the way, was
*kirjai > *kirji, and this developed normally to *kijri > ki:r; so the singular
is cair "ship", plural cîr "ships".

>
> And the palatalisation of the final consonant might, according to my idea,
actually explain why we see _nern_ and _feng_ as plurals of _narn_ and _fang_.
H.K. Fauskanger in his work `Sindarin � the Noble Tongue' expressed the idea
that this is due to the final clusters _rn_  and _ng_. I would agree � partly.
I would say that if the final consonant cluster can be palatalised, then we'll
have _ai_ < _ei_ in the plural. But if it can't � then we'll have a simple
_e_. Personally, for me it is easier to pronounce _can^jt^ji_ (>_caint_) than
_canti_, and on the contrary, much easier to pronounce _fangi_ (> _feng_) than
_fan^jg^ji_, and pronouncing _nar^jn^ji_ is almost impossible. I'm not saying
that it would be that way for anyone, but still :).

At any rate, either there never was a stage of *neirn, *feing, or the
monophthongization of ei > e occurred prior to the dissimilation of ei > ai;
it's very unlikely that *nairn > nern.


> By the way, while we are speaking about _cair_. Is it possible that in
compounds _ai_ in this word turns not only into _i:_ (as in _Ci:rdan_) but also
into short _i_? And if so, do you know if there is any connection between this
word and the name Cirion? Or the name Erchirion, for that matter?

Cirion is probably a "Sindarization" of the attested Quenya name Ciryon
"ship-man", perhaps < *kirjond(o). But this would normally have developed as
*kirjond > kirion in Sindarin anyway; the diphthongization only takes place when
the Cj sequence begins the last syllable. Otherwise it resolves into a CiV
sequence, as in Sirion (cf. sirya), Firiel (cf. firya), etc.

Erchirion could be from er + cirion, but I thought it more likely that it comes
from *arkhe:rion -- in Quenya, "ar(a)heruo yondo", "The high/noble lord's son"
-- with internal affection due to the i in hîr < *khe:ru.

David

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "bondarenko.tatjana" <bondarenko.tatjana@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I’ve been lurking on this group for some time, but it is the
> first time I’ve decided to write something.
>
> My problem is as follows. Recently I’ve become interested in the
> language-forming processes from Prim. Quendian to Quenya and Sindarin.
> Unfortunately, while the description of the development of Quenya
> (wholly) and of Sindarin up to Old Sindarin is available for free on the
> Internet (thanks to H.K.Fauskanger and others), the processes occurring
> in the period from Old to Classical Sindarin, as far as I am aware, are
> described only in “Gateway to Sindarin”, which I
> don’t have and, frankly, am unable to acquire just yet (and the
> same with VT and PE). So I tried to deduce these processes by myself.

I have to say that you've done an extremely impressive job.


> My first question is if there exists the proper periodisation of
> Sindarin in any published Tolkien’s material, and if not, what
> the most accepted periodisation is. For now I have tentatively separated
> the language following the Old Noldorin/Sindarin of the Etymologies into
> the following periods: Late Old Sindarin, Middle Sindarin and Classical
> Sindarin. As to what historical periods they relate to, and which
> processes belong to which period, I can only guess.  In my mind, the
> Late Old Sindarin relates to the period up until the end of the 1st Age,
> as this is when the most serious changes occur; the Middle Sindarin is
> the language of the 2nd and the first half of the 3rd Age, and the
> Classical Sindarin is the language of the late 3rd and the early 4th
> Age.  Is this wrong?

I don't know if there's a "proper" periodization or not. I only know what I
used: Old Sindarin from the separation of the Sindar from the Teleri (Valian
Year 1150) down to the arrival of the Noldor in Hithlum (Valian Year 1500);
Middle Sindarin for the remainder of the First Age, the first 590 years of the
Sun; then "Classical Sindarin" for Sindarin of the Second Age and later, though
I probably should have reserved the term for Sindarin as used by the Men of
Númenor and of the kingdoms in exile.

> Second, is there any information about the Noldor’s contribution
> to Sindarin? I don’t mean just the normalisation of Sindarin, but
> the ideas which would not have appeared otherwise. I am aware only of
> two things: borrowing of LE and the plural marker �"R (and does
> that mean that the attested verb CUINAR (‘they live’)
> would have been *CUINAI (or *CUINI) in Sindarin beforehand?)

I doubt that the plural -r in verbs was a Quenya contribution. There are a small
number of stated borrowings from Quenya, like tegil "pen", a modification of Q
tekil; if Sindarin had had the word *tekla, it would probably have turned into
!tegol. There are a few other words that one can guess, from the form, to be
borrowings from Quenya, and other words that can be attributed to Q origin from
a socio-cultural context (e.g., many of the words relating to the Valar).

> Third, below I have listed all the language changes I was able to
> deduce, mostly from the Etymologies, with examples (first vowels, then
> consonants; vowels with the colon following are long).  If it’s
> not too much trouble, could you look through them? Do you think they are
> correct? Do they refer to the correct period? Are there any other
> changes that I have missed?
>
>
>
> Thank you for your help.
>
>
>
> Late Old Sindarin
>
> 1. Loss of final vowels. (phelga -> felg; baraha -> barah)
>
> If the resulting word was monosyllabic and ended in a single consonant,
> the stem vowel was lengthened unless the word was used in a compound or
> an ending was added to it. (nele -> ne:l; pele -> pe:l)
>
> The resulting final -W -> -U after a consonant. (pathwa -> pathw ->
> pathu; kurwe -> curw -> curu)

I place apocope, and the loss of internal vowels -- together with the complex
series of changes resulting from new consonant contacts -- as the last change in
Old Sindarin, marking the beginning of what is really a new language. The
developments from Middle to Classical Sindarin are relatively limited by
comparison.

>
> 2. A-umlaut (I -> E, U -> O). (smalina -> malen; kapita -> cabed; runda
> -> rond; jura -> iôr; khithwa -> hethu)
>
> 3. I-umlaut (A -> E, E -> I etc.). (ammalinde -> emmelind; Arjante ->
> Eriant)

These I would place somewhat earlier. Also, "i-umlaut" is a slightly more
complex operation.

> 4. AK/AP -> AE (most likely, through AI), EK -> EI, UK -> UI before
> spirants (TH, DH, F, V, S). (pelthaksa -> pelthaes; jaktha -> iaeth;
> apsa -> aes; lapse -> laes; tektha- -> teitha-; ekthele -> eithel;
> juktha- -> iuitha-; nuktha- -> nuitha-. Also: júkale -> iuial ->
> uial; nakma -> naef. But: ekthelga -> ecthel/egthel)
>
> 5. AI -> AE. (aiwe -> aew; ail -> ael)

This I'd place as a relatively late change, coordinate with oi > oe (the
diphthong, not to be confused with ö, which is sometimes also written oe). The
latter develops from the diphthongization of [O:], which by itself usually
appears as "au" in Classical Sindarin.
>
> 6. �" -> AU. (po:r(e) -> paur; ko:lo -> caul; ro:da -> raudh)
>
> 7. IO -> UI. (snioma -> nuif)
>
> 8. In some cases, EI/IE -> I:. (eide -> i:dh; neiti -> ni:d)
>
> 9. Shortening of long vowels in polysyllables. (khi:ril -> hiril;
> hjatthe:la -> hathel; But: círdan (possibly due to I: <- AI))
>
> 9. (P)PH -> PH, (T)TH -> TH, (K)KH -> CH. (alpha -> alph; apphata- ->
> aphada-; orthor- -> orthor-; battha- -> batha-; ekkhuiwe -> echui(w))
>
> 10. Lenition. (kap- -> cab-; beleka -> beleg; Ngolodo -> Golodh; lab- ->
> lav-; dram(a)- -> drav(a)-)
>
> 11. Liquid mutation. (golba -> golf; gorme -> gorf; sthalga -> thalgh)

This is just normal lenition -- the liquid plays no rôle. What liquids r and l
actually do (like other elements in consonant clusters) is provoke aspiration of
the following consonant (way back in Old Sindarin), so that *rt, *lt, *nt, *st,
*tt alike became *rth, *lth, *nth, *sth, *tth, and then the aspirated th became
a fricative, except after non-initial s.

> 12. Loss of S in initial consonant clusters SKH, SM, SN, SPH etc.
> (sphara- -> fara-; smalina -> malen)
>
> 13. Initial KH -> H. (khalatirno -> heledir; But: khrasse -> r(h)ass
> (possibly, KHR -> HR -> R(H); I’m not sure whether it should be
> rass or rhass))

There are a couple of different levels of creation going on here, as Tolkien
tried to sort out what he meant by "ras". I'm not sure if both ras(s) "horn" and
hras(s) "precipice" were meant to coexist, but at any rate *kharasse > *khrasse
should give hras, not ras -- the h appears as a "ch" in the derived name
Gochressiel, which presumably means "group of precipices".

I'm not seeing a whole lot else to take exception to, though I might quibble
about some details of ordering.  I think this is all really, really good work.

David

Hi Elfling Community,

I'm making a glossary and phrase-book for the Mannish languages spoken at the
time of Bilbo and Frodo:

https://sites.google.com/site/endorenya/glossary

Though I try to work myself into the perspective of the texts, it's not an
academic work. I extend the "fictive translation" device beyond the Northman
(=Germanic) languages, to encompass all Mannish tongues. So medieval and modern
languages serve as "stand-ins"--until we get around to crafting the actual
languages.

If anyone has any words to add to the glossary, feel free to share.

tatjana" <bondarenko.tatjana@...> wrote regarding Quenya influence on
Sindarin:

  >  I am aware only of two things: borrowing of LE and the plural marker
"R (and does that mean that the attested verb CUINAR ("they live") would
have been *CUINAI (or *CUINI) in Sindarin beforehand?)

David responded:

  > I doubt that the plural -r in verbs was a Quenya contribution.

Indeed it wasn't. In Parma 19, page 103, we have explicit confirmation
that -r is among "the most ancient bases expressing [plural] number". It
was in Common Eldarin "attached to otherwise uninflected verbal stems".
Thus Sindarin has simply inherited -r as a VERBAL plural ending from
Common Eldarin.

In primitive Quenya its use was however "much extended" (ibid.)
According to PM:402 it was the Noldor that first started using "the new
device of r" to indicate plurality -- new in the case of nouns, that is.

How could the change have been initiated? One may plausible imagine that
phrases such as _i valar_ "those who rule" (absolute relative sentence)
were at some point reinterpreted as "the rulers" -- and then -r could
spread like wildfire through the declensions!

- HKF


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I started playing Lord of the Rings Online about 2 years ago and have made 3
elven characters.  I came up with names for them that sounded to me as if they
could be from Middle Earth but could never actually give them "definition". 
Until today.  Below is their names and what I've been able to come up with as
far as what their names mean.

Marsion
      Mar = earth    -s = respective "case"     ion = son
      "Son of the Earth"

Tannalas
      Tanna = sign     la = no / not     -s = respective "case"
      "No Sign"

Mitralier
      Mith (Sindarin) = Pale / Grey     r� = "on behalf of" -or- lion
      lie = people     -r = plural
      "Peoples of the grey lion" -or- "On behalf of the grey peoples"

Now, please remember that when I made up these names, I did so completely off
the top of my head.  The third one is what I really want to have help on.

Given that those on the board have done a vast amount more study on the Elvish
languages of Tolkien, can anyone give me a bit more insight as to whether these
translations I have come up with ACTUALLY work.  I know that "MITHRALIER" uses
both Sindarin and Quenya.  I also assume that there are no attested combinations
like this in any of the materials.

Are these plausible, or just cool sounding names for a video game?

Many real-world names are basically meaningless, chosen simply because they
"sound nice". Others once had some meaning, but have drifted so far
phonetically from their origins that the original meaning is no longer
readily discernible.

This is also true of many of the names in Tolkien's work, especially the
mannish names of Gondor or the Dunedain of the North. I would accept that
your names fall into that category rather than trying to retrofit a meaning
to them.

If you do want names that actually mean something, I would start from
scratch and craft names that have both the meaning and sound you would
like, in the language of your choice.

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Algoroth Draconis <
algoroth_draconis@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I started playing Lord of the Rings Online about 2 years ago and have made
> 3 elven characters. I came up with names for them that sounded to me as if
> they could be from Middle Earth but could never actually give them
> "definition". Until today. Below is their names and what I've been able to
> come up with as far as what their names mean.
>
> Marsion
> Mar = earth -s = respective "case" ion = son
> "Son of the Earth"
>
> Tannalas
> Tanna = sign la = no / not -s = respective "case"
> "No Sign"
>
> Mitralier
> Mith (Sindarin) = Pale / Grey r� = "on behalf of" -or- lion
> lie = people -r = plural
> "Peoples of the grey lion" -or- "On behalf of the grey peoples"
>
> Now, please remember that when I made up these names, I did so completely
> off the top of my head. The third one is what I really want to have help on.
>
> Given that those on the board have done a vast amount more study on the
> Elvish languages of Tolkien, can anyone give me a bit more insight as to
> whether these translations I have come up with ACTUALLY work. I know that
> "MITHRALIER" uses both Sindarin and Quenya. I also assume that there are no
> attested combinations like this in any of the materials.
>
> Are these plausible, or just cool sounding names for a video game?
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't know if this helps, but Tolkien mentions that some Gondorian names are
Quenya-Sindarin compounds, and Boromir is such an example. However those were
names of Gondorians, not Elves.

On the other hand, the sound -tr- is problematic both in Q and S. Also, the
retconned definitions aren't like the canonical Elvish names. The canonical
compound names are composed only of adjectives and nouns, not declensions (such
as forms in the respective case) or prepositions (such as "on behalf").

For example, Elendil means "friend of stars", but is rendered as "star-friend",
not Elenion-dil "of-stars friend".

In other words, the compound names are actually descriptions, not "phrases".

(of course there must have been one or two exceptions which I can't recall off
the top of my head right now)




>________________________________
> Απο: Algoroth Draconis <algoroth_draconis@...>
>Προς: elfling@yahoogroups.com
>Στάλθηκε: 9:50 μ.μ. Τρίτη, 23 Οκτωβρίου 2012
>Θεμα: [elfling] LotRO Character Names
>
>
> 
>I started playing Lord of the Rings Online about 2 years ago and have made 3
elven characters.  I came up with names for them that sounded to me as if they
could be from Middle Earth but could never actually give them
"definition".  Until today.  Below is their names and what I've been able to
come up with as far as what their names mean.
>
>Marsion
>Mar = earth    -s = respective "case"     ion = son
>"Son of the Earth"
>
>Tannalas
>Tanna = sign     la = no / not     -s = respective "case"
>"No Sign"
>
>Mitralier
>Mith (Sindarin) = Pale / Grey     rá = "on behalf of" -or- lion
>lie = people     -r = plural
>"Peoples of the grey lion" -or- "On behalf of the grey peoples"
>
>Now, please remember that when I made up these names, I did so completely off
the top of my head.  The third one is what I really want to have help on.
>
>Given that those on the board have done a vast amount more study on the Elvish
languages of Tolkien, can anyone give me a bit more insight as to whether these
translations I have come up with ACTUALLY work.  I know that "MITHRALIER" uses
both Sindarin and Quenya.  I also assume that there are no attested
combinations like this in any of the materials.
>
>Are these plausible, or just cool sounding names for a video game?
>
>
>
>
>

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Algoroth Draconis" <algoroth_draconis@...>
wrote:
>
> I started playing Lord of the Rings Online about 2 years ago and have made 3
elven characters.  I came up with names for them that sounded to me as if they
could be from Middle Earth but could never actually give them "definition". 
Until today.  Below is their names and what I've been able to come up with as
far as what their names mean.
>
> Marsion
>      Mar = earth    -s = respective "case"     ion = son
>      "Son of the Earth"

Q. _mar_, _mard-_ seems to have the primary meaning 'home, dwelling', or even
'hall'. The S. cognate is _bar_, as in _Baravorn_ 'Hamfast', "Stay-at-home".
'Earth' is normally translated Q. _ambar_, _arda_, S. _amar_.

As noted by others, the _-s_ is problematic. I cannot retro-construct any
plausible explanation for it. _Mar(d)ion_ would probably be understood as 'Son
of the dwelling'.


> Tannalas
>      Tanna = sign     la = no / not     -s = respective "case"
>      "No Sign"

I would interpret _Tannalas_ as 'Sign-leaf' or 'Sign-joy', a shortened form of
_Tannalasse_.

"No sign" could perhaps be translated _�tanna_ or _�tanwa_; cf. _�ner_ "noman".



> Mitralier
>      Mith (Sindarin) = Pale / Grey     r� = "on behalf of" -or- lion
>      lie = people     -r = plural
>      "Peoples of the grey lion" -or- "On behalf of the grey peoples"
>
> Now, please remember that when I made up these names, I did so completely off
the top of my head.  The third one is what I really want to have help on.
>
> Given that those on the board have done a vast amount more study on the Elvish
languages of Tolkien, can anyone give me a bit more insight as to whether these
translations I have come up with ACTUALLY work.  I know that "MITHRALIER" uses
both Sindarin and Quenya.  I also assume that there are no attested combinations
like this in any of the materials.
>
> Are these plausible, or just cool sounding names for a video game?

Is the name "Mitralier" or "Mithralier"? There actually is an attested Q. word
_mitra_ 'small' (synonym of _mitsa_). That leaves _lier_, which probably is
easiest explained as 'peoples'. _Mithralier_ is hard to analyze as anything else
than a mix of Q. and S. (and then possibly with the meaning 'Grey lion-peoples',
if *_r�lie_ is seen as a compound).

/M�ns

Ok so it seems the general consensus is that there are really no translations
for these names. �It's a shame but I figured that it was the most likely out
come. �Thank you all for looking at this.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Marcus Cupps wrote:

  > Ok so it seems the general consensus is that there are really no
translations for these names.  It's a shame but I figured that it was
the most likely out come.  Thank you all for looking at this.

I looked at them as well. _Tannalas_ is the only one that has a pretty
"obvious", if obscure meaning: "Sign-leaf". Maybe there is an
interesting story hiding here, about the oh-so-fateful Leaf of Omen that
fell from a tree when this character was born?

_Marsion_ .... Well, _(A)marthion_ could mean "Son of Fate" in Sindarin
(or would it umlaut as _Emerthion_?), and _Marsion_ might conceivably be
an Exilic Quenya pronunciation of this.

Otherwise we should have to presuppose an unknown Quenya word *_mars-_
(which would have to come from earlier _marth-_). The root could be
*MARATH- or *MBARATH-. The latter might be a nasalized version of
BARATH, the root underlying the final element of Sindarin _Elbereth_. If
so, Marsion could mean something like Son of the Exalted One (but
_Varsion_ would be more straighforward).

But _Mit(h)ralier_ is hard to analyze. Then again, Tolkien apparently
gave up trying to find out what the name _E�l_ meant, noting to himself
that it is not strictly necessary that all names are meaningful.

- HKF


<mailto:algoroth_draconis@...?subject=Re%3A%20LotRO%20Character%20Names>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am tinkering with a draft for Hebrews in my Neo-Quenya New Testament
-- it would be a major addition, the third longest letter.
Incidentally, I agree with the proposal that _menta_ "message" is the
best translation of "letter".

A few problematic words:

"Anchor". Something based on TAK- "fix, make firm", perhaps? *_Takla_ >
_tacil_?

_Zelos_ = "Jealousy; eagerness; intolerance, zeal"

"Hyssop". Any ideas about the etymology of this plant-name?

- HKF

On 2012-10-30, Helge K. Fauskanger <helge.fauskanger@...> wrote:
> "Hyssop". Any ideas about the etymology of this plant-name?

The OED says: < Latin hyssōpus, hyssōpum, < Greek ὕσσωπος,
ὕσσωπον,
apparently an eastern word, being represented in Hebrew by ēzōb.

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Hello Helge,

anchor - how about _ampa_ or _atsa_ "hook", possibly as a compound *kiryampa?


�
Tamas Ferencz





________________________________
  From: Helge K. Fauskanger <helge.fauskanger@...>
To: elfling@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 10:43 AM
Subject: [elfling] Words for Hebrews

I am tinkering with a draft for Hebrews in my Neo-Quenya New Testament�
-- it would be a major addition, the third longest letter.�
Incidentally, I agree with the proposal that _menta_ "message" is the
best translation of "letter".

A few problematic words:

"Anchor". Something based on TAK- "fix, make firm", perhaps? *_Takla_ >
_tacil_?

_Zelos_ = "Jealousy; eagerness; intolerance, zeal"

"Hyssop". Any ideas about the etymology of this plant-name?

- HKF


------------------------------------

--
Manager address: elfling-owner@yahoogroups.com
Unsub address: elfling-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Elfling welcome: http://www.terracom.net/~dorothea/elfling.html
Elfling FAQ: http://nellardo.com/lang/elf/faq.htmlYahoo! Groups Links



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Apparently hyssop from "ezob/ezov" refers to any of a number of herbs, like
Origan, marjoram and others. Sometimes it is refered to as "holy herb" because
it was used for ritual purposes. So maybe "aina laique" could be a solution.

Valeria


--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Helge K. Fauskanger" <helge.fauskanger@...>
wrote:
>
> I am tinkering with a draft for Hebrews in my Neo-Quenya New Testament
> -- it would be a major addition, the third longest letter.
> Incidentally, I agree with the proposal that _menta_ "message" is the
> best translation of "letter".
>
> A few problematic words:
>
> "Anchor". Something based on TAK- "fix, make firm", perhaps? *_Takla_ >
> _tacil_?
>
> _Zelos_ = "Jealousy; eagerness; intolerance, zeal"
>
> "Hyssop". Any ideas about the etymology of this plant-name?
>
> - HKF
>