Tchitrec@... scripsit:

> German Nilpferd "hippopotamus", literally "horse of the Nile" ; the curious
> Pferd "horse" (for me at least, a hippopotamus is more like a pig...)

Probably the Greek word was devised by someone who had never seen a hippo,
but only heard vague reports of its size and strength.  "Pig" probably
just didn't occur to him.

Two excellent Primary World examples of multilingual calquing:

Greek syneidesis ('together-knowing') > Latin con-scientia > German Ge-wissen,
Dutch ge-weten, Swedish sam-vete, Russian so-vest' (the Sw and Ru may be
indirectly from German).

American English skyscraper > French gratte-ciel, Russian nebos-kr'op,
German Wolken-kratzer ("Himmelkratzer" would have been a conflict of tone).

--
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@...
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
    at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
      --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan

[Gildor Inglorion] scripsit:

> I don't know other kinds of poetry, but some famous
> greek poets used to make up their own words attempting
> to express complex meanings with as few words as
> possible or enrich the vocabulary..

They are not alone: Shakespeare has hundreds of words that (as far as
our records go) are first used by him: some have become part of
Standard English, many have not.

--
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@...
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
    at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
      --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan

Greetings !

I apologize for my stupid "may the better win". It was quite unconsidered and
does not reflect what I have in mind. I had no intention of launching a
vinyacárie competition, but just wanted to express that among the proposed
reconstructions, one might be more pleaseant, because it is very well shaped
or sounds especially harmonious. It is very likely that there will be no
general agreement about it, since such a choice depends on personal taste.
That's all what I intended.

Nai Anar caluva tielmanna !

Tchitrec

> American English skyscraper > French gratte-ciel,
> Russian nebos-kr'op,
> German Wolken-kratzer ("Himmelkratzer" would have
> been a conflict of tone).

greek ouranoxystes... same meaning :)

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
ÁðïêôÞóôå ôç äùñåÜí @yahoo.gr äéåýèõíóç óáò óôï http://www.otenet.gr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yehuda Ronen" <r_yehuda@...>
To: <elfling@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 8:39 PM
Subject: [elfling] I think, therefore I exist


> Is 'Sanan, an ta ean' (Quenya) is a correct translation to 'I think,
> therefore I exist'?
>
> sanan = sana- 'think' in present tense + 1st person pronoun. I used
> present because there is no aorist for derived verbs.
> an ta = for it = therefore.
> ean = ea 'exist' + 1st person pronoun.
>
>

No aorist for derived verbs? Yes there are! The verb sana is in itself in
the aorist tense. Its present continuative is sánea. There are actually two
classes of verbs which end in -a (as far as it can be determined at
present):
1. Derived verbs with a consonant cluster following the sundóma (i.e., the
final consonant of the stem itself and the consonant--usu. t or y--that the
derivational ending begins in), e.g. tulta "summon" and lerya "release, set
free". Both tulta and lerya are themselves in the aorist. Their present
continuative forms are tultea and leryea(?).
2. "Simple" a-stem verbs, which are quite rare in relation to e-stem verbs
(but ending in -i if following by pronominal endings) e.g. kare (kari-) "do,
make" like sana "think", mapa "seize", lala "laugh" (as well as lala
"deny"!) and vala "have power". Their present continuative forms, of course
are sánea, mápea, lálea and válea.

Greetings !

I have a problem with the Quenya genitive of words ending in -oa, like coa,
loa, hroa... Surely it can't be -oo (with two o in hiatus, not a long o),
giving awkward forms like, say, **coo ?

To solve it, I tried to reconstruct Common Eldarin forms. I suppose they
would be, for coa : nom. *kawâ, gén *kawô (contraction of earlier *kawâ-hô,
as said in Quendi and Eldar). In Lindárin, this would give the regular forms
cava (attested) and cavo. But in Quenya ?

The problem is that I don't know what CE *awô becomes in Quenya. I have only
found examples of the evolution of *awâ :
-   when the stress lies on the first, short a : CE *awâ > Q oa ; e.g. : CE
srawâ > Q hroa ; the reconstruction is David Salo's, and was actually given
to explain the Sindarin word rhaw "flesh", which is, I suppose, the cognate
of Q hroa ; they agree both in form and sense
However, there may be some "exceptions" : e.g. tavar "wood" from older tawar
(I believe I have actually missed something)
-   when the stress lies on the second, long a : CE *awâ > Q avá (e.g. the
verb avánier in Namárie, from older *awánier)

So, if *awô followed the first pattern, we would have CE *kawô > Q có, the
two o's in hiatus merging into a single long vowel. If it follows the second,
we would have CE *kawô > Q cavo. So which of có and cavo ? Has somebody any
idea ?

I've found a parallel in word ending with -ea, like fea. We have, AFAIK, CE
*phayâ, gen. *phayô. In this case, we may have an indication of the
development of *ayô in Quenya : the word leo "shade" is said to come from
earlier *daio. Unfortunately, the stage when *daio occured is not mentionned.
But it may come from a primitive CE word *dayô. If it is true, then we can
deduce that the Q genitive of fea was feo, which is happily regular.

And IF the development of *awô is parallel, then it will become ó, and we
would have coa, gen. *có.

So many ifs and buts ! And of course, the development of *awô could be
totally different. Could somebody wiser help me ?

Nai Anar caluva tielmanna !

Tchitrec

> Is 'Sanan, an ta ean' (Quenya) is a correct translation to 'I think,
therefore I exist'?

Perhaps...though for "therefore" I think I should prefer the instrumental
form _tanen_ = "by that".

> sanan = sana- 'think' in present tense + 1st person pronoun. I used
present because there is no aorist for derived verbs.

Ah...that would be the old interpretation, which unfortunately is still
reflected in my A-L Quenya article (but not in my Quenya course, and I'm
working on a new version of the section about the Verb for the article as
well). It seems that derived verbs, aka A-stem verbs, actually have
present-tense forms in -ea and aorist forms in -a. So _sanan_ actually IS
an aorist, and it works perfectly in this context.

- HF

John Cowan <cowan@...> wrote on 26.10.2001 16:31:16:
>American English skyscraper > French gratte-ciel, Russian nebos-kr'op,
>German Wolken-kratzer

.. and Czech "mrakodrap" "cloudscraper"....

>("Himmelkratzer" would have been a conflict of
>tone).

Excuse me, could you explain for me what you mean by that?

Lukas

Gildor Inglorion <elfiness@...> wrote on 26.10.2001 14:47:22:

>you understand, it would be nice to know how you look
>like...

Well, I too would like to know this (you know, until I looked
at Helge's website, I had thought him to be her!), and I reckon we are
not the only two. What about creating a website where every Elflinger
could insert his photo and/or his short introduction for others (my
apologies if such a thing is already in existence)? I think I could
probably assure some space at the web, and perhaps could also take part
in creating the site.

For the interested ones: My photo you can find at

http://radost.skaut.org/profesor.htm

(I was shot when sawing something during the building
of our summer scout camp, in quite a silly position...)
Another silly photo of myself you will find at

http://radost.skaut.org/foto/luk_song.htm


Lukas, who is not such an exhibicionist as he may seem to...

Lukas Novak scripsit:

> >German Wolken-kratzer
>
> .. and Czech "mrakodrap" "cloudscraper"....

Indeed, German is a very prolific source of calques for many languages,
including particularly Czech, Swedish, and Russian; it is odd that
the English-sounding "foreword" for the front matter of a book is
in fact a recent German calque, and the older English term is the
latinate "preface".

The English cognate of Wolken, BTW, is "welkin", no longer in the
sense "cloud" but rather "upper atmosphere" or "firmament"; in
practice only in the phrase "to make the welkin ring", meaning
"to make a very loud noise indeed, usually by shouting or
cheering".

> >("Himmelkratzer" would have been a conflict of
> >tone).
>
> Excuse me, could you explain for me what you mean by that?

The usual explanation is that "Himmel" is not only "sky" but also
"Heaven", the theological concept, and "Heaven-scraper" would sound
either blasphemous or simply foolish.

--
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@...
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
    at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
      --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan

http://fontcraft.com/scriptorium/arcana/rhesimol.gif

--
Love Humor or just love to share it? Then join or send to me at
Adulthumor-l@egroups.com To join then send a blank email to
adulthumor-l-subscribe@egroups.com The messages are at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/adulthumor-l/message/



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> > American English skyscraper > French gratte-ciel,
> > Russian nebos-kr'op,
> > German Wolken-kratzer ("Himmelkratzer" would have
> > been a conflict of tone).
> greek ouranoxystes... same meaning :)

Spanish "rasca-cielos"... same meaning :)

Omar

Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:

> Ah...that would be the old interpretation, which unfortunately is still
> reflected in my A-L Quenya article (but not in my Quenya course, and I'm
> working on a new version of the section about the Verb for the article as
> well). It seems that derived verbs, aka A-stem verbs, actually have
> present-tense forms in -ea and aorist forms in -a. So _sanan_ actually IS
> an aorist, and it works perfectly in this context.


Even if Carl Hostetter is correct in his interpretation that _órea_
represents the present continuative of a verb that has the aorist form
_ora_ (VT41:18), it seems very daring to extend this paradigm to all
a-stem verbs. The word _ora-_ is, in itself, a very unusual kind of
a-verb: one with a short stem vowel (in which group *_sana-_ would of
course be included).

Tolkien referred to the inflections of _auta-_ as "the regular forms
(for a _-ta_ verb of this class)" (WJ:366). This clearly suggests that
the classification of the Quenya verbs into a-verbs and e-verbs (and
u-verbs) is sometimes too crude. (A possible companion to _auta-_ in its
class of "_-ta_ verbs" could be _ista-_; cf the regular past forms
_sinte_ and _oante_.)

It seems to me very possible that continous forms in _-ea_ only occurred
in the class of a-verbs with short stem vowel, such as _ora-_, _vala-_,
*_sana-_ -- or perhaps even to a sub-group within this class. I am not
saying that all a-verbs couldn't possibly form continous forms in _-ea_.
I merely suggest that Helge Fauskanger's assertion that

  > derived verbs, aka A-stem verbs, actually have
  > present-tense forms in -ea and aorist forms in -a

might be a gross simplification.


Yours,

	 Måns



--
Måns Björkman                                             "Mun þu mik!
Störtloppsvägen 8, III                                        Man þik.
SE-129 46 Hägersten                                         Un þu mer!
Sweden               http://hem.passagen.se/mansb              An þer."

Greetings !

I know that's a very silly question... but has somebody an idea of the
Sindarin term(s) for... "to be" ? I can't find it !

Is it really unattested ???

Nai Anar caluva tielmanna !

Tchitrec

Suilad,

I believe the word is _na_. However, one should be very careful in using
it. It isn't attested as a copula (I believe).

Bye,
Pavel

Teithant Tchitrec:
> Greetings !
>
> I know that's a very silly question... but has somebody an
> idea of the
> Sindarin term(s) for... "to be" ? I can't find it !
>
> Is it really unattested ???

--- In elfling@y..., Måns Björkman <mansb@h...> wrote:

> Even if Carl Hostetter is correct in his interpretation that
> _órea_ represents the present continuative of a verb that has
> the aorist form _ora_ (VT41:18), it seems very daring to
> extend this paradigm to all a-stem verbs.

Indeed.

The evidence for continuatives in _-ea_ was outside the scope of the
presentation of the "Notes on Óre" (and will have to await a
future article), but I was quite careful to indicate that this
evidence was only suggestive of an explanation of the form _órea_.
But the tentative nature of the scrawled notes in which this form
occurs, in addition to the apparently alternative forms that occur in
the same notes -- all of which I pointed out in editing the notes --
I would have thought quite sufficient to indicate extreme caution in
extrapolating from them. But, apparently since Helge conveys none of
this information from my work on these notes to the readers of his
lessons, his broad extrapolations from this isolated datum have now
become a received truth.

Another example of just the point I was making about Helge's lessons
before.

-- Tchitrec@... wrote:
>Greetings !
>
>I know that's a very silly question... but has somebody an idea of the
>Sindarin term(s) for... "to be" ? I can't find it !
>
>Is it really unattested ???
>
>Nai Anar caluva tielmanna !
>
>Tchitrec

I'm not aware of any attestation.  It is sometimes suggested that the 'an' in
Gandalf's invocation 'naur an edraith ammen' means "be" but I don't think that
perticuarily likely.  In Etym. NA is called the stem of the verb 'to be' in
Quenya, though it yeilds a Sindarin word fro thing (nad).

Nararie,
Cirk  R. Bejnar

_____________________________________________________________
http://www.frodo.com  Free Webmail, POP and Forwarding accounts.

> I know that's a very silly question... but has
> somebody an idea of the
> Sindarin term(s) for... "to be" ? I can't find it !
>
> Is it really unattested ???

aye.. or else the Movie Sindarin Phrases (please note
down this new term for this version of Sindarin :))
wouldn't need to form "me-Tarzan-you-Jane" phrases...

for example, arwen want to say "i am the swiftest
rider" but none knows how to say "i am" so they
rendered it as "rochon ellint im" which literally
means "swiftest rider me"...

but this is reasonable since Quenya usually ommits the
copula "na" and i believe it was modelled after some
real languages can use pronouns instead of the forms
of "be"...

the stem of the Quenya verb naa is of course *naa and
maybe it was derived to Sindarin like that... but I
believe that Tolkien wouldnt allow it to be that
simple, and maybe a form of the similar verb "ea" was
used... if any was used at all

>
> Nai Anar caluva tielmanna !


____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
ÁðïêôÞóôå ôç äùñåÜí @yahoo.gr äéåýèõíóç óáò óôï http://www.otenet.gr

--- "Vicente S. Velasco" <rashbold@...>
> wrote:
>From: "Andreas Johansson" <and_yo@...>
>> Is the name _Morgai_ translated anywhere? I assume that the first part is
>> the element _mor_ "dark", but what does _-gai_ mean?
>>
>>                                                      Andreas
>>
>
>The element -gai is the lenited form of cai "hedge", from primitive *kegja
>(<KEG "snag, barb").
<snip>

That sound's great, I thought it ment black fence, but I have a question then. 
Shouldn't c- mutated to -ch- after -r?  This is the impression I got from the
chart of Sindarin mutations at Ardalambion (liquid mutation), but a quick check
provided Turgon (from Tur-kaano or a similar form) as a counter example.  But if
compounds employ simple lenition why is Mor-gul not Morngul (gul is from
ngoole)?  Or have I missed something obvious

_____________________________________________________________
http://www.frodo.com  Free Webmail, POP and Forwarding accounts.

Just a P.S. to this thread...it occurred to me that we may have a parallel
example to the sentence _Celebrimbor o Eregion teithant_ "C. of Hollin
wrote". I have suggested that the verb _teithant_ is not lenited because of
the intruding phrase _o Eregion_, separating the verb _teithant_ from its
subject. According to my theory, "Celebrimbor wrote" with no such intruding
phrase would have been *_Celebrimbor deithant_ with a lenited verb. But
except for the example _guren bêd_, we have no examples of lenited (or
distinctly unlenited!) verbs immediately following their subjects.
Therefore we can't be sure whether the ending _-en_ makes any difference
here. I think not.

However, we DO have many examples of _adjectives_ being lenited immediately
following the noun they describe (exceptions do occur, but they can usually
be explained). I guess no one would argue that while "my bold heart" may be
_*guren veren_ with lenition (cf. unmutated _beren_ "bold"), the simple
phrase "a bold heart" should be _**gûr beren_ WITHOUT lenition. Many
examples indicate that _*gûr veren_ would be correct.

Now consider the behavior of the compound adjective _palan-diriel_
"far-watching" in one attested example (Sam speaking in tongues in Cirith
Ungol): _A Elbereth Gilthoniel o menel palan-diriel_ "O Elbereth
Starkindler, from heaven gazing afar". The adjective _palan-diriel_ is not
lenited (except insofar as the _t_ of _tiriel_ is lenited to _d_, but that
is just because it occurs in the middle of a compound; it is the behavior
of the initial _p_ that is interesting for our purpose). Why isn't
_palan-diriel_ lenited to _*balan-diriel_ here? The adjective does follow
the noun it describes (the name Elbereth Gilthoniel). Apparently it has to
_immediately_ follow for lenition to take place. Just as in the phrase
_Celebrimbor o Ereigion teithant_, there is an intruding phrase, again
including the preposition _o_ "of, from": _o menel_ "from heaven". The lack
of lenition in _palan-diriel_ would indicate that it is not the immediately
preceding word "heaven" which is "gazing afar", just as the lack of
lenition in the phrase _Celebrimbor o Eregion teithant_ indicates that it
is not Eregion (Hollin) that "wrote" something.

If I am right, we would indeed see lenition if we change the word order:
_*Elbereth Gilthoniel balan-diriel o menel_ "Elbereth Starkindler gazing
afar from heaven". In Sindarin, lenition or the lack of it may be used
extensively to indicate which words go together, and which do not.

- HF

Just catching up with some old e-mail that should be answered... Carl F.
Hostetter was so kind as to clarify one matter:

> By the way, while I'm writing, I'd like to correct another favorite
scandal-mongering: Helge often [technically, something like twice in three
years - HF] makes much of the fact that Patrick Wynne and I cited in
_Vinyar Tengwar_ a (then) unpublished form in our translation of the Lord's
Prayer into Quenya, but omitted this citation from the version published on
my Web site.

Just filling in some facts here, for those who came in late: Hostetter is
talking about the verb _airita-_ "hallow, make holy", which he and Wynne
used in their Lord's Prayer translation. As is evident from Vinyar Tengwar
#32, page 7, this verb is a genuine Tolkienian word. Its past tense form
_airitáne_ is said to occur in Ms. Tolkien Drawing 91, 41v. The web-based
article still mentions the verb _airita-_, and it is used in the text of
the prayer in the (improvised) passive future-tense form _airitainiéva_
"will be hallowed". However, all reference to the unpublished manuscript
and the attested form _airitáne_ has been omitted:

http://www.elvish.org/articles/Attolma.html

Why this omission? Finally, we have Hostetter's own explanation:

> I had permission to cite this unpublished material in _Vinyar Tengwar_; I
did _not_ have permission to do so on the Web. At the time I was eager to
publish the translation on my then-nascent Web site, so rather than delay
its publication until I got permission, and furthermore not wanting to
bother Christopher Tolkien with such a trivial matter, I decided to remove
the citation from the Web "reprint" of our translation. It probably wasn't
necessary for me to get permission in the first place, since there's
nothing wrong with citing a duly-authorized publication in another medium,
but I decided to err on the side of courtesy (at least), especially since
its omission detracted not a whit from the purpose of the Web publication.
It's really just that simple. Of course, the truth is far less interesting
to some than conspiracy-fabrication and scandal-mongering.<

Without feeling guilty of either, I would just say that I am prepared to
accept the explanation offered by Mr. Hostetter. I must, however, disagree
that the omission of the reference to the unpublished manuscript did not
detract "a whit from the purpose of the Web publication".

If Hostetter re-reads the article as it now appears on the web, he would
probably have to agree that omitting all references to Tolkien's manuscript
as the source of the word _airita-_ has made the relevant paragraph
disturbingly misleading in one respect: A reader who has never seen the
unabridged, printed version of the article can hardly fail to get the
impression that this verb is just one of several new words coined by
Hostetter and Wynne for their translation. The printed version and the web
version alike include a brief discussion of the word, noting that it is
clearly made up of the previously published elements _aire, airi-_ "holy" +
the sometimes causative verbal ending _-ta_, hence "to make holy" = "to
hallow".

However, omitting all reference to the source manuscript has made what is
really a succinct etymological discussion look like an account of how
Hostetter and Wynne invented a new word from actual Tolkienian elements.
Indeed the verb _airita-_ is actually asterisked as unattested in the
article. Those who have seen the printed version will know that this is
because the actual, attested form is slightly different, occurring in the
past tense: _Airitáne._ (An interesting discussion that we'll save for
another time: Should we really mark words as "unattested" just because we
have removed or added some well-attested inflectional element, or reserve
the asterisks for actual inventions?) Since the attested past-tense form is
no longer cited, fresh readers are bound to think that _airita-_ is
asterisked because it is a non-Tolkien word invented by the authors of the
article.

Yes, it is only one word we are talking about, but no one has as strongly
as Mr. Hostetter insisted on maintaining an absolute distinction between
genuinely Tolkienian material and post-Tolkien inventions (I believe
Hostetter might say "fabrications"). The web version of the article, which
has certainly been read by far more people than the printed version, should
probably be clarified so as to eliminate the misleading wording
inadvertently introduced by the cuts. Personally I am primarily disturbed
by the fact that as it now appears, the article mentions a previously
unknown Tolkien word and yet fails to credit JRRT for it. I am sure
Hostetter did not deliberately intend to mislead his readers (no irony!) --
but I must suggest that if he still is not prepared to place the unabridged
article on the web, the relevant paragraph should be rewritten so that it
is somehow made clear that _airita-_ is indeed what he would call a REAL
Quenya word. As we know, there are various views on the copyright issues,
but Tolkien-linguists of all camps agree that the Professor should be fully
credited for his achievements.

- Helge Fauskanger

P.S. A little while ago, I included a challenge to Mr. Hostetter and his
group in one of my posts ("Answering questions", October 13). Of course, I
am still eagerly awaiting their response.

> aye.. or else the Movie Sindarin Phrases (please
> note
> down this new term for this version of Sindarin :))
> wouldn't need to form "me-Tarzan-you-Jane"
> phrases...

addendum: as Pavel said, this verb is perhaps attested
in "naur an edraith ammen", but I must add the form
"aen" in the king's letter... this word is
unidentified, not known if it is indeed a form of na,
an adverb or something else.. it is used with future
("sennui estathar aen...", ought to be called...) not
clear if used for passive voice or wishing fomrulas
(like quenya nai + future)

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
ÁðïêôÞóôå ôç äùñåÜí @yahoo.gr äéåýèõíóç óáò óôï http://www.otenet.gr

> I have a problem with the Quenya genitive of words ending in -oa...

Great!

You may find my post(!) #5654 and its related posts interesting.
(with almost exactly same title!)

However, I want to ask it to members of this list again...

Earraame

>>>("Himmelkratzer" would have been a conflict of
>>>tone).
>>
>> Excuse me, could you explain for me what you mean by that?
>
>The usual explanation is that "Himmel" is not only "sky" but also
>"Heaven", the theological concept, and "Heaven-scraper" would sound
>either blasphemous or simply foolish.


I have thought it would be something of such a kind (for me it sounds awkward
in German for this very reason), but I was misled by the term "tone" which
reminded me of the Hungarian concept of "harmony of vowels" - i.e. that in one
word only vowels of the same kind (I do not remember it exactly) can appear -
and I wondered whether something similar works in German, too...

Lukas

Aelfwine@... wrote on 25.10.2001 15:49:24:

>I'm not so sure. Tolkien was under intense time pressure in producing
>the Appendices, and was primarily concerned to provide a guide that
>the typical reader of his book would find helpful and be able to
>understand more or less readily, not to cover every detail. Given
>this, I see no reason to assume that where Tolkien is silent in the
>Appendices there is no rule or exception.

I agree - I rather regard as probable that there was rule, or several
different of them during the history... :-)

Lukas

Omar Diez wrote:
>
> > > American English skyscraper > French gratte-ciel,
> > > Russian nebos-kr'op,
> > > German Wolken-kratzer ("Himmelkratzer" would have
> > > been a conflict of tone).
> > greek ouranoxystes... same meaning :)
>
>Spanish "rasca-cielos"... same meaning :)

Swedish _skyskrapa_. I suspect Britons'd tend to pronounce that
[skaiskreip@] ...

                                               Andreas

PS Swedish pronunciation [x\y:skrA:pa].

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

On Samstag, Oktober 27, 2001, at 11:31  Uhr, Cirk Bejnar wrote:

>>
>> The element -gai is the lenited form of cai "hedge", from primitive
>> *kegja
>> (<KEG "snag, barb").
> <snip>
>
> That sound's great, I thought it ment black fence, but I have a
> question then.  Shouldn't c- mutated to -ch- after -r?  This is the
> impression I got from the chart of Sindarin mutations at Ardalambion
> (liquid mutation), but a quick check provided Turgon (from Tur-kaano or
> a similar form) as a counter example.  But if compounds employ simple
> lenition why is Mor-gul not Morngul (gul is from ngoole)?
I think _morgai_ is from *_moricegyaa_. So the "c" behaves like an
intervocal consonant. Liquid mutation as seen in _nelchaenen_ goes back
to direct contact of "R" (any liquid) + C (any stop). The same
development is found in single words. Cf. _alph_ < _alpaa_ (qu).
_Turgon_ must have has a vowel between "r" and "g" as well. _Gul_ is
indeed from *_ngoolee_.

Can we really be sure that _ea_ is to exist ? In these two
attestations: _... i Eru i or ilye mahalmar ea tennoio..._ and _Ea!_
"Let it be" the reference seems more to *essence* (or at least including
it) than to mere *existence*. Also it wd seem to me that Descartes'
dictum _cogito ergo sum_ refers to *essence* rather than mere
*existence*. (At least, that's what I gather from his writings). While
this problem may be a bit to "existencialistic" for Descartes, "to be"
still seems to fit better.
BTW. I think _tanen_ (as Helge suggested is better here).
Shalom.
-David

On Freitag, Oktober 26, 2001, at 02:39  Uhr, Yehuda Ronen wrote:

> Is 'Sanan, an ta ean' (Quenya) is a correct translation to 'I think,
> therefore I exist'?
>
> sanan = sana- 'think' in present tense + 1st person pronoun. I used
> present because there is no aorist for derived verbs.
> an ta = for it = therefore.
> ean = ea 'exist' + 1st person pronoun.
>
>
> Thanks, Yehuda Ronen
>

Suilad,
> >The element -gai is the lenited form of cai "hedge", from
> primitive *kegja
> >(<KEG "snag, barb").
> <snip>
>
> That sound's great, I thought it ment black fence, but I have
> a question then.  Shouldn't c- mutated to -ch- after -r?
> This is the impression I got from the chart of Sindarin
> mutations at Ardalambion (liquid mutation), but a quick check
> provided Turgon (from Tur-kaano or a similar form) as a
> counter example.
I thought it was somewhere that Turgon was simply a meaningless form,
produced by "Sindarinising" the sound of Q _Turukáno_ (via syncope and
lenition). Yes! PM:345.

Cuio mae,
Pavel

On Sonntag, Oktober 28, 2001, at 05:33  Uhr, Pavel Iosad wrote:

> I thought it was somewhere that Turgon was simply a meaningless form,
> produced by "Sindarinising" the sound of Q _Turukáno_ (via syncope and
> lenition). Yes! PM:345.
Nice. So indeed we have the normal behaviour of an intervocalic
(originally) voiceless stop here.