Is the NENG- entry (VT46:3 s.v. NENG-WI-) composed of the root only or has it all the Q. and N. words as well? [It is essentially the same, lacking only theMessage 1 of 4 , Sep 14, 2004View SourceIs the NENG- entry (VT46:3 s.v. NENG-WI-) composed of the root only or has
it all the Q. and N. words as well?
[It is essentially the same, lacking only the Dor. reflex. It can be noted here
that the entry for NENG- supplied the Quenya form _nengwea_ 'nasal' in the
published entry, which is lacking in NENG-WI-. CFH]
_Indyalme_ (VT46:3 s.v. ÑGAL-/ÑGÁLAM-) has no gloss. Could it be an
intensive form: *_ingyalmê_ > _indyalme_?
So _ninquitá-_ 'whiten' (V:378 s.v. NIK-W-) is not a typo after all?
[It is very clearly written as such in the manuscript. CFH]
But then what might be the meaning of the long _á_ as compared
to "ninquita- shine white"?
Could _sorne_ (V:392 s.v. THOR-, THORON-) be _sorno_ with a badly
[No. The T-section of _Etymologies_ is among the most clearly written,
and the form as written is very clearly _sorne_. CFH]
Do the few additions and changes made in ballpoint ink (cf. VT46:22
s.v. YAR-; or VT46:23 s.v. YER-) belong to the same period as the inserted
sheets (fols. 17-18, 30-31, 42-85 and 117-122)?
[I would say not, since in the ballpoint emendations you cite, Tolkien is
still using the language-name "Noldorin", whereas in the inserted sheets
you list Tolkien instead describes "Beleriandic". CFH]
... I think we re seeing here two different kinds of formation: 1. Causative (or in this case factitive), that is _*ninqui_ + tâ_ make white, whiten (forMessage 2 of 4 , Sep 14, 2004View SourceOn 14.09.2004, at 19:34, E. Kloczko wrote:
> So _ninquitá-_ 'whiten' (V:378 s.v. NIK-W-) is notI think we're seeing here two different kinds of
> a typo after all?
> But then what might be the meaning of the long
> _á_ as compared to "ninquita- shine white"?
1. Causative (or in this case factitive), that is _*ninqui_
+ tâ_ 'make white, whiten' (for the causative suffix cf.
e.g. Etymologies *_tultâ-_ 'make come' s.v. TUL- 'come',
2. *_ninqui-_ > *_ninquit(a)_, i.e. sundóma extended
+ t(a), the so-called "_kalat-_" type [cf.XI:392].
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
... ( ), ... It seems possible. Presumably Edouard is referring to the N- prefix cited in the A&CMessage 3 of 4 , Sep 15, 2004View Source--- In message 737
> _Indyalme_ (VT46:3 s.v. ÑGAL-/ÑGÁLAM-) has no gloss.It seems possible. Presumably Edouard is referring to the
> Could it be an intensive form: *_ingyalmê_ > _indyalme_?
N- prefix cited in the A&C (VT45:36), which in Qenya yielded
an intensive prefix that took a variety of forms dependent
on the following consonant: _um_ before _p, q, v_ (this last
yielding _umb_), _an_ before _t_, _iñ_ before _k, g_, etc.
The historical derivation of _indyalme_ might therefore be
from *_n.-ñgyalmê_ (in which _n._ represents syllabic
_n_, i.e. _n_ with an underdot) > *_ñ.-ñgyalmê_ (with
assimilation of _n._ > _ñ._) > *_iñ-ñgyalmê_ (with resolution
of syllabic _ñ._ >_iñ_) >_indyalme_ (with fronting of the stop
in a palatal environment).
If Tolkien did intend a non-intensive/ intensive distinction
between _yalme_ 'clamour' and _indyalme_, perhaps the
latter referred to an extended, overwhelmingly chaotic
din, the 'clamour' of an ongoing battle as opposed to, say, the
clamour of horses entering a courtyard or pots dropped in
A parallel might occur in the much-later text "The Shibboleth
of Feanor", which cites the Common Eldarin stem _ñgol-,
ñgôlo-_, "with or without syllabic _ñ_". In the derivatives
cited, it appears that the forms beginning with _ing-_ from
original syllabic _ñ._ were intensive. Thus (all from XII:360):
_ingólemo_ 'one with very great knowledge, a "wizard"'
(compare _ñolmo_ 'a wise person')
_Ingole_ 'Science/Philosophy as a whole'
(compare _ñolme_ 'a department of wisdom (science etc.)')
_Ingoldo_ '_the_ Ñoldo, one eminent in the kindred'
(as opposed to _Ñoldo_, which simply identifies a member
of that kindred, with no implication of eminence.)
Our only other parallel to _indyalme_ in _Etymologies_ is found
in the entry for the base ÑGYÔ-, ÑGYON- 'grandchild, descendant',
with Qenya derivative _indyo_ (== T. _endo_ and ON _ango_).
Is this _indyo_ intensive, from *_n-ñgyô_? Since the base also
means 'descendant', _indyo_ (probably 'grandson'; a deleted
marginal note by the Etym._base YÔ, YÔN- gives Q _inyo_ 'grandson',
with _inyo_ << _indyo_; VT46:23) might be viewed as intensive
in pertaining to a descendant removed by at least two
-- Patrick H. Wynne
If _ninqitá-_ whiten has a causative suffix, which seems to be the case, why do we have _tulta-_ send for, fetch, summon (Message 4 of 4 , Sep 16, 2004View SourceIf _ninqitá-_ 'whiten' has a causative suffix, which seems to be
the case, why do we have _tulta-_ 'send for, fetch, summon'
(< *_tultâ-_ 'make come' < TUL- (cf. VT46:20) and not **_tultá-_?
[I would hesitate to call what we see in _ninqitá-_ a "suffix". Given
the frequent and apparently free variation we see in prehistoric Eldarin
forms between long and short vowels in word- and stem-final position
(denoted by Tolkien as a macron with a breve over it), I would guess that
the actual case is one of _selection_ of variant forms in _association_
with distinguished meaning: thus, in this scenario, the long form was
selected and associated with the causitive and/or inchoative sense (the
gloss 'whiten' is itself ambiguous: it could mean "to cause something to
become white" or the process of a thing itself becoming whiter), and the
short for the intransitive/stative sense; and the length difference then
retained _because_ it maintained the distinction in meaning. To what
extent this selection formed a pattern in other cases is unclear. CFH]