Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Sindarin past-tense from TIR- (was Re: [elfscript] December 16th Movie Trilogy (Help!))

Expand Messages
  • Carl F. Hostetter
    ... Well, that doesn t work, does it? Forgot to mark the past tense! (Must not post so late...) To finish my thought correctly: since we are dealing, in
    Message 1 of 21 , Oct 14, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Oct 15, 2003, at 12:42 AM, I wrote:

      > the first-person singular pa.t. form of this verb in Sindarin would
      > presumably be *_tirin_ or *_tirion_ (cf. _linnon_ 'I sing', III:354;
      > _linnathon_ 'I will sing' and _nallon_ 'I cry', R:72; where the
      > element _-on_ of these 1st sg. forms is presumably derived from
      > earlier *_â-n-_, with S _o_ < earlier long *_â_).

      Well, that doesn't work, does it? Forgot to mark the past tense! (Must
      not post so late...) To finish my thought correctly: since we are
      dealing, in Noldorin _tiri-_/_tiria-_, sg. pa.t. _tiriant_, with a
      derived verb, the 1st sg. pa.t. form might follow the pattern suggested
      by such verbs in Quenya and add the weak pa.t. marker *_-ne_ (e.g. Q
      _ulya-_ 'pour', pa.t. _ulyane_, _Etym._ s.v. ULU-; Q _ortane_; etc.) --
      though it must be noted that there is no evidence for this particular
      weak pa.t. formation in the attested corpus of Sindarin verbs -- to
      produce something like *_tirinen_/*_tirianen_ (or *_tirionen_,
      depending on whether the original long *_â-_ of the derivative element
      *_-yâ-_ is shortened before the weak pa.t. ending *_-nê_). On the other
      hand, it might instead be that the Noldorin and Sindarin pa.t. forms
      are analogical throughout the pa.t. paradigm, based upon the sg. form
      _tiriant_ (itself apparently an analogical form; see my post to the
      Lambengolmor list of July 11, 2003, no. 464:
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/464>), in which
      case the 1st sg. pa.t. form might be something like *_tiriannen_ (the
      form _drammen_, untranslated but possibly to be understood as
      _dramme-n_ *'I beat, I hewed', cognate with pa.t. †_dramp_ < DARÁM-,
      suggests this possibility; but again, we have no firm evidence of such
      personal pa.t. formations in Noldorin or Sindarin).

      I also need to revisit my suggestion for relating the Noldorin p.p.
      *_tirnen_ 'guarded' to the derived verb stems _tiri-_/_tiria-_ and the
      sg. pa.t. _tiriant_, all attested in the same entry:

      > *_tirnen_ is thus perhaps to be understood as derived by syncope from
      > *_tiri-nen_

      since that leaves the first _-n_ unexplained. On further reflection, I
      think it is better to instead view N *_tirnen_ as simply an analogical
      formation based on the very frequent occurrence of p.ps. in _-nen_
      among both basic and derived verbs in Noldorin, e.g. N. _dant-_ 'to
      fall', _dannen_ 'fallen' < DAT-, DANT-; N _presto_ 'to affect, trouble,
      disturb', _prestannen_ 'affected' < PERES-; etc. In any event, whatever
      the explanation of the Noldorin p.p. *_tirnen_, its co-attestation with
      N sg. pa.t. _tiriant_ demonstrates that it cannot simply be assumed or
      asserted to be based upon a pa.t. stem *_tirn-_. Nor, above all, can we
      use such an assumption or assertion as an excuse to ignore the fact
      that the _attested_ verb, _tiri-_/_tiria-_ is _derived_.

      --
      =============================================
      Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

      ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
      Ars longa, vita brevis.
      The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
      "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
      a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
    • eruvande81
      So what do we think the final translation should be? (Thanks so much for all of your help.)
      Message 2 of 21 , Oct 15, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        So what do we think the final translation should be? (Thanks so much
        for all of your help.)
      • d_daniel_andries@webtv.net
        ... I ll give my suggestion, but first a question: why the trilogy or the three ? I would suggest _Hîr i-Chorvath: han tiriannen minui._ ( Lord of the
        Message 3 of 21 , Oct 15, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Teithant Eruvande81:
          >The Trilogy: I saw it first.

          >(Also, if the word 'trilogy' does not exist in one of the
          >elvish languages, then 'The Three: I saw it first'
          >would be fine.)

          I'll give my suggestion, but first a question: why 'the trilogy' or 'the
          three'? I would suggest _Hîr i-Chorvath: han tiriannen minui._ ('Lord
          of the Rings: I saw it first.') Written in the KLIII tengwar mode, it
          looks more impressive than _i-neled_, _i-neledh_ or i-nêl, plus it
          gives the title of the trilogy.

          Cuio mae, Danny.
        • Carl F. Hostetter
          ... You could opt to follow the sole certain, attested example we have in Sindarin of a past-tense verb with 1st sg. subject: _Im ... echant_ I ... made .
          Message 4 of 21 , Oct 15, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            On Oct 15, 2003, at 1:24 PM, eruvande81 wrote:

            > So what do we think the final translation should be? (Thanks so much
            > for all of your help.)

            You could opt to follow the sole certain, attested example we have in
            Sindarin of a past-tense verb with 1st sg. subject: _Im ... echant_ 'I
            ... made'. Even if this is regarded as a specifically emphatic
            formation, such would not be entirely inappropriate to the phrase being
            translated. So: *_Im tiriant_ 'I watched' (which has the further
            advantage of using the only attested form of a Noldorin pa.t. verb
            derived from TIR-).

            Personally, though, I wouldn't use a derivative of TIR-: consider
            Tolkien's note re: the root _ken-_ 'see, perceive, note', specifically
            on its derivative: "_kenda-_ intensive watch, sc. not 'guard' but
            observe for some time (to gain information etc.). Often used for
            'reading'" (_Vinyar Tengwar_ 41 p. 5). This very strongly argues that N
            _tiri-_/_tiria-_ *'watch, guard' would _not_ be used of such activity
            as watching a movie or play (the desired sense), but rather a cognate
            of _kenda-_; so perhaps *_Im cennant_ 'I watched'?


            --
            =============================================
            Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

            ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
            Ars longa, vita brevis.
            The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
            "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
            a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
          • elimloth
            d_daniel_andries@w... wrote: [...] I would suggest _Hîr i-Chorvath: han tiriannen minui._ ... tengwar mode, [...] Like so:
            Message 5 of 21 , Oct 15, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              d_daniel_andries@w... wrote:
              [...] I would suggest _Hîr i-Chorvath: han tiriannen minui._
              > ('Lord of the Rings: I saw it first.') Written in the KLIII
              tengwar mode, [...]

              Like so: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/files/LOTRtshirt.PNG

              Elimloth
            • Helge K. Fauskanger
              ... given as the weak formation _tiriant_ (_Etymologies_ s.v. TIR-). From this we can see that the Noldorin pa.t. form was built directly on the stem
              Message 6 of 21 , Oct 18, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                > The Noldorin singular past tense form of the verb _tiri-_/_tiria-_ is
                given as the weak formation _tiriant_ (_Etymologies_ s.v. TIR-). From this
                we can see that the Noldorin pa.t. form was built directly on the stem
                _tiri-_/_tiria-_.

                I see no evidence for a stem "tiri-". The actual wording in the entry TIR
                is: "N _tiri_ or _tirio_, pa.t. _tiriant_." The form _tirio_ is clearly an
                infinitive in _-o_, very well attested in Etym. This suggests that _tiri_
                occurring before it is also an infinitive, with exactly the same infinitive
                ending as in (say) _gedi_ "[to] catch" vs. the simple consonant stem _gad-_
                (both are mentioned in the entry GAT). _Tiri_ would likewise be the
                infinitive of a consonant stem _tir-_; the final _-i_ of _tiri_ is no part
                of the verbal stem, but merely the infinitive ending.

                The past tense _tiriant_ connects with the immediately preceding infinitive
                form _tirio_; it is not necessarily intended as the pa.t. of the synonym
                _tiri_ as well. _Tiriant_, as I see it, is the regular past tense of a
                derived (A-stem) verb *_tiria-_, the regular infinitive of which (at least
                in Noldorin) is the form provided: _tirio_. On the other hand, _tiri_ is
                the regular infinitive of a consonant stem, and its past tense is not
                given. I will argue that it is most likely *_tirn_, directly corresponding
                to Quenya _tirne_ mentioned in the same entry, and also indirectly attested
                in the passive participle _tirnen_ (lenited _dirnen_) "watched". Other
                examples show that passive participles are formed by adding _-en_ to a past
                tense form, e.g. the form _dolen_ "hidden" as the "p.p." (past/passive
                participle) corresponding to the past tense form _daul_ "hid" (entry DUL;
                the diphthong _au_ regularly becomes _o_ in a polysyllabic word).

                CFH:

                > Helge's proposal *_tirnin_ appears to assume a weak pa.t. stem *_tirn-_,
                which he presumably has isolated from the Noldorin name _Dalath Dirnen_
                'Guarded Plain' (_Etymologies_ s.v. TIR-). But note that this Noldorin name
                appears in the same source, indeed in the same entry, as the only attested
                Noldorin pa.t. form of the verb, _tiriant_. Thus, contrary to supporting a
                theory that the pa.t. stem of the verb derived from TIR- is the unattested
                *_tirn_, the underlying pp. *_tirnen_ 'guarded' must be explained in
                relation to the attested, coexistent stems _tiri-__tiria-_ and pa.t. form
                _tiriant_.

                CFH still confuses the infinitive form _tiri_ with a longer "stem"
                **_tiri-_, even supplying a hyphen Tolkien did not include, and jumps to
                the conclusion that _tiriant_ is the past tense of _tiri_ as well as
                _tirio_. In no way is this an obvious and inevitable interpretation of what
                Tolkien actually wrote. The past tense _tiriant_ is mentioned only after
                _tirio_.

                > The pp. *_tirnen_ is thus perhaps to be understood as derived by syncope
                from *_tiri-nen_, again suggesting a Noldorin 1st sg. pa.t. form *_tirin_.

                Such a "pa.t." form would be awfully easy to confuse with a PRESENT-TENSE
                (or aorist?) form like _ú-chebin_ "I do not keep", wouldn't it? No,
                _tirnen_ would rather come from *_tir-nê-nâ_, i.e. consonant stem _tir-_ +
                old past tense marker _-nê_ + old participial ending _-nâ_. Compare _tirne_
                as the Quenya past tense (< *_tir-nê). A "past participle" indeed; the
                early Lindar apparently had this great idea that past participles could be
                formed by adding _-nâ_ to past-tense forms. Compare _thoren_ as the "pp."
                of a verb "fence"; Tolkien explicitly derived it from _thaurênâ_, which
                would be the past tense *_thaurê_ "fenced" (formed by A-infixion from the
                root THUR, compare the pa.t. _daul_ vs. the root DUL) + the participial
                ending _-nâ_.

                The form **_tiri-nen_ > _tirnen_ once again reflects CFH's strange desire
                to turn the simple infinitive marker seen at the end of _tiri_ into an
                integral part of the verbal stem, even if he must postulate a syncope to
                get rid of it in the attested p.p. _tirnen_.

                > Helge's other proposal, *_idiren_, presumably is formed on analogy with S
                _agor_ (XI:415),

                Correct so far...

                > which Tolkien derives from primitive *_akâra_ (the circumflex here
                represents a macron in the published text) and describes as characterized
                by "the 'augment', or reduplicated base-vowel, and the long stem-vowel"
                (thus explaining the appearance of S _o_ for earlier long *_â_; note too
                the apparent stem-vowel *_-a_, _not_ *_-e_). There is, of course, no
                evidence that any Sindarin verb derived from TIR- employs this pa.t.
                formation; but I would point out that if this formation mechanism is to be
                applied, the result is not Helge's *_idire-_, but instead *_idíra-_ <
                *_itîra_.

                As for the final vowel before the pronominal ending, CFH surely recalls the
                Turin Wrapper form _agorech_ instead of **_agorach_ -- which his reasoning
                above would lead us to expect. For all we know, -e- may have become a
                universal connecting vowel before pronominal suffixes in this kind of past
                tense, perhaps by analogy with such forms as _onen_ "I gave" or _*drammen_
                "I hewed" (where this connecting vowel is historically justified).

                In the form _akâra_, even the FINAL -a may be an echo of the stem-vowel
                (some kind of ómataina added to the root KAR). If the stem TIR formed its
                past tense by the same pattern, maybe we would see *_itîri_ as the
                primitive form?

                Just like the long vowel of _akâra_ has been shortened in _agor_ (where _â_
                became _au_ and then _o_), it may be assumed that *_itîr-_ would produce
                *_idir_ rather than *_idír_, though the long vowel would perhaps still
                persist at the stage sometimes called Middle Sindarin (a post-Tolkien
                term).

                CFH returns to _tirnen_ in a later letter:

                > On further reflection, I think it is better to instead view N *_tirnen_
                as simply an analogical formation based on the very frequent occurrence of
                p.ps. in _-nen_ among both basic and derived verbs in Noldorin, e.g. N.
                _dant-_ 'to fall', _dannen_ 'fallen' < DAT-, DANT-; N _presto_ 'to affect,
                trouble, disturb', _prestannen_ 'affected' < PERES-; etc.

                On still further reflection, CFH may reach the insight that _prestannen_ is
                the past tense *_prestant_ "disturbed, affected" + the actual past
                participle marker _-en_ (the longer form -nen only occurs incidentally, so
                to speak, where there happens to be or arise an -n- before this shorter
                ending). In_prestannen_, we have intervocalic _nt_ becoming _nn_, a regular
                development. _Dannen_ "fallen" may suggest that the past tense "fell" is
                *_dant_, formed by nasal infixion from the root DAT; again we have
                intervocalic nt > nn.

                The past participle marker _-en_ historically evolves from _-e_ (the vowel
                all past tense-forms originally seem to have ended in, still so in Quenya)
                + the participial ending _-nâ_, worn down to _-n_ in Noldorin/Sindarin. In
                many cases, the older past tense marker was _-ne_ (as in Quenya), and then
                the Noldorin/Sindarin p.p. comes to end in _-nen_, of course.

                > In any event, whatever the explanation of the Noldorin p.p. *_tirnen_,
                its co-attestation with N sg. pa.t. _tiriant_ demonstrates that it cannot
                simply be assumed or asserted to be based upon a pa.t. stem *_tirn-_. Nor,
                above all, can we use such an assumption or assertion as an excuse to
                ignore the fact that the _attested_ verb, _tiri-_/_tiria-_ is _derived_.

                For the umpteenth time: _Tiri_ (notice that there is NO final hyphen in
                Tolkien's text) is IMNSHO just the infinitive of the very much non-derived
                (basic, primary) verb *_tir-_. Surely CFH must have noticed that many
                Noldorin verbs have infinitives in -i, derived from older -ie? In the entry
                NAR2 Tolkien derives _treneri_ "[to] tell" from older _trenarie_, which he
                explicitly calls an "inf." form: Dead giveaway! Likewise, we would have the
                inf. *_tirie_ "to watch" > later inf. _tiri_ (and likely *_tirn_ as the
                pa.t., directly cognate with Quenya _tirne_ and underlying the past
                participle _tirnen_ "watched, guarded" < *_tir-nê-nâ_). It is the following
                synonymous verb *_tiria-_, infinitive _tirio_, which is derived and has the
                past tense _tiriant_ (and then also a distinct past participle
                _*tiriannen_, I guess). Let us make this crystal clear:

                STEM INF. PA.T. P.P.
                *tir- tiri *tirn tirnen
                *tiria- tirio tiriant *tiriannen

                (I don't asterisk _tirnen_ just because it happens to be lenited [_dirnen_]
                in the source.)

                While *_tirn_ is my best guess as the past tense of _tir-_, *_idir_ may be
                considered as well. As for CFH's statement that "there is...no evidence
                that any Sindarin verb derived from TIR- employs this pa.t. formation", he
                is of course right that there is no direct or conclusive evidence. But once
                we realize that _tiri_ is the infinitive form of a PRIMARY verb *_tir-_,
                Tolkien's statement in WJ:415 surely becomes relevant: "Past tenses of
                this form [the _agor_ type] were usual in Sindarin 'strong' or primary
                verbs." Now Tolkien only says that they were usual, not universal, but this
                does open up the _possibility_ of *_idir_ as one past tense of _tir-_. In
                other words, I would initially put my money on *_tirn_, but if Tolkien's
                angry ghost appears to me saying "This is totally wrong!", I will
                immediately respond: "Ah...it is *_idir_, then?"

                Well, this is getting off topic: nothing about the scripts. By all means,
                since we do happen to have the past tense of a verb meaning "watch"
                directly attested, we may just as well use it: _Im ha(n) tiriant minui_ "I
                [emphatic] it saw first" (with the word order SOV, as in the Moria Gate
                inscription: _Im Narvi hain echant..._). Otherwise CFH and I should
                continue this discussion on Elfling. Ooops...a practical problem in his
                end. Well, I think we have pretty much exhausted this topic anyway.

                - HKF
              • Carl F. Hostetter
                I accept Helge s correction regarding my use of _tiri-_ as a stem-form, and thank him for it (as I have previously noted, I was clearly writing too late and
                Message 7 of 21 , Oct 18, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  I accept Helge's correction regarding my use of "_tiri-_" as a
                  stem-form, and thank him for it (as I have previously noted, I was
                  clearly writing too late and too hastily that night). Fortunately, the
                  status of *_tiri-_ has no bearing on my conclusions regarding his
                  proposed past-tense forms, *_tirnin_ and *_idiren_, and above all no
                  bearing on the main point: that given the (sole) attested pa.t. form
                  _tiriant_, which Tolkien gives as the pa.t. of both alternates _tiri_
                  and _tirio_, it makes no sense to invent a different pa.t. form based
                  on conjecture concerning a putative past participle. Even if Helge's
                  contentions regarding *_tirnen_ are accepted -- despite being
                  unprovable -- *_tirnen_ in no way proves that any such pa.t. form as
                  *_tirnin_ ever existed in Noldorin or Sindarin.

                  I reject, however, Helge's small-minded and opportunistic response to
                  an error I made in my first post, and myself corrected within hours,
                  despite the fact that now three days later he has read my own
                  correction (as he responds to a different part of my corrective post).
                  Such petty behavior _ought_ to be beneath him.

                  On to specific points:

                  On Oct 18, 2003, at 2:48 PM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:

                  > The past tense _tiriant_ connects with the immediately preceding
                  > infinitive form _tirio_; it is not necessarily intended as the pa.t.
                  > of the synonym _tiri_ as well.

                  I disagree. Tolkien's wording makes it quite clear that _tiri_ and
                  _tirio_ are alternate forms, for which the past tense is _tiriant_: "N
                  _tiri_ or _tirio_, pa.t. _tiriant_".

                  > As for the final vowel before the pronominal ending, CFH surely
                  > recalls the Turin Wrapper form _agorech_ instead of **_agorach_

                  I dealt with Helge's unwarrented assumptions and assertions about
                  _agor_ and _agorech_ and their relationship in a post I made to the
                  Lambengolmor list two days ago, and to which I refer the interested
                  reader: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/496>

                  > If the stem TIR formed its past tense by the same pattern, maybe we
                  > would see *_itîri_ as the primitive form?

                  Perhaps, yes, as I have already implied in my Lambengolmor post.

                  > Just like the long vowel of _akâra_ has been shortened in _agor_
                  > (where _â_ became _au_ and then _o_), it may be assumed that *_itîr-_
                  > would produce *_idir_ rather than *_idír_,

                  But the long vowel of *_akâra_ was _not_ shortened: as your own figure
                  indicates, it was diphthongized and then monophthongized. No such
                  process would occur in *_itîra-_ / *_itîri-_, so I see no reason why
                  the vowel would not remain long, esp. in stressed position.

                  > at the stage sometimes called Middle Sindarin (a post-Tolkien term).

                  Which is to say, a non-Tolkien term.

                  > CFH returns to _tirnen_ in a later letter:
                  >
                  >> On further reflection, I think it is better to instead view N
                  >> *_tirnen_ as simply an analogical formation based on the very
                  >> frequent occurrence of p.ps. in _-nen_ among both basic and derived
                  >> verbs in Noldorin, e.g. N. _dant-_ 'to fall', _dannen_ 'fallen' <
                  >> DAT-, DANT-; N _presto_ 'to affect, trouble, disturb', _prestannen_
                  >> 'affected' < PERES-; etc.
                  >
                  > On still further reflection, CFH may reach the insight that
                  > _prestannen_ is the past tense *_prestant_ "disturbed, affected" + the
                  > actual past participle marker _-en_ (the longer form -nen only occurs
                  > incidentally, so to speak, where there happens to be or arise an -n-
                  > before this shorter ending). In_prestannen_, we have intervocalic _nt_
                  > becoming _nn_, a regular development.

                  Despite Helge's false implication, I am of course quite fully aware of
                  the actual historical processes underlying such past participles as N
                  _prestannen_. That is precisely why I said that N *_tirnen_ is perhaps
                  an _analogical_ formation, not a regular phonological development. I
                  did not say -- as can plainly be seen from Helge's own quotation of my
                  post -- that there is or ever was a past-participial ending _-nen_; I
                  said only that past participles _in_ _-nen_ are very frequent. It is
                  the frequency of such sequences that lead to analogical formations,
                  just as we see with the pervasively analogical N/S pa.t. in _-nt_.

                  > The past participle marker _-en_ historically evolves from _-e_ (the
                  > vowel all past tense-forms originally seem to have ended in, still so
                  > in Quenya) + the participial ending _-nâ_, worn down to _-n_ in
                  > Noldorin/Sindarin.

                  I disagree with this unqualified assertion. This _-en_ may also have
                  arisen from *_-inâ_, and thus be cognate with the Quenya past
                  participial ending _-ina_ exhibited by such relatively late Quenya
                  forms as _rákina_ 'broken', etc.

                  > Well, this is getting off topic: nothing about the scripts. By all
                  > means, since we do happen to have the past tense of a verb meaning
                  > "watch" directly attested, we may just as well use it:

                  No, not "just as well": _better_. And what a novel idea. I wish I'd
                  come up with it. Oh wait....

                  > Otherwise CFH and I should continue this discussion on Elfling.
                  > Ooops...a practical problem in his end.

                  Again, this sort of petty behavior _ought_ to be beneath Helge. And as
                  Helge is fully aware, we can carry out this and any other scholarly
                  discussion of Tolkien's languages he would care to engage in on the
                  Lambengolmor list, where no one hides behind the shield of censorship.

                  > Well, I think we have pretty much exhausted this topic anyway.

                  Hardly.



                  --
                  =============================================
                  Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

                  ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
                  Ars longa, vita brevis.
                  The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
                  "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
                  a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
                • Helge K. Fauskanger
                  ... and thank him for it (as I have previously noted, I was clearly writing too late and too hastily that night). [...] ... error I made in my first
                  Message 8 of 21 , Oct 25, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                    > I accept Helge's correction regarding my use of "_tiri-_" as a stem-form,
                    and thank him for it (as I have previously noted, I was clearly writing too
                    late and too hastily that night).
                    [...]
                    > I reject, however, Helge's small-minded and opportunistic response to an
                    error I made in my first post...Such petty behavior _ought_ to be beneath
                    him.

                    So what is it, really? Does Hostetter thank me or call me names when I
                    point out his mistakes? It seems to be the same error he refers to in both
                    of the quotations above.

                    However, this is clearly not the right forum to discuss the other
                    linguistic issues he brought up, since they have nothing to do with the
                    scripts: such as whether *_itîr-_ etc. would produce Sindarin *_idir_ or
                    *_idír_ with a long vowel, or whether the past participle ending _-en_
                    descends from _-e-nâ_ or _-inâ_. I have dealt with these things in notes
                    added to my article "Reconstructing the Sindarin Verb System"; interested
                    list members may access it and search for Hostetter's name:

                    http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/sverb-rec.htm

                    A brand new Appendix also deals with some criticism he presented on the
                    Lambengolmor list (whether it is proper to call past tense forms in _-nt_
                    "3rd person" forms, as I have done).

                    - HKF
                  • Carl F. Hostetter
                    ... Once again, Helge would rather jump to an absurd, even contradictory, conclusion, than to simply spend a few extra moments actually reading what I wrote.
                    Message 9 of 21 , Oct 25, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Oct 25, 2003, at 8:42 AM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:

                      > Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
                      >
                      >> I accept Helge's correction regarding my use of "_tiri-_" as a
                      >> stem-form,
                      > and thank him for it (as I have previously noted, I was clearly
                      > writing too
                      > late and too hastily that night).
                      > [...]
                      >> I reject, however, Helge's small-minded and opportunistic response to
                      >> an
                      > error I made in my first post...Such petty behavior _ought_ to be
                      > beneath
                      > him.
                      >
                      > So what is it, really? Does Hostetter thank me or call me names when I
                      > point out his mistakes? It seems to be the same error he refers to in
                      > both
                      > of the quotations above.

                      Once again, Helge would rather jump to an absurd, even contradictory,
                      conclusion, than to simply spend a few extra moments actually reading
                      what I wrote. The two were very clearly _not_ the same error.

                      To answer Helge's question, I'm happy to accept corrections to (actual)
                      errors. But when I have _already_ corrected my own error, in a post
                      that Helge has clearly seen (if not read), because he is _replying_ to
                      it and _quoting_ from it, then that is nothing more than pettiness.
                    • Carl F. Hostetter
                      ... List members that have followed this discussion may be interested in my comments upon and corrections to Helge s new notes:
                      Message 10 of 21 , Oct 28, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Oct 25, 2003, at 8:42 AM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:

                        > I have dealt with these things in notes added to my article
                        > "Reconstructing the Sindarin Verb System"; interested list members may
                        > access it and search for Hostetter's name:
                        >
                        > http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/sverb-rec.htm

                        List members that have followed this discussion may be interested in my
                        comments upon and corrections to Helge's new notes:

                        <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/510>



                        --
                        =============================================
                        Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

                        ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
                        Ars longa, vita brevis.
                        The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
                        "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
                        a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
                      • Carl F. Hostetter
                        It has been one week since I posted my corrections to Helge s misrepresentations of my words in revisions he made to his Sindarin verb article, yet despite
                        Message 11 of 21 , Nov 4, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          It has been one week since I posted my corrections to Helge's misrepresentations of
                          my words in revisions he made to his Sindarin verb article, yet despite having plenty
                          of time to respond to people's posts online, he has yet to remove his false claims
                          from his article. I respectfully request that he do so immediately, as should any who
                          care about truth and accuracy in discussing Tolkien's linguistic inventions.

                          (I'll also take this opportunity to note that Helge has an unclosed italics tag in his
                          article, in the note in which he misrepresents my statement regarding the possible
                          origins of the past participle ending _-en_.)



                          --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@e...> wrote:
                          >
                          > On Oct 25, 2003, at 8:42 AM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:
                          >
                          > > I have dealt with these things in notes added to my article
                          > > "Reconstructing the Sindarin Verb System"; interested list members may
                          > > access it and search for Hostetter's name:
                          > >
                          > > http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/sverb-rec.htm
                          >
                          > List members that have followed this discussion may be interested in my
                          > comments upon and corrections to Helge's new notes:
                          >
                          > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/510>
                        • Karyn
                          ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/files/LOTRtshirt.PNG ... Can you please tell me what font you used for this? Karyn
                          Message 12 of 21 , Nov 5, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "elimloth" <draco@s...> wrote:
                            > d_daniel_andries@w... wrote:
                            > [...] I would suggest _Hîr i-Chorvath: han tiriannen minui._
                            > > ('Lord of the Rings: I saw it first.') Written in the KLIII
                            > tengwar mode, [...]
                            >
                            > Like so:
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/files/LOTRtshirt.PNG
                            >
                            > Elimloth

                            Can you please tell me what font you used for this?
                            Karyn
                          • Carl F. Hostetter
                            I see that despite having read my messages -- he corrected the unclosed tag I noted in my message within hours of its posting -- Helge has still not corrected
                            Message 13 of 21 , Nov 5, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I see that despite having read my messages -- he corrected the unclosed tag I noted
                              in my message within hours of its posting -- Helge has still not corrected his
                              erroneous claims about and misrepresentations of my actual words and arguments
                              concerning his treatment of Noldorin and Sindarin past-tense verbs.

                              I hope that the open contempt for truth and accuracy, motivated by personal animus
                              and political expediency, that Helge hereby exhibits will be noted and borne in mind
                              by those of you who read his treatises and accept his claims uncritically.

                              Don't accept _anything_ Helge says as true unless you can verify it for yourself from
                              the actual sources.



                              --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@e...> wrote:

                              > It has been one week since I posted my corrections to Helge's misrepresentations of
                              > my words in revisions he made to his Sindarin verb article, yet despite having plenty
                              > of time to respond to people's posts online, he has yet to remove his false claims
                              > from his article. I respectfully request that he do so immediately, as should any who
                              > care about truth and accuracy in discussing Tolkien's linguistic inventions.
                              >
                              > (I'll also take this opportunity to note that Helge has an unclosed italics tag in his
                              > article, in the note in which he misrepresents my statement regarding the possible
                              > origins of the past participle ending _-en_.)
                              >
                              > --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@e...> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > On Oct 25, 2003, at 8:42 AM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:
                              > >
                              > > > I have dealt with these things in notes added to my article
                              > > > "Reconstructing the Sindarin Verb System"; interested list members may
                              > > > access it and search for Hostetter's name:
                              > > >
                              > > > http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/sverb-rec.htm
                              > >
                              > > List members that have followed this discussion may be interested in my
                              > > comments upon and corrections to Helge's new notes:
                              > >
                              > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/510>
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.