448Re: Quenya pronouns 1: _ni_
- May 28, 2003I argued that long vowels in monosyllables were not reduced, even though
the Plotz Letter says that "all long vowels were reduced to short vowels
finally". Hans replied:
> In fact, the Plotz Letter says so explicitly, the sentence you quoted**I am aware of it. The whole sentence reads: "all long vowels were
> continues: "... and before final cons. in words of two or more
reduced to short vowels finally and before final cons. in words of
two or more syllables". While I think that shortening of long vowels in
monosyllables did not take place even in Book Quenya, I mentioned it,
because it seems to be that the sentence is not purely unambiguous.
Perhaps it could also be read like "all vowels were reduced to short
vowels finally _in all words_ and before final cons. _only_ in
words of two or more syllables".
Speaking of which, there are two things that have made me puzzle
for a long time. Which long vowels in words of two or more syllables
were reduced? The long _í_ from _ei_ in dat. pl. of _lasse_ (sc.
_lassin_) was already reduded in Book Quenya. The other thing is
connected with this: in PL Tolkien also says that the diphthong _ai_
was reduced to _e_. Should we read this that the reduction happened
only finally or both finally and before final cons.? If so, dat. pl.
of _cirya_ should be *_ciryen_, right?
> This is obviously connected with stress, remember**It could happen if monosyllables were unstressed, for instance
> that the prefix _ó-_ becomes _o-_ when unstressed (XI:367).
> With the retraction of stress, final vowels became unstressed
> always, and shortened. This did not necessarily (or never?)
> happen in monosyllabic words.
when functioning as enclitics.
> > **That is certainly possible (though the subject pronoun for**I do not claim I would defend it -- I believe the explation suggested
> > "I" could have been simply *_-ne_ then (i.e. with the original
> > _e_, not from _i_)).
> I can't see any reason to assume that. The _-ne_ in _meláne_ has a
> natural explanation, and in any other case I know of, the form is
> _ni_ or derived from it.
by Patrick Wynne is the correct one, nevertheless one can never be
sure what Tolkien might have imagined.
[examples of _ni_ forms snipped]
> So we can see two alternative developments: *_-ni_ > _-ne_ > _-n_,**Or perhaps _-ni+e_ > _-nye_ or, which I find more likely, _-ni+ye_
> or instead strengthening of the suffix _-ne_ > _-nye_.
> _-nye_ (just like _-le+ye_ and ?_ke+ye_ > _tye_).**Or it might have been _-ni+a_ > _-nya_ (note that _-a_ is seen in
> It seems likely that the possessive suffix was formed by combining _ni_
> with the adjectival suffix _-ya_, *_-niya_ > _-nya_.
> The dative form _nin_ "for me" appears in Namárie (LR:368) and in the**Let me note it is _onye_.
> late notes on _óre_ (VT41:11). Some time between them, we have the
> forms _ónye_ and _óni_.
> It seems that _ni_ did not occur as a stand-alone word in the corpus**They (_inye_ and _elye_) seem to be emphatic forms showing augmented
> after the Arctic Sentence. _inye_ seems to be derived form an
> augmented form *_i-ni_. At least, that would explain the difference
> to _elye_ "you" (LR:368).
stem-vowels comparable to _a-nar_ and _i-sil_.
> I'll return to "you" (and other pronouns) in other posts.**I hope you will do. Unfortunately, David Kiltz did not return to
his opinion on Cy combinations in Q and PQ as he said he would
(strange reminder, I know : ) .
Jag är hellre glad nu än om 25 år. (Agnes in _Fucking Åmål_)
- Next post in topic >>