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

581Q _ulundo_ < _ulgundô_ vs. _felya_ < *_felga_

Expand Messages
  • Andreas Johansson
    Jan 5, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Quoting Lukas Novak <lukas.novak@...>:

      > Andreas Johansson wrote:
      > > (And yes, I'm aware of Q _ulundo_ < _ulgundô_, which raises
      > > the question why we're not seeing **fela instead.)
      > Perhaps because of the difference of the stress pattern?
      > In "felga>felya" the "felg>fely" syllable is stressed, whereas
      > in "ulgundo>ulundo" the "ulg>ul" syllable is not stressed?
      > To me it makes sense - but who is me :-) ?

      I'd rather expect the words to syllabify as fel.ya and u.lun.do, respectively,
      but the idea that the difference is due to the difference in stress might be
      correct nonetheless. I don't think I've ever heard any other decent internal
      explanation, while the obvious external one, that the good Professor changed
      the rules during the composition of Etym, has been advanced repeatedly.

      Another possible internal explanation that struck me right now is that it
      could simply be due to the different following vowel. No closely parallel case
      is known to me, but the phenomenon as such, the same consonant behaving
      variously depending on the following vowel, is examplified by the different
      fate of primitive *w before *a and *o, for instance. (I'm unfortunately unable
      to provide a proper citation for that, having again left my library back in
      Sweden. Carl?)

      [Comparison of derivatives of Etym. WÔ- (Q _o-_/_ó-_) and bases in WA-,
      such as WA3- (Q _vára_), WAN- (Q _vanya_), etc. exhibit this contrast.
      See also the statement in _Quendi and Eldar_ that initial _w-_ was "lost in
      Quenya before _ô_" (XI:367). (Please note that I make no promise of
      providing citations in the future!) CFH]

    • Show all 18 messages in this topic