696Re: Sindarin _ned_
- Jun 23, 2004Pent Carl F. Hostetter:
> It could also be argued that Tolkien was avoiding _-dh_ in the "King'sBesides, I find it quite unlikely that Tolkien would write _ned_, if for *_nedh_,
> Letter" as "uncouth" (cf. UT:267, VT42:20), and thus that _ned_ is actually
> for *_nedh_; but Willis/Salo make no such claim and do not "correct" the
> form to *_nedh_, and further, Tolkien had no such compunction against
> _dh_ in the name _Edhelharn_ in the same text.
with _ando_ /d/ in the _Tengwar_ version (as he did), even if he did wish to
avoid /dh/ in the Roman version. Note that at another point where his Roman
transcription differs from pronunciation does indeed show a _tengwa_
corresponding to the pronunciation (i.e. _Cordof_ with final _ampa_ for /v/).
> And worst of all, Willis/Salo assert that this _nedh_ means "in, inside,Nor is the form in _Etymologies_ given as *_nedh_, as it is in Willis' dictionary
> mid-: Ety/376", implying that this gloss is attested in the _Etymologies_,
> when in fact the _only_ gloss given there is 'mid-'.)
(implying that it's a preposition), but rather as _nedh-_, clearly making it a
prefix (which is in fact is precisely what Tolkien calls it).
> The only way that I can see to salvage anything of Willis/Salo'sWell, that need not mean all too much. Just look at the clearly
> assertion that S _ned_ is derived from a root meaning 'in', would
> be to instead relate it to the newly-attested base NE-/NÊ- *'in, inside'
> (VT45:38); but note that this base was deleted from the _Etymologies_
> by Tolkien at least a decade before the composition of the "King's
> Letter", and leaves the _-d_ of _ned_ utterly unaccounted for.
mentioned absence of _*Finw_ in Noldorin, which in later Sindarin
does appear (as _Finu_ and _Fim_) in Sindarin. Ok, that is not quite
the same case, since _Finw_ didn't first exist and then was deleted,
but it shows Tolkien's tendency to sometimes return to older ideas
good enough I believe.
[Absolutely. Still, I believe that the status of bases -- attested, deleted,
deduced, etc. -- should nonetheless be borne in mind as a _potential_
factor in weighing possibilities and likelihoods, even if not always
But I find your own idea quite interesting, although we would, as you
wrote, have to assume *_notî_ > S *_noed_ > _ned_ (as opposed to
*_nôtî_, which would seem to underlie Q _únóti_ and which would >
S *_nûd_ or *_nýd_ instead).
[Quite right. First, though, let me note that I did and do not intend to offer
my own analysis of 11 years ago (made at a time when my own understanding
of Sindarin phonology was much less) _in place of_ the current thinking, and
in fact think my suggestion only to be _more_ plausible, not really likely to be
what Tolkien had in mind; and so defending it is not really my point, nor
something I would like to spend much more time on, beyond what I already
wrote. However, I would note several factors: first, Q *_únóti_ in Tolkien's
earlier, oral version of "Galadriel's Lament" was (so far as I know) deduced by
the transcriber from Tolkien's recording, not from a written text; so it seems
_possible_ that the form is in fact *_únoti_. Second, we don't really know the
part of speech of Q *_únóti_: it looks most like a plural noun, but apparently
plays a predicative role (_inyar únóti nar_ *'year numberless are') and so is
seemingly adjectival; it could well be a noun used as an adjective. But in any
event, it's not clear to me what interplay of lengthening with grammatical
function is to be expected for this form. CFH]
Florian "Lothenon" Dombach
===================================================We speak as is right, and as King Finwe himself did before he was led
astray. Let them sa-si, if they can speak no better.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>