710Re: _calad_ or _galad_?
- Jul 7 10:10 AMDavid Kiltz wrote:
> Descriptively _h_ > _ch_ isn'tThat means that the mutation _c_ > _ch_ (at least in Etym.) would be
> 'softening' but rather 'hardening' or 'reinforcing'. The underlying
> phonetics can be gleaned from the historical development:
> PE (ON) *KH > S./N. _-ch-_ in inlaut, (and before liquid) but _h-_
> in anlaut.
more like _b_ > _mb_ when the nasal cluster existed in the primitive
form: a restitution of the old consonant, not a softening. Isn't it?
In that case, it would be a wrong inference to call _c_ > _ch_ a case
of lenition/soft mutation. In fact, though it had a grammatical role
equal to that of lenition, I realise that Tolkien did not call it so
when explaining its occurrence in Gn./N grammar, but he used the
generic terms "grammatical mutation", "interior changes" or "initial
variation of consonants".
I would suggest that such a point should be noted by Ryszard
Derdzinski in his essay --
-- as he classifies the whole table of grammatical mutations in PE11:7
(including _h_ > _ch_) as "lenition".
> 1) _Gilgalad_: According to the Etymologies (s.v. GIL-) N. _gíl_ goesBut I think that the other examples (_Gilbrennil_ and _Gilthoniel_)
> back to < _*gilya_. Hence an older form of the compound would have
> been: _*Gilyacalad_. Thus the development _calad_ > _galad_ is quite
> regular. Even if the compound isn't that old, it is reasonable for
> _gíl_ to cause lenition as it would in other cases, given that it
> ended originally in a vowel.
show that _gíl_ did not favour phonologic lenition. I agree that
_gilgalad_ may show lenited _calad_, but my point is that it is
> One might ask oneself whether _gilbrennil_ stands instead ofAs Javier Lorenzo noted in the Lambenor list --
> _*gilvrennil_ due to some sort of analogy (cf. _Elbereth_) or maybe
> it was easier to pronounce (not a strong point) ?
-- in Spanish)
-- _lv_ does occur in Noldorin, v.g. in _lalven_ (ÁLAM-), _dalv_/_dalf_
(DAL-), _Naugolvir_ (NAUK-). In all those instances _lv_ comes from
*_lm_, but anyway show that _lv_ was not at all difficult to pronounce.
> 3) _Gilthoniel_: In X:388 there is a note by J.R.R. Tolkien derivingBut as you wrote later, it is a note from a later text. In Etym. it is
> the second element of _Gilthoniel_ from root _than/thân-_ 'to kindle,
> set light to'.
quite clear that such a _-thoniel_ came from TAN- 'make'.
On the other hand, I recall what I wrote in my previous post:
"[_galad_] also occurs in V:362, in the name _Gilgalad_, as a
cross-reference to _calad_. But this must not be accounted, since
Hostetter and Wynne point out in A&C:19 that the cross-reference is
actually to _Glingal_."
But Javier wrote in the previously mentioned message to Lambenor that
he does not think, as I did, that the note in VT45:19 means that
_Gilgalad_ was an erratum in the published text, since in that case it
would have been noted as "[_for_:] _Gilgalad_ [_read_:]
_Glingal_". I interpreted that the wording "a cross-reference to
_Glingal_ (not to _Gilgalad_ as in the published text)" means the same
that such a formulation, but I am not sure. Who of us is right?
[In the _Etymologies_, Christopher Tolkien includes "N _calad_ light
(cf. _Gilgalad_)" in his list of the "maze of new forms" added in pencil
to the original ink version of the entry KAL-. In the original manuscript,
"N _calad_ light" was added in the left margin, and below this was also
written "Cf. _Glingal_" (without parentheses) -- hence the reference in
the A&C to "a cross-reference to _Glingal_ (not to _Gilgalad_ as in the
Also note that in the A&C, any differences between the cross-
references in the published text and those in the original manuscript
are discussed _in the editorial comments in square brackets (indented
and set in a smaller typeface)_, rather than in the main listing of addenda
and corrigenda for a particular entry. For example, the A&C mentions in
the editorial notes to AB-, ABAR- that "The cross-reference to AWA is in
the MS to AW-" (VT45:5). Such differences between the cross-references
in the published text of the _Etymologies_ and the manuscript are not
errata per se, but are rather editorial decisions made by Christopher
Tolkien. -- PHW]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>