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

710Re: _calad_ or _galad_?

Expand Messages
  • Helios De Rosario Martinez
    Jul 7 10:10 AM
      David Kiltz wrote:

      > Descriptively _h_ > _ch_ isn't
      > '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.

      That means that the mutation _c_ > _ch_ (at least in Etym.) would be
      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_ goes
      > 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.

      But I think that the other examples (_Gilbrennil_ and _Gilthoniel_)
      show that _gíl_ did not favour phonologic lenition. I agree that
      _gilgalad_ may show lenited _calad_, but my point is that it is
      _grammatical_ lenition.

      > One might ask oneself whether _gilbrennil_ stands instead of
      > _*gilvrennil_ due to some sort of analogy (cf. _Elbereth_) or maybe
      > it was easier to pronounce (not a strong point) ?

      As Javier Lorenzo noted in the Lambenor list --

      -- 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 deriving
      > the second element of _Gilthoniel_ from root _than/thân-_ 'to kindle,
      > set light to'.

      But as you wrote later, it is a note from a later text. In Etym. it is
      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
      published text".

      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]
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic