937Another look at Q. _mondósaresse_
- Oct 28, 2006Roman Rausch wrote:
>In Letter no.342 Tolkien gives "the elvish word for 'bull'" as_mundo_ (apparently in Quenya), so that one can identify
_mondo_ 'ox' here.
_Mundo_ can hardly be anything but Quenya. Its CE etymon could
be *_mundô_ or better *_mundu_ with a short "male" _-u_ element.
Still the stem is not stated in the published corpus : could be
?MUD- or ?MUN-.
[Etym. gives MBUD- 'project', > *_mbundu_ > Q. _mundo_ 'snout,
nose, cape'; perhaps _mundo_ 'bull' is a later conception of this
root and its derivatives. Note that Etym. _mundo_ has 'cape' as
one of its meanings -- a much later word for 'cape (of land)' is
Q. _nortil_ (VT47:28), in which the final element is < TIL 'point',
whence also Q. _tilde_ 'spike, horn' and _Tilion_ 'the Horned'
(Etym. s.v. TIL-). So perhaps Tolkien later imagined MBUD-
'project' > Q. _mundo_ 'animal with (projecting) horns, a bull'?
It should also be noted that GL has _mû_ 'ox', _mûs_ 'cow' etc.,
clearly cognate with Gn. _mul-, mum_ 'low, bellow'; if a root
*MU- 'low, bellow' survived, then perhaps later Q. _mundo_ is
related, maybe *'bellower' with agentive ending _-ndo_ as in
_colindo_ 'bearer' (LR:953), _runando_ 'redeemer' (VT44:17),
etc. -- PHW]
The change of internal u > o to show sex (or rather the lack of it)
bull > ox, is quite unexplained, or is it ?
[I would think that despite the similarity, *_mondo_ 'ox' must be
etymologically distinct from _mundo_ 'bull', though undoubtedly
the form of one suggested the other. The Etymologies gives the
base MÔ- with derivatives Q. _mól_ 'slave, thrall' and _móta-_
'labour, toil', so perhaps *_mondo_ 'ox' is from MÔ- + agentive
_-ndo_, with the sense 'laborer, draught-animal'? -- PHW]
The long _-ó-_ could come from o+a ; cf. Finwe's name _Ñoldóran_
'King of the Ñoldor' < _Ñoldo_ + _aran_ (XII:343).
Then _mondósaresse_ would be *_mondo-asaresse_ with Q.
*_asare_ "ford". But that does not satisfy me either. In Noldorin we
have a second element in _athrad_ < _ath-rad_ "ford". The element
_-rad_ < RAT- 'walk' is missing in Q *_asare_ (< ? *_athare_).
Furthermore in Etym. it is stated that "N prefix _ath-_ on both sides,
across, is probably related" which seems to imply that that "ath-"
was not present in Q. and there is NO word for "ford" Etym.
And making it _ó-atha-r(e)_, is not very logical either. _Ath-_ is
a prefix and two prefixes are not added to make a word in our
corpus of Q. We need a meaningful "stem" here. And how to
account for the ending -r(e) then anyway ?
More questions than answers, as usual... ;-)
- Next post in topic >>