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

PE17: Two minor queries

Expand Messages
  • Fredrik
    On page 112 in PE17 there are two texts on Idril. The editor notes for the first one that This note is on a page in NN [ Notes on Names ] with notes on
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      On page 112 in PE17 there are two texts on Idril. The editor notes for
      the first one that "This note is on a page in NN ["Notes on Names"] with
      notes on _Fingon_ and _Turgon_ (see below) and _Felagund_". For the
      second text, it is said that "This is on a page in NN with notes on
      _Turgon_ and _Fingon_(see below)".

      The notes on Turgon and Fingon referred to are said to be on the same
      page in NN. So it would seem that the two notes on Idril are on the
      same page in NN too, though this is not obvious from the editorial
      notes. Just to be sure: Is it correct that Tolkien wrote the second note
      on Idril on the same manuscript page as the first one?

      Second, in the editorial note for III 363 Felagund (PE17:118), there is
      a seemingly circular reference back to III 363: "NN, on the back of the
      page with the notes on _Finrod_, _-rod_, and the names of the sons of
      Finwë (see III 363)".

      I _think_ the reference is to the note on "names _Fingon_, _Fingolfin_,
      _Finrod_, _Felagund_, _Inglor_, &c", also on page 118. I am not positive
      though, because that note is not really about _-rod_. There is also a
      text "Problem of -rod", but it is said to be on another page in NN. And
      to confuse matters (well, me) even more, there is another short text on
      the names of the sons of Finwë, quoted for I 318 (PE17:39).

      In the editorial note, perhaps "-rod" should have been deleted and the
      page reference disambiguated to "see III 363 Finrod" (or just "see below")?

      By the way, the notes on PHIN, SPIN and DEL are said to be on the same
      page in NN as "notes on the names of the sons of Finwë" (PE17:181), but
      it not clear to me which one of the texts mentioned above this refers to
      (if any).

      Finally, thanks to the editor for an excellent issue of PE!

      /Fredrik
    • Fredrik
      Christopher Gilson replied to my question #7 (for which see our previous ... Yes, of course. In this case, I thought that the choice of an example (to raise
      Message 2 of 8 , Dec 31, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Christopher Gilson replied to my question #7 (for which see our previous
        messages):

        > Certainly this is a possibility; though it seems that once the idea
        > of the idiom had occurred to Tolkien he could easily come up with
        > a similar explanation in a context where it was relevant, without
        > having the earlier explanation of it in front of him.

        Yes, of course. In this case, I thought that the choice of an example
        (to raise one's hands) and the similarity of sentence structure
        (singular form; dual form; plural is impossible) was a remarkable chance
        resemblance.

        As for the idiom itself, a similar example may be _i karir quettar
        ómainen_ 'those who form words with voices' in _Quendi and Eldar_
        (XI:391). In later writings, _ómainen_ would probably be a plural form
        (cf. instr. sg. _parmanen_, PE17:180); but the older singular form was
        _-inen_ (_kiryainen_, PE16:113), and I am under the impression that by
        1959 the older pattern was still valid as far as the instrumental case
        is concerned.

        As an aside, it seems only natural to me as a Swedish speaker to use the
        singular form in expressions such as "all the students raised their
        handS" or "those who form words with voiceS". In Swedish it might be
        "alla eleverna räckte upp handen" and "de som formar ord med rösten" --
        in the latter case, the plural form ("rösterna") would sound strange, as
        if they had more than one voice each.

        So I think that 'they raised their hands' was not necessarily an
        isolated example of this idiom in Tolkien's mind.

        >> 10) On page 189 s.v. WE (and in the editorial comment on WEG, p. 191), a
        >> root WEK is referred to. I cannot find it in the list of "Eldarin Roots
        >> and Stems". Was it deleted?
        >
        > This item was not deleted in the manuscript; but it was
        > accidentally left out of PE 17.

        Since it was intended for publication, could it perhaps be added to the
        errata & addenda list for PE at http://www.elvish.org/errata, and/or
        published on this list?

        /Fredrik
      • cgilson75
        ... These two _Idril_ texts are on separate pages, thus the different descriptions of their other contents. Also note that I say about the first of these
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 5, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, Fredrik <frestro@...> wrote:

          > On page 112 in PE17 there are two texts on Idril. The editor notes for
          > the first one that "This note is on a page in NN ["Notes on Names"] with
          > notes on _Fingon_ and _Turgon_ (see below) and _Felagund_". For the
          > second text, it is said that "This is on a page in NN with notes on
          > _Turgon_ and _Fingon_(see below)".
          >
          > The notes on Turgon and Fingon referred to are said to be on the same
          > page in NN. So it would seem that the two notes on Idril are on the
          > same page in NN too, though this is not obvious from the editorial
          > notes. Just to be sure: Is it correct that Tolkien wrote the second note
          > on Idril on the same manuscript page as the first one?

          These two _Idril_ texts are on separate pages, thus the different
          descriptions of their other contents. Also note that I say about the
          first of these pages that it "was deleted with a single vertical stroke."
          From this fact and comparison with the other editorial notes the
          reader can infer the note that begins "_Fingon : Turgon_ ?" (p. 113),
          and also the notes on _Felagund_ near the top of page 118, are
          the ones from the rejected NN page that also has the first of the
          notes on _Idril_. The other notes on _Turgon_ and _Fingon_ are the
          ones that are from the same NN page as the second note on _Idril_.

          -- Christopher
        • Ugo Truffelli
          ... Even though it s an interesting hypothesis, it seems to me quite improbable. I ve already highlighted in #1004 that the documents identified with the first
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 17, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, Fredrik <frestro@...> wrote:

            > As for the idiom itself, a similar example may be _i karir quettar
            > ómainen_ 'those who form words with voices' in _Quendi and Eldar_
            > (XI:391). In later writings, _ómainen_ would probably be a plural
            > form (cf. instr. sg. _parmanen_, PE17:180); but the older singular
            > form was _-inen_ (_kiryainen_, PE16:113), and I am under the
            > impression that by 1959 the older pattern was still valid as far as
            > the instrumental case is concerned.

            Even though it's an interesting hypothesis, it seems to me quite
            improbable. I've already highlighted in #1004 that the documents
            identified with the first half of the 30s clearly seem to suggest the
            emergence of _-inen_ as instr. pl. rather than sg. The latter was
            first identified in _-in_ (QD3 and ED give it as an alternative
            form, while BD as the only one), but already in the song included
            in "Lost Road" we find the form _-nen_. From this occurrence we always
            find the pair sg/pl _-nen/-inen_. "Galadriel's Lament" has _surínen_
            and _lírinen_ and the "Masson Letter" (1955, cf PE17:4) says "_most
            nouns have an instrumental in _-nen_", just to cite a few exemples of
            the period immediately earlier.

            The statement cited previously in PE17:161 is preceded by "_Quenya
            idiom in describing the parts of body of several persons the _number_
            proper to each individual is used, the _plural_ of parts existing in
            _pairs_ (as hands, eyes, ears, feet) is seldom required." Well, in the
            light of these words I find it too difficult to see _ómainen_ as a
            usage of such an idiom, because _óma_ is neither a part of the body
            that can have more than one number in a person, nor falls into the
            category of "part existing in a pair". And if the idiomatic usage wants
            the sg or dual for the (normal) pl (in order to specify the "number
            proper to each individual"), we may easily suppose that the non-
            idiomatic usage should require the plural. And in fact we find
            _ómainen_.

            > As an aside, it seems only natural to me as a Swedish speaker to
            > use the singular form in expressions such as "all the students
            > raised their handS" or "those who form words with voiceS". In
            > Swedish it might be "alla eleverna räckte upp handen" and "de
            > som formar ord med rösten" -- in the latter case, the plural form
            > ("rösterna") would sound strange, as if they had more than one
            > voice each.

            Italian instead, while agreeing with Quenya about parts of the body
            such "hands" (so your exemple would be "tutti gli studenti alzarono
            la loro mano", while "le loro mani" would have meant "both hands
            each"), allows both "voce" (voice) and "voci" (voices) ("coloro che
            formano parole con la voce/le voci").

            -- Ugo Truffelli
          • Fredrik
            ... I agree with much of what you say. But of course I did not mean to suggest that _voice_ (the concept) might somehow fall into the category of parts [of
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 21, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Ugo Truffelli wrote, in reply to me:

              > The statement cited previously in PE17:161 is preceded by "_Quenya
              > idiom in describing the parts of body of several persons the _number_
              > proper to each individual is used, the _plural_ of parts existing in
              > _pairs_ (as hands, eyes, ears, feet) is seldom required." Well, in the
              > light of these words I find it too difficult to see _ómainen_ as a
              > usage of such an idiom, because _óma_ is neither a part of the body
              > that can have more than one number in a person, nor falls into the
              > category of "part existing in a pair".

              I agree with much of what you say. But of course I did not mean to
              suggest that _voice_ (the concept) might somehow fall into the category
              of "parts [of the body] existing in pairs".

              My question was, is the idiom an isolated example? Why did Tolkien find
              it proper to Quenya grammar? Perhaps it was not suggested to him by
              anything in particular in Elvish; it might be an anomaly, a whim even.
              "[Body] parts existing in pairs", and that's it! Perhaps.

              However, if we do not look just to the literal words on the page, we may
              ask ourselves whether the idiom presented itself because it follows from
              some larger pattern in the language? I don't know; that's why I put it
              as a question.

              You are probably right about my suggested "similar case", if I was
              mistaken as to when (in the external history of Quenya) forms such as
              _ómainen_ ceased to be plurals.

              > And if the idiomatic usage wants
              > the sg or dual for the (normal) pl (in order to specify the "number
              > proper to each individual"), we may easily suppose that the non-
              > idiomatic usage should require the plural.

              Seems reasonable enough, if "idiomatic" here means something like
              "irregular". Or perhaps Tolkien just wanted to point to the Quenya idiom
              as contrasted with a literal translation from English. In which case the
              word does not really tell us much about "non-idiomatic" usage (which to
              me suggests Elvish as spoken by a foreigner).

              Best regards,
              /Fredrik
            • gildir_2
              ... How does this item read? If I get the text then I can add it to the errata list. Suilaid o Mellonath Daeron, Gildir, Per Lindberg
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 23, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, "cgilson75" <cgilson75@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, Fredrik <frestro@> wrote:
                >
                >> Some questions and observations on PE17:
                >> 10) On page 189 s.v. WE (and in the editorial comment on WEG, p. 191), a
                >> root WEK is referred to. I cannot find it in the list of "Eldarin Roots
                > > and Stems". Was it deleted?
                >
                > This item was not deleted in the manuscript; but it was
                > accidentally left out of PE 17.

                How does this item read? If I get the text then I can add it to
                the errata list.

                Suilaid o Mellonath Daeron,
                Gildir, Per Lindberg
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.