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

Re: PE17: Two minor queries

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 of 8 , Mar 23 1:18 PM
          • 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.