Re: New _Tengwestië_ article: Early Ilkorin Phonology
- I thank Roman for his valuable commentaries on the article of "Early
Ilkorin Phonology". I have modified it to reflect some of his ideas,
which improve my original hypothesis on the origin of Ilk. _migg_.
> There is no mention that the acute accent often represents stress (asAfter a more careful examination of the sources, I think that you are
> is also written in PE13:135), even if not grouped with the macron or
> colon. And stress is very important in understanding the derived forms
> in the case of _y_.
certainly right in the case of preh. _míye_. In the cited introduction
to the Noldorin Word-lists, its editors tell that
"in ENF 3, 4, 8 and 10 Tolkien used the acute accent in place of the
macron to mark vowel length when he typed reconstructed forms".
I had applied this interpretation to all the prehistoric forms involved
in Ilkorin phonology, except for _t'lépe_ (with the accent over a macron
on the first _e_), because this case was explicitly marked as an exception.
However, now I notice that _míye_ is not in any of the pages cited by
the editors, but in ENF 13. And _dâ_, one of the prehistoric forms
related to Ilk. _þah_, which is in ENF 13 too, has a macron to mark
vowel length. Therefore, Roman is probably right when he says that
_míye_ features a stressed _i_, so marked in order to explain a distinct
development of _y_ after a stressed syllable.
All the other Ilkorin terms for which the prehistoric forms bear an
acute accent are in ENF 3, 4, 8 or 10. Therefore, _míye_ seems to be the
only case, together with _t'lépe_, in which that sign should be read as
a mark of stress.
>> the change from dentals to velars is not unknown in Elvish languages[...]
>> — one example occurs in Gn. feigien worse < faiðn (PE13:114)
> I'm not convinced here. Both forms are written beside each other, but
> can one really be sure that _feigien_ is derived from _faiðn_ and not
> vice versa?
> I find it difficult to believe that the interdental spirant _ð_,The change from dental to velar is rare, but not impossible. It is
> becoming intervocalic, suddenly changes to a velar stop, although
> intervocalic _ð_ is perfectly acceptable in Goldogrin/Noldorin phonology.
explicitly mentioned in PE11:31 s.v. _edh_, which is said to be _eg_
before _l_, as in _egla_. I have replaced the original example for this
one, because your hypothetical reconstructions of the development of
_faiðn_ and _feigien_ are convincing, and therefore they do not seem to
be a good argument for the case.
Anyway, I acknowledge that even this new example depends on a
phonological context different from that of *_miðe_, and that the
hypothetical origin of _migg_ as a development of that form is one of
the weakest ideas in the article. In fact, it is only suggested in a
secondary place, as a possible alternative to the likelier West-Germanic
or Old Norse-like development.
In order to understand why the "mîðe" hypothesis was suggested
originally in the article, perhaps I should clarify that it was the only
idea that I was able to conceive. But one of the advantages of
publishing in a peer-reviewed journal like _Tengwestië_ is that your
articles can be improved by the suggestions of the editor and the
reviewers, and in this case they gave me the idea of Holtzmann's Law, as
explained in the "Acknowledgements". Thus I enhanced the section of
"Development of _y_" with their suggestions, and moved the original idea
to a secondary position, although I did not remove it. Now you give me a
new opportunity to improve it, for which I thank you again.
>> Other vowel mutations [...]Yes, you are right again! It has been corrected, too.
>> mîgg < smeigê
> typo: _smíg_