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

RE: Initial _ly-_ and enclitics

Expand Messages
  • Pavel Iosad
    Hello, ... I wonder what Carl has to say on the subject :-) [...] ... I disagree. Elision in Quenya only seems to appear in the cases of two identical vowels
    Message 1 of 4 , May 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,
      Petri Tikka wrote:

      > In message 14958 of Elvish Linguistics List Helge K.
      > Fauskanger tells us
      > of a a signature by Tolkien below which reads the words_nai
      > elen siluva lyenna_.

      I wonder what Carl has to say on the subject :-)

      [...]

      > The first reaction to a the word _lyenna_ would be that
      > initial palatalized
      > Ls would be allowed in Quenya. But I am not quite sure. It may be
      > that it is an enclitic of _elyenna_, the initial vowel
      > dissapearing because
      > of the final vowel in the preceeding word. _elye_ is attested
      > as emphatic
      > 2. person sg. pronoun in LR:398 and R:67.

      I disagree. Elision in Quenya only seems to appear in the cases of two
      identical vowels near the word border. There numerous examples of
      different vowels on word borders without elision. These include, for
      example, _ómaryo airetari-lírinen_ in LR:398. Besides, if elision were
      to happen at all, it would happen on the first vowel - _*siluv'
      elyenna_.

      > It would make sense for
      > the initial vowel to dissapear, since its only function is for the
      > strengthening
      > of the 2. person sg. pronoun.

      IMHO it wouldn't, since the prefixed vowel is generally the more
      important element in the structure of the emphatic pronoun. In fact it
      is the prefixed vowel which makes it recognizable as an emphatic
      pronoun.

      > But one may wonder why initial
      > palatalized
      > L wouldn't be allowed. Other initial palatalized consonants
      > are allowed.

      Then I do not see a reason for _#ly-_ to be forbidden. Phonotactical
      constraints seem to be generalized in languages. Dental palatalized
      sonorants are clearly allowed (vide initial _ny_). Ergo - _#ly-_ is a
      permissible initial.

      On the other hand, the stress in _hiruvalye_ falls on the penultimate
      syllable, which makes us wonder whether _ly_ is not indeed a cluster.
      This can however be explained if we suppose that _Namárië_ exemplifies
      Third Age Quenya where we at leats know for sure that _qu_ is a cluster
      phonetically, albeit not phonologically. There is no reason to assume
      that the same cannot be true of palatalized consonants.

      Pavel
      --
      Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

      'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
      --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_ms of Service.
    • gentlebeldin
      ... Petri, you ll remember I didn t share this opinion. But I have to take into consideration new (for me!) material, and now I think you are right. In XI:363
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 14, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In lambengolmor@y..., "Petri Tikka" <kari.j.tikka@w...> wrote:

        > The first reaction to the word _lyenna_ would be that initial
        > palatalized Ls would be allowed in Quenya. But I am not quite sure. It
        > may be that it is an enclitic of _elyenna_, the initial vowel
        > disappearing because of the final vowel in the preceding word.

        Petri, you'll remember I didn't share this opinion. But I have to take
        into consideration new (for me!) material, and now I think you are
        right. In XI:363 (it's the Harper Collins paperback) we read about the
        "de/le as pronominal elements in the 2nd person". This explains the
        Sindarin pronoun _dîn_, btw.

        We also read "dj became ly medially in Quenya". I don't think the
        "medially" was stressed without any need: Initial dj (or DY in the
        Etymologies) did NOT change into _ly_! (cf. V:394, DYEL-, Q _yelma_)
        Since the word _lyenna_ obviously is pronominal 2nd person, the
        _dj_>_ly_ must have been medial, after some elided vowel, indeed.

        Hans
      • Ales Bican
        Hans commented on Petri Tikka s suggestion that _lyenna_ ... **This does not, however, necessarily mean that _ly_ in _lyenna_ has to be medial. As you cited,
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 5, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Hans commented on Petri Tikka's suggestion that _lyenna_
          may be an elided form of _elyenna_:

          > In XI:363 (it's the Harper Collins paperback) we read about the
          > "de/le as pronominal elements in the 2nd person". This explains the
          > Sindarin pronoun _dîn_, btw.
          >
          > We also read "dj became ly medially in Quenya". I don't think the
          > "medially" was stressed without any need: Initial dj (or DY in the
          > Etymologies) did NOT change into _ly_! (cf. V:394, DYEL-, Q _yelma_)
          > Since the word _lyenna_ obviously is pronominal 2nd person, the
          > _dj_>_ly_ must have been medial, after some elided vowel, indeed.

          **This does not, however, necessarily mean that _ly_ in _lyenna_
          has to be medial. As you cited, there is a variantion between de/le
          in the 2nd person and _lyenna_ may well be from the element le,
          not de. I am not sure where Tolkien intended the variant de to be
          realized, because both pronominal suffixes _-l_ and _-le_ (e.g.
          in _óle_, see VT43:29) seem to be from le. Perhaps he wanted
          to explain _-lda_ "your" (in Aragorn's farewell _Arwen vanimalda,
          namárie!_, LotR 1st ed.).


          Ales Bican

          --
          Mi dissero che a quell'epoca per quindici giorni e quindici notti
          i retori Gabundus e Terentius discussero sul vocativo di _ego_,
          e infine vennero alle armi. (Umberto Eco, _Il nome della rosa_)
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.