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

-Vndo

Expand Messages
  • David Kiltz
    Dear Lambengolmor, One recent issue of Vinyar Tengwar (namely #43) has provided us with a number of words featuring the ending _-i/ando_: _lucindor_ (the
    Message 1 of 22 , Jul 23, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Lambengolmor,

      One recent issue of Vinyar Tengwar (namely #43) has provided us with a
      number of words featuring the ending _-i/ando_:

      _lucindor_ (the variant _lucandor_ appears once)
      _*rocindo_ (actually attested is _rocindillomman_)
      _úcarindor_ (úlcarindor) and
      _naicandor_.

      For an interpretation of these forms see VT 43, p.20 sub _lucandor_ and
      ibid., p. 33 sub _úcarindor_).

      In addition to these forms, we find _melindo_ glossed "lover" in The
      Etymologies (in The Lost Road, HoME V) sub entry MEL- and _cormacolindor_
      in LotR III, chapter 4.

      This leaves us with an ending _-Vndo_ described by the editors of VT as
      "masc. agentive suffix" in VT 43, p.20 sub _lucandor_.

      While the qualification as "agentive suffix" doesn't seem wrong, I will
      attempt a more specific interpretation in what follows.

      It is probably communis opinio that there is more than one suffix attested
      in Quenya that serves to form nomina agentis. The most prominent are _-mo_
      and -ar. Cf. such words as _Elentirmo_ "Star-watcher" in UT, p. 167 and
      213 and for the second ending a word like _ohtar_ "warrior" in UT, p. 282
      or _Telcontar_ "Strider" in LotR IV, chapter 8. There are more examples
      but these few may suffice.

      Both _-mo_ (for a hint of its origin cf. VT 42, p.34, footnote 3) and
      _-ar_ seem to denote habitual occupation/action. While _cormacolindor_ is
      conveniently translated into English as "Ring-bearers" the notion of
      habitual or continues occupation/action doesn't really fit here. Both
      Frodo and (even more) Sam aren't qualified by usually/habitually bearing
      a/the ring. Rather, they are the ones that *have borne the ring". Likewise
      the above words for "sinner" can fittingly be interpreted as "those that
      have wronged/sinned against us". The context makes that pretty clear, I
      think. So, I would venture to say that in the specific context these don't
      mean "those that habitually sin against us" but "those that actually
      happen to have done so". In short, I would suggest that _Vndo_ is a
      "personalized" form of a participle past active that should end in *_Vnda_.

      Now, I'm not aware of any published material that explicitly notes such an
      interpretation. Indeed, it isn't even sure such a participle featured (at
      any given time) in J.R.R.Tolkien's concept of Quenya. Note, however, that
      the Early Noldorin Grammar (published in Parma Eldalamberon XIII) exhibits
      such forms. The form _*mannel_ later _madannel_ from the root MAD- "to
      eat" may serve as an example (Parma Eldalamberon, p.131). Noldorin (more
      or less later Sindarin) has always, as far as I know, been conceived as
      being related to Quenya. Thus, the assumption that similar forms exist in
      Quenya may not be too far off. The formation of this form _*mannel_ is
      furthermore of interest. It seems to be analyzable as *_mad-n-ilaa_.

      If we accept for a moment the hypothesis about the Quenya form as stated
      above, I would very tentatively analyze it as e.g. _col-in-d/laa or _-loo_
      respectively. It's tempting to interprete it as the ubiquitous _-in of the
      past participle (normally in its adjectival form _-ina_ but also in its
      shorter variant _-in_) plus an element _-da_. Now, _-da_ might just be the
      adjectival ending seen in _el-da_ (cf. HoME XI, "Quendi and Eldar sub
      *ELE). However, perhaps it can be connected with the ending _-la_ of the
      present participle (cf. "the Last Ark" in "A Secret Vice"). The latter
      obviously attaches to the continuative stem in PE *_aa_. I'm not sure
      whether a combinatory soundchange N+L > ND can be demonstrated. Were it
      the other way round, that is, the **D is old and that > *L later, we'd be
      in trouble since such a development is, AFAIK, only attested at the
      beginning of a word. To circumnavigate such a problem, we'd have to assume
      that a particle **DAA could be freely attached to verbal forms and
      univerbation took place late in the present participle, hence facilitating
      a development **DAA > *LAA before the nexus VERB-aa+laa became fix. This
      latter assumption seems to be very far fetched and should, IMHO, be
      discarded.

      While the origin of *_-Vnda_ as < **Vn+laa is hardly demonstrable it is,
      IMHO, at least not unlikely and would give us the ingredients we'd need
      for a participle past active. Also, it would seemingly feature the same
      elements as its Noldrin counterpart.

      The form _melindo_ is problematic. A "lover" is not someone who has loved
      but loves presently. One could interprete the form as quasi preterito-
      presentic derived from a perfective meaning of the root. Thus _mel-_ would
      mean "come to love, fall in love". Then, _melindo_ would denote someone
      who "has come to love/fallen in love" and hence "loves". Such an
      interpretation seems artificial, though. My best guess, by keeping up the
      above suggested hypothesis, would be that _melindo_ is an "intermittent"
      form, one that was actually conceived as an agental formation. Only to be
      later in disaccord with a reinterpretation (or shifting back to prior
      ideas) of the continuously evolving Quenya we all love.

      I'm eagerly awaiting your comments. All errors in citing attested forms
      are mine.

      -David
    • Kai MacTane
      [Not sure if this should have LDB in the Subject: or not; I figure I ll play it safe. --KDM] I ve just been looking through the archives of the messages sent
      Message 2 of 22 , Jul 23, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        [Not sure if this should have LDB in the Subject: or not; I figure I'll
        play it safe. --KDM]

        I've just been looking through the archives of the messages sent to this
        list before I joined. There was a lot of discussion that week! Of
        particular interest to me was William Welden's essay in message number 35,
        titled "Quenya of _Namaarie_ (long)". (See
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/35 for the full text).

        To paraphrase one of Mr. Welden's points, he notes the distinction between
        "things Tolkien wrote [in Quenya]", and what he calls "canonical Quenya",
        the latter being defined as things which Tolkien intentionally published
        or sent to correspondents.

        For those who have been evaluating _Quettahostanie_, I'd like to point out
        that the concept of "Attestation Levels" encoded in the system does make a
        fairly similar distinction, though it draws its boundary lines in slightly
        different places. The full description of Quettahostanie's Attestation
        Levels can be found at:
        http://www.freaknation.com/quenya/docs/attest-levels.html .

        In particular, Quettahostanie considers forms published in the
        _Silmarillion_ to be "canonical" as well, working on the theory that JRR
        was involved in the early stages of its preparation, and *intended* to
        publish those forms, but was simply interrupted in his intent by the
        unfortunate event of his own death. I'm also assuming that Christopher,
        having worked with his father extensively, had a good idea of what his
        father was up to, and minimized his own contributions to the work in
        deference to his father's memory and intent.

        These are, however, *assumptions*.

        I'd like to see if people here think they're reasonable -- in short, should
        the Silmarillion (and its appendix) be considered a source for "canonical"
        Quenya (what Quettahostanie lists in the "Published" level), or should its
        offerings be demoted to "Unpublished"?

        For what it's worth, making the change would not be too difficult; it would
        involve altering the text in the description, then a quick search through
        the database for any element with "Silm" in its Attestations field.
        Elements found in that search that didn't have some other canonical
        attestation would then get switched to "Unpublished".

        (I'm leery of automating the process completely, since I'm quite sure that
        subtleties would crop up that would *require* a human's judgement.)

        --Kai MacTane
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        "No sound to break, no moment clear
        When all the doubts are crystal clear;
        Crashing hard into the secret wind..."
        --Peter Murphy,
        "Cuts You Up"

        [For what it's worth: I find the whole concept of "canonical" _anything_
        to be highly dubious when applied to Tolkien's work. The fact that
        something was published while he was alive was in fact of surprisingly
        little deterrence to his desire and willingness to change things in
        the underlying system; it just meant that he had to reinterpret what was
        already published in some more or less plausible manner -- nor is it at
        all clear that even he could always remember or discover what his
        original interpretation had been! -- or justify a change in terms of his
        subcreation (a la Frodo's "mistake"). As for _The Silmarillion_, there
        are many cases where Christopher Tolkien altered spellings and forms
        editorially, and then came to think better of it. For this reason (among
        others) my personal practice is, wherever possible, to _always_ cite forms
        found in those texts that were incorporated in _The Silmarillion_ from the
        original texts as presented in _The History of Middle-earth_. If we are to
        speak of such things, _HoMe_ is by far the more "canonical" work,
        representing what Tolkien actually wrote, without the literary editing and
        stitching. Carl]
      • David Kiltz
        ... There is also a form _manthil_. Of course the analysis should start at _mat-_, not _mad-_ The relation between _nth_ and _nn_ seems to be the same as in
        Message 3 of 22 , Jul 24, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          On Dienstag, Juli 23, 2002, at 06:00 Uhr, I wrote:

          > The formation of this form _*mannel_ is furthermore of interest. It
          > seems to be analyzable as *_mad-n-ilaa_.

          There is also a form _manthil_. Of course the analysis should start at
          _mat-_, not _mad-_

          The relation between _nth_ and _nn_ seems to be the same as in the
          numerals. Cf. VT 42, p. 27 note 5. Manthil also doesn't exhibit the
          lowering of final _i_. There seems to have been much fluctuation in the
          handling of e/i.

          David Kiltz
        • Fredrik
          ... Another example to take into account may be _Pallando_, possibly from _pal+rando_ * far-wanderer . ... WJ:371 mentions the agental suffix _-ro_, shortened
          Message 4 of 22 , Jul 24, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            >_lucindor_ (the variant _lucandor_ appears once)
            >_*rocindo_ (actually attested is _rocindillomman_)
            >_úcarindor_ (úlcarindor) and
            >_naicandor_.
            >In addition to these forms, we find _melindo_ glossed "lover" in The
            >Etymologies (in The Lost Road, HoME V) sub entry MEL- and _cormacolindor_
            >in LotR III, chapter 4.
            >
            >This leaves us with an ending _-Vndo_ described by the editors of VT as
            >"masc. agentive suffix" in VT 43, p.20 sub _lucandor_.

            Another example to take into account may be _Pallando_, possibly from
            _pal+rando_ *'far-wanderer'.

            >It is probably communis opinio that there is more than one suffix attested
            >in Quenya that serves to form nomina agentis. The most prominent are _-mo_
            >and -ar. Cf. such words as _Elentirmo_ "Star-watcher" in UT, p. 167 and
            >213 and for the second ending a word like _ohtar_ "warrior" in UT, p. 282
            >or _Telcontar_ "Strider" in LotR IV, chapter 8.

            WJ:371 mentions the agental suffix _-ro_, shortened to -r in _Teler_,
            _Avar_. "Other forms of this suffix were _roo_ added to stem, with or
            without n-infixion; and _-rdo_ > _rd_." The -a- may belong to the verbal
            stem in both *_ohta-ro_ and *_telconta-ro_.

            /Fredrik
          • pa2rick
            ... As for _Pallando_ (one of the two _Ithryn Luin_ Blue Wizards , UT:394), I have always assumed this name to consist of _pal(an)_ far, distant, wide, to a
            Message 5 of 22 , Jul 24, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In lambengolmor@y..., Fredrik <gwaihir@s...> wrote:

              > Another example to take into account may be _Pallando_, possibly from
              > _pal+rando_ *'far-wanderer'.

              As for _Pallando_ (one of the two _Ithryn Luin_ 'Blue Wizards', UT:394), I
              have always assumed this name to consist of _pal(an)_ 'far, distant, wide,
              to a great extent' (V:380 s.v. PAL-) + _landa_ 'wide' (V:367 s.v. LAD-) +
              masc. suffix _-o_, meaning *'He who travels far and wide', so called
              because he (with his companion Alatar) passed into the East and did not
              return. Note that 'Far-Wanderer' was the name of a ship built by Tar-
              Aldarion: Q. _Palarran_ (UT:178).

              -- Patrick Wynne
            • williamwelden
              ... The creditable points that: (1) Tolkien made a few changes in the second edition, and (2) that he couldn t always remember what had been published, do not
              Message 6 of 22 , Jul 24, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Kai wrote:

                > To paraphrase one of Mr. Welden's points, he notes the
                > distinction between "things Tolkien wrote [in Quenya]",
                > and what he calls "canonical Quenya", the latter being
                > defined as things which Tolkien intentionally published
                > or sent to correspondents.

                > Quettahostanie considers forms published in the _Silmarillion_
                > to be "canonical"

                Then Carl added:

                > For what it's worth: I find the whole concept of "canonical"
                > _anything_ to be highly dubious when applied to Tolkien's
                > work. The fact that something was published while he was alive
                > was in fact of surprisingly little deterrence to his desire and
                > willingness to change things in the underlying system; it just
                > meant that he had to reinterpret what was already published in
                > some more or less plausible manner -- nor is it at all clear
                > that even he could always remember or discover what his original
                > interpretation had been! -- or justify a change in terms of his
                > subcreation (a la Frodo's "mistake").

                The creditable points that: (1) Tolkien made a few changes in the
                second edition, and (2) that he couldn't always remember what had
                been published, do not detract from the soundness of the underlying
                concept. Tolkien felt committed to what he had published, and spend
                significant time thinking about how he could keep the language in
                agreement with it. It is the main reason that Quenya seems so
                consistent from the time of publication on.

                That he altered the interpretation of what had been published
                (provided that the interpretation itself had not been published) does
                not violate the principle of canonicity. The canon is just what has
                been published, not the (even perhaps obvious) interpretation of it.

                > or justify a change in terms of his subcreation (a la
                > Frodo's "mistake"

                But Frodo's "mistake" was _not_ canon, having been taken from
                Tolkien's notes after his death. The ruse doesn't even make any sense
                (if Frodo actually made a mistake, that's the way it ought to appear
                in the story -- if these are variant source documents, you'd want to
                work with the original, and the one which better told what had
                happened). The canonical story (sent to Dick Plotz in a personal
                letter) is simply that _omentielmo_ is wrong.

                > _always_ cite forms found in those texts that were incorporated
                > in _The Silmarillion_ from the original texts as presented in
                > _The History of Middle-earth_.

                A fine practice from the standpoint of scholarship. It does emphasize
                that "canonicity" is of more interest to those trying to speculate on
                what Tolkien would eventually have done with Quenya than to those who
                are trying to set out clearly what he did do.

                > If we are to speak of such things, _HoMe_ is by far the
                > more "canonical" work, representing what Tolkien actually
                > wrote,

                _HoMe_ is utterly uncanonical, since it was never approved for
                publication. If you disagree with this use of the term, let's change
                it. But don't promulgate this sort of confusion just because you
                don't agree with the distinction.

                If your point is that Silmarillion shouldn't be considered canonical,
                I agree.

                I would argue for categorizing entries as canonical or not. It might
                be possible to create an additional, slightly weaker distinction
                like "this bit was approved for publication by Christopher Tolkien,
                and we believe that he believed that Tolkien would have published it
                in the same form", but I think the distinction itself is
                mushy. "Canonical" is crisp (though I could imagine situations in
                which we might disagree about it).

                As for inclusion of material invented by others, I think we ought to
                acknowlege that different people will want to use this database for
                different purposes, and honor everyone's interest. If the entries are
                clearly marked with a provenience and "attestation level" the
                database will serve the purposes of scholarship just as well as if
                the entries had never been included.

                Actually better, don't you think, because people could find out that
                a given word was not Tolkien's by looking it up (a fine scholarly
                purpose); whereas if the additional entries were never added, there
                would always be the possibility that something had been missed, and
                the answer would not be clear.

                Another solution would be to have two different databases; but I find
                this fussy. It's not like the "serious" entries will be contaminated
                by proximity to the "silly" ones.

                --Bill

                [First: I find nowhere a definition of "canonical" that distinguishes
                between published and unpublished state. The usual use of the term in the
                general literary context is synonymous with "authentic", i.e., coming from
                the author's pen. If you mean "published" (sc., during the author's
                lifetime, and thus with his approval), why not say that, instead of
                "canonical"? But then, I would argue, why bother, since citation of the
                source for a form will be sufficient to convey its status with respect to
                this published vs. unpublished distinction (while conveying far more, and
                far more useful, information to boot).

                Second: inclusion of inauthentic forms will require a vetting process far
                more complicated than that needed if only authentic forms are permitted.
                (What value will the database of inauthentic forms have if anyone can
                contribute any forms whatsoever? But if you don't allow that, then what
                persons will decide what does or does not get in, and on what criteria?
                And who will decide who decides, and what the criteria are?) That, and
                the additional properties needed to mark and characterize authentic vs.
                inauthentic entries in the database, will impart (needless, in my opinion)
                complexity (to say nothing of bloat) to the database and its design and
                compilation. Carl]
              • David Kiltz
                ... I second the idea that we deal rather with an older *-ro -r than a suffix -ar here. Note, however, that the -r in _ohtar_ is not added to the verbal
                Message 7 of 22 , Jul 25, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  I wrote [in post 115]:

                  >> It is probably communis opinio that there is more than one suffix
                  >> attested
                  >> in Quenya that serves to form nomina agentis. The most prominent are
                  >> _-mo_
                  >> and -ar. Cf. such words as _Elentirmo_ "Star-watcher" in UT, p. 167 and
                  >> 213 and for the second ending a word like _ohtar_ "warrior" in UT, p.
                  >> 282
                  >> or _Telcontar_ "Strider" in LotR IV, chapter 8.

                  To which Frederik replied [in post 122]:

                  > WJ:371 mentions the agental suffix _-ro_, shortened to -r in _Teler_,
                  > _Avar_. "Other forms of this suffix were _roo_ added to stem, with or
                  > without n-infixion; and _-rdo_ > _rd_." The -a- may belong to the verbal
                  > stem in both *_ohta-ro_ and *_telconta-ro_.

                  I second the idea that we deal rather with an older *-ro > -r than a
                  suffix -ar here.
                  Note, however, that the -r in _ohtar_ is not added to the verbal base.
                  _ohta_ seems to be a strictly nominal derivation from the root KOT-
                  (cf. The Etymologies, sub KOT-). A verbal derivative is given (ibid.) as
                  _kosta-_ "quarrel". In The Lost Road (HoMe V) we also find _ohtakaare_
                  "made war", which is plainly _ohta+kaare_, giving further evidence that
                  _ohta_ is indeed just a noun.

                  David Kiltz

                  [N.B. -- Please give post numbers when citing previous discussions.
                  Also, remember that page citations are to be given using the
                  conventions employed in VT, i.e., WJ:371 should be given as
                  XI:371. For a list of the proper bibliographic abbreviations, see
                  post 3. -- Patrick Wynne]
                • Fredrik
                  ... Your interpretation does not seem to contain any verbal element. Therefore, for it to imply he who TRAVELS far and wide (rather than, say, * he who TALKS
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jul 25, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >As for _Pallando_ (one of the two _Ithryn Luin_ 'Blue Wizards', UT:394), I
                    >have always assumed this name to consist of _pal(an)_ 'far, distant, wide,
                    >to a great extent' (V:380 s.v. PAL-) + _landa_ 'wide' (V:367 s.v. LAD-) +
                    >masc. suffix _-o_, meaning *'He who travels far and wide', so called
                    >because he (with his companion Alatar) passed into the East and did not
                    >return.

                    Your interpretation does not seem to contain any verbal element. Therefore,
                    for it to imply 'he who TRAVELS far and wide' (rather than, say, *'he who
                    TALKS far and wide'), it seems to rely rather heavily on the English idiom
                    "far and wide". Incidentally, in Swedish, "prata vitt och brett om..."
                    means something like "speak at a great length about..." ("vitt och brett"
                    being a fairly close parallel to "far and wide").

                    Pallando may have wandered far from the westlands, but does that mean that
                    he travelled a lot? The expression "far and wide" points to movement along
                    two axes -- and that's where the implication of "travelling" through wide
                    areas comes in, isn't it? -- but perhaps Pallando went straight to some
                    place in the far East and stayed there? In short, I don't think that the
                    'wide' element fits in very well.

                    /Fredrik
                  • Kai MacTane
                    Okay, I ve been sort of noticeably absent from the recent LDB discussion. That s because I ve been dealing with making it so that others can edit QH s
                    Message 9 of 22 , Jul 25, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Okay, I've been sort of noticeably absent from the recent LDB discussion.
                      That's because I've been dealing with making it so that others can edit
                      QH's contents.

                      You should all now see a few new options on the nav bar, like "edit db",
                      "add entry", and, in the display of any single entry, "edit this entry".
                      Clicking any of these will give you a username/password prompt. I'm not
                      posting the username/password strings to the list itself, because anyone
                      with a Web browser can read the list's public archives. And while I trust
                      the list members not to do something nasty, like rewrite all the entries to
                      say "HA HA! I have h@x0r3d j00!", or delete all database fields -- I do
                      *NOT* trust random folks on the Internet with that kind of ability.

                      So I've sent the passwords to Carl, to post in the Lambengolmor files area
                      (at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/files/), where they can only
                      be seen by list members.

                      QH will only allow a given user to be logged in from one location at a
                      time, so there are five different accounts. If you try to log in using one,
                      and get an "Already Logged In!" message, just try a different one.

                      Somewhere along the way, I should probably make the back end a little more
                      user-friendly, document it better, and so on. I never expected to be
                      unveiling any of this project quite this soon. Certainly, if you have any
                      questions, don't hesitate to ask.

                      One question you'll probably have when you look at the "edit db" page is,
                      "Why is it so ugly? Why is there all that white space?" The answer is:
                      because I can't figure out how to keep IE from putting it there. It looks
                      much better in Mozilla (which I use) and Netscape.

                      Another question that may arise is, "Can we really delete entire database
                      fields with this?" The answer is *yes*. If you click one of the "Delete
                      this field" buttons, you will get a confirmation screen. If you confirm
                      with the "yes" option and click the button, it *WILL* do what it looks
                      like. So please don't. (I've just backed up the database, but please don't
                      nuke things anyway.)

                      OTOH, if you see a place where I've missed some diachrony information, or
                      I've left something's "Quendi Root" field as "(none or unknown)" when its
                      root actually *is* known -- by all means add it!

                      Naturally, if you run into any bugs in the authentication system, just let
                      me know. When you log in, you should get a cookie that lasts for a half
                      hour. If you perform any editing activity when you have less than ten
                      minutes left on your timer, it's renewed and you have a half hour again. If
                      your time expires, it should just prompt you to log in again, then slide
                      you right back to what you were doing.

                      I hope to rejoin the discussion on the best attributes of a (general)
                      linguistic database shortly.

                      --Kai MacTane
                      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                      "Why can't I live a life for me?
                      Why should I take the abuse that's served?
                      Why can't they see they're just like me?
                      I'm not the one that's so absurd!"
                      --Ministry,
                      "Every Day is
                      Halloween"
                    • Kai MacTane
                      ... Oh, I forgot, one other thing not to do: please don t actually add any more words from Tolkien s works. As per FAQ questions 2.7 and 3.1, I ve been trying
                      Message 10 of 22 , Jul 25, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 7/25/02 08:08 PM , Kai MacTane wrote:

                        >Another question that may arise is, "Can we really delete entire database
                        >fields with this?" The answer is *yes*. If you click one of the "Delete
                        >this field" buttons, you will get a confirmation screen. If you confirm
                        >with the "yes" option and click the button, it *WILL* do what it looks
                        >like. So please don't. (I've just backed up the database, but please don't
                        >nuke things anyway.)

                        Oh, I forgot, one other thing not to do: please don't actually add any more
                        words from Tolkien's works. As per FAQ questions 2.7 and 3.1, I've been
                        trying to minimize the amount of actual Tolkienian material in there,
                        before I contact the Estate and ask their permission. I figure I'm still
                        just barely inside the bounds of what Fair use can allow, but if even half
                        the people here each enter one more Tolkienian element, that will (more
                        than) double the number of them.

                        Please feel free to click on "new entry" and look at the form there, but
                        please *don't" click the "Submit Query" button at the bottom. Thanks.

                        Once I get permission from the Estate, I'll let folks know, and there can
                        be an orgy of element-adding.

                        --Kai MacTane
                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                        "Playing dead and sweet submission,
                        Cracks the whip deadpan on cue."
                        --Siouxsie and the
                        Banshees,
                        "Peek-a-boo"
                      • Kai MacTane
                        ... And it s my hope that QH can be of service to both groups. ... I m getting the strong impression, at this point, that I should demote the Silmarillion to
                        Message 11 of 22 , Jul 26, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 7/24/02 05:44 PM , williamwelden wrote:

                          > > _always_ cite forms found in those texts that were incorporated
                          > > in _The Silmarillion_ from the original texts as presented in
                          > > _The History of Middle-earth_.
                          >
                          >A fine practice from the standpoint of scholarship. It does emphasize
                          >that "canonicity" is of more interest to those trying to speculate on
                          >what Tolkien would eventually have done with Quenya than to those who
                          >are trying to set out clearly what he did do.

                          And it's my hope that QH can be of service to both groups.

                          >If your point is that Silmarillion shouldn't be considered canonical,
                          >I agree.

                          I'm getting the strong impression, at this point, that I should demote the
                          Silmarillion to "unpublished" status.

                          >I would argue for categorizing entries as canonical or not. It might
                          >be possible to create an additional, slightly weaker distinction
                          >like "this bit was approved for publication by Christopher Tolkien,
                          >and we believe that he believed that Tolkien would have published it
                          >in the same form", but I think the distinction itself is
                          >mushy.

                          I personally feel that the distinction can be even mushier than that, and
                          have wound up dividing things into rather a few "grades" of mushiness
                          (seven, to be exact, though only five refer to actual Tolkien-attested words).

                          > "Canonical" is crisp (though I could imagine situations in
                          >which we might disagree about it).
                          >
                          >As for inclusion of material invented by others, I think we ought to
                          >acknowlege that different people will want to use this database for
                          >different purposes, and honor everyone's interest. If the entries are
                          >clearly marked with a provenience and "attestation level" the
                          >database will serve the purposes of scholarship just as well as if
                          >the entries had never been included.

                          And indeed, the broad "attestation levels" can certainly be ignored by
                          those of a more scholarly bent, who will simply look at the direct
                          attestations included in each entry. As QH currently stands:

                          1) Anything non-Tolkienian will be clearly marked as either "coined"
                          or "compounded", and this marker will be quite noticeable in an
                          individual entry, or any search or browse results;
                          2) The colors of orange and red were chosen specifically to give a
                          feeling of "danger" about those entries;
                          3) Non-Tolkien material will not even show up in a search unless the
                          user goes to the advanced search page and selects a lower attestation
                          level cutoff point. By default, both simple and advanced searches
                          search only the "published", "unpublished", and "derived" forms.
                          (Though browse results will display all levels.)

                          At the moment, I have only one non-Tolkienian word entered in the database:
                          _curweahuo_, a compound I put together to mean "coyote". I'm curious to
                          know how many of you have even noticed that entry. Short of an advanced
                          search with the attest level cutoff set to "compounded" or "coined", it
                          will only show up if you browse nouns or animals. In both cases, it should
                          stick out like a sore thumb, with that bright orange "C" standing out from
                          the blue "P"s and green "U"s.

                          But there is one major reason why I'd like to keep the attestation levels:
                          they form an easy way to track the general level of a word's "canonicality"
                          in search and browse results. By displaying a single icon that fits into
                          one of a few categories, I can quickly give the user a general idea of how
                          well attested the element is, without having to try to fit every detail of
                          the element's attestation onto one screen. Could I program QH to dump the
                          entire "Attestations" field into search results? Sure! But the result would
                          be a visual nightmare.

                          >Second: inclusion of inauthentic forms will require a vetting process far
                          >more complicated than that needed if only authentic forms are permitted.
                          >(What value will the database of inauthentic forms have if anyone can
                          >contribute any forms whatsoever? But if you don't allow that, then what
                          >persons will decide what does or does not get in, and on what criteria?
                          >And who will decide who decides, and what the criteria are?)

                          I had been planning on simply grabbing the words from the PPQ, pending
                          Boris' approval. I'm not sure what his criteria are, but they seem to serve
                          the needs of the community.

                          >That, and the additional properties needed to mark and characterize
                          >authentic vs. inauthentic entries in the database, will impart (needless,
                          >in my opinion) complexity (to say nothing of bloat) to the database and
                          >its design and compilation. Carl]

                          Actually, given the presence of the attestation level field to begin with
                          (to separate words like _elen_ (which appear in many places, published by
                          Tolkien) from those like _ñarmo_ (which TTBOMK, appears only in _Etym._,
                          and hence JRRT never though it would see the light of day) -- anyway, given
                          the presence and utility of such a field to begin with, it's trivial to
                          extend the number of options in that field to include another setting for
                          _curweahuo_ and the like.

                          --Kai MacTane
                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                          "Lucretia, my reflection, dance the ghost with me."
                          --Sisters of Mercy,
                          "Lucretia, My
                          Reflection"
                        • Ales Bican
                          David Kiltz wrote: [the beginning snipped] ... **Your interpretation is interesting. However, I always treated _ndo_ like a strengtened form of _-no_ (e.g. in
                          Message 12 of 22 , Jul 26, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            David Kiltz wrote:

                            [the beginning snipped]

                            > In short, I would suggest that _Vndo_ is a
                            > "personalized" form of a participle past active that should end in *_Vnda_.

                            **Your interpretation is interesting. However, I always treated _ndo_
                            like a strengtened form of _-no_ (e.g. in _tirno_ "watcher", TIR).
                            This _-no_ seems to be related to _-on_ (from _-nd_, cf. _Sauron_ being
                            from older _Thaurond-_, see Letter #297).
                            A similar strengtening was already quoted by Fredrik: Tolkien wrote in
                            WJ: "Other forms of this suffix [_-ro_] were _-rô_ added to stem, with
                            or without _n_-infixion; and _-rdo_ > _rd_." (371). The suffix _rdo_
                            would then be the strengtened form.

                            By the way, it is known that _-nde_ is a feminine counterpart of _-ndo_
                            (see _Therinde_, PM:333). It is also known that there is _-re_ being a
                            counterpart of _-ro_. Furthermore, there is _-me_ being a counterpart
                            of _-mo_, and _-e_ of _-o_. But what about _-ne_, which could be a
                            counterpart of _-no_, does it exist? I am not aware of it; as far as I
                            can remember there is _-nne_ in _ravenne_ "she-lion" (QL:79R). And
                            what about _-en_ as a countepart of _-on_? Could it occur in _yen_
                            "daughter"? Note that it has a variant _yende_ and that their
                            masculine counterparts are _yon_ (resp. _-ion_) and _yondo_ (see YON
                            in Etym).

                            > Now, I'm not aware of any published material that explicitly notes such an
                            > interpretation. Indeed, it isn't even sure such a participle featured (at
                            > any given time) in J.R.R.Tolkien's concept of Quenya.

                            **I can only think of _talanda_ "burdened, weighed down, sad" (QL:88R)
                            but it seems to be an adjective derived from _talan_ "burden" (ibid.).

                            [the rest snipped]


                            Ales Bican

                            ps. Patrick Wynne wrote in another message:

                            > [N.B. -- Please give post numbers when citing previous discussions.

                            **Sorry for rather an off-topic responce but I just wanted to ask.
                            I have always wondered how people are able to provide numbers of
                            particular messages. Well, I know that if I connect to, say, the
                            _lambengolmor_ page on groups.yahoo.com, I will get the number.
                            However, it means I must get online and get through innumerable
                            advertiments on yahoo.com. Getting online is expensive for me, so
                            I will be not able to provide post numbers. If this means I will
                            be not allowed to post to this group, then I will have to become
                            a reader only. But perhaps there is other way to get the post
                            number I am not aware of. Please, let me know.

                            > Also, remember that page citations are to be given using the
                            > conventions employed in VT, i.e., WJ:371 should be given as
                            > XI:371. For a list of the proper bibliographic abbreviations, see
                            > post 3. -- Patrick Wynne]

                            **Oh, I have not read the letter, since I was not a member of
                            this group then. And due to the same problems with getting
                            online, I have not read it even on the web. Anyway, I am a
                            horrible kind, I have never gotten used to the VT conventions
                            of abbreviating particular HoMe volumes. I always have to
                            think a while to realize which volume is meant by the Roman
                            number XI, while I can always tell at once that WJ stands for
                            _The War of the Jewels_. Sorry.

                            --
                            Mi dissero che e 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_)

                            [When I added the reminder about including post numbers, I was
                            unaware that Carl had decided to abandon this stipulation, for
                            precisely the reason you mention: there is no convenient way to
                            determine post numbers other than to go to groups.yahoo.com and
                            access the message in question from the archives, and not
                            everybody has easy (or cheap) Internet access. So let it be
                            hereby noted that post numbers are _not_ required. As for the VT
                            conventions in bibliographical citations from the HoMe series,
                            please use them -- they don't take long to get used to (I speak
                            from experience), and adherence to a standard of reference is
                            to the ultimate benefit of all serious Tolkienian scholars. This is
                            a _request_, not an ultimatum, and failure to use the VT conventions
                            will not result in posts being rejected! However, it might result
                            in further reminders. ;-) -- Patrick]
                          • David Kiltz
                            On Freitag, Juli 26, 2002, at 11:06 Uhr, Ales Bican [in mess. 151] ... Strengthening is certainly a possibility. It still seems possible that we have a
                            Message 13 of 22 , Jul 29, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Freitag, Juli 26, 2002, at 11:06 Uhr, Ales Bican [in mess. 151]
                              wrote:

                              >David Kiltz [in mess. 115] wrote:
                              >
                              >[the beginning snipped]
                              >
                              >>In short, I would suggest that _Vndo_ is a
                              >>"personalized" form of a participle past active that should end in
                              >>*_Vnda_.
                              >
                              >**Your interpretation is interesting. However, I always treated _ndo_
                              >like a strengtened form of _-no_ (e.g. in _tirno_ "watcher", TIR).
                              >This _-no_ seems to be related to _-on_ (from _-nd_, cf. _Sauron_ being
                              >from older _Thaurond-_, see Letter #297).
                              >A similar strengtening was already quoted by Fredrik: Tolkien wrote in
                              >WJ: "Other forms of this suffix [_-ro_] were _-rô_ added to stem, with
                              >or without _n_-infixion; and _-rdo_ > _rd_." (371). The suffix _rdo_
                              >would then be the strengtened form.

                              Strengthening is certainly a possibility. It still seems possible that
                              we have a connection with "past tense" though, I think. Maybe even in
                              _tirno_ (of that isn't, indeed, a typo for +_tirmo_).

                              >By the way, it is known that _-nde_ is a feminine counterpart of _-ndo_
                              >(see _Therinde_, PM:333).

                              Yes, but we also have _melisse_ corresponding to _melindo_ [V:372, sub
                              MEL-].

                              > It is also known that there is _-re_ being a
                              >counterpart of _-ro_. Furthermore, there is _-me_ being a counterpart
                              >of _-mo_, and _-e_ of _-o_. But what about _-ne_, which could be a
                              >counterpart of _-no_, does it exist? I am not aware of it;

                              Maybe we have it in _(Tar) Elestirne_ "Lady of the Star-brow" [UT:184,
                              205, 284] containing a root STIR-. Unfortunately, I'm not able to cite
                              where I found the root STIR- but I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere.
                              Maybe someone can help me out ?

                              David Kiltz

                              [I have checked my photocopies of the _Etymologies_, and the form is
                              without question _tirno_ in both its occurrences: Q. _halatir(no)_ '"fish-
                              watcher", kingfisher' (V:386 s.v. SKAL-(2) 'small fish') and PQ _khalatirno_
                              'fish-watcher' (with final vowel marked with both macron and breve) >
                              Q. _halatir_ (_-tirnen_) 'kingfisher' (V:394 s.v. TIR- 'watch, guard').

                              The best evidence against interpretation of agentive _-ndo_ as
                              "a 'personalized' form of a participle past active" is the fact that
                              agentives in _-ndo_ seem instead to be clearly formed from the
                              _aorist_ stem. Aorist stems in Quenya end in either short _-i_ (as
                              aorist pl. _kari-r_ in _i karir quettar ómainen_ 'those who form words
                              with voices' (XI:391), or in _-a_ as in Q. _ava-_ *'refuse, forbid',
                              < _*aba-_ (Tolkien says of the root *ABA: "As a verbal stem it
                              developed the form _*aba-_ (with connecting vowel _a_ in the
                              aorist)", XI:370).

                              Thus _úcarindor_ 'sinners, evil-doers' in _Aia María_ III, IV (VT43:27-8)
                              can be seen to contain the same aorist stem _kari-_ 'make, do' seen
                              in _i karir quettar ómainen_ cited above; _úcarindor_ indicates people
                              who habitually sin, as a general fact without specific reference to
                              past or present. _runando_ 'redeemer' in the Litany of Loreto (VT44:12)
                              must be an example of an a-stem aorist. In some instances Tolkien
                              hesitated between giving a verb an i-stem aorist or an a-stem aorist;
                              hence we see both _lucindor_ and _lucandor_ 'those who trespass,
                              transgressors' in the earlier drafts of the Átaremma.

                              -- Patrick Wynne]

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • David Kiltz
                              ... Excuse me, but I fail to see your point here. The past (passive) participle in _-ina_ (cf. _rákina_ in A Secret Vice ) also seems to be build on the
                              Message 14 of 22 , Jul 29, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Montag, Juli 29, 2002, at 03:28 Uhr, Patrick Wynne [in mess. 153] wrote:

                                > The best evidence against interpretation of agentive _-ndo_ as
                                > "a 'personalized' form of a participle past active" is the fact that
                                > agentives in _-ndo_ seem instead to be clearly formed from the
                                > _aorist_ stem.

                                Excuse me, but I fail to see your point here. The past (passive)
                                participle in _-ina_ (cf. _rákina_ in "A Secret Vice") also seems to be
                                build on the aorist. That may be a coincidence. Anyway, why do you think
                                that derivation from the aorist stem contradicts interpretation as a
                                participle past active ? The aorist can, after all, be used as a past
                                tense. Also, I think it is the _n_ that carries the notion of "past".

                                > Thus _úcarindor_ 'sinners, evil-doers' in _Aia María_ III, IV
                                > (VT43:27-8)
                                > can be seen to contain the same aorist stem _kari-_ 'make, do' seen
                                > in _i karir quettar ómainen_ cited above; _úcarindor_ indicates people
                                > who habitually sin, as a general fact without specific reference to
                                > past or present.

                                Why ? Already for theological reasons I cannot agree but let's leave
                                that aside.
                                The aorist does not only denote a general fact (which is not the same as
                                "habit" !) but a specific event (in the past). Cf. _ohtakáre valannar_
                                [IX:310].

                                > In some instances Tolkien
                                > hesitated between giving a verb an i-stem aorist or an a-stem aorist;
                                > hence we see both _lucindor_ and _lucandor_ 'those who trespass,
                                > transgressors' in the earlier drafts of the Átaremma.

                                Here again I can't help to think that an interpretation as "those that
                                have trespassed, sinned against us" suggests itself rather than "those
                                that habitually sin against us".

                                David Kiltz
                              • gentlebeldin
                                I think there is some evidence that the original male/female agentive endings were -no and -se (both with long marks). Just one more example from Etymologies
                                Message 15 of 22 , Jul 29, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I think there is some evidence that the original male/female agentive
                                  endings were -no and -se (both with long marks). Just one more example
                                  from Etymologies here:
                                  BES- (wed): *besno > _verno_ (husband, no strengthening after
                                  consonant), *besse > _vesse_ (wife)

                                  I don't believe in a development -nl- > -nd-, sorry! That would become
                                  -ll- by assimilation, cf. NEN- (water): *nenle > _nelle_ (brook).
                                  A word-forming element -la was present, though (denoting an
                                  instrument, maybe):
                                  TAK- (fix): *tankla > _tancil_ (pin, brooch),
                                  TEK- (write, draw): *tekla > _tecil_ (pen),
                                  MAK- (sword or fight): *makla > _macil_ (sword)

                                  I don't think the agentive suffix has to do with past tense. ULU-
                                  (pour): the past tense (intr.) is _ulle_ without any "n", but there's
                                  _ulunde_ (flood).
                                  BTW, there's no aorist stem here, the suffix is immediately joined
                                  with the root.
                                  This is the (neutral, abstract or female) version -ne, presumably
                                  strengthened to -nde. Cf. _onoone_, sister (no strengthening after the
                                  long vowel).

                                  BTW, I can't imagine a root STIR- retaining the initial cluster -st-.
                                  I think it would become _sir-_ in Q and _thir-_ (or _ther-_?) in S.

                                  Hans

                                  [I'm not quite sure what point Hans is trying to make regarding
                                  _ulunde_ 'flood' (V:396 s.v. ULU- 'pour, flow') here, but this noun
                                  appears to be formed from the verb stem _ulu-_ 'flow' + a noun
                                  ending _-nde_, just as the noun _arcande_ 'petition' (in the Sub
                                  Tuum, VT44:8) is from _arca-_ 'pray' + _-nde_. As for a root
                                  *STIR-, certainly initial _*st-_ became _s-_ in Quenya (e.g.,
                                  _*staknâ_ > Q. _sanka_ 'cleft, split', V:388 s.v. STAK- 'split,
                                  insert'), but this consonant cluster could be retained in medial
                                  position, e.g., Q. _sandastan_ 'shield-barrier' < _*thandâ_ 'shield'
                                  + _*stama-_ 'bar, exclude' (UT:282 n.16). -- Patrick Wynne]
                                • Alex Grigny de Castro
                                  ... _kaare_ is a past tense formation, not an aorist, in my opinion. It alternates with _karne_ (Etym: Lost Road 362), see: _#laave_ (Namaarie, only LotR
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Jul 29, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 20:47 29/07/2002 +0200, David Kiltz wrote:

                                    >The aorist does not only denote a general fact (which is not the same as
                                    >"habit" !) but a specific event (in the past). Cf. _ohtakáre valannar_
                                    >[IX:310].

                                    _kaare_ is a past tense formation, not an aorist, in my opinion. It
                                    alternates with _karne_ (Etym: Lost Road 362), see:
                                    _#laave_ (Namaarie, only LotR example as far as I know in _undulaave_) ,
                                    _um-_, _uume_ (Etym: Lost Road 396), _tul_ _tuule_ (Lost Road 47), the
                                    last two clearly marked as pa.t.

                                    The aorist does not have, as far as I know, lengthening of the stem vowel.

                                    Alex


                                    =====Alex Grigny de Castro
                                    mailto:a.grigny@...
                                    http://members.ams.chello.nl/a.grigny
                                    XelaG
                                    mailto:xelag@...
                                    http://www.imatowns.com/xelagot


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • pa2rick
                                    In post 154 David Kiltz responded as follows to my assertion that The best evidence against interpretation of agentive _-ndo_ as a personalized form of a
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Jul 29, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In post 154 David Kiltz responded as follows to my assertion that
                                      "The best evidence against interpretation of agentive _-ndo_ as
                                      'a "personalized" form of a participle past active' is the fact that
                                      agentives in _-ndo_ seem instead to be clearly formed from the
                                      _aorist_ stem" :

                                      > Excuse me, but I fail to see your point here. The past (passive)
                                      > participle in _-ina_ (cf. _rákina_ in "A Secret Vice") also seems to be
                                      > build on the aorist. That may be a coincidence. Anyway, why do you
                                      > think that derivation from the aorist stem contradicts interpretation as
                                      > a participle past active ? The aorist can, after all, be used as a past
                                      > tense. Also, I think it is the _n_ that carries the notion of "past".

                                      Later in this same post David makes the following statement:

                                      > The aorist does not only denote a general fact (which is not the same
                                      > as "habit" !) but a specific event (in the past). Cf. _ohtakáre valannar_
                                      > [IX:310].

                                      For starters, _ohtakáre_ 'war-made' in the phrase cited by David is
                                      not in the aorist, it is in the _past_ tense. Quenya had two types of pa.t.
                                      : a "strong" pa.t. formed by lengthening of the stem vowel and addition
                                      of final vowel _-e_, and a "weak" pa.t. formed by addition of the suffix
                                      _-ne_. _ohtakáre_ contains _káre_, strong pa.t. of _kar-_ 'make, build'
                                      (V:362). Many verbs had both strong and weak pa.t. forms; the pa.t. of
                                      _kar-_ in the _Etymologies_ entry just cited is weak _karne_. Also note
                                      _onta-_ 'beget, create', with pa.t. _óne_ (strong), _ontane_ (weak);
                                      V:379 s.v. ONO-. The same text in IX:310 in which _ohtakáre_ 'made
                                      war' appears also has the strong pa.t. _túle_ 'came', and the weak
                                      pa.t. _ataltane_ 'down-fell' (< _atalta_ 'collapse, fall in', V:390 s.v.
                                      TALÁT- 'to slope, lean, tip').

                                      David asserts that the Q. aorist "does not only denote a general fact
                                      ... but a specific event (in the past)". As shown above, the example
                                      David cited as evidence of this is a pa.t. rather than aorist form. In
                                      fact, Tolkien seems to almost always translate Q. aorist verbs using
                                      the English present tense, e.g.:

                                      _i KARIR quettar ómainen_ 'those who FORM words with voices'
                                      _órenya QUETE nin_ 'my heart TELLS me' (VT41:13)
                                      _lá karita i HAMIL mára alasaila (ná)_ 'not to do (in this case) what
                                      YOU JUDGE good (would be) unwise' (VT42:33)
                                      _Eleni SILIR lúmesse omentiemman_ 'The stars SHINE on the hour
                                      of our meeting' (VI:324)

                                      The _Etymologies_ also gives many 1 sg. aorist forms translated with
                                      the present tense: _karin_ 'I make, build', _tyavin_ 'I taste', _lavin_ 'I
                                      lick', _lirin_ 'I chant', _nyarin_ 'I tell', _nutin_ 'I tie', _serin_ 'I rest',
                                      _hyarin_ 'I cleave', _tulin_ 'I come', etc.

                                      It is clear from these numerous examples that the Q. aorist is more
                                      closely rendered by the English present, specifically the English
                                      present in its "gnomic" sense, i.e., "when denoting a permanent
                                      situation or periodically recurrent action, without particular emphasis
                                      or definite indication of the temporal aspect" (Mario Pei, _A Dictionary
                                      of Linguistics_, 1954). As Alex Grigny de Castro put it in Elfling post
                                      16447, "Unlike Greek, Q aorist is more akin to present tense than to
                                      past. Like Greek, it can express general truths etc."

                                      So David's statement that "the aorist can, after all, be used as a
                                      past tense" is to my knowledge untrue. I'm not aware of any instances
                                      of Tolkien translating a Q. aorist as a pa.t.; if David knows of any,
                                      I'd be interested to have them pointed out. But even if a few such
                                      examples exist, the _majority_ of the evidence points to the Q. aorist
                                      being analogous to the Eng. gnomic present.

                                      This is why I think that derivation of agentives in _-ndo_ from aorist
                                      stems precludes their interpretation as active past participles. And
                                      this is also why I think it unlikely that passive past participles such as
                                      _rákina_ 'broken' < _rak-_ 'break' (MC:223) are based on aorist stems.
                                      Moreover, passive past participles in Quenya are marked by lengthening
                                      of the stem vowel -- _rákina_ 'broken', _rúkina_ 'confused, shattered,
                                      disordered' (ibid.), etc. -- which as shown above is a characteristic of the
                                      strong past tense in Quenya. The stem-vowel in aorist forms generally
                                      remains short (one counterexample in the _Etymologies_ may be _tápe_
                                      'he stops, blocks', s.v. TAP-; but such forms seem to be the exception
                                      rather than the rule).

                                      -- Patrick Wynne
                                    • gentlebeldin
                                      ... Er... yes, the whole thread seems to be about verb stems + a noun ending _-ndo_. :-) My point is (agreeing with Ales Bican, mostly): The origin of the
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Jul 29, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Patrick Wynne commented:

                                        > [I'm not quite sure what point Hans is trying to make regarding
                                        > _ulunde_ 'flood' (V:396 s.v. ULU- 'pour, flow') here, but this noun
                                        > appears to be formed from the verb stem _ulu-_ 'flow' + a noun
                                        > ending _-nde_, just as the noun _arcande_ 'petition' (in the Sub
                                        > Tuum, VT44:8) is from _arca-_ 'pray' + _-nde_.

                                        Er... yes, the whole thread seems to be about verb stems + a noun
                                        ending _-ndo_. :-) My point is (agreeing with Ales Bican, mostly):
                                        The origin of the endings _-ndo_ and _-nde_ are the primitive endings
                                        _-no_ and _-ne_ (both vowels with macrons) for active/masculine and
                                        passive/feminine nouns, respectively. The strengthening -n- > -nd-
                                        does not happen after long vowels: _onoone_ "sister" from NO- (V:422,
                                        sorry, paperback), after diphtongs: _fuine_ "deep shadow" from PHUY-
                                        (V:426), after consonant: _verno_ "husband" from BES- (V:391).
                                        The endings _-no_ and _-on_ could both be related to NO-/ONO-
                                        (create, beget), that's why the latter is used also for genitives.
                                        The endings were appended to primitive verb forms (aorist stem or
                                        bare root), not to a past tense, imho.

                                        There are other pairs of such endings (masculine/active versus
                                        feminine/passive/abstract) _-mo_ vs. _-me_, and possibly _-so_ vs. _-
                                        se_. The latter two may be hard to recognize now in some cases,
                                        because of the phonological changes to _-ro_ and _-re_ after vocals.
                                        Other forms changed as well: _-me_ after final stem consonant "k"
                                        regularly changes: _-kme_ > _-ngwe_. Examples: *rakme > _rangwe_ (RAK-
                                        "reach", V:427), *tekme > _tengwa_ "letter" (TEK- "draw", V: 437).
                                        The forms with "o" mean active nouns (logical subjects of the
                                        corresponding verbs) and thus became agentive endings.

                                        Hans
                                      • David Kiltz
                                        ... Thanks for the pointer. Don t be sorry, that is exactly the evidence I was looking for ! That is why I asked. So, a derivation _-Vn-lá_ probably isn t
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Jul 29, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Dienstag, Juli 30, 2002, at 12:03 Uhr, gentlebeldin wrote:

                                          > I don't believe in a development -nl- > -nd-, sorry! That would become
                                          > -ll- by assimilation, cf. NEN- (water): *nenle > _nelle_ (brook).

                                          Thanks for the pointer. Don't be sorry, that is exactly the evidence I
                                          was looking for ! That is why I asked.
                                          So, a derivation _-Vn-lá_ probably isn't possible.

                                          > I don't think the agentive suffix has to do with past tense. ULU-
                                          > (pour): the past tense (intr.) is _ulle_ without any "n", but there's
                                          > _ulunde_ (flood).
                                          > BTW, there's no aorist stem here, the suffix is immediately joined
                                          > with the root.

                                          Well, according to what you said above about the assimilation of _n+l_ >
                                          _ll_ I think _ulle_ is < *_ul-ne_. The notion of "past" resides in the
                                          _n_.

                                          > BTW, I can't imagine a root STIR- retaining the initial cluster -st-.
                                          > I think it would become _sir-_ in Q and _thir-_ (or _ther-_?) in S.

                                          Neither can I. However, I think it would survive inside a word. So
                                          *_ELEN-STIR-NÉ_ > *_elesstir-ne_ > *_elestirne.
                                          Just like Patrick notes further below:

                                          > As for a root
                                          > *STIR-, certainly initial _*st-_ became _s-_ in Quenya (e.g.,
                                          > _*staknâ_ > Q. _sanka_ 'cleft, split', V:388 s.v. STAK- 'split,
                                          > insert'), but this consonant cluster could be retained in medial
                                          > position, e.g., Q. _sandastan_ 'shield-barrier' < _*thandâ_ 'shield'
                                          > + _*stama-_ 'bar, exclude' (UT:282 n.16). -- Patrick Wynne]


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • gentlebeldin
                                          ... You re right. And I located David s presumable source: A hypothetical root *STIR ( brow ?) as an explanation for the attested names _Elestirne_
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Jul 30, 2002
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Patrick Wynne objected:

                                            > As for a root
                                            > *STIR-, certainly initial _*st-_ became _s-_ in Quenya (e.g.,
                                            > _*staknâ_ > Q. _sanka_ 'cleft, split', V:388 s.v. STAK- 'split,
                                            > insert'), but this consonant cluster could be retained in medial
                                            > position

                                            You're right. And I located David's presumable source: A hypothetical
                                            root *STIR ("brow"?) as an explanation for the attested names
                                            _Elestirne_ ("star-brow") and _Carnistir_ ("ruddy face"?) was
                                            discussed in the Tolklang messages 12.65 and 20.41. The latter became
                                            _Caranthir_ in Sindarin, as was to be expected.

                                            Hans

                                            [Thanks for the clarification. It perhaps goes without saying that
                                            *STIR -- if it existed -- would probably derive from TIR- 'watch, guard'
                                            via s-prefixion; compare STAR- 'stiff' and TÁRAG- *'tough, stiff', SNAS-
                                            *'point' and NAS- 'point, sharp end', etc. in the _Etymologies_.
                                            -- Patrick Wynne]
                                          • Ales Bican
                                            ... **Yes, we have. However, it does not necessarily rule out _-nde_ as being a counterpart of _-ndo_. For istance, we have _-o_ and we treat it like a
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Jul 30, 2002
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              David Kiltz wrote:

                                              > >By the way, it is known that _-nde_ is a feminine counterpart of _-ndo_
                                              > >(see _Therinde_, PM:333).
                                              >
                                              > Yes, but we also have _melisse_ corresponding to _melindo_ [V:372, sub
                                              > MEL-].

                                              **Yes, we have. However, it does not necessarily rule out _-nde_
                                              as being a counterpart of _-ndo_. For istance, we have _-o_ and
                                              we treat it like a counterpart of _-e_. Yet the feminine equivalent
                                              of _tavaro_ "dryad" is given as _tavaril_ (LR:391, s.v. TAWAR).


                                              Ales Bican

                                              --
                                              Mi dissero che e 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_)
                                            • pa2rick
                                              ... Some additional evidence: In Carl Hostetter s presentation of linguistic notes excluded from The Shibboleth of Feanor as published in _The Peoples of
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Jul 31, 2002
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                In post #162 Hans wrote:

                                                > A hypothetical
                                                > root *STIR ("brow"?) as an explanation for the attested names
                                                > _Elestirne_ ("star-brow") and _Carnistir_ ("ruddy face"?) was
                                                > discussed in the Tolklang messages 12.65 and 20.41. The latter became
                                                > _Caranthir_ in Sindarin, as was to be expected.

                                                Some additional evidence:

                                                In Carl Hostetter's presentation of linguistic notes excluded from
                                                "The Shibboleth of Feanor" as published in _The Peoples of
                                                Middle-earth_ (VT41:7-10), there is a group of notes on the
                                                "Sindarizing" of the names of the sons of Feanor. These notes
                                                include the following etymology of S. _Caranthir_:

                                                "[In] Sindarin _carani-_ > _caran_ + _thîr_ face (< _stîrê_)
                                                [?substituted] for Q. _car'ni-stîr(e)_. So _Caranthir_. [Marginal
                                                note: _Carastir_?]"

                                                -- Patrick Wynne
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.