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

[LDB]? "Canonical" Quenya and Quettahostanie

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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      offerings be demoted to "Unpublished"?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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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.