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

Re: [Lambengolmor] -Vndo

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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.