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

Re: [Lambengolmor] [LDB] QH Upgrade

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.