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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: [LDB] "Canonical" Quenya and Quettahostanie

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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      Silmarillion to "unpublished" status.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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.