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

Re: [Lambengolmor] -Vndo

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 22 , Jul 26, 2002
      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 2 of 22 , Jul 29, 2002
        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 3 of 22 , Jul 29, 2002
          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 4 of 22 , Jul 29, 2002
            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 5 of 22 , Jul 29, 2002
              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 6 of 22 , Jul 29, 2002
                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 7 of 22 , Jul 29, 2002
                  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 8 of 22 , Jul 29, 2002
                    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 9 of 22 , Jul 30, 2002
                      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 10 of 22 , Jul 30, 2002
                        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 11 of 22 , Jul 31, 2002
                          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.