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

Re:[Lambengolmor] -Vndo

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 22 , Jul 29 6:28 AM
      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 2 of 22 , Jul 29 11:47 AM
        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 3 of 22 , Jul 29 3:03 PM
          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 4 of 22 , Jul 29 4:39 PM
            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 5 of 22 , Jul 29 6:03 PM
              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 6 of 22 , Jul 29 11:55 PM
                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 7 of 22 , Jul 29 11:59 PM
                  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 8 of 22 , Jul 30 3:15 AM
                    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 9 of 22 , Jul 30 3:14 PM
                      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 10 of 22 , Jul 31 8:01 PM
                        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.