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

Re: [Lambengolmor] -Vndo

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.