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

Re: [Lambengolmor] -Vndo

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.