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

Re: _úcarindor_

Expand Messages
  • Carl F. Hostetter
    ... If what you say is true of the aorist interpretation, it is every bit as true of your past-tense interpretation. There is in fact _every_ reason to
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 4 6:16 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      On 8/3/02 7:20 AM, "Fredrik" <gwaihir@...> wrote:

      > From the image, there seems to be no reason to suspect the presence of an
      > _i_ here at all, unless you are very actively and imaginatively looking for
      > one.

      If what you say is true of the aorist interpretation, it is every bit as
      true of your past-tense interpretation. There is in fact _every_ reason to
      "suspect the presence of an _i_ here", since even if your theory that
      _úcarer_ is intended to be a past-tense form, the form as written is
      strange: the strong past tense if formed by _lengthening of the root vowel_,
      and addition of the stem-vowel _-e_ (and _únótime_ shows that the two
      sequential long vowels resulting from a negative prefix attached to a stem
      with long vowel is no impediment). Thus, whether you explain _úcarer_ as
      aorist or as past, you are left with the fact that its formation conforms
      with neither the usual aorist nor the usual past-tense modifications.

      In a statement of general fact like "we forgive those who trespass against
      us", and given the choice between an aorist or a past-tense interpretation
      of the verb "trespass", the aorist is preferable to the past. And since the
      marks that Tolkien makes can be interpreted as "i"s, which would align with
      an aorist meaning, this interpretation seems by far the likeliest.

      Does this mean that it is _impossible_ that Tolkien intended _úcarer_ to be
      a past-tense form? No, of course not. But that interpretation is certainly
      no more likely than the aorist (in fact, in my opinion, it is less likely),
      and requires the same recognition that Tolkien wrote the unusual (if not
      erroneous) form twice, even after remarking on its oddity (and possibly
      considering its alteration).


      --

      |======================================================================|
      | Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org |
      | |
      | ho bios brachys, he de techne makre. |
      | Ars longa, vita brevis. |
      | The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. |
      | "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take |
      | such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about." |
      |======================================================================|
    • Fredrik
      ... In the post that Carl is responding to, I said that where Patrick Wynne in his _VT_ analysis assumes an _i_ to be present, I see an exclamation mark. I did
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 7 12:47 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        In message 180, Carl Hostetter wrote:
        >
        >If what you say is true of the aorist interpretation, it is every bit as
        >true of your past-tense interpretation.

        In the post that Carl is responding to, I said that where Patrick Wynne in
        his _VT_ analysis assumes an _i_ to be present, I see an exclamation mark.
        I did not say this in support of a past-tense interpretation.

        Assuming that there was a verb *_úcar-_, the regular past pl. would be
        *_úcárer_ and the aorist pl. would be *_úcarir_. Tolkien did not write any
        of those. He twice wrote _úcarer_, which looks like a plural noun. Perhaps
        it is a plural noun?

        Such an interpretation does not seem entirely out of the question. In
        _apsenet tien i úcarer emmen_, the pronominal ending _-t_ (probably <
        impersonal _ta_, VT43:20) might be determinative, not anaphoric, and refer
        to the relative clause _i úcarer emmen_. In _tiruvantes_, _(n)te_ is used
        determinatively (UT:317).

        If it is a determinative pronoun, _apsenet tien i úcarer emmen_ would mean
        'forgive to-them that which [be] ill-deeds to us'. Of course there are
        complications. The copula can be omitted in Quenya (VT42:33, VT43:30), so
        that may not be much of a problem. But 'them' who? Perhaps there was a word
        *_tie_ (VT43:21) that could be used to mean 'people', 'others', 'they'?

        Does this seem plausible? I am sure there are many other possibilites.
        However, I do not think it reasonable to support the hypothesis that there
        is an aorist form present in _i úcarer emmen_ by turning the postcard
        upside down and pointing out that Tolkien's marks could be interpreted as
        an _i_.

        /Fredrik
      • Carl F. Hostetter
        ... That would indeed be unreasonable. But if you mean to imply that that is how the interpretation of the marks Tolkien made against _úcarer_ was arrived
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 7 5:35 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          On 8/7/02 3:47 AM, "Fredrik" <gwaihir@...> wrote:

          > However, I do not think it reasonable to support the hypothesis that there
          > is an aorist form present in _i úcarer emmen_ by turning the postcard
          > upside down and pointing out that Tolkien's marks could be interpreted as
          > an _i_.

          That would indeed be unreasonable. But if you mean to imply that that is how
          the interpretation of the marks Tolkien made against _úcarer_ was arrived
          out, you are utterly mistaken. Tolkien very often did not dot his "i"s, if
          writing with any haste or notationally (as here); and what you see as an
          underposed dot can easily be seen as underlining for emphasis or even by way
          of querying (another very common practice).

          The fact remains that, semantically and syntactically, an aorist verb is by
          far the expected form. The fact also remains that Tolkien did either remark
          upon (if your reading of the mark is correct) or consider changing (if it is
          an "i") the form. Together, these facts far more strongly suggest that
          Tolkien at least considered changing _úcarer_ to *_úcarir_, than they do a
          past-tense (or any other) interpretation.

          I should note as a tangent that it is not an editor/analyst's obligation to
          present every _possible_ interpretation or explanation. We often must select
          and present only those that seem likeliest to us. Our obligation is only to
          avoid misleading our readers into thinking certain what is only tentative.
          Hence Pat's use of the word "suggests" when presenting the aorist
          interpretation.


          --

          |======================================================================|
          | Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org |
          | |
          | ho bios brachys, he de techne makre. |
          | Ars longa, vita brevis. |
          | The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. |
          | "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take |
          | such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about." |
          |======================================================================|
        • pa2rick
          ... to Carl Hostetter s comment (re the form _úcarer_ do ill, trespass in At. V, VI) that If what you say is true of the aorist interpretation, ...
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 7 6:12 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In lambengolmor@y..., Fredrik <gwaihir@s...> wrote in response
            to Carl Hostetter's comment (re the form _úcarer_ 'do ill, trespass'
            in At. V, VI) that "If what you say is true of the aorist interpretation,
            it is every bit as true of your past-tense interpretation":


            > In the post that Carl is responding to, I said that where Patrick
            > Wynne in his _VT_ analysis assumes an _i_ to be present, I
            > see an exclamation mark. I did not say this in support of a
            > past-tense interpretation.

            Later in this same message, Fredrik wrote:

            > However, I do not think it reasonable to support the hypothesis
            > that there is an aorist form present in _i úcarer emmen_ by
            > turning the postcard upside down and pointing out that Tolkien's
            > marks could be interpreted as an _i_.

            Certainly one of the most irritating aspects of online discourse
            is the tendency people have to restate someone's opinion in
            a distorted form, then to argue against the distorted version
            rather than against what was originally said. This is what Fredrik
            is doing here.

            I have never said, and do not believe, that the faint pencilled
            markings above the _e_ of _úcarer_ represent the letter _i_.
            This is what was stated regarding this form in VT: "Faint
            pencilled markings over the _e_ suggest that Tolkien intended
            to emend _úcarer_ > _úcarir_ (though the form remains _úcarer_
            in At. VI)." (VT43:12)

            Please note that the mark or marks in question are described
            here only as "faint pencilled markings" -- precisely because what
            they represent is unclear. Also note that it is only said that these
            markings "suggest" Tolkien's _intent_ to emend _úcarer_ to
            _úcarir_. Nowhere in these remarks is there an assertion
            that an _i_ is explicitly present. The same thinking underlies
            my comment in message #176 that "_úcarer_ in At. V was
            apparently marked for correction > _úcarir_"

            The reason that I have supposed these "markings" were
            intended to indicate that _úcarer_ should be changed to
            _úcarir_ is this -- _úcarer_ in and of itself appears to be
            an anomalous form; if it is a pa.t., then we should expect
            _úcárer_, and if it is aorist then we should expect _úcarir_.
            Given these two possibilities, it is probably significant that
            in emending At. V, Tolkien made markings of some sort
            above the _e_ in this form -- "as if to draw attention to
            it", as Fredrik himself stated in message #177. Why would
            Tolkien draw attention to the _e_ in _úcarer_? The likeliest
            explanation is that he felt it should be emended to the
            expected aorist form _úcarir_.

            As for the retention of _úcarer_ in At. VI, this might indicate
            that the _e_ in both occurrences of this form was deliberate
            rather than (as I have previously posited) an error. It may
            be that in writing At. V Tolkien was considering changing
            the aorist pl. ending to _-er_. When emending At. V he
            was undecided on this point, and so marked the _e_ in
            _úcarer_ "to draw attention to it", i.e. he was contemplating
            changing this ending back to _-ir_. Then when writing At. VI
            he decided to stick with the "new" aorist pl. ending _-er_.
            If this was the case, the change was probably short-lived; cf.
            _i karir quettar ómainen_ 'those who form words with voices'
            (XI:391) in _Quendi and Eldar_.

            To reiterate: I do _not_ think the markings over the _e_ are
            themselves a letter _i_, upside-down or right-side up. The
            mark or markings (whatever it or they may be) were meant
            to call attention to the _e_, probably indicating that Tolkien
            was uncertain about it and considering its emendation, in
            which case the likeliest candidate for the emended form
            would be _úcarir_, the normal aorist pl. form.

            -- Patrick Wynne
          • David Kiltz
            ... Are you sure it would be _úcárer_ with two long vowels following each other ? David Kiltz [As I ve already pointed out in this thread, the word
            Message 5 of 8 , Aug 8 3:40 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mittwoch, August 7, 2002, at 03:12 Uhr, pa2rick wrote [in mess. 189|:

              > _úcarer_ in and of itself appears to be an anomalous form; if it is a
              > pa.t., then we should expect _úcárer_

              Are you sure it would be _úcárer_ with two long vowels following each
              other ?

              David Kiltz

              [As I've already pointed out in this thread, the word _únótime_
              (Galadriel's Lamaent) shows that there is no phonological prohibition
              against two long vowels in adjoining syllables. Carl]
            • Erestel
              ... anomalous form; if it is a pa.t., then we should expect _úcárer_ ... vowels following each other ? ... _únótime_ (Galadriel s Lamaent) shows that there
              Message 6 of 8 , Aug 8 4:30 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                > 189 / Patrick : _úcarer_ in and of itself appears to be an
                anomalous form; if it is a pa.t., then we should expect _úcárer_

                > 190 / David : Are you sure it would be _úcárer_ with two long
                vowels following each other ?

                > 190 / Carl : As I've already pointed out in this thread, the word
                _únótime_ (Galadriel's Lamaent) shows that there is no phonological
                prohibition against two long vowels in adjoining syllables.


                I don't know wether _*úcárer_ would be possible or not ; I just
                wonder if _únótime_ example is sufficient to validate _*úcárer_ ;
                Indeed there are 4 syllables in _únótime_ so that the pronunciation
                might be more evident than in _*úcárer_ (?)...

                Jérôme
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.