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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: i and y in Quenya: two phonemes or one?

Expand Messages
  • Ales Bican
    ... **So the _j_ is not pronounced there, right? Speaking of which, what is it like in Finnish? I do not know a lot about it. Does Finnish have j as a separate
    Message 1 of 16 , Aug 8 2:00 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Petri Tikka wrote:

      > There is a situation that is very much like this in Finnish.
      > Let me phrase this similarly to your statements:
      > However, we have words like _paijata_ "stroke, pet" and _juoksi(j)a_
      > "runner". I am not convienced that this can be an evidence of _j_ and
      > _i_ occurring beside each other, as the _j_ between the vowels is only an
      > orthographic phenomenon, not observed in spoken speech. Furthermore,
      > some linguistics and common people would spell these sequences as
      > _paiata_ and _juoksia_.

      **So the _j_ is not pronounced there, right? Speaking of which, what
      is it like in Finnish? I do not know a lot about it. Does Finnish have
      j as a separate phoneme distict to /i/?

      > Hence I think the two sounds occurring in _Quendi_ and _Yavanna_
      > are not two variants of one invariant /i/ -- the vocalic [i] is an
      > independent phoneme from [y], just as [w] is independent from
      > [u], there being no correlation between them in "The Etymologies"
      > or elsewhere.

      **Well, is [w] really independent from [u]? Now that I think about
      it, is [w] not just a variant of [u]? These two sounds are very
      similar. As far as I am aware [w] occurs only before vowels and [u]
      only before consonants, and we never find combinations -uw- or
      -wu- in Quenya.

      > Besides, if your theory is true, why is it _áya_ and not
      > **_aya_?

      **Do you mean why the _a_ is long? An answer may be in _The
      Qenya Phonology_ in PE: "Medial _y_ [a dot over it] gave _i_
      [a bow below it] [...] This relaxing of y > i [the same diacritics]
      is later than above changes so that _áya_ [a dot over y; the ´
      denotes stress not length] gave _áya_ [a macron over the first a]"
      (13).

      In other words, the change y > i [with the diacritics] and the
      stress on the first _a_ in _aya_ produce _áya_, and that may be
      the reason of _háya_ with _á_ instead of _a_.

      By the way, _The Qenya Phonology_ contains much information about
      the _i_, but I have always found it difficult to interpret. For
      example, I am not quite sure what Tolkien meant by _y_ with a
      dot over it. Maybe the editors of _Qenyqetsa_ could help us (not
      to mention that many people do not even have the Parma, since it
      is out of print).

      [You have as much information about the dotted _y_ as I do. Evidently,
      it is a "tenser" form of semivocalic _i_ (with underposed arch). Carl]

      > So, IM(quite)HO, the usage of _y_ in the orthography of
      > Quenya can be outlined thus:
      >
      > 1. In the beginning of a word, and between single consonants,
      > it stands for a vocalic consonant.

      **Do you mean "between single vowels" like in _yúyo_ "both"?

      > 2. After a consonant it palatalizes the preceeding cosonant.

      **Unless combinations like _ly_ are just digraphs, see my reply
      to Hans.

      > 3. After a diphthong it stands for a medial easing sound.

      **This is likely, yes. -- I must say that my statement that _i_ in
      _haia_ is a part of the diphthong may not be true. We know how Quenya
      words are transcribed in Latin letters and sometimes even in Tengwar,
      but we usually do not know how they are realized in speech.

      The word _haia_ may be pronounced as either [ha-ja], [hai-a] or
      [hai-ja]. In my opinion, the pronounciation [ha-ja] is possible,
      though I do not find it very likely.

      It is possible that _haia_ could be pronounced as [hai-ja] and then
      the spelling _haiya_ would indicate it. This may be similar to the
      pronounciation of _sarnie_ "shingle, pebble-bank" (VT43:11) which
      may be pronounced as [sar-ni-je] and this may be indicated by its
      alternative form _sarniye_ (ibid.) (unless _sarniye_ is a form from
      which _sarnie_ was derived, cf. _mie_ "mist" said to be derived from
      _miye_ (stess on i) (PE13:150L)).

      Now _sarniye_ would clearly be an istance of [i] and [j] standing
      beside one another. However, if it is possible to pronounce _sarnie_
      as [sar-ni-e] and _haia_ as [hai-a], the [j] would be, in my opinion,
      only to ease the pronounciation of hiatus.

      I tried to listen to Tolkien's reading of Namárie but my ears are not
      trained enough, so I would like to hear opinions of others (I think he
      said [mor-ni-e] without [j].)


      Ales Bican

      ps. I would like to thank Carl that he corrected my spelling of
      Trubetzkoy's name. When I sent my letter to the list, I spelled it
      as 'Trubeckoy' (in Czech we spell it 'Trubeckoj'). Carl was of
      course right, it is the spelling used in Anglophonic countries,
      I checked it. It is nice to have someone who modifies our letters,
      even though without our knowledge.

      [I reserve the right to edit posts for spelling, grammar, etc.,
      just as I would any contribution to _Vinyar Tengwar_. Regarding
      Trubetzkoy, the determining factor in my changing your (modified)
      Czech spelling was to put it into agreement with the name as spelled
      as the author of the book you were citing, as standard bibliographic
      form would require. Carl]

      --
      Mi dissero che a 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_)
    • Ales Bican
      ... **You are right, this would be the same phonetic environs. ... **I am afraid I do not understand you here. ... **Speaking of and Tengwar, Arden
      Message 2 of 16 , Aug 8 2:04 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        gentlebeldin wrote:

        > > As far as I can see they seems to agree with Trubetzkoy's third rule
        > > (they never occur in the same phonetic environs) and not to agree
        > > with the forth rule (one does not occurs beside the other).
        >
        > Possibly, they do: There's the pronominal suffix _-lye_ and the
        > suffix _-lie_, as in _Eldalie_.

        **You are right, this would be the same phonetic environs.

        > This could rule out the possibility
        > of allomorphs: they have to be variants of the same phoneme,
        > predictable from the environment where they occur.

        **I am afraid I do not understand you here.

        > However, the _i_ in diphthongs like _ai_ and the _y_ in combinations
        > like _ly_ don't seem to be independent phonemes. Both just modify the
        > pronunciation of the preceding sound, and this is confirmed by the
        > spelling in Tengwar (_ai_ as a-tehta over _yanta_, _ly_ as dots under
        > _lambe_, cf. "Namaarie" in _The Road Goes Ever On_).

        **Speaking of <yanta> and Tengwar, Arden Smith wrote on Elfscript
        (to quote him): "I have seen the tengwa _yanta_ used to represent
        word-initial /y/ in Q(u)enya, but only in other words, e.g. _Yavanna_."
        (Re: [elfscript] úr (e) and yanta (was: Re: úr >> úre ), 6 Jun 2002).
        This may hint something.

        As for _ly_, the _y_ may just denote palatalization, sc. _ly_ would
        stand for either palatal l or palatalized l (I would say the former).
        The _ly_ might be a single phoneme (and single sound), because
        "[Quenya] does not tolerate more than a single basic consonant
        initially in any word" (SD/IX:417-8) and we have _lyenna_ (occurring
        in the sentence _nai elen siluva lyenna_ mentioned by Helge Fauskanger
        on Elfling ([elfling] 1968: "Lyenna" = upon you, 11 May 2002).

        Nevertheless, it is not so easy. It is well-known that Quenya has
        words beginning in _ty_ (e.g. _tyalie_). So the _ty_ would be a
        single sound. Yet Tolkien stated that "_atatya_ remained [unchanged]
        because the second _a_ was not syncopated, being a long syllable"
        (VT42:27). To this Carl Hostetter noted: "A long syllable is one
        that contains either a long vowel (or diphthong), or, as in this
        case, a short vowel followed by two (or more) consonants" (VT42:31).

        But about the word _martya-_ "destine" (Etym, MBARAT-)? If
        we supposed a primitive form *_maratjâ_, why was the second
        _a_ syncopated? And even if the verbal _-jâ_ had been added to
        the stem aften the syncope (i.e. to *_mart-_), the _ty_ would
        preceded a long syllable, because combinations vowel + sonant
        was regarded as a diphthong, at least in Qenya (see PE12:3).

        It seems that Tolkien was either inconsistent (resp. he kept changing
        his mind) or Quenya had two distict _ty_'s: one being a single
        consonant and the other being a combination of _t_ and _y_.
        Let us also note that Tolkien wrote in _Qenya Grammar Excerpt_:

        _ty_ is by origin (i) a single sound, a fronted variety of _k_,
        (ii) the result of the combination of _k_ (_q_) _t_ + _y_ and
        initially also occas[ionally] of _p_ + _y_. In sound it is now
        a very forward palatal stop foll[owed] by a distinct _y_
        off-glide; in some dialects it is practically E[nglish] _ch_
        with or without a clear _y_ off-glide. (PE13:63)

        In both _atatya_ and _martya_ the _ty_ must be a result of _t_ +
        _y_, though.

        A perhaps similar inconsistency may be seen in the pronominal
        suffixes. In Namárie we have _máryat_ suggesting _ry_ is a single
        sound. One would expect the same about the pronominal suffix
        _-nye_. Yet it seems to cause shortening of previous syllables,
        cf. _onye_ vs. _óni_ (presumptively *"with me"; VT43:29).

        Well, I am somewhat off-topic. My point was that if _ly_ in
        _-lye_ is a single sound (which I cannot either prove or
        dissprove), it is not an instance of _y_ being in the same
        position as _i_.

        > The question whether a vocal and a consonant can be similar enough to
        > count as allomorphs, is subjective. _y_ is a half-vowel, after all.

        **I am not sure again if I understand you. In Slovakian (a Slavic
        language very similar to Czech) [i] and [j] are treated like
        allomorphs, for instance.


        Ales Bican

        --
        Mi dissero che a 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_)
      • Ales Bican
        ... **Well, I have not either. My German is very poor and the book was not translated to Czech. I do not know whether it was translated to English (was it?).
        Message 3 of 16 , Aug 8 2:08 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          atarinke wrote:

          > > I thought about it today: are sounds _i_ (as in _Quendi_) and _y_
          > > (as in _Yavanna_) two phonemes or variants of one phoneme in
          > > Quenya?
          >
          > Hrm... I don't quite like the idea of having a consonant and a vowel
          > as one phoneme (but I haven't read Grundzüge, so what do I know ;).

          **Well, I have not either. My German is very poor and the book
          was not translated to Czech. I do not know whether it was translated
          to English (was it?). But many books reiterated Trubetzkoy's ideas,
          so I know them.

          > I guess it could be possible however and if one accepts such a view one
          > might also want to look at /w/ and /u/. I do however have a few
          > objections to adopting it in this case.

          **You are right. There might be a problem with [u] and [w]. I realize
          the both _u_ and _w_ may occurs at the beginning of words before
          vowels: _wilya_, _Uinen_, though in case of _u_, the _u_ is always
          a part of the diphtong _ui_.

          > Firstly, others (Hans and Petri I think) have already mentioned that
          > you'd have to think of diphthongs and the palatalised consonants as
          > separate phonemes in order for such a view to work.

          **I have already mentioned palatal/palatalized consonants. As for
          diphthong, it is a difficult question whether they are monophonematic
          or biphonematic. It is not certain even in living languages.

          > Whether one
          > prefers /Cy/ together with /i/ or /C/+/y/ with /i/ and /y/ seems like
          > a matter of choice but a choice does seem necessary.
          >
          > Secondly, I think I might have found a (admittedly single) possible
          > minimal pair distinguishing them, namely _heruion_ (IX, p291) meaning
          > "of lords" and an unattested but probably possible word _heru-yon_,
          > "lord-son". Now, _heru-yon_ is unattested and would in all
          > probability be seen as quite archaic (yondo being the standard form)
          > but I would still say it's a possible Quenya word.

          **I am convinced that _heru_ plus a patronymic ending _-ion_
          would produce *_heruion_, because we have _Eruion_ "son of
          god" (VT44:12). And whether we can have *_heruyon_, I am
          not sure, I think such a form would become *_heruion_.

          As for _heruion_ itself, it depends on how it was pronounced. The
          morpheme boundary is evidently between _u_ and _i_, so it might
          be pronounced as [he-ru-i-on]. If this was the case, the [i] may
          then occur between vowels and be distinct to [y]. However, if it was,
          and I believe it was, pronounced as [he-rui-on], then it is parallel
          to _haia_/_haiya_.

          > I here think that
          > the /i/ in _heruion_ is syllabic while the /y/ in _heru-yon_ is not
          > so the difference in meaning would come across.

          **It would. -- I wonder whether the pair _heruion_ "of lords" /
          *_heruion_ "son of lord" was distinguished in speech. I would say
          no, though I cannot prove or disprove it.

          > Now, this is not a good minimal pair, I know. In part because one of
          > its constituents is made up by me, in part because they differ in the
          > position of the stress as well. But I do think _heru-yon_ is a
          > possible Quenya word, even if _heru-yondo_ or _heruion_ (with the
          > patronymic -ion suffix) would be more probable. And the difference in
          > stress lacks importance in this case since stress in Quenya does not
          > carry any information (is not phonemic), correct?

          **I think so.

          > On the other hand, I'm a physics undergrad, not a linguist, so all of
          > the above might just be (and probably is) nonsense.

          **Not at all.


          Ales Bican

          ps. It may be also convenient to remark that Tolkien adapted
          Maria's name to Quenya as _María_ not *_Maria_, because I believe
          this form would become *_Marya_.

          --
          Mi dissero che a 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_)
        • gentlebeldin
          ... It s just a reformulation: if only one variant is possible in a certain environment, it s predictable which one, knowing only the environment. ... That s
          Message 4 of 16 , Aug 9 3:37 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In lambengolmor@y..., Ales Bican <ales.bican@s...> wrote:

            > > This could rule out the possibility
            > > of allomorphs: they have to be variants of the same phoneme,
            > > predictable from the environment where they occur.
            >
            > **I am afraid I do not understand you here.
            It's just a reformulation: if only one variant is possible in a
            certain environment, it's predictable which one, knowing only the
            environment.

            > Well, I am somewhat off-topic. My point was that if _ly_ in
            > _-lye_ is a single sound (which I cannot either prove or
            > dissprove), it is not an instance of _y_ being in the same
            > position as _i_.

            That's what I meant. Even if we could distinguish it as a phoneme in
            this position, it wouldn't be the same /y/ as in _Yavanna_.

            > > The question whether a vocal and a consonant can be similar
            > > enough to count as allomorphs, is subjective. _y_ is a half-
            > > vowel, after all.
            >
            > **I am not sure again if I understand you. In Slovakian (a Slavic
            > language very similar to Czech) [i] and [j] are treated like
            > allomorphs, for instance.

            I meant that there may be different opinions on that matter. I tend
            to regard /i/ and /j/ in German as allomorphs, too.

            Hans
          • atarinke
            ... Well, I agree in part. A compound *_heru-yon_ (of the same type as _Elda-lambe_) might exist for some time however, perhaps distinguishing some special
            Message 5 of 16 , Aug 10 4:16 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Ales Bican wrote:

              > **I am convinced that _heru_ plus a patronymic ending _-ion_
              > would produce *_heruion_, because we have _Eruion_ "son of
              > god" (VT44:12). And whether we can have *_heruyon_, I am
              > not sure, I think such a form would become *_heruion_.

              Well, I agree in part. A compound *_heru-yon_ (of the same type as
              _Elda-lambe_) might exist for some time however, perhaps
              distinguishing some special lord-son or in some other case like when
              the relationship is stressed, or something like that. I don't think
              *_heru-yon_ is impossible, nor for that matter other words with the
              same structure. All of this is quite irrelevant however if there are
              no [i] between vowels and for that see below.

              > As for _heruion_ itself, it depends on how it was pronounced. The
              > morpheme boundary is evidently between _u_ and _i_, so it might
              > be pronounced as [he-ru-i-on]. If this was the case, the [i] may
              > then occur between vowels and be distinct to [y]. However, if it
              > was, and I believe it was, pronounced as [he-rui-on], then it is
              > parallel to _haia_/_haiya_.

              I think I might have been fooled by the morphemes here. On closer
              thought I agree with your interpretation of ui as a diphtong. Now if
              we assume that ai, oi and ui always are diphtongs the only possible
              places for syllabic /i/ between vowels is after /e/. A quick search
              on Ardalambion's corpus wordlist (by no means all Q. words but all I
              can do a quick digital search on) reveals no such [i]. And I think
              Hans mentioned word initial /i+V/ some posts ago in this thread,
              again with negative results. Therefore one might ...

              > [...] wonder whether the pair _heruion_ "of lords" /
              > *_heruion_ "son of lord" was distinguished in speech. I would say
              > no, though I cannot prove or disprove it.

              And this is what it all comes down to, isn't it? Lacking natives to
              describe it's hard to do good descriptive linguistics, no? ;) Still,
              I think your reasoning has much to it and I like /y/=/i/ more the
              more I think on it.

              sincerely,
              Martin Blom
            • Petri Tikka
              ... The _j_ is an easening sound here, it is sometimes not pronounced at all, but most often it is a gliding sound to help the transition to the next vowel
              Message 6 of 16 , Aug 10 5:35 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In lambengolmor@y..., Ales Bican <ales.bican@s...> wrote:
                >
                > Petri Tikka wrote:
                >
                > > There is a situation that is very much like this in Finnish.
                > > Let me phrase this similarly to your statements:
                > > However, we have words like _paijata_ "stroke, pet" and _juoksi(j)a_
                > > "runner". I am not convienced that this can be an evidence of _j_ and
                > > _i_ occurring beside each other, as the _j_ between the vowels is only
                > > an orthographic phenomenon, not observed in spoken speech. Furthermore,
                > > some linguistics and common people would spell these sequences as
                > > _paiata_ and _juoksia_.
                >
                > **So the _j_ is not pronounced there, right? Speaking of which, what
                > is it like in Finnish? I do not know a lot about it. Does Finnish have
                > j as a separate phoneme distict to /i/?

                The _j_ is an easening sound here, it is sometimes not pronounced
                at all, but most often it is a gliding sound to help the transition to the
                next vowel after an _i_. The gliding sound is not the same as the _j_
                that is not next to an _i_. In Finnish, /j/ and /i/ are seperate phonemes,
                eg. _paju_ "willow" is never pronounced with an _i_.

                > > Hence I think the two sounds occurring in _Quendi_ and _Yavanna_
                > > are not two variants of one invariant /i/ -- the vocalic [i] is an
                > > independent phoneme from [y], just as [w] is independent from
                > > [u], there being no correlation between them in "The Etymologies"
                > > or elsewhere.
                >
                > **Well, is [w] really independent from [u]? Now that I think about
                > it, is [w] not just a variant of [u]? These two sounds are very
                > similar. As far as I am aware [w] occurs only before vowels and [u]
                > only before consonants, and we never find combinations -uw- or
                > -wu- in Quenya.

                Of course they are very similar. They probably never happen to
                be beside each other because of euphony, just as [g] and [k]
                are never met together: [g] can only occur with [ñ].

                [...]

                > > So, IM(quite)HO, the usage of _y_ in the orthography of
                > > Quenya can be outlined thus:
                > >
                > > 1. In the beginning of a word, and between single consonants,
                > > it stands for a vocalic consonant.
                >
                > **Do you mean "between single vowels" like in _yúyo_ "both"?

                Yes, that's what I meant.

                > > 2. After a consonant it palatalizes the preceeding cosonant.
                >
                > **Unless combinations like _ly_ are just digraphs, see my reply
                > to Hans.

                Of course they are digraphic, but I was talking about orthography.

                > > 3. After a diphthong it stands for a medial easing sound.
                >
                > **This is likely, yes. -- I must say that my statement that _i_ in
                > _haia_ is a part of the diphthong may not be true. We know how Quenya
                > words are transcribed in Latin letters and sometimes even in Tengwar,
                > but we usually do not know how they are realized in speech.
                >
                > The word _haia_ may be pronounced as either [ha-ja], [hai-a] or
                > [hai-ja]. In my opinion, the pronounciation [ha-ja] is possible,
                > though I do not find it very likely.

                [ha-ja] is not possible because it is written with an _i_. Tolkien
                never stated that he used _i_ as _j_ in Quenya.

                [...]

                > Now _sarniye_ would clearly be an istance of [i] and [j] standing
                > beside one another. However, if it is possible to pronounce _sarnie_
                > as [sar-ni-e] and _haia_ as [hai-a], the [j] would be, in my opinion,
                > only to ease the pronounciation of hiatus.

                The most likeliest explanation is that _y_ is an easening sound here,
                not the same _y_ as in _Yavanna_. That would explain why it is
                sometimes written, sometimes not. This situation would be exactly
                as in Finnish.

                > I tried to listen to Tolkien's reading of Namárie but my ears are not
                > trained enough, so I would like to hear opinions of others (I think he
                > said [mor-ni-e] without [j].)

                He didn't say [j], but it wouldn't matter, for the medial easening
                glide/sound is not [j].

                Petri Tikka Helsinki, Finland
                kari.j.tikka@...
                http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/
              • Ales Bican
                ... **I see. However, it does not imply from the fact that _paju_ is never pronounced with [i] that the j and i are necessarily separate phonemes. Their
                Message 7 of 16 , Sep 6, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Petri Tikka wrote:

                  > > **So the _j_ is not pronounced there, right? Speaking of which, what
                  > > is it like in Finnish? I do not know a lot about it. Does Finnish have
                  > > j as a separate phoneme distict to /i/?
                  >
                  > The _j_ is an easening sound here, it is sometimes not pronounced
                  > at all, but most often it is a gliding sound to help the transition to the
                  > next vowel after an _i_. The gliding sound is not the same as the _j_
                  > that is not next to an _i_. In Finnish, /j/ and /i/ are seperate phonemes,
                  > eg. _paju_ "willow" is never pronounced with an _i_.

                  **I see. However, it does not imply from the fact that _paju_ is never
                  pronounced with [i] that the j and i are necessarily separate phonemes.
                  Their distribution may be limited: [j] between vowels and [i] between
                  consonants, for instance. It may depend on the position and the
                  environment. Similarly as in the Third Age Quenya, the sound [ñ] occurs
                  only before velars ([k], [g]), that is in a position where [n] is never
                  pronounced. In the Third Age Quenya the sounds [ñ] and [n] are
                  allomorphs of the phoneme /n/.

                  > > **Well, is [w] really independent from [u]? Now that I think about
                  > > it, is [w] not just a variant of [u]? These two sounds are very
                  > > similar. As far as I am aware [w] occurs only before vowels and [u]
                  > > only before consonants, and we never find combinations -uw- or
                  > > -wu- in Quenya.
                  >
                  > Of course they are very similar. They probably never happen to
                  > be beside each other because of euphony, just as [g] and [k]
                  > are never met together: [g] can only occur with [ñ].

                  **Note that this does not make [k] and [g] allomorphs, since
                  they are in free distribution while [w] and [u] are (presumably)
                  in complementary distribution. This means that if we replace [k]
                  with [g], the replacement will change the meaning of a word.
                  For instance, there is a minimal pair _anga_ and _anka_. On
                  the other hand, you cannot freely replace [w] with [u], and there
                  is no minimal pair in Quenya involving w contra v (as far as I am
                  aware).

                  > > The word _haia_ may be pronounced as either [ha-ja], [hai-a] or
                  > > [hai-ja]. In my opinion, the pronounciation [ha-ja] is possible,
                  > > though I do not find it very likely.
                  >
                  > [ha-ja] is not possible because it is written with an _i_. Tolkien
                  > never stated that he used _i_ as _j_ in Quenya.

                  **Sure, but this does not mean it is not possible. Cf the. word-initial
                  _i_ in words like _ia_ etc. (already mentioned by Hans (gentlebeldin)).
                  And although Tolkien rejected these words, it is possible that, say,
                  _ia_ was pronounced as [ja].

                  > > Now _sarniye_ would clearly be an istance of [i] and [j] standing
                  > > beside one another. However, if it is possible to pronounce _sarnie_
                  > > as [sar-ni-e] and _haia_ as [hai-a], the [j] would be, in my opinion,
                  > > only to ease the pronounciation of hiatus.
                  >
                  > The most likeliest explanation is that _y_ is an easening sound here,
                  > not the same _y_ as in _Yavanna_. That would explain why it is
                  > sometimes written, sometimes not. This situation would be exactly
                  > as in Finnish.

                  **I think so.


                  Ales Bican

                  --
                  Mi dissero che a 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_)
                • Ales Bican
                  ... **I see. Now I understand, because I misunderstood you a little bit: I thought you wanted to indicate a morpheme boundary by the hyphen in *_heru-yon_; it
                  Message 8 of 16 , Sep 6, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Martin Blom wrote:

                    > > **I am convinced that _heru_ plus a patronymic ending _-ion_
                    > > would produce *_heruion_, because we have _Eruion_ "son of
                    > > god" (VT44:12). And whether we can have *_heruyon_, I am
                    > > not sure, I think such a form would become *_heruion_.
                    >
                    > Well, I agree in part. A compound *_heru-yon_ (of the same type as
                    > _Elda-lambe_) might exist for some time however, perhaps
                    > distinguishing some special lord-son or in some other case like when
                    > the relationship is stressed, or something like that.

                    **I see. Now I understand, because I misunderstood you a little bit:
                    I thought you wanted to indicate a morpheme boundary by the
                    hyphen in *_heru-yon_; it did not occur to me you meant an
                    _Elda-lambe_-type compound.

                    > > As for _heruion_ itself, it depends on how it was pronounced. The
                    > > morpheme boundary is evidently between _u_ and _i_, so it might
                    > > be pronounced as [he-ru-i-on]. If this was the case, the [i] may
                    > > then occur between vowels and be distinct to [y]. However, if it
                    > > was, and I believe it was, pronounced as [he-rui-on], then it is
                    > > parallel to _haia_/_haiya_.
                    >
                    > I think I might have been fooled by the morphemes here. On closer
                    > thought I agree with your interpretation of ui as a diphtong. Now if
                    > we assume that ai, oi and ui always are diphtongs the only possible
                    > places for syllabic /i/ between vowels is after /e/.

                    **Do you mean before /e/? As in _tyalie_?

                    > A quick search
                    > on Ardalambion's corpus wordlist (by no means all Q. words but all I
                    > can do a quick digital search on) reveals no such [i].

                    **_io_ and _ia_ are also possible: e.g. in _Silmarillion_ and _Ungoliante_
                    (_iu_ is a diphtong).

                    > And I think
                    > Hans mentioned word initial /i+V/ some posts ago in this thread,
                    > again with negative results. Therefore one might ...
                    >
                    > > [...] wonder whether the pair _heruion_ "of lords" /
                    > > *_heruion_ "son of lord" was distinguished in speech. I would say
                    > > no, though I cannot prove or disprove it.
                    >
                    > And this is what it all comes down to, isn't it? Lacking natives to
                    > describe it's hard to do good descriptive linguistics, no? ;)

                    **Yes. : )

                    > Still,
                    > I think your reasoning has much to it and I like /y/=/i/ more the
                    > more I think on it.

                    **Glad to hear it. However, I still may be wrong and still am open
                    to suggestions and corrections.


                    Ales Bican

                    --
                    Mi dissero che a 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_)
                  • Petri Tikka
                    ... **In Finnish, the sound [ñ] occurs only before [k] (the voiced [g] is unknown in Finnish) or another [ñ], that is in a position where [n] is never
                    Message 9 of 16 , Sep 7, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Petri Tikka wrote:

                      > > The _j_ is an easening sound here, it is sometimes not pronounced
                      > > at all, but most often it is a gliding sound to help the transition to
                      >> the next vowel after an _i_. The gliding sound is not the same as
                      >> the _j_ that is not next to an _i_. In Finnish, /j/ and /i/ are seperate
                      >> phonemes, eg. _paju_ "willow" is never pronounced with an _i_.

                      Ales Bican wrote:

                      > **I see. However, it does not imply from the fact that _paju_ is never
                      > pronounced with [i] that the j and i are necessarily separate phonemes.
                      > Their distribution may be limited: [j] between vowels and [i] between
                      > consonants, for instance. It may depend on the position and the
                      > environment. Similarly as in the Third Age Quenya, the sound [ñ] occurs
                      > only before velars ([k], [g]), that is in a position where [n] is never
                      > pronounced. In the Third Age Quenya the sounds [ñ] and [n] are
                      > allomorphs of the phoneme /n/.

                      **In Finnish, the sound [ñ] occurs only before [k] (the voiced [g] is
                      unknown in Finnish) or another [ñ], that is in a position where [n] is
                      never pronounced. One can say that both in Finnish and Quenya [n]
                      and [ñ] or [i] and [j] are allomorphs, but in their pronunciation
                      they are so different that they are often written with a different letter.
                      To my knowledge, in Finnish all these four sounds are considered
                      separate phonemes, not allomorphs.

                      > **Note that this does not make [k] and [g] allomorphs, since
                      > they are in free distribution while [w] and [u] are (presumably)
                      > in complementary distribution. This means that if we replace [k]
                      > with [g], the replacement will change the meaning of a word.
                      > For instance, there is a minimal pair _anga_ and _anka_. On
                      > the other hand, you cannot freely replace [w] with [u], and there
                      > is no minimal pair in Quenya involving w contra v (as far as I am
                      > aware).

                      **But might not the free distribution between [w] and [u] or
                      [j] and [i] be historical? There must be a difference between
                      _áya_ "awe" (XII:363) and _aiya_ "hail" (L:385). It might
                      be that _aiya_ is an older form of _áya_ that survived as
                      a reverential form, distinct from _áya_. It is also possible that
                      they are only distinct having different meanings by their context,
                      not by form.

                      > > [ha-ja] is not possible because it is written with an _i_. Tolkien
                      > > never stated that he used _i_ as _j_ in Quenya.
                      >
                      > **Sure, but this does not mean it is not possible. Cf the. word-initial
                      > _i_ in words like _ia_ etc. (already mentioned by Hans (gentlebeldin)).
                      > And although Tolkien rejected these words, it is possible that, say,
                      > _ia_ was pronounced as [ja].

                      **Everything is possible in Tolkienian linguistics, but that is not proof.

                      Petri Tikka Helsinki, Finland
                      kari.j.tikka@...
                      http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/
                    • Carl F. Hostetter
                      ... I believe the term wanted is _allophone_, not allomorph.... Carl
                      Message 10 of 16 , Sep 7, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Ales Bican wrote:

                        > In the Third Age Quenya the sounds [ñ] and [n] are allomorphs of the
                        > phoneme /n/.

                        Petri Tikka wrote:

                        > in Finnish all these four sounds are considered separate phonemes,
                        > not allomorphs.

                        I believe the term wanted is _allophone_, not allomorph....

                        Carl
                      • Ales Bican
                        ... **I think you are right: if [ñ] occured only before [k] in Finnish, it would be an allophone of /n/, but since it occurs also before another [ñ], it is a
                        Message 11 of 16 , Sep 15, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I wrote:

                          > > **I see. However, it does not imply from the fact that _paju_ is never
                          > > pronounced with [i] that the j and i are necessarily separate phonemes.
                          > > Their distribution may be limited: [j] between vowels and [i] between
                          > > consonants, for instance. It may depend on the position and the
                          > > environment. Similarly as in the Third Age Quenya, the sound [ñ] occurs
                          > > only before velars ([k], [g]), that is in a position where [n] is never
                          > > pronounced. In the Third Age Quenya the sounds [ñ] and [n] are
                          > > allomorphs of the phoneme /n/.

                          Petri replied:

                          > **In Finnish, the sound [ñ] occurs only before [k] (the voiced [g] is
                          > unknown in Finnish) or another [ñ], that is in a position where [n] is
                          > never pronounced. One can say that both in Finnish and Quenya [n]
                          > and [ñ] or [i] and [j] are allomorphs, but in their pronunciation
                          > they are so different that they are often written with a different letter.
                          > To my knowledge, in Finnish all these four sounds are considered
                          > separate phonemes, not allomorphs.

                          **I think you are right: if [ñ] occured only before [k] in Finnish, it
                          would be an allophone of /n/, but since it occurs also before another
                          [ñ], it is a phoneme distinct to /n/.
                          As regards [j] and [i], I checked a Finnish grammar book and found
                          out that one can stand beside the other (I cannot find the example
                          right now, though), which means they are separate phonemes (most
                          likely -- it depends on the actual pronunciation of the combination).
                          However, we are talking here about Quenya, not Finnish, and Quenya
                          is different to Finnish, so the situation in Quenya is also different.
                          In the Third Age Quenya, [ñ] is an allophone of /n/, because it
                          occurs only with velars /k/ and /g/. -- In case of [j] and [i], it
                          is not certain whether they are allophones, though I would say they
                          are, because of the reasons I mentioned earlier.

                          I also wrote:

                          > > On
                          > > the other hand, you cannot freely replace [w] with [u], and there
                          > > is no minimal pair in Quenya involving w contra v (as far as I am
                          > > aware).

                          Petri replied:

                          > **But might not the free distribution between [w] and [u] or
                          > [j] and [i] be historical? There must be a difference between
                          > _áya_ "awe" (XII:363) and _aiya_ "hail" (L:385). It might
                          > be that _aiya_ is an older form of _áya_ that survived as
                          > a reverential form, distinct from _áya_. It is also possible that
                          > they are only distinct having different meanings by their context,
                          > not by form.

                          **This takes us back to the triplet _vaháya_, _vahaiya_ and
                          _vahaia_ I also mentioned earlier. All three variants occur in
                          different versions of the same text (the Atalante fragments).
                          It means that each form (from the triplet) could be used at the
                          same time (i.e. in the M-e time). Hence I think the difference
                          among the particular words is not historial, but it just reflects
                          Tolkien's being undecided whether the first _a_ would also
                          be shortened. The development was like this: _âjâ_ > _âya_
                          > _aya_ > _aia_ (also written as _aiya_).


                          Ales Bican

                          --
                          Mi dissero che a 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_)
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.