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
    ... **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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.