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

Tyelpetema and phonetics vs. phonology in Quenya

Expand Messages
  • Pavel Iosad
    Hello, One long-standing problem in Quenya phonology has been the anomal behaviour of the _tyelpetéma_ consonants with regard to syllable weight, which is in
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 14, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      One long-standing problem in Quenya phonology has been the anomal
      behaviour of the _tyelpetéma_ consonants with regard to syllable weight,
      which is in turn connected with the permission/prohibition of long
      vowels in non-final syllables and stress. That is, since Quenya does not
      allow extra-heavy non-final syllables and at the same time a heavy
      penult bears the stress, we are facing a problem of how to interpret the
      (both well-attested) heavy weight of a syllable where a short vowel is
      followed by a _tyelpetéma_ consonant (as in _hiruválye_, the acute
      accent indicates stress) and the permitted long vowel in _máryat_ (this
      time it is length that is indicated by the acute accent).

      It was suggested in _An Introduction to Elvish_ that the phenomenon is
      somehow connected with etymology and/or morphemic boundaries. This does
      not seem too likely, since, for instance, the morpheme boundary is also
      present in _hir+uva+lye_ and nevertheless the penult is heavy. One
      possible solution would be noting that the word _má_ 'hand' was
      originally _ma3_, with the velar voiced spirant which could be still
      detected in later Quenya, which would mean that the long _á_ was a
      biphonemic combination. I wouldn't bet my money on this theory, but it
      is a possible solution. One flaw with it is that the primitive _3_ was a
      thing quite different from Quenya's later disappearing _3_ < _g_, since
      it had disappeared apparently much earlier than the latter even
      appeared, since we have signs of its disappearance in the primitive
      stems already (Cf. MÁ-, MA3-; TÁ-, TA3-), and much earlier than the
      formation of the Quenya proper stress system and phonotactics anyway.

      Besides, such an explanation fails to account for the _hiruvalye_ case.
      Since the _a_ is short, we expect the penult to be closed. Thus, _ly_ is
      bimoraic - whether a geminate or [l] + a glide (to which we will return
      anon) - but if it is, it wouldn't be permitted initially, since Quenya
      does not tolerate initial clusters. True, _lyenna_ - the only example of
      initial _ly_ - is somewhat doubtful, but the other _tyelpetéma_
      consonant are perfectly allowed: _nyelle_, _tyelpe_ (I know it's not
      quite pure Quenya, but it's an example all right), save _ry_, which
      can't be there for historical reasons, and not because of an abhorrence
      of initial _tyelpetéma_ liquids (there wouldn't be anyway a lot of
      places for _ly_ to go if _tyelpetéma_ liquids were avoided, since _ry_
      would also be impermissible and initial _d_ is forbidden). It would be
      strange if part of the series was allowed initially and part not (_ry_
      is a special case apparently).

      In the above discussion I have carefully avoided using the words
      'palatal' or 'palatalized' with reference to _tyelpetéma_ consonants,
      since we should first determine whether they are the former or the
      latter. I suggest they are palatalized.

      One obvious reason is that we would then have problems with interpreting
      _r_. A *palatal* _r_ (as opposed to palatalized) is simply nonexistent
      in the world's languages, and even if it is, the nearest _I_ can come to
      a palatal trill or flap is a retroflex approximant (true, I have
      inherent problems with trilling non-palatalized apical _r_ (not with
      palatalized though), as Ivan can testify, but I would still much wonder
      if anyone could do it), which is in phonetic effect far removed from the
      other _tyelpetéma_ consonants, and from Tolkien's pronunciation of
      _Namárië_.

      In fact, other evidence can be both for and against: thus, the
      pronunciation of Quenya _ty_ as _ch_ [tS] speaks for both
      interpretations - since [t_j] is an assibilated consonant in itself, and
      can be assibilated quite strongly into [tS], for instance in certain
      Irish Gaelic dialects. _hy_ is somewhat a problem, since it apparently
      _is_ palatal. However, velar consonants when palatalized are turned into
      palatals - at least in Russian - since they articulated with the dorsum,
      and thus the lifting of the dorsum towards the soft palate (which *is*
      palatalization) changes their place of articulation, while the
      articulation of, say dentals, is made with the apex, and the dorsum
      movements are only additional articulations. However, this supposition,
      in my opinion, allows to present a better theory for what we are
      discussing here.

      My suggestion is the following. The stress in _hiruvalye_ is to be
      explained by the fact that Quenya stress, not being phonological, is
      determined by purely phonetic environs, unlike the (phonemically
      relevant) length.

      I would suggest that _ly_, being palatalized, was articulated with a
      very audible [j] off-glide, which had at some time become an additional
      mora. So _ly_ is bimoraic, the first mora being the rhyme of the
      preceding syllable and the second the onset of the next one.
      *Phonologically* this _ly_ is single, as it *is* allowed initially.

      A situation when phonological entities are pronounced as two segments on
      the phonetic level is not unheard-of in real-world languages. This, in
      Archi the affricates behave in a strange way. The Archi consonantal
      system is built on a fortes:lenes opposition, and at some point in time
      the lenis affricates disappeared. Thus, on the synchronic level, only
      the former fortes affricates remain. But since they are not in
      opposition to any other row of consonants by the fortes:lenes ratio
      alone, we have to decide they are unmarked. Now in initial position
      those fortes affricates were of course pronounced as simple ones, since
      geminates (not biphonemic clusters of identical consonants, as Russian
      _v+ves+ti_) are quite unlikely initially. Word-medially, however, these
      are pronounced as geminates - synchronically for *no* apparent reason!
      (Add to it the fact that Archi also does not allow extra-heavy syllables
      and forces vowel shortening in closed syllables, and we have a
      troublingly familiar situation!).

      Moreover, such discrepancies can even violate phonological constraints -
      as in the Polish dialectal pronunciation of _bial/y_ 'white', where the
      first [b_j] can be pronounced as a strong [j] (standard Polish has a
      very weak glide there, more like a formant going back-forth for a
      negligibly short time), and in Polish initial _bj_ is of course
      impermissible (it has nowhere to come from anyway, since ProtoSl. _bj_ >
      _bl_ very very long ago). If we agree that purely phonetic phenomena can
      violate phonological constraints in Quenya as well, we find a
      justification for the attested pronunciation of the monophonemic /k_w/
      and /N_w/ as clustered [kw] and [nw].

      Such a supposition (additional articulations becoming full-fledged
      morae) could also explain away the stress in _cirya:quen_ (XI:372),
      since we know that /k_w/ was pronounced as [kw], i.e. bimoraically.

      Now with regard to length, there is a different situation. Stress,
      phonologically irrelevant in Quenya, can be determined by the purely
      phonetic environs. Length, being phonologically important, should be
      judged on the phonological level. Now if _ry_ is a single consonant (it
      apparently is *phonologically*), then the syllable division in _máryat_
      is _má+ryat_. There is the question of unattested syllable- (=word-)
      initial _ry_, but the tendency for open syllables must be much stronger
      than the tendency for maximum onsets. The only example of VC-V syllable
      division I can think of is in the syllabic languages of E and SE Asia,
      as in Chinese (Putonghua) _Tian-an-men_. But Chinese works in a quite
      different way from Quenya - Quenya is not a syllabic language.

      Thus, my suggestion is the following: a CV[Cy]V sequence is phonetically
      (for purposes of stress) divided into syllables as CV[C+y]V and
      phonemically (relevant to length) as CV+[Cy]V.

      I am eager to hear your comments.

      Pavel
      --
      Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

      Is mall a mharcaicheas am fear a bheachdaicheas
      --Scottish proverb
    • Ales Bican
      [Sorry for such a belated responce: I meant to react to this letter, but was occupied by other things. -- ab] ... **First of all, I think there is no published
      Message 2 of 22 , Feb 15, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        [Sorry for such a belated responce: I meant to react to this letter,
        but was occupied by other things. -- ab]

        Pavel Iosad wrote:

        > One long-standing problem in Quenya phonology has been the anomal
        > behaviour of the _tyelpetéma_ consonants with regard to syllable weight,
        > which is in turn connected with the permission/prohibition of long
        > vowels in non-final syllables and stress. That is, since Quenya does not
        > allow extra-heavy non-final syllables and at the same time a heavy
        > penult bears the stress, we are facing a problem of how to interpret the
        > (both well-attested) heavy weight of a syllable where a short vowel is
        > followed by a _tyelpetéma_ consonant (as in _hiruválye_, the acute
        > accent indicates stress) and the permitted long vowel in _máryat_ (this
        > time it is length that is indicated by the acute accent).

        **First of all, I think there is no published writing of Tolkien's
        where he would state Quenya does not permit, to simplify it, long
        vowels before consonant clusters. Or course, I may be wrong, so
        correct me.

        It is true that we do not practically find any example of this,
        there might be indications that it is possible, nevertheless. First,
        it might be just _máryat_ if _ry_ stands for a consonant cluster (which
        is possible). Then there is the form _Hrísto_ in a version of The
        Litany of Loreto (VT44:12). Yes, it might be a slip or we may argue it
        was changed to _Hristo_, but the striking fact is that Tolkien allowed
        it to stand at least for a while! Another important thing to mention
        is the presence of diphthongs before consonant clusters, at least _ai_
        in _aista-_. Diphthongs, at least for purposes of the stress, are
        treated like long vowels and are bimoraic.

        [_aista-_ 'to dread' (V:358) -- PHW]

        It must also be realized that what is written as Cy does not have to
        stand for a palatal(ized) sound. Surely _my_ in _lamya-_ "to sound"
        (Etym s.v. LAM) cannot stand for a palatal _m_, as no palatal _m_
        exists (as far as I know it is impossible). It might be a palatalized
        _m_ (which is not unusual). The question is whether the _y_ in _lamya_
        stands for [j] or whether _my_ is a digraph for [m'] (palatalized _m_,
        I will use the apostophe for palatalization). And the same can be
        applied to other Cy combinations: it is hard to say whether _ry_ in
        _máryat_ stands for [R] (palatal _r_, I will use capitals for palatals)
        or [r'] or [rj] (resp. [r'j]). How did Tolkien pronounce it in
        Namárie?

        I wonder how is this dealt with in the tengwar, though I am not sure
        if we have enough examples. Combinations Cy (i.e. consonant + y) are
        written with the tehta "following y" in Namárie (the same way the
        tyelpetéma was written according to App. E). This is a little bit
        problematic, since I think _my_ then might also be written as <malta>
        + y-tehta.

        With this are connected what I would call primary and secondary Cy
        combinations. Primary Cy combinations are those that existed from
        Primitive Quendian (resp. Common Eldarin). They occur exclusively
        word-initially. For instance _ny_ in _nyello_ which is derived from
        the base NYEL. Or _ty_ in _tyelpe_ which is from KYELEP. Probably
        even at the PQ/CE stage these Cy combinations stood for palatals
        (KY being a palato-velar). Then there are secondary Cy combinations
        which arose from the contact of C and y, mostly if a y-mopheme was
        suffixed: _van + ya_, _tul + ya_, _quend + ya_ etc.. What we do not
        know is whether e.g. _n + y_ in _vanya_ produced [N] or [n'j]/[nj].
        The same holds for _máryat_ and _hiruvalye_. There are some
        indications that (some) secondary Cy combinations stand for two sounds.
        I think I mentioned it in earlier posts: (a) in VT42:27 Tolkien
        mentioned that "_atatya_ remained [unreduced] because the second _a_
        was not syncopated, being in a long syllable"; (b) in a table in
        VT43:29, suffixes _-nye_ and _-lye_ seem to cause reduction of the
        length of the preceding vowel: _onye_ and _olye_ vs. _óni_ and _óle_.
        The latter example is expecially interesting, because the forms
        _onye_ and _olye_ are comparable with _máryat_ in structure.
        However, there is another fundamental thing to remember: published
        sources are from different stages of the development of Quenya and
        they do not have to compatible.

        Another thing must also be mentioned. Quenya does not like sequences
        of consonants much and if there is a sequence, it does not consist
        of more than two members. In other words, we do not see combinations
        of three and more consonants in Quenya. Nevertheless, we see
        combinations CCy: _nty_, _ndy_, _rty_ (_lty_ not attested), _sty_,
        and _hty_. This suggests that combinations Cy (at least _ty_ and
        _dy_) stand for single consonants.

        * * *

        The theory about morphemic boundary from _Introduction to Elvish_ was
        snipped, Pavel rejects it himself. Then he suggests that _á_ could be
        interpreted as biphomenatic, though he is not sure with this. However,
        I think it is not such impossible a theory, given that _á_ could be
        interpreted as bimoraic, as a succession of two identical vowels
        (i.e. _aa_). He then writes:

        > Besides, such an explanation fails to account for the _hiruvalye_ case.
        > Since the _a_ is short, we expect the penult to be closed. Thus, _ly_ is
        > bimoraic - whether a geminate or [l] + a glide (to which we will return
        > anon) - but if it is, it wouldn't be permitted initially, since Quenya
        > does not tolerate initial clusters. True, _lyenna_ - the only example of
        > initial _ly_ - is somewhat doubtful,

        **It certainly is. _lyenna_ seems to be our sole example of this.
        However, I spoke about the word-initial _ly_ with Helge Fauskanger
        long before the _lyenna_ phrase appeared and he said that he seemed
        to remember he had seen an example of a word-initial _ly_ somewhere,
        presumably it was a Qenya example, but he was not sure where he had
        seen it; he suggested some Vinyar Tengwar. Maybe the editors of VT
        and PE could help us?

        [Fauskanger's "Quenya-English wordlist" (downloadable at
        http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/wordlists.htm) lists
        "_lyá_ ??? (_Narqelion_)". No page citation is provided, but
        Fauskanger is apparently referring to the analysis of _Narqelion_
        in _Parma Eldalamberon_ No. 9 (by Christopher Gilson and
        myself), which gives line 15 as _N-alalmino lyá lanta lasse_
        (PE9:14). However, _lyá_ in the PE9 transcription is in error,
        the analysis having been written before the complete con-
        tents of the Qenya Lexicon were available to us. In Christopher
        Gilson's post-QL presentation and analysis of _Narqelion_
        in VT40 (which scholars should consider the standard edition
        of this text) line 15 is corrected to _N-alalmino hyá lanta
        lasse_, with _hyá_ 'here by us' as in QL (PE12:41). -- PHW]

        Anyway, _lyenna_ is clearly a grammatical word. It was suggested that
        it might be an elided form of *_elyenna_, which is utterly possible.
        It also might be a product of analogy of forms like _tye_ (perhaps
        even *_nye_ which was also suggested). These forms would not bring
        any problem, since we normally see word-initial _ty_ and _ny_.
        As I said _lyenna_ is a grammatical word. By this I mean that it
        bears certain grammatical marks (it is therefore marked) and such
        forms may behave otherwise than other, unmarked, forms. An example
        of this may be _ciryant_ which appears in the Plotz Letter. In Letters
        no. 347 Tolkien stated that Quenya did not tolerate final consonants
        other than dentals; he repeated the same idea in VT42:7, mentioning
        _t, n, l, r_ (he forgot _s_). Hence _ciryant_ contradicts this
        statement, but as it is a grammatical (inflected) word, it is
        allowed to exist.

        > but the other _tyelpetéma_
        > consonant are perfectly allowed: _nyelle_, _tyelpe_ (I know it's not
        > quite pure Quenya, but it's an example all right), save _ry_, which
        > can't be there for historical reasons, and not because of an abhorrence
        > of initial _tyelpetéma_ liquids (there wouldn't be anyway a lot of
        > places for _ly_ to go if _tyelpetéma_ liquids were avoided, since _ry_
        > would also be impermissible and initial _d_ is forbidden).

        **In other words, an intial _d_ is not found (though _Aldudénie_ might
        be an example of this under certain assuptions), which does not
        necessarily mean it is forbidden. One would be inclined to say that
        a medial _ky_ is not permitted if _Erukyerme_ (UT) and _Ekyanáro_
        (VT41:14) were not attested.

        [Initial Q. _d-_ does occur rarely in QL in such forms as _die_
        'yesterday', _diéra_ (adj.) 'yesterday's; bygone, over, passed'
        < DYÊ- 'behind, back (before of time)' (PE12:105). The note
        "Inwelin forms such as _gw_, _dy_ also given" appearing at the
        head of the Y-entries in QL (PE12:104) suggests that these
        forms in _d-_ are from the Inwelin dialect -- interestingly,
        it has often been proposed that _Aldudénie_ is from the
        Vanyarin dialect of Quenya (the Vanyar replacing the Inwir
        in the later versions of Tolkien's mythology). -- PHW]

        > It would be
        > strange if part of the series was allowed initially and part not (_ry_
        > is a special case apparently).

        **That would, but it is not certain whether _ry_ is a member of
        the tyelpetéma, see below.

        > In the above discussion I have carefully avoided using the words
        > 'palatal' or 'palatalized' with reference to _tyelpetéma_ consonants,
        > since we should first determine whether they are the former or the
        > latter. I suggest they are palatalized.

        **I think members of the tyelpetéma are palatal consonants.
        Tolkien himself said that Quenya had a palatal series (tyelpetéma,
        LotR, Ap. E). In PE13:63, _ty_ is said to be "a very forward
        palatal stop foll[owed] by a distict _y_ off-glide". Also, the
        grouping of sounds in _The Qenya Phonology_ suggest that the
        _ty_-series was a palatal one (PE12:15).

        > One obvious reason is that we would then have problems with interpreting
        > _r_. A *palatal* _r_ (as opposed to palatalized) is simply nonexistent
        > in the world's languages, and even if it is, the nearest _I_ can come to
        > a palatal trill or flap is a retroflex approximant [...]

        **That is an importand fact, but actually it may mean nothing. The fact
        that a palatal _r_ seems to be nonexistent does not mean that it does
        not exist in Quenya. Although I am not familiar with any language
        possessing a palatal _r_, I read it occurred in a language called
        Malayalam (I read this in _Trends in Phonological Theory_ by Eli
        Fischer-Jorgensen p. 65). It is also supposed to have existed in old
        Czech (as a reflex of _rj_), but this does not mean anything.
        The existence of a palatal _r_ is, however, suggested in _The Alphabet
        of Rúmil_ in PE13. Tables R12 and R14 have signs for "front r or rj".
        However, first, it is not said whether these signs were used in Q(u)enya
        and secondly, other tables do not have these signs, though they have
        signs for _ly_ (R13, R17b, R18). On the other hand, the table R15
        (Qenya Grammar Excerpt) does not show any sign for either of them.
        Even _The Qenya Phonology_ (PE12) does not also seem to hint _ly_
        and _ry_ existed in Qenya. Of course, it is still Qenya and not Quenya,
        so the situation may be (and actually is) a little bit different in the
        LotR Quenya.

        A short discussion on [tS] snipped. Then follows:

        > _hy_ is somewhat a problem, since it apparently _is_ palatal.

        **This sound worries a little bit, since I am not very skilled in
        phonetics. I wonder whether is the same thing as [TH], that is,
        the palatal counterpart of [th], because all the tincotéma
        consonants (t, d, n + r, l) seem to have tyelpetéma counterparts
        (ty, dy, ny + ry, ly). Theoretically, there could be a combination
        _thy_ in a derivative of a root with coda _th_ (such as KHITH).
        If such a combination existed, what happened with it when
        _th_ was changed to _s_? Did _thy_ > _sy_? As I am not a
        phonetician, I cannot say whether there is a difference between
        _thy_ and _sy_ (whether the distinction strident/not-strident might
        exist even among palatals).

        (By the way, if combinations Cy stand for palatals, then there
        must have existed /S/ (i.e. a palatal _s_), realized as [Z] between
        vowels -- this was the source of _ry_ [R].)

        Let me note that the idea of _thy_ entered my mind when I saw
        VT8. It contains "Full Chart of the _Tengwar_" by Edouard
        Kloczko. I ordered the issue, because the item was marked as
        "contain[ing] previously unpublished primary material from the
        Tolkien archives" on the VT site. The chart is actually the one
        we know from LotR expanded by the tyelpetéma and the grade
        for aspirates. The names for the tyelpetéma are as follows: _tyelpe_,
        _indyo_, _ithtyar_, -- (aspirates do not have names), _intya_,
        _nyelle_ and _arya_. The tyelpetéma counterpart of _th_ is
        therefore not _thy_ but _thty_!

        I was (and still am) quite puzzled by this chart, because if it
        contains some previously unpublished information, I want(ed) to
        know more. I contacted Edouard therefore, but he did not appear
        to be very willing to talk about it with me, he only wrote to me
        that it had been him who had made the chart with his own brain.
        I wanted to ask Carl Hostetter about this but forgot to do it,
        so maybe I can ask now?

        [In Elfling message # 11088, Anders Stenström stated: "In his
        _Dictionnaire Quenya-Francais-Anglais_ Edouard Kloczko cites
        names given to him by Christopher Tolkien for the six tengwar of
        the tyelpetéma: _tyelpa_, _indyo_, _ithtyar_, _intya_, _nyelle_ and
        _arya_. In addition, there is a special name for _lambe_ with y-dots:
        _alya_." In reply, Carl pointed out that: "Edouard was _not_ given
        the name **_ithtyar_; instead, he altered the actual name, _istyar_,
        in accordance with his (false) belief that the _s_ in the name came
        from original _th_." -- PHW]

        [The part about palatalization in Russian snipped. -ab]

        > My suggestion is the following. The stress in _hiruvalye_ is to be
        > explained by the fact that Quenya stress, not being phonological, is
        > determined by purely phonetic environs, unlike the (phonemically
        > relevant) length.
        >
        > I would suggest that _ly_, being palatalized,

        **I think it is a palatal, being distinct to a palatalized _l_, which
        occured between _e, i_ and a consonant, cf. App. E s.v. L: "[_l_] was,
        however, to some degree 'palatalized' between _e, i_ and a consonant,
        or finally after _e, i_".

        > was articulated with a very audible [j] off-glide,

        **Which is utterly possible, cf. the citation about _ty_ from PE13
        above.

        > which had at some time become an additional
        > mora. So _ly_ is bimoraic, the first mora being the rhyme of the
        > preceding syllable and the second the onset of the next one.
        > *Phonologically* this _ly_ is single, as it *is* allowed initially.

        **Well, this may be possible. Yet it does not seem to me as a
        satisfying explanation, but then I have a lot to learn.

        [The part about Archi and Polish snipped. -- ab]

        > Now with regard to length, there is a different situation. Stress,
        > phonologically irrelevant in Quenya, can be determined by the purely
        > phonetic environs. Length, being phonologically important, should be
        > judged on the phonological level. Now if _ry_ is a single consonant (it
        > apparently is *phonologically*),

        **I do not think it is obvious.

        > then the syllable division in _máryat_
        > is _má+ryat_. There is the question of unattested syllable- (=word-)
        > initial _ry_, but the tendency for open syllables must be much stronger
        > than the tendency for maximum onsets.

        **Morphological criterion might also have played its role, because
        there is a morpheme boundary between _má_ and _rya(t)_. The same
        morpheme boundary is, however, between _ma_ and _nna(r)_ in
        _mannar_ (FS, LR:72). Here the geminated (or long) _n_ may also
        be phonologically a single consonant, though phonetically a succession
        of two identical consonants. For that matter there would be the same
        syllable division.

        [...]

        > Thus, my suggestion is the following: a CV[Cy]V sequence is phonetically
        > (for purposes of stress) divided into syllables as CV[C+y]V and
        > phonemically (relevant to length) as CV+[Cy]V.

        **While this may be possible, I think there are many uncertainties.


        Ales Bican

        --
        kurvannapi vyalíkáni yah. priyah. priya eva sah.
        anekadós.adus.t.ó 'pi káyah. kasya na vallabhah.
      • Pavel Iosad
        Hello, Ales Bican has raised several most interesting points in response to my proposals regarding the various domains of phonetics and phonology in Quenya
        Message 3 of 22 , Feb 18, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello,

          Ales Bican has raised several most interesting points in response to my
          proposals regarding the various domains of phonetics and phonology in
          Quenya with regard to the status of the tyelpetéma, for which I am most
          grateful. Now, on to the specifics.

          >**First of all, I think there is no published writing of Tolkien's
          >where he would state Quenya does not permit, to simplify it, long
          >vowels before consonant clusters. Or course, I may be wrong, so
          >correct me.

          Indeed you are correct. Nevertheless the lack of vowel lengthening in
          the perfect of _lelya-_, which exhibits nasal infixion, or in the
          present tense of verbs like _lanta_- shows that this shortening in
          closed syllables is regularly forced by the phonotactics. It would
          nicely be described by a generative-style phonology, where the
          morphological module would give a form like _lántar_, and the 'phonology
          proper' module would then give the actual output _lantar_).

          [snip examples of bimoraic segments before clusters]

          > Diphthongs, at least for purposes of the stress, are
          > treated like long vowels and are bimoraic.

          True. See below, however.

          > [_aista-_ 'to dread' (V:358) -- PHW]

          Also _aistana_ 'blessed' in AM, and _aista-_ in _Alcar i Ataren_.

          This may have to do with etymology, since *_aistana_, the editors inform
          us, can be connected with an old base like GAYA(S)- (VT43:38), which
          gives a formation like _*(g)aiastanâ_. Now the syncope of the second _a_
          is a bit hard to explain, it being in a long syllable. Or are we dealing
          with a special status of the _st_ group (it would also be possible to
          write the long vowel of _Hrísto_ off to the suggestion)? I am however at
          a loss at the moment as to how to explain it.

          >It must also be realized that what is written as Cy does not have to
          >stand for a palatal(ized) sound. Surely _my_ in _lamya-_ "to sound"
          >(Etym s.v. LAM) cannot stand for a palatal _m_, as no palatal _m_
          >exists (as far as I know it is impossible).

          Unless it were a coarticulated palato-labial nasal plosive, which is
          nowhere phonemic, though imaginable. (Well, there are no phonemic
          palato-whatever coarticulated stops, though it is not inconceivable that
          a _kp_ shift to a palato-labial before, say, front vowels. Just
          guessing, you might figure out)

          >It might be a palatalized _m_ (which is not unusual).

          We the Slavic-speaking ought to know ;-)

          > The question is whether the _y_ in _lamya_
          > stands for [j] or whether _my_ is a digraph for [m'] (palatalized _m_,
          > I will use the apostophe for palatalization).

          As I suggested, it might as well stand for a [t_jj], or, in your
          notation, [t'j], with the [j] approximant rather than the more of a
          fricative than it is in, say, Russian.

          >And the same can be applied to other Cy combinations:

          This is true, and in fact, can be used as an argument for my
          interpretation. If we consider the _my_ palatalized (which we apparently
          agree upon), it does mean that palatalization is a phonemically relevant
          feature. Offhand, I think that at least in Europe, languages which have
          a palatal series but do not consider palatalization phonemically
          relevant prevail over those which do both. Off the top of my head, the
          only instance of the second-type language is Macedonian. On the other
          hand, it has, as far as I remember, all but eliminated the old Slavic
          palatalization opposition. I am eager to be corrected though.

          > it is hard to say whether _ry_ in
          >_máryat_ stands for [R] (palatal _r_, I will use capitals for palatals)
          > or [r'] or [rj] (resp. [r'j]).

          In the official IPA table (cf., for instance,
          http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/fullchart.html; this one is quite in
          accord with the latest version of the IPA handbook I have access to),
          palatal taps/flaps or trills are not shaded (which means the
          articulation is considered possible), but do not have a symbol assigned,
          which means that no described languages has a phonemic sound of those
          types. Thus Quenya would be entirely untypological here, were there a
          palatal [r] (I am a bit uncomfortable with [R], as it stands for the
          uvular fricative in X-SAMPA)

          >I wonder how is this dealt with in the tengwar[...]

          So do I.

          >With this are connected what I would call primary and secondary Cy
          >combinations. Primary Cy combinations are those that existed from
          >Primitive Quendian (resp. Common Eldarin). They occur exclusively
          >word-initially.

          That isn't as obvious. Apparently you mean that certain word-initial
          consonants were palatalized, but then your use of 'combinations' is
          somewhat misleading. Combinations of C+_j_ were clearly present on the
          CE level, since medial combinations of this kind consistently turn out
          as tyelpetéma-consonants in Quenya, but also cause i-affection in
          Sindarin.

          > What we do not
          > know is whether e.g. _n + y_ in _vanya_ produced [N] or [n'j]/[nj].

          Indeed. That is what the whole problem hinges on, anyway.

          > The same holds for _máryat_ and _hiruvalye_. There are some
          > indications that (some) secondary Cy combinations stand for two
          sounds.
          > I think I mentioned it in earlier posts: (a) in VT42:27 Tolkien
          > mentioned that "_atatya_ remained [unreduced] because the second _a_
          > was not syncopated, being in a long syllable";

          Indeed. This is a very instructive example.

          Now the gist of my explanation is the following: sound-changes can be
          broadly divided into two classes, viz., phonetically driven and
          phonologically driven, and we should clearly distinguish the two fields
          when dealing with this part of the Eldarin language system.

          Syncope, for instance, is driven phonetically. From a phonological (here
          phonotactical) point of view, there is nothing inherently wrong with
          three consecutive syllables sharing a similar nucleus, phonetics
          however, aiming at easing of articulation, is the driving force behind
          the simplification of the 'redundant' elements. Since this is a phonetic
          rather than a phonological phenomenon, we should consider the _ty_ as a
          phonetic unit. According to my suggestion, _ty_ is *phonetically*
          bimoraic, and therefore the second syllable of _atatya_ is indeed
          closed.

          (As a rather important aside, I have quite forgotten to explain how, in
          my theory, the syllable boundary splits the [t_j] and the [j] if they
          are permissible word-initially. It is possible to suggest that
          bisegmental sequences are forbidden on both the phonetical and the
          phonological levels, so word-initially the _ty_'s and sundry could be
          pronounced without the glide owing to these constraints, but with it
          intervocalically. In post-pausal position, as after the nasals, it would
          of course be also pronounced in a single segment, but this does not
          create a lot of problems with regard to syllable division, since the
          preceding syllable would be closed anyway)

          [snip _óne_/_óle_ stuff]
          > However, there is another fundamental thing to remember: published
          > sources are from different stages of the development of Quenya and
          > they do not have to compatible.

          Indeed.

          >Another thing must also be mentioned. Quenya does not like sequences
          >of consonants much and if there is a sequence, it does not consist
          >of more than two members. In other words, we do not see combinations
          >of three and more consonants in Quenya. Nevertheless, we see
          >combinations CCy: _nty_, _ndy_, _rty_ (_lty_ not attested), _sty_,
          >and _hty_.

          Which further suggests that they are phonologically single, as Ales
          notes. One should however note the Ñoldorin shift _Quendya_ > _Quenya_
          (XI:361), which suggests the instability of the aforementioned
          combinations (this instability, coupled with the general abhorrence of
          voiced stops, contributes to the total loss of the [d_j]), and thus
          their somewhat indefinite status.

          > The theory about morphemic boundary from _Introduction to Elvish_ was
          > snipped, Pavel rejects it himself.

          It doesn't stand up to evidence anyway, since _hir+uva+lye_ is stressed
          _hiruválye_.

          [...]
          > _lyenna_ - the only example of
          > initial _ly_ - is somewhat doubtful,

          > Anyway, _lyenna_ is clearly a grammatical word. [...]
          > By this I mean that ['grammatical words']
          > bear[] certain grammatical marks (it is therefore marked) and such
          > forms may behave otherwise than other, unmarked, forms. An example
          > of this may be _ciryant_ which appears in the Plotz Letter. In Letters
          > no. 347 Tolkien stated that Quenya did not tolerate final consonants
          > other than dentals; he repeated the same idea in VT42:7, mentioning
          > _t, n, l, r_ (he forgot _s_). Hence _ciryant_ contradicts this
          > statement, but as it is a grammatical (inflected) word, it is
          > allowed to exist.

          Indeed. It can be suggested that the instability referred to above
          contributed towards the gradual elimination of the strict phonotactical
          system. The presence of sequences usually realised bisegmentally in
          initial position and the suppression of the bisegmentality can be a
          driving force behind this weakening of structure. The weakening leads to
          possible overriding of phonotactics by the constraints of grammar (resp.
          the _ciryant_ case) or phonetics (which is what we are discussing).

          After all, it must be noted that the mere fact of the phonologically
          irregular stress in _hiruvalye_ points that the form is marked,
          otherwise its formation would be blocked by a rule higher on the
          hierarchy (i. e. more marked)

          [...]
          >**In other words, an initial _d_ is not found (though _Aldudénie_ might
          >be an example of this under certain assumptions), which does not
          >necessarily mean it is forbidden.

          But cf. L:1094-5, where the phrase definitely says that the /b g gw/
          were only met in conjunction with the nasals, and /d/, from the turn of
          the phrase, is only met after /n l r/. (There's also Christopher's
          apparent slip in UT, where he gives the name of a Númenórean city as
          _Almaida_, it should apparently be #_Almalda_)

          > One would be inclined to say that
          > a medial _ky_ is not permitted if _Erukyerme_ (UT) and _Ekyanáro_
          > (VT41:14) were not attested.

          By the way, if you asked me, I'd give these as probable candidates for
          palatal rather than palatalized stops; the articulatory mecanism is the
          same as behind the palatal status of _hy_, for which see my original
          post. If we suggest that _ty_ is palatal, then these are just
          alternative orthographies, if it is palatalized, Quenya falls into the
          Macedonian category. A third possibility is that _ky_ is an alternative
          orthography for palatalized _ty_, but this is unlikely.

          >> In the above discussion I have carefully avoided using the words
          >> 'palatal' or 'palatalized' with reference to _tyelpetéma_ consonants,
          >> since we should first determine whether they are the former or the
          >> latter. I suggest they are palatalized.

          >**I think members of the tyelpetéma are palatal consonants.
          >Tolkien himself said that Quenya had a palatal series (tyelpetéma,
          >LotR, Ap. E).

          The distinction between 'palatal' and 'palatalized' can be blurry,
          especially for one who isn't deep into synchronic phonology. Tolkien
          surely knew about it, but it wasn't his primary area of interest (which
          is probably why we seldom get any coherent synchronic picture of
          Tolkien's invented languages - it doesn't possess an independent value
          for Tolkien, and is justified by writing poetry, cf. the passage in 'The
          Secret Vice'). If _ty_ were palatal, it is difficult to justify why
          Tolkien described it as 'similar to English _t_ in _tune_' (L:1088)',
          since the sound is not palatal (but rather, in British speech,
          pronounced with a glide!). Also he might have included the Spanish ñ as
          a description of NY in the Appendix (though this is of no value as an
          argument)

          [Snip another example of probable confusion between 'palatal' and
          'palatalized']

          >> One obvious reason is that we would then have problems with
          interpreting
          >> _r_. A *palatal* _r_ (as opposed to palatalized) is simply
          nonexistent
          >> in the world's languages, and even if it is, the nearest _I_ can come
          to
          >> a palatal trill or flap is a retroflex approximant [...]

          > **That is an importand fact, but actually it may mean nothing. The
          fact
          > that a palatal _r_ seems to be nonexistent does not mean that it does
          > not exist in Quenya. Although I am not familiar with any language
          > possessing a palatal _r_, I read it occurred in a language called
          > Malayalam (I read this in _Trends in Phonological Theory_ by Eli
          > Fischer-Jorgensen p. 65).

          See above, on the IPA table.

          > It is also supposed to have existed in old
          > Czech (as a reflex of _rj_), but this does not mean anything.

          That is rather off-topic, but that is somewhat strained to me. As I
          understand, the transition from palatalized [r] to the Czech r-haczek
          (coarticulated [r] and [Z] as in 'pleasure') only implies the addition
          of the fricative character and removal of the flap, and does not
          necessarily imply a back-and-forth place of articulation shift.

          [...]

          > _hy_ is somewhat a problem, since it apparently _is_ palatal.

          >I cannot say whether there is a difference between
          >_thy_ and _sy_ (whether the distinction strident/not-strident might
          >exist even among palatals).

          I don't think so, as the strident/non-strident distinction is very
          difficult to handle by the dorsum. The IPA also confirms that the
          distinction, even if existent, is apparently nowhere phonemic.

          > (By the way, if combinations Cy stand for palatals, then there
          > must have existed /S/ (i.e. a palatal _s_), realized as [Z] between
          > vowels -- this was the source of _ry_ [R].)

          Let me note that the presence of intervocalic voicing of _s_ (with or
          without rhotacism) does not necessarily imply voicing of other
          fricatives. True, the Germanic languages voice both the _s_ and the /f þ
          x/ series, but Latin had rhotacism but not voicing of other fricatives.
          This is not a very good example, since Latin does not possess
          intervocalic fricatives word-internally (the initial ones stem from the
          IE voiced aspirates, which were realized word-medially in Italic as
          voiced unaspirated stops), and thus the morpheme boundary (as in
          _de+fici+o_ or _de+fend+o_) can contribute to the lack of voicing. I am
          sure other examples can be found though.

          [...]
          >> My suggestion is the following. The stress in _hiruvalye_ is to be
          >> explained by the fact that Quenya stress, not being phonological, is
          >> determined by purely phonetic environs, unlike the (phonemically
          >> relevant) length.
          >>
          >> I would suggest that _ly_, being palatalized,

          >**I think it is a palatal, being distinct to a palatalized _l_, which
          >occured between _e, i_ and a consonant, cf. App. E s.v. L: "[_l_] was,
          >however, to some degree 'palatalized' between _e, i_ and a consonant,
          >or finally after _e, i_".

          The part about 'to some degree' worries me a lot. I don't know much
          about degrees of palatalization in European languages (since the Russian
          non-palatalized [l] is heavily velarized, which interferes a lot), but
          it seems possible that the palatalization distinction could possess
          three grades.

          [...]
          >> Now with regard to length, there is a different situation. Stress,
          >> phonologically irrelevant in Quenya, can be determined by the purely
          >> phonetic environs. Length, being phonologically important, should be
          >> judged on the phonological level. Now if _ry_ is a single consonant
          (it
          >> apparently is *phonologically*),

          >**I do not think it is obvious.

          I never said it was obvious. This situation is difficult to resolve
          (just as in natural languages), since not one of the two tests
          applicable to Quenya (whether the consonant makes a syllable closed;
          whether it can be word/syllable-initial) is not applicable to the sound
          in question - the first test is what we are discussing, the second one
          is inapplicable in case of word-initial [ry] because there's just no
          possible etymology for an initial [ry] (unless a RY-root is found), in
          case of internal syllable-initial because the first element of a cluster
          is either a nasal or a spirant fricative, both of which tend to
          assimilate with [r] and blur the distinctions.

          >> then the syllable division in _máryat_
          >> is _má+ryat_. There is the question of unattested syllable- (=word-)
          >> initial _ry_, but the tendency for open syllables must be much
          stronger
          >> than the tendency for maximum onsets.
          >
          >**Morphological criterion might also have played its role, because
          >there is a morpheme boundary between _má_ and _rya(t)_. The same
          >morpheme boundary is, however, between _ma_ and _nna(r)_ in
          >_mannar_ (FS, LR:72). Here the geminated (or long) _n_ may also
          >be phonologically a single consonant, though phonetically a succession
          >of two identical consonants. For that matter there would be the same
          >syllable division.

          The forcing of the vowel shortening here definitely shows that the
          syllable division is _man+nar_. Had Quenya not possessed single
          intervocalic nasals, the situation would be just like the Archi system
          described in my original post, but it just doesn't.

          [...]
          >> Thus, my suggestion is the following: a CV[Cy]V sequence is
          phonetically
          >> (for purposes of stress) divided into syllables as CV[C+y]V and
          >> phonemically (relevant to length) as CV+[Cy]V.
          >
          >**While this may be possible, I think there are many uncertainties.

          Indeed there are, that's just why I posted this :-)

          Pavel
          --
          Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

          Is mall a mharcaicheas am fear a bheachdaicheas
          --Scottish proverb
        • David Kiltz
          On the subject of palatalized consonants I think it is paramount to hold up the distinction between primary and secondary palatalized sounds, as pointed out
          Message 4 of 22 , Feb 19, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            On the subject of "palatalized" consonants I think it is paramount to
            hold up the distinction between primary and secondary palatalized
            sounds, as pointed out by Ales Bican.
            Also, it is important to look at the (historical) formation of the
            words in question to understand their behaviour.
            As the examples adduced by Pavel Iosad and Ales Bican show combinations
            such as Cy and Ry, when deriving from C+y, R+y, are biphonemic in
            Quenya and form long syllables.
            As phonetics tell us, a syllable ideally starts with a higher degree of
            consonanticity followed by a sound with a lower value. A somewhat
            simplified consonanticity hierarchy may look like this: Occlusives >
            Spirants (Sibilants, s having a special status) > Nasals > L,R >
            "half-vowels". We may call these sounds then class 1,2,3,4, and 5.
            Word-initially Quenya seems to allow for the following combinations:
            1 + 5 (cf. _tyulusse, tyálie_),
            2 + 5 (cf. _hyarin_ < SWAR-. As "h" probably represents [ç] here, it
            should be treated as a spirant which, historically, it certainly is.),
            3 + 5 (cf. _nyello_),
            4 + 5 (doubtful, _lyenna_ ?).
            -Note: For completness a class 6 (vowels) belongs here. It has been
            left out for obvious reasons. Any class + 6 would work.-
            Adding to this, PQ allows for the following additional combinations: s
            + 1, 3, 4, 5. (Abundant examples can be found in V, "The Etymologies".
            Of course, certain combinations within these classes do not occur, e.g.
            p+y. This is most probably due to euphonic reasons.
            Given the attested Quenya words, I will argue that Quenya in principle
            honours the biphonemic rule but may, under certain historical
            circumstances, allow for a different syllabification.
            Case 1) The obvious instance where e.g. _ty_ is primary and hence
            monophonemic. Cf. _intya-_.
            Case 2) _máryat_. In my view this is not a violation of the biphonemic
            rule but has to be syllabified as má (<ma3-) +ryat. The division is
            due to morphological reasons and is phonetically permissible since a
            syllable-initial cluster "ry" is in accord with the consonanticity
            hierarchy for syllable-onsets outlined above.

            Now for the case of _aistana-_.

            In "The Etymologies" one can see that PQ (or PE) allowed for a wide
            range of s + C clusters initially.
            Excursus: On the peculiarity of "s" in consonant clusters.
            In many languages it can be seen that "s" in consonant cluster does not
            behave in accord with the regular consonanticity hierarchy but can
            apparently be added at certain points without appending any extra
            weight to the cluster. Rather on the contrary it would seem.
            I will exemplify what I mean on the basis of the Indo-European language
            family.

            The special status can (very briefly indeed) be shown by the following:
            1) I.-E. does not, in principle, allow for word inital consonant
            clusters running counter to the c. h. with the exception of s + C
            (leaving laryngeals aside for the moment).
            2) Certain consonant clusters are "split open" by an intrusive "s" in
            I.-E. Cf. the ubiquitous treatment of dental + dental in I.-E.:
            _*wid-to-_ ("seen, known", root _*weid-_) Sanskrt. _vitta_, Avest.
            _vista_, OE. _wiss_ etc. These forms go back to an intermediate
            _*witsto-_.
            Apparently a cluster _d-t_ which is not permissible in Indo-European,
            is facilitated by the insertion of "s". Similarly in cases such as
            I.-E. _*louksnaH_ "moon" (< _*louk+naH_) which is derived from the root
            _*leuk-_ "to shine", cf Greek _leukós_ "white", NHG _Lohe_ "flame",
            Latin _lucere_, Sanskrt. _roc-_ "to shine etc. Again, the cluster "k+n"
            is split up (clearly for phonetic reasons) to yield ultimately Latin
            _lúna_, avest. _raoxshna_ etc.
            Other phenomena belong here too but would call for too long
            explanations.
            End excursus.

            The special behaviour of "s" that can be seen e.g. in Indo-European
            also seems to feature in PQ (PE). As I argued in the case of _máryat_,
            Quenya seems to allow certain PQaic clusters at the onset of a syllable
            which it has otherwise simplified word-initially.
            Hence, I would suggest that this is the case for "st", too.
            _Aistana-_ is therefore to be syllabified as _ai-stana_.

            If this appraisal of the situation is correct, it not only rids us of
            "overlong" syllables in Quenya but would give us a more detailed
            picture of what syllable-onsets are permissible in Quenya and for what
            reason.

            David Kiltz
          • Pavel Iosad
            David Kiltz has set forth a theory proposing how one can resolve the difficulty regarding the apparent violations of the syllable weight limitation. While I
            Message 5 of 22 , Feb 19, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              David Kiltz has set forth a theory proposing how one can resolve the
              difficulty regarding the apparent violations of the syllable weight
              limitation. While I agree with the principle, I have to point out
              several issues that, in my opinion, need more dwelling upon.

              [...]
              > As the examples adduced by Pavel Iosad and Ales Bican show
              > combinations such as Cy and Ry, when deriving from C+y, R+y,
              > are biphonemic in Quenya and form long syllables.
              > As phonetics tell us, a syllable ideally starts with a higher
              > degree of consonanticity followed by a sound with a lower value.
              > A somewhat simplified consonanticity hierarchy may look like
              > this: Occlusives > Spirants (Sibilants, s having a special status) >
              > Nasals > L,R > "half-vowels". We may call these sounds then class
              > 1,2,3,4, and 5.

              While this is good, I feel compelled to point out that the special status
              of 's' appears to be a specific Indo-European feature, provoked, I'd
              suggest, by the special status of 's' in the PIE sound system, it being
              the only non-laryngeal fricative. This markedness of the sound and its
              important role in the root-building process (witness the 's-mobile')
              give it a certain special status. 's' is not always the most consonant
              sound. While I cannot think of any non-Indo-European examples off the
              top of my head (I'm not taking modern Slavic languages into account
              here, since they have killed the IE syllable structure, witness a word
              like Polish _pstra,g_ 'salmon'), but Ancient Greek, for instance allows
              initial combinations of the _muta cum liquida_ type (_prosêkei_, _khraô_
              etc. etc.), sC ones (_sphallô_) *and* Cs - _pseudomai_. Thus the
              consonanticity status of 's' is actually ambiguous. It is also
              demonstrated by the fact that Romance languages (and not only Romance)
              did develop a prosthetic vowel before Latin initial sT(R)- groups (Fr.
              _écrire_, Sp. _escrebo_, Welsh _ysgrifennu_), because a sT(R)- onset is
              somehow uncomfortable (compare this with the appearance of the
              prosthetic vowel before undoubtedly offending clusters, as in Russian
              _rzhanoj_ 'of rye', Byelorussian _arzhany_, Rus. _mgla_ 'mirk', Byel.
              _imgla_). It must also be noted that a Latin word like _magister_ is
              stressed _magíster_, not *_mágister_ as it would were the medial -st-
              tautosyllabic (i. e. fully identical to the _muta cum liquida_ group in
              _emígrô_).

              > Word-initially Quenya seems to allow for the following combinations:
              > 1 + 5 (cf. _tyulusse, tyálie_),
              > 2 + 5 (cf. _hyarin_ < SWAR-. As "h" probably represents [ç] here, it
              > should be treated as a spirant which, historically, it certainly is.),
              > 3 + 5 (cf. _nyello_),
              > 4 + 5 (doubtful, _lyenna_ ?).
              [...]
              > Given the attested Quenya words, I will argue that Quenya in principle
              > honours the biphonemic rule but may, under certain historical
              > circumstances, allow for a different syllabification.
              > Case 1) The obvious instance where e.g. _ty_ is primary and hence
              > monophonemic. Cf. _intya-_.

              Indeed, if the _Cy_'s are monophonemic, this is not much of a problem

              > Case 2) _máryat_. In my view this is not a violation of the biphonemic
              > rule but has to be syllabified as má (<ma3-) +ryat. The division is
              > due to morphological reasons and is phonetically permissible since a
              > syllable-initial cluster "ry" is in accord with the consonanticity
              > hierarchy for syllable-onsets outlined above.

              While it certainly is in accord with the hierarchy, it must be mentioned
              that Quenya does avoid clusters of that type, because, as David notes,
              the phonetic rules do require that a consonant cluster where the first
              element is more consonantic than the first one be tautosyllabic (i. e.
              the syllable boundary should not split it). VT42:26 says:

              '...the strong predilection which Quenya showed for the sequences of
              sonants: _m_, _n_, _ñ_; _l_, _r_ before stops, as against those in which
              the sonants followed. Transposition also occurs in Quenya in ancient
              forms of _tr_, _tl_, etc. > _rt_, _lt_'

              With this confer Quenya _alcar_ 'glory' from AKLA-R, cognate with
              Noldorin/Sindarin _aglar_ (V:348). The very point here is that the
              sequences, being of the 1 + 3 or 1 + 4 types (in David's notation),
              require to be regarded as parts of one syllable. But the reversal argues
              to support the point made in IX:417-8, that Quenya does not tolerate
              onsets of more than segment (confer the lack of the reversal in
              Sindarin, which does allow initial mutae cum liquidis), even if they
              comply with the consonanticity/sonority hierarchy rules.

              > Now for the case of _aistana-_.
              > In "The Etymologies" one can see that PQ (or PE) allowed for a wide
              > range of s + C clusters initially.

              However, if one suggests that Quenya did so as well, one may well wonder
              why the initial _st-_ was simplified to _s_. (I realise this is however
              weak as an argument, being _ex nihilo_).

              > Excursus: On the peculiarity of "s" in consonant clusters.

              [snip excursus on the special behaviour of _s_ in IE]

              > The special behaviour of "s" that can be seen e.g. in Indo-European
              > Also seems to feature in PQ (PE).

              Now there is also the question of what to allow as initial PQ clusters.
              There is no compelling need to suggest initial /MB ND ÑG/ are single
              phonemes in PQ. The African languages where such consonants are viewed
              as single phonemes do not allow any other initial clusters, which is not
              the case in PQ. There is also a solution in the lines of Modern Greek,
              where the /mp nt ng/ used to substitute voiced stops in loans, as in
              _mpar_ 'bar', but as opposed to the /mp/ type, /mb/ cluster are
              semiotically suspect (just as the traditional PIE reconstruction, which
              can be a strong argument *for*).

              > As I argued in the case of _máryat_, Quenya seems to allow certain
              > PQaic clusters at the onset of a syllable which it has otherwise
              > simplified word-initially.

              It can, apparently, true; but I am at a loss to reconcile this with the
              stress in _hiruvalye_.

              > Hence, I would suggest that this is the case for "st", too.
              > _Aistana-_ is therefore to be syllabified as _ai-stana_.

              ...and _Hrísto_ as _Hrí-sto_. This would also explain the syncope which
              must have given the form _aistana_ rather than *_aiastana_.

              Alternatively, one can suggest that in _aistana_ that _ai_ is not a
              diphthong, but rather two vowels on the model of _oïkta_ in Narqelion
              (see Christopher Gilson's article in VT40). The only problem with this
              is that Tolkien did not mark it as such. Only too bad.

              In spite of the above criticism, I think this is very much possible
              theoretically and even not unlikely (in fact, I implicitly suggested
              this in my latest post ('Or are we dealing with a special status of the
              _st_ group [...]?)), and can be reconciled with the explanation I have
              been propounding. One can then ascribe a special (near-monophonemic?)
              status to the _st_ group and describe the lack of bisegmental initial
              realization as a marked situation. This however raises several problems,
              such as lack of a _sC_ in words from SC-initial roots when that group is
              intervocalic (_Nurufantur_ rather than *_Nuruspantur_. Overall, this is
              a complex case (surprise, surprise...).

              Pavel
              --
              Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

              Is mall a mharcaicheas am fear a bheachdaicheas
              --Scottish proverb
            • David Kiltz
              On Mittwoch, Februar 19, 2003, at 03:50 Uhr, Pavel Iosad wrote: [...] ... They are two things. Yes, s also has a special status in I.-E. because it
              Message 6 of 22 , Feb 19, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mittwoch, Februar 19, 2003, at 03:50 Uhr, Pavel Iosad wrote:

                <snip>
                [...]
                >> As the examples adduced by Pavel Iosad and Ales Bican show
                >> combinations such as Cy and Ry, when deriving from C+y, R+y,
                >> are biphonemic in Quenya and form long syllables.
                >> As phonetics tell us, a syllable ideally starts with a higher
                >> degree of consonanticity followed by a sound with a lower value.
                >> A somewhat simplified consonanticity hierarchy may look like
                >> this: Occlusives > Spirants (Sibilants, s having a special status) >
                >> Nasals > L,R > "half-vowels". We may call these sounds then class
                >> 1,2,3,4, and 5.
                >
                > While this is good, I feel compelled to point out that the special
                > status of 's' appears to be a specific Indo-European feature,
                > provoked, I'd suggest, by the special status of 's' in the PIE
                > sound system, it being the only non-laryngeal fricative.

                They are two things. Yes, "s" also has a special status in I.-E.
                because it is the only spirant or fricative (next to the laryngeals).
                That is not the relevant point here though, I think. No other fricative
                serves the same function in later I.-E. languages (e.g. ph, th, kh). It
                is also noteworthy that "s" is not a homorganic fricative to any other
                sound in I.-E. Its "intervening" function can hardly be "just"
                explained by the fact that it is a fricative. Ultimately, the reason
                will be phonetic (i.e. biology).

                > This markedness of the sound and its
                > important role in the root-building process (witness the 's-mobile')
                > give it a certain special status.

                While true I, again, don't think that has anything to do with the
                point at hand. What matters is that such combinations are
                *phonetically* possible.

                <here follows an account on certain behaviours of consonant clusters. I
                agree with the phenomena but don't see how that changes anything>.

                Just for interest: Sino-Tibetan seems to exhibit similar behaviour (as
                PIE in respect to "s").

                <snip>
                >
                >> Case 2) _máryat_. In my view this is not a violation of the biphonemic
                >> rule but has to be syllabified as má (<ma3-) +ryat. The division is
                >> due to morphological reasons and is phonetically permissible since a
                >> syllable-initial cluster "ry" is in accord with the consonanticity
                >> hierarchy for syllable-onsets outlined above.
                >
                > While it certainly is in accord with the hierarchy, it must be
                > mentioned
                > that Quenya does avoid clusters of that type, because, as David notes,
                > the phonetic rules do require that a consonant cluster where the first
                > element is more consonantic than the first one be tautosyllabic (i. e.
                > the syllable boundary should not split it). VT42:26 says:

                Where the first element is more consonantic than the first one. There
                must be a typo here.

                > '...the strong predilection which Quenya showed for the sequences of
                > sonants: _m_, _n_, _ñ_; _l_, _r_ before stops, as against those in
                > which
                > the sonants followed. Transposition also occurs in Quenya in ancient
                > forms of _tr_, _tl_, etc. > _rt_, _lt_'
                >
                > With this confer Quenya _alcar_ 'glory' from AKLA-R, cognate with
                > Noldorin/Sindarin _aglar_ (V:348). The very point here is that the
                > sequences, being of the 1 + 3 or 1 + 4 types (in David's notation),
                > require to be regarded as parts of one syllable. But the reversal
                > argues
                > to support the point made in IX:417-8, that Quenya does not tolerate
                > onsets of more than segment (confer the lack of the reversal in
                > Sindarin, which does allow initial mutae cum liquidis), even if they
                > comply with the consonanticity/sonority hierarchy rules.

                I don't follow the argument. _AKLAR_ is _ak-lar_. The metathesis
                provides a softer syllable ending (l) and the highest possible degree
                of consonanticity for the syllable onset (k).
                Why would you syllabify AKLAR as _a-klar_ ? Maybe I didn't understand
                correctly.

                Note that I made mention only of a case of 4+5.

                >> Now for the case of _aistana-_.
                >> In "The Etymologies" one can see that PQ (or PE) allowed for a wide
                >> range of s + C clusters initially.
                >
                > However, if one suggests that Quenya did so as well, one may well
                > wonder
                > why the initial _st-_ was simplified to _s_. (I realise this is however
                > weak as an argument, being _ex nihilo_).

                I didn't suggest that. I suggested that Quenya kept that possibility
                inside a word.

                <snip>
                >> The special behaviour of "s" that can be seen e.g. in Indo-European
                >> Also seems to feature in PQ (PE).
                >
                > Now there is also the question of what to allow as initial PQ clusters.
                > There is no compelling need to suggest initial /MB ND ÑG/ are single
                > phonemes in PQ. The African languages where such consonants are viewed
                > as single phonemes do not allow any other initial clusters, which is
                > not the case in PQ. There is also a solution in the lines of Modern
                > Greek, where the /mp nt ng/ used to substitute voiced stops in
                > loans, as in _mpar_ 'bar', but as opposed to the /mp/ type, /mb/
                > cluster are semiotically suspect (just as the traditional PIE
                > reconstruction, which can be a strong argument *for*).

                MB, ND, ÑG, (ÑGw) are described as the corresponding nasals to
                parmatéma, tincotéma, calmatéma, and quessetéma. I think they are to be
                understood as monophonemic. The African example is not compelling.
                While the lack of initial clusters in those languages points to the
                fact that MB etc. aren't as well, in those languages, the reverse is
                not necessarily true. Just because PQ has some initial clusters, MB
                etc. don't have to be too.

                I don't understand the point about Modern Greek. "mp" etc. are only
                graphical for [b]. This is a question of the writing system.

                I don't know what traditional PIE recontruction you refer to. Glottalic
                vs non- glottalic ? It can be a strong argument for what ?

                >> As I argued in the case of _máryat_, Quenya seems to allow certain
                >> PQaic clusters at the onset of a syllable which it has otherwise
                >> simplified word-initially.
                >
                > It can, apparently, true; but I am at a loss to reconcile this with the
                > stress in _hiruvalye_.

                In _hiruvalye_ the a is short. Hence it is to be syllabified
                _hi-ru-val-ye_. That's quite regular. l+y are biphonematic here and
                hence we have a long syllable. I fail to see a problem here.

                >> Hence, I would suggest that this is the case for "st", too.
                >> _Aistana-_ is therefore to be syllabified as _ai-stana_.
                >
                > ...and _Hrísto_ as _Hrí-sto_. This would also explain the syncope which
                > must have given the form _aistana_ rather than *_aiastana_.

                Yes, thank you.

                > Alternatively, one can suggest that in _aistana_ that _ai_ is not a
                > diphthong, but rather two vowels on the model of _oïkta_ in Narqelion
                > (see Christopher Gilson's article in VT40). The only problem with this
                > is that Tolkien did not mark it as such. Only too bad.

                Yes, that's of course possible but doesn't seem likely.

                > In spite of the above criticism, I think this is very much possible
                > theoretically and even not unlikely (in fact, I implicitly suggested
                > this in my latest post ('Or are we dealing with a special status of the
                > _st_ group [...]?)), and can be reconciled with the explanation I have
                > been propounding. One can then ascribe a special (near-monophonemic?)
                > status to the _st_ group and describe the lack of bisegmental initial
                > realization as a marked situation. This however raises several
                > problems, such as lack of a _sC_ in words from SC-initial roots
                > when that group is intervocalic (_Nurufantur_ rather than
                > *_Nuruspantur_.

                Well, you alluded to a special status of the "st" group. Sorry, I
                should have mentioned that.
                Your criticism doesn't seem to say anything really contrary to what I
                suggested though.

                Your last point (_Nurufantur_ vs *_Nuruspantur_) is a very strong one,
                I think. Maybe it can be solved by assuming that _Nurufantur_ is a
                later combination.

                David Kiltz
              • Rich Alderson
                ... It must be noted here that this is a matter of Modern Greek _spelling_, not of _phonetics_ or _phonology_. The spelling rule for foreign borrowings arose
                Message 7 of 22 , Feb 20, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 19 Feb 2003, Pavel Iosad wrote _inter alia_:

                  > There is also a solution in the lines of Modern Greek, where the /mp nt ng/
                  > used to substitute voiced stops in loans, as in _mpar_ 'bar', but as opposed
                  > to the /mp/ type, /mb/ cluster are semiotically suspect (just as the
                  > traditional PIE reconstruction, which can be a strong argument *for*).

                  It must be noted here that this is a matter of Modern Greek _spelling_, not of
                  _phonetics_ or _phonology_. The spelling rule for foreign borrowings arose out
                  of the historical development of clusters of nasal + voiceless stop to nasal +
                  voiced stop, and the constraint against spirantization of original voiced stops
                  following nasals, followed by the loss of homorganic nasal before voiced stops
                  in certain positions. Following these changes, the spellings which once
                  represented [mp] [nt] [Nk] represented first [mb] [nd] [Ng], and later, in most
                  dialects, [b] [d] [g].

                  In Cretan Greek, initial voiced stops became prenasalized, as a development
                  from sandhi of the accusative case of the article (which ended in [n]); in
                  other dialects, they became fricatives, as elsewhere. So the only way to spell
                  a voiced stop in Greek is with the grapheme clusters <mp> <nt> <gg>.

                  So Greek spelling has nothing to tell us about PQ phonology.

                  Rich
                • Pavel Iosad
                  Hello, ... No other here no doubt means not derived from _s_ , as the s-prefixion could turn into z-prefixion in a Slavic root like *_zdorv-_ hale,
                  Message 8 of 22 , Feb 21, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello,

                    David Kiltz wrote:

                    > They are two things. Yes, "s" also has a special status in I.-E.
                    > because it is the only spirant or fricative (next to the laryngeals).
                    > That is not the relevant point here though, I think. No other
                    > fricative serves the same function in later I.-E. languages
                    > (e.g. ph, th, kh).

                    'No other' here no doubt means 'not derived from _s_', as the
                    s-prefixion could turn into z-prefixion in a Slavic root like *_zdorv-_
                    'hale, healthy'.

                    > It is also noteworthy that "s" is not a homorganic fricative to
                    > any other sound in I.-E. Its "intervening" function can hardly be
                    > "just" explained by the fact that it is a fricative. Ultimately, the
                    > reason will be phonetic (i.e. biology).

                    Just as a matter of niggling, I'd rather say the two factors would be
                    intertwined, assisting each other.

                    [...]

                    > <here follows an account on certain behaviours of consonant
                    > clusters. I agree with the phenomena but don't see how that
                    > changes anything>.

                    Well, by this I wanted to demonstrate that the status of 's' can be
                    ambiguous, and that when building a sonority/consonanticity hierarchy,
                    one should exercise caution when assigning 's' a sonority level lower
                    than that of the occlusives.

                    > Just for interest: Sino-Tibetan seems to exhibit similar
                    > behaviour (as PIE in respect to "s").

                    ObOT: Could a pro-Nostratic case be made out of this?

                    [Let's not do so here! CFH]

                    [...]

                    > > the phonetic rules do require that a consonant cluster where the
                    > > first element is more consonantic than the first one be tautosyllabic
                    >
                    > Where the first element is more consonantic than the first one. There
                    > must be a typo here.

                    Sure there is. This should read '...than the second one'.

                    [...]
                    > > With this confer Quenya _alcar_ 'glory' from AKLA-R, cognate with
                    > > Noldorin/Sindarin _aglar_ (V:348). The very point here is that the
                    > > sequences, being of the 1 + 3 or 1 + 4 types (in David's notation),
                    > > require to be regarded as parts of one syllable. But the reversal
                    > > argues to support the point made in IX:417-8, that Quenya does
                    > > not tolerate onsets of more than segment [...] even if they
                    > > comply with the consonanticity/sonority hierarchy rules.
                    >
                    > I don't follow the argument. _AKLAR_ is _ak-lar_. The metathesis
                    > provides a softer syllable ending (l) and the highest possible degree
                    > of consonanticity for the syllable onset (k).

                    I have been under the impression that you suggested that _st_ as an
                    internal syllable onset is permissible because _s_ is more consonantic
                    than _t_. Unless we single out _st_ specifically (or _sC_), this would
                    imply (to me) that the only reason for a syllabification of the CV+stV-
                    kind can come about if we assume that all groups where the first element
                    is more consonantic than the second one require that the syllable
                    boundary be shifted to include both consonants in one syllable. Such a
                    state of affairs is only natural (it's biology, as you rightly note).
                    However, it appears that in Quenya, the limitation on syllable onsets
                    forces that the sound-structure of a word should be changed so as to
                    preclude the possibility of violating it (the limitation)

                    > Why would you syllabify AKLAR as _a-klar_ ? Maybe I didn't understand
                    > correctly.

                    Because if we strip the word of Quenya phonotactics, such a
                    syllabification is only natural.

                    The singling out of _st_ would seem unlikely - there's nothing so
                    special about them in comparison with the other sonority-raising
                    clusters except the fact that it contains _s_ (after all, I'd rather
                    expect that it would be sequences like _kl_ which acted as
                    tautosyllabic, rather than _sC_; cf. Latin).

                    > <snip>
                    > > There is no compelling need to suggest initial /MB ND ÑG/ are single
                    > > phonemes in PQ.
                    > > <snip>
                    >
                    > MB, ND, ÑG, (ÑGw) are described as the corresponding nasals to
                    > parmatéma, tincotéma, calmatéma, and quessetéma. I think they
                    > are to be understood as monophonemic.

                    We're speaking about PQ here, not Quenya (one should also point out that
                    in the tengwar _t_ : _nt_ == _d_ : _nd_; is that then proof of _nt_ being
                    monophonemic as well?)

                    > The African example is not compelling.
                    > While the lack of initial clusters in those languages points to the
                    > fact that MB etc. aren't as well, in those languages, the reverse is
                    > not necessarily true. Just because PQ has some initial clusters, MB
                    > etc. don't have to be too.

                    That is true. I am however yet to see an argument that MB and sundry ARE
                    monophonemic in PQ.

                    > I don't understand the point about Modern Greek. "mp" etc. are only
                    > graphical for [b]. This is a question of the writing system.

                    I stand corrected.

                    > I don't know what traditional PIE recontruction you refer to.
                    > Glottalic vs non- glottalic ? It can be a strong argument for what ?

                    The t - d - dh. That'd be pegged as 'non-glottalic' I think.

                    What I wanted to say is that a T - D - ND system is semiotically and
                    typologically suspect. However, if we substitute nasalisation for
                    aspiration, we get the IE reconstruction. Certainly Tolkien knew (and
                    probably liked) quite a bit about it, and could implement a similar
                    system here.

                    > In _hiruvalye_ the a is short. Hence it is to be syllabified
                    > _hi-ru-val-ye_. That's quite regular. l+y are biphonematic here and
                    > hence we have a long syllable. I fail to see a problem here.

                    So are you suggesting that the syllable boundary shifts to immediately
                    after a vowel only if the vowel is long?

                    [...]
                    > Your criticism doesn't seem to say anything really contrary to what I
                    > suggested though.

                    Well, anyway it's not that I reject your suggestions. You might after
                    all be right (that is not unlikely, in my opinion)

                    > Your last point (_Nurufantur_ vs *_Nuruspantur_) is a very strong
                    > one, I think. Maybe it can be solved by assuming that _Nurufantur_ is
                    > a later combination.

                    We surely can. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of Quenya words
                    derived from SK/SP/ST-initial roots with some kind of sundokarme. In the
                    Etymologies, there's only _terhat_ (s.v. SKAT-), but that doesn't afford
                    any help.

                    Pavel
                    --
                    Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

                    Is mall a mharcaicheas am fear a bheachdaicheas
                    --Scottish proverb
                  • David Kiltz
                    Zdorovo, ... Two things: I was actually referring to the role of s (and its allophone z ) as a cluster splitter. Not to the s-mobile. As for the Slavic,
                    Message 9 of 22 , Feb 22, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Zdorovo,

                      Pavel Iosad wrote:

                      > David Kiltz wrote:
                      >
                      >> They are two things. Yes, "s" also has a special status in I.-E.
                      >> because it is the only spirant or fricative (next to the laryngeals).
                      >> That is not the relevant point here though, I think. No other
                      >> fricative serves the same function in later I.-E. languages
                      >> (e.g. ph, th, kh).
                      >
                      > 'No other' here no doubt means 'not derived from _s_', as the
                      > s-prefixion could turn into z-prefixion in a Slavic root like *_zdorv-_
                      > 'hale, healthy'.

                      Two things: I was actually referring to the role of "s" (and its
                      allophone "z") as a cluster splitter. Not to the s-mobile.
                      As for the Slavic, that surely is Proto-Slavic _*sudorvu (where u ==
                      "tverdyj znak", i.e. an overshort "u"). After the first short "u"
                      dropped, the "s" was progressively assimilated in voice. But that's
                      regular morphology (PIE *som-). I don't know whether you view the
                      s-mobile in PIE as such a prefix.

                      Surely allophonic "zd-" can be included but it doesn't seem to figure
                      in Elvish.

                      >> It is also noteworthy that "s" is not a homorganic fricative to
                      >> any other sound in I.-E. Its "intervening" function can hardly be
                      >> "just" explained by the fact that it is a fricative. Ultimately, the
                      >> reason will be phonetic (i.e. biology).
                      >
                      > Just as a matter of niggling, I'd rather say the two factors would be
                      > intertwined, assisting each other.

                      Yeah. So, "not just".

                      >> <here follows an account on certain behaviours of consonant
                      >> clusters. I agree with the phenomena but don't see how that
                      >> changes anything>.
                      >
                      > Well, by this I wanted to demonstrate that the status of 's' can be
                      > ambiguous, and that when building a sonority/consonanticity hierarchy,
                      > one should exercise caution when assigning 's' a sonority level lower
                      > than that of the occlusives.

                      I don't see how that is ambiguous. Do you think you can make a case for
                      "s" having lower sonority ?

                      <snip>
                      >>> With this confer Quenya _alcar_ 'glory' from AKLA-R, cognate with
                      >>> Noldorin/Sindarin _aglar_ (V:348). The very point here is that the
                      >>> sequences, being of the 1 + 3 or 1 + 4 types (in David's notation),
                      >>> require to be regarded as parts of one syllable. But the reversal
                      >>> argues to support the point made in IX:417-8, that Quenya does
                      >>> not tolerate onsets of more than segment [...] even if they
                      >>> comply with the consonanticity/sonority hierarchy rules.
                      >>
                      >> I don't follow the argument. _AKLAR_ is _ak-lar_. The metathesis
                      >> provides a softer syllable ending (l) and the highest possible degree
                      >> of consonanticity for the syllable onset (k).
                      >
                      > I have been under the impression that you suggested that _st_ as an
                      > internal syllable onset is permissible because _s_ is more consonantic
                      > than _t_. Unless we single out _st_ specifically (or _sC_), this would
                      > imply (to me) that the only reason for a syllabification of the CV+stV-
                      > kind can come about if we assume that all groups where the first
                      > element
                      > is more consonantic than the second one require that the syllable
                      > boundary be shifted to include both consonants in one syllable. Such a
                      > state of affairs is only natural (it's biology, as you rightly note).
                      > However, it appears that in Quenya, the limitation on syllable onsets
                      > forces that the sound-structure of a word should be changed so as to
                      > preclude the possibility of violating it (the limitation)

                      I understand now. No, I don't think "s" is more consonantic than "t".
                      Rather my argument is that the hierarchy can be "violated" by groups of
                      the kind "sC-". Or, in other terms, that "s", for some reason, does not
                      violate the rule. It is sort of a "moot" consonant. That's what the
                      examples from PIE where meant to illustrate. I would posit such a
                      behaviour for PQ as well.

                      >> Why would you syllabify AKLAR as _a-klar_ ? Maybe I didn't understand
                      >> correctly.
                      >
                      > Because if we strip the word of Quenya phonotactics, such a
                      > syllabification is only natural.
                      >
                      > The singling out of _st_ would seem unlikely - there's nothing so
                      > special about them in comparison with the other sonority-raising
                      > clusters except the fact that it contains _s_ (after all, I'd rather
                      > expect that it would be sequences like _kl_ which acted as
                      > tautosyllabic, rather than _sC_; cf. Latin).

                      Okay, yet Quenya seems to try to avoid a cluster onset CR- (as it does
                      in anlaut).

                      I do maintain, however, that sC- *is* a special case. We do not have a
                      **_aitsana_. Also, there is no case of s+t > t+s that I'm aware of.
                      Note that the case of _máryat_ is still special because _-rya_ is a
                      morpheme.

                      >>> There is no compelling need to suggest initial /MB ND ÑG/ are single
                      >>> phonemes in PQ.
                      >>> <snip>
                      >>
                      >> MB, ND, ÑG, (ÑGw) are described as the corresponding nasals to
                      >> parmatéma, tincotéma, calmatéma, and quessetéma. I think they
                      >> are to be understood as monophonemic.
                      >
                      > We're speaking about PQ here, not Quenya (one should also point out
                      > that
                      > in the tengwar _t_ : _nt_ ==== _d_ : _nd_; is that then proof of _nt_
                      > being
                      > monophonemic as well?)

                      No, and my notation was wrong. What I meant was M, N, Ñ, Ñw.

                      >> The African example is not compelling.
                      >> While the lack of initial clusters in those languages points to the
                      >> fact that MB etc. aren't as well, in those languages, the reverse is
                      >> not necessarily true. Just because PQ has some initial clusters, MB
                      >> etc. don't have to be too.
                      >
                      > That is true. I am however yet to see an argument that MB and sundry
                      > ARE monophonemic in PQ.

                      Okay. Nevertheless, pre-nasalized stops are a breed of their own. Their
                      behaviour in PQ would certainly merit a separate investigation.

                      >> I don't know what traditional PIE recontruction you refer to.
                      >> Glottalic vs non- glottalic ? It can be a strong argument for what ?
                      >
                      > The t - d - dh. That'd be pegged as 'non-glottalic' I think.
                      >
                      > What I wanted to say is that a T - D - ND system is semiotically and
                      > typologically suspect. However, if we substitute nasalisation for
                      > aspiration, we get the IE reconstruction. Certainly Tolkien knew (and
                      > probably liked) quite a bit about it, and could implement a similar
                      > system here.

                      Well, I don't know about semiotically. Tolkien's PE (and PQ) phonology
                      largely differs from PIE. It is more similar to Proto Finno-Ugric I'd
                      say. I cannot say whether Tolkien "liked" the traditional
                      reconstruction in terms of lámatyáve. Any clues to suggest either way?
                      Be that as it may, let it just be said that the traditional
                      reconstruction of the PIE consonant system is also typologically
                      problematic. Also, DH doesn't figure in Elvish.

                      >> In _hiruvalye_ the a is short. Hence it is to be syllabified
                      >> _hi-ru-val-ye_. That's quite regular. l+y are biphonematic here and
                      >> hence we have a long syllable. I fail to see a problem here.
                      >
                      > So are you suggesting that the syllable boundary shifts to immediately
                      > after a vowel only if the vowel is long?

                      Exactly.

                      >> Your last point (_Nurufantur_ vs *_Nuruspantur_) is a very strong
                      >> one, I think. Maybe it can be solved by assuming that _Nurufantur_ is
                      >> a later combination.
                      >
                      > We surely can. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of Quenya words
                      > derived from SK/SP/ST-initial roots with some kind of sundokarme. In
                      > the Etymologies, there's only _terhat_ (s.v. SKAT-), but that doesn't
                      > afford any help.

                      Yes, all examples that show retaining of sC- are, unfortunately,
                      Sindarin. Having looked through The Etymologies et al. I do agree
                      though that the assumption of later formation looks increasingly likely.

                      [Not _all_ examples -- cf. Q. _estel_ 'hope' < STEL 'remain firm'
                      (XI:318) and Q. _sandastan_ 'shield-barrier' < _stama-_ 'bar, exclude'
                      (UT:282 n.16). There are probably other Q. examples besides these.
                      -- PHW.]

                      David Kiltz
                    • David Kiltz
                      ... I was referring to The Etymologies. But your examples are wonderful, I didn t find them then. So _st_ would be retained. David Kiltz [As would _sk_, on the
                      Message 10 of 22 , Feb 25, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        PHW wrote:

                        > [Not _all_ examples -- cf. Q. _estel_ 'hope' < STEL 'remain firm'
                        > (XI:318) and Q. _sandastan_ 'shield-barrier' < _stama-_ 'bar, exclude'
                        > (UT:282 n.16). There are probably other Q. examples besides these.

                        I was referring to The Etymologies. But your examples are wonderful, I
                        didn't find them then.
                        So _st_ would be retained.

                        David Kiltz

                        [As would _sk_, on the basis of _askante_ 'sunder-broke' (IX:310),
                        which evidently derives from SKAT- 'break asunder' (V:386).
                        -- Patrick Wynne]
                      • Ales Bican
                        ... **Er, did I miss something? As far as I know neither the perfect of _lelya-_ (did you mean _auta-_?) nor the present tense of _lanta-_ (I suppose you mean
                        Message 11 of 22 , Mar 2, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Pavel Iosad wrote:

                          > Ales Bican wrote:
                          >
                          > >**First of all, I think there is no published writing of Tolkien's
                          > >where he would state Quenya does not permit, to simplify it, long
                          > >vowels before consonant clusters. Or course, I may be wrong, so
                          > >correct me.
                          >
                          > Indeed you are correct. Nevertheless the lack of vowel lengthening in
                          > the perfect of _lelya-_, which exhibits nasal infixion, or in the
                          > present tense of verbs like _lanta_- shows that this shortening in
                          > closed syllables is regularly forced by the phonotactics.

                          **Er, did I miss something? As far as I know neither the perfect of
                          _lelya-_ (did you mean _auta-_?) nor the present tense of _lanta-_
                          (I suppose you mean the continuous form as opposed to the aorist)
                          is attested -- or am I wrong? What do you mean?

                          > It would nicely be described by a generative-style phonology, where the
                          > morphological module would give a form like _lántar_, and the 'phonology
                          > proper' module would then give the actual output _lantar_).

                          **I see: you mean that _lantar_ in Namárie is the present tense form?
                          This is possible, though I do not think so. (However, I agree that it
                          might have be an instance of the present tense in the stage of
                          Q(u)enya when the aorist was a past tense with the perfective
                          aspect.)

                          Nevertheless, there is a form which may show that the stem-vowel
                          is not shortened if preceded by _nt_: it is the preterite _lantie_
                          "fell" (be it either the past tense or perfect; LR:56).

                          > > [_aista-_ 'to dread' (V:358) -- PHW]
                          >
                          > Also _aistana_ 'blessed' in AM, and _aista-_ in _Alcar i Ataren_.

                          **This is what I meant because this occurence of _aista-_ is compatible
                          with _onye_ and _olye_ I mentioned. Anyway, since Helge Fauskanger
                          published his wordlists (for which I think we should be very grateful,
                          because it helps the scholarship), I wonder whether it is necessary
                          to give always pages for each and every single word.

                          [It is on this list, at least for words not cited from such well-known contexts
                          as Galadriel's Lament, etc. CFH]

                          > This may have to do with etymology, since *_aistana_, the editors inform
                          > us, can be connected with an old base like GAYA(S)- (VT43:38), which
                          > gives a formation like _*(g)aiastanâ_. Now the syncope of the second _a_
                          > is a bit hard to explain, it being in a long syllable.

                          **I do not think this was the form, because the syncope would not only
                          be hard to explain but probably even impossible. I think _aista-_ was
                          derived from *_(g)ais-tâ_, as the primitive form _gais-_ under the
                          entry GÁYAS- in Etym suggests.

                          > >And the same can be applied to other Cy combinations:
                          >
                          > This is true, and in fact, can be used as an argument for my
                          > interpretation. If we consider the _my_ palatalized (which we apparently
                          > agree upon), it does mean that palatalization is a phonemically relevant
                          > feature.

                          **I am not sure if we mean the same thing, so I will specify it:
                          personally, I think _my_ in _lamya_ does not stand for a single
                          sound (phoneme) but a sequence of two sounds (phonemes), the latter
                          being [j]. If the _m_ is palatalized I cannot say, but if it is,
                          then it is palatalized syntagmatically, that is to say, the
                          palatalization is caused by the following [j]. In my opinion,
                          _my_ might be either [mj] or [m'j] phonetically, but it is /mj/
                          phonologically.

                          > > it is hard to say whether _ry_ in
                          > >_máryat_ stands for [R] (palatal _r_, I will use capitals for palatals)
                          > > or [r'] or [rj] (resp. [r'j]).
                          >
                          > In the official IPA table (cf., for instance,
                          > http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/fullchart.html; this one is quite in
                          > accord with the latest version of the IPA handbook I have access to),
                          > palatal taps/flaps or trills are not shaded (which means the
                          > articulation is considered possible), but do not have a symbol assigned,
                          > which means that no described languages has a phonemic sound of those
                          > types.

                          **Yes, I am aware of the fact it is not shaded, but I do think that if
                          there is no sign for it means it does not exist in described languages.
                          There is no sign for Czech _r-hacek_, either.

                          > >With this are connected what I would call primary and secondary Cy
                          > >combinations. Primary Cy combinations are those that existed from
                          > >Primitive Quendian (resp. Common Eldarin). They occur exclusively
                          > >word-initially.
                          >
                          > That isn't as obvious. Apparently you mean that certain word-initial
                          > consonants were palatalized, but then your use of 'combinations' is
                          > somewhat misleading.

                          **I realize I did not make myself clear, which leads to confusion.
                          Sorry. By the Cy combination I meant the way Tolkien transribed
                          his languages -- I meant graphemes but not phonemes. Such a Cy
                          combination may stand for different things on the phonological level.
                          For instance, I think the Cy combination in _tyálie_ stands for /T/
                          (sc. a voiceless palatal stop), which the Cy combination in, say,
                          _lamya_ stands for /mj/.

                          Now by the primary Cy combinations I meant cases where it stood
                          for one phoneme; the secondary ones stood for sequences of C + /j/.

                          > Combinations of C+_j_ were clearly present on the
                          > CE level, since medial combinations of this kind consistently turn out
                          > as tyelpetéma-consonants in Quenya, but also cause i-affection in
                          > Sindarin.

                          **Yes, this is what I mean by the secondary Cy combinations: they
                          arose from the contact of two mophemes in derivational processes
                          of the Elvish language.

                          > > What we do not
                          > > know is whether e.g. _n + y_ in _vanya_ produced [N] or [n'j]/[nj].
                          >
                          > Indeed. That is what the whole problem hinges on, anyway.

                          **Definitely!

                          > > I think I mentioned it in earlier posts: (a) in VT42:27 Tolkien
                          > > mentioned that "_atatya_ remained [unreduced] because the second _a_
                          > > was not syncopated, being in a long syllable";

                          [...]

                          > Syncope, for instance, is driven phonetically. From a phonological (here
                          > phonotactical) point of view, there is nothing inherently wrong with
                          > three consecutive syllables sharing a similar nucleus, phonetics
                          > however, aiming at easing of articulation, is the driving force behind
                          > the simplification of the 'redundant' elements. Since this is a phonetic
                          > rather than a phonological phenomenon, we should consider the _ty_ as a
                          > phonetic unit. According to my suggestion, _ty_ is *phonetically*
                          > bimoraic, and therefore the second syllable of _atatya_ is indeed
                          > closed.

                          **While I agree with this, I still ask why we have _onye_, _olye_ but
                          _máryat_.

                          > (As a rather important aside, I have quite forgotten to explain how, in
                          > my theory, the syllable boundary splits the [t_j] and the [j] if they
                          > are permissible word-initially. It is possible to suggest that
                          > bisegmental sequences are forbidden on both the phonetical and the
                          > phonological levels, so word-initially the _ty_'s and sundry could be
                          > pronounced without the glide owing to these constraints, but with it
                          > intervocalically. In post-pausal position, as after the nasals, it would
                          > of course be also pronounced in a single segment, but this does not
                          > create a lot of problems with regard to syllable division, since the
                          > preceding syllable would be closed anyway)

                          **Although this sounds likely and might be true, especially what regards
                          the _nCy_ sequences, I do not dare to combine all Cy combinations --
                          I mean I am not quite convinced that, say, _ty_ in _tyálie_ in the same
                          thing as _ty_ in _atatya_. At least _ny_ in _nyello_ is hardly the same
                          thing _ny_ in _enyalie_ (Cirion's Oath) -- I would say.

                          > >Another thing must also be mentioned. Quenya does not like sequences
                          > >of consonants much and if there is a sequence, it does not consist
                          > >of more than two members. In other words, we do not see combinations
                          > >of three and more consonants in Quenya. Nevertheless, we see
                          > >combinations CCy: _nty_, _ndy_, _rty_ (_lty_ not attested), _sty_,
                          > >and _hty_.
                          >
                          > Which further suggests that they are phonologically single, as Ales
                          > notes.

                          **Only if we assume that Quenya does not allow sequences of three
                          consonantal phonemes.

                          [...]

                          > After all, it must be noted that the mere fact of the phonologically
                          > irregular stress in _hiruvalye_ points that the form is marked,
                          > otherwise its formation would be blocked by a rule higher on the
                          > hierarchy (i. e. more marked)

                          **As David Kiltz already noted, the stress is not irregular if _ly_
                          here stands for /lj/, which I think is the case as is also suggested
                          by _olye_. But what about _máryat_?

                          > [...]
                          > >**In other words, an initial _d_ is not found (though _Aldudénie_ might
                          > >be an example of this under certain assumptions), which does not
                          > >necessarily mean it is forbidden.
                          >
                          > But cf. L[R]:1094-5,

                          **Where? Ok, just kidding, I know what you mean, because I am
                          familiar with the phrase. Even if I did not, I am lucky to have the
                          same edition of LotR, though other people may not be as lucky.

                          [It is not a question of "luck"; the one-volume edition is (for now) the most
                          authoritative, and is therefore the one that all _scholars_ should reference. CFH]

                          > where the phrase definitely says that the /b g gw/
                          > were only met in conjunction with the nasals, and /d/, from the turn of
                          > the phrase, is only met after /n l r/.

                          **You are right.

                          > (There's also Christopher's
                          > apparent slip in UT, where he gives the name of a Númenórean city as
                          > _Almaida_, it should apparently be #_Almalda_)

                          **Can you tell me where, I did not find in the index? And please, avoid
                          giving page numbers, as I may not be so lucky this time.

                          [It's at UT:7; Christopher Tolkien does note there that the name is hard to read.
                          Ales, you know the policy of this list, and the reasons for it. You don't have to like
                          it, or agree with it, but you do have to follow it if you want to participate in this
                          forum. I also won't have you discouraging others from acting in a scholarly
                          manner. CFH]

                          > > One would be inclined to say that
                          > > a medial _ky_ is not permitted if _Erukyerme_ (UT) and _Ekyanáro_
                          > > (VT41:14) were not attested.
                          >
                          > By the way, if you asked me, I'd give these as probable candidates for
                          > palatal rather than palatalized stops;

                          **If the _ky_ combination stands here for one phoneme, then I think
                          it is a voiceless palato-velar stop, the same sound that is
                          reconstructed for Indo-European (if I am not mistaken). However, if
                          the _ky_ stands for two phonemes, it is most likely /k/ + /j/.
                          _Erukyerme_ might be an example of the former, _Ekyanáro_ of the
                          latter.

                          > the articulatory mecanism is the
                          > same as behind the palatal status of _hy_, for which see my original
                          > post. If we suggest that _ty_ is palatal, then these are just
                          > alternative orthographies, if it is palatalized, Quenya falls into the
                          > Macedonian category. A third possibility is that _ky_ is an alternative
                          > orthography for palatalized _ty_, but this is unlikely.

                          **As I suggested, I still need more phonetic training, but as far as I
                          undertand _ky_ as a palato-velar and _ty_ as a palatal (palato-dental)
                          are different sounds.

                          [_tyelpetéma_ palatal or palatalized:]

                          > The distinction between 'palatal' and 'palatalized' can be blurry,
                          > especially for one who isn't deep into synchronic phonology. Tolkien
                          > surely knew about it, but it wasn't his primary area of interest (which
                          > is probably why we seldom get any coherent synchronic picture of
                          > Tolkien's invented languages - it doesn't possess an independent value
                          > for Tolkien, and is justified by writing poetry, cf. the passage in 'The
                          > Secret Vice'). If _ty_ were palatal, it is difficult to justify why
                          > Tolkien described it as 'similar to English _t_ in _tune_' (L:1088)',
                          > since the sound is not palatal (but rather, in British speech,
                          > pronounced with a glide!).

                          **That is not surprising for me at all. The book was written for English
                          readers, Tolkien could not suppose that they would know other
                          languages than English. Neither of the most commonly taught languages
                          (i.e. French, Spanish, German) have a palatal _t_. In fact, which
                          European languages besides Czech, Slovak and Hungarian have it?
                          The example of 'tune' was probably the one Tolkien could use (not
                          to mention that he wrote it was "probably similar", which can mean
                          anything).

                          > Also he might have included the Spanish ñ as
                          > a description of NY in the Appendix (though this is of no value as an
                          > argument)

                          **Am I blind or Tolkien did not give any hint how NY should be
                          pronounced? I have not realized it until now. As a matter of fact,
                          he did not mention LY and RY, either. If these combinations stands
                          for palatal _l_ and _r_ respectively, why was it not mentioned?

                          > > It is also supposed to have existed in old
                          > > Czech (as a reflex of _rj_), but this does not mean anything.
                          >
                          > That is rather off-topic, but that is somewhat strained to me. As I
                          > understand, the transition from palatalized [r] to the Czech r-haczek
                          > (coarticulated [r] and [Z] as in 'pleasure') only implies the addition
                          > of the fricative character and removal of the flap, and does not
                          > necessarily imply a back-and-forth place of articulation shift.

                          **To quote a "classic": "Many foreigners perceive Czech _r-hacek_,
                          an absolutely homogeneous sound, as the sound sequences _rZ_.
                          [...] In reality _r-hacek_ is only an _r_ with less amplitude in
                          vibration of the tip of the tongue, so that a frictionlike noise
                          resembling an _Z_ is audible between the trills of the _r_."
                          (Trubetzkoy, _Principles of Phonology_).

                          > >> I would suggest that _ly_, being palatalized,
                          >
                          > >**I think it is a palatal, being distinct to a palatalized _l_, which
                          > >occured between _e, i_ and a consonant, cf. App. E s.v. L: "[_l_] was,
                          > >however, to some degree 'palatalized' between _e, i_ and a consonant,
                          > >or finally after _e, i_".
                          >
                          > The part about 'to some degree' worries me a lot. I don't know much
                          > about degrees of palatalization in European languages (since the Russian
                          > non-palatalized [l] is heavily velarized, which interferes a lot), but
                          > it seems possible that the palatalization distinction could possess
                          > three grades.

                          **At any rate, this to-some-degree-palatalized _l_ must still be
                          phonologically regarded as /l/, because this palatalization is
                          a syntagmatic assimilation of [l] to immediate _e, i_. The palatal
                          _l_, if existing in the language, is not depended on the phonetic
                          environment.

                          > >> Now if _ry_ is a single consonant (it apparently is *phonologically*),
                          >
                          > >**I do not think it is obvious.
                          >
                          > I never said it was obvious. This situation is difficult to resolve
                          > (just as in natural languages), since not one of the two tests
                          > applicable to Quenya (whether the consonant makes a syllable closed;
                          > whether it can be word/syllable-initial) is not applicable to the sound
                          > in question - the first test is what we are discussing, the second one
                          > is inapplicable in case of word-initial [ry] because there's just no
                          > possible etymology for an initial [ry] (unless a RY-root is found), in
                          > case of internal syllable-initial because the first element of a cluster
                          > is either a nasal or a spirant fricative, both of which tend to
                          > assimilate with [r] and blur the distinctions.

                          **Let me know that any LY-root is not found, either. _lyenna_
                          cannot, in my opinion, be regarded as a "normal" form. It is
                          noteworthy that DY, the most likely candidate for the origin of
                          a word-initial _ly_, did not become _ly_ (as it did word-medially)
                          but instead it lost its occusive component and retained its palatal
                          one, becoming _y_. This can suggest that _ly_ is not monophonematic.
                          On the other hand, the "d" component is often lost, as _Quendya_
                          > _Quenya_ shows.


                          Ales Bican

                          --
                          kurvannapi vyalíkáni yah. priyah. priya eva sah.
                          anekadós.adus.t.ó 'pi káyah. kasya na vallabhah.
                        • Ales Bican
                          ... **I may not understand you and perhaps the confusion was caused by my failure to explain precisely what I meant the by Cy combinations. At any rate I would
                          Message 12 of 22 , Mar 2, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            David Kiltz wrote:

                            > [...]As phonetics tell us, a syllable ideally starts with a higher degree
                            > of
                            > consonanticity followed by a sound with a lower value. A somewhat
                            > simplified consonanticity hierarchy may look like this: Occlusives >
                            > Spirants (Sibilants, s having a special status) > Nasals > L,R >
                            > "half-vowels". We may call these sounds then class 1,2,3,4, and 5.
                            > Word-initially Quenya seems to allow for the following combinations:
                            > 1 + 5 (cf. _tyulusse, tyálie_),
                            > 2 + 5 (cf. _hyarin_ < SWAR-. As "h" probably represents [ç] here, it
                            > should be treated as a spirant which, historically, it certainly is.),
                            > 3 + 5 (cf. _nyello_),
                            > 4 + 5 (doubtful, _lyenna_ ?).
                            > -Note: For completness a class 6 (vowels) belongs here. It has been
                            > left out for obvious reasons. Any class + 6 would work.-

                            **I may not understand you and perhaps the confusion was caused by
                            my failure to explain precisely what I meant the by Cy combinations.
                            At any rate I would not call what you describe here combinations
                            (except for any class + 6, which are combinations of C + V). Although
                            we see here two graphemes (_ty_, _hy_, _ny_; _ly_ is doubtful), I am
                            convinced these _graphemic_ combinations stand for single phonemes.
                            So for instance, the case of _tyálie_ is not, in my view, an instance
                            of 1 + 5 (i.e. occlusive plus semivowel _y_), but just 1 (+ 6, the vowel
                            _á_), as palatals would belong to the same class with occlusives.

                            > Adding to this, PQ allows for the following additional combinations: s
                            > + 1, 3, 4, 5. (Abundant examples can be found in V, "The Etymologies".

                            **I think the situation in PQ was not much different. What is
                            transcribed as Cy (on _sy_ see below) does not stand for two phonemes
                            but for just one, I think. Basically, PQ does not allow any other
                            phonemic combinations than sC if graphemic combinations Cy are
                            monophonematic (on nasal + stop see below).

                            > Of course, certain combinations within these classes do not occur, e.g.
                            > p+y. This is most probably due to euphonic reasons.

                            **While the reasons can certainly be euphonic on Tolkien's side,
                            I think the reason why there is nothing like _p+y_ is still because
                            the word-initial graphemic Cy combinations stand for one phoneme,
                            not a combination of phonemes.

                            PQ had three basic series of localization: labial, dental and velar.
                            The dental series was split into two related series: plain dentals
                            and palato-dentals. The velar series was split to three related
                            series: plain velars, palato-velars and labio-velars. Each series
                            had a voiceless occlusive, voiced occlusive, nasal and some of
                            them voiceless aspirated occlusives. So:

                            labials: P, B, M, Ph
                            plain dentals: T, D, N, Th
                            palato-dentals: Ty, Dy, Ny (Thy not found)
                            plain velars: K, G, Ñ, Kh
                            palato-velars: Ky, Gy, (Ñy not found), Khy
                            labio-velars: Kw, Gw, (Ñw, Khw not found)

                            The rest, i.e. S, 3, R, L, Y and W stood outside this system. Then
                            there are combinations nasal + voiced occlusive (such as _mb_)
                            which may be evaluated as monophonematic (if so, they are not
                            found in palato-dentals, sc. no _ndy_ word-initially) but it is
                            not certain. I will return to them.

                            This system was reduced in noninitial positions in the root
                            (syllable): for instance, while we see aspirates on the coda
                            of a PQ syllable (e.g. KHITH), we do not see there any palatals.

                            > Given the attested Quenya words, I will argue that Quenya in principle
                            > honours the biphonemic rule but may, under certain historical
                            > circumstances, allow for a different syllabification.
                            > Case 1) The obvious instance where e.g. _ty_ is primary and hence
                            > monophonemic. Cf. _intya-_.
                            > Case 2) _máryat_. In my view this is not a violation of the biphonemic
                            > rule but has to be syllabified as má (<ma3-) +ryat. The division is
                            > due to morphological reasons and is phonetically permissible since a
                            > syllable-initial cluster "ry" is in accord with the consonanticity
                            > hierarchy for syllable-onsets outlined above.

                            **As I have already noted, the _onye_ example does not seem to be
                            compatible with _máryat_. Something similar may be with _ohlon_:
                            why is it not *_óhlon_, _hl_ being a single phoneme which implies
                            from the fact it occurs word-initially?

                            > Now for the case of _aistana-_.
                            >
                            > In "The Etymologies" one can see that PQ (or PE) allowed for a wide
                            > range of s + C clusters initially.

                            [the excursus snipped]

                            > The special behaviour of "s" that can be seen e.g. in Indo-European
                            > also seems to feature in PQ (PE). As I argued in the case of _máryat_,
                            > Quenya seems to allow certain PQaic clusters at the onset of a syllable
                            > which it has otherwise simplified word-initially.
                            > Hence, I would suggest that this is the case for "st", too.
                            > _Aistana-_ is therefore to be syllabified as _ai-stana_.

                            **There may be another explanation of _aista-_. Although it was me
                            who mentioned the form _aista-_, I cannot remember any other example
                            of a diphthong before a consonant cluster. If it is an isolated
                            example, then it might be an exception.

                            As the entry in Etym suggest, the form _aista-_ was derived from was
                            _gais-_. Since the base does not appear to be verbal and there was a
                            need for a verbal derivative, the Elvish language did not have a lot
                            of possibilities than to suffix a verbalizer. While there are a number
                            of verbalizers, the formant _-ta_ was chosen. This suffixion caused
                            that now there was a diphthong (a two-moraic unit) before a consonant
                            cluster. I think it would have normally led to reduction (change) of
                            the diphthong to _e_ (as in _Melkor_ < *_Mailkó_ < _Mailikó_, Etym s.v.
                            MIL-IK), but this change would have confused the original base GAYAS
                            with a distinct base ES-, because the form would then have been *_esta-_
                            (_esta-_ "to name"). In order to preserve the relationship with the
                            base GAYAS, the change may not have happened. In case of _aistana_,
                            the relationship was perhaps more desired to be retained because of
                            the words such as _aire_.

                            As regards _Hrísto_, this is a doubtful example, because Tolkien
                            change it to _Hristo_ immediately.

                            * * *

                            Pavel Iosad then replied to David's letter mentioning:

                            > Now there is also the question of what to allow as initial PQ clusters.
                            > There is no compelling need to suggest initial /MB ND ÑG/ are single
                            > phonemes in PQ. The African languages where such consonants are viewed
                            > as single phonemes do not allow any other initial clusters, which is not
                            > the case in PQ.

                            David replied:

                            > MB, ND, ÑG, (ÑGw) are described as the corresponding nasals to
                            > parmatéma, tincotéma, calmatéma, and quessetéma. I think they are to be
                            > understood as monophonemic. The African example is not compelling.
                            > While the lack of initial clusters in those languages points to the
                            > fact that MB etc. aren't as well, in those languages, the reverse is
                            > not necessarily true. Just because PQ has some initial clusters, MB
                            > etc. don't have to be too.

                            **I think it is possible to evaluate MB, ND, NG, NGy and NGw (NDy
                            missing) as monophonematic, even though as David notes PQ had some
                            initial clusters. However, the first component in these clusters
                            (as far as I know) was always /s/. We have these: SK, SL, SM, SN,
                            SP, ST, SW and SY + SR from a non-Etym source. In other words,
                            S is always combined with voiceless (plain) occlusives P, T and K,
                            nasals M and N (SÑ not found), liquids L and R, and semivowels Y
                            and W. Since there does not seem to be other initial clusters
                            (GR, GL, DR being late PQ/Sindarin variations of R and L, see
                            WJ:411 and VT39:11), we could perhaps evaluate these combinations
                            as monophonematic.

                            Above I tried to describe the phonologic system of PQ. The system
                            was practically the same as the system of Eldarin at the Qenya
                            stage (Eldarin being an ancestor of Qenya, PE12:15). The most
                            significant difference was the presence of spirants in all series
                            of localization, i.e. something that is not found in PQ. The role
                            of spirants was taken up by aspirates. Another difference is that
                            the Eldarin system did not have palato-velar, it had only palato-
                            dental or just palatals.

                            Now all series of localization (q-, k-, c-, t- and p-like) had
                            several "degrees": voiceless explosive, voices explosives, voiceless
                            spirants, voiced spirants, nasal and the last "degree" was
                            _nasalized explosive_. This of course may mean that these nasalized
                            explosives were monophonematic in Eldarin, though there may represent
                            two sounds phonetically, because Tolkien apparently used a bow over
                            a graphemic combination if it stood for a single sound, which is
                            not the case of the nasalized explosives.

                            What was the situation in the Etym Quenya is not certain. Another
                            important thing to mention is that the nasalized stops behaved
                            variously: sometimes they were reduced to either plain nasals
                            (in Quenya, e.g. MB > M) or plain stops (in Sindarin, MB > B),
                            but sometimes the nasal became syllabic: e.g. MBARAT > Q _umbar_.
                            This rises a question whether stems like MBAR were dissyllabic
                            or monosyllabic. Phonetically according to the sonority scale
                            they should be dissyllabic. Phonologically, however, they seem
                            to be monosyllabic.

                            Now I am eager to hear your opinions, I am sure I overlooked
                            or misunderstood several things.


                            Ales Bican

                            ps. For more on the PQ bases and syllabic sonorants in PQ
                            see Helge Fauskanger's article _Primitive Elvish_

                            http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/primelv.htm

                            and David Salo's Elfling post _Qenya -> Quenya; vocalized
                            sonorants_ from Oct, 8th, 2000

                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/3516

                            [Not to mention, Tolkien's own Qenya Phonology, in PE12. CFH]

                            --
                            kurvannapi vyalíkáni yah. priyah. priya eva sah.
                            anekadós.adus.t.ó 'pi káyah. kasya na vallabhah.
                          • David Kiltz
                            ... Seems you understood me right. There was no confusion. I simply think that _ty_, _hy_, _ny_, _ly_ are combinations of C+y. ... I beg to differ (v.s.). ...
                            Message 13 of 22 , Mar 3, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Sonntag, März 2, 2003, at 09:34 Uhr, Ales Bican wrote:

                              > **I may not understand you and perhaps the confusion was caused by
                              > my failure to explain precisely what I meant the by Cy combinations.
                              > <...>). Although we see here two graphemes (_ty_, _hy_, _ny_; _ly_ is
                              > doubtful), I am convinced these _graphemic_ combinations stand for
                              > single phonemes.

                              Seems you understood me right. There was no confusion. I simply think
                              that _ty_, _hy_, _ny_, _ly_ are combinations of C+y.

                              > Basically, PQ does not allow any other phonemic combinations than
                              > sC if graphemic combinations Cy are monophonematic (on nasal +
                              > stop see below).

                              I beg to differ (v.s.).

                              > I think the reason why there is nothing like _p+y_ is still because
                              > the word-initial graphemic Cy combinations stand for one phoneme,
                              > not a combination of phonemes.

                              I don't see the causality here. Even *if* the instances of Cy are
                              monophonemic, how would that preclude a combination _py_ (being also
                              monophonemic). Do you think a palatalized _p_ is a priori impossible ?
                              If it's not, the reason for its non-occurence is euphonic, either way.

                              **Ales gives the inventory of PQ, including:

                              > palato-dentals: Ty, Dy, Ny (Thy not found)

                              In my view there is no palato-dental series.

                              >> Case 2) _máryat_. In my view this is not a violation of the biphonemic
                              >> rule but has to be syllabified as má (<ma3-) +ryat. The division is
                              >> due to morphological reasons and is phonetically permissible since a
                              >> syllable-initial cluster "ry" is in accord with the consonanticity
                              >> hierarchy for syllable-onsets outlined above.
                              >
                              > **As I have already noted, the _onye_ example does not seem to be
                              > compatible with _máryat_. Something similar may be with _ohlon_:
                              > why is it not *_óhlon_, _hl_ being a single phoneme which implies
                              > from the fact it occurs word-initially?

                              Indeed, _onye_ and _ohlon_ seem to contradict what I said about
                              _máryat_. However, if we look very closely, the cases aren't exactly
                              the same. _Má_ is a full blown noun whereas _ó_ is a preposition.
                              _Ohlon_ is a new word. Also, inflected prepositions tend to be viewed
                              as one word as the developments of such inflections in e.g. Welsh and
                              Irish show. With _máryat_, the situation is different. Note that the
                              _á_ of _máryat_ is indeed shortened when combined with a derivational
                              element yielding a whole new word, cf: _-maite_.

                              >> As I argued in the case of _máryat_, Quenya seems to allow certain
                              >> PQaic clusters at the onset of a syllable which it has otherwise simplified
                              >> word-initially. Hence, I would suggest that this is the case for "st", too.
                              >> _Aistana-_ is therefore to be syllabified as _ai-stana_.

                              Ales notes _aista_ may be an exception and continues:

                              > As the entry in Etym suggest, the form _aista-_ was derived from was
                              > _gais-_. <...>, the formant _-ta_ was chosen. This suffixion caused
                              > that now there was a diphthong (a two-moraic unit) before a consonant
                              > cluster. I think it would have normally led to reduction (change) of
                              > the diphthong to _e_ (as in _Melkor_ < *_Mailkó_ < _Mailikó_, Etym s.v.
                              > MIL-IK), but this change would have confused the original base GAYAS
                              > with a distinct base ES-, because the form would then have been *_esta-_
                              > (_esta-_ "to name"). In order to preserve the relationship with the
                              > base GAYAS, the change may not have happened. In case of _aistana_,
                              > the relationship was perhaps more desired to be retained because of
                              > the words such as _aire_.

                              *Maybe* an irregular soundshape was retained. But that seems highly
                              unusual. In all instance of homophony that Tolkien notes, the words
                              fall out of use.

                              > As regards _Hrísto_, this is a doubtful example, because Tolkien
                              > change it to _Hristo_ immediately.

                              Which may be indicative and may not. The Greek _i_ is also short. (Note
                              that _hr_ here stands by all likelihood for two sounds, representing
                              Greek "chi+rho". If _hr_ was indeed monophonemic, why would it have
                              been chosen over simple _r_ or e.g. _kr_. Do you think that _hr_
                              represents another sound than it does normally in Quenya ?).

                              > **I think it is possible to evaluate MB, ND, NG, NGy and NGw (NDy
                              > missing) as monophonematic, <...>
                              > Another important thing to mention is that the nasalized stops behaved
                              > variously: sometimes they were reduced to either plain nasals
                              > (in Quenya, e.g. MB > M) or plain stops (in Sindarin, MB > B),
                              > but sometimes the nasal became syllabic: e.g. MBARAT > Q _umbar_.
                              > This r[a]ises a question whether stems like MBAR were dissyllabic
                              > or monosyllabic. Phonetically according to the sonority scale
                              > they should be dissyllabic. Phonologically, however, they seem
                              > to be monosyllabic.

                              I agree with you in your assessment of _MB_ etc. as monophonemic. Your
                              last sentence, however, I think is wrong. In my opinion, there is no
                              phonetic/phonological contradiction here. If _MBAR_ is indeed
                              monosyllabic it also is phonetically so. Because there is no scale
                              then. _MB_ has óne pitch, then. We are dealing with prenasalized stops
                              here, I'd say. _umbar_ may well not be a case of a syllabic _m_ but
                              actually *_ú-mbar_ "ill fate".

                              David Kiltz

                              (Unfortunately I'm unable to access two of the sources mentioned by
                              Ales an Carl: David Salo's post and PE 12 (as well as 11).
                            • Pavel Iosad
                              [PLEASE be sure to indicate clearly and accurately to whom you are responding in your posts! CFH] [David Kiltz wrote:] ... Well, yes. (I agree, anyway) Though
                              Message 14 of 22 , Mar 6, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                [PLEASE be sure to indicate clearly and accurately to whom you are
                                responding in your posts! CFH]

                                [David Kiltz wrote:]

                                > Rather my argument is that the hierarchy can be "violated" by
                                > groups of the kind "sC-". Or, in other terms, that "s", for some
                                > reason, does not violate the rule. It is sort of a "moot" consonant
                                > That's what the examples from PIE where meant to illustrate. I would
                                > posit such a behaviour for PQ as well.

                                Well, yes. (I agree, anyway) Though one would still wonder what gives it
                                the special status, since 's' is less consonantic than the stops. In
                                PIE, that's apparently its status as the only fricative. I'd hazard a
                                guess that is also the case for PQ.

                                > Okay, yet Quenya seems to try to avoid a cluster onset CR-
                                > (as it does in anlaut).

                                Exactly. With st-, however, it avoids the thing in anlaut but not in
                                inlaut.

                                > I do maintain, however, that sC- *is* a special case. We do
                                > not have a **_aitsana_. Also, there is no case of s+t > t+s that I'm aware of.

                                Yes, though _sk_ > _ks_ is present (irregularly):

                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/58
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/59

                                > > That is true. I am however yet to see an argument that MB and sundry
                                > > ARE monophonemic in PQ.
                                >
                                > Okay. Nevertheless, pre-nasalized stops are a breed of their own. Their
                                > behaviour in PQ would certainly merit a separate investigation.

                                Yes.

                                > Well, I don't know about semiotically.

                                [unmarked] - [marked by contrast 1] - [marked by contrast 1][marked by
                                contrast 2] (t-d-dh) is strange. A system like [unmarked] - [marked by
                                contrast 1] - [marked by contrast 2] (p-b-ph) is extremely widespread
                                and more concise (and caters for better transmision of distinctions).

                                > Tolkien's PE (and PQ) phonology
                                > largely differs from PIE. It is more similar to Proto Finno-Ugric I'd
                                > say. I cannot say whether Tolkien "liked" the traditional
                                > reconstruction in terms of lámatyáve. Any clues to suggest either way?

                                None. That's why I say it *can* be an argument.

                                > Be that as it may, let it just be said that the traditional
                                > reconstruction of the PIE consonant system is also typologically
                                > problematic. Also, DH doesn't figure in Elvish.

                                Substitute [+ nasalized] for [+aspirated] and you get it.

                                > > So are you suggesting that the syllable boundary shifts to immediately
                                > > after a vowel only if the vowel is long?
                                >
                                > Exactly.

                                OK. So are you suggesting that the mono- or biphonemic realization of
                                the _Cy_'s depends on whether the vowel before them is short or long?


                                Pavel
                                --
                                Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

                                Is mall a mharcaicheas am fear a bheachdaicheas
                                --Scottish proverb
                              • Pavel Iosad
                                Hello, ... I was referring to IX:56, where the forms _lendien_ and _nilendie_ occur, and they are to be compared with the first edition s _vánier_, as well
                                Message 15 of 22 , Mar 6, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hello,

                                  Ales Bican wrote:

                                  > **Er, did I miss something? As far as I know neither the perfect of
                                  > _lelya-_ (did you mean _auta-_?)

                                  I was referring to IX:56, where the forms _lendien_ and
                                  _nilendie_ occur, and they are to be compared with the first edition's
                                  _vánier_, as well with the facing page (IX:57), where the perfect of
                                  #_tuv-_'find' consistently shows a long vowel (in both of the texts):
                                  _túvien_.

                                  > Nevertheless, there is a form which may show that the stem-vowel
                                  > is not shortened if preceded by _nt_: it is the preterite _lantie_
                                  > "fell" (be it either the past tense or perfect; LR:56).

                                  _nt_ is straightforwardly a cluster, I think, there's not a lot of
                                  problem with it.

                                  > **I do not think this was the form, because the syncope would not only
                                  > be hard to explain but probably even impossible. I think _aista-_ was
                                  > derived from *_(g)ais-tâ_, as the primitive form _gais-_ under the
                                  > entry GÁYAS- in Etym suggests.

                                  This is also possible, of course.

                                  > In my opinion, _my_ might be either [mj] or [m'j] phonetically,
                                  > but it is /mj/ phonologically.

                                  I agree.

                                  > **Yes, I am aware of the fact it is not shaded, but I do think that if
                                  > there is no sign for it means it does not exist in described
                                  > languages.

                                  Yes, but it means that it has been nowhere to date found as a phoneme.

                                  > There is no sign for Czech _r-hacek_, either.

                                  That'd be coarticulated [r] and [Z].

                                  > **While I agree with this, I still ask why we have _onye_, _olye_ but
                                  > _máryat_.

                                  One explanation is because the long _á_ in _máryat_ is etymological (<
                                  *_-A3_), but the _o_ in _onye_, _olye_ is etymologically short.

                                  > **Although this sounds likely and might be true, especially what regards
                                  > the _nCy_ sequences, I do not dare to combine all Cy combinations --
                                  > [Ales suspects that the Cy combinations in anlaut and inlaut are not
                                  > one and the same thing]

                                  Well, yes, they would be pronounced differently (the difference being
                                  the presence/absence of the glide).

                                  > **Only if we assume that Quenya does not allow sequences of three
                                  > consonantal phonemes.

                                  Arguments against?

                                  > **If the _ky_ combination stands [in _Erukyerme_ and _Ekyanáro_]
                                  > for one phoneme, then I think
                                  > it is a voiceless palato-velar stop, the same sound that is
                                  > reconstructed for Indo-European (if I am not mistaken).

                                  The difference between palato-velar and palatal is not so great, anyway
                                  the two are not attested as distinctive anywhere.

                                  > **As I suggested, I still need more phonetic training, but as far as I
                                  > undertand _ky_ as a palato-velar and _ty_ as a palatal (palato-dental)
                                  > are different sounds.

                                  Vide supra. This is possible, but highly untypological.

                                  > Neither of the most commonly taught languages
                                  > (i.e. French, Spanish, German) have a palatal _t_. In fact, which
                                  > European languages besides Czech, Slovak and Hungarian have it?

                                  Latvian. Macedonian. Albanian. (note all of these are not only European,
                                  but also Indo-European)

                                  > The example of 'tune' was probably the one Tolkien could use (not
                                  > to mention that he wrote it was "probably similar", which can mean
                                  > anything).

                                  Yes.

                                  > **Am I blind or Tolkien did not give any hint how NY should be
                                  > pronounced? I have not realized it until now. As a matter of fact,
                                  > he did not mention LY and RY, either. If these combinations stands
                                  > for palatal _l_ and _r_ respectively, why was it not mentioned?

                                  _Argumenta ex nihilo_ are dangerous, so I'd answer 'Tolkien only knows'

                                  > **At any rate, this to-some-degree-palatalized _l_ must still be
                                  > phonologically regarded as /l/, because this palatalization is
                                  > a syntagmatic assimilation of [l] to immediate _e, i_. The palatal
                                  > _l_, if existing in the language, is not depended on the phonetic
                                  > environment.

                                  Yes

                                  > **Let me know that any LY-root is not found, either.[...]
                                  > This can suggest that _ly_ is not monophonematic.

                                  Alternatively, this may suggest a prohibition of initial palatal[ized]
                                  liquids (since there's no _ry_)

                                  > On the other hand, the "d" component is often lost, as _Quendya_
                                  > > _Quenya_ shows.

                                  Are there examples of this in _The Etymologies_? Remember that the
                                  example is from Q&E.

                                  Pavel
                                  --
                                  Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@m...

                                  Is mall a mharcaicheas am fear a bheachdaicheas
                                  --Scottish proverb
                                • David Kiltz
                                  ... Note however (Pomp. comm. Don.: s littera hanc habet potestatem, ut ubi opus fuerit excludatur de metro. The character of the letter s is such that it
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Mar 7, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Donnerstag, März 6, 2003, at 07:10 Uhr, Pavel Iosad wrote:

                                    > [David Kiltz wrote:]
                                    >
                                    >> Rather my argument is that the hierarchy can be "violated" by
                                    >> groups of the kind "sC-".
                                    >
                                    > Though one would still wonder what gives it
                                    > the special status, since 's' is less consonantic than the stops. In
                                    > PIE, that's apparently its status as the only fricative. I'd hazard a
                                    > guess that is also the case for PQ.

                                    Note however (Pomp. comm. Don.: s littera hanc habet potestatem, ut ubi
                                    opus fuerit excludatur de metro. "The character of the letter s is such
                                    that it can, when necessary, be omitted in meter"). Latin has more
                                    fricatives than just s and yet this applies only to s.

                                    Pavel and I differed in the use of the word "semiotical".
                                    Pavel sees a typological similarity between PIE and PQ plosive
                                    inventories, to which I replied:

                                    >> DH doesn't figure in Elvish.
                                    >
                                    > Substitute [+ nasalized] for [+aspirated] and you get it.

                                    Well yes, but that would work with plosive inventories of many
                                    languages.

                                    > So are you suggesting that the mono- or biphonemic realization of
                                    > the _Cy_'s depends on whether the vowel before them is short or long?

                                    No. I was indeed thinking of an elvish SIEVER'S at a time. But I don't
                                    see any compelling reason to assume it.

                                    David Kiltz


                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    ----------------

                                    "Cum autem nobis non dicitur, sed nobiscum; quia si ita diceretur,
                                    obscoenius concurrerent litterae, ut etiam modo, nisi autem
                                    interpossuissem, concurrissent". -Cicero
                                  • Ales Bican
                                    ... **I see. Why do you think so? ... **I was not talking about a palatalized _p_, because I do not think the graphemic Cy combinations stand for palatalized
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Mar 15, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      David Kiltz wrote:

                                      > Seems you understood me right. There was no confusion. I simply think
                                      > that _ty_, _hy_, _ny_, _ly_ are combinations of C+y.

                                      **I see. Why do you think so?

                                      > > I think the reason why there is nothing like _p+y_ is still because
                                      > > the word-initial graphemic Cy combinations stand for one phoneme,
                                      > > not a combination of phonemes.
                                      >
                                      > I don't see the causality here. Even *if* the instances of Cy are
                                      > monophonemic, how would that preclude a combination _py_ (being also
                                      > monophonemic). Do you think a palatalized _p_ is a priori impossible ?
                                      > If it's not, the reason for its non-occurence is euphonic, either way.

                                      **I was not talking about a palatalized _p_, because I do not think
                                      the graphemic Cy combinations stand for palatalized sounds, but for
                                      _palatals_. I know Pavel's arguments and I wrote in earlier posts
                                      why I think they are palatals (Tolkien said the tengwar had a series
                                      for _palatals_ and described _ty_ as a _palatal_ stop, see the earlier
                                      posts), but I would like to know yours -- why do you think they are
                                      palatalized? I am curious to know, since many people seem to think
                                      the same and perhaps I missed something?

                                      Anyway, I am not against a palatalized _p_, but since I think initial
                                      Cy combinations in PQ are monophonematic and palatals, a palatal _p_
                                      would be hard to imagine. It would be a parallel to a palatal _m_
                                      that I and Pavel talked about (namely we talked about _my_ in
                                      _lamya_).

                                      > **Ales gives the inventory of PQ, including:
                                      >
                                      > > palato-dentals: Ty, Dy, Ny (Thy not found)
                                      >
                                      > In my view there is no palato-dental series.

                                      **What do you think these combinations stand for?

                                      > Indeed, _onye_ and _ohlon_ seem to contradict what I said about
                                      > _máryat_. However, if we look very closely, the cases aren't exactly
                                      > the same. _Má_ is a full blown noun whereas _ó_ is a preposition.
                                      > _Ohlon_ is a new word.

                                      **It is. However, in WJ:367 Tolkien said that _ó-_ is "usually reduced
                                      to _o-_ when unstressed". He then gave these examples: _omentie_,
                                      _ónoni_ "twins" and _onóna_ "twin-born". I would therefore expect
                                      *_óhlon_, but since we do not see this form, I think it may suggest
                                      _hl_ here functions as a consonant cluster.

                                      > Also, inflected prepositions tend to be viewed
                                      > as one word as the developments of such inflections in e.g. Welsh and
                                      > Irish show.

                                      **Note that the _o-_ in _ohlon_ is not an inflected preposition but
                                      a prefix. And as regards _onye_, it contrasts with _óni_ where no
                                      reduction occurs because there is no consonant cluster while _ny_
                                      in _onye_ is potentially a cluster because of the reduction. If _ny_
                                      was a single phoneme (sound), there would be no reason for the
                                      reduction.

                                      > With _máryat_, the situation is different. Note that the
                                      > _á_ of _máryat_ is indeed shortened when combined with a derivational
                                      > element yielding a whole new word, cf: _-maite_.

                                      **Or in _mannar_ in Fíriel's Song. But as I wrote in the very beginning:
                                      there seems not to be any statement of Tolkien's prohibiting long vowels
                                      before a consonant cluster.

                                      > > In case of _aistana_, the relationship [with GAYAS] was perhaps
                                      > > more desired to be retained because of the words such as _aire_.
                                      >
                                      > *Maybe* an irregular soundshape was retained. But that seems highly
                                      > unusual. In all instance of homophony that Tolkien notes, the words
                                      > fall out of use.

                                      **The reason of the exception may not be just in avoiding homophony.
                                      As I said, keeping the relationship with _aire_ et al. could have
                                      played its role. As the _Melko_ example suggest, the diphthong _ai_
                                      is reduced before a consonant cluster -- and so would it be expected
                                      to be reduced before _st_. Nevertheless, I agree that the sC
                                      combinations seem to have a special status.

                                      > > As regards _Hrísto_, this is a doubtful example, because Tolkien
                                      > > change it to _Hristo_ immediately.
                                      >
                                      > Which may be indicative and may not. The Greek _i_ is also short. (Note
                                      > that _hr_ here stands by all likelihood for two sounds, representing
                                      > Greek "chi+rho". If _hr_ was indeed monophonemic, why would it have
                                      > been chosen over simple _r_ or e.g. _kr_. Do you think that _hr_
                                      > represents another sound than it does normally in Quenya ?).

                                      **Personally, I thought the name _Hristo_ was taken from Latin
                                      'Christus' where the 'ch' is pronounced as [x] (if I am not mistaken),
                                      hence _xr-_ > _r-voiceless_, just as I suppose _sr-_ > _xr-_/_hr-_
                                      > _r-voiceless_.

                                      However, despire what was pointed by others (esp. Petri), I also
                                      think that we may deal with two phonemes (rather then phones) here,
                                      namely _h_ + _r_. This combination may be realized as voiceless
                                      _r_ word-initially (which be d'accord with Tolkien's words cited
                                      by Petri) but as a biphonic combination _hr_ word-medially (which
                                      would explain _ohlon_).

                                      When I studied Old English grammars when working on the Atalante
                                      fragment analysis, I found out that OE has _hr_, _hl_, _hy_ and
                                      _hw_ occurring only word-initially (and in compounds). This is
                                      where Tolkien took the idea, I suppose. However, I have not been
                                      able to find out how these _hr, hl, hy, hw_ are treated
                                      phonologically: whether as a biphonemic combinations _h_ + sonant
                                      or monophonemic voiceless sonants.

                                      > > Phonetically according to the sonority scale [stems like MBAR]
                                      > > should be dissyllabic. Phonologically, however, they seem
                                      > > to be monosyllabic.
                                      >
                                      > I agree with you in your assessment of _MB_ etc. as monophonemic.
                                      > Your last sentence, however, I think is wrong. In my opinion, there is
                                      > no phonetic/phonological contradiction here. If _MBAR_ is indeed
                                      > monosyllabic it also is phonetically so. Because there is no scale
                                      > then. _MB_ has óne pitch, then.

                                      **What I meant to say is that for instance MBAR may represent
                                      two phonetic syllables M and BAR if M is here syllabic. However,
                                      phonologically MBAR may be just one syllable if we assume that
                                      PQ did not allow any word-initial consonantal combinations except
                                      for _s_ + consonant (under the assumtion that Cy combinations are
                                      monophonematic -- and I think they are).

                                      As far as I know (though I have not been able to investigate details
                                      yet) K. L. Pike made a distinction between phonetic and phonemic
                                      syllables (in his _Phonemics_). Reportedly, he mentioned that the
                                      word [Ndá:] in the Mixteco language; this word is both phonetically
                                      and phonemically dissyllabic, but whereas the syllable separation is
                                      [N-dá:] phonetically, it is /nda-a/ phonemically, because Mixteco
                                      is a tone language, where each syllable has a tone but [N] has no
                                      tone, and _nd-_ is one phoneme, because there are otherwise no
                                      consonant clusters in the language.

                                      > We are dealing with prenasalized stops here, I'd say.

                                      **Yes, they seem to be (Tolkien speaks about them as nasalized
                                      explosives in _The Qenya Phonology_).

                                      > _umbar_ may well not be a case of a syllabic _m_ but
                                      > actually *_ú-mbar_ "ill fate".

                                      **Sure, that is possible. However, there are other examples, like
                                      ÑGYÓ > Q _indyo_.

                                      > (Unfortunately I'm unable to access two of the sources mentioned by
                                      > Ales an Carl: David Salo's post and PE 12 (as well as 11).

                                      **I understand that you are not able to access PE12, as it is out of
                                      print (which does not help the scholarship at all!), but David's post
                                      should be accessible via www. If you are still unable to access it,
                                      let me know off-list and I will forward it to you.

                                      [Out of print does not necessarily mean inaccessible; there is,
                                      _inter alia_, library loan. CFH]

                                      Ales Bican

                                      --
                                      kurvannapi vyalíkáni yah. priyah. priya eva sah.
                                      anekadós.adus.t.ó 'pi káyah. kasya na vallabhah.
                                    • Ales Bican
                                      ... **You are right, thanks. Here, however, we cannot say the morphological module would give a form like *_léndie_ and the phonology proper module would
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Mar 16, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Pavel Iosad wrote:

                                        > > **Er, did I miss something? As far as I know neither the perfect of
                                        > > _lelya-_ (did you mean _auta-_?)
                                        >
                                        > I was referring to IX:56, where the forms _lendien_ and
                                        > _nilendie_ occur, and they are to be compared with the first edition's
                                        > _vánier_, as well with the facing page (IX:57), where the perfect of
                                        > #_tuv-_'find' consistently shows a long vowel (in both of the texts):
                                        > _túvien_.

                                        **You are right, thanks. Here, however, we cannot say the
                                        morphological module would give a form like *_léndie_ and
                                        the 'phonology proper' module would then give the actual
                                        output _lendie_, because the stem was already strengthened
                                        by a nasal-infixed _n_, which is comparable to the lengthening
                                        in, say, _káre_ "made, did".

                                        By the way, what about the present tense of _lanta-_? Did you
                                        mean the form _lantar_ in Namárie?

                                        > > Nevertheless, there is a form which may show that the stem-vowel
                                        > > is not shortened if preceded by _nt_: it is the preterite _lantie_
                                        > > "fell" (be it either the past tense or perfect; LR:56).
                                        >
                                        > _nt_ is straightforwardly a cluster, I think, there's not a lot of
                                        > problem with it.

                                        **So is _nd_.

                                        > > There is no sign for Czech _r-hacek_, either.
                                        >
                                        > That'd be coarticulated [r] and [Z].

                                        **Is it? As far as I understand and as I hear, it is not coarticulated. Or
                                        does the quotation from Trubetzkoy suggest so?

                                        > > **While I agree with this, I still ask why we have _onye_, _olye_ but
                                        > > _máryat_.
                                        >
                                        > One explanation is because the long _á_ in _máryat_ is etymological (<
                                        > *_-A3_), but the _o_ in _onye_, _olye_ is etymologically short.

                                        **I do not think so. The base in Etym is given as WÔ (though in _Quendi
                                        and Eldar_ as WO, WJ:367).

                                        > > **Although this sounds likely and might be true, especially what regards
                                        > > the _nCy_ sequences, I do not dare to combine all Cy combinations --
                                        > > [Ales suspects that the Cy combinations in anlaut and inlaut are not
                                        > > one and the same thing]
                                        >
                                        > Well, yes, they would be pronounced differently (the difference being
                                        > the presence/absence of the glide).

                                        **Now the question whether the glide is phonologic, I mean whether the
                                        glide is a separate phoneme.

                                        > > **If the _ky_ combination stands [in _Erukyerme_ and _Ekyanáro_]
                                        > > for one phoneme, then I think
                                        > > it is a voiceless palato-velar stop, the same sound that is
                                        > > reconstructed for Indo-European (if I am not mistaken).
                                        >
                                        > The difference between palato-velar and palatal is not so great, anyway
                                        > the two are not attested as distinctive anywhere.

                                        **The degree of difference is relative. I can say the difference between
                                        the sound in English _bad_ and _bed_ is not so great (and I still would
                                        hesitate which one is which if one of the words was uttered without any
                                        context), yet it is distinctive in English.
                                        And the typology obstacle is not so relevant. The _r-hacek_ (now that
                                        we speak about it) is also very rare.
                                        Here I mean the situation in Primitive Quendian rather, because _ky_
                                        in Q _Erukyerme_ and _Ekyanáro_ may be just a variant of _ty_.

                                        > > Neither of the most commonly taught languages
                                        > > (i.e. French, Spanish, German) have a palatal _t_. In fact, which
                                        > > European languages besides Czech, Slovak and Hungarian have it?
                                        >
                                        > Latvian. Macedonian. Albanian. (note all of these are not only European,
                                        > but also Indo-European)

                                        **And that is the problem: Tolkien could not have mentioned either
                                        of these languages, because a normal English reader could not know
                                        either of them.

                                        > > On the other hand, the "d" component is often lost, as _Quendya_
                                        > > > _Quenya_ shows.
                                        >
                                        > Are there examples of this in _The Etymologies_? Remember that the
                                        > example is from Q&E.

                                        **There is _endya_ and _enya_ "middle" under the base ENED.


                                        Ales Bican

                                        --
                                        kurvannapi vyalíkáni yah. priyah. priya eva sah.
                                        anekadós.adus.t.ó 'pi káyah. kasya na vallabhah.
                                      • Lukas Novak
                                        ... AFAIK and hear, it is like [r], only the frequency of trilling is about thrice as high. I think that pronunciation as coarticulated [r] and [Z] would be
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Mar 16, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Ales Bican wrote:

                                          >> > There is no sign for Czech _r-hacek_, either.
                                          >>
                                          >> That'd be coarticulated [r] and [Z].

                                          > **Is it? As far as I understand and as I hear, it is not coarticulated. Or
                                          > does the quotation from Trubetzkoy suggest so?

                                          AFAIK and hear, it is like [r], only the frequency of trilling is
                                          about thrice as high. I think that pronunciation as coarticulated [r]
                                          and [Z] would be funny and incorrect (it would betray a stranger :-)).

                                          Lukas
                                        • David Kiltz
                                          ... I will address this issue in a seperate post. ... I understand now. ... Again more on that seperately. ... Yes, I don t see how a labial could be anything
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Mar 16, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On Samstag, März 15, 2003, at 06:53 Uhr, Ales Bican wrote:

                                            > David Kiltz wrote:
                                            >
                                            >> Seems you understood me right. There was no confusion. I simply think
                                            >> that _ty_, _hy_, _ny_, _ly_ are combinations of C+y.
                                            >
                                            > **I see. Why do you think so?

                                            I will address this issue in a seperate post.

                                            > **I was not talking about a palatalized _p_, because I do not think
                                            > the graphemic Cy combinations stand for palatalized sounds, but for
                                            > _palatals_.

                                            I understand now.

                                            > -- why do you think they are palatalized?

                                            Again more on that seperately.

                                            > Anyway, I am not against a palatalized _p_, but since I think initial
                                            > Cy combinations in PQ are monophonematic and palatals, a palatal _p_
                                            > would be hard to imagine. It would be a parallel to a palatal _m_
                                            > that I and Pavel talked about (namely we talked about _my_ in
                                            > _lamya_).

                                            Yes, I don't see how a labial could be anything other than "palatalized".

                                            >> **Ales gives the inventory of PQ, including:
                                            >>
                                            >>> palato-dentals: Ty, Dy, Ny (Thy not found)
                                            >>
                                            >> In my view there is no palato-dental series.
                                            >
                                            > **What do you think these combinations stand for?

                                            Well, a palato-dental, in my view, is a "palatalized" sound. Maybe they
                                            where palato-alveolars or lamino-palatals (i.e. articulated at the same
                                            place as e.g. English [sh and zh]). At any rate an inventory with regular
                                            palatals + palato-dentals looks very dubious. Again, I think true dental
                                            pronunciation only allows for palatalization.

                                            > in WJ:367 Tolkien said that _ó-_ is "usually reduced
                                            > to _o-_ when unstressed". He then gave these examples: _omentie_,
                                            > _ónoni_ "twins" and _onóna_ "twin-born". I would therefore expect
                                            > *_óhlon_, but since we do not see this form, I think it may suggest
                                            > _hl_ here functions as a consonant cluster.

                                            Yes, I agree. Just as _ry_ is.

                                            >> Also, inflected prepositions tend to be viewed as one word as the
                                            >> developments of such inflections in e.g. Welsh and Irish show.
                                            >
                                            > **Note that the _o-_ in _ohlon_ is not an inflected preposition but
                                            > a prefix. And as regards _onye_, it contrasts with _óni_ where no
                                            > reduction occurs because there is no consonant cluster while _ny_
                                            > in _onye_ is potentially a cluster because of the reduction. If _ny_
                                            > was a single phoneme (sound), there would be no reason for the
                                            > reduction.

                                            Just what I said. I noted that _ó_ is a preposition and that it is
                                            inflected. I am and was quite aware that _ohlon_ is not an inflected
                                            preposition. My remarks were meant to contrast this, in my view perfectly
                                            regular behaviour, with that of _máryat_. Interestingly, you're answering your
                                            own question about _ny_. I think it stands for _n+y_, a cluster indeed.

                                            >> Note that the _á_ of _máryat_ is indeed shortened when combined
                                            >> with a derivational element yielding a whole new word, cf: _-maite_.
                                            >
                                            > there seems not to be any statement of Tolkien's prohibiting long
                                            > vowels before a consonant cluster.

                                            But we see reduction almost everywhere else.

                                            > **The reason of the exception may not be just in avoiding homophony.
                                            > As I said, keeping the relationship with _aire_ et al. could have played its role.

                                            Agreed.

                                            > **Personally, I thought the name _Hristo_ was taken from Latin
                                            > 'Christus' where the 'ch' is pronounced as [x] (if I am not mistaken),
                                            > hence _xr-_ > _r-voiceless_, just as I suppose _sr-_ > _xr-_/_hr-_
                                            > _r-voiceless_.

                                            The word is of Greek origin. Why would it be taken from Latin where it
                                            is itself a loan? Also, in view of Christian-Latin texts and the development
                                            of the word "Christus" in the Romanic languages (_cr-_) I think it was
                                            pronounced [kr]. That makes a direct loan from Greek into Quenya even
                                            more likely, I'd say.

                                            > I found out that OE has _hr_, _hl_, _hy_ and
                                            > _hw_ occurring only word-initially (and in compounds). This is
                                            > where Tolkien took the idea, I suppose. However, I have not been
                                            > able to find out how these _hr, hl, hy, hw_ are treated
                                            > phonologically: whether as a biphonemic combinations _h_ + sonant
                                            > or monophonemic voiceless sonants.

                                            1) They are biphonemic combinations as can be gleaned from their use in
                                            alliterative verse. These _h_'s go back to pre-Germanic _k_.

                                            2) I don't think this is where Tolkien got the inspiration. At least
                                            not in the case of _hl_ and _hr_ which < *_sl_ and *_sr_. I'd warrant
                                            the guess that the sounds (voiceless _l_ and _r_), were suggested to
                                            him by Welsh.

                                            David Kiltz
                                          • Lukas Novak
                                            ... Please excuse my amateur query: Would the distinction between Polish c-acute or s-acute and cz, sz respectively, be of the kind you re speaking about?
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Mar 17, 2003
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              David Kiltz wrote:

                                              > Well, a palato-dental, in my view, is a "palatalized" sound. Maybe they
                                              > were palato-alveolars or lamino-palatals (i.e. articulated at the same
                                              > place as e.g. English [sh and zh]).
                                              > At any rate an inventory with regular palatals + palato-dentals looks
                                              > very dubious.

                                              Please excuse my amateur query: Would the distinction between Polish
                                              c-acute or s-acute and cz, sz respectively, be of the kind you're
                                              speaking about?

                                              Lukas
                                            • Ales Bican
                                              ... **Ok. Am looking forward to. ... **As I said I was not a phonetician. What I mean by palato-dentals is the sounds like _t , d _ in Czech and Hungarian
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Apr 9 7:51 AM
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                David Kiltz wrote:

                                                > >> Seems you understood me right. There was no confusion. I simply think
                                                > >> that _ty_, _hy_, _ny_, _ly_ are combinations of C+y.
                                                > >
                                                > > **I see. Why do you think so?
                                                >
                                                > I will address this issue in a seperate post.

                                                **Ok. Am looking forward to.

                                                > > **What do you think these combinations (Ty, Dy, Ny (+Thy)) stand for?
                                                >
                                                > Well, a palato-dental, in my view, is a "palatalized" sound. Maybe they
                                                > where palato-alveolars or lamino-palatals (i.e. articulated at the same
                                                > place as e.g. English [sh and zh]).

                                                **As I said I was not a phonetician. What I mean by palato-dentals is
                                                the sounds like _t', d'_ in Czech and Hungarian (called "palatals" in IPA).
                                                They are not palatalized in the sense that the palatalization is a kind of
                                                secondary articulation, a timbre added to primary articulation. Of course,
                                                the difference between a palatal _t'_ and palatalized _t_ would be very
                                                difficult to perceive.

                                                They may well be palato-alveolars, but the difference between alveolars
                                                and dentals is not relevant here; English _t_ is alveolar, while Czech _t_
                                                is dental or rather pre-alveolar. I chose to call them dentals, because Tolkien
                                                speaks about these sounds as dentals.

                                                > At any rate an inventory with regular
                                                > palatals + palato-dentals looks very dubious. Again, I think true dental
                                                > pronunciation only allows for palatalization.

                                                **It is certainly a little bit strange to have both palato-velars and palato-
                                                dentals in one system. The question is how else interpret KY and TY.

                                                > > in WJ:367 Tolkien said that _ó-_ is "usually reduced
                                                > > to _o-_ when unstressed". He then gave these examples: _omentie_,
                                                > > _ónoni_ "twins" and _onóna_ "twin-born". I would therefore expect
                                                > > *_óhlon_, but since we do not see this form, I think it may suggest
                                                > > _hl_ here functions as a consonant cluster.
                                                >
                                                > Yes, I agree. Just as _ry_ is.

                                                **This is what I think from the beginning -- and therefore we can have
                                                a long vowel before a consonant cluster (sc. _máryat_).

                                                > > **Note that the _o-_ in _ohlon_ is not an inflected preposition but
                                                > > a prefix. And as regards _onye_, it contrasts with _óni_ where no
                                                > > reduction occurs because there is no consonant cluster while _ny_
                                                > > in _onye_ is potentially a cluster because of the reduction. If _ny_
                                                > > was a single phoneme (sound), there would be no reason for the
                                                > > reduction.
                                                >
                                                > Just what I said. I noted that _ó_ is a preposition and that it is
                                                > inflected. I am and was quite aware that _ohlon_ is not an inflected
                                                > preposition. My remarks were meant to contrast this, in my view perfectly
                                                > regular behaviour, with that of _máryat_. Interestingly, you're answering your
                                                > own question about _ny_. I think it stands for _n+y_, a cluster indeed.

                                                **Again, I think the same from the beginning when I talked about
                                                primary and secondary Cy combinations. The question is now
                                                whether the combination _ny_ should be identified with word-initial
                                                _ny-_, I mean whether we could say that the biphonematic combination
                                                /nj/ is realized as [nj] (resp. [n'j] or [Nj]; n' = palatalized; N = palatal n)
                                                intervocalically and as [N] word-initially and after another consonant
                                                (i.e. in cases like _nty_ or _lty_). I hesitate to do so, though.

                                                > >> Note that the _á_ of _máryat_ is indeed shortened when combined
                                                > >> with a derivational element yielding a whole new word, cf: _-maite_.
                                                > >
                                                > > there seems not to be any statement of Tolkien's prohibiting long
                                                > > vowels before a consonant cluster.
                                                >
                                                > But we see reduction almost everywhere else.

                                                **That is true. And my best explanation is that _máryat_ is some kind
                                                of exception.

                                                > > **Personally, I thought the name _Hristo_ was taken from Latin
                                                > > 'Christus' where the 'ch' is pronounced as [x] (if I am not mistaken),
                                                > > hence _xr-_ > _r-voiceless_, just as I suppose _sr-_ > _xr-_/_hr-_
                                                > > _r-voiceless_.
                                                >
                                                > The word is of Greek origin. Why would it be taken from Latin where it
                                                > is itself a loan?

                                                **Well, I am not skilled in these things. I just thought that _María_ seemed
                                                to be taken from Latin and so could _Hristo_ be.

                                                > Also, in view of Christian-Latin texts and the development
                                                > of the word "Christus" in the Romanic languages (_cr-_) I think it was
                                                > pronounced [kr]. That makes a direct loan from Greek into Quenya even
                                                > more likely, I'd say.

                                                **I may be wrong but I have always thought it was pronounced
                                                [xr-] in Greek, since Greek had the [x] sound, and this pronunciation
                                                was used in Latin, too. I may be wrong, of course.

                                                [on _hl, hr_ etc. in Old English:]

                                                > 1) They are biphonemic combinations as can be gleaned from their use in
                                                > alliterative verse. These _h_'s go back to pre-Germanic _k_.

                                                **I see. I suspected it was so.

                                                > 2) I don't think this is where Tolkien got the inspiration. At least
                                                > not in the case of _hl_ and _hr_ which < *_sl_ and *_sr_. I'd warrant
                                                > the guess that the sounds (voiceless _l_ and _r_), were suggested to
                                                > him by Welsh.

                                                **Thanks for the information. I do not know any Welsh but I
                                                know a little bit Old English, so this is why I thought so.
                                                Anyway, what is the phonologic status of _hr_ and _hl_ in Welsh
                                                then? And are you suggesting that they are reflexes of _sl_ and
                                                _sr_?


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