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

Re: Palatalization and Syllabification in Quenya

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.