- ... Two forms are actually given for each of these words in the _Etymologies_: N. _gadr, gador_ prison, dungeonMessage 1 of 9 , Mar 13 4:08 PMView SourceBoris Shapiro wrote:
> Do you know anything about rare cases of -r derivation in OldTwo forms are actually given for each of these words in the
> Noldorin? I mean cases like N _gador_ "prison" (V:358) and _nadhor_
> "pasture" (V:374) which come from _GAT_ and _NAT_ and have neither R
> in their roots nor any sense of agental meaning in themselves.
_Etymologies_: N. _gadr, gador_ 'prison, dungeon' < GAT(H) (whence
also N. _gath_ 'cavern', N. _gathrod_ 'cave', and Dor. _gad_
'fence'); and N. _nadhor, nadhras_ 'pasture' < NAD- (whence also Q.
_nanda_ water-mead, watered plain', N. _nand, nann_ 'wide
grassland', and Dor. _nand_ 'field, valley'). So this suggests
that we are dealing with a series of _three_ related N. endings:
_-r, -or, -ras_.
> There is no agentive suffix, as far as I can tell, especially sinceThe structure of _gadr, gador_ 'prison, dungeon' resembles that of
> these are inanimate abstracts. It is suggested by David Salo that
> they come from ON _*gatr-_ and _*nadr-_. Where could this _-r_ come
> from in ON? ...
the N. adjective _agr, agor_ 'narrow', < *_akrâ_ < AK- 'narrow,
confined' (V:348). Perhaps _gadr, gador_ was in origin an adjective
_*gatrâ_ 'completely enclosed, fenced in', which came to be used
substantively. Similarly, _nadhor_ 'pasture' could derive from a
primitive adj. _*nadrâ_, perhaps 'grassy, grass-covered' (or
'flat, level'?). Noldorin, like Quenya, could use the same form as
both a noun and an adjective, e.g. N. _gloss_ noun 'snow' and adj.
'snow-white' < GOLÓS- (V:359) and N. _mael_ noun 'stain' and adj.
'stained' < _*magla_ < SMAG- 'soil, stain' (V:386).
The alternative form _nadhras_ of _nadhor_ 'pasture' points toward
the ending in both forms originating from _*-râ_, with _nadhras_
from the primitive adj. _*nadrâ_ + _-ssê_ abstract noun suffix,
with the sense 'grassiness' > 'pasture'. For Q. _-sse_ / N. _-s_
abstract suffix, compare Q. _handa_ / N. _hann_ 'intelligent', Q.
_handasse_ / N. _hannas_ 'intelligence' (V:363).
All three endings _-r, -or-, -ras_ occur together in the N.
derivatives of the root UB- 'abound', which yielded N. _ofr_ (_ovr_)
and _ovor_ 'abundant' (the primitive form is given as _*ubrâ_),
and _ovras_ 'crowd, heap, etc.' (V:396). Here _-(o)r_ remains
adjectival, with _-ras_ marking the derived noun. Why the adj./noun
distinction is retained in _ovor_/_ovras_ but not in
_nadhor_/_nadhras_ I don't know.
> ... Is it, perhaps, connected with rare cases like ON nounsInterpretation of ON _etledro_ as *'exile (as an act, not person)'
> _ndakro_ "battle" (V:375) and _etledro_ possibly "exile *(as an act,
> not person)" (V:368) where agentive _-ro_ seems to form inanimate
seems highly unlikely in light of the manner in which this form
is given in _Etym._: "_egledhron_ exile (ON _etledro_), _eglenn_
exiled (ON _etlenna_)". This indicates that _etledro_ must be
directly equivalent in meaning to N. _egledhron_ 'exile', of
which Tolkien says: "In N _egledhron_ was often taken as
the meaning of Ilk. _Eglath_ == Eldar == Ilkorins" (V:368).
It is clear from the latter passage that N. _egledhron_
and ON _etledro_ meant 'exile' in the personal, agentive
sense: 'one who has gone into exile'.
-- Patrick H. Wynne
- Aiya! Friday, March 14, 2003, 3:08:55 AM, pa2rick wrote: ... p Interpretation of ON _etledro_ asMessage 2 of 9 , Mar 13 8:56 PMView SourceAiya!
Friday, March 14, 2003, 3:08:55 AM, pa2rick wrote:
<skipping a thorough explanation for which I am grateful>
>> ... Is it, perhaps, connected with rare cases like ON nounsp> Interpretation of ON _etledro_ as *'exile (as an act, not person)'
>> _ndakro_ "battle" (V:375) and _etledro_ possibly "exile *(as an act,
>> not person)" (V:368) where agentive _-ro_ seems to form inanimate
p> seems highly unlikely in light of the manner in which this form
p> is given in _Etym._:
I agree with you. Still, do you have any ideas about ON _ndakro_ "battle"?
Namaarie! S.Y., Elenhil Laiquendo [Boris Shapiro]
: ilqua mi ambar cenin enyalta · wende i ea nin melya laa malta :
- Boris Shapiro asked if anyone has any ideas about the use of _-ro_ as an abstract noun ending in ON _ndakro_ slaughter, battle (V:375). In all otherMessage 3 of 9 , Mar 16 8:34 AMView SourceBoris Shapiro asked if anyone has any ideas about the use of _-ro_ as
an abstract noun ending in ON _ndakro_ 'slaughter, battle' (V:375).
In all other occurrences of ON _-ro_ in the _Etymologies_, it acts as
an agentive ending:
ON _biuro, bioro_ 'follower, vassal' < _*beurô_ < BEW- 'follow,
ON _etledro_ 'exile' (i.e. *'one who goes into exile') < LED- 'go,
ON _wanúro_ 'brother' < NÔ- 'beget'.
ON _sthabro(ndo)_ 'carpenter, wright, builder' < _*stabrô_ < STAB-.
There seem to me to be three potential explanations for _ndakro_:
Given the paucity of attested ON forms, _ndakro_ might be the sole
recorded example of an ON abstract noun ending _-ro_ homophonous with
ON agentive _-ro_. The ON agentive ending derives from earlier
_*-rô_, as shown by the forms _*beurô_ and _*stabrô_ in the
list above; a putative ON abstract ending _-ro_ might also be from
earlier _*-rô_, or it could alternatively derive from _*-ru_,
since in ON (as in Quenya) original short final _*-u_ yielded _-o_,
as _*smalu_ 'pollen, yellow powder' > Q. _malo_, ON _malo_ (V:386).
There is, however, no evidence in the _Etymologies_ to support the
existence of this theoretical ending _*-ru_.
ON _ndakro_ might be an agentive < ON _ndakie_ 'to slay' (< NDAK-
'slay') formed with the same ending seen in ON _biuro_, _etledro_,
etc. and literally meaning *'slayer, one who slays'. By this
interpretation, _nkadro_ would be a _personification_ of 'slaughter,
battle', the great 'slayer' of Men and Elves. The _Etymologies_ gives
one explicit example of personification, which also (perhaps
significantly) pertains to loss of life: Q _nuru_ 'Death', "_Nuru_
(personified) = Mandos" (V:377 s.v. ÑGUR). The ON forms are
Theories 1) and 2) both depend on the assumption that _ndakro_ is a
noun, equivalent to N _dagr_, _dagor_ 'battle'. However, the English
words 'slaughter' and 'battle' are also _verbs_, and it might be that
_ndakro_ is an ON verb *'to slaughter, to battle', equivalent to N
_dagro_ 'to battle, make war' cited in the same entry, just as ON
_ndakie_ 'to slay' is equivalent to N _degi_ 'to slay'. Tolkien does
not always include the infinitive preposition "to" in his glosses in
the _Etymologies_, even when verb/noun ambiguity might arise, e.g.
_nak-_ 'bite' (V:374), and at least one other ON verb is cited ending
in short final _-o_: ON _tuio-_ 'swell, grow fat' s.v. TIW- (V:394).
The symmetry of ON _ndakie_ 'to slay' = N. _degi_, and ON _ndakro_
'slaughter, battle' = N. _dagro_ 'to battle, make war' is compelling.
But there are counterindications as well: A) Tolkien is careful to
mark infinitives with "to" elsewhere in the NDAK- entries (ON
_ndakie_ 'to slay', N. _degi_ 'to slay', N. _dagro_ 'to battle, make
war'), so if _ndakro_ is a verb, it seems likely Tolkien would have
glossed it as 'to slaughter, battle'; B) _ndakro_ does not end in a
hyphen, as one might expect if it is a verb like ON _tuio-_; and C)
there are no other attestations of an ON verb in _-ro_, although the
existence of several N. verbs in the _Etymologies_ ending in _-ro_
(_glavro_ 'to babble' < GLAM-, _pathro_ 'fill' < KWAT-, _lhathro_
'listen in, eavesdrop' < LAS(2)-) suggests that it probably existed
in ON as well.
I will add that the reading _ndakro_ 'slaughter, battle' in the
published _Etymologies_ is entirely accurate; the final _-o_ is
clear, and there is no final hyphen.
-- Patrick H. Wynne
- ... If I read it correctly, _ndakro_ is given as a ON form (just as _ndagno_ slain ). [Absolutely -- this is not a contested point. I merely wished to make itMessage 4 of 9 , Mar 16 10:39 AMView SourceOn Sonntag, März 16, 2003, at 05:34 Uhr, Patrick H. Wynne wrote:
> I will add that the reading _ndakro_ 'slaughter, battle' in theIf I read it correctly, _ndakro_ is given as a ON form (just as
> published _Etymologies_ is entirely accurate; the final _-o_ is
> clear, and there is no final hyphen.
[Absolutely -- this is not a contested point. I merely wished
to make it clear that the reading was not _**ndakra_ or
_**ndakro-_. -- PHW]
ON already shows the transition PQ _â_ > _ô_ as exemplified by *_ndâkô_
> ON _ndóko_ in the same entry. This allows us to retrace the form toeither PQ *_ndakrô_ or _ndakrâ_.
[Not necessarily. Original long final _*-â_ usually yields _-a_ in ON,
as in ON _gâesra, gêrrha_ 'dreadful' < _*gaisrâ_, ON _tára_ 'lofty'
< _*târâ_, and ON _wóra_ 'soiled, dirty' < _*wa3râ_, to only cite
those forms ending in _-ra_ (V:358, 389, 397). There is one
certain example of an ON form with _-o_ < _*-â_ -- _batthô'-_
'trample' < _*battâ'-_ (V:351-2) -- but this is set against a
majority of forms in which PQ _*-â_ > ON _-a_. -- PHW]
In Indo-European transitions from agent to action noun are frequent.
In Elvish, however, *_-ô_ (and thus *_-rô_) seems to refer explicitly
to (male) persons. If, however, we take the form to be originally in
*_-râ_ (with +_â_ seemingly representing a kind of neuter, or at least
a not sex/person-specific form) we end up with something like
"the slaying, killing thing, event, aut sim.".
This interpretation is, in my eyes, especially suggestive, since two
English semantically very close words, namely _slaughter_ and _murder_
are formed similarly.
The first is a loan from OldNorse and derives from a root *_slax-_ "to
slay, butcher". The corresponding Old Norse from is _slátr_ "butcher's
meat". The second word derives from OldEnglish _morthor_ (influenced by
OldFrench _murdre_).Proto-forms can be reconstructed as *_slaxtram_
and *_murthram_ (the latter can also be masculine).
What, I think, makes the comparison so compelling, is that both words
are neuter _-r_ extensions. Cf. also the shorter forms in
(Modern) German _Schlacht_ "battle" and _Mord_ "murder".
So, maybe we're dealing with a suffix *_-râ_ here. At any
rate, I think the Germanic parallel is suggestive.
- ... I know. I wasn t criticizing. I just wanted to hook on to it. ... That is a severe counter-argument. One would then have to resort to other explanations.Message 5 of 9 , Mar 16 1:33 PMView SourceOn Sonntag, März 16, 2003, at 07:39 Uhr, Patrick Wynne commented:
>> If I read it correctly, _ndakro_ is given as a ON form (just asI know. I wasn't criticizing. I just wanted to hook on to it.
>> _ndagno_ "slain").
> [Absolutely -- this is not a contested point. I merely wished
> to make it clear that the reading was not _**ndakra_ or
> _**ndakro-_. -- PHW]
>> ON already shows the transition PQ _â_ > _ô_ as exemplified byThat is a severe counter-argument. One would then have to resort to
>> *_ndâkô_ > ON _ndóko_ in the same entry. This allows us to
>> retrace the form to either PQ *_ndakrô_ or _ndakrâ_.
> [Not necessarily. Original long final _*-â_ usually yields _-a_ in ON,
> There is one certain example of an ON form with _-o_ < _*-â_
> -- _batthô'-_ 'trample' < _*battâ'-_ (V:351-2) -- but this is set
> against a majority of forms in which PQ _*-â_ > ON _-a_. -- PHW]
other explanations. _Ndagno_ could, perhaps, be also seen as deriving
from *_ndaknâ_ . Maybe Tolkien changed the outcome of PQ *_-â_
just in this entry or maybe an original PQ *_-ra_ was later strengthened
(in, say, a Proto-Telerin phase). I have to admit, this doesn't look too
good. But who knows. Still, I would think that the parallel to the
Germanic forms isn't entirely fortuitous.
[It seems likely to me that ON _ndagno_ 'slain (as noun), corpse'
was formed from an ON participle _*ndagna_ 'slain', with the
addition of the suffix _-o_ serving to make the participle into
a noun. This same process appears in Quenya forms in the
_Etymologies_, e.g. adj. _vanima_ 'fair' > nouns _Vanimo_ pl.
_Vanimor_ 'the beautiful' (children of the Valar), _Úvanimor_
'monster' (V:351). Attested examples of the ON participial or
adjectival ending _-na_ include _etlenna_ 'exiled' (< _etledie_
'go abroad, go into exile', V:368), _muina_ 'familiar, dear'
< MOY- (V:374), and _ragna_ 'crooked' < RAG- (V:382) -- PHW]
- Aiya! We ve recently discussed the question of ON _ndakro_ slaughter, and a possible unknown _-ro_ non-agentive derivation. I have one more example to add: NMessage 6 of 9 , Apr 5, 2003View SourceAiya!
We've recently discussed the question of ON _ndakro_ "slaughter, and a
possible unknown _-ro_ non-agentive derivation. I have one more
example to add: N _lhathron_ "hearer, listener, eavesdropper" (<
*la(n)sro-ndo); _lhathro_ or _lhathrado_ "listen in, eavesdrop". The
etymology N _lhathron_ < _la(n)sro-ndo_ is interesting. Here we have
_-ro_, which is obviously not agentive (because an agentive ending
_-ndo_ present). Supposing that it is the same _-ro_ derivative
element as in ON _ndakro_, we are left with two possibilities
(excluding the theory of personification):
1) _la(n)sro_ and _ndakro_ are abstract nouns.
2) _la(n)sro_ and _ndakro_ are verbs.
What do you think about it?
Namaarie! S.Y., Elenhil Laiquendo [Boris Shapiro]
: sii man i yulma nin enquantuva? :
- ... I don t find that obvious. It is not at all unheard of to have double suffixes in languages; for example, the English word children is a double pluralMessage 7 of 9 , Apr 6, 2003View SourceOn Sunday, April 6, 2003, at 01:23 AM, Boris Shapiro wrote:
> N _lhathron_ "hearer, listener, eavesdropper" (< *la(n)sro-ndo);I don't find that obvious. It is not at all unheard of to have "double"
> _lhathro_ or _lhathrado_ "listen in, eavesdrop". The etymology N
> _lhathron_ < _la(n)sro-ndo_ is interesting. Here we have _-ro_, which
> is obviously not agentive (because an agentive ending _-ndo_ present).
suffixes in languages; for example, the English word "children" is a
double plural (_childr-_ being from the original plural form). It
appears that in Noldorin original agentives in _-ro_ were strengthened
with the addition of _-ndo_ (note that this strengthening would have
the salutary effect of maintaining an agentive marker against the N.
loss of final syllables).
Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org
ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
Ars longa, vita brevis.
The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
"I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
- Aiya! ... CFH I don t find that obvious. It is not at all unheard of to have double CFH suffixes in languages; ... Yes, you re right. I should haveMessage 8 of 9 , Apr 6, 2003View SourceAiya!
Sunday, April 6, 2003, 5:56:18 PM, Carl F . Hostetter wrote:
>> Here we have _-ro_, which is obviously not agentive (because an agentiveCFH> I don't find that obvious. It is not at all unheard of to have "double"
>> ending _-ndo_ present). ...
CFH> suffixes in languages; ...
Yes, you're right. I should have remembered cases like N _badhron_
Namaarie! S.Y., Elenhil Laiquendo [Boris Shapiro]
: nai ilqua eruanna i nee antanin terlinnuva sen · nai erye vartuva :