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

Re: Possible ON -r derivation?

Expand Messages
  • pa2rick
    ... Two forms are actually given for each of these words in the _Etymologies_: N. _gadr, gador_ prison, dungeon
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 13, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Boris Shapiro wrote:

      > Do you know anything about rare cases of -r derivation in Old
      > 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.

      Two forms are actually given for each of these words in the
      _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 since
      > 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 structure of _gadr, gador_ 'prison, dungeon' resembles that of
      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 nouns
      > _ndakro_ "battle" (V:375) and _etledro_ possibly "exile *(as an act,
      > not person)" (V:368) where agentive _-ro_ seems to form inanimate
      > abstracts?

      Interpretation of ON _etledro_ as *'exile (as an act, not person)'
      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
    • Boris Shapiro
      Aiya! Friday, March 14, 2003, 3:08:55 AM, pa2rick wrote: ... p Interpretation of ON _etledro_ as
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 13, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Aiya!

        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 nouns
        >> _ndakro_ "battle" (V:375) and _etledro_ possibly "exile *(as an act,
        >> not person)" (V:368) where agentive _-ro_ seems to form inanimate
        >> abstracts?

        p> Interpretation of ON _etledro_ as *'exile (as an act, not person)'
        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 :
      • Patrick H. Wynne
        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 other
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 16, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          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 other occurrences of ON _-ro_ in the _Etymologies_, it acts as
          an agentive ending:

          ON _biuro, bioro_ 'follower, vassal' < _*beurô_ < BEW- 'follow,
          serve'.
          ON _etledro_ 'exile' (i.e. *'one who goes into exile') < LED- 'go,
          fare, travel'.
          ON _wanúro_ 'brother' < NÔ- 'beget'.
          ON _sthabro(ndo)_ 'carpenter, wright, builder' < _*stabrô_ < STAB-.

          There seem to me to be three potential explanations for _ndakro_:

          1)

          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_.

          2)

          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
          _nguru_, _ngurtu_.

          3)

          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
        • David Kiltz
          ... 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 it
          Message 4 of 9 , Mar 16, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sonntag, März 16, 2003, at 05:34 Uhr, Patrick H. Wynne wrote:

            > 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.

            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 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 to
            either 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.

            David Kiltz
          • David Kiltz
            ... 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, 2003
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sonntag, März 16, 2003, at 07:39 Uhr, Patrick Wynne commented:

              >> 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 it clear that the reading was not _**ndakra_ or
              > _**ndakro-_. -- PHW]

              I know. I wasn't criticizing. I just wanted to hook on to it.

              >> 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 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]

              That is a severe counter-argument. One would then have to resort to
              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.

              David Kiltz

              [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]
            • Boris Shapiro
              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: N
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 5 10:23 PM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                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: 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? :
              • Carl F. Hostetter
                ... 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 plural
                Message 7 of 9 , Apr 6 6:56 AM
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sunday, April 6, 2003, at 01:23 AM, Boris Shapiro wrote:

                  > 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).

                  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 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."
                • Boris Shapiro
                  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 have
                  Message 8 of 9 , Apr 6 8:48 PM
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Aiya!

                    Sunday, April 6, 2003, 5:56:18 PM, Carl F . Hostetter wrote:

                    >> Here we have _-ro_, which is obviously not agentive (because an agentive
                    >> ending _-ndo_ present). ...

                    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 have remembered cases like N _badhron_
                    (_*badro-ndo_) etc.


                    Namaarie! S.Y., Elenhil Laiquendo [Boris Shapiro]


                    : nai ilqua eruanna i nee antanin terlinnuva sen · nai erye vartuva :
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.