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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: Possible ON -r derivation?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Mar 16, 2003
    • 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 2 of 9 , Mar 16, 2003
      • 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 3 of 9 , Apr 5 10:23 PM
        • 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 4 of 9 , Apr 6 6:56 AM
          • 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 5 of 9 , Apr 6 8:48 PM
            • 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.