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

ómentie

Expand Messages
  • laurifindil
    In a letter written to Peter Alford in the 50 s and published on Internet on the site of Sotheby as 34NDL_L01321-550.jpg (letter already published ; cf.
    Message 1 of 15 , Mar 19, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In a letter written to Peter Alford in the 50's and published on
      Internet on the site of Sotheby as 34NDL_L01321-550.jpg (letter
      already published ; cf. Hammond's book "JRR Tolkien A Descriptive
      Bibliography", Dii48, p. 361) Tolkien wrote _ómentie_ with a long ó.
      This is not a mistake, since Tolkien goes on to explain the meaning of
      the prefix ó- in the same letter, and the difference between omentie
      and ómentie. Unfortunately that part is not visible on the image, the
      complete text is not clearly readable.

      Has anyone been able to read the entire letter (in Dii48 maybe?), and
      so could give us Tolkien's own explanation about this long ó? Thank
      you.

      Edouard Kloczko
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      Edouard asks about a Tolkien autograph letter, offered by Sotheby s as part of Lot 550 of Sale L01321 (auctioned on Dec. 13, 2001), at this writing still
      Message 2 of 15 , Mar 19, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Edouard asks about a Tolkien autograph letter, offered by Sotheby's as
        part of Lot 550 of Sale L01321 (auctioned on Dec. 13, 2001), at this
        writing still visible on the Sotheby's web site at:

        http://search.sothebys.com/jsps/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=4NDL

        I would first like to note that, even if anyone on this list has seen
        the entire contents of the letter in question, quoting from the
        unpublished portions of it without the permission of the Tolkien Estate
        is not permitted. However, the linguistically-relevant portion of that
        part of the letter that was published in the Sotheby's catalog reads
        (with uncertain readings and my guesses as to the wording of obscured
        parts indicated in brackets by ?):

        [con]tinuative of root _�il_, Q _sil_ "shine white" == "is now
        [shin]ing".
        _l�me_ "(period of) time" with the allative
        [?suffix] or case-ending _-nna_ : _l�menna_
        [?"toward the] time" -- no definite "article" : _the_ being
        [? understood] when a noun is defined by a genitive.
        [?_o]mentie-lma_ _�_ prefix ([?later]
        [...]) == together : _�mentie_ coming
        [?together,] meeting. _-lma_ suffixed possessive
        [... ?incl]usive _we_" (you and I/we), here
        [?in genitive] _-lmo_. "Of the meeting of
        [?you and me]/us".

        Some comments:

        1) The date of the letter is not given, but it can be inferred from
        the description on the auction site that it was written after
        14 Jan. 1956 and before 2 April 1958.

        2) The part of the letter from which this extract comes apparently
        consists of a brief list and discussion of the the words of Frodo's
        greeting to Gildor as it stood in the first edition of _The Lord of
        the Rings_: _Elen s�la l�menn' omentielmo_.

        3) The extract begins, at the top of the portion of the page that
        is reproduced on the auction site, with Tolkien evidently
        continuing a discussion of the verb _s�la_.

        4) Note that the suffix _-lmo_ is here clearly an inclusive suffix
        (replaced in the 2nd ed. with _-lvo_, following a shift in the
        Quenya pronominal system).

        5) If the word after "_�_ prefix" is indeed "later" (it might be "like"),
        then perhaps Tolkien continued with "unstressed _o_"?

        =====================================================================================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."
      • laurifindil
        ... But then why Tolkien did write _ómentie_ not _omentie_ next? [Presumably, Tolkien wrote _omentie-lma_ as the headword for this section of his analysis of
        Message 3 of 15 , Mar 20, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, Carl F. Hostetter
          <Aelfwine@e...> wrote:

          > 5) If the word after "_ó_ prefix" is indeed "later" (it might be "like"),
          > then perhaps Tolkien continued with "unstressed _o_"?

          But then why Tolkien did write _ómentie_ not _omentie_ next?

          [Presumably, Tolkien wrote _omentie-lma_ as the headword for this
          section of his analysis of Frodo's greeting (as Anders also guesses);
          if so, it would be natural for him to offer some explanation of the
          difference in length (presumably, due to stress) between this and the
          other forms with long _ó-_ that follow. But if Anders's proposed
          reading ("like con-, syn-") is correct, perhaps Tolkien simply didn't
          see the difference as requiring explanation. Reasons for this might be
          that the length of the prefix _ó-_ is naturally variable, and that it
          came to be shortened in words with syllable patterns like
          _omentielma_, but not in those with patterns like _ómentie_. CFH]

          Could it then mean that _ómentie_ is an "Old Quenya" or even a "Pre-
          Quenya/Common Eldarin" form? Later the accent shift gave _'ómentie_ >
          _om'entie_? But even then "e" sould have been long é if _ómentie_ is
          a C.E. form.

          Anyway, I should add that here as often Tolkien is rather "dense" in
          his explanation...

          [I presume that by "dense" you mean "compact" or "concise". CFH]

          Edouard Kloczko
        • Edward J. Kloczko
          ... True, the short from of the prefix ó- in Quenya is due to the accent, as explained by Tolkien in _War of the Jewels_, p. 367. But the direct ancestor of
          Message 4 of 15 , Mar 20, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@e...> wrote:

            > But if Anders's proposed reading ("like con-, syn-") is correct, perhaps
            > Tolkien simply didn't see the difference as requiring explanation. Reasons
            > for this might be that the length of the prefix _ó-_ is naturally variable, and
            > that it came to be shortened in words with syllable patterns like
            > _omentielma_, but not in those with patterns like _ómentie_. CFH]

            True, the short from of the prefix ó- in Quenya is due to the accent, as
            explained by Tolkien in _War of the Jewels_, p. 367.

            But the direct ancestor of Q. _omentie_ could not have had a long ó, because the
            next following syllable is long: _ent_ (om-ent-i-e); cf. "this prefix was normally
            unstressed [...] when the next following syllable was long" wrote Tolkien; when
            unstressed C.E. *_wo-_ gave Q. _o-_ not _ó-_. In Telerin the word is _womentie_
            (written _vomentie_, ibidem p. 407), not **_wómentie_/**_vómentie_. This is why
            the noun _ónona_ has a long _ó_ ; it is stressed _'ónona_. That explains also _olye_
            versus _óle_ (see VT43:29); sc., _-lye_ is long, _-le_ is short.

            [But Tolkien said _normally_ unstressed, not _always_ unstressed; and indeed we
            do see long-long syllable patterns in Quenya, as, for instance, in _únótime_,
            _ómaryo_, and _Rómello_ in Galadriel's Lament; and in _ósanwe_ 'interchange
            of thought (between 2 _samat_)' (VT41:5), this last form beginning with
            the same prefix _ó-_ seen in _ómentie_. Further, it need not be thought
            that the reduction in stress is not operative within modern Quenya itself,
            removing the objection of the constrastive development of short *_o-_ vs.
            long *_ó-_. CFH]

            _Omentielma_ is stressed in Quenya _om"enti'elma_ (according to my understanding
            of the explantions given by Tolkien in _The Road Goes Ever On"_: _om/ent/i/elm/a_),
            where " = secondary stress/accent, ' = primary stress/accent. The prefix _o-_ is not
            accented either in this case. _Omentielma/o_ could never have developed a long
            _ó-_, nor _omentie_ according to the rules given in _War of the Jewels_ and seen
            in _olye_/_óle_ or _ónona_.

            [But again, cf. _únótime_, _ómaryo_, _Rómello_, _ósanwe_. CFH]

            This is why I'm still much puzzled.

            I wrote :

            > Anyway, I should add that here as often Tolkien is rather "dense" in
            > his explanation...
            >
            > [I presume that by "dense" you mean "compact" or "concise". CFH]

            "Dense" in my post means "difficult to understand because packed with ideas" ;
            one of the meanings of _dense_, according to the Longman Dict. of Contemporary English.

            [But in contemporary (American) English, "dense" when applied to a person is a
            common pejorative term meaning "unintelligent", a connotation I specifically
            wanted to disavow on your behalf! CFH]

            Edouard Kloczko
          • Pavel Iosad
            Hello, ... To which I hasten to add that Quenya possessed a strong, if lower in tone, initial stress, and even though in _ómentie_ it precedes the main
            Message 5 of 15 , Mar 20, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello,

              Edouard wrote:

              > But the direct ancestor of Q. _omentie_ could not have had a
              > long _�_, because the next following syllable is long

              To which Carl replied:

              > But Tolkien said _normally_ unstressed, not _always_
              > unstressed; and indeed we do see long-long syllable
              > patterns in Quenya [examples follow]

              To which I hasten to add that Quenya possessed a strong, if lower in
              tone, initial stress, and even though in _�mentie_ it precedes the main
              stress, it can account for the length of the _�_ (viz., it would exactly be
              retained if the syllable were long)

              Pavel
              --
              Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

              Is mall a mharcaicheas am fear a bheachdaicheas
              --Scottish proverb
            • Edward J. Kloczko
              ... Quite so, but I did not imply in my post that a word such as _ómentie_ was not possible in Quenya. My question is quite unrelated to the stress pattern
              Message 6 of 15 , Mar 21, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Pavel Iosad a écrit (regarding the stress pattern of _ómentie_):

                > To which I hasten to add that Quenya possessed a strong, if lower in
                > tone, initial stress, and even though in _ómentie_ it precedes the main
                > stress, it can account for the length of the _ó_ (viz., it would exactly be
                > retained if the syllable were long)

                Quite so, but I did not imply in my post that a word such as _ómentie_ was not
                possible in Quenya.

                My question is quite unrelated to the stress pattern itself, but to "why/how?"
                (?Old) Quenya _ómentie_ > Quenya _omentie_.

                Edouard Kloczko
              • Edward J. Kloczko
                ... Tolkien is quite careful when making his own grammatical rules . He is writing for himself and appears to always let some open doors (as we say in
                Message 7 of 15 , Mar 21, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@e...> wrote:

                  > [But Tolkien said _normally_ unstressed, not _always_ unstressed;

                  Tolkien is quite careful when making his own "grammatical rules". He is
                  writing for himself and appears to always let some "open doors" (as we say in
                  French...) in case he might be needing an exception to his rules.
                  Pure Tolkien Rhetoric. :-)

                  > and indeed we
                  > do see long-long syllable patterns in Quenya, as, for instance, in _únótime_,

                  Yes _únótime_ has two long syllables, but I did not imply in my post that such
                  a pattern was not permitted in Quenya. Tolkien stated (see WJ, p. 367) that in
                  case of the prefix _ó-_ it was shortened to _o-_ in that case, or most of the
                  time, and it is not the case for _ú-_, that's all.

                  <snip>

                  > and in _ósanwe_ 'interchange
                  > of thought (between 2 _samat_)' (VT41:5), this last form beginning with
                  > the same prefix _ó-_ seen in _ómentie_. Further, it need not be thought
                  > that the reduction in stress is not operative within modern Quenya itself,
                  > removing the objection of the constrastive development of short *_o-_ vs.
                  > long *_ó-_. CFH]


                  A word such as _ósanwe_ was a "new compound", made up in Aman, of
                  which the word _sanwe_ was clearly recognised by the Eldar.

                  Anyway, that does not explain why an (?Old) Quenya _ómentie_ would yield
                  _omentie_? Tolkien should have cited _ómentie_ when explaining _omentie_
                  in WJ, p. 367. Tolkien wrote "o-mentie" only.

                  According to the explanations given by Tolkien in "War of the Jewels", if
                  _omentie_ was in the past (Old Quenya) _ómentie_, then the Telerin cognate
                  word must have been _wómentie/vómentie_, but instead Tolkien gave
                  _womentie/vomentie_.

                  Edouard Kloczko
                • Carl F. Hostetter
                  ... Ah, but you did, when you wrote yesterday (in message 369): the direct ancestor of Q. _omentie_ could not have had a long ó, because the next following
                  Message 8 of 15 , Mar 21, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Friday, March 21, 2003, at 08:14 AM, Edward J. Kloczko wrote:

                    > Yes _únótime_ has two long syllables, but I did not imply in my post
                    > that such a pattern was not permitted in Quenya.

                    Ah, but you did, when you wrote yesterday (in message 369): "the direct
                    ancestor of Q. _omentie_ could not have had a long ó, because the next
                    following syllable is long: _ent_ (om-ent-i-e); cf. 'this prefix was
                    normally unstressed [...] when the next following syllable was long'".

                    > A word such as _ósanwe_ was a "new compound", made up in Aman, of
                    > which the word _sanwe_ was clearly recognised by the Eldar.

                    This is a plausible hypothesis, but you've stated it as a fact. Please
                    qualify your hypotheses so as not to seem to be asserting what is in
                    fact not certain.

                    > Anyway, that does not explain why an (?Old) Quenya _ómentie_ would
                    > yield _omentie_? Tolkien should have cited _ómentie_ when explaining
                    > _omentie_ in WJ, p. 367. Tolkien wrote "o-mentie" only.

                    No one has shown or claimed that _ómentie_ represents an "Old Quenya"
                    form (with "Old" in the linguistic sense, i.e., as opposed to Middle or
                    Modern). The idea that _ómentie_ may represent an _older_ (but still
                    _linguistically Modern_) form of the _omentie_ is based solely on my
                    supposition that a questionable word written by Tolkien reads "later".
                    I've come to think that "like" (which Anders suggested and I also noted
                    as possible) is the more probable reading.

                    > According to the explanations given by Tolkien in "War of the Jewels",
                    > if _omentie_ was in the past (Old Quenya) _ómentie_, then the Telerin
                    > cognate word must have been _wómentie/vómentie_, but instead Tolkien
                    > gave _womentie/vomentie_.

                    Given that Q _o-_/_ó-_ and T _wo-_/_vo-_ are known to have arisen from
                    a variably-lengthened element even in Common Eldarin, I fail to see how
                    the Quenya presence or absence of lengthening (due to stress) of the
                    prefix in _any_ form of Quenya can have any bearing on the Telerin
                    reflex. Telerin may, in the course of its development, simply have
                    selected the unlengthened (unstressed) form of the prefix for such
                    word-patterns as _womentie_, while Quenya did not.

                    Returning to the matter of the two attested forms _omentie_ (XI:367) /
                    _ómentie_ (the Sotheby's letter under discussion), both vs.
                    _omentielmo_, there are two types of variability we must deal with:
                    internal (within Quenya), and external (Tolkien). Hypothesizing reasons
                    for a difference between _ómentie_ but _omentielmo_ is not difficult,
                    since the two words have different syllable patterns. Thus a purely
                    internal variation seems quite sufficient. But for _omentie_ vs.
                    _ómentie_, while we can somewhat more vaguely construct a purely
                    internal hypothesis (basically, by simply appealing to the known
                    variability of stress in prefixes and chalking it up to individual
                    usage), we must also recognize that Tolkien was not always consistent
                    in marking vowel length, even within the same documents. Thus, for
                    instance, as I noted in my editorial notes on the _Ósanwe-kenta_
                    (VT39), Tolkien wrote both _osanwe_ and _ósanwe_ in that essay.


                    --
                    =============================================
                    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."
                  • Hans Georg Lundahl
                    Ecrit M. Kloczko: My question is quite unrelated to the stress pattern itself, but to why/how? (?Old) Quenya _ómentie_ Quenya _omentie_. Well - how come
                    Message 9 of 15 , Mar 21, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ecrit M. Kloczko:

                      "My question is quite unrelated to the stress pattern itself, but to "why/how?"
                      (?Old) Quenya _ómentie_ > Quenya _omentie_."

                      Well - how come Old Latin _mammilla_ becomes Latin _mamilla_? If you drum
                      the rhythm with your finger tips on the table, or try to say the longer version
                      quickly and repeatedly (as a loose approximation of real life repeated but
                      dispersed use in quick talking tempo), you would get as good an idea thereof
                      as by using the scientific terms allegro form. Goes both for Quenya and Latin
                      examples, though long-long-short-short is more tolerable than long-long-short
                      with stress on second long syllable. Remember [reemember > rymember]:
                      language was a kind of MUSIC to the inveterate poet and metricist JRRT!

                      Hans Georg Lundahl

                      Gå före i kön och få din sajt värderad på nolltid med Yahoo! Express

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • David Kiltz
                      ... Indeed the Sindarin development may point to Telerin having dropped the lengthened form (while maintaining the distinction stressed/unstressed). The
                      Message 10 of 15 , Mar 21, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Freitag, März 21, 2003, at 02:35 Uhr, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                        > Given that Q _o-_/_ó-_ and T _wo-_/_vo-_ are known to have arisen from
                        > a variably-lengthened element even in Common Eldarin, I fail to see how
                        > the Quenya presence or absence of lengthening (due to stress) of the
                        > prefix in _any_ form of Quenya can have any bearing on the Telerin
                        > reflex. Telerin may, in the course of its development, simply have
                        > selected the unlengthened (unstressed) form of the prefix for such
                        > word-patterns as _womentie_, while Quenya did not.

                        Indeed the Sindarin development may point to Telerin having dropped the
                        lengthened form (while maintaining the distinction stressed/unstressed).
                        The stressed form Sindarin _gwa-_ goes back to _wo_. I think we would
                        expect _au_ < *_ó_.

                        This is, of course, no proof, but it may be an indication.

                        However, on XI:367 Tolkien writes "... prefix _vó, vo-_. Perhaps
                        though, since the first isn't followed by a hyphen, it might be the
                        form of a preposition, not a prefix.

                        [That's how I read it, based on Tolkien's normal way of indicating such
                        things. CFH]

                        Couldn't it be that Tolkien simply wrote _ómentie_ in order to clarify
                        the segments, knowing well that, as soon as the word was actually
                        formed, the first _ó_ would be shortened?

                        As for _ósanwe_. What if the second syllable isn't long ? Well, since
                        we have seen that C+y forms position, at least in cases like _onye_
                        etc. that doesn't really seem likely.

                        Lastly, does word formation play a role? What if _omentie_ is: _omenta_
                        > _omentie_ (i.e. an abstract derived from a verb) while _ósanwe_ is
                        _ó_+_sanwe_ (i.e. a prefix + a noun).

                        David Kiltz
                      • Beregond. Anders Stenström
                        ... It is satisfactory to see the general coincidence of our readings, and also of our conjectures as to the hidden words. Carl s conjecture understood in
                        Message 11 of 15 , Mar 22, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                          > . . . my supposition that a questionable word written by Tolkien
                          > reads "later". I've come to think that "like" (which Anders suggested
                          > and I also noted as possible) is the more probable reading.

                          It is satisfactory to see the general coincidence of our readings,
                          and also of our conjectures as to the hidden words.
                          Carl's conjecture "understood" in line 6 indeed sounds more
                          natural than my "unneeded".
                          The word "like" looks clear to my eyes, even though I see no
                          dot over the supposed "i" (I have made an enlarged scan from the
                          photo in the catalogue). If my guess is right that it is followed by a
                          citation of comparable classic prefixes (two of them, judging from
                          the expected length of the hidden text), my suggestion "con-, syn-"
                          is still only one in a range of similar readings: in WJ QE A *WO
                          Sindarin:1 (WJ:367) Tolkien glossed S _gwa-_, _go-_ as "together,
                          co-, com-", so "co-, com-" may have been what he wrote to Peter
                          Alford as well.

                          [Anders has an advantage over me, in that I was reading from the
                          scan found on the Sotheby's web site. In further support of the
                          reading "like", I can attest from long (and occasionally bitter!)
                          experience that Tolkien very frequently does not dot his "i"s when
                          writing with any haste. CFH]

                          Meneg suilaid,

                          Beregond
                          [Anders Stenstr�m]
                        • Edward J. Kloczko
                          ... That is not how I interpret the text in WJ. The root in CE is written _WO_ with a short _o_. The usual lengthening of _o_ is presented as a development in
                          Message 12 of 15 , Mar 22, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                            > Given that Q _o-_/_ó-_ and T _wo-_/_vo-_ are known to have arisen from
                            > a variably-lengthened element even in Common Eldarin,

                            That is not how I interpret the text in WJ. The root in CE is written _WO_ with
                            a short _o_. The usual lengthening of _o_ is presented as a development in
                            the CE _word_ wô only; _wo-_ is stated to be a prefix, there is no CE prefix
                            _wô-_ apparently at that time, from my understanding.

                            The lengthening of prefix _wo-_ > _wô-_ looks to be quite a late development
                            (internal time) (?)in Beleriand just prior to the "voyage" to Aman(?).

                            > Thus, for
                            > instance, as I noted in my editorial notes on the _ósanwe-kenta_
                            > (VT39), Tolkien wrote both _osanwe_ and _ósanwe_ in that essay.

                            That is a strong argument for the coexistence of Q. _ómentie_ and
                            _omentie_ at the same internal time.

                            Edouard Kloczko
                          • Edward J. Kloczko
                            ... _mammilla_ _mamilla_ shows the usual and well known Latin internal geminated consonant simplification after a long vowel, as _*seddolod_ _sedulo_; or
                            Message 13 of 15 , Mar 22, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hans Georg Lundahl a écrit:

                              > Ecrit M. Kloczko:
                              >
                              > "My question is quite unrelated to the stress pattern itself, but to "why/how?"
                              > (?Old) Quenya _ómentie_ > Quenya _omentie_."
                              >
                              > Well - how come Old Latin _mammilla_ becomes Latin _mamilla_?

                              _mammilla_ > _mamilla_ shows the usual and well known Latin internal geminated
                              consonant simplification after a long vowel, as _*seddolod_ > _sedulo_; or
                              _*sed-cubo_ > _*seccubo_ > _secubo_, etc. This phenomenon goes as well for the
                              Germanic as you pointed out in your post but not in Ancient Greek.

                              In Quenya we are dealing with an initial long vowel shortening.

                              Edouard Kloczko
                            • Hans Georg Lundahl
                              ... Pas du tout. Not at all. The vowels in _mamilla_ are all short. Just like the vowels in primitive _mamma_ (which does not mean mother , but if I recall
                              Message 14 of 15 , Mar 22, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                "Edward J. Kloczko" <ejk@...> wrote:

                                > _mammilla_ > _mamilla_ shows the usual and well known Latin internal geminated
                                > consonant simplification after a long vowel, as _*seddolod_ > _sedulo_; or
                                > _*sed-cubo_ > _*seccubo_ > _secubo_, etc. This phenomenon goes as well for the
                                > Germanic as you pointed out in your post but not in Ancient Greek.
                                >
                                > In Quenya we are dealing with an initial long vowel shortening.

                                Pas du tout. Not at all. The vowels in _mamilla_ are all short. Just like the vowels in
                                primitive _mamma_ (which does not mean 'mother', but if I recall correctly, 'female
                                breast' -- _mamilla_ means 'nipple'). The reason cannot therefore be any clash
                                between long vowel and long consonant. On _sedulo_ I pass. As for _secubo_ you
                                may be right or the composition may be later than the fall of d in _sed-_. But in
                                _mamilla_, we have a long syllable shortened precisely because it is pretonic --
                                not that this shortening is absolutly regular, rather it is sporadic (a Jung-grammarian
                                would say: often reversed by analogy). At least that is the account of _mammilla_ >
                                _mamilla_ given by the learned Stowasser, and you have not disproven it. Is the Greek
                                cognate -- if any -- a word in letter _eta_ (Ionic-Attic dialect group)?

                                If -- as is most probable -- the explanation of short first syllable in _mamilla_ is
                                rhythmic, the rhythmic feeling of mature Latin -- the relevance to Quenya, which
                                borrows nearly all of Latin prosody (not the muta cum liquida exception, nor the
                                accent on last syllable when followed by an enclitic word, but the rest), is obvious
                                -- except that more learned eldalambengolmor than myself are saying that the
                                root of that prefix was originally short. But even then: a reason for shortening in
                                one language may be a reason for not lengthening in another.

                                Hans Georg Lundahl

                                Gå före i kön och få din sajt värderad på nolltid med Yahoo! Express

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Carl F. Hostetter
                                ... Edouard is correct that the root *WO (XI:367; no CE prefix form *_wo-_ is actually cited there) underlying the Quenya prefix _ó-_ / _o-_ is not stated in
                                Message 15 of 15 , Mar 22, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Saturday, March 22, 2003, at 09:46 AM, Edward J. Kloczko wrote:

                                  > Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
                                  >
                                  >> Given that Q _o-_/_ó-_ and T _wo-_/_vo-_ are known to have arisen
                                  >> from a variably-lengthened element even in Common Eldarin,
                                  >
                                  > That is not how I interpret the text in WJ. The root in CE is written
                                  > _WO_ with a short _o_. The usual lengthening of _o_ is presented as a
                                  > development in the CE _word_ wô only; _wo-_ is stated to be a prefix,
                                  > there is no CE prefix _wô-_ apparently at that time, from my
                                  > understanding.

                                  Edouard is correct that the root *WO (XI:367; no CE prefix form *_wo-_
                                  is actually cited there) underlying the Quenya prefix _ó-_ / _o-_ is
                                  not stated in _Quendi and Eldar_ to have been variably lengthened.
                                  However, its CE reflexes, the independent and length- (and perhaps
                                  stress-) contrastive words *_wô_ and *_wo_ [? stands for macron], are
                                  cited as a pair elsewhere in _Q&E_ (XI:366). We are also told (367)
                                  that *WO "does not remain in Q as an independent word", but is "a
                                  frequent prefix in the form _ó-_ (usually reduced to _o-_ when
                                  unstressed)". Taken together, this suggests that the Quenya prefix _ó-_
                                  is _in origin_ a reflex of the CE independent word *_wô_, and that its
                                  shortened counterpart _o-_ is _in origin_ a reflex of CE *_wo_ (though
                                  with much subsequent leveling of forms in Quenya due to stress
                                  patterns).

                                  As further support for this, note that the _Etymologies_ tells us that:
                                  "In Q the form _wô_, and the unstressed _wo_ [there is a breve in the
                                  text], combined to produce prefix [_o-_ / _ô-_] 'together'" (V:399 s.v.
                                  WÔ-).

                                  It does appear, then, that a length- (and stress-?) contrastive pair of
                                  CE words *_wô_, *_wo_ underlies the variably lengthened and stressed
                                  Quenya prefix _ó-_ / _o-_.

                                  --
                                  =========================================================================================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."
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.