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

Re: ómentie

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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      unpublished portions of it without the permission of the Tolkien Estate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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.