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

Re: ómentie

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.