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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: ómentie

Expand Messages
  • David Kiltz
    ... Indeed the Sindarin development may point to Telerin having dropped the lengthened form (while maintaining the distinction stressed/unstressed). The
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.