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

Re: Quenya pronouns 1: _ni_

Expand Messages
  • Ales Bican
    I argued that long vowels in monosyllables were not reduced, even though the Plotz Letter says that all long vowels were reduced to short vowels ... **I am
    Message 1 of 3 , May 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I argued that long vowels in monosyllables were not reduced, even though
      the Plotz Letter says that "all long vowels were reduced to short vowels
      finally". Hans replied:

      > In fact, the Plotz Letter says so explicitly, the sentence you quoted
      > continues: "... and before final cons. in words of two or more
      > syllables".

      **I am aware of it. The whole sentence reads: "all long vowels were
      reduced to short vowels finally and before final cons. in words of
      two or more syllables". While I think that shortening of long vowels in
      monosyllables did not take place even in Book Quenya, I mentioned it,
      because it seems to be that the sentence is not purely unambiguous.
      Perhaps it could also be read like "all vowels were reduced to short
      vowels finally _in all words_ and before final cons. _only_ in
      words of two or more syllables".

      Speaking of which, there are two things that have made me puzzle
      for a long time. Which long vowels in words of two or more syllables
      were reduced? The long _í_ from _ei_ in dat. pl. of _lasse_ (sc.
      _lassin_) was already reduded in Book Quenya. The other thing is
      connected with this: in PL Tolkien also says that the diphthong _ai_
      was reduced to _e_. Should we read this that the reduction happened
      only finally or both finally and before final cons.? If so, dat. pl.
      of _cirya_ should be *_ciryen_, right?

      > This is obviously connected with stress, remember
      > that the prefix _ó-_ becomes _o-_ when unstressed (XI:367).
      > With the retraction of stress, final vowels became unstressed
      > always, and shortened. This did not necessarily (or never?)
      > happen in monosyllabic words.

      **It could happen if monosyllables were unstressed, for instance
      when functioning as enclitics.

      > > **That is certainly possible (though the subject pronoun for
      > > "I" could have been simply *_-ne_ then (i.e. with the original
      > > _e_, not from _i_)).
      >
      > I can't see any reason to assume that. The _-ne_ in _meláne_ has a
      > natural explanation, and in any other case I know of, the form is
      > _ni_ or derived from it.

      **I do not claim I would defend it -- I believe the explation suggested
      by Patrick Wynne is the correct one, nevertheless one can never be
      sure what Tolkien might have imagined.

      [examples of _ni_ forms snipped]

      > So we can see two alternative developments: *_-ni_ > _-ne_ > _-n_,
      > or instead strengthening of the suffix _-ne_ > _-nye_.

      **Or perhaps _-ni+e_ > _-nye_ or, which I find more likely, _-ni+ye_
      > _-nye_ (just like _-le+ye_ and ?_ke+ye_ > _tye_).

      > It seems likely that the possessive suffix was formed by combining _ni_
      > with the adjectival suffix _-ya_, *_-niya_ > _-nya_.

      **Or it might have been _-ni+a_ > _-nya_ (note that _-a_ is seen in
      _-mma_).

      > The dative form _nin_ "for me" appears in Namárie (LR:368) and in the
      > late notes on _óre_ (VT41:11). Some time between them, we have the
      > forms _ónye_ and _óni_.

      **Let me note it is _onye_.

      > It seems that _ni_ did not occur as a stand-alone word in the corpus
      > after the Arctic Sentence. _inye_ seems to be derived form an
      > augmented form *_i-ni_. At least, that would explain the difference
      > to _elye_ "you" (LR:368).

      **They (_inye_ and _elye_) seem to be emphatic forms showing augmented
      stem-vowels comparable to _a-nar_ and _i-sil_.

      > I'll return to "you" (and other pronouns) in other posts.

      **I hope you will do. Unfortunately, David Kiltz did not return to
      his opinion on Cy combinations in Q and PQ as he said he would
      (strange reminder, I know : ) .


      Ales Bican

      --
      Jag är hellre glad nu än om 25 år. (Agnes in _Fucking Åmål_)
    • Hans
      ... The latter possibility occurred to me after I sent my post, too. ... No need for reminders, here, it s just that time is limited, and I can t return to it
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, Ales Bican <ales.bican@s...> wrote:

        > **Or perhaps _-ni+e_ > _-nye_ or, which I find more likely, _-ni+ye_
        >> _-nye_ (just like _-le+ye_ and ?_ke+ye_ > _tye_).

        The latter possibility occurred to me after I sent my post, too.

        >> I'll return to "you" (and other pronouns) in other posts.
        >
        > **I hope you will do.

        No need for reminders, here, it's just that time is limited, and I can't return to it as
        soon as I wished. BTW, the idea of a look at pronouns in the original sources at a
        time when fabrications abound (remember the infamous S _-ch_ and
        "reconstructions" of independent S pronouns like **_ce_) is not exactly new. We
        find it in TolkLang message 7.90, for instance, some ten years ago, by Patrick
        Wynne. ;) It's interesting to investigate how much we can add, now.

        So let's get over it with first person singular, then. Material published since then
        allows us to conclude that it is surprisingly consistent in Elvish languages we
        know more or less, i.e. Quenya, Sindarin and Telerin: it's all the same root NI-.

        People may ask "what about _im_ in Sindarin?" There was an attempt by Didier
        Willis to construct a common etymology:

        [Hiswelókë's Sindarin dictionary (Edition 1.5, Lexicon 0.99)]
        _im*_ ['im] pron. "I" LotR/II:IV, LB/354 OS *_imbè_, CE *_iñgwi_, *_iñwi_
        (*I-ÑWI, NI)

        We may wonder: what evidence do we have for the OS and CE forms?

        [We may even wonder what evidence we have for "OS" at all! CFH]

        Certainly, *_iñgwi_ > _im_ would be possible in Sindarin (remember entry YA-
        in _Etymologies_, GENG-WÂ > _gem_ in N), but I doubt it in Telerin, where we
        find possessive _nia_ and allative _nin_ in the sentence _óre nia pete nin_
        (VT41:11). Moreover, I can't seem to remember any example for *ÑW > N in
        Quenya, and I'm pretty sure the labial element would persist. I just asked that
        question at Elfling, and the answer was a reference to _VT_ 21, where (obviously)
        several possible meanings of _ngwin_ were investigated, one of them being
        "for me". We know from later evidence (cf. VT43:36) that another meaning
        discussed already then is far more likely, "for us", both from the charts of
        prepositions with suffixed enclitic pronouns mentioned there, and from
        _vomentienguo_ in XI:407.

        The same source (VT41:11) gives _Guren bêd enni_, showing that the element
        _ni_ survived in Sindarin, too. The suffixes _-n_ for "I" (verbs) or for "my" (nouns)
        support this. Interestingly, we have two different dative/allative forms: _enni_
        just quoted, meaning "(to) me", and _anim_ from Gilraen's _linnod_ (LR:1036).

        Now the difference _anim_/_enni_ and the translations "for myself"/"(to) me"
        suggest an obvious (though VERY speculative) solution: _im_ doesn't literally
        mean "I", but "self". Remember that the two occurences of _im_ as a standalone
        word are to emphasize a name: _im Narvi_ (LR:298) and _im Tinúviel_ (III:254).

        So what do you think?

        Hans
      • Patrick H. Wynne
        ... The reconstructed etymology of S. _im_ in Didier s Sindarin dictionary is actually the work of David Salo. As Didier writes on pg. 8: The etymological
        Message 3 of 3 , Jun 4, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <gentlebeldin@h...> wrote:

          > People may ask "what about _im_ in Sindarin?" There was an attempt
          > by Didier Willis to construct a common etymology:
          >
          > [Hiswelókë's Sindarin dictionary (Edition 1.5, Lexicon 0.99)]
          > _im*_ ['im] pron. "I" LotR/II:IV, LB/354 OS *_imbè_, CE
          > *_iñgwi_, *_iñwi_ (*I-ÑWI, NI)

          The reconstructed etymology of S. _im_ in Didier's Sindarin dictionary
          is actually the work of David Salo. As Didier writes on pg. 8: "The
          etymological reconstructions presented in this dictionary are based
          on David Salo's research and are introduced by a diamond".

          > The same source (VT41:11) gives _Guren bêd enni_, showing that
          > the element _ni_ survived in Sindarin, too. The suffixes _-n_ for
          > "I" (verbs) or for "my" (nouns) support this. Interestingly, we
          > have two different dative/allative forms: _enni_ just quoted,
          > meaning "(to) me", and _anim_ from Gilraen's _linnod_ (LR:1036).

          Although this does not directly pertain to Hans's theory that
          S. _im_ literally means 'self' rather than 'I', I find it interesting
          that the coexistence of two 1 sg. pronominal elements in
          Sindarin, _im_ and _ni_, is a concept that goes all the way back
          to Goldogrin. In GL we find the independent (and possibly
          emphatic) form _im_ 'I' in _im len_ 'I have or am come' (cited s.v.
          _len_ (adj.) 'come, arrived', PE11:53). The list of Goldogrin
          pronominal prefixes given in PE13:97 includes 1 sg. _ni-_,
          which occurs in the form _nin-_ when prefixed to verbs
          beginning with a vowel, e.g., _nin·ista feg_ 'I feel ill' (cited
          s.v. _ista-_ 'know, am aware, perceive, feel', PE11:52; also
          cf. _fêg, feg_ 'bad, poor, wretched', PE11:34).

          -- Patrick H. Wynne
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.