Re: Quenya pronouns 1: _ni_
- 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**I am aware of it. The whole sentence reads: "all long vowels were
> continues: "... and before final cons. in words of two or more
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**It could happen if monosyllables were unstressed, for instance
> 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.
when functioning as enclitics.
> > **That is certainly possible (though the subject pronoun for**I do not claim I would defend it -- I believe the explation suggested
> > "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.
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 perhaps _-ni+e_ > _-nye_ or, which I find more likely, _-ni+ye_
> or instead strengthening of the suffix _-ne_ > _-nye_.
> _-nye_ (just like _-le+ye_ and ?_ke+ye_ > _tye_).**Or it might have been _-ni+a_ > _-nya_ (note that _-a_ is seen in
> It seems likely that the possessive suffix was formed by combining _ni_
> with the adjectival suffix _-ya_, *_-niya_ > _-nya_.
> The dative form _nin_ "for me" appears in Namárie (LR:368) and in the**Let me note it is _onye_.
> late notes on _óre_ (VT41:11). Some time between them, we have the
> forms _ónye_ and _óni_.
> It seems that _ni_ did not occur as a stand-alone word in the corpus**They (_inye_ and _elye_) seem to be emphatic forms showing augmented
> 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).
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 : ) .
Jag är hellre glad nu än om 25 år. (Agnes in _Fucking Åmål_)
- --- In email@example.com, Ales Bican <ales.bican@s...> wrote:
> **Or perhaps _-ni+e_ > _-nye_ or, which I find more likely, _-ni+ye_The latter possibility occurred to me after I sent my post, too.
>> _-nye_ (just like _-le+ye_ and ?_ke+ye_ > _tye_).
>> I'll return to "you" (and other pronouns) in other posts.No need for reminders, here, it's just that time is limited, and I can't return to it as
> **I hope you will do.
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_
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?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Hans" <gentlebeldin@h...> wrote:
> People may ask "what about _im_ in Sindarin?" There was an attemptThe reconstructed etymology of S. _im_ in Didier's Sindarin dictionary
> 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)
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 thatAlthough this does not directly pertain to Hans's theory 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).
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