Re: Sindarin phonology: articles, words and phrases
- My many thanks to everyone. Your responses have been most
enlightening. I do have some follow up questions though that I
would like to present for discussion and a few possible
reconstructions of various mutations as a test of what I *think* I
have recently learned. Please bear with me ==)
"Pavel Iosad" <edricson@d...> wrote:
>I wil try to show that the word + clitic complex is a phonologicalA most interesting observation. I am inclined to agree with you as
>phrase rather than a phonological word, and thus their properties
>differ in certain respects.
it does seem to eleminate some potential problems.
>This is a rather trivial observationNo observation, IMO is trivial. The details are what these
languages are all about (and I am sure Tolkien would agree!).
Without them we are left only with a complex cipher for english ==)
>Both of these insightful articles deal, whether primarily or not,Yes I read them but it did not register with me how lenition would
>with the fact that the mutation patterns seem to be at variance with
>the word-internal sound-changes.
have developed from reading them. If I am correct in assuming then
(from what I think I have learned here), lenition was caused because
of the unique phontic environment of a clitic + PhW that allowed
such internal softenings to be enacted upon the PhW because it was
seen as internal? Hence if I were to try a lame attempt at a
*atele *kalrondo -> Adel@ kallond@ -> Adel gallon ?
and perhaps of Nasal mutation:
*an *parma -> an parm@ -> an parf -> an pharf ?
(I realize that these constructions do not make much sense, but it
is the sound changes I am looking for here)
>Now what I am about to suggest is that mutation in SindarinAn interesting proposition. It makes some sense to me at least
>operates on the phrasal level, while vowel dropping is a word
(with the limited linguistic knowledge that I possess)
> [*] On a rather unrelated note, one wonders if the two words doI am not sure I fully understand this. While I have read your
>not form a single PhP by virtue of _gûren_ being fronted for
>emphasis, and thus the logical stress relocating to that word.
analysis regarding Sindarin word order and understand the idea of
fronting for emphasis, would this then make the verb enclitic? This
would seem rather strange to me, but perhaps it is possible. Or are
you suggesting that rather this is a grammatical feature of fronting
(as I believe you thus present in your other post regarding sentence
On a last note, how were these word internal softenings triggered in
the first place? Is this somehow tied in with vowels transfering
their voicing to the surrounding consonants? In which case, why
would Quenya have not developed the same?
- Aaron Shaw wrote:
> *atele *kalrondo -> Adel@ kallond@ -> Adel gallon ?The grammar mutations evolved the same time with the
> *an *parma -> an parm@ -> an parf -> an pharf ?
internal mutations. So the correct process would be
*atele *kalrondo -> Adel@ gallond@ -> Adel gallon
*an *parma -> an pharmh@ -> an farv
I used my own spelling here to avoid confusion. _f_ is
used for /f/ in all positions, and _ph_ is used for the
'aspirate p' that existed in early Elvish. _mh_
represents the 'nasalised v' which is an early version
of /v/. _v_ is used here finally instead of _f_ to avoid
confusion with /f/ that occurs on the beginning of the
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gildor's statement that "grammar mutations evolved [at] the
same time with the internal mutations", and his example
of the "correct process", both portray as hard fact what is
actually _hypothetical_. Readers are hereby gently reminded
of the list's guidelines requiring that they "provide evidence
and publication citations for all assertions."
If hard evidence supporting an assertion is not available,
then please portray your assertion as theory, not fact. The
subjunctive voice often far more accurate in Tolkien
scholarship than the indicative!
-- Patrick H. Wynne]