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

Re: Sindarin phonology: articles, words and phrases

Expand Messages
  • Aaron Shaw
    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
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 9, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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 phonological
      >phrase rather than a phonological word, and thus their properties
      >differ in certain respects.

      A most interesting observation. I am inclined to agree with you as
      it does seem to eleminate some potential problems.

      >This is a rather trivial observation

      No 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,
      >with the fact that the mutation patterns seem to be at variance with
      >the word-internal sound-changes.

      Yes I read them but it did not register with me how lenition would
      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
      reconstruction:

      *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 Sindarin
      >operates on the phrasal level, while vowel dropping is a word
      >property.

      An interesting proposition. It makes some sense to me at least
      (with the limited linguistic knowledge that I possess)

      > [*] On a rather unrelated note, one wonders if the two words do
      >not form a single PhP by virtue of _gûren_ being fronted for
      >emphasis, and thus the logical stress relocating to that word.

      I am not sure I fully understand this. While I have read your
      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
      structure)?

      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?

      Thanks

      Aaron Shaw
    • Gildor Inglorion
      ... The grammar mutations evolved the same time with the internal mutations. So the correct process would be *atele *kalrondo - Adel@ gallond@ - Adel gallon
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 10, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Aaron Shaw wrote:

        > *atele *kalrondo -> Adel@ kallond@ -> Adel gallon ?
        >
        > *an *parma -> an parm@ -> an parf -> an pharf ?

        The grammar mutations evolved the same time with the
        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
        word 'farv'.

        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

        [NOTA BENE:

        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]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.