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

Re: [Lambengolmor] S. _agor_ 'made, did' and the Sindarin past tense

Expand Messages
  • David Kiltz
    ... The question is whether the 1. sg. of S. _agor_ could have been _*agoren_. [I don t think that was the question, really; the question was whether S _ónen_
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On 17.10.2003, at 11:44, David Kiltz wrote:

      > [Carl Hostetter wrote:]
      >
      > the past-tense formation described by Tolkien for S _agor_ < *_akâra_
      > is not attested elsewhere in the published corpus, since even by the
      > interpretation you propose here, the final _-e_ of _óne-n_ does not
      > fit the pattern Tolkien describes. Nor would *_a-âna-in_ solve the
      > problem, since *_-a-in_ would yield S _-aen_.

      The question is whether the 1. sg. of S. _agor_ could have been _*agoren_.

      [I don't think that was the question, really; the question was whether
      S _ónen_ fits the pattern exhibited by S _agor_ < *_akâra_, which strictly
      speaking it does not, at least not demonstrably so. But since you raise
      the question, I'd say: yes, sure, it's _possible_ that the 1 sg. of S _agor_
      (sc., at the point at which Tolkie wrote that form and figure in _Quendi
      and Eldar_ -- at any other time, all bets are off) could have been
      *_agoren_. But I would say it could also have been *_agoran_. CFH]

      As for _*-ain_ > _aen_, i.e. in closed, post-tonic syllable, I'm not so
      sure. Do you have an example handy? Of course, _*ai_ > _*ae_ in
      stressed syllables.

      [Good point; in that specific environment, no, I can't bring any example
      to mind (though its prominent presence in other environments is surely
      suggestive). On the other hand, can you provide any support for supposing
      that it would yield _-en_ in that environment? CFH]

      > Patrick Wynne wrote:
      >
      > [Regarding the prefixed I.E. particle *_e-_ indicating 'past' -- there
      > is a striking parallel to this in QL, which lists a prefix _e-_ under
      > the root E, whose derivatives are primarily demonstrative ...]

      Very interesting. I thought about it along the lines of _*aquâ_ being
      an 'intensified' form of _*quâ_ [XI:415] (or even _Isil_ from SIL- 'the
      Sheen', _Anar_ from NAR- 'the Burning, Hot, Fire'). The apparent early
      conception of the QL makes it indeed more like Indo-European.

      David Kiltz


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      ... Or even *_agoron_, of course (depending on whether the stem-vowel *_-a_ was or was not lengthened before the 1 sg. ending). --
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 28, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Oct 28, 2003, at 7:02 AM, Carl Hostetter wrote:

        > it's _possible_ that the 1 sg. of S _agor_ (sc., at the point at which
        > Tolkie[n] wrote that form and figure in _Quendi and Eldar_ -- at any
        > other time, all bets are off) could have been *_agoren_. But I would
        > say it could also have been *_agoran_.

        Or even *_agoron_, of course (depending on whether the stem-vowel *_-a_
        was or was not lengthened before the 1 sg. ending).


        --
        =============================================
        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."
      • David Kiltz
        ... Well, a little misunderstanding then. That was really the question for me. As, apart from the ending _-en_ which isn t clear, S. _ón-_ may just as well be
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 28, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          On 28.10.2003, at 13:02, David Kiltz wrote:

          > The question is whether the 1. sg. of S. _agor_ could have been
          > _*agoren_.
          >
          > [I don't think that was the question, really; the question was whether
          > S _ónen_ fits the pattern exhibited by S _agor_ < *_akâra_, which
          > strictly speaking it does not, at least not demonstrably so.

          Well, a little misunderstanding then. That was really the question for
          me. As, apart from the ending _-en_ which isn't clear, S. _ón-_ may
          just as well be < _*a-ân-_ as _*ân-_. So, at the moment, this is a 'non
          licet', i.e. __ónen_ might well exhibit the _agor_ pattern, and may
          not. For now, the case remains inconclusive and it would, in my
          opinion, be wrong to assert either the uniqueness of _agor_ or its
          not-uniqueness.

          So, strictly speaking, I would personally simply rephrase your
          "...formation not exhibited..." into "...not securely attested..." as
          no one analysis can be ruled out.

          > As for _*-ain_ > _aen_, i.e. in closed, post-tonic syllable, I'm not so
          > sure. Do you have an example handy? Of course, _*ai_ > _*ae_ in
          > stressed syllables.
          >
          > [Good point; in that specific environment, no, I can't bring any
          > example to mind (though its prominent presence in other
          > environments is surely suggestive). On the other hand, can you
          > provide any support for supposing that it would yield _-en_ in that
          > environment? CFH]

          I cannot. A very speculative case might be S. _Glinnel_, pl. _Glinnil_.
          Tolkien writes: " The old clan name _*Lindâi_ survived in the compound
          _Glinnel_ ..." [XI:378]. One might analyse this as _*Lindâi + la/o_ as
          _*Lindâ_+_El_ > _*Glenn_+_el_ or _*Lindâ+la/o_ cannot account for the
          'i' of the root. At least one problem here is that Tolkien speaks
          clearly of a 'compound' which points to an analysis of _-el_ < _El_
          'Elf' for the second element.

          Maybe a form like _Abonnen_ 'After-born' (==Q: _Apanóna_) [XI:386] could
          be interpreted as < _*Ap(a)onna-inâ_ as we have Noldorin _ed-onna_
          'beget' but that could, of course, be _*ap(a)onn-inâ_ as well and
          remains inconclusive too. Generally, a monophthongisation doesn't seem
          unlikely for phonotactic reasons given that Sindarin looses all final
          vowels (even _-*yâ_). But no, I cannot but speculate.

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