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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.