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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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

      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.