Re: [Lambengolmor] S. _agor_ 'made, did' and the Sindarin past tense
- View SourceOn 28.10.2003, at 13:02, David Kiltz wrote:
> The question is whether the 1. sg. of S. _agor_ could have beenWell, a little misunderstanding then. That was really the question for
> [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.
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 soI cannot. A very speculative case might be S. _Glinnel_, pl. _Glinnil_.
> 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]
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.