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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Quenya rhotacism

Expand Messages
  • Ales Bican
    ... **The Qenya Phonology is not, in my opinion, the best resource for researching the Quenya as conveived by Tolkien when he was writing and after he wrote
    Message 1 of 18 , Dec 31, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Helios De Rosario Martinez wrote:

      > The best resource for researching
      >the phonology of Quenya is, of course, the _Qenya Phonology_ (QPh):
      >it is a very early text, not revised after 1919 or 1920 (PE12:xvii),
      >but it seems clear to me that the phonology was a very stable element
      >(far more than the lexicon), since much of the information given in QPh
      >coincides with what is -- scantly -- told in LR Appendixes and later
      >linguistic texts.

      **The Qenya Phonology is not, in my opinion, the best resource
      for researching the Quenya as conveived by Tolkien when he
      was writing and after he wrote The Lord of the Rings, though
      it is not still the only source of such a nature published (I hope
      this will change with publication of PE14). Tolkien made a lot
      of changes during his lifetime and while Qenya of QL and
      Quenya of LotR are two terms of the same idea, the structure
      (phonological, morphological etc.) of Qenya is different to Quenya
      of LotR. But as you note, there are things in common.

      >Regarding the rhotacism, in QPh it is said that:
      >
      > - Eldarin had the sound [z] as variant of [ð], but in Cor-Eldarin it
      >gave [r] or [s] (see tables in PE12:15, 16).

      **Did it? It is long since I studied QPh and QL in detail but my
      undestanding is that _z_ was originally a variant of _s_ just as
      _ð_ was a variant of _þ_. At least this is my reading of the sentence
      "_s_, _z_ appear to have been variants similarly of _þ_, _ð_, but
      separated early, and to be treated separately as certain cases in
      Qenya show but the development of Noldorin clearly proves."
      (PE12:15) Since the table (p. 16) of Cor-Eldarin reflexes of primitive
      Eldarin sounds does not mention what happened to voiced spirants
      word-initially, I suppose that voiced _z_ and _ð_ developed as
      variants only word-medially.

      > - After _þ_ > _s_ "_s_ gave _z_ and then _r_ before _l_, _r_, _n_, _m_,
      >_w_, _y_, _bh_, _3_ [approximated transcription; _bh_ is the labial spirant,
      >a crossed _b_ in the text, and _3_ is yogh] giving _ll_, _´r_, _rn_, _rm_,
      >_rw_, _ry_, _rb_ [or] _rw_, _rg_ [or] _´r_" (PE12:19).

      **This is an instance where later development of Quenya differs.
      First of all, Primitive Quendian appears to have had no other
      spirants besides /s/ and /h/. I am not sure about Common Eldarin.

      Anyway, the spirant /þ/ developed from an aspirate /th/ and its
      fate was somewhat different. For instance (/th/ >) /þ/ + /w/ gave
      */þw/ > /sw/, cf. _hiswe_ from KHITH in Etym. Though not
      attested, we may suppose the same for /þ/ + /y/ > */þy/ > */sy/.

      I cannot say what happened to /th/ + /n/, /m/, it is possible the /th/
      was deaspirated and the whole sequence underwent metathesis
      producing */nt/, but I am guessing only.

      As regards _bh_ and _3_ it is even more dubious; note that
      combinations _rb_ and _rg_ are mentioned only in QPh, as far as
      I know they are attested in no Quenya word, not even in the Qenya
      Lexicon alone.

      Finally, as regards /þ/ + /r/ it may be noted that /th/ + /r/ gives /ss/
      in Etym, see _Nessa_ < _nethrâ_ (s.v. NETH-). It is interesting
      that WJ:416 gives a different etymology of _Nessa_: this time it is
      from _neresâ_. Is it because Tolkien changed his mind again and
      now _Nessa_ could not come from _nethrâ_?

      > - "Finally all the voiced spirants were weakened and voiced: ... _s_ >
      >_z_ > _r_" (PE12:20).

      **Note that it should read: "Finally all the voiceless spirants...".

      This is also an instance where development of later Quenya differs: it
      seems that word-final /s/ did not undergo rhotacism, though it still did
      in Etym. A classical example is _olor_ "dream" from ÓLOS- in Etym
      but _olos_ from _olo-s_ (UT:The Istari). I do not know what
      happened to word-final /þ/ in later Quenya. It is true that we do not
      find any instance of word-final /þ/ but then virtually all instances are
      in Noldorin Quenya where /þ/ > /s/. As we know, Quenya allowed
      only dentals word-finally (cf. Letters no. 347). Could /þ/ (belonging to
      the dental series) appear word-finally in Vanyarin Quenya? I am
      inclined to think so.

      > - "_ð_ > _z_ > _r_ everywhere", with some exceptions (PE12:24).
      >
      > - "_ð_ dialectal _rð_ >_rz_ > _rr_ or _´r_" (PE12:24).
      >
      >So, it seems that the oldest stage of the tongues of the Eldar did
      >have the sound [z], but it was lost _before_ Quenya split from the
      >other Eldarin tongues. This was apparently by rhotacism or unvoicing,
      >but we have no details of this early change, since (alas!) Tolkien did
      >not reach a revision in ink of the section for liquids and sibilants
      >(and the pencil layer was deleted, it seems).

      **As I have already said, it is necessary to distinguish between
      development of Qenya as imagined in the QL era and development
      of Quenya as imagined later.

      My understanding of the development of later Quenya is as follows:
      It seems that Primitive Quendian had no other sibilants besides
      /s/ (and no other sibilant besides /s/ is reconstructed for
      Proto-Indo-European). The sibilant might have had basically two
      variants/realizations: [s] and [z], the former occuring
      word-initially, the latter intervocalically and before a voiced
      obstruent (there were probably other variants, perhaps a voiced
      palatalized [z] before [j]?), though it is not certain whether
      this existed already in PQ or the [z] variant developed in CE
      or later. The point is that intervocalic /s/ could have been
      realized (pronounced) as [z].

      At a certain stage voiced occlusives were spirantized intervocalically:
      /b/ > /bh/, /d/ > /ð/, /g/ > /3/. All of these phonemes are later
      lost, either be a complete disappearence (in case of /3/),
      rephonologization (in case of /bh/ > /v/ -- I suppose that before
      turning to /v/, /b/ became /bh/, sc. a voiced bilabial spirant)
      or merging with another phoneme. The last is the case of /ð/
      because it merged with /s/ (realized as [z] intervocalically).
      There was still only one sibilant phoneme in Quenya at that stage.
      It remained so in the Vanyarin dialect. However, in the Noldorin
      dialect the merge of /þ/ with /s/ caused phonologization of the
      opposition between [s] and [z] because now both [s] (from /þ/) and
      [z] could stand intervocalically.

      It is not certain when the change _z_ > _r_ happened but I suppose
      it was after the change of _þ_ to _s_. It is even possible that the
      phonologization of _z_ in Noldorin Quenya triggered the change
      _z_ > _r_, because _z_, until then regarded and actually being
      a variant of _s_, assumed its own phonological status. It was the
      only voiced spirant phoneme in Quenya and it entered into the
      correlation of voice which was otherwise functional for occlusives
      only: /p/ : /b/, /t/ : /d/ etc. (and liquids /hr/ : /r/, /hl/ : /l/
      where it was later lost). The position of /z/ was therefore
      exceptional in the phonological system of Noldorin Quenya.

      >Other texts which indirectly deal with phonology point to this also.
      >The "Qenya Lexicon" has no root with Z.

      **Similarly (if I am not mistaken) it does not have any root/base
      with þ. I suppose the bases given are Cor-Eldarin.

      After this sentence Helios turns to Etym mentioning several forms
      that contain a _z_ (such as _mazgâ_ and _mazgê_, bases EZDE-,
      EZGE- and MIZD-). To this I would like to say that if I am not
      mistaken, these forms are believed to be Common Eldarin or later
      elaborations. As I said, I believe Primitive Quendian did not
      possess _z_ as a separate phoneme.

      Then Helios remarks that Vanyarin Quenya had forms with a _z_
      and that Valarin had also forms with a _z_, He wonders whether:

      > 1) the Eldarin tongues developed the sound [z] again by influence of
      >Valarin?

      **As I have written, I think that [z] (always?) existed as
      a variant of [s] even in CE and PQ.

      > 2) the Noldorin dialect of Quenya (what usually we tell just Quenya)
      >developed the rhotacism as a rejection of Valarin features?

      **It is possible, though it may be the other way round: Vanyar
      adhered to _z_, because they had contacts with Valar and adopted
      and adapted a number of Valarin words.

      >Finally, I would also ask something about rhotacism patterns other
      >than those cited from QPh. As I told before, I find the ideas of that
      >text very stable throughout all the stages of Quenya, but the document
      >is incomplete, and other cases of rhotacism may be found. I would like
      >to have a comprehensive relation of the typical cases of Quenya
      >rhotacism, and I would be very grateful if you could help.

      **The question of rhotacism is not as simple as it may seem,
      there was even a disagreement between Helge Fauskanger
      and Carl Hostetter concerning the analysis of _aselye_ from Aia
      María. I intervened into it; if you are interested, see messages
      entitled _aselye_ from Feb 21th-23rd 2003 on the Quenya
      mailing list (the discussion was meant to continue on the TolkLang
      list, because as Carl noted it was off-topic for the Quenya list,
      but it did not).

      The point is that Tolkien was changing his views on his languages.
      In WJ:413 he states explicitly that "[m]edial _z_ < _s_ had become
      _r_ in the Noldorin dialect of Q except for when an adjacent syllable,
      or [as in case of _Kasar_] the same syllable, already contained
      an _r_". However, in VT44:20 Patrick Wynne, Arden Smith and
      Carl Hostetter mention (not cite unfortunately) an unpublished note
      that "states that this change did not occur when _s_ was followed
      by a stressed vowel". This type of rhotacism is similar to rhotacism
      in the Germanic languages (Verner's law) as is also mentioned by
      Patrick, Arden and Carl (a cross-reference is made to VT27:16 n. 7
      where Carl discussses it).

      > In the Lexicon we clearly see that no medial
      >_s_ goes to _r_ (there are some cases in which seemingly to goes, but
      >only seemingly; see below). But in Etym. and later texts wee see that
      >it changed: for instance, _thausa_ > _thaura_ (V:393 s.v. THUS-);
      >_besû_ > _veru_ (V:352 s.v. BES-);

      **Speaking of the base BES-, it is quite interesting that _verno_ that
      is given in Etym as a reflex of primitive _besnô_ is recognized by
      Patrick and Carl as _venno_ instead. On this occasion I would like
      to ask if the reading was obvious, since it would mean that _s_
      before _n_ was not rhotacized but assimilated to _n_ instead.

      [Yes, the reading _venno_ is clear. For future reference, readers of
      the A&C can assume that corrigenda presented using the formula
      "[for:] THIS [read:] THAT" are certain. If there is any uncertainty about
      the correct reading, this is _always_ indicated, most often by the
      formula "[for:] THIS [perhaps read:] THAT". -- PHW]

      >But the same may be said of other combinations of consonant + _r_,
      >specifically of _n_ + _r_. The name _Eler(r)ína_ is a clear example: The
      >entries to EL- (V:355) and RIG- (V:383) show that it must be a
      >compound of _elen_ + _rína_. Such a combination in Sindarin gave _-ðr-_
      >(see _caran_ + _rass_ > _caradhras_ in LR:1087, or _elen_ + _rim_ >
      >_Eledhrim_ in XI:363); I guess that this is not unique to Sindarin,
      >but that it may be a common Eldarin change, that in Quenya would go
      >further: _nr_ > _ðr_ > _zr_ > _rr_. _Elerína_ was spelled with single _r_
      >since its first occurrence about 1938 (see V:200); this shows, I
      >think, the same _rr_ > _´r_ told above. But in X:154 we see in a text of
      >1951 the explicit change _Elerína_ > _Elerrína_, again to show that
      >Tolkien had changed his mind on this.

      **I would be careful with concluding that _Elerína_ must be from
      _elen_ + _rína_. It is possible that _Elerína_ exhibits a shorter
      version of _elen_, sc. the element _el-_ with a connecting element
      _e_ (or a suffixed stem-vowel). Note that the Quenya form of the
      name of the first Númenórean king is given in _The Shibboleth of
      Fëanor_ (written cca. 1968) as _Elerosse_. The form may also
      exhibit the element _ele-_, which is even suggested by the form
      _Elros_.

      >There is one more case where this might have occurred, but it is
      >unclear: In his cited article, Helge Fauskanger says that, probably,
      >_nyano_ in Etym. (from _nyadrô_, V:379 under NYAD-) should be read
      >*_nyarro_, and that this would show a development similar to those
      >that I have suggested, but with the consonant _d_: _dr_ > _ðr_ > _zr_ >
      >_rr_. It looks likely, but it is also odd that in this case the _rr_ was
      >retained (since Etym. is about 1937, and the idea of retaining _rr_
      >in _Elerrína_ is of 1951). Is there something for casting light on it
      >in the recently published "Addenda and Corrigenda to the Etymologies"?
      >
      >[I will have to defer comment until the second part of the "A&C" is
      >published in _VT_ 46; but of course the reading *_nyarro_ proposed
      >by Helge and others is a reasonable proposal for an apparently
      >problematic form. CFH]

      **It is also possible that _nyano_ is to be read as *_nyaro_ (or even
      *_nyáro_), but we will have to wait until VT46 is published.

      Ales Bican

      --
      What's in a name? That which we call a rose
      by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)
    • Andreas Johansson
      ... In Etym, entry-head, MA3-, we see Eld *_mahtâ-_ derived from earlier *_ma3- tâ-_, and under WA3 we find *wahtâ and *wahsê. I would tend to interpret
      Message 2 of 18 , Jan 1, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Quoting Ales Bican <ales.bican@...>:

        > **This is an instance where later development of Quenya differs.
        > First of all, Primitive Quendian appears to have had no other
        > spirants besides /s/ and /h/. I am not sure about Common Eldarin.

        In Etym, entry-head, MA3-, we see "Eld" *_mahtâ-_ derived from earlier *_ma3-
        tâ-_, and under WA3 we find *wahtâ and *wahsê. I would tend to interpret this
        that PQ /h/ (AKA /3/) became [x] before voiceless consonants, but there is no
        reason to suppose a phone_m_ic split. The there does not seem to be any reason
        to suppose that the Eldarin of Etym had more than two fricative phonemes, and
        I'm not aware of any evidence that later CE had either.

        > As regards _bh_ and _3_ it is even more dubious; note that
        > combinations _rb_ and _rg_ are mentioned only in QPh, as far as
        > I know they are attested in no Quenya word, not even in the Qenya
        > Lexicon alone.

        In Etym, under TARAG, we se *_targâ_ as the ancestral form of Q _tarya_. I'm
        not aware of any attest example of what happened to *rb, but my money's on
        _rv_.

        Andreas
      • Helios De Rosario Martinez
        ... I see. You say it means: _s_ and _z_ are variants (one to each other) similarly as _þ_ and _ð_ are (one to each other). But I interpreted it otherwise:
        Message 3 of 18 , Jan 2, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Ales Bican wrote:

          > It is long since I studied QPh and QL in detail but my
          > undestanding is that _z_ was originally a variant of _s_ just as
          > _ð_ was a variant of _þ_. At least this is my reading of the
          > sentence "_s_, _z_ appear to have been variants similarly of _þ_,
          > _ð_, but separated early, and to be treated separately as certain
          > cases in Qenya show but the development of Noldorin clearly proves."
          > (PE12:15)

          I see. You say it means: _s_ and _z_ are variants (one to each other)
          similarly as _þ_ and _ð_ are (one to each other). But I interpreted it
          otherwise: that _s_ was a variant of _þ_ similarly as _z_ was a
          variant of _ð_.

          [Helios's interpretation here is undoubtedly the correct one. Note that
          Tolkien says _s_ and _z_ are variants _of_ _þ_ and _ð_, not that _s_ is
          a variant of _z_ _as_ _þ_ is of _ð_. Note too that in the accompanying
          chart to this statement, "(_s_)" and "(_z_)" were originally written in as
          variants to _þ_ and _ð_, respectively. CFH]

          There are two main reasons which lead me to think so. First, that in
          the Eldarin > Cor-Eldarin evolution _þ_ > _s_ (initially), and _ð_ >
          _z_ ( > _r_) (medially, at least). And second, that I thought that the
          cited sentence was the same as "_s_, _z_ appear to have been variants
          of _þ_, _ð_ similarly" (I am not native English-speaker, and such
          anastrophes or hyperbatons make me miss the precise meaning of the
          sentences).

          But of course, if you are a native English-speaker (or know more
          English than me, what I think easy indeed), I trust your
          interpretation.

          > Since the table (p. 16) of Cor-Eldarin reflexes of primitive
          > Eldarin sounds does not mention what happened to voiced spirants
          > word-initially, I suppose that voiced _z_ and _ð_ developed as
          > variants only word-medially.

          That is a good point to discuss, by the way. Does not the table of
          PE12:16 mention what happened to initial voiced spirants? I am not
          sure. Of course, there is no row with the label "4/ initial", ("4" is
          the grade of voiced spirants), but there _is_ a "(4)" before "2/
          initial" like the "(2)" before "4/ medial". Since we explicitly learn
          that "2 medial == 4 medial", may it mean that voiced spirants behavied
          initially the same way as voiced stops?

          I wonder why would Tolkien codify it so oddly, nevertheless I think it
          is possible. And you?


          Now, back to the _r_.

          I agree that the examples you provide show that the _s_ rhotacism did
          not have a stable model, and there were more changes from the _Qenya
          Phonology_ model than previously noticed by me. A comment to some:

          > > - "Finally all the voiced spirants were weakened and voiced: ...
          > > _s_ > _z_ > _r_" (PE12:20).
          >
          > **Note that it should read: "Finally all the voiceless spirants...".

          Of course!

          > This is also an instance where development of later Quenya differs:
          > it seems that word-final /s/ did not undergo rhotacism, though it
          > still did in Etym. A classical example is _olor_ "dream" from ÓLOS-
          > in Etym but _olos_ from _olo-s_ (UT:The Istari).

          Yes, more or less. Although I was aware of it, I forgot to point that
          in later stages we can find many exceptions in the model of the _s_
          rhotacism. This is clearly seen in the case of intervocalic _s_
          developed in Etym. and later (I will not mention examples or possible
          causes, since they are already discussed in the messages of the
          _Quenya_ Group you mentioned -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quenya/
          messages #830-832, for any who wants the reference). But I thought
          that the case of final _-s_ is also retained depending of the
          circumstances, not a general rule.

          Let's just take the same example you provide, the note on _olos_ in
          UT:396. You must have noticed that in another note the term _olor_ is
          mentioned instead. By your words I suppose you think that the note with
          _olor_ was somewhat older, and that when Tolkien discarded the final
          _-s_ > _-r_ he then wrote the alternative of _olos_.

          It may be so, but also that both _olos_ and _olor_ existed, coming
          from the original unrhotacized _olos_, but developed differently
          depending of their precise meaning. Notice that _olor_ is translated
          as 'dream' (in the Elvish mood, related to memory, imagination, clear
          vision...), and _olos_ as 'vision, phantasy' (related to mind
          construction, art...). This would be similar to the dicotomy between
          _ar_ (conjunction) / _as_ (preposition), both from Common Eldarin _as_
          ('and') that Carl commented in the message #831 of the _Quenya_ list.

          Anyway, I cannot find evidence of this. It could even be that the word
          _olor_ (the etymology of which is not accurately described in UT:396),
          did not come from _olo-s_ (opposite to _olos_), but from _olo-sV_ (V
          being a short vowel), and so rhotacized because it was intervocalic
          but later lost the sort final vowel. I don't know.


          Then you discuss the matter of the absence of _z_ in Primitive
          Quendian and Common Eldarin words. You give an hypothesis on the
          evolution of these languages distinct from the one described in the
          _Qenya Phonology_. However I think it agrees in one point: that these
          ancient languages did not have the phoneme /z/ (although you point
          that the sound [z] already existed as an allophone of [s], both
          belonging to the phoneme /s/).

          > **I would be careful with concluding that _Elerína_ must be from
          > _elen_ + _rína_. It is possible that _Elerína_ exhibits a shorter
          > version of _elen_, sc. the element _el-_ with a connecting element
          > _e_ (or a suffixed stem-vowel).

          I don't think it was _ele-_ + _rína_. If so, Tolkien would not have
          changed it to _Elerrína_ in later stages (when, according to what I
          said, some combinations of consonant + _r_ > _rr_ did not derived into
          single _r_).

          Helios
        • Andreas Johansson
          ... An obvious point, perhaps, but the change _Elerína_ _Elerrína_ could reflect a change in analysis from _el_+_rína_ to _elen_+_rína_. Andreas
          Message 4 of 18 , Jan 3, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Quoting Helios De Rosario Martinez <imrahil@...>:


            > > **I would be careful with concluding that _Elerína_ must be from
            > > _elen_ + _rína_. It is possible that _Elerína_ exhibits a shorter
            > > version of _elen_, sc. the element _el-_ with a connecting element
            > > _e_ (or a suffixed stem-vowel).
            >
            > I don't think it was _ele-_ + _rína_. If so, Tolkien would not have
            > changed it to _Elerrína_ in later stages (when, according to what I
            > said, some combinations of consonant + _r_ > _rr_ did not derived into
            > single _r_).

            An obvious point, perhaps, but the change _Elerína_>_Elerrína_ could reflect a
            change in analysis from _el_+_rína_ to _elen_+_rína_.

            Andreas
          • Lukas Novak
            I have always supposed that the form _olor_ arose by analogy with the other cases (comp. Latin _honos_/_honor_) . This seems to me to be the most natural
            Message 5 of 18 , Jan 3, 2004
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              I have always supposed that the form _olor_ arose by analogy with
              the other cases (comp. Latin _honos_/_honor_) . This seems to
              me to be the most natural explanation.

              Lukas
            • Ales Bican
              ... **I see. I took a second look on the sentence and yes, it could be read like this. I am not a native English speaker either, so my reading does not have to
              Message 6 of 18 , Jan 3, 2004
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Helios De Rosario Martinez wrote:

                >I see. You say it means: _s_ and _z_ are variants (one to each other)
                >similarly as _þ_ and _ð_ are (one to each other). But I interpreted it
                >otherwise: that _s_ was a variant of _þ_ similarly as _z_ was a
                >variant of _ð_.

                Carl F. Hostetter remarked:

                >Helios's interpretation here is undoubtedly the correct one. Note that
                >Tolkien says _s_ and _z_ are variants _of_ _þ_ and _ð_, not that _s_ is
                >a variant of _z_ _as_ _þ_ is of _ð_. Note too that in the accompanying
                >chart to this statement, "(_s_)" and "(_z_)" were originally written in as
                >variants to _þ_ and _ð_, respectively.

                **I see. I took a second look on the sentence and yes, it could be
                read like this. I am not a native English speaker either, so my
                reading does not have to be natural. I will trust Carl as a native
                speaker.

                I wrote:

                >>Since the table (p. 16) of Cor-Eldarin reflexes of primitive
                >>Eldarin sounds does not mention what happened to voiced spirants
                >>word-initially, I suppose that voiced _z_ and _ð_ developed as
                >>variants only word-medially.

                Helios replied:

                >That is a good point to discuss, by the way. Does not the table of
                >PE12:16 mention what happened to initial voiced spirants? I am not
                >sure. Of course, there is no row with the label "4/ initial", ("4" is
                >the grade of voiced spirants), but there _is_ a "(4)" before "2/
                >initial" like the "(2)" before "4/ medial". Since we explicitly learn
                >that "2 medial == 4 medial", may it mean that voiced spirants behavied
                >initially the same way as voiced stops?

                **It is interesting that we are explicitly told what happened to
                voiced stops (explosives) word-initially and what happened to
                voiced spirants word-medially. We are also told that voiced stops
                medially = voiced spirants medially. Could it be that the two
                series had a complementary distribution? What I mean is that voiced
                stops occurred only word-initially and voiced spirants only
                word-medially. Or is it to suggest that initially voiced spirants
                merged with voiced stops and medially voiced stops merged with
                voiced spirants (which would also result in complementarity)?

                To put it diagrammatically:
                first phase
                initially:
                voiced stops - remained
                voiced spirants > voiced stops
                medially:
                voiced stops > voiced spirants
                voiced spirants - remained
                second phase
                initially:
                voiced stops - developed as described in PE12:16
                medially:
                voiced spirants - developed as described in PE12:16

                Note that (as I mentioned in the previous post) later (in real
                time) voiced stops seem to become voiced spirants medially, so
                perhaps this aspect was incorporated and present already in
                developments in the Qenya era. As commonly known, Tolkien was
                inspired by Finnish and Finnish is not very fond of voiced
                stops. Note also that in draft notes on pp. 23-4 (op. cit.)
                Tolkien mentioned only voiced spirants, there does not seem
                to be any note on voiced stops.

                [_olos_ vs. _olor_:]

                >Yes, more or less. Although I was aware of it, I forgot to point that
                >in later stages we can find many exceptions in the model of the _s_
                >rhotacism. This is clearly seen in the case of intervocalic _s_
                >developed in Etym. and later (I will not mention examples or possible
                >causes, since they are already discussed in the messages of the
                >_Quenya_ Group you mentioned -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quenya/
                >messages #830-832, for any who wants the reference). But I thought
                >that the case of final _-s_ is also retained depending of the
                >circumstances, not a general rule.

                **Let me note that the messages 830 through 832 is actually the
                discussion on _aselye_ that I had with Carl and that I mentioned
                last time. In the discussion I theorized that the exceptions like
                _ósanwe_ or _alasaila_ may rather be due to analogy and
                congruence with _sanwe_ and _saila_.

                >Let's just take the same example you provide, the note on _olos_ in
                >UT:396. You must have noticed that in another note the term _olor_ is
                >mentioned instead. By your words I suppose you think that the note with
                >_olor_ was somewhat older, and that when Tolkien discarded the final
                >_-s_ > _-r_ he then wrote the alternative of _olos_.

                **My opinion is that in the Etym era final _s_ turned to _r_ but
                it did not later (say, after publication of LotR). Actually, I
                overlooked the fact that the text on Istari in UT mentioned also
                _olor_. It may be that the _r_ in _olor_ was original, sc. not
                a product of rhotacism, unlike the _r_ in _olor_ from Etym which
                < _s_.

                >It may be so, but also that both _olos_ and _olor_ existed, coming
                >from the original unrhotacized _olos_, but developed differently
                >depending of their precise meaning.

                **This is of course possible.

                > Notice that _olor_ is translated
                >as 'dream' (in the Elvish mood, related to memory, imagination, clear
                >vision...), and _olos_ as 'vision, phantasy' (related to mind
                >construction, art...). This would be similar to the dicotomy between
                >_ar_ (conjunction) / _as_ (preposition), both from Common Eldarin _as_
                >('and') that Carl commented in the message #831 of the _Quenya_ list.

                **While this is possible as well, it need not be so. As
                I wrote in the message no. 830 on the Quenya list, I am not
                quite convinced that _ar_ "and" and _as_ "with" are really derived
                from the same root, sc. AS. The status of rhotacism in the
                Prayers is, I think, not obvious, there are several uncertainties,
                e.g. _nísi_ -- why not *_níri_? Let me note that I also touched
                this matter in my article _the -s case_:
                http://www.elvish.org/elm/scase.html

                >Anyway, I cannot find evidence of this. It could even be that the word
                >_olor_ (the etymology of which is not accurately described in UT:396),
                >did not come from _olo-s_ (opposite to _olos_), but from _olo-sV_ (V
                >being a short vowel), and so rhotacized because it was intervocalic
                >but later lost the sort final vowel. I don't know.

                **This is possible, too. However, it would mean that rhotacism
                took place before loss of final short vowels. We do not know
                when rhotacism was meant to happen in the Etym era but the
                essay _Quendi and Eldar_ suggests that it was quite a late
                change when final CE short vowels were most likely dropped.

                Another instance of possible different development of final _s_
                can be seen in instances of the short 3rd person pronominal
                suffix. It seems to appear as _-r_ in Earendel (see MC): _lútier
                ... Earendil_ "sailed Earendel", _langon ... kírier_ "the throat
                ... clove", _i lunte linganer_ "the boad hummed" and _i súru
                laustaner_ "the wind 'lausted'". However, it appears as _-s_ in
                famous _utúvienyes_ (LotR) or _eques_ "said he / she" (WJ:415).

                On my suggestion that _Elerína_ may be _ele + rína_ instead
                of _elen + rína_ Helios wrote:

                >I don't think it was _ele-_ + _rína_. If so, Tolkien would not have
                >changed it to _Elerrína_ in later stages (when, according to what I
                >said, some combinations of consonant + _r_ > _rr_ did not derived into
                >single _r_).

                **I am not sure if I understand you. If it was once _ele + rína_,
                why could Tolkien not decide later it was rather _elen + rína_?

                * * *

                I wrote:

                >>As regards _bh_ and _3_ it is even more dubious; note that
                >>combinations _rb_ and _rg_ are mentioned only in QPh, as far as
                >>I know they are attested in no Quenya word, not even in the Qenya
                >>Lexicon alone.

                Andreas Johannson remarked:

                >In Etym, under TARAG, we se *_targâ_ as the ancestral form of Q
                >_tarya_.

                **This is an interesting development. I wonder what the next part
                of A&C will say about it because I cannot quite understand the
                change of _g_ to _y_. Perhaps the _y_ in _tarya_ is a misreading
                for _g_ and we will have the very first word with _rg_? And
                looking at development of _gh_ (written as gamma) in PE12:24 where
                _rgh_ gave _rg_, it may even be that the _y_ is a misreading for
                a gamma.

                > I'm
                >not aware of any attest example of what happened to *rb, but my money's
                >on _rv_.

                **I would place the same bet, though QPh allows existence of
                _rb_ along with _lb_. And if later Quenya has variation _lb_ ~
                _lv_, it could also have _rb_ ~ _rv_.

                And Andreas, as regards spirant phonemes in CE, I agree
                with you: I also think CE of Etym did not have more
                spirant phonemes other than /s/ (realized as [s]
                word-initially and [z] intervocalically?) and /h/ realized
                as, inter alia, [x] before a voiceless sound. (A question
                may be asked if _kt_ had already become _xt_ when _3t_
                became _xt_. If so, I would be tempted to intepret [x]
                in _mahta_ as a realization of an archiphoneme /k-h/
                but that is a different matter.)


                Ales Bican

                --
                What's in a name? That which we call a rose
                by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)
              • Hans Georg Lundahl
                The contrastive forms _olos_ and _olor_ can be explained with ease in two different ways: A) originally _olos_ gets its final _s_ voiced in position before
                Message 7 of 18 , Jan 3, 2004
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  The contrastive forms _olos_ and _olor_ can be explained with ease in two different ways:

                  A) originally _olos_ gets its final _s_ voiced in position before vocalic endings to _z_ which then becomes _r_ (cf. Old Latin _honos_, Classic & Vulgar Latin _honor_).

                  B) originally *_oloz_ (wherever that came from) remains in position before vocalic endings, and later becomes _olor_, but gets its final _z_ devoiced to _olos_ in word-final position (cf. Polish G.Pl. spelled _ów_ [Croatian _ov_] and pronounced _uf_).

                  As _s_ is a more common phoneme than _z_: do we actually _know_ that explanation A can be excluded so that explanation B must be accepted and raise the problem of where that _z_ came from? I am speaking of the internal evolution of _LotR_-style Quenya from Primitive Eldarin, I am well aware that _z_ occurs in Qenya.

                  Höstrusk och grå moln - köp en resa till solen på Yahoo! Resor

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Andreas Johansson
                  ... Well, as there s to the very best of my knowledge no (other) Q word with a gamma in it, it would rather surpise me. And _g_ _gh_ _y_ is hardly very odd.
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jan 3, 2004
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Quoting Ales Bican <ales.bican@...>:

                    > Andreas Johannson remarked:
                    >
                    >> In Etym, under TARAG, we se *_targâ_ as the ancestral form of Q >_tarya_.
                    >
                    > ... I cannot quite understand the change of _g_ to _y_. Perhaps the _y_ in
                    > _tarya_ is a misreading for _g_ and we will have the very first word with
                    > _rg_? And looking at development of _gh_ (written as gamma) in PE12:24
                    > where _rgh_ gave _rg_, it may even be that the _y_ is a misreading for a
                    > gamma.

                    Well, as there's to the very best of my knowledge no (other) Q word with a
                    gamma in it, it would rather surpise me. And _g_>_gh_>_y_ is hardly very odd.
                    Greek's done it before front vowels, f'rinstance, and Noldorin seems to much
                    the same in _Diriel_<_Dirghel_ (mentioned under DER in Etym), where the second
                    element is from GYEL. Unchanged _-rg-_ wouldn't agree with the statement in
                    Appendix E that Q only had _g_ in _-ng-_, but of course, the Professor may
                    have changed his mind between writing Etym and LotR.

                    There's also Q _felya_ from PHELEG- - no primitive form listed, but almost
                    certainly *_phelgâ_; cf AT _felga_ and ON _phelga_. This would be a parallel
                    development.

                    (And yes, I'm aware of Q _ulundo_ < _ulgundô_, which raises the question why
                    we're not seeing **fela instead.)

                    > (A question may be asked if _kt_ had already become _xt_ when _3t_ became
                    > _xt_. If so, I would be tempted to intepret [x] in _mahta_ as a realization of an
                    > archiphoneme /k-h/ but that is a different matter.)

                    It cannot have, since _ma3-tâ-_>_mahtâ-_ and _maktâ-_ yields different forms
                    in Noldorin; _matho_ (with the Noldorin infinitival -o) and _maetha_ (glossed
                    as infinitive, but apparently a "personless" present tense) respectively.

                    "Quendi and Eldar" has AT _hecta-_ from _hek-tâ-_, confirming that _kt_ > _ht_
                    is a specifically Quenya development.

                    Andreas
                  • Darrell Martin
                    Greetings: If one wished to test a hypothesis that some invented Tolkien language I is based on some primary-world language P, how ought one go about it?
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jan 3, 2004
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Greetings:

                      If one wished to test a hypothesis that some invented Tolkien language I is "based on" some primary-world language P, how ought one go about it?

                      What features and criteria would be sufficient demonstration of an influence? What documentation would be expected?

                      Darrell


                      Darrell A. Martin darrellm@...
                      a native Vermonter currently in exile in Illinois
                      http://www.darrell-martin.net/genealogy


                      [I would say that phonetic character, sc. inventory and permitted patterns, and especially the phonological developments that produced them, must rank as the chief influence on Tolkien's languages from primary-world languages. If you can demonstrate a persuasive similarity between the phonological development of language I from Common Eldarin and that of language P from Proto-Indo-European (assuming P is an IE language), I would count the influence demonstrated. Other influences exist as well, of course, as with grammatical mutation in Sindarin and Welsh, or the rich inflectional systems of Quenya and Finnish (and to a lesser extent Latin). For Tolkienian and/or primary-world languages where phonological information is spotty or non-existent (e.g., Khuzdul, Black Speech), one must instead rely on synchronic features, such as an inventory of phonemes and permitted sound patterns, apparent derivational mechanisms, etc. etc. CFH]
                    • Lukas Novak
                      ... Perhaps because of the difference of the stress pattern? In felga felya the felg fely syllable is stressed, whereas in ulgundo ulundo the ulg ul
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jan 4, 2004
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Andreas Johansson wrote:

                        > (And yes, I'm aware of Q _ulundo_ < _ulgundô_, which raises
                        > the question why we're not seeing **fela instead.)

                        Perhaps because of the difference of the stress pattern?
                        In "felga>felya" the "felg>fely" syllable is stressed, whereas
                        in "ulgundo>ulundo" the "ulg>ul" syllable is not stressed?
                        To me it makes sense - but who is me :-) ?

                        Lukas
                      • Andreas Johansson
                        ... I d rather expect the words to syllabify as fel.ya and u.lun.do, respectively, but the idea that the difference is due to the difference in stress might be
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jan 5, 2004
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Quoting Lukas Novak <lukas.novak@...>:

                          > Andreas Johansson wrote:
                          >
                          > > (And yes, I'm aware of Q _ulundo_ < _ulgundô_, which raises
                          > > the question why we're not seeing **fela instead.)
                          >
                          > Perhaps because of the difference of the stress pattern?
                          > In "felga>felya" the "felg>fely" syllable is stressed, whereas
                          > in "ulgundo>ulundo" the "ulg>ul" syllable is not stressed?
                          > To me it makes sense - but who is me :-) ?

                          I'd rather expect the words to syllabify as fel.ya and u.lun.do, respectively,
                          but the idea that the difference is due to the difference in stress might be
                          correct nonetheless. I don't think I've ever heard any other decent internal
                          explanation, while the obvious external one, that the good Professor changed
                          the rules during the composition of Etym, has been advanced repeatedly.

                          Another possible internal explanation that struck me right now is that it
                          could simply be due to the different following vowel. No closely parallel case
                          is known to me, but the phenomenon as such, the same consonant behaving
                          variously depending on the following vowel, is examplified by the different
                          fate of primitive *w before *a and *o, for instance. (I'm unfortunately unable
                          to provide a proper citation for that, having again left my library back in
                          Sweden. Carl?)

                          [Comparison of derivatives of Etym. WÔ- (Q _o-_/_ó-_) and bases in WA-,
                          such as WA3- (Q _vára_), WAN- (Q _vanya_), etc. exhibit this contrast.
                          See also the statement in _Quendi and Eldar_ that initial _w-_ was "lost in
                          Quenya before _ô_" (XI:367). (Please note that I make no promise of
                          providing citations in the future!) CFH]

                          Andreas
                        • Ales Bican
                          ... **So would it surprise me. I did not want to say that it should really be a gamma but the development in QPh I mentioned last time (i.e. _r _ ... **I
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jan 5, 2004
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Andreas Johansson wrote:

                            >>>In Etym, under TARAG, we se *_targâ_ as the ancestral form of Q >_tarya_.
                            >>>
                            >> ... I cannot quite understand the change of _g_ to _y_. Perhaps the _y_ in
                            >> _tarya_ is a misreading for _g_ and we will have the very first word with
                            >> _rg_? And looking at development of _gh_ (written as gamma) in PE12:24
                            >> where _rgh_ gave _rg_, it may even be that the _y_ is a misreading for a
                            >> gamma.
                            >
                            > Well, as there's to the very best of my knowledge no (other) Q word with a
                            > gamma in it, it would rather surpise me.

                            **So would it surprise me. I did not want to say that it should really be a
                            gamma but the development in QPh I mentioned last time (i.e. _r<gamma>_
                            > _rg_) struck my attention. Gamma is after all similar to _y_.

                            > And _g_>_gh_>_y_ is hardly very odd. Greek's done it before front vowels,
                            > f'rinstance, and Noldorin seems to much the same in _Diriel_<_Dirghel_
                            > (mentioned under DER in Etym), where the second element is from GYEL.

                            **I do not claim that it cannot be possible. I would only like to understand
                            the development. If this happened in Greek before front vowels, it is
                            understandable, since after spirantization _g_ could have been assimilated
                            to _i_ or _e_, sc. fronted to become palatal fricative and then become (or
                            remained fricative?) palatal appoximant _y_. However, I can hardly see
                            motivation in the case of _targâ_ > Q _tarya_.

                            > Unchanged _-rg-_ wouldn't agree with the statement in Appendix E that
                            > Q only had _g_ in _-ng-_, but of course, the Professor may have changed
                            > his mind between writing Etym and LotR.

                            **Sure he could and very likely did, as suggests e.g. _ei_ in _inimeite_
                            (Etym s.v. INI).

                            >There's also Q _felya_ from PHELEG- - no primitive form listed, but almost
                            >certainly *_phelgâ_; cf AT _felga_ and ON _phelga_. This would be a parallel
                            >development.

                            **Two instances make it more probable but still I am interested in what A&C
                            will say about it.


                            Ales Bican

                            --
                            What's in a name? That which we call a rose
                            by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)
                          • Andreas Johansson
                            ... Because I m a dudhead, I forgot to mention you get rG rj also in Swedish. I m not sufficiently into the phonological development of my native language to
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jan 6, 2004
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Quoting Ales Bican <ales.bican@...>:

                              > Quoting Andreas Johansson:
                              > > And _g_>_gh_>_y_ is hardly very odd. Greek's done it before front vowels,
                              > > f'rinstance, and Noldorin seems to much the same in _Diriel_<_Dirghel_
                              > > (mentioned under DER in Etym), where the second element is from GYEL.
                              >
                              > **I do not claim that it cannot be possible. I would only like to understand
                              >
                              > the development. If this happened in Greek before front vowels, it is
                              > understandable, since after spirantization _g_ could have been assimilated
                              > to _i_ or _e_, sc. fronted to become palatal fricative and then become (or
                              > remained fricative?) palatal appoximant _y_. However, I can hardly see
                              > motivation in the case of _targâ_ > Q _tarya_.

                              Because I'm a dudhead, I forgot to mention you get rG > rj also in Swedish.
                              I'm not sufficiently into the phonological development of my native language
                              to tell exactly in what environments, but it seems to have failed to take
                              place medially before a back vowel (e.g. _morgon_ ['mOr`gOn] "morning"),
                              but it did happen finally (e.g. _varg_ [var`j] "wolf"*), so no front vowel is
                              _required_ for it. You do get it before 'a' (e.g. _vargar_ ['var`jar`] "wolves"),
                              but then this is a front [a], not back [A] like in Q, and all examples of -rga-
                              I can think of have a morpheme boundary in them anyway.

                              * This is of course not the cognate of "wolf" - that's _ulv_ [8lv]. But I
                              suspect it's very much connected to Tolkienian "warg"!

                              Andreas

                              PS Phonetic transcriptions above follow the X-SAMPA system, which is described
                              here: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/sampa/x-sampa.htm . Note further that
                              values are for my dialect - in particular, a retroflex trill is far from the
                              only variant of Swedish /r/ heard! Indeed, in casual speech some of those
                              would be retroflex approximants for me.
                            • David Kiltz
                              ... In addition to Andreas Johansson s examples from Swedish, I might add that in some German dialects the same happens. In the Rhineland area you have /ju:t/
                              Message 14 of 18 , Jan 6, 2004
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 05.01.2004, at 23:27, Ales Bican wrote:

                                > I can hardly see
                                > motivation in the case of _targâ_ > Q _tarya_.

                                In addition to Andreas Johansson's examples from Swedish, I might add
                                that in some German dialects the same happens. In the Rhineland area
                                you have /ju:t/ for SG (=Standard German) _gut_ etc. (the 'j' being
                                pronounced very similar to English 'y' but with some palatal friction).
                                In fact, moving towards the Ruhrgebiet you will hear /gürjen/ for the
                                PN 'Jürgen', that is /j/ and /g/ are exchanged. Phonetically, what
                                happens is that 'light', that is palatalized /g/ becomes a fricative
                                which naturally yields /j/. Now (for your point) velar or
                                non-palatalized /g/ should become /G/ (I mean the velar voiced back
                                spirant). However the opposition /G/ : /j/ is leveled in favour of /j/.
                                The reason for that would seem to be that a /G/ would normally be
                                pronounced further down the throat than /g/ hence in the process of
                                spirantization the point of articulation is moved either way (to the
                                front or the rear of the gum). Possibly because the process of
                                spirantization started with palatalized /g'/, i.e. g before front
                                vowels and was then analogously extended to all instances of /g/. Or
                                else, because the pronunciation of /g/ has already been somewhat
                                fronted before, so that the output is /j/ without significant movement
                                of the point of articulation, if any at all. In fact, there *is* a very
                                slight difference between /j/ in _jeck_ 'crazy' and _jut_ 'good', the
                                latter being pronounced somewhat more to the back, between the palatum
                                and the velum.

                                I think that a scenario along these lines looks rather likely. At any
                                rate, the development exhibited by Quenya is well documented in real
                                world languages, as /j/ = /y/ is attested even in the history of
                                English (although the output of /g/ +- pal. are different).

                                -David Kiltz
                              • Lukas Novak
                                ... I rather agree - I did not mean to imply where exactly the syllable boundary lies. ... Yes, but it seems that Q phonology avoids _w_ and _y_ glides
                                Message 15 of 18 , Jan 6, 2004
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Andreas Johansson wrote:

                                  > I'd rather expect the words to syllabify as fel.ya and u.lun.do,
                                  > respectively,

                                  I rather agree - I did not mean to imply where exactly the syllable
                                  boundary lies.

                                  > Another possible internal explanation that struck me right now is that it
                                  > could simply be due to the different following vowel.

                                  > [Comparison of derivatives of Etym. WÔ- (Q _o-_/_ó-_) and bases in WA-,
                                  > such as WA3- (Q _vára_), WAN- (Q _vanya_), etc. exhibit this contrast.
                                  > See also the statement in _Quendi and Eldar_ that initial _w-_ was "lost in
                                  > Quenya before _ô_" (XI:367). (Please note that I make no promise of
                                  > providing citations in the future!) CFH]

                                  Yes, but it seems that Q phonology avoids _w_ and _y_ glides
                                  consistently before the phonologically related vowels: the rounded
                                  vowels in case of _w_, and the highest vowel (_i_) in case of _y_.
                                  I would not on this ground expect that the following _u_ is the reason
                                  why _g_ disappears rather than changes into _y_ (we have "yulda",
                                  so _yu_ is allowed).

                                  Lukas
                                • Lukas Novak
                                  ... I can think of 2 possible motivations: analogy, or getting the pronunciation nearer to the preceding dental/alveolar _r_ (_l_). Together with the attempt
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Jan 6, 2004
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Ales Bican wrote:

                                    > I can hardly see motivation in the case of _targâ_ > Q _tarya_.

                                    I can think of 2 possible motivations: analogy, or getting
                                    the pronunciation nearer to the preceding dental/alveolar
                                    _r_ (_l_). Together with the attempt to retain the long syllable
                                    (which excludes just dropping the sound), because of
                                    its being stressed.

                                    Lukas
                                  • Andreas Johansson
                                    ... I never said it was a _good_ explanation, but if it has any validity, surely the consonant dropped at the gh stage, and gh is nearer to u than to
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Jan 7, 2004
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Quoting Lukas Novak <lukas.novak@...>:

                                      > I would not on this ground expect that the following _u_ is the reason
                                      > why _g_ disappears rather than changes into _y_ (we have "yulda",
                                      > so _yu_ is allowed).

                                      I never said it was a _good_ explanation, but if it has any validity, surely
                                      the consonant dropped at the 'gh' stage, and 'gh' is nearer to 'u' than to 'a'.

                                      One might also argue that what we need explained isn't why 'gh' dropped in
                                      _ulundo_, which is the normal fate of 'gh' in Q, but why it failed to drop in
                                      _tarya_ and _felya_. In this light your suggestion re: maintaining length of a
                                      stressed syllable seems the more relevant explanation.

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