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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Quenya rhotacism

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , Jan 1, 2004
    • 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 2 of 18 , Jan 2, 2004
      • 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 3 of 18 , Jan 3, 2004
        • 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 4 of 18 , Jan 3, 2004
          • 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 5 of 18 , Jan 3, 2004
            • 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 6 of 18 , Jan 3, 2004
              • 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 7 of 18 , Jan 3, 2004
                • 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 8 of 18 , Jan 3, 2004
                  • 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 9 of 18 , Jan 4, 2004
                    • 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 10 of 18 , Jan 5, 2004
                      • 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 11 of 18 , Jan 5, 2004
                        • 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 12 of 18 , Jan 6, 2004
                          • 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 13 of 18 , Jan 6, 2004
                            • 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 14 of 18 , Jan 6, 2004
                              • 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 15 of 18 , Jan 6, 2004
                                • 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 16 of 18 , Jan 7, 2004
                                  • 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.