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

Re: Quenya rhotacism

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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.