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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: Quenya rhotacism

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