_rg_ in Quenya
- Andreas Johansson wrote:
>>>In Etym, under TARAG, we se *_targâ_ as the ancestral form of Q >_tarya_.**So would it surprise me. I did not want to say that it should really be a
>> ... 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
> 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.
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_.**I do not claim that it cannot be possible. I would only like to understand
> 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.
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**Sure he could and very likely did, as suggests e.g. _ei_ in _inimeite_
> Q only had _g_ in _-ng-_, but of course, the Professor may have changed
> his mind between writing Etym and LotR.
(Etym s.v. INI).
>There's also Q _felya_ from PHELEG- - no primitive form listed, but almost**Two instances make it more probable but still I am interested in what A&C
>certainly *_phelgâ_; cf AT _felga_ and ON _phelga_. This would be a parallel
will say about it.
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)
- Quoting Ales Bican <ales.bican@...>:
> Quoting Andreas Johansson:Because I'm a dudhead, I forgot to mention you get rG > rj also in Swedish.
> > 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_.
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"!
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.
- On 05.01.2004, at 23:27, Ales Bican wrote:
> I can hardly seeIn addition to Andreas Johansson's examples from Swedish, I might add
> motivation in the case of _targâ_ > Q _tarya_.
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).
- Andreas Johansson wrote:
> I'd rather expect the words to syllabify as fel.ya and u.lun.do,I rather agree - I did not mean to imply where exactly the syllable
> Another possible internal explanation that struck me right now is that itYes, but it seems that Q phonology avoids _w_ and _y_ glides
> 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]
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).
- 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.
- Quoting Lukas Novak <lukas.novak@...>:
> I would not on this ground expect that the following _u_ is the reasonI never said it was a _good_ explanation, but if it has any validity, surely
> why _g_ disappears rather than changes into _y_ (we have "yulda",
> so _yu_ is allowed).
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.