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

Various umlauts in Sindarin plurals

Expand Messages
  • Pavel Iosad
    Greetings, It has been observed multiple times before that the Sindarin vowel _o_ exhibits different behaviour when subject to umlaut, most prominently in noun
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 14, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings,

      It has been observed multiple times before that the Sindarin vowel _o_
      exhibits different behaviour when subject to umlaut, most prominently in
      noun plurals. Subject to umlaut, _o_ variously yields _y_ or _ö_ > _e_.
      It has been argued (by, for example, Helge Fauskanger in his Ardalambion
      Sindarin article (http://www.uib.no/people/hnohf/sindarin.htm) or
      Ryszard Derdzinski in his summary of the Sindarin grammar) that this
      depends on whether the sound is in a final or non-final syllable. This
      may be true for certain stages of Tolkien's conception, but in this opus
      I will argue that it is not so in the Sindarin we meet in 'The Lord of
      the Rings'.

      My proposition is that at some point Tolkien's conception was, for a
      time perhaps, envisaged, in the following way: _y_ is the umlauted form
      of the _o_ stemming from earlier _u_, while _e_ (< _ö_) is the product
      of the 'old' o-vowel.

      One obvious reason is phonetic. Helge (and Ryszard) argue that _o_
      becomes _ö_ in a non-final syllable, i.e. that the degree of
      assimilation of _o_ to _i_ is there for reason of distance 'less' than
      that in a final syllable. While that has a point, it may be argued that
      the assimilation of _o_ to _ö_ is not much 'less' than of _o_ to _y_. We
      can arrange the four vowels in question (_o_, _u_, _ö_, _y_) in the
      following tidy way:

      y------u
      | |
      ö------o

      _i_-umlaut is essentially the movement of the vowel to the left on this
      chart. It can be easily seen that _ö_ is the most natural product of
      _i_-umlauted _o_. The umlaut of _o_ to _y_ may be seen as assimilation
      by vowel height.

      Another argument is presented by the behaviour of _u_ when subject to
      _i_-umlaut (_tulus_ 'poplar' vs _tylys_ 'poplars', V: 395 s.v.TYUL).
      This is probably a pointer in the direction of the supposition that back
      vowels are subject to _i_-umlaut uniformly in final and non-final
      syllables. On the other hand, _u_-evidence isn't really conclusive, as
      _u_ is a high vowel, and so the umlauted version can't go any higher, or
      closer to _i_, unlike _o_.

      In LR, there is, seemingly, evidence for both interpretations. On one
      hand, ther are forms like _Ered Mithrin_ (cf. ÓROT- in V:379), but they
      are in apparent contrast with _yrch_ (form ÓROK-, ibid.). We might
      however observe that all instances save two of _o_ > _y_, where _o_ <
      _*o_, occur in monosyllables (_yrch_, _tyll_ (TOL2), _by^r_ BOR). It
      might be surmised that in monosyllables _o_ indeed moved into _y_, and
      the greater degree of assimilation may be caused, say, by stress.

      There is a later form _eryd_ in WJ:6, as well as _gelydh_ (from _golodh_
      < _*ñgolodo_). These date mostly from post-LR time, cf. for instance the
      plural of _golodh_ in the Etymologies - _goeloeidh_, _geleidh_. It
      appears that in the later conception, the rule 'final-syllable _o_ >
      _y_' was indeed valid. This explanation is easier than the one proposed
      by Helge, who tries to invent some kind of 'status constructus' to
      explain Tolkien's persistence in not changing the LR form _ered_.

      Other instances of the _o_ > _y_ shift in final syllables do not suggest
      that the theory is invalid. They seem to appear in derivational
      suffixes, the precise proto-form of which is actually unknown. These
      include:

      _amon_ > _emyn_ (AM-)
      _annon_ > _ennyn_ (AD-)
      _ithron_ > _ithryn_, apparently from _*ist-rVn_ (IS-)

      It is not inconceivable that these contain a prehistoric suffix _*-un_ >
      _-on_.

      May it also be noted that in the Etymologies Noldorin words with _o_'s
      from _o_ generally have plurals with _ö_/_e_ or _öi_/_ei_, as for
      example _gwador_, pl. _gwedeir_ (TOR-), _thoron_, pl. _therein_
      (THORON-). Words with _u_, on the other hand, would, I suggest, have
      'diphthong-stage' plurals with _ui_. This is not at all impossible, and
      anyway was there in the twenties. Confer PE13:122 ('u(.... mutates to
      *ui*' (u( is an u-breve)) We have however counter-examples like _dölio_,
      _delio_ from DUL- and conversely _peringiul_ (obviosuly _peringuil_)
      from ÑGOL-, but that siply shows that Tolkien was vacillating in this
      matter, and so we do not need to invent explanations and simply must
      accept that this is the usual Tolkienian inconsistency or
      indecisiveness, since these forms are all, using Bill's good term,
      'workshop-Sindarin'. May it then be noted that _amon_ has an early
      plural form _emuin_, which points to a possible -u- in the suffix. One
      might question why I posit an -u- in the suffix of _annon_ if we have
      its apparent Q(u)enya cognate _andon_ from _*andondo_ with _o_. But
      there is evidence for an *_u_ > _o_ shift in Quenya, as in _órku_ > Q.
      _orko_.

      It is interesting to note that _muindyr_as the pl. of _muindor_ (TOR) is
      described as analogical. Since this is a compound, the failure of
      _ui_-shift in the plural is not very likely to be due to analogy, and
      probably this is intended to mean that _y_ is analogical to the _y_ in
      _*tyr_ 'brothers', which appears there since it's a monosyllable, but
      normally the plural of _muindor_ would be _*muinder_.

      And of course there is ample evidence for an _u_ > _o_ shift in Sindarin
      (or should we say Noldorin?).

      So, to sum it up:

      It is, in my opinion, not inconceivable that in Sindarin, at least at
      one stage of its development (around the time of the completion and 2nd
      edition of LR), the _i_-umlaut causes the shifting of _o_ to _y_ in a)
      monosyllables and b) cases where this _o_ comes from earlier _u_.
      Otherwise, _o_ shifts to _ö_ > _e_ in all cases, even in final
      syllables. There is no need of 'updating' Noldorin words like _doron_
      pl. _deren_, as Helge suggests (and why should we do any updating
      anyway? :-)).

      And of course I apologise profusely if this has been discussed before.

      Pavel
      --
      Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

      'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
      --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_
    • tchitrec
      On June 14th in post n° 68, Pavel Iosad published an interesting hypothetis about umlauts in various external stages of Noldorin /Sindarin. ... This could be
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 17, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        On June 14th in post n° 68, Pavel Iosad published an interesting
        hypothetis about umlauts in various external stages
        of "Noldorin"/Sindarin.

        > it may be argued that the assimilation of _o_ to _ö_ is not much
        > 'less' than of _o_ to _y_. We can arrange the four vowels in question
        > (_o_, _u_, _ö_, _y_) in the following tidy way:
        >
        > y------u
        > | |
        > ö------o

        This could be questioned, because your vowel-diagram would be better
        described as trapezoidal :

        y------—u
        \ |
        ö----o

        so the distance o-y is indeed significantly greater than o-ö.
        Moreover, Sindarin I-affection implies not only fronting (u>y) but
        also raising (e>i).

        Nevertheless, it remains possible to do without the notion of
        distance-influenced umlaut if several stages in I-affection are
        envisioned. The following system can be imaginated for externally
        late Sindarin (especially considering the evolution of the name of
        Ossë in Sindarin, see XI:400 : _Ossai_ > _Ossî_ > _ussi_ > _yssi_
        with non-syllabic i, marked with a subscribed crescent) :
        - first, raising of e to i and o to u before final i
        - then, fronting of back vowels before any non-hiatic i : a, o, u >
        e, ö, y
        - a later anticipation of final i, which evidently became non-
        syllabic (see above), seems necessary to explain various diphthongs
        produced by I-affection in final syllables ; but it is not implied
        here.

        According to this model, o > y would never occur directly, the
        fronting of o yielding only ö. O > y would be the product of two
        distinct - though related - processes.

        > There is a later form _eryd_ in WJ:6, as well as _gelydh_ (from
        > _golodh_ < _*ñgolodo_). These date mostly from post-LR time (...). It
        > appears that in the later conception, the rule 'final-syllable _o_ >
        > _y_' was indeed valid. This explanation is easier than the one
        > proposed by Helge, who tries to invent some kind of 'status
        > constructus' to explain Tolkien's persistence in not changing the LR
        > form _ered_.

        Indeed _eryd_ becomes much more common in _The War of the Jewels_,
        though _ered_ does not totally disappears. Possibly Tolkien
        felt "compelled" to keep _ered_ because it had appeared in LR. This
        would not, however, be the only example of "status constructus" : we
        also have things like the shortening of monosyllables as first
        elements of genitival compounds, e.g. _Dôr_ (XI:413) being shortened
        in _Dor Caranthir_, _Dor Daedeloth_... (Silmarillion Index). Perhaps
        phrases like _Ered Wethrin_ were treated like compounds :
        _*orodwathren_ would regularly yield the pl. _*eredwethrin_.

        > there is evidence for an *_u_ > _o_ shift in Quenya, as in _órku_ >
        > Q. _orko_.

        Finally, yes. Internally, I think it is quite dubious : it is stated
        in XI:390 that _orko_ is influenced by Sindarin _orch_ where the o is
        normal, but the regular Q form is rather _urko_ from _*uruku. In the
        Etym, _orko_ comes form a stem _ÓROK-_ (V:379), so there is no need
        to posit an internal u > o shift.

        > It is interesting to note that _muindyr_as the pl. of _muindor_
        > (TOR) is described as analogical. Since this is a compound, the
        > failure of _ui_-shift in the plural is not very likely to be due to
        > analogy, and probably this is intended to mean that _y_ is analogical
        > to the _y_ in _*tyr_ 'brothers', which appears there since it's a
        > monosyllable, but normally the plural of _muindor_ would be
        > _*muinder_.

        Seeing that the Etym. pl. of _tôr_ (stated to be archaic) is _terein_
        (V:394), the etymological pl. might rather be _*muinderein_.
        And since analogy generally aligns rare forms on more common models,
        it could even point that o > y is not uncommon in the language for
        such words...

        > There is no need of 'updating' Noldorin words like _doron_
        > pl. _deren_, as Helge suggests (and why should we do any updating
        > anyway? :-)).

        Depends on what you are aiming for. I will not venture into this
        slippy subject...

        [Yes, let's not! Carl]

        In conclusion, I think your hypothesis is worth being noted
        concerning Etym's "Noldorin". Things appear to be somewhat different
        for externally late Sindarin. Regarding LR... well, that's difficult
        because it is the very moment of the upheaval in Tolkien's
        conceptions, and the source of it.

        Nai Anar caluva tielmanna !

        Tchitrec
      • Hans Georg Lundahl
        tchitrec wrote: This could be questioned, because your vowel-diagram would be better described as trapezoidal : y------u | ö----o so
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 17, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          tchitrec <Tchitrec@...> wrote:

          "This could be questioned, because your vowel-diagram would be better
          described as trapezoidal :

          y------u
          \ |
          ö----o

          so the distance o-y is indeed significantly greater than o-ö.
          Moreover, Sindarin I-affection implies not only fronting (u>y) but
          also raising (e>i)."

          My theory:
          A primary change o>ö, u>y
          B secondary changes ö>e in stressed syllables, ö>y in post-stressed syllables.
          My evidence onodrim and enyd are the collective and ordinary plurals of the S wd for Ent. Wh shd be *onod, since collective plurals do not have I-affection. This onod becomes neither ened nor ynyd but enyd by I-affection. The raising of post-stress short vowels is evidenced by Latin as against the more regular vocality of Greek. It could have occurred in S too (though it does not account for all raising, i e not raising e>i by I-affection), giving us hypotheticals:
          sing. *onod (preserved in coll. pl. onodrim)
          plur: *onod-í>*önöd(i)>enyd

          Hans Georg Lundahl

          Följ VM på nära håll på Yahoo!s officielle VM-sajt www.yahoo.se/vm2002
          Håll dig ajour med nyheter och resultat, med vinnare och förlorare...

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Pavel Iosad
          Hello, ... [....] ... [...] Phonetically, yes. Phonologically, no. ... Which is a very good point. It only implies, it would appear, raising of front vowels.
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 17, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello,

            >> it may be argued that the assimilation of _o_ to _ö_ is not much
            >> 'less' than of _o_ to _y_. We can arrange the four vowels in question
            >> (_o_, _u_, _ö_, _y_) in the following tidy way:
            [....]
            > This could be questioned, because your vowel-diagram would be better
            > described as trapezoidal :
            [...]

            Phonetically, yes. Phonologically, no.

            > so the distance o-y is indeed significantly greater than o-ö.
            > Moreover, Sindarin I-affection implies not only fronting (u>y) but
            > also raising (e>i).

            Which is a very good point. It only implies, it would appear, raising of
            front vowels. If we do assume that _ö_ > _y_ and _e_ > _i_ are the same
            process, this would mean that chronologically the umlaut of back vowels
            did not coincide with the umlaut of front vowel, but rather preceded it.

            > Nevertheless, it remains possible to do without the notion of
            > distance-influenced umlaut if several stages in I-affection are
            > envisioned.

            Still, the explanation you offer below, does imply a diphthongal stage
            in the ultima (former penultima).

            > The following system can be imaginated for externally
            > late Sindarin (especially considering the evolution of the name of
            > Ossë in Sindarin, see XI:400 : _Ossai_ > _Ossî_ > _ussi_ > _yssi_
            > with non-syllabic i, marked with a subscribed crescent) :
            > - first, raising of e to i and o to u before final I

            I think this may rather be the shift of _o_ to _ö_ and _u_ to _y_, as
            this (as above) offers a unitary algorithm for the behaviour of front
            (or rather non-back, thus including _a_into the same process) vowels.

            > - then, fronting of back vowels before any non-hiatic i : a, o, u >
            > e, ö, y

            If you raise _o_ to _u_, there's no _o_ here. I seem to be most
            certainly misunderstanding.

            [...]
            > According to this model, o > y would never occur directly, the
            > fronting of o yielding only ö. O > y would be the product of two
            > distinct - though related - processes.

            My point exactly.

            [...]
            > Indeed _eryd_ becomes much more common in _The War of the Jewels_,
            > though _ered_ does not totally disappears. Possibly Tolkien
            > felt "compelled" to keep _ered_ because it had appeared in LR.

            But he apparently didn't use the opporunity of the second edition of LR
            to emend it, as he did with _vánier_ and _omentilmo_.

            > This would not, however, be the only example of "status constructus" : we
            > also have things like the shortening of monosyllables as first
            > elements of genitival compounds, e.g. _Dôr_ (XI:413) being shortened
            > in _Dor Caranthir_, _Dor Daedeloth_... (Silmarillion Index). Perhaps
            > phrases like _Ered Wethrin_ were treated like compounds :
            > _*orodwathren_ would regularly yield the pl. _*eredwethrin_.

            What of _ered e-mbar nîn_?
            The answer is simple (I'd say) - Tolkien was vacillating. As always.

            [...]
            >> It is interesting to note that _muindyr_as the pl. of _muindor_
            >> (TOR) is described as analogical. Since this is a compound, the
            >> failure of _ui_-shift in the plural is not very likely to be due to
            >> analogy, and probably this is intended to mean that _y_ is analogical
            >> to the _y_ in _*tyr_ 'brothers', which appears there since it's a
            >> monosyllable, but normally the plural of _muindor_ would be
            >> _*muinder_.
            >
            > Seeing that the Etym. pl. of _tôr_ (stated to be archaic) is _terein_
            > (V:394), the etymological pl. might rather be _*muinderein_.
            > And since analogy generally aligns rare forms on more common models,
            > it could even point that o > y is not uncommon in the language for
            > such words...

            Precisely. Whatever the etymological form (you are most probably right,
            my bad), it appears that the form _muindyr_ was influenced by _*ty^r_,
            the more regular later plural of _tôr_.

            > In conclusion, I think your hypothesis is worth being noted
            > concerning Etym's "Noldorin". Things appear to be somewhat different
            > for externally late Sindarin.

            Of course. The theory was proposed precisely in order to explain some of
            the discrepancies met in later post-LR Sindarin as leftovers from the
            pre-LR Noldorin conceptions.

            Pavel
            --
            Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

            'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
            --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_
          • Didier Willis
            ... Isn t _ened_ given as an alternative to _enyd_ Ents in the Letters, and regarded as being probably a form used in Sindarin as spoken in Gondor? I don t
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 17, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Quick note on _eryd_ vs. _ered_:

              > Indeed _eryd_ becomes much more common in _The War of the Jewels_,
              > though _ered_ does not totally disappears. Possibly Tolkien
              > felt "compelled" to keep _ered_ because it had appeared in LR.

              Isn't _ened_ given as an alternative to _enyd_ "Ents" in the Letters,
              and regarded as being 'probably' a form used in Sindarin as spoken in
              Gondor? I don't have the Letters at hand currently, having lent them,
              from vague memory it might be Letter 224. Anyway, I always thought
              then that _ered_ would similarly be used by Men (on maps, etc.),
              whereas _eryd_ would be the correct Sindarin plural. Correct me if I
              am wrong. Otherwise, that would account for an internal explanation.

              Didier.

              [Actually, its on _page_ 224 (Letter no. 168): "The 'correct' plural of
              _onod_ was _enyd_, or general plural _onodrim_; though _ened_ might be a
              form used in Gondor." This is a good time to remind folks to look things
              up before posting to the list -- Didier, you should get a 2nd copy of
              _Letters_, one to keep, one to lend ;). Believe me, I know how tempting
              that big, shiny, candy-like "Send" button is, but let's be disciplined.
              This is also a good time to remind folks that the current edition of
              _Letters_ has a much-expanded index, compiled by Christina Scull and
              Wayne Hammond, and is indispensable even if you already own the earlier
              issue. The new index, however, doesn't attempt to list Elvish forms: for
              that, there is Taum Santoski's linguistic index to _Letters_ that was
              published in _Vinyar Tengwar_ 20, still available from me for $2 or $3,
              depending on where you live. See http://www.elvish.org/VT/ for more
              information. Carl]
            • Hans Georg Lundahl
              Mr Pavel Iosad ! you wrote that: 1 o y involves two processes (agreeing both with me and his combatant); 2 mentioned ered in lieu of expected *eryd (pl of
              Message 6 of 11 , Jun 18, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Mr Pavel Iosad !
                you wrote that:

                1 o>y involves two processes (agreeing both with me and his combatant);
                2 mentioned ered in lieu of expected *eryd (pl of orod) as an example of
                JRRT vacillating.

                Funny I was just this morning looking at Eredwethion (transcription
                example of Alphabet of Dairon [<Pengolod] in a history of Middle-earth
                publication of Christopher Tolkien).

                I think that *orodi regularly became *öröd, which as an isolated word wd
                hv become *eryd, but that in pre-stress positions, like Eredwethion, Ered
                Nimrais, Ered Lithui, Ered Luin it became ered. The mention of status
                constructus forms (a term used in Hebrew but not Welsh school grammars) is
                to the point. A status constructus is precisely a pre-stress noun before a
                following genitive, adjective or apposition, wh differs from the fully
                stressed fm. I think status constr. is not a regular feature of S grammar,
                but a phenomenon levelled out one way or the other. And in the pl of orod
                it seems the st constr fm ousted the fully stressed fm, there being so
                many mountains, that just saying "the mountains" wd be meaningless in most
                naturally occurring contexts. Saying The Mountain wd not, since one wd be
                referring to the nearest one (at least at the Lonely Mountain).

                JRRT vacillated - yes, but he did so with consistency, always making sure
                his latest idea was consistent with all others, with all the old except
                the one he was replacing. So JRRT's vacillation is not the problem. The
                problem is: Christopher did not always know what was the latest idea of
                his Father and how much he had changed and invented since, to restore
                consistency. And whether he had changed sth in this or that aspect,
                required by another change but not recorded.

                I think S has changed both much less and much slower than Primitive Indo-
                European. No language changed as rapidly in the 1870's as PIE, was the
                philological joke. For all that each new reconstruction was consistent
                with itself and with the linguistic facts that the reconstructor had taken
                account of.

                Hans Georg Lundahl

                Följ VM på nära håll på Yahoo!s officielle VM-sajt www.yahoo.se/vm2002
                Håll dig ajour med nyheter och resultat, med vinnare och förlorare...

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                [Let's watch the use of abbreviations. There's simply no need to use such
                as "fm" == form, "wd" == would, etc. No one's life depends on saving a few
                keystrokes; no one is going to run out if we use a bunch here. Remember
                that readability is a very important factor. Also, let's observe the
                convention of bracketing Elvish words in underscores (e.g., _orod_),
                mimicking underlining/italicization, which again increases readability.
                Thanks. Carl]
              • Pavel Iosad
                Hello, Hans Georg Lundahl wrote: [I wrote that] ... No combatants here, there weren t any major disagreements anyway! :-) [Indeed: that one slipped by me.
                Message 7 of 11 , Jun 18, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello,
                  Hans Georg Lundahl wrote:

                  [I wrote that]
                  > 1 o>y involves two processes (agreeing both with me and his combatant);

                  No combatants here, there weren't any major disagreements anyway! :-)

                  [Indeed: that one slipped by me. Disagreement on matters of fact or
                  interpretation most definitely does not constitute "combat". We will
                  _not_ go down that road on _this_ list. Carl]

                  [...]
                  > I think that *orodi regularly became *öröd, which as an isolated word
                  > w[oul]d h[a]v[e] become *eryd, but that in pre-stress positions, like
                  > Eredwethion, Ered Nimrais, Ered Lithui, Ered Luin it became ered.

                  I don't think this is plausible. We obviously have _o_ in stressed
                  positions yielding both _y_ and _e_. I also think that in hypothetical
                  compounds like Ered Wethrin, the main stress would fall on _Ered_, as it
                  is syntactically the head, and _*Gwathren_ the modifier.

                  > And in the pl[ural] of orod it seems the st[atus] constr[uctus] f[or]m
                  > ousted the fully stressed f[or]m, there being so many mountains, that
                  > just saying "the mountains" w[oul]d be meaningless in most naturally
                  > occurring contexts.

                  I beg to disagree. There are plenty of legal contexts for saying _the
                  mountains_, like _Beren wandered through the mountains to Doriath_,
                  _Morgoth was unable to discover Turgon's stronghold in the mountains_
                  and so on and so forth.

                  > JRRT vacillated - yes, but he did so with consistency, always making
                  > sure his latest idea was consistent with all others, with all the old
                  > except the one he was replacing. So JRRT's vacillation is not the
                  > problem.

                  Well, not that I agree with it, but anyway you must consider that the
                  vacillating refers to whether he should implement the change or not at
                  all.

                  > The problem is: Christopher did not always know what was the
                  > latest idea of his Father and how much he had changed and
                  > invented since, to restore consistency. And whether he had
                  > changed s[ome]th[ing] in this or that aspect, required by
                  > another change but not recorded.

                  If it is not recorded, no one can say what Tolkien intended.

                  Pavel
                  --
                  Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

                  'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
                  --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_
                • Hans Georg Lundahl
                  Hello, Iosad! Thank u for comments. I will reply to some keeping my original message. ... A: where do you have a stressed _o_ yielding _y_? In monosyllables?
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jun 18, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello, Iosad!

                    Thank u for comments. I will reply to some keeping my original message.

                    I:

                    >> I think that *orodi regularly became *öröd, which as an isolated word
                    >> w[oul]d h[a]v[e] become *eryd, but that in pre-stress positions, like
                    >> Eredwethion, Ered Nimrais, Ered Lithui, Ered Luin it became ered.
                    >
                    > I don't think this is plausible. We obviously have _o_ in stressed
                    > positions yielding both _y_ and _e_. I also think that in hypothetical
                    > compounds like Ered Wethrin, the main stress would fall on _Ered_, as it
                    > is syntactically the head, and _*Gwathren_ the modifier.

                    A: where do you have a stressed _o_ yielding _y_? In monosyllables?

                    B: the main stress wd certainly not be on the syntactical "head" but precisely
                    on the "modifier" in any natural context. èredwéthrin, not éredwèthrin
                    (acute==main stress, grave==subordinate stress).

                    II:

                    >> And in the pl[ural] of orod it seems the st[atus] constr[uctus] f[or]m
                    >> ousted the fully stressed f[or]m, there being so many mountains, that
                    >> just saying "the mountains" w[oul]d be meaningless in most naturally
                    >> occurring contexts.
                    >
                    > I beg to disagree. There are plenty of legal contexts for saying _the
                    > mountains_, like _Beren wandered through the mountains to Doriath_,
                    > _Morgoth was unable to discover Turgon's stronghold in the mountains_
                    > and so on and so forth.

                    Admitted.

                    III

                    >> The problem is: Christopher did not always know what was the
                    >> latest idea of his Father and how much he had changed and
                    >> invented since, to restore consistency. And whether he had
                    >> changed s[ome]th[ing] in this or that aspect, required by
                    >> another change but not recorded.
                    >
                    > If it is not recorded, no one can say what Tolkien intended.

                    True. But one can rely, from what changes are recorded, that he worked for
                    consistency. If he made a change he must have considered what other changes it
                    involved, but in many cases not have had the time to record them. And there
                    must have been afterthoughts. If a not recorded change is logical considering
                    recorded changes and linguistic facts published in JRRT's LotR, it wd hv been
                    in his intention that it were added. Only, sometimes there wd hv been two
                    alternative ways of resolving the apparent inconsistency, and only JRRT wd hv
                    known wh one to use. And that is a problem. I am not saying we can say what
                    JRRT intended (except by the philological method he used himself in editing old
                    poems: e g replacing in a line of Beowulf the non-allitterative and common
                    "worod" (infantry troup) by the alllitterating and poetical "éorod" (cavalry
                    troup), because that must hv been what the poet intended). But we can say he
                    did NOT intend total chaos. He did not hv time to tidy it all up, to bring all
                    manuscripts up to date and so, but he intended to. And that has placed his son
                    Christopher in some dilemmas. In publishing Silmarillion he smothed things out,
                    showing the consistency JRRT worked to achieve. In publishing the History of
                    Middle-earth series he has done the opposite, showing the vacillations before
                    achieving final consistency. This goes both for the linguistic and the other
                    aspects of the work.

                    Sincerely,

                    Hans Georg Lundahl

                    Följ VM på nära håll på Yahoo!s officielle VM-sajt www.yahoo.se/vm2002
                    Håll dig ajour med nyheter och resultat, med vinnare och förlorare...

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Anders Stenström
                    ... Tolkien gave the plural of _orod_ as _eryd_, _ered_ (in TC: Guide to the Names in _The Lord of the Rings_ Places, s.v._Ashen Mountains_), so it would
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jun 18, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Tchitrec (>>) and Pavel Iosad (>) wrote:

                      >> Indeed _eryd_ becomes much more common in _The War of the Jewels_,
                      >> though _ered_ does not totally disappears. Possibly Tolkien
                      >> felt "compelled" to keep _ered_ because it had appeared in LR.
                      >
                      > But he apparently didn't use the opporunity of the second edition of LR
                      > to emend it, as he did with _vánier_ and _omentilmo_.
                      >
                      >> . . . Perhaps phrases like _Ered Wethrin_ were treated like compounds :
                      >> _*orodwathren_ would regularly yield the pl. _*eredwethrin_.
                      >
                      > What of _ered e-mbar nîn_?
                      > The answer is simple (I'd say) - Tolkien was vacillating. As always.

                      Tolkien gave the plural of _orod_ as "_eryd_, _ered_" (in TC: "Guide to the
                      Names in _The Lord of the Rings_" Places, s.v._Ashen Mountains_), so it would
                      seem to be a matter of morphological variation, rather than vacillation.

                      Meneg suilaid,

                      Beregond

                      P.S. When writing the above I looked up the list of abbreviations to be used on
                      this list, to find the one for "Guide . . .": There was not one, but the book
                      in which it appears has an abbreviation of its own. To my -- perhaps too
                      angular -- way of thinking this seems skewed. The relevant sources for which
                      we need abbreviations should be works by J.R.R. Tolkien. It seems to me both
                      logical and practical to write GN for "Guide to the Names in _The Lord
                      of the Rings_".

                      [But then we would have still to note that GN is published in TC; and
                      furthermore, all page references are to TC, not GN. Personally, I would cite
                      a GN reference as either "TC:xxx s.v. Entry" or "in Tolkien's "Guide to Names",
                      s.v. Entry (TC:xxx)". Carl]
                    • Pavel Iosad
                      Hello, Anders Stenström wrote: [...] [Tchitrec] ... Also, we have _y_ in hardly differing things like _Emyn Muil_ [myself] ... [Anders] ... Good point.
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jun 19, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello,
                        Anders Stenström wrote:

                        [...]
                        [Tchitrec]
                        > >> . . . Perhaps phrases like _Ered Wethrin_ were treated
                        > like compounds :
                        > >> _*orodwathren_ would regularly yield the pl. _*eredwethrin_.

                        Also, we have _y_ in hardly differing things like _Emyn Muil_

                        [myself]
                        > > What of _ered e-mbar nîn_?
                        > > The answer is simple (I'd say) - Tolkien was vacillating. As always.

                        [Anders]
                        > Tolkien gave the plural of _orod_ as "_eryd_, _ered_" (in TC:
                        > "Guide to the
                        > Names in _The Lord of the Rings_" Places, s.v._Ashen
                        > Mountains_),

                        Good point. Objection withdrawn, more questions raised below.

                        > so it would seem to be a matter of morphological variation,
                        > rather than vacillation.

                        What kind of variation?
                        Can it have been dialectal variation rather than purely morphological?
                        _Eryd_ appears in First-Age writings of _The War of the Jewels_, but
                        _ered_ in _The Lord of the Rings_. Perhaps we can write it off to the
                        Gondor dialect, but then, confer LR:1089, where Sindarin _y_ is
                        explicitly stated to be pronounced as _i_ in Gondor. Why not _*erid_,
                        _*enid_ then? A wild guess is that the Mannish Sindarin of Númenor
                        somehow differed from First-Age Beleriand Sindarin (the Western dialect,
                        apparently), but this has virtually no proof in the texts whatsoever,
                        and perhaps not to be taken seriously. After all, _ered e-mbar nîn_ is
                        First Age as well.

                        Any takers?

                        Pavel
                        --
                        Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

                        'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
                        --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_
                      • tchitrec
                        The explanations of my model for I-affection in Sindarin were not very clear, because I did not mention which syllables are supposed to be affected, which is
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jun 20, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The explanations of my model for I-affection in Sindarin were not
                          very clear, because I did not mention which syllables are supposed to
                          be affected, which is very important :-(
                          My apologies.

                          With more details, it would be :
                          - first, raising of e to i and o to u *in the penult* (later final
                          syllable) before final i
                          - later, fronting of the back vowels a, o, u to e, ö, y respectively
                          before a syllable containing an i, and this *everywhere in the word*
                          - still later, final i becomes non syllabic (perhaps like the final i
                          of Rumanian _lupi_ "wolves", pl. of _lup_ "wolf") and in some cases
                          anticipated - more precisely when the preceding syllable contains e,
                          ô (long open a-like o, printed o with macron and hook in XI), û,
                          giving respectively ei (later ai), oi (later oe), ui.

                          Some examples might be useful (j stands for non syllabic i):
                          Common Eldarin _*ñgolodoi_ > _*ñgolodî_ > _*ñgoluði_ > _*ñgölyðj_ >
                          S. _Gölydh_ (written "Goelydh"), later _Gelydh_ (XI:364 for the
                          archaic form "Goelydh" ; for the later form, see for example the
                          place name _Annon-in-Gelydh_, Silmarillion Index entry _Golodhrim_,
                          or UT:18)
                          CE _*atarî_ > _*atari_ > _*ederi_ > _*ederj_ > _*edeir_ > S._edair_
                          (attested in the compound _Edenedair_ "Fathers of Men", X:373)
                          CE(?) _*orotî_ > _*oroti_ > _*orudi_ > _*örydj > S. _eryd_ (attested
                          numerous times in XI, e.g. in _Eryd Engrin_ "Iron Mountains", XI:6)
                          CE _*do3rai_ > _*dôrai_ > _*dûrî_ > _*dûri > _*dûrj_ > S. _duir_ (in
                          _Emyn Duir_, UT:434)

                          (The chronology of consonant changes is hypothetical - it can be
                          reconstructed differently.)
                          I hope this is clearer.

                          Nai Anar caluva tielmanna !
                          Tchitrec
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.