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

Sindarin _ned_

Expand Messages
  • Carl F. Hostetter
    In version III of the Sindarin King s Letter (IX:129, 131), we find the following phrase: _nelchaenen ned Echuir_ which apparently translates the English
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 22, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      In version 'III' of the Sindarin "King's Letter" (IX:129, 131), we find
      the following phrase:

      "_nelchaenen ned Echuir_"

      which apparently translates the English phrase (taken from Tolkien's
      English text of version 'I'):

      "the thirty-first day of the Stirring".

      (The English gloss is provided from version 'I', in which the Sindarin
      phrase is: "_nechaenen uin Echuir_"; and thus it is possible that 'of
      the' of version 'I' does not in fact translate _ned_ of version 'III'.)

      In my initial analysis of the form _ned_ in the "King's Letter", way
      back in 1993 (VT31:30-31), I wrote:

      "_ned_ ... is very likely related to the verb-stem _nedia-_ *'count,
      reckon' (q.v.) derived from the base NOT- 'count, reckon' (LR:378). A
      version of "Galadriel's Lament" read by Tolkien in a 1952 recording*
      contains the phrase _inyar �n�ti nar_ *'years numberless are'
      corresponding to the published _Y�ni �n�tim�_ 'years numberless'
      (I:394). The element *_n�ti_ 'number(ing)' of _�n�ti_ *'numberless,
      without number(ing)' implies a primitive form *_not�_ 'number(ing)'
      which, with final _�-affection_ of *_o_ > _e_ (cf. _orod_ 'mountain',
      pl. _ered_ (S:362) < *_orot�_) would yield S _ned_ *'number(ing)'. If
      this derivation of _ned_ is accurate, then the phrase cited above could
      be rendered more literally as *'the thirtieth (of the) number(ing) of
      the Stirring'.

      *_J.R.R. Tolkien Reads and Sings his The Hobbit and The Fellowship of
      the Ring_ (New York: Caedmon Records No. TC 1477). See Laurence Krieg's
      article "Tolkien's Pronunciation: Some Observations" in _An
      Introduction to Elvish_ (pp. 152-59) for a discussion and phonetic
      transcription of this reading."

      Now, I would be the first to say to my self of 11 years ago that it was
      overbold to assert that _ned_ is "very likely related to _nedia-_"; but
      this proposal is no more _unlikely_ than the current, seemingly
      universal notion that _ned_ here in fact means 'in', and is to be
      derived from a base *NED-: see for example the etymology of _ned_,
      presumably provided by David Salo,* in Didier Willis' _Sindarin
      Dictionary_ (<http://www.jrrvf.com/hisweloke/sindar/>):

      "_ned_ prep. in, of (time, e.g. giving a date) SD/129-31 MS *_ne?_, OS
      *_ned_ (NED)"

      * According to the Foreword, the _Dictionary_ "includes David
      Salo's etymological reconstructions, which sometimes slightly
      differ from Tolkien's explanations, but present several advantages
      for the study of the 'ultimate' form of the language." The
      _Dictionary_ also states: "Etymological reconstructions �
      David Salo".

      For if my long-ago proposal that _ned_ *'number(ing)' is perhaps to be
      related to NOT- 'count, reckon' is less than completely satisfying, it
      at least has the advantage over Willis/Salo's of referring the Sindarin
      form to a base of suitable meaning and of suitable phonetic shape.

      Willis/Salo's etymology _ned_ < *NED fails, first, on phonological
      grounds: for original final *_-d_ would yield S _-dh_, _not_ **_-d_
      (cf. S _enedh_ 'middle' (UT:264) which apparently, like N _enedh_, <
      �NED-).

      (We do find the forms _en_, _ened_ 'middle, centre' at L:224; but
      these appear to be root/base, not Sindarin, forms. It could also be
      argued that Tolkien was avoiding _-dh_ in the "King's Letter" as
      "uncouth" (cf. UT:267, VT42:20), and thus that _ned_ is actually for
      *_nedh_; but Willis/Salo make no such claim and do not "correct" the
      form to *_nedh_, and further, Tolkien had no such compunction against
      _dh_ in the name _Edhelharn_ in the same text. Worse, Willis/Salo
      derive S _nedh_ (<< N _nedh_) from _precisely the same supposed
      base NED_, _without_ noting or accounting for the discrepant
      phonological derivation. And worst of all, Willis/Salo assert that this
      _nedh_ means "in, inside, mid-: Ety/376", implying that this gloss is
      attested in the _Etymologies_, when in fact the _only_ gloss given there
      is 'mid-'.)

      Second, Willis/Salo's etymology fails to note that the base N�D-
      (V:376) does _not_ mean 'in', but rather 'middle, center'; and that the
      sole Noldorin reflex of this base, the prefix _nedh-_, does _not_ have
      the meaning 'in', but rather 'mid-'.

      (It is possible that Willis/Salo mean by "NED" to indicate a reconstructed,
      and otherwise unattested, base *NED 'in', rather than to associate _ned_
      with N�D-; but if so, then a) their reference to "Ety/376", where only
      N�D- 'middle, centre' occurs, is misleading; and b) this just introduces
      yet another layer of unsupported assertion. Note too that NED does occur,
      as a cross-reference in a deleted entry to what would become N�D- and
      �NED-, but, significantly, where both bases in _-D-_ refer to 'middle,
      centre' _in distinction_ to the base form without _-D-_; cf. VT45:38 s.v.
      NE-/N�-.)

      (Nonetheless, apparently on the authority of Willis/Salo's dictionary
      entry, a supposed S _ned_ *'in' proliferates in "Neo-Sindarin", having
      become the preferred translation of 'in' in all of its English senses,
      i.e., not constrained even to the more restricted sense assigned to the
      form in the dictionary. A further mutation of this assertion has
      surfaced in more formal discussion of the matter, in Gabe Bloomfield's
      article "The Sindarin Word for 'in'"
      <http://maethor.weet.us/writings/sindin.rtf>, in which, having been
      entirely cut loose from its moorings of sole attestation in _nelchaenen
      ned Echuir_, Mr. Bloomfield declares that _ned_ is "more likely to mean
      'into' rather than just a plain 'in'", without showing how such a
      meaning could be at all appropriate to _ned_ within the sole actual
      attestation of the form. He also takes the mention of the base NED at
      VT45:38 s.v. NE-/N�- as unquestionably providing "the root of the [S]
      word _ned_", without even noting the phonological difficulty.)

      The only way that I can see to salvage anything of Willis/Salo's
      assertion that S _ned_ is derived from a root meaning 'in', would be to
      instead relate it to the newly-attested base NE-/N�- *'in, inside'
      (VT45:38); but note that this base was deleted from the _Etymologies_
      by Tolkien at least a decade before the composition of the "King's Letter",
      and leaves the _-d_ of _ned_ utterly unaccounted for.

      Thus, there is no evidence to support, and thus no particular reason to
      accept, the notion that S _ned_ is related to either NE-/N�- *'in,
      inside' or N�D- 'middle, centre', or arises from an unattested base
      *NED 'in' (this being in fact phonologically impossible); and thus no
      reason even to think that it means 'in' at all.



      --
      =========================================================================================Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

      ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
      Ars longa, vita brevis.
      The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
      "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
      a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
    • Florian Dombach
      ... Besides, I find it quite unlikely that Tolkien would write _ned_, if for *_nedh_, with _ando_ /d/ in the _Tengwar_ version (as he did), even if he did wish
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 23, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Pent Carl F. Hostetter:

        > It could also be argued that Tolkien was avoiding _-dh_ in the "King's
        > Letter" as "uncouth" (cf. UT:267, VT42:20), and thus that _ned_ is actually
        > for *_nedh_; but Willis/Salo make no such claim and do not "correct" the
        > form to *_nedh_, and further, Tolkien had no such compunction against
        > _dh_ in the name _Edhelharn_ in the same text.

        Besides, I find it quite unlikely that Tolkien would write _ned_, if for *_nedh_,
        with _ando_ /d/ in the _Tengwar_ version (as he did), even if he did wish to
        avoid /dh/ in the Roman version. Note that at another point where his Roman
        transcription differs from pronunciation does indeed show a _tengwa_
        corresponding to the pronunciation (i.e. _Cordof_ with final _ampa_ for /v/).

        > And worst of all, Willis/Salo assert that this _nedh_ means "in, inside,
        > mid-: Ety/376", implying that this gloss is attested in the _Etymologies_,
        > when in fact the _only_ gloss given there is 'mid-'.)

        Nor is the form in _Etymologies_ given as *_nedh_, as it is in Willis' dictionary
        (implying that it's a preposition), but rather as _nedh-_, clearly making it a
        prefix (which is in fact is precisely what Tolkien calls it).

        > The only way that I can see to salvage anything of Willis/Salo's
        > assertion that S _ned_ is derived from a root meaning 'in', would
        > be to instead relate it to the newly-attested base NE-/NÊ- *'in, inside'
        > (VT45:38); but note that this base was deleted from the _Etymologies_
        > by Tolkien at least a decade before the composition of the "King's
        > Letter", and leaves the _-d_ of _ned_ utterly unaccounted for.

        Well, that need not mean all too much. Just look at the clearly
        mentioned absence of _*Finw_ in Noldorin, which in later Sindarin
        does appear (as _Finu_ and _Fim_) in Sindarin. Ok, that is not quite
        the same case, since _Finw_ didn't first exist and then was deleted,
        but it shows Tolkien's tendency to sometimes return to older ideas
        good enough I believe.

        [Absolutely. Still, I believe that the status of bases -- attested, deleted,
        deduced, etc. -- should nonetheless be borne in mind as a _potential_
        factor in weighing possibilities and likelihoods, even if not always
        determinative. CFH]

        But I find your own idea quite interesting, although we would, as you
        wrote, have to assume *_notî_ > S *_noed_ > _ned_ (as opposed to
        *_nôtî_, which would seem to underlie Q _únóti_ and which would >
        S *_nûd_ or *_nýd_ instead).

        [Quite right. First, though, let me note that I did and do not intend to offer
        my own analysis of 11 years ago (made at a time when my own understanding
        of Sindarin phonology was much less) _in place of_ the current thinking, and
        in fact think my suggestion only to be _more_ plausible, not really likely to be
        what Tolkien had in mind; and so defending it is not really my point, nor
        something I would like to spend much more time on, beyond what I already
        wrote. However, I would note several factors: first, Q *_únóti_ in Tolkien's
        earlier, oral version of "Galadriel's Lament" was (so far as I know) deduced by
        the transcriber from Tolkien's recording, not from a written text; so it seems
        _possible_ that the form is in fact *_únoti_. Second, we don't really know the
        part of speech of Q *_únóti_: it looks most like a plural noun, but apparently
        plays a predicative role (_inyar únóti nar_ *'year numberless are') and so is
        seemingly adjectival; it could well be a noun used as an adjective. But in any
        event, it's not clear to me what interplay of lengthening with grammatical
        function is to be expected for this form. CFH]


        Ofr suil,
        Florian "Lothenon" Dombach

        ===================================================We speak as is right, and as King Finwe himself did before he was led
        astray. Let them sa-si, if they can speak no better.
        ===================================================
      • hisweloke
        ... This is exact, for 99% of these etymological notes, as implied by the Foreword you quoted. In recent versions, however, I took the liberty to add
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 23, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

          > see for example the etymology of _ned_, presumably provided by
          > David Salo,* in Didier Willis' _Sindarin Dictionary_
          > (<http://www.jrrvf.com/hisweloke/sindar/>)

          This is exact, for 99% of these etymological notes, as implied by the
          Foreword you quoted.

          In recent versions, however, I took the liberty to add additional a
          few notes (especially for compounds and new words) and to change some
          notes that clearly required to be updated with new information. The
          etymological text hasn't much changed otherwise since the first
          version of the dictionary -- and that's actually the main reason why
          these etymological reconstructions are planned to be removed in some
          future.

          By the way, the dictionary is better referred as "Hisweloke's Sindarin
          dictionary", preferably with an indication of version, for the reasons
          given on the above-mentioned web page - for additional reference, see
          also elfling-d mailing-list message #454. (1)

          > this proposal is no more _unlikely_ than the current, seemingly
          > universal notion that _ned_ here in fact means 'in', and is to be
          > derived from a base *NED-. [...] Willis/Salo's etymology _ned_
          > < *NED fails, first, on phonological grounds: for original final
          > *_-d_ would yield S _-dh_, _not_ **_-d_ (cf. S _enedh_ 'middle'
          > (UT:264) which apparently, like N _enedh_, < ÉNED-).

          Correct. Regarding this point, and indeed very possibly the related
          issue of _enedh_ and _ened_, the discussion between Bertrand Bellet
          and Carl Hostetter himself on the sindict mailing-list is
          enlightening, cf. messages #196, #197. (2)

          > Worse, Willis/Salo derive S _nedh_ (<< N _nedh_) from _precisely
          > the same supposed base NED_, _without_ noting or accounting for
          > the discrepant phonological derivation. And worst of all,
          > Willis/Salo assert that this _nedh_ means "in, inside, mid-:
          > Ety/376", implying that this gloss is attested in the
          > _Etymologies_, when in fact the _only_ gloss given there is
          > 'mid-'.)

          As for the first, "worse" item, I make no claim that the dictionary
          project is accurate on all points. As the above-mentioned discussion
          on sindict attests, the issue is not that simple. There is indeed a
          clear failure to correctly interpret it, in current versions of the
          dictionary. (But let's also say that I am not unhappy if such an error
          has incidentaly made Bertrand and your own remarks possible --
          discussion and criticism is a good way to improve our knowledge.)

          As for the second, "worst" item, I will object that this is certainly
          not the way references should be used. It is nowhere stated (and for
          many long entries it is even not true) that the glosses or definitions
          are exactly taken, _verbatim_, from Tolkien's books. There is actually
          a permanent effort (and of course it implies a risk of error -
          comments such as Carl's one are of course welcome to point these
          errors) to refine and classify the definitions, basing them on other
          sources and/or theories. It is by no mean a mere "reversed" version of
          the _Etymologies_ (and other sources), but it tries to build upon the
          bricks we know, while trying to be as accurate as possible at the same
          time. Most real dictionaries have the same fallbacks when indirect
          definitions are involved. And if references are indeed provided, it is
          certainly not to misrepresent the source, BUT that's all the other way
          round: it is intended to direct readers to the original source(s) so
          that, notably, they can check it _in context_. If readers want the
          genuine defintions, they ought to refer to the primary material.

          > b) this just introduces yet another layer of unsupported
          > assertion.

          If the work was finished, to my taste and as I envisioned it so long
          ago, all entries would have encyclopaedic discussions (of the sort
          provided in recent versions for _arnen_ "(?) royal", *_gwin_ "wine",
          _mass_ "bread" vs _mast_, *_bassoneth_, etc. -- to quote but a few
          entries).

          But as an unfinished project (as clearly noted on the web site) and
          actually a very lone project currently (with lots of users but very
          little contributive feedback), it suffers from the lack of
          completeness. I accept therefore the above criticism, though its
          wording is perhaps a bit too rude (Pesch "Elbish" book in German,
          on-line wordlists on wwww.sindarin.de or council of Elrond, etc. are
          not that cautious with sources, references and marking of
          deduced/reconstructured entries... I tried to do better, and still
          hope to improve, but that's certainly not perfect. Errare humanum est).

          > (Nonetheless, apparently on the authority of Willis/Salo's
          > dictionary entry, a supposed S _ned_ *'in' proliferates in
          > "Neo-Sindarin", having become the preferred translation of 'in'
          > in all of its English senses, i.e., not constrained even to the
          > more restricted sense assigned to the form in the dictionary. [...]

          It is certainly not my fault if people misuse the material offered to
          them... And I wouldn't care much about what proliferates or not in
          Neo-Sindarin (whose users are most of the time known to reject some
          newer conceptions or evidences that do not fit their needs for a
          "usable" languages)... "Liquid mutations", "infinitive vs. gerund",
          "hennaid - thanks", "-ech for thou" and all well known Neo-Sindarin
          theories, while often criticized, _do_ proliferate also, despite of
          us. Even if/when I correct the _ned_ and _nedh_ entries in the
          dictionary, that will not change the face of Neo-Sindarin, because
          they will need this word (beside the fact that it was already used for
          "in" long before this dictionary). So what? Scholarship will progress
          anyway, thanks to criticisms such as this one, and Neo-Elvish has not
          part to play in this, as fan-fiction has no part either to play in
          studies of Tolkien's mythos.

          Regards,

          Didier.

          [I largely agree with what Didier says, and so won't bother to respond
          point by point. I _would_ however like to say that while it is indeed
          true that Didier is not responsible for how others use his work, there
          is still incumbent upon any _serious_ work of scholarship to maintain
          a distinction between what is known and what is conjecture --
          linguistics even developed a convention for succinctly conveying
          precisely this distinction. Now, my own impression of the dictionary
          was that it was intended to be scholarly and accurate; and as such, if I
          see a form and some glosses given, without qualification, and a cross-
          reference to a source, I expect that if I look up that source I will find
          there precisely that form and those glosses. If I don't, I consider that an
          error and, if intentional, misleading to boot. I'm sure that Didier will
          appreciate how normal such an expectation is in linguistics, and how
          easy it will be for a user of his dictionary not to understand that such
          cross-references are not provided as citation of _support_, but merely
          as an index to a place in the corpus that has some at least tangential
          bearing on the form in question. Now, this may all be made clear
          somewhere in the front-matter of the dictionary, but even if so it is so
          contrary to convention and expectation in linguistic glossaries, which
          Didier's work certainly has the form of, that I consider it insufficient,
          and I urge you to minimize reliance on such contra-conventional
          presentation in later version of the work. I will also note that
          incompleteness has, in itself, no necessary bearing on correctness. CFH]
        • BertrandBellet75@aol.com
          Carl Hostetter discussed the difficulties in the relationship of _ned_ (IX:129-31) with the root NED in the Etymologies (V:376) and questions its common ...
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 25, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Carl Hostetter discussed the difficulties in the relationship of _ned_
            (IX:129-31) with the root NED in the Etymologies (V:376) and questions its common
            interpretation as a word for "in". He concluded so :

            > Thus, there is no evidence to support, and thus no particular reason to
            > accept, the notion that S _ned_ is related to either NE-/N *'in,
            > inside' or N- 'middle, centre', or arises from an unattested base
            > *NED 'in' (this being in fact phonologically impossible); and thus no
            > reason even to think that it means 'in' at all.

            Indeed from NED we would expect a form _*nedh_ which is attested but only as
            a Noldorin prefix "mid-" (V:376).There is little doubt about the genuineness
            of the -d, as Florian Dombach just pointed out. It would then need a root
            NET. There is indeed some evidence for this variation, as discussed on Sindict
            (no. 196 and 197) : for instance we read in jottings reproduced in VT41:16 :

            ..............................................................................

            "_enet_ for 'middle'. _en-_ 'mid' (as prefix), _enet_ [?extended](related to
            _enek_ 'six'? as middle part of twelve). _endor_, S[indarin] _ennor_
            'Mid-Land' [altered from: 'Mid-Earth']. _enetya_ adj. 'middle', S. _ened_ (_enaid_).
            ... [?needs] distinguishing from _en_ == _hen_ 'again'". Another group of
            related notes appears on the recto of this same sheet (ibid.): "_en-_ 'again' as
            [in] _enquantuva_ is prob[ably] [?] 'further, beyond' [?in respect of time
            influenced by ? only in] Q. _enta_, only with verbs. [?root] _�n_ [using a
            circumflex to represent a macron in the original]. Basis of 'middle' was _hen_ -
            HEN or [?extended] HENET. T[elerin] _Hendor_, Q. _endor_, S. _ennor_. Q.
            [?_endea_] HENET [deleted: HENED]. S. _ened_ 'centre', adj. _enaid_. Q.
            [deleted: _enda_ 'central, middle'] _entya_ 'central, middle' [<] _enetya_. _ente_
            'centre'. [Deleted: _ende_ a variant of _n�d_.]"
            ..............................................................................

            We can also notice that in the Appendix D to the History of Galadriel and
            Celeborn in UT we have both S _#ened_ in _Enedwaith_ (always so) glossed
            "Middle-folk" and _enedh_ in _Lond Daer Enedh_ "Great Middle Haven" in a footnote
            (UT:343 in the HarperCollins 1998 edition). I failed to notice the latter in
            my Sindict post (no. 196) so my conclusion there was false and should be
            changed to: _ened_ and _enedh_ coexisted in Sindarin.

            [However, Tolkien himself specifically noted that _Enedwaith_ is a "misspelling"
            for _Enedhwaith_, the conscious result of his desire to avoid the "uncouth"
            _dh_ (VT42:20); so _Enedwaith_ cannot count as evidence for _ened_ and
            _enedh_ as mere variant spellings < N�D-. Moreover, while it is phonologically
            consistent to propose that _ned_ < *NET, no such base is in evidence, the
            material quoted above not withstanding. I had of course considered this
            material while writing my post, but noticed that in fact all the bases listed
            are extensions of the base HEN 'middle', from which it is not possible to
            form *NET: the closest you get is HENET 'centre', but that yields S _ened_
            'centre', not _ned_; and in any case the meanings have all to do with 'middle,
            centre', not 'in', the supposed meaning of _ned_. So none of this in fact supports
            _ned_ *'in'. CFH]

            Another probable source for the interpretation of _ned_ as "in" before the
            publishing of the Addenda and Corrigenda to the Etymologies is the prefix
            _ne-_ seen in two verbs:

            - _nestegi_ insert (V:388) from the root STAK "split, insert"
            - _neledhi_ *enter (Tolkien Artist and Illustrator p. 157) probably from LED
            "go, fare, travel" (V:368) - I follow Didier Willis' interpretation in
            Hiswel�k� pp. 74-78.

            VT45:38 now confirms the existence of this prefix _ne-_ and related it to a
            root NE-/N�-.

            Carl also points out a semantic problem :

            > Note too that NED does occur, as a cross-reference in a deleted entry
            > to what would become N�D- and �NED-, but, significantly,
            > where both bases in _-D-_ refer to 'middle, centre' _in distinction_ to
            > the base form without _-D-_; cf. VT45:38 s.v. NE-/N�.)

            True, but it is likely that these related roots in form and meaning
            interfered. That words for "in", "inside", "into", "between" and "among" are related
            has good parallels in Primary World languages: for instance in Latin _in_ "in
            (static with ablative, dynamic with accusative)", _inter_ "between, among",
            _internus_ "internal", _interior_ "interior", _intrare_ "enter", _intus_
            "inside (static)", _intro_ "inside (dynamic)" etc. are all related.

            Moreover, Tolkien's notes suggest that NED, *NET, ENED, ENEK are all akin,
            being elaborations of the simpler NE-/N�- by already known processes, namely
            prefixion of the sund�ma and extension by a consonant. The situation of NE-/N�-
            and its derivatives is actually reminiscent of the root KWE pertaining to vocal
            speech, which had the extended forms KWENE and KWETE, or KWA pertaining to
            completion with its elaborations KWAN and KWATA (XI:392).

            [There is no doubt that NE-/N�- 'in' and N�D-/�NED- 'middle, centre' were
            related bases when conceived; and if a base *NET- 'in' in fact existed with them
            then yes, it would obviously be related to NE-/N�- as well. But there further
            seems to be little doubt that the _-D_ extension in the latter forms distinguishes
            not just the forms but the meanings. Unless one can produce indepenedent
            evidence that these forms and meanings both came to be interchangeable (as it
            is true does often happen in "real" languages), _and_ further can account for
            phonological difficulty of S _-d_ < _-D_, I don't see much reason to think that
            this is the case here. CFH]

            Another possibility is that the _d_ is not old and is a late modification of
            *_dh_. According to Tolkien, the preposition _o, od_ "from" may come from
            _*aud_ but this would yield a form ending in -_dh_ (when not swallowed in
            mutation), so he suggests an influence of _ed_ "out of". Something similar may
            have happened to _ned_. This might have happened to _ned_ too.

            [Quite so: appeals to analogical forces cover a multitude of phonological sins!
            But does this level of conjecture really justify asserting that _ned_ means 'in'? I
            don't myself think so. CFH]

            Therefore, while I agree that there is indeed a phonological difficulty, I
            do not regard it as crippling and think that there is still some base to the
            common interpretation of _ned_ as "in". Or rather some of the meanings of
            "in": as for other prepositions, our limited information gives us an idea of
            its semantics, but does not allow us to define its precise range of use.

            Bertrand Bellet

            -----------------------------------------------------------
            Language has both strengthened imagination and been freed by it. Who shall
            say whether the free adjective has created images bizarre and beautiful, or
            the adjective been freed by strange and beautiful pictures in the mind ? -
            J.R.R. Tolkien, A Secret Vice



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.