Re: [Lambengolmor] Sindarin _ned_
- 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 toIndeed from NED we would expect a form _*nedh_ which is attested but only as
> 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.
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
Carl also points out a semantic problem :
> Note too that NED does occur, as a cross-reference in a deleted entryTrue, but it is likely that these related roots in form and meaning
> 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�.)
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.
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]