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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Sindarin _ned_

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.