Re: [Lambengolmor] The Sindarin suffixed article: agreement in number
- Minas Tsulis wrote:
> Why, when the article inA nearly identical question is explicitly answered in detail by
> the suffixed forms _-n_ and _-in_ can represent both numbers,
> does the independent article have a clearly different form? And if
> it does stand for both numbers, why bother with a different form
> in the first place?
Tolkien himself, at the beginning of the Gnomish Grammar, recently
reprinted in _Parma Eldalamberon_ #11. The first section, with the
title "The article", says:
"root _î_. This gave in the plural either _î_ or _în_ and in the
genitive _în_, but ... _în-_ also developed in other cases_." (PE11:7;
the circumflex representing a macron).
Summarizing, there it is explained that the article _în_, though it
originally had a grammatical function (it was the plural or genitive
form of _î_), had in the "present usage" of Gnomish or Goldogrin a
phonological function instead (it was chiefly prevocalic).
Of course there may be significant differences between the Goldogrin
and the later Sindarin article system; for instance, the Goldogrin
genitive singular article was _na(n)_ according to the same Grammar,
while a quick search in the Index of _The Silmarillion_ shows many
Sindarin names where that article is _en_ instead: _Bar-en-Danwedh_,
_Cabed-en-Aras_, _Haudh-en-Arwen_, _Haudh-en-Elleth_,
_Haudh-en-Ndengin_, _Haudh-en-Nirnaeth_, or _Taur-en-Faroth_.
Nevertheless, I find no evidence by which we should think that the
duality of the Goldogrin nominative article _i_/_in_ was essentially
different in Sindarin.