Helios makes some interesting observations! But I would suggest
that the connections he points out are not necessarily inconsistent
with what Patrick and I were trying to say.
Note that the form that presumably coexisted with _glâ_ before it
was altered and deleted was _gâl_ 'light; daylight' (or possibly
_gâla), itself later altered to _gala_. In both forms the latter was
seemingly conceived of as cognate with Q. _kala_. And when it
coexisted with _glâ_ that too was cognate with Q. _kala_, and this
was said to "show Q kala < kala~ & ka~la" (i.e. from a primitive
form with either the first or the second _a_ long) the second
option then changed to _kala3_. Later still the entry _glâ_ was
When Patrick and I wrote that Gnomish _glâ_ was apparently
replaced by _gala_, what we had in mind was its internal historical
role, as being derived from a prehistoric source shared with Q
_kala_ and also itself the source by derivation within Gnomish or
pre-Gnomish of certain other forms, possibly including _glaim_,
_glan_, _glaros_ and of course _oglad_, the last being the word
that we were discussing.
While the new form _glô_ takes over some formal properties of
rejected _glâ_, with its initial cluster in an open monosyllable, and
_gôl_ takes over some of its semantic properties, such as the
extension of the idea of 'daylight' to refer to the time when
daylight is present; these forms do not occupy the same historical
position, since the related forms in _gla-_ cannot be derived from
either _glô_ (which has its own derivative _glóna-_ 'to dawn') or
_gôl_ as such. But they can derive from _gala_ if we suppose that
in longer forms like _glaim_ and _glaros_ syncope of the first vowel
It would perhaps then be more accurate to say that the GL ink-layer
group of forms _gâl_ and _glâ_ was apparently replaced by the pencil-
layer group of forms _gala_, _glô_ and _gôl_, with a simultaneous
'shuffling' of their respective etymological and semantic roles
within the larger context. And to specify more precisely which
form replaces which depends on what area of the whole scheme
one is considering.
- Christopher Gilson
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, Helios De Rosario Martinez <imrahil@o.=..>
> [Initial note: In this message I will represent long vowels, marked
> with macron in the printed texts, with a tilde (~) after the vowel, in
> order to distinguish them from actual circumflexes.]
> In GL:39 is the entry _glâ_ 'day, daytime (time Sun is above
> horizon)', equated to Q _kala_ < _kala~_ & _kala3_ (first vowel with
> breve, 3 == yogh). It is between braces, thus representing that it was
> deleted in the manuscript.
> Patrick Wynne and Christopher Gilson stated in PE14:16 that it was
> "apparently replaced by _gala_ [GL:37], also equated with Q _kala_".
> However, I don't find that the occurrence of the Qenya cognates in
> both entries should induce one to believe that _gala_ replaced _glâ_.
> Maybe there are other evidences in the manuscript that point to that
> direction, but from the information shown in the Gnomish Lexicon as
> edited in PE11, it seems more likely that _gala_ and _glâ_ (<
> *_gala~_) were both compatible derivatives of _gal_- 'shine (golden,
> as the Sun)' (GL:37), since they both coexisted in the ink layer, and
> have different, complementary meanings. _Gala_ was related to
> (day)light, while _glâ_ was to (day)time.
> Other entries added to the manuscript in the pencil layer, as _glô_
> ('sunrise, dawn, daybreak') and _gôl_ ('daylight, day') (GL:40, 41)
> seem to me more probable substitutes of _glâ_. In fact _glô_
> inherites the parenthetical gloss of _glâ_, with nearly identical
> words: "i.e., in sense, time sun is above horizon".
> [This certainly seems like a probable interpretation of the evidence
> to me. -- PHW]