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

_calad_ or _galad_?

Expand Messages
  • Helios De Rosario Martinez
    In Etym. we can find two Noldorin etymologically related words glossed light : _calad_ (s.v. KAL-) and _galad_ (s.v. GAL-, in A&C:13). _Calad_ does not occur
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 3 2:17 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      In Etym. we can find two Noldorin etymologically related words
      glossed 'light': _calad_ (s.v. KAL-) and _galad_ (s.v. GAL-, in
      A&C:13).

      _Calad_ does not occur elsewhere in Etym., while _galad_ is apparently
      found in two compounds: _gilgalad_ 'star-light' (GIL-) and _Cilgalad_,
      the Noldorin cognate of Qenya _Kalakilya_, 'Pass of Light' (KIL-).

      (It also occurs in V:362, in the name _Gilgalad_, as a cross-reference
      to _calad_. But this must not be accounted, since Hostetter and Wynne
      point out in A&C:19 that the cross-reference is actually to _Glingal_.)

      And now I wonder: Is really _galad_ in _gilgalad_ and _Cilgalad_, or
      is it the lenited form of _calad_?

      =====
      For _gilgalad_ this last theory is usually held, based in the
      explanation given by Tolkien to Rhona Beare about the name of the
      character _Gil-galad_ (L:279), in which he wrote that it was formed
      from _gil_ + lenited _calad_ (with the same meanings that these words
      have in Etym.) However, that letter was written in 1958, and I would
      like to know whether this is true according to the inner principles of
      Etym., composed long before.

      A first overview would suggest that in fact _gilgalad_ should not be
      the result of any lenition, by comparison with the names _Gilbrennil_
      *'Star-lady' and _Gilthoniel_ 'Star-maker' that occur next to it in
      GIL-. _Gilbrennil_ shows no kind of mutation (cp. _brennil_ 'lady',
      s.v. BARÁN-), and the mutation of _Gilthoniel_ (perhaps < *_tânielle_
      or something similar, cp. _tanô_ s.v. TAN-) is doubtless the liquid
      assimilation _l_ + _t_ > _lth_, not a lenition that would have yielded
      *_Gildoniel_ instead. (cf. "Consonant mutations in conceptual
      evolution of Noldorin/Sindarin phonology", by Ryszard Derdzinski, in
      http://www.elvish.org/gwaith/pdf/consonant_mutations.pdf).

      However the proper names _Gilbrennil_ and _Gilthoniel_ may be a
      misleading clue. It is not difficult to see that the Noldorin
      consonant mutation pattern in Etym. is quite complex, depending on
      the phonology and the grammatical context of each case (and even on
      the stage of composition of the manuscript, which was substantially
      revised). Therefore, comparisons must be done with care in order to
      not mistake the conclusions.

      And though those two names are phonologically similar to _gilgalad_,
      they have some grammatical differences. In all three, _gil_- 'stars'
      is the "modifier" noun, that is in proclitic position (at the
      beginning), while _galad_, _brennil_ and *_toniel_ are in each case
      the "principal" or "modified" noun. However, the function of _gil_- is
      different in each compound:

      - In _gilgalad_ 'starlight', _gil_- is the source or subject of the
      action expressed by _galad_. It could be defined as a "subjective
      genitive".
      - In _Gilbrennil_ *'Star-lady', _gil_- characterizes _brennil_. It
      would be a "genitive of description".
      - In _Gilthoniel_ 'Star-maker', _gil_- is the object, the product of
      the *_toniel_. It could be perhaps classified as an "objective
      genitive".

      (Note: I have chosen these types of genitive from the "Resumen de la
      gramática latina" -- trans. "Summary of Latin grammar" of the
      "Diccionario Vox latín-español/español-latín" edited by Bibliograf,
      used by Spanish school students of Latin, not from any book that
      covers this matter in detail. Surely there are other more accurate
      descriptions, and I would be grateful if anyone provides them.)

      Apart from _gilgalad_, the other cases that I have found in Etym. of
      compounds that have a proclitic modifier, with function of subjective
      genitive, are _lhasbelin_ *'leaf-fading', 'autumn' (cf. LAS(1)-,
      KWEL-) and _gildin_ 'silver-spark' (cf. TIN-). In both the principal
      name shows clearly lenition: _lhasbelin_ must certainly come from
      *_lass-pelin_ < *_lassekwelênê_ (this latter form attested in Etym.);
      and _gildin_ must be _gil_- + _tin(t)_ 'spark'. From the comparison
      with these one may infer that _gilgalad_ probably comes from _gil_- +
      _calad_, as Tolkien told Rhona Beare twenty years later.

      =====
      The case of _Cilgalad_ 'Pass of Light' is somewhat easier. Opposite to
      the previous cases, in _Cilgalad_ the modifier noun is _galad_ in
      enclitic position (at the end). This is something normal in Noldorin,
      but less frequent, at least in the examples of Etym. Of all the cases
      that I have found there (in V as well as in A&C), if we only take
      those in which the enclitic modifier is a noun (not an adjective) and
      begins with a consonant that might be mutated (stops or _h_), we are
      left with, besides _Cilgalad_:

      - _Dagor Vregedúr_ 'Battle of Sudden Fire' (BERÉK-, MERÉK-, UR-).
      - _Din-Garadras_ >> _Din-Caradras_ *'Pass of Caradras' (DEN-).
      - _Amon Uilos_ 'Mount Everlasting-snow' (EY-, GEY-, OY-).
      - _Eredwethion_ *'Mountains of Shade' (ÓROT-, WATH-).
      - (Fingolfin) _Aran Chithlum_ 'King of Hithlum' (TÂ-).

      We can see that all of them are mutated according to the Noldorin
      lenition pattern: _bregedúr_ > _vregedúr_; _guilos_ >_uilos_ [Note 1];
      _gwethion_ > _wethion_, and _hithlum_ > _chithlum_ [Note 2].

      [Note 1:-- This case depends on which interpretation of Etym. is chosen:
      As explained under OY-, this base replaced GEY-, and this itself replaced
      EY-. Only in GEY- the unmutated form is _guilos_; in the other it is
      originally _uilos_ and hence it does not undergo any lenition.]

      [Note 2:-- I am not really sure that this is a case of lenition. Among
      Tolkien's published explanations about the consonant mutation in the
      Celtic-like Elvish language, the nearest in time to Etym. is in the
      "Early Noldorin Grammar". There, "_hîr_ 'lord', (a) _ihir_" shows no
      soft mutation of _h_ (PE13:121).]

      I suggest that _(Aran) Chithlum_ might nevertheless be an instance of
      lenition, because in the earlier "Gnomish Grammar" _h_ > _ch_ does
      occur in the list of the "grammatical mutations" (PE11:7), and it may
      also be compared with the later famous title of the _Narn i Chîn
      Húrin_, where _hîn_ 'children' > _chîn_. Christopher Tolkien wrote in
      LR:322 that both _i Chîn Húrin_ and _Aran Chithlum_ are, among others,
      cases of the "Initial Variation of Consonants" of Exilic Noldorin,
      what from the explanations in V:298 and V:301 we might infer that is
      specifically the lenition or soft mutation.

      Another interpretation is given by Helge Fauskanger in "Sindarin - The
      Noble Tongue",
      http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/sindarin.htm#nasal,
      where he asserts that this _h_ > _ch_ is rather nasal mutation. This
      is not what Christopher Tolkien seemed to mean in the notes about the
      "Initial Variation of Consonants" (if I don't misinterpret his words);
      and the case of _Aran Chithlum_ does not fit that theory either,
      since there is no article _in_, or preposition _an_ or _dan_ in it. A
      nasal mutation could be, however, justified by the final _n_ in
      _Aran_.

      We see in the change from _Din-Garadras_ to _Din-Caradras_ that the
      change in the rules of lenition pointed out by Christopher Tolkien in
      V:298 also affected Etym. But yet in the last pencil layer of Etym. Tolkien
      wrote _Din-garadras_ (A&C:9), and the "D"-section should be the last part
      that Tolkien revised of Etym. (cf. V:353). So, we may infer with
      confidence that when he wrote _Cilgalad_ under the base KIL-, the rule
      should be yet that lenition _did_ occur, hence such a name would be
      formed from _calad_. The fact that the Qenya cognate is _Kalakilya_
      supports this idea.

      =====
      So, that is why I think that both _gilgalad_ and _Cilgalad_ in Etym.
      do not actually show _galad_, but rather lenited _calad_. However, I
      do not know whether the basis of these ideas is correct, especially
      that of the grammatical distinction of genitives and its possible
      effect on consonant mutation. Moreover, there are still some obscure
      points to me, as why _Certhan_ 'ship-builder' (s.v. TAN-), which shows
      the same pattern as _Gilthoniel_, _Gilthonieth_ next to it, was
      changed to lenited _C(e)irdan_ (but _Gilthoniel_, _Gilthonieth_ were
      not). I would like to read your interpretations.

      Regards,
      Helios
    • David Kiltz
      ... Both lenition and soft mutation (which refer to the same phonetic process) seem (to me) problematic here. Descriptively _h_ _ch_ isn t softening
      Message 2 of 6 , Jul 6 4:38 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        On 03.07.2004, at 23:17, Helios De Rosario Martinez wrote:

        > I suggest that _(Aran) Chithlum_ might nevertheless be an instance of
        > lenition, because in the earlier "Gnomish Grammar" _h_ > _ch_ does
        > occur in the list of the "grammatical mutations" (PE11:7), and it may
        > also be compared with the later famous title of the _Narn i Chîn
        > Húrin_, where _hîn_ 'children' > _chîn_. Christopher Tolkien wrote in
        > LR:322 that both _i Chîn Húrin_ and _Aran Chithlum_ are, among others,
        > cases of the "Initial Variation of Consonants" of Exilic Noldorin,
        > what from the explanations in V:298 and V:301 we might infer that is
        > specifically the lenition or soft mutation.

        Both 'lenition' and 'soft mutation' (which refer to the same phonetic
        process) seem (to me) problematic here. Descriptively _h_ > _ch_ isn't
        'softening' but rather 'hardening' or 'reinforcing'. The underlying
        phonetics can be gleaned from the historical development:
        PE (ON) *KH > S./N. _-ch-_ in inlaut, (and before liquid) but _h-_ in
        anlaut. Cf. e.g. _*khithme_ > N. _hithw_ 'fog' [Etym. s.v.
        KHIS/KHITH-] and (N. _bachor_ 'pedlar' < _*mbakhro_) and _bach_ 'ware,
        thing' < _*mbakhâ_. In _i Chîn Húrin_ _ch_ shows up because it stands
        between two vowels (i-KHî). _Aran Chithlum_ would be one of the cases
        where the 'generalized rule' comes into effect, although the
        'reinforcemnt' wasn't originally phonetically justified [PE11:7].

        > Among Tolkien's published explanations about the consonant mutation
        > in the Celtic-like Elvish language, the nearest in time to Etym. is in the
        > "Early Noldorin Grammar". There, "_hîr_ 'lord', (a) _ihir_" shows no
        > soft mutation of _h_ (PE13:121).

        But it shows reinforcement in the Etymologies, cf. _Bara-chir_ s.v.
        KHER-.

        > A first overview would suggest that in fact _gilgalad_ should not be
        > the result of any lenition, by comparison with the names _Gilbrennil_
        > *'Star-lady' and _Gilthoniel_ 'Star-maker' that occur next to it in
        > GIL-. _Gilbrennil_ shows no kind of mutation (cp. _brennil_ 'lady',
        > s.v. BARÁN-), and the mutation of _Gilthoniel_ (perhaps < *_tânielle_
        > or something similar, cp. _tanô_ s.v. TAN-) is doubtless the liquid
        > assimilation _l_ + _t_ > _lth_, not a lenition that would have yielded
        > *_Gildoniel_ instead.

        1) _Gilgalad_: According to the Etymologies (s.v. GIL-) N. _gíl_ goes
        back to < _*gilya_. Hence an older form of the compound would have
        been: _*Gilyacalad_. Thus the development _calad_ > _•galad_ is quite
        regular. Even if the compound isn't that old, it is reasonable for
        _gíl_ to cause lenition as it would in other cases, given that it ended
        originally in a vowel.

        2) _Gilbrennil_: This is indeed problematic. _Gil_ here qualifies
        _brennil_ whereas in _Dagor Vregedúr_ _bregedúr_ qualifies _dagor_. One
        might ask oneself whether _gilbrennil_ stands instead of _*gilvrennil_
        due to some sort of analogy (cf. _Elbereth_) or maybe it was easier to
        pronounce (not a strong point) ?

        3) _Gilthoniel_: In X:388 there is a note by J.R.R. Tolkien deriving
        the second element of _Gilthoniel_ from root _than/thân-_ 'to kindle,
        set light to'.

        In brief, I think the most problematic form is _Gilbrennil_. Still,
        Helios De Rosario Martinez is certainly right to point out all those
        difficulties, as it's not clear what Tolkien's ideas were when writing
        the Etymologies. Tolkien's note I cited sub 3) dates probably to the
        late '50s. In the same essay he notes on _Elbereth_ that "... since
        _b_ is not mutated the name is probably to b referred to _*elen-barathi
        > _elmbereth_".

        So Tolkien was (of course) keenly aware of the issues involving
        mutation.

        -David Kiltz
      • Helios De Rosario Martinez
        ... That means that the mutation _c_ _ch_ (at least in Etym.) would be more like _b_ _mb_ when the nasal cluster existed in the primitive form: a
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 7 10:10 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          David Kiltz wrote:

          > Descriptively _h_ > _ch_ isn't
          > 'softening' but rather 'hardening' or 'reinforcing'. The underlying
          > phonetics can be gleaned from the historical development:
          > PE (ON) *KH > S./N. _-ch-_ in inlaut, (and before liquid) but _h-_
          > in anlaut.

          That means that the mutation _c_ > _ch_ (at least in Etym.) would be
          more like _b_ > _mb_ when the nasal cluster existed in the primitive
          form: a restitution of the old consonant, not a softening. Isn't it?

          In that case, it would be a wrong inference to call _c_ > _ch_ a case
          of lenition/soft mutation. In fact, though it had a grammatical role
          equal to that of lenition, I realise that Tolkien did not call it so
          when explaining its occurrence in Gn./N grammar, but he used the
          generic terms "grammatical mutation", "interior changes" or "initial
          variation of consonants".

          I would suggest that such a point should be noted by Ryszard
          Derdzinski in his essay --

          (http://www.elvish.org/gwaith/pdf/consonant_mutations.pdf)

          -- as he classifies the whole table of grammatical mutations in PE11:7
          (including _h_ > _ch_) as "lenition".

          > 1) _Gilgalad_: According to the Etymologies (s.v. GIL-) N. _gíl_ goes
          > back to < _*gilya_. Hence an older form of the compound would have
          > been: _*Gilyacalad_. Thus the development _calad_ > _•galad_ is quite
          > regular. Even if the compound isn't that old, it is reasonable for
          > _gíl_ to cause lenition as it would in other cases, given that it
          > ended originally in a vowel.

          But I think that the other examples (_Gilbrennil_ and _Gilthoniel_)
          show that _gíl_ did not favour phonologic lenition. I agree that
          _gilgalad_ may show lenited _calad_, but my point is that it is
          _grammatical_ lenition.

          > One might ask oneself whether _gilbrennil_ stands instead of
          > _*gilvrennil_ due to some sort of analogy (cf. _Elbereth_) or maybe
          > it was easier to pronounce (not a strong point) ?

          As Javier Lorenzo noted in the Lambenor list --

          (http://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/lambenor/message/6557
          -- in Spanish)

          -- _lv_ does occur in Noldorin, v.g. in _lalven_ (ÁLAM-), _dalv_/_dalf_
          (DAL-), _Naugolvir_ (NAUK-). In all those instances _lv_ comes from
          *_lm_, but anyway show that _lv_ was not at all difficult to pronounce.

          > 3) _Gilthoniel_: In X:388 there is a note by J.R.R. Tolkien deriving
          > the second element of _Gilthoniel_ from root _than/thân-_ 'to kindle,
          > set light to'.

          But as you wrote later, it is a note from a later text. In Etym. it is
          quite clear that such a _-thoniel_ came from TAN- 'make'.

          On the other hand, I recall what I wrote in my previous post:
          "[_galad_] also occurs in V:362, in the name _Gilgalad_, as a
          cross-reference to _calad_. But this must not be accounted, since
          Hostetter and Wynne point out in A&C:19 that the cross-reference is
          actually to _Glingal_."

          But Javier wrote in the previously mentioned message to Lambenor that
          he does not think, as I did, that the note in VT45:19 means that
          _Gilgalad_ was an erratum in the published text, since in that case it
          would have been noted as "[_for_:] _Gilgalad_ [_read_:]
          _Glingal_". I interpreted that the wording "a cross-reference to
          _Glingal_ (not to _Gilgalad_ as in the published text)" means the same
          that such a formulation, but I am not sure. Who of us is right?

          Helios

          [In the _Etymologies_, Christopher Tolkien includes "N _calad_ light
          (cf. _Gilgalad_)" in his list of the "maze of new forms" added in pencil
          to the original ink version of the entry KAL-. In the original manuscript,
          "N _calad_ light" was added in the left margin, and below this was also
          written "Cf. _Glingal_" (without parentheses) -- hence the reference in
          the A&C to "a cross-reference to _Glingal_ (not to _Gilgalad_ as in the
          published text".

          Also note that in the A&C, any differences between the cross-
          references in the published text and those in the original manuscript
          are discussed _in the editorial comments in square brackets (indented
          and set in a smaller typeface)_, rather than in the main listing of addenda
          and corrigenda for a particular entry. For example, the A&C mentions in
          the editorial notes to AB-, ABAR- that "The cross-reference to AWA is in
          the MS to AW-" (VT45:5). Such differences between the cross-references
          in the published text of the _Etymologies_ and the manuscript are not
          errata per se, but are rather editorial decisions made by Christopher
          Tolkien. -- PHW]
        • David Kiltz
          ... If _c_ (i.e. _k_) is old, no. Spirantisation in both Noldorin and Sindarin (as far as I can see) takes place when it s from older
          Message 4 of 6 , Jul 8 6:11 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            On 07.07.2004, at 19:10, Helios De Rosario Martinez wrote:

            > David Kiltz wrote:
            >
            >> Descriptively _h_ > _ch_ isn't
            >> 'softening' but rather 'hardening' or 'reinforcing'. The underlying
            >> phonetics can be gleaned from the historical development:
            >> PE (ON) *KH > S./N. _-ch-_ in inlaut, (and before liquid) but _h-_
            >> in anlaut.
            >
            > That means that the mutation _c_ > _ch_ (at least in Etym.) would be
            > more like _b_ > _mb_ when the nasal cluster existed in the primitive
            > form: a restitution of the old consonant, not a softening. Isn't it?

            If _c_ (i.e. _k_) is old, no. Spirantisation in both Noldorin and
            Sindarin (as far as I can see) takes place when it's from older < _sk_
            or _kk_. For the development of NT (that is, T == any voiceless stop + N
            == homorganic nasal) cf. VT42:27. The closest we get to a spirant is
            _nth_, _nch_ etc. Maybe there was a special rule for the anlaut of a
            word. That, however, would run counter to everything we know about
            mutations since they occur precisely so because the sentence Sandhi is
            so close that two words are treated as one.

            If you meant _h_ > _ch- then, of course, you're absolutely right.

            > In that case, it would be a wrong inference to call _c_ > _ch_ a case
            > of lenition/soft mutation.

            If you really mean _c_ > _ch_ it's best called 'spirantisation', I
            think. Referring to it as 'lenition' might be permissible because in
            physiological terms, _ch_ is more 'lax' than _c_. (That is, the tension
            of the speech organs is lower).

            > But I think that the other examples (_Gilbrennil_ and _Gilthoniel_)
            > show that _gíl_ did not favour phonologic lenition. I agree that
            > _gilgalad_ may show lenited _calad_, but my point is that it is
            > _grammatical_ lenition.

            Well, but any mutation is primarily phonological, i.e. the prima causa
            for the phenomenon to come into existence is phonetic. Of course,
            grammaticalisation of mutations/lenition means that phonologically
            justified cases are transferred to other cases. Still, you need a
            precedent for that pattern. What then, if _-calad_ > _-galad_ was not
            phonologically justified (what proto-form do you assume, then?
            _Gilya-kalad_ should give _Gilgalad_.) was the motivation for such a
            grammatical lenition ? Just the slightly different function of _gil_
            here ? Frankly, I don't see any evidence to support that. Also note
            that, although _Gilgalad_ is translated as 'starlight' in various
            places, Tolkien gives a different translation in 'The Road Goes Ever
            On', namely _Gil-galad_ 'Star of bright light'. In this case _-galad_
            would be the modifier noun. I strongly agree with Javier Lorenzo who
            writes: " Sin embargo, tengo mis dudas respecto a que el tipo de
            genitivo expresado en el compuesto pueda ser determinante en la
            aparición de lenición interna. Aparte de la explicación desde el punto
            de vista gramatical, puede haber otras razones." ("However, I'm
            doubtful as to whether the type of genitive relation expressed within
            the compound could determine what internal lenition is used. Apart
            from a (purely) grammatical explication, there could be other reasons
            [for the seemingly irregular lenition].")

            >> One might ask oneself whether _gilbrennil_ stands instead of
            >> _*gilvrennil_ due to some sort of analogy (cf. _Elbereth_) or maybe
            >> it was easier to pronounce (not a strong point) ?
            >
            > As Javier Lorenzo noted in the Lambenor list --
            > -- _lv_ does occur in Noldorin, v.g. in _lalven_ (ÁLAM-), _dalv_/_dalf_
            > (DAL-), _Naugolvir_ (NAUK-). In all those instances _lv_ comes from
            > *_lm_, but anyway show that _lv_ was not at all difficult to pronounce.

            Sure, I was talking about _-lvr-_.

            >> 3) _Gilthoniel_: In X:388 there is a note by J.R.R. Tolkien deriving
            >> the second element of _Gilthoniel_ from root _than/thân-_ 'to kindle,
            >> set light to'.

            > But as you wrote later, it is a note from a later text. In Etym. it is
            > quite clear that such a _-thoniel_ came from TAN- 'make'.

            It's not impossible but how do you support that claim? Okay, there
            would be _*tániel_ 'having fashioned'. But the first part could even go
            back to _*gilyâth_ 'stars' [cf. PE11:19].

            All in all, I don't see a necessity to assume irregularities here.
            Indeed, _Gilgalad_ is quite in accord with sound laws. In my eyes, only
            _Gilbrennil_ stands out; for which at least two other explanations seem
            possible (analogy, haplology).

            -David Kiltz

            (P.S.: Any translational errors are, of course, mine)
          • Helios De Rosario Martinez
            ... Yes, I meant _h_ _ch_ all the time. _c_ was a typo. Sorry for the confusion. But by the way... ... In Etym. we also have instances of _l_ + _c_ _lch_
            Message 5 of 6 , Jul 8 8:00 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              David Kiltz wrote:
              > If you meant _h_ > _ch- then, of course, you're absolutely right.

              Yes, I meant _h_ > _ch_ all the time. _c_ was a typo. Sorry for the
              confusion.

              But by the way...

              > If _c_ (i.e. _k_) is old, no. Spirantisation in both Noldorin and
              > Sindarin (as far as I can see) takes place when it's from older <
              > _sk_ or _kk_. For the development of NT (that is, T == any
              > voiceless stop + N == homorganic nasal) cf. VT42:27. The closest we
              > get to a spirant is _nth_, _nch_ etc.

              In Etym. we also have instances of _l_ + _c_ > _lch_ (liquid
              assimilation), as _Alchoron_ (s.v. ALA-, AR-, LA-...) or
              _Elcharaes_, _Helcharaes_ (s.v. KARAK-). It may be compared with _l_
              + _t_ > _lth_ in _Gilthoniel_ (see below) and other cases.

              And back to _gilgalad_. Yes, I agree that the little grammatical
              difference with _Gilthoniel_, _Gilbrennil_, is not a strong reason
              for explaining their different mutations (at least it has little
              support in Tolkien's texts). This I acknowledged in my first post.
              And I am indeed interested in other theories that can be better
              defended.

              >>> 3) _Gilthoniel_: In X:388 there is a note by J.R.R. Tolkien
              >>> deriving the second element of _Gilthoniel_ from root _than/thân-
              >>> _ 'to kindle, set light to'.
              >>
              >> But as you wrote later, it is a note from a later text. In Etym.
              >> it is quite clear that such a _-thoniel_ came from TAN- 'make'.
              >
              >It's not impossible but how do you support that claim?

              N _Gilthonieth_ or _Gilthoniel_ occurs (as cognate of Q
              _Tintánie_) 'star-maker' s.v. TAN-. It is next to _Certhan_ 'ship-
              builder', though this was later changed to _C(e)irdan_, that does
              show lenition.

              Helios
            • David Kiltz
              ... Oh yes, there is _lT_ _lTh_ and _rT_ _rTh_ (cf. _narcha-_ s.v. NÁrak-). ... Yes, I missed that. The entries under TAN- are a strong point. Yet,
              Message 6 of 6 , Jul 8 1:02 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                On 08.07.2004, at 17:00, Helios De Rosario Martinez wrote:

                > In Etym. we also have instances of _l_ + _c_ > _lch_ (liquid
                > assimilation)

                Oh yes, there is _lT_ > _lTh_ and _rT_ > _rTh_ (cf. _narcha-_ s.v.
                NÁrak-).

                > N _Gilthonieth_ or _Gilthoniel_ occurs (as cognate of Q
                > _Tintánie_) 'star-maker' s.v. TAN-. It is next to _Certhan_ 'ship-
                > builder', though this was later changed to _C(e)irdan_, that does
                > show lenition.

                Yes, I missed that. The entries under TAN- are a strong point. Yet,
                Tolkien seems to have changed his mind in the process of writing. This,
                then, may in fact be the most likely explanation: _Gilthoniel_ was
                originally thought to be regular but later the conception changed.
                Hence the different explanation advanced later.

                [This would be entirely characteristic of Tolkien's methodology. CFH]

                I think the conceptual change is best illustrated by _Certhan_ vs
                _Ceirdan_. The first form would be the result of _cir_ + _tan_, whereas
                the latter of _cirya_ + _tano_.

                In the case of _Gilthoniel_ one might argue that Tolkien would keep the
                phonetics (possibly because the name was so strongly embedded in the
                Mythology) and rather find a different way to explain it (as seems to
                have been the case with _Elbereth_).

                -David Kiltz
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.