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

Re: [Lambengolmor] _calad_ or _galad_?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Jul 6, 2004
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 6 , Jul 7, 2004
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 6 , Jul 8, 2004
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 6 , Jul 8, 2004
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 6 , Jul 8, 2004
            View Source
            • 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.