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

Re: _calad_ or _galad_?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.