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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: _calad_ or _galad_?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Jul 8, 2004
    • 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 2 of 6 , Jul 8, 2004
      • 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 3 of 6 , Jul 8, 2004
        • 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.