Re: _calad_ or _galad_?
- 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
But by the way...
> If _c_ (i.e. _k_) is old, no. Spirantisation in both Noldorin andIn Etym. we also have instances of _l_ + _c_ > _lch_ (liquid
> 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.
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
>>> 3) _Gilthoniel_: In X:388 there is a note by J.R.R. TolkienN _Gilthonieth_ or _Gilthoniel_ occurs (as cognate of Q
>>> 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?
_Tintánie_) 'star-maker' s.v. TAN-. It is next to _Certhan_ 'ship-
builder', though this was later changed to _C(e)irdan_, that does
- On 08.07.2004, at 17:00, Helios De Rosario Martinez wrote:
> In Etym. we also have instances of _l_ + _c_ > _lch_ (liquidOh yes, there is _lT_ > _lTh_ and _rT_ > _rTh_ (cf. _narcha-_ s.v.
> N _Gilthonieth_ or _Gilthoniel_ occurs (as cognate of QYes, I missed that. The entries under TAN- are a strong point. Yet,
> _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.
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_).