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

Re: _calad_ or _galad_?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.