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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: _calad_ or _galad_?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.