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

Re: Various umlauts in Sindarin plurals

Expand Messages
  • tchitrec
    On June 14th in post n° 68, Pavel Iosad published an interesting hypothetis about umlauts in various external stages of Noldorin /Sindarin. ... This could be
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 17, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      On June 14th in post n° 68, Pavel Iosad published an interesting
      hypothetis about umlauts in various external stages
      of "Noldorin"/Sindarin.

      > it may be argued that the assimilation of _o_ to _ö_ is not much
      > 'less' than of _o_ to _y_. We can arrange the four vowels in question
      > (_o_, _u_, _ö_, _y_) in the following tidy way:
      >
      > y------u
      > | |
      > ö------o

      This could be questioned, because your vowel-diagram would be better
      described as trapezoidal :

      y------—u
      \ |
      ö----o

      so the distance o-y is indeed significantly greater than o-ö.
      Moreover, Sindarin I-affection implies not only fronting (u>y) but
      also raising (e>i).

      Nevertheless, it remains possible to do without the notion of
      distance-influenced umlaut if several stages in I-affection are
      envisioned. The following system can be imaginated for externally
      late Sindarin (especially considering the evolution of the name of
      Ossë in Sindarin, see XI:400 : _Ossai_ > _Ossî_ > _ussi_ > _yssi_
      with non-syllabic i, marked with a subscribed crescent) :
      - first, raising of e to i and o to u before final i
      - then, fronting of back vowels before any non-hiatic i : a, o, u >
      e, ö, y
      - a later anticipation of final i, which evidently became non-
      syllabic (see above), seems necessary to explain various diphthongs
      produced by I-affection in final syllables ; but it is not implied
      here.

      According to this model, o > y would never occur directly, the
      fronting of o yielding only ö. O > y would be the product of two
      distinct - though related - processes.

      > There is a later form _eryd_ in WJ:6, as well as _gelydh_ (from
      > _golodh_ < _*ñgolodo_). These date mostly from post-LR time (...). It
      > appears that in the later conception, the rule 'final-syllable _o_ >
      > _y_' was indeed valid. This explanation is easier than the one
      > proposed by Helge, who tries to invent some kind of 'status
      > constructus' to explain Tolkien's persistence in not changing the LR
      > form _ered_.

      Indeed _eryd_ becomes much more common in _The War of the Jewels_,
      though _ered_ does not totally disappears. Possibly Tolkien
      felt "compelled" to keep _ered_ because it had appeared in LR. This
      would not, however, be the only example of "status constructus" : we
      also have things like the shortening of monosyllables as first
      elements of genitival compounds, e.g. _Dôr_ (XI:413) being shortened
      in _Dor Caranthir_, _Dor Daedeloth_... (Silmarillion Index). Perhaps
      phrases like _Ered Wethrin_ were treated like compounds :
      _*orodwathren_ would regularly yield the pl. _*eredwethrin_.

      > there is evidence for an *_u_ > _o_ shift in Quenya, as in _órku_ >
      > Q. _orko_.

      Finally, yes. Internally, I think it is quite dubious : it is stated
      in XI:390 that _orko_ is influenced by Sindarin _orch_ where the o is
      normal, but the regular Q form is rather _urko_ from _*uruku. In the
      Etym, _orko_ comes form a stem _ÓROK-_ (V:379), so there is no need
      to posit an internal u > o shift.

      > It is interesting to note that _muindyr_as the pl. of _muindor_
      > (TOR) is described as analogical. Since this is a compound, the
      > failure of _ui_-shift in the plural is not very likely to be due to
      > analogy, and probably this is intended to mean that _y_ is analogical
      > to the _y_ in _*tyr_ 'brothers', which appears there since it's a
      > monosyllable, but normally the plural of _muindor_ would be
      > _*muinder_.

      Seeing that the Etym. pl. of _tôr_ (stated to be archaic) is _terein_
      (V:394), the etymological pl. might rather be _*muinderein_.
      And since analogy generally aligns rare forms on more common models,
      it could even point that o > y is not uncommon in the language for
      such words...

      > There is no need of 'updating' Noldorin words like _doron_
      > pl. _deren_, as Helge suggests (and why should we do any updating
      > anyway? :-)).

      Depends on what you are aiming for. I will not venture into this
      slippy subject...

      [Yes, let's not! Carl]

      In conclusion, I think your hypothesis is worth being noted
      concerning Etym's "Noldorin". Things appear to be somewhat different
      for externally late Sindarin. Regarding LR... well, that's difficult
      because it is the very moment of the upheaval in Tolkien's
      conceptions, and the source of it.

      Nai Anar caluva tielmanna !

      Tchitrec
    • Hans Georg Lundahl
      tchitrec wrote: This could be questioned, because your vowel-diagram would be better described as trapezoidal : y------u | ö----o so
      Message 2 of 11 , Jun 17, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        tchitrec <Tchitrec@...> wrote:

        "This could be questioned, because your vowel-diagram would be better
        described as trapezoidal :

        y------u
        \ |
        ö----o

        so the distance o-y is indeed significantly greater than o-ö.
        Moreover, Sindarin I-affection implies not only fronting (u>y) but
        also raising (e>i)."

        My theory:
        A primary change o>ö, u>y
        B secondary changes ö>e in stressed syllables, ö>y in post-stressed syllables.
        My evidence onodrim and enyd are the collective and ordinary plurals of the S wd for Ent. Wh shd be *onod, since collective plurals do not have I-affection. This onod becomes neither ened nor ynyd but enyd by I-affection. The raising of post-stress short vowels is evidenced by Latin as against the more regular vocality of Greek. It could have occurred in S too (though it does not account for all raising, i e not raising e>i by I-affection), giving us hypotheticals:
        sing. *onod (preserved in coll. pl. onodrim)
        plur: *onod-í>*önöd(i)>enyd

        Hans Georg Lundahl

        Följ VM på nära håll på Yahoo!s officielle VM-sajt www.yahoo.se/vm2002
        Håll dig ajour med nyheter och resultat, med vinnare och förlorare...

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Pavel Iosad
        Hello, ... [....] ... [...] Phonetically, yes. Phonologically, no. ... Which is a very good point. It only implies, it would appear, raising of front vowels.
        Message 3 of 11 , Jun 17, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello,

          >> it may be argued that the assimilation of _o_ to _ö_ is not much
          >> 'less' than of _o_ to _y_. We can arrange the four vowels in question
          >> (_o_, _u_, _ö_, _y_) in the following tidy way:
          [....]
          > This could be questioned, because your vowel-diagram would be better
          > described as trapezoidal :
          [...]

          Phonetically, yes. Phonologically, no.

          > so the distance o-y is indeed significantly greater than o-ö.
          > Moreover, Sindarin I-affection implies not only fronting (u>y) but
          > also raising (e>i).

          Which is a very good point. It only implies, it would appear, raising of
          front vowels. If we do assume that _ö_ > _y_ and _e_ > _i_ are the same
          process, this would mean that chronologically the umlaut of back vowels
          did not coincide with the umlaut of front vowel, but rather preceded it.

          > Nevertheless, it remains possible to do without the notion of
          > distance-influenced umlaut if several stages in I-affection are
          > envisioned.

          Still, the explanation you offer below, does imply a diphthongal stage
          in the ultima (former penultima).

          > The following system can be imaginated for externally
          > late Sindarin (especially considering the evolution of the name of
          > Ossë in Sindarin, see XI:400 : _Ossai_ > _Ossî_ > _ussi_ > _yssi_
          > with non-syllabic i, marked with a subscribed crescent) :
          > - first, raising of e to i and o to u before final I

          I think this may rather be the shift of _o_ to _ö_ and _u_ to _y_, as
          this (as above) offers a unitary algorithm for the behaviour of front
          (or rather non-back, thus including _a_into the same process) vowels.

          > - then, fronting of back vowels before any non-hiatic i : a, o, u >
          > e, ö, y

          If you raise _o_ to _u_, there's no _o_ here. I seem to be most
          certainly misunderstanding.

          [...]
          > According to this model, o > y would never occur directly, the
          > fronting of o yielding only ö. O > y would be the product of two
          > distinct - though related - processes.

          My point exactly.

          [...]
          > Indeed _eryd_ becomes much more common in _The War of the Jewels_,
          > though _ered_ does not totally disappears. Possibly Tolkien
          > felt "compelled" to keep _ered_ because it had appeared in LR.

          But he apparently didn't use the opporunity of the second edition of LR
          to emend it, as he did with _vánier_ and _omentilmo_.

          > This would not, however, be the only example of "status constructus" : we
          > also have things like the shortening of monosyllables as first
          > elements of genitival compounds, e.g. _Dôr_ (XI:413) being shortened
          > in _Dor Caranthir_, _Dor Daedeloth_... (Silmarillion Index). Perhaps
          > phrases like _Ered Wethrin_ were treated like compounds :
          > _*orodwathren_ would regularly yield the pl. _*eredwethrin_.

          What of _ered e-mbar nîn_?
          The answer is simple (I'd say) - Tolkien was vacillating. As always.

          [...]
          >> It is interesting to note that _muindyr_as the pl. of _muindor_
          >> (TOR) is described as analogical. Since this is a compound, the
          >> failure of _ui_-shift in the plural is not very likely to be due to
          >> analogy, and probably this is intended to mean that _y_ is analogical
          >> to the _y_ in _*tyr_ 'brothers', which appears there since it's a
          >> monosyllable, but normally the plural of _muindor_ would be
          >> _*muinder_.
          >
          > Seeing that the Etym. pl. of _tôr_ (stated to be archaic) is _terein_
          > (V:394), the etymological pl. might rather be _*muinderein_.
          > And since analogy generally aligns rare forms on more common models,
          > it could even point that o > y is not uncommon in the language for
          > such words...

          Precisely. Whatever the etymological form (you are most probably right,
          my bad), it appears that the form _muindyr_ was influenced by _*ty^r_,
          the more regular later plural of _tôr_.

          > In conclusion, I think your hypothesis is worth being noted
          > concerning Etym's "Noldorin". Things appear to be somewhat different
          > for externally late Sindarin.

          Of course. The theory was proposed precisely in order to explain some of
          the discrepancies met in later post-LR Sindarin as leftovers from the
          pre-LR Noldorin conceptions.

          Pavel
          --
          Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

          'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
          --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_
        • Didier Willis
          ... Isn t _ened_ given as an alternative to _enyd_ Ents in the Letters, and regarded as being probably a form used in Sindarin as spoken in Gondor? I don t
          Message 4 of 11 , Jun 17, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Quick note on _eryd_ vs. _ered_:

            > Indeed _eryd_ becomes much more common in _The War of the Jewels_,
            > though _ered_ does not totally disappears. Possibly Tolkien
            > felt "compelled" to keep _ered_ because it had appeared in LR.

            Isn't _ened_ given as an alternative to _enyd_ "Ents" in the Letters,
            and regarded as being 'probably' a form used in Sindarin as spoken in
            Gondor? I don't have the Letters at hand currently, having lent them,
            from vague memory it might be Letter 224. Anyway, I always thought
            then that _ered_ would similarly be used by Men (on maps, etc.),
            whereas _eryd_ would be the correct Sindarin plural. Correct me if I
            am wrong. Otherwise, that would account for an internal explanation.

            Didier.

            [Actually, its on _page_ 224 (Letter no. 168): "The 'correct' plural of
            _onod_ was _enyd_, or general plural _onodrim_; though _ened_ might be a
            form used in Gondor." This is a good time to remind folks to look things
            up before posting to the list -- Didier, you should get a 2nd copy of
            _Letters_, one to keep, one to lend ;). Believe me, I know how tempting
            that big, shiny, candy-like "Send" button is, but let's be disciplined.
            This is also a good time to remind folks that the current edition of
            _Letters_ has a much-expanded index, compiled by Christina Scull and
            Wayne Hammond, and is indispensable even if you already own the earlier
            issue. The new index, however, doesn't attempt to list Elvish forms: for
            that, there is Taum Santoski's linguistic index to _Letters_ that was
            published in _Vinyar Tengwar_ 20, still available from me for $2 or $3,
            depending on where you live. See http://www.elvish.org/VT/ for more
            information. Carl]
          • Hans Georg Lundahl
            Mr Pavel Iosad ! you wrote that: 1 o y involves two processes (agreeing both with me and his combatant); 2 mentioned ered in lieu of expected *eryd (pl of
            Message 5 of 11 , Jun 18, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Mr Pavel Iosad !
              you wrote that:

              1 o>y involves two processes (agreeing both with me and his combatant);
              2 mentioned ered in lieu of expected *eryd (pl of orod) as an example of
              JRRT vacillating.

              Funny I was just this morning looking at Eredwethion (transcription
              example of Alphabet of Dairon [<Pengolod] in a history of Middle-earth
              publication of Christopher Tolkien).

              I think that *orodi regularly became *öröd, which as an isolated word wd
              hv become *eryd, but that in pre-stress positions, like Eredwethion, Ered
              Nimrais, Ered Lithui, Ered Luin it became ered. The mention of status
              constructus forms (a term used in Hebrew but not Welsh school grammars) is
              to the point. A status constructus is precisely a pre-stress noun before a
              following genitive, adjective or apposition, wh differs from the fully
              stressed fm. I think status constr. is not a regular feature of S grammar,
              but a phenomenon levelled out one way or the other. And in the pl of orod
              it seems the st constr fm ousted the fully stressed fm, there being so
              many mountains, that just saying "the mountains" wd be meaningless in most
              naturally occurring contexts. Saying The Mountain wd not, since one wd be
              referring to the nearest one (at least at the Lonely Mountain).

              JRRT vacillated - yes, but he did so with consistency, always making sure
              his latest idea was consistent with all others, with all the old except
              the one he was replacing. So JRRT's vacillation is not the problem. The
              problem is: Christopher did not always know what was the latest idea of
              his Father and how much he had changed and invented since, to restore
              consistency. And whether he had changed sth in this or that aspect,
              required by another change but not recorded.

              I think S has changed both much less and much slower than Primitive Indo-
              European. No language changed as rapidly in the 1870's as PIE, was the
              philological joke. For all that each new reconstruction was consistent
              with itself and with the linguistic facts that the reconstructor had taken
              account of.

              Hans Georg Lundahl

              Följ VM på nära håll på Yahoo!s officielle VM-sajt www.yahoo.se/vm2002
              Håll dig ajour med nyheter och resultat, med vinnare och förlorare...

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

              [Let's watch the use of abbreviations. There's simply no need to use such
              as "fm" == form, "wd" == would, etc. No one's life depends on saving a few
              keystrokes; no one is going to run out if we use a bunch here. Remember
              that readability is a very important factor. Also, let's observe the
              convention of bracketing Elvish words in underscores (e.g., _orod_),
              mimicking underlining/italicization, which again increases readability.
              Thanks. Carl]
            • Pavel Iosad
              Hello, Hans Georg Lundahl wrote: [I wrote that] ... No combatants here, there weren t any major disagreements anyway! :-) [Indeed: that one slipped by me.
              Message 6 of 11 , Jun 18, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello,
                Hans Georg Lundahl wrote:

                [I wrote that]
                > 1 o>y involves two processes (agreeing both with me and his combatant);

                No combatants here, there weren't any major disagreements anyway! :-)

                [Indeed: that one slipped by me. Disagreement on matters of fact or
                interpretation most definitely does not constitute "combat". We will
                _not_ go down that road on _this_ list. Carl]

                [...]
                > I think that *orodi regularly became *öröd, which as an isolated word
                > w[oul]d h[a]v[e] become *eryd, but that in pre-stress positions, like
                > Eredwethion, Ered Nimrais, Ered Lithui, Ered Luin it became ered.

                I don't think this is plausible. We obviously have _o_ in stressed
                positions yielding both _y_ and _e_. I also think that in hypothetical
                compounds like Ered Wethrin, the main stress would fall on _Ered_, as it
                is syntactically the head, and _*Gwathren_ the modifier.

                > And in the pl[ural] of orod it seems the st[atus] constr[uctus] f[or]m
                > ousted the fully stressed f[or]m, there being so many mountains, that
                > just saying "the mountains" w[oul]d be meaningless in most naturally
                > occurring contexts.

                I beg to disagree. There are plenty of legal contexts for saying _the
                mountains_, like _Beren wandered through the mountains to Doriath_,
                _Morgoth was unable to discover Turgon's stronghold in the mountains_
                and so on and so forth.

                > JRRT vacillated - yes, but he did so with consistency, always making
                > sure his latest idea was consistent with all others, with all the old
                > except the one he was replacing. So JRRT's vacillation is not the
                > problem.

                Well, not that I agree with it, but anyway you must consider that the
                vacillating refers to whether he should implement the change or not at
                all.

                > The problem is: Christopher did not always know what was the
                > latest idea of his Father and how much he had changed and
                > invented since, to restore consistency. And whether he had
                > changed s[ome]th[ing] in this or that aspect, required by
                > another change but not recorded.

                If it is not recorded, no one can say what Tolkien intended.

                Pavel
                --
                Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

                'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
                --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_
              • Hans Georg Lundahl
                Hello, Iosad! Thank u for comments. I will reply to some keeping my original message. ... A: where do you have a stressed _o_ yielding _y_? In monosyllables?
                Message 7 of 11 , Jun 18, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello, Iosad!

                  Thank u for comments. I will reply to some keeping my original message.

                  I:

                  >> I think that *orodi regularly became *öröd, which as an isolated word
                  >> w[oul]d h[a]v[e] become *eryd, but that in pre-stress positions, like
                  >> Eredwethion, Ered Nimrais, Ered Lithui, Ered Luin it became ered.
                  >
                  > I don't think this is plausible. We obviously have _o_ in stressed
                  > positions yielding both _y_ and _e_. I also think that in hypothetical
                  > compounds like Ered Wethrin, the main stress would fall on _Ered_, as it
                  > is syntactically the head, and _*Gwathren_ the modifier.

                  A: where do you have a stressed _o_ yielding _y_? In monosyllables?

                  B: the main stress wd certainly not be on the syntactical "head" but precisely
                  on the "modifier" in any natural context. èredwéthrin, not éredwèthrin
                  (acute==main stress, grave==subordinate stress).

                  II:

                  >> And in the pl[ural] of orod it seems the st[atus] constr[uctus] f[or]m
                  >> ousted the fully stressed f[or]m, there being so many mountains, that
                  >> just saying "the mountains" w[oul]d be meaningless in most naturally
                  >> occurring contexts.
                  >
                  > I beg to disagree. There are plenty of legal contexts for saying _the
                  > mountains_, like _Beren wandered through the mountains to Doriath_,
                  > _Morgoth was unable to discover Turgon's stronghold in the mountains_
                  > and so on and so forth.

                  Admitted.

                  III

                  >> The problem is: Christopher did not always know what was the
                  >> latest idea of his Father and how much he had changed and
                  >> invented since, to restore consistency. And whether he had
                  >> changed s[ome]th[ing] in this or that aspect, required by
                  >> another change but not recorded.
                  >
                  > If it is not recorded, no one can say what Tolkien intended.

                  True. But one can rely, from what changes are recorded, that he worked for
                  consistency. If he made a change he must have considered what other changes it
                  involved, but in many cases not have had the time to record them. And there
                  must have been afterthoughts. If a not recorded change is logical considering
                  recorded changes and linguistic facts published in JRRT's LotR, it wd hv been
                  in his intention that it were added. Only, sometimes there wd hv been two
                  alternative ways of resolving the apparent inconsistency, and only JRRT wd hv
                  known wh one to use. And that is a problem. I am not saying we can say what
                  JRRT intended (except by the philological method he used himself in editing old
                  poems: e g replacing in a line of Beowulf the non-allitterative and common
                  "worod" (infantry troup) by the alllitterating and poetical "éorod" (cavalry
                  troup), because that must hv been what the poet intended). But we can say he
                  did NOT intend total chaos. He did not hv time to tidy it all up, to bring all
                  manuscripts up to date and so, but he intended to. And that has placed his son
                  Christopher in some dilemmas. In publishing Silmarillion he smothed things out,
                  showing the consistency JRRT worked to achieve. In publishing the History of
                  Middle-earth series he has done the opposite, showing the vacillations before
                  achieving final consistency. This goes both for the linguistic and the other
                  aspects of the work.

                  Sincerely,

                  Hans Georg Lundahl

                  Följ VM på nära håll på Yahoo!s officielle VM-sajt www.yahoo.se/vm2002
                  Håll dig ajour med nyheter och resultat, med vinnare och förlorare...

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Anders Stenström
                  ... Tolkien gave the plural of _orod_ as _eryd_, _ered_ (in TC: Guide to the Names in _The Lord of the Rings_ Places, s.v._Ashen Mountains_), so it would
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jun 18, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Tchitrec (>>) and Pavel Iosad (>) wrote:

                    >> Indeed _eryd_ becomes much more common in _The War of the Jewels_,
                    >> though _ered_ does not totally disappears. Possibly Tolkien
                    >> felt "compelled" to keep _ered_ because it had appeared in LR.
                    >
                    > But he apparently didn't use the opporunity of the second edition of LR
                    > to emend it, as he did with _vánier_ and _omentilmo_.
                    >
                    >> . . . Perhaps phrases like _Ered Wethrin_ were treated like compounds :
                    >> _*orodwathren_ would regularly yield the pl. _*eredwethrin_.
                    >
                    > What of _ered e-mbar nîn_?
                    > The answer is simple (I'd say) - Tolkien was vacillating. As always.

                    Tolkien gave the plural of _orod_ as "_eryd_, _ered_" (in TC: "Guide to the
                    Names in _The Lord of the Rings_" Places, s.v._Ashen Mountains_), so it would
                    seem to be a matter of morphological variation, rather than vacillation.

                    Meneg suilaid,

                    Beregond

                    P.S. When writing the above I looked up the list of abbreviations to be used on
                    this list, to find the one for "Guide . . .": There was not one, but the book
                    in which it appears has an abbreviation of its own. To my -- perhaps too
                    angular -- way of thinking this seems skewed. The relevant sources for which
                    we need abbreviations should be works by J.R.R. Tolkien. It seems to me both
                    logical and practical to write GN for "Guide to the Names in _The Lord
                    of the Rings_".

                    [But then we would have still to note that GN is published in TC; and
                    furthermore, all page references are to TC, not GN. Personally, I would cite
                    a GN reference as either "TC:xxx s.v. Entry" or "in Tolkien's "Guide to Names",
                    s.v. Entry (TC:xxx)". Carl]
                  • Pavel Iosad
                    Hello, Anders Stenström wrote: [...] [Tchitrec] ... Also, we have _y_ in hardly differing things like _Emyn Muil_ [myself] ... [Anders] ... Good point.
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jun 19, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello,
                      Anders Stenström wrote:

                      [...]
                      [Tchitrec]
                      > >> . . . Perhaps phrases like _Ered Wethrin_ were treated
                      > like compounds :
                      > >> _*orodwathren_ would regularly yield the pl. _*eredwethrin_.

                      Also, we have _y_ in hardly differing things like _Emyn Muil_

                      [myself]
                      > > What of _ered e-mbar nîn_?
                      > > The answer is simple (I'd say) - Tolkien was vacillating. As always.

                      [Anders]
                      > Tolkien gave the plural of _orod_ as "_eryd_, _ered_" (in TC:
                      > "Guide to the
                      > Names in _The Lord of the Rings_" Places, s.v._Ashen
                      > Mountains_),

                      Good point. Objection withdrawn, more questions raised below.

                      > so it would seem to be a matter of morphological variation,
                      > rather than vacillation.

                      What kind of variation?
                      Can it have been dialectal variation rather than purely morphological?
                      _Eryd_ appears in First-Age writings of _The War of the Jewels_, but
                      _ered_ in _The Lord of the Rings_. Perhaps we can write it off to the
                      Gondor dialect, but then, confer LR:1089, where Sindarin _y_ is
                      explicitly stated to be pronounced as _i_ in Gondor. Why not _*erid_,
                      _*enid_ then? A wild guess is that the Mannish Sindarin of Númenor
                      somehow differed from First-Age Beleriand Sindarin (the Western dialect,
                      apparently), but this has virtually no proof in the texts whatsoever,
                      and perhaps not to be taken seriously. After all, _ered e-mbar nîn_ is
                      First Age as well.

                      Any takers?

                      Pavel
                      --
                      Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

                      'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
                      --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_
                    • tchitrec
                      The explanations of my model for I-affection in Sindarin were not very clear, because I did not mention which syllables are supposed to be affected, which is
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jun 20, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The explanations of my model for I-affection in Sindarin were not
                        very clear, because I did not mention which syllables are supposed to
                        be affected, which is very important :-(
                        My apologies.

                        With more details, it would be :
                        - first, raising of e to i and o to u *in the penult* (later final
                        syllable) before final i
                        - later, fronting of the back vowels a, o, u to e, ö, y respectively
                        before a syllable containing an i, and this *everywhere in the word*
                        - still later, final i becomes non syllabic (perhaps like the final i
                        of Rumanian _lupi_ "wolves", pl. of _lup_ "wolf") and in some cases
                        anticipated - more precisely when the preceding syllable contains e,
                        ô (long open a-like o, printed o with macron and hook in XI), û,
                        giving respectively ei (later ai), oi (later oe), ui.

                        Some examples might be useful (j stands for non syllabic i):
                        Common Eldarin _*ñgolodoi_ > _*ñgolodî_ > _*ñgoluði_ > _*ñgölyðj_ >
                        S. _Gölydh_ (written "Goelydh"), later _Gelydh_ (XI:364 for the
                        archaic form "Goelydh" ; for the later form, see for example the
                        place name _Annon-in-Gelydh_, Silmarillion Index entry _Golodhrim_,
                        or UT:18)
                        CE _*atarî_ > _*atari_ > _*ederi_ > _*ederj_ > _*edeir_ > S._edair_
                        (attested in the compound _Edenedair_ "Fathers of Men", X:373)
                        CE(?) _*orotî_ > _*oroti_ > _*orudi_ > _*örydj > S. _eryd_ (attested
                        numerous times in XI, e.g. in _Eryd Engrin_ "Iron Mountains", XI:6)
                        CE _*do3rai_ > _*dôrai_ > _*dûrî_ > _*dûri > _*dûrj_ > S. _duir_ (in
                        _Emyn Duir_, UT:434)

                        (The chronology of consonant changes is hypothetical - it can be
                        reconstructed differently.)
                        I hope this is clearer.

                        Nai Anar caluva tielmanna !
                        Tchitrec
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.