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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: Various umlauts in Sindarin plurals

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , Jun 17 4:48 AM
      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 2 of 11 , Jun 17 10:59 AM
        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 3 of 11 , Jun 17 8:01 PM
          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 4 of 11 , Jun 18 2:02 AM
            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 5 of 11 , Jun 18 6:11 AM
              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 6 of 11 , Jun 18 8:35 AM
                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 7 of 11 , Jun 18 1:16 PM
                  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 8 of 11 , Jun 19 2:40 AM
                    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 9 of 11 , Jun 20 12:47 PM
                      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.