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

A few questions about _Etymologies_

Expand Messages
  • laurifindil
    Is the NENG- entry (VT46:3 s.v. NENG-WI-) composed of the root only or has it all the Q. and N. words as well? [It is essentially the same, lacking only the
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 14 10:34 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Is the NENG- entry (VT46:3 s.v. NENG-WI-) composed of the root only or has
      it all the Q. and N. words as well?

      [It is essentially the same, lacking only the Dor. reflex. It can be noted here
      that the entry for NENG- supplied the Quenya form _nengwea_ 'nasal' in the
      published entry, which is lacking in NENG-WI-. CFH]

      _Indyalme_ (VT46:3 s.v. ÑGAL-/ÑGÁLAM-) has no gloss. Could it be an
      intensive form: *_ingyalmê_ > _indyalme_?

      So _ninquitá-_ 'whiten' (V:378 s.v. NIK-W-) is not a typo after all?

      [It is very clearly written as such in the manuscript. CFH]

      But then what might be the meaning of the long _á_ as compared
      to "ninquita- shine white"?

      Could _sorne_ (V:392 s.v. THOR-, THORON-) be _sorno_ with a badly
      written _o_?

      [No. The T-section of _Etymologies_ is among the most clearly written,
      and the form as written is very clearly _sorne_. CFH]

      Do the few additions and changes made in ballpoint ink (cf. VT46:22
      s.v. YAR-; or VT46:23 s.v. YER-) belong to the same period as the inserted
      sheets (fols. 17-18, 30-31, 42-85 and 117-122)?

      [I would say not, since in the ballpoint emendations you cite, Tolkien is
      still using the language-name "Noldorin", whereas in the inserted sheets
      you list Tolkien instead describes "Beleriandic". CFH]

      Cheers,

      E. Kloczko
    • David Kiltz
      ... I think we re seeing here two different kinds of formation: 1. Causative (or in this case factitive), that is _*ninqui_ + tâ_ make white, whiten (for
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 14 11:27 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        On 14.09.2004, at 19:34, E. Kloczko wrote:

        > So _ninquitá-_ 'whiten' (V:378 s.v. NIK-W-) is not
        > a typo after all?
        > <...>
        > But then what might be the meaning of the long
        > _á_ as compared to "ninquita- shine white"?

        I think we're seeing here two different kinds of
        formation:

        1. Causative (or in this case factitive), that is _*ninqui_
        + tâ_ 'make white, whiten' (for the causative suffix cf.
        e.g. Etymologies *_tultâ-_ 'make come' s.v. TUL- 'come',
        etc.)

        vs.

        2. *_ninqui-_ > *_ninquit(a)_, i.e. sundóma extended
        + t(a), the so-called "_kalat-_" type [cf.XI:392].

        -David Kiltz

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Patrick H. Wynne
        ... ( ), ... It seems possible. Presumably Edouard is referring to the N- prefix cited in the A&C
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 15 6:12 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In message 737
          (<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/737>),
          Edouard asked:

          > _Indyalme_ (VT46:3 s.v. ÑGAL-/ÑGÁLAM-) has no gloss.
          > Could it be an intensive form: *_ingyalmê_ > _indyalme_?

          It seems possible. Presumably Edouard is referring to the
          N- prefix cited in the A&C (VT45:36), which in Qenya yielded
          an intensive prefix that took a variety of forms dependent
          on the following consonant: _um_ before _p, q, v_ (this last
          yielding _umb_), _an_ before _t_, _iñ_ before _k, g_, etc.
          The historical derivation of _indyalme_ might therefore be
          from *_n.-ñgyalmê_ (in which _n._ represents syllabic
          _n_, i.e. _n_ with an underdot) > *_ñ.-ñgyalmê_ (with
          assimilation of _n._ > _ñ._) > *_iñ-ñgyalmê_ (with resolution
          of syllabic _ñ._ >_iñ_) >_indyalme_ (with fronting of the stop
          in a palatal environment).

          If Tolkien did intend a non-intensive/ intensive distinction
          between _yalme_ 'clamour' and _indyalme_, perhaps the
          latter referred to an extended, overwhelmingly chaotic
          din, the 'clamour' of an ongoing battle as opposed to, say, the
          clamour of horses entering a courtyard or pots dropped in
          the kitchen.

          A parallel might occur in the much-later text "The Shibboleth
          of Feanor", which cites the Common Eldarin stem _ñgol-,
          ñgôlo-_, "with or without syllabic _ñ_". In the derivatives
          cited, it appears that the forms beginning with _ing-_ from
          original syllabic _ñ._ were intensive. Thus (all from XII:360):

          _ingólemo_ 'one with very great knowledge, a "wizard"'
          (compare _ñolmo_ 'a wise person')

          _Ingole_ 'Science/Philosophy as a whole'
          (compare _ñolme_ 'a department of wisdom (science etc.)')

          _Ingoldo_ '_the_ Ñoldo, one eminent in the kindred'
          (as opposed to _Ñoldo_, which simply identifies a member
          of that kindred, with no implication of eminence.)

          Our only other parallel to _indyalme_ in _Etymologies_ is found
          in the entry for the base ÑGYÔ-, ÑGYON- 'grandchild, descendant',
          with Qenya derivative _indyo_ (== T. _endo_ and ON _ango_).
          Is this _indyo_ intensive, from *_n-ñgyô_? Since the base also
          means 'descendant', _indyo_ (probably 'grandson'; a deleted
          marginal note by the Etym._base YÔ, YÔN- gives Q _inyo_ 'grandson',
          with _inyo_ << _indyo_; VT46:23) might be viewed as intensive
          in pertaining to a descendant removed by at least two
          generations.

          -- Patrick H. Wynne
        • laurifindil
          If _ninqitá-_ whiten has a causative suffix, which seems to be the case, why do we have _tulta-_ send for, fetch, summon (
          Message 4 of 4 , Sep 16 5:04 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            If _ninqitá-_ 'whiten' has a causative suffix, which seems to be
            the case, why do we have _tulta-_ 'send for, fetch, summon'
            (< *_tultâ-_ 'make come' < TUL- (cf. VT46:20) and not **_tultá-_?

            E. Kloczko

            [I would hesitate to call what we see in _ninqitá-_ a "suffix". Given
            the frequent and apparently free variation we see in prehistoric Eldarin
            forms between long and short vowels in word- and stem-final position
            (denoted by Tolkien as a macron with a breve over it), I would guess that
            the actual case is one of _selection_ of variant forms in _association_
            with distinguished meaning: thus, in this scenario, the long form was
            selected and associated with the causitive and/or inchoative sense (the
            gloss 'whiten' is itself ambiguous: it could mean "to cause something to
            become white" or the process of a thing itself becoming whiter), and the
            short for the intransitive/stative sense; and the length difference then
            retained _because_ it maintained the distinction in meaning. To what
            extent this selection formed a pattern in other cases is unclear. CFH]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.