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

_ninqita-_ 'shine white' vs. _ninqitá-_ 'whiten'

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Sep 14, 2004
    • 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 2 of 4 , Sep 15, 2004
      • 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 3 of 4 , Sep 16, 2004
        • 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.