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

Re: Various umlauts in Sindarin plurals

Expand Messages
  • Pavel Iosad
    Hello, ... [....] ... [...] Phonetically, yes. Phonologically, no. ... Which is a very good point. It only implies, it would appear, raising of front vowels.
    Message 1 of 11 , Jun 17, 2002
      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 2 of 11 , Jun 17, 2002
        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 3 of 11 , Jun 18, 2002
          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 4 of 11 , Jun 18, 2002
            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 5 of 11 , Jun 18, 2002
              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 6 of 11 , Jun 18, 2002
                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 7 of 11 , Jun 19, 2002
                  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 8 of 11 , Jun 20, 2002
                    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.