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

Re: Various umlauts in Sindarin plurals

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.