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

"Addenda and Corrigenda to the _Etymologies_" clarifications (hyphens, æ/œ and other questions)

Expand Messages
  • lambendil
    My post is primarily concerned with ambiguities caused by hyphens occuring in some Elvish words in the A&C (VT45 & VT46), and also in the published text of the
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 27, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      My post is primarily concerned with ambiguities caused by hyphens occuring in some Elvish words in the A&C (VT45 & VT46), and also in the published text of the _Etymologies_ (V:347-400). There are some cases where hyphens appearing at the end of lines might be mere line's end rules or real cases of caesuras, denoting compound words. So I'd like to take a look at all the occurences of sensitive hyphens throughout the A&C. (Note that I replace original macrons in the text with circumflex accents for reasons of convenience.)

      [We thank Sébastien for compiling this list of examples of hyphens and other typographical features of the published _Etymologies_ as well as our "Addenda and Corrigenda" to same that are potentially ambiguous. As Sébastien has observed, the page-layout software used to produce _Vinyar Tengwar_ was inadvertantly configured to apply its normal hyphenation rules to accommodate line balancing, with the result that hyphens were placed in Elvish forms where they do not occur in the MS. To address these instances and ambiguities, we append our clarification of all points raised after each entry. Please note that we use a circumflex above a vowel to indicate a macron in the MS and published texts, due to the limitations of the Yahoo groups intereface. CFH/PHW]

      - VT45:6 s.v. BAD[2]-, we have two occurrences of _Anga-vanda_. But since _Angavanda_ is given under ANGÂ- on the same page, I suppose that it is the same form under BAD[2]-, without hyphen. [The MS reading is _Angavanda_ in both occurrences s.v. BAD[2]-. CFH/PWH]

      - VT45:8 s.v. DA3-, we have the form _dae-deloth_ and between pp. 8 and 9, s.v. DAY-, we have also _Dae-dhelos_. The published text gives _Daeðelos_ and _Daedhelos_ (V:354-55, s.v. DAY- & DYEL-), and we have also _Daedhelos_ under DYEL- in the A&C (VT45:11). Hence, I assume that the second form is almost certainly _Daedhelos_, but I'm not sure for the first (under DA3-). Is it _dae-deloth_ or _daedeloth_? [The MS reading is _dae-deloth_ s.v. DA3-, and _Daedhelos_ s.v. DAY-. CFH/PHW]

      - VT45:11 s.v. DUL-, we have _Ter-endul_ in the editorial note, whereas the beginning of the entry states that the form _Terendul_ in the published text (V:355) should be _Teren-dul_. This is indeed a sensitive hyphen case! But we also have _Terendul_ in the editorial note, two lines below _Ter-endul_, so I think that in this case the hyphen is only a rule. [The MS reading is _Terendul_, not _Ter-endul_. CFH/PHW]

      - VT45:11, s.v. DYEL-, we have _Del-duthling_, but this is clearly a case of loose compound since the correction bears on the hyphen ([for:] _Delduthling_ [read:]_Del-duthling_). [Correct; the MS reading is _Del-duthling_. CFH/PHW]

      - VT45:13 s.v. GAL1- we have _glan-tha-_ in the editorial note, but this is undoubtedly a case mere rule (_glantha-_). [The MS reading is _glantha-_. CFH/PHW]

      - VT45:20 s.v. KEPER-, we have _Sarn-gebir_ (>> _Serngebir_), but the published text (V:363) and the editorial notes refer to the other form _Sern Gebir_. So, is it _Sarngebir_ or _Sarn-gebir_? [The MS reading is _Sarngebir_. CFH/PHW]

      - VT45:26 s.v. LÁYAK-, _Lhe-benedh_ is certainly _Lhebenedh_ (the N stem is _lhoeb_, _lhaeb_ or *_lheb_ and there's no reason to suppose a breaking of the stem at this point). [The MS reading is _Lhebenedh_. CFH/PHW]

      - VT45:30 s.v. MA3-, _matthô-be_ (with an acute accent on the _ô_) is undoubtedly a compound, like the reading it replaces (_matthô-be_). [The MS reading is _matthô-be_ (with an acute accent over the _ô_. CFH/PHW]

      - VT45:32 s.v. MAT-, _morn-magli_. In this case (an historic etymological form), I suppose that we are confronted with a (loose) compound. [The MS reading is _morn-magli_. CFH/PHW]

      - VT45:35 s.v. MOR-, the form _muri-lind_ in the editorial note seems evidently to be a repetition of _murilind_, given two lines above. [The MS reading is _murilind_. CFH/PHW]

      - VT45:37 s.v. NÁYAK, the form _naiqe-lea_ is undoubtedly a single word (like _naiqele_ or the later form _naikelea_). [The MS reading is _naiqelea_. CFH/PHW]

      - VT45:38 s.v. NDÛ-, we have _nû-men_ in lines 3 & 4 of the editorial note, apparently a repetition of the compound _nû-men_ given two lines above. [The MS reading is _nû-men_. CFH/PHW]

      - VT46:4 s.v. ÑGOROTH-, _Nann Dun-gorthin_ is undoubtedly _Nann Dungorthin_ (the correction bears on _Nann_ for published _Nan_). [The MS reading is _Nann Dungorthin_. CFH/PHW]

      - VT46:7 s.v. ORO-, _oro-drim_ is evidently _orodrim_, as in the published text. [The correct reading is _orodrim_. CFH/PHW]

      - VT46:10 s.v. RAB-, _rho-fannor_ is obviously _rhofannor_ (like _rhofan_). [The MS reading is _rhofannor _. CFH/PHW]

      - VT46:15 s.v. SPAN-, we have _span-turo_, and the published text gives
      _Span-turo_ (V:387 s.v. SPAN-). What about the capital (and the hyphen)? [The MS reading is _span-turo_. CFH/PHW]

      - VT46:18 s.v. THIN-, _Tor-thingol_ is obviously a compound since it replaces the reading _Torthingol_ in the published text. Under the same entry, _thin-tha_ is on the other hand obviously a case of rule hyphen, since the published text gives _thintha_. [The MS readings are _Tor-thingol_ and _thintha_. CFH/PHW]

      I'd like also to point some cases of sensible hyphens occuring in the published text which are not alluded to in the A&C:

      - V:353 s.v. BOR- : _voro-gandele_ is a case of rule since VT45:7 s.v. BOR- states that **_vorogandele_ in the published text stands for _vorongandele_. [The MS reading is _vorongandele_. CFH/PHW]

      - V:355 s.v. DUN- : _Nan Don-goroth_ seems to be a mere case of rule (it is listed together with _(Nan) Dungorthin_ and _Nann Orothvor_). [The MS reading is _Nan Dongoroth_. CFH/PHW]

      - V:359 s.v. GOND- : _Gon-dothrim_ is obviously a single word (like the related form listed after, _Gondothrimbar_). [The MS reading is _Gondothrim_. CFH/PHW]

      - V:360 s.v. 3AR- : _Gar-thurian_ seems to be a single word since it is based upon Dor. _garth_ (and _Garthurian_ appears in the first, deleted, version of this entry in VT45:16 s.v. 3AR-). [The MS reading is _Garthurian_. CFH/PHW]

      - V:368 s.v. LAT- : _Tumbo-latsin_ may be a unitary word or a loose compound. [The MS reading is _Timbolatsin_. CFH/PHW]

      - V:369 s.v. LIN2- : _Laure-lingen_ seems to be a single word (a variant of _Laurelinden_), but it could be a compound explaining the other interpretation of the name _Laurelin_. [The MS reading is _Laurelingen_. CFH/PHW]

      - V:372 s.v. MBAR- : _Em-merein_ seems evidently to be a single word (cf. the form given just after, _Emerin_). [The MS reading is _Emmerein_. CFH/PHW]

      - V:376 s.v. NEL : Dor. _gal-breth_ (obviously a single word since it is already preceded by an etymological form _galdbreth_). [The MS reading is _galbreth_. CFH/PHW]

      - V:380 s.v. PEL- : _*pel-takse_ is an historic etymological form and may be a loose compound. [The MS reading is *_pel-takse_. CFH/PHW]

      - V:381 s.v. PHIN- : *_Phinde-rauto_ is an historic etymological form and may well be a compound. [The MS reading is _Phinde-rauto_. CFH/PHW]

      - V:389 s.v. TÂ-, TA3- : _Tinwe-rontar_ is likely to be a case of rule hyphen (the name appears as _Tinwerontar_ under TIN-). [The MS reading is _Tinwerontar_. CFH/PHW]

      - V:391 s.v. TEL-, TELU- : **_tel-manna_ is evidently a single word _talmanna_ (cf VT46:18: "[for:] _telmello telmanna_ [read:] _telmello talmanna_"). [Correct. CFH/PHW]

      - V:393 s.v. THUR- : _garð-thurian_ is probably a loose compound (explaining the etymology of _Garthurian_), and this is probably also the case of _Ar(ð)-thoren_ (etymological form of _Arthurien_). _Thurin-gwethil_ may be a single word (the name is referred to as _Thuringwethil_ three lines below). [The MS readings are _garð-thurian_, _Ar(ð)-thoren_, and _Thuringwethil_, respectively. CFH/PHW]

      - V:393 s.v. TIN- : _Tin-wetar_ is obviously a case of line's end rule (this name is made of _tinwe_ and _tar_), and it is very likely to be the same for _Tin-dômiselde_ (the form _Tindômiselde_ appears under the stem SEL-D- and is apparently made of _*tindômi_ and _*selde_). [The MS readings are _Tinwetar_ and _Tindômiselde_ (ô representing o-macron). CFH/PHW]

      Another thorny issue is concerned with _ae_ and _oe_, or more precisely with _æ_ and _œ_ (_ae_ and _oe_ joined together), when they appear in lower-case. There are several forms, whether in the published text or in the A&C, implying one of these characters. The problem is that these forms are all in italic script, and with the fonts used it is sometimes difficult to tell which of them is intended (most especially in the published text of the _Etymologies_). This problem is indeed tricky since this is an issue in which Tolkien hesitated. I think it should a good thing to clarify things once and for all in this matter to avoid all subsequent confusions. (I give intentionally the digraph in brackets after the single letter, for the latter may cause problem for some people, depending on their language settings, operating system and/or character encoding, but it must be understood that the words quoted only involve the single character.) Entries are listed in alphabetical order, whether coming from the published text or from the A&C.

      - VT45:8 s.v. DAR-, we have apparently _æ_ (ae) in _dæri_ (daeri). [The MS reading is (ae). CFH/PHW]

      - VT45:11 s.v. DÓRON-, we seem to have _œ_ (oe) in _dœrœin_ (doeroein) and _derœin_ (deroein). [The MS reading is (oe) in both cases. CFH/PHW]

      - VT45:11 s.v. DUL, this is obviously _œ_ (oe) in _dœlio_ (doelio) since the correction bears on _oe_/_œ_ ("[for:] _doelio_ [read:] _dœlio_"). [The MS reading is (oe). CFH/PHW]

      - VT45:13 s.v. GAL1-, apparently _œ_ (oe) in _gœlia-_ (goelia), though it might perhaps be _æ_ (ae), since the root vowel is A. [The tentative reading given in the A&C is (oe), though it is also possible to read the MS as (ae). CFH/PHW]

      - V:358 s.v. GÁYAS-, it seems we have _æ_ (ae) in ON _gæsra_ (gaesra), with a macron on the digraph (impossible to write in standard characters without requiring to unicode or special fonts), since the stem is in -A- and the N cognate is _gaer_. [The MS reading is (ae). CFH/PHW]

      - V:362 s.v. KAL-, we seem to have _æ_ (ae) in the etymological form _*gâlæ_ (*gâlae). [The MS reading is uncertain, but most likely (ae). CFH/PHW]

      - VT45:24 s.v. KWÆ-, apparently _æ_ (ae), in _kwæ-nê_ (kwae-nê), with a macron on the digraph. [The MS reading is (ae). CFH/PHW]

      - V:375 s.v. NDER-, we seem to have _æ_ (ae) in Eldarin _ndær_ (ndaer), with a macron on the digraph, since the Q deivative is _nêr_ and the ON cognate is _ndair_ (although the N form is _doer_). See also below (NÎ1-). [The MS reading is (ae). CFH/PHW]

      - V:378 & VT46:4 s.v. NÎ1-, _œ_ (oe) in _ndœr_ (ndoer), with a macron on the digraph, replaced by _ndær_ (ndaer), _æ_ (ae) with a macron. [Correct. CFH/PHW]

      - VT46:6 s.v. NOT-, we obviously have _œ_ (oe) in _nœdia_ (noedia) and _arnœdiad_ (arnoediad). [The MS reading is (oe) in both cases. CFH/PHW]

      - VT46:10 s.v. PHOR-, we evidently have _œ_ (oe) in _fœir_ (foeir). [The MS reading is (oe). CFH/PHW]

      - VT46:12 s.v. RUN-, we obviously have _œ_ (oe) in _tellœin_ (telloein). [The MS reading is (oe). CFH/PHW]

      - V:387 s.v. SNAS-, SNAT-, it seems we have _æ_ (ae) in Dan. _snæs_ (snaes), with a circumflex on the character (cp. with the N cognate _naith_). [The MS reading is (ae) with circumflex. CFH/PHW]

      - VT46:18 s.v. TEÑ-, we apparently have _æ_ (ae), in _tær_ (taer), and in _tæma_ (taema), the latter with a macron on the digraph. [The MS reading is (ae) in both cases, with a macron over the latter case. CFH/PHW]

      - VT46:19 s.v. TIN-, we evidently have _œ_ (oe) in _mœrilinn_ (moerilinn) and _mœrilind_ (moerilind). [The MS reading is (oe) in both cases. CFH/PHW]

      - VT46:20 s.v. ULU-, we evidently have _œ_ (oe) in _œil_ (oeil). [The MS reading is (oe). CFH/PHW]

      - V:397 s.v. WED-, it seems we have _æ_ (ae) in _*wædê_ (*waedê), with a macron on the character. [The MS reading is (ae) with a macron. CFH/PHW]

      I've tried to be as exhaustive as possible on the topics of hyphens and ae/oe. Feel free to point out to the list any occurence that I might have missed.

      Some other issues concerned with the _Etymologies_ and the A&C :

      Under the entry ERÉK- in the published Etymologies (V:356), the reference to the stem OR-NÍ is a typo. Under the stem ORO- (V:379), the extended root having to do with high trees is ÓR-NI (with the acute accent on the O) and there is also a reference to ÓR-NI under TUS- (V:395, end of the entry). In VT46:7 (s.v. ORO) it is also said that "the base ÓR-NI was first written as ÓR-ON". [Correct. CFH/PHW]

      In VT45:35 s.v. MIZD-, the Dor. adj. _méd_ given in the published text is said to be read as _mêd_ (with a macron). But in the comments for this entry, it is said that the gloss of _mêd_ (with a circumflex accent) was added later. Is the form in the MS given with a macron or with a circumflex? [Dor. _mêd_ (with a circumflex) in the comments is an already-corrected typo for _mîd_ (with macron); see the VT errata at <http://www.elvish.org/errata/>. CFH/PHW]

      In VT45:37 s.v. NAY-, we have "[for:] _nae_ alas [read:] _nae_, _nae_ alas". The repetition of _nae_ without any difference between the two forms seems weird. Is it really the reading given in the MS ? Could it be possible that one of these forms contain _ae_ joined together and not the other, or that one contain _ae_ and the other _oe_? [The reading with repetition is correct; it apparently reflects the repetitious form of the phrase, not uncommon in lament, as e.g. English "no, no!" CFH/PHW]

      In VT45:37 s.v. NDI- (DI-), we have the sentence _tiro men. di ngorgoros_ (or _ngorgoroth_), evidently a sketch preparatory to the song "_A Elbereth_" in LR. Is the reading of the dot certain ? Could it rather be a median dot (·), as seen in many sentences (i.e. *_tiro men·di ngorgoros_)? [The dot is in fact a period, as per the A&C, the two parts of the phrase being written in this draft form in two steps, the first originally ending a complete thought. CFH/PHW]

      In VT45:28 s.v. LOP-, OLOP- 'horse', it is said that the entry was originally written as LOB-. It is then noted in the comment that the Q form _olombo_, left unchanged when the stem was changed from LOB- to LOP-, OLOP-, could not derive from the latter. Why not? Of course, if we imagine a strengthening of the last consonant of the stem (or a metathesis after the addition of a suffix _-mo_ or _-no_), the most probable solution seems to be *_olompo_, since the regular pattern observed for stems ending in -P is, in these cases, P > MP (we have no example of P > MB in the _Etymologies_). Hence the form _olombo_ could not derive straight from LOP-, OLOP-. But the change _*olopo_ > _olombo_ or _*olop-mo_ (or _*olop-no_) > _olombo_ seems not unlikely and might have occurred by analogy (with some stems in -B or -M which produce strengthened forms in -MB) or by dissimilation. [As Sébastien notes, there are no examples of P > MB in the _Etymologies_, and this fact adequately justifies our statement that "_olombo_ ... could not derive from the base LOP-." Certainly the proposal that _olombo_ might derive from *_olop-no_ is demonstrably false, since in the _Etymologies_ original -PN- yields -MN- in Qenya; note Q. _telemna_ 'silver' (V:367), prob. < *_telep-na_; and Q. _lemnar_ 'week' (of five days) (V:368), prob. < *_lep'n-ar_ < *_lepen-ar_ 'five days' (cp. Q. _are_ 'day').]


      Sébastien Bertho
    • lambendil
      ... I post this message here since its content seems to be relevant to the goals of the list. Sébastien Bertho {(Dr.) Arden Smith replies: Quite right. The
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 28, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com (message #30489), David Giraudeau wrote:

        > In VT46, appendix 3, page 30, I think Mr Smith would have made a mistake
        > by putting the tengwa #16 (tengwa of "Unque") instead of the tengwa #8
        > (tengwa of "Ungwe"), in the paragraph beginning by "Five other names...".

        I post this message here since its content seems to be relevant to the goals of the list.

        Sébastien Bertho

        {(Dr.) Arden Smith replies: "Quite right. The tengwar in the article were changed from one font to another after I submitted the appendix (my original definitely had ungwe), but I should have caught the error at the proofreading stage."]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.