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

Re: Various umlauts in Sindarin plurals

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.