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

Re: Various umlauts in Sindarin plurals

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.