Re: [Lambengolmor] Forgotten Words of Elvish: _Mornvenniath_
- On 25.07.2005, at 14:51, Patrick H. Wynne wrote:
> While doing some research in _The Treason of Isengard_Good catch. _Mornvenniath_ is all the more interesting
> recently I came across the Noldorin form _Mornvenniath_,
because it is one of the few attestations of the element
_morn_ < _*mornâ_ in compounds (with the original _n_
preserved). Other forms are _Mornennyn_ (VIII:112-13, 127)
and _Mornedhel_ (XI:377 et al.). Possibly other forms belong
here too, as Sindarin _Morben_ (cf. XI:362) suggests: "... the
form _Morben_ (without affection of the _o_) shows either an
alternation to _*mora-_ for _mori-_, after _*kala-_, or more
probably substitution of S _morn-_ from _*mornâ_, the usual
S adjectival form."
This gives us some interesting clues. Apparently, whether the
first element is _mori/a-_ or _morn-_, the second element is
lenited, as exemplified in the above words as well as in _Morgoth_
and _Morgai_ (with second elements _coth_ (KOTH-) and _cai_
< _*kegyâ_ (UT:282) respectively).
The _Etymologies_ state that the second element of _Morgoth_
"may also contain GOTH".
Some explained the lack of lenition in _Mormegil_ by deriving
it from *_Morn-megil_. The above evidence, however, militates
against such an interpretation. It seems best to see _Mormegil_
as an adaption of Q. _Mormakil_ into Sindarin.
Still, the question remains why, if _Morben_ really contains the
element _morn-_, the _n_ is dropped here (and potentially in
other words), but not in _Mornvenniath_. The _n_ is clearly
allowed to stand before a vowel. A cluster of three consonants
would be a prima facie reason for its loss. If we don't want to
simply assume inconsistencies in Tolkien's concept of lenitions
we might seek an answer in conditioned sound change that would,
e.g., allow the _n_ to stand if the third consonant wasn't a stop.
Lastly, a word on _Mordor_ and _Morgul_. These two words, it is
sometimes argued, contain no lenition and thus defy the assumption
that _mori/a-_ and _morn-_ always lenite. Yet, the original forms
are NDOR- and ÑGOL-, anlauting with nasalized stops, which seems
enough to explain the missing lenition. _Morgul_ is explicitly given
as _mor(n)gul_ in the _Etymologies_ s.r. ÑGOL-. In HoME VIII we
encounter a form _Morghul_. Obviously, relative chronology plays
a role here, and Tolkien might have felt at some point that the
synchronic basis of derivation was taken as _gûl_ rather than
(historically "correct") _*ngûl/ngôl_. It should be noted, however,
that Tolkien reverted to or maintained _Morgul_ in every instance.
- David Kiltz wrote:
> Lastly, a word on _Mordor_ and _Morgul_. These two words, it isLetter 347, paragraph 7: "In S. initial _g_ was retained in
> sometimes argued, contain no lenition and thus defy the assumption
> that _mori/a-_ and _morn-_ always lenite.
composition, where a contact _n_ + _g_ occurred. So _born_ 'hot,
red' + _gil_ to _borñgil_; _morn_ 'black' + _dor_ to _morñdor_;
the triconsonantal group then being reduced to _rg_, _rd_."
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Beregond. Anders
Stenström" <beregond@u...> wrote:
> Letter 347, paragraph 7: "In S. initial _g_ was retained inAt the end of this same letter (written in 1972), Tolkien provides
> composition, where a contact _n_ + _g_ occurred. So _born_
> 'hot, red' + _gil_ to _borñgil_; _morn_ 'black' + _dor_ to
> _morñdor_; the triconsonantal group then being reduced
> to _rg_, _rd_."
another example of retention of initial D in composition when
a contact N + D occurs. He notes that _Arnor_ should properly be
_Ardor_, though he wished to avoid the latter form (for obvious
reasons, _ardor_ in English meaning 'enthusiasm, passion'):
"But it can now only (though reasonably) be explained after
invention as due to a blending of Q. _arnanóre_ / _arnanor_
with S. _arn(a)dor_ > _ardor_" (L:428).
-- Patrick H. Wynne