Initial _ly-_ and enclitics
- In message 14958 of the Elfling list Helge K. Fauskanger tells us of a a
signature by Tolkien below which reads the words _nai elen siluva lyenna_.
To this date, there has been no attested example of initial palatalized L in
Quenya. This consonant has been known to occur elsewhere inside a word, e.g.
_alya_ "prosperous, rich, abundant, blessed" (V:357), _felya_ "cave"
(V:381) and _ilya_ "all" (IX:310), as have been other palatalized
consonants, e.g. _inya_ "female" (V:361), _intyale_ "imagination" (V:361)
and cirya "ship" (MC:221). _ny_ and _ty_ are also known to occur initially,
e.g. _nyelle_ "bell" (V:379) and (V:72) tyelma "ending". The first reaction
to the word _lyenna_ would be that initial palatalized Ls would be allowed
in Quenya. But I am not quite sure. It may be that it is an enclitic of
_elyenna_, the initial vowel disappearing because of the final vowel in the
preceding word. _elye_ is attested as emphatic 2. person sg. Pronoun in
LR:398 and R:67. It would make sense for the initial vowel to disappear,
since its only function is for the strengthening of the 2. person sg.
Another case of this can also perhaps be found in the sentences _yonya inyë
tye-méla_ (V:61) and _Mára mesta an ni véla tye ento, ya rato nea_ in the
word _tye_ (The Father Christmas Letters). Maybe its original form is
_*etye_, but the initial _e_ is elided because of the preceding vowel? Some
might point to _Nai elye hiruva!_ (LR:398) and say that the _e_ isn't
removed there. But long vowels and diphthongs aren't allowed in front of
consonant clusters, so the removal would hardly ease the pronunciation, as
enclitics do: _**Nai lye hiruva!_. I'm not sure...
But one may wonder why initial palatalized L wouldn't be allowed. Other
initial palatalized consonants are allowed. Maybe _ly_ is to be considered a
consonant cluster of _l_ and _y_, not a palatalized consonant, for in
IX:417-418 it is reported that "Adunaic, like Avallonian [= Quenya], does
not tolerate more than a single basic consonant initially in any word". Yet
this is just wild speculation. But if we do not get any certain evidence of
an initial _ly_, I would say that it only occurs as enclitic.
Petri Tikka Helsinki, Finland
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Petri Tikka wrote:
> In message 14958 of Elvish Linguistics List Helge K.I wonder what Carl has to say on the subject :-)
> Fauskanger tells us
> of a a signature by Tolkien below which reads the words_nai
> elen siluva lyenna_.
> The first reaction to a the word _lyenna_ would be thatI disagree. Elision in Quenya only seems to appear in the cases of two
> initial palatalized
> Ls would be allowed in Quenya. But I am not quite sure. It may be
> that it is an enclitic of _elyenna_, the initial vowel
> dissapearing because
> of the final vowel in the preceeding word. _elye_ is attested
> as emphatic
> 2. person sg. pronoun in LR:398 and R:67.
identical vowels near the word border. There numerous examples of
different vowels on word borders without elision. These include, for
example, _ómaryo airetari-lírinen_ in LR:398. Besides, if elision were
to happen at all, it would happen on the first vowel - _*siluv'
> It would make sense forIMHO it wouldn't, since the prefixed vowel is generally the more
> the initial vowel to dissapear, since its only function is for the
> of the 2. person sg. pronoun.
important element in the structure of the emphatic pronoun. In fact it
is the prefixed vowel which makes it recognizable as an emphatic
> But one may wonder why initialThen I do not see a reason for _#ly-_ to be forbidden. Phonotactical
> L wouldn't be allowed. Other initial palatalized consonants
> are allowed.
constraints seem to be generalized in languages. Dental palatalized
sonorants are clearly allowed (vide initial _ny_). Ergo - _#ly-_ is a
On the other hand, the stress in _hiruvalye_ falls on the penultimate
syllable, which makes us wonder whether _ly_ is not indeed a cluster.
This can however be explained if we suppose that _Namárië_ exemplifies
Third Age Quenya where we at leats know for sure that _qu_ is a cluster
phonetically, albeit not phonologically. There is no reason to assume
that the same cannot be true of palatalized consonants.
Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...
'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
--JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_ms of Service.
- --- In lambengolmor@y..., "Petri Tikka" <kari.j.tikka@w...> wrote:
> The first reaction to the word _lyenna_ would be that initialPetri, you'll remember I didn't share this opinion. But I have to take
> palatalized Ls would be allowed in Quenya. But I am not quite sure. It
> may be that it is an enclitic of _elyenna_, the initial vowel
> disappearing because of the final vowel in the preceding word.
into consideration new (for me!) material, and now I think you are
right. In XI:363 (it's the Harper Collins paperback) we read about the
"de/le as pronominal elements in the 2nd person". This explains the
Sindarin pronoun _dîn_, btw.
We also read "dj became ly medially in Quenya". I don't think the
"medially" was stressed without any need: Initial dj (or DY in the
Etymologies) did NOT change into _ly_! (cf. V:394, DYEL-, Q _yelma_)
Since the word _lyenna_ obviously is pronominal 2nd person, the
_dj_>_ly_ must have been medial, after some elided vowel, indeed.
- Hans commented on Petri Tikka's suggestion that _lyenna_
may be an elided form of _elyenna_:
> In XI:363 (it's the Harper Collins paperback) we read about the**This does not, however, necessarily mean that _ly_ in _lyenna_
> "de/le as pronominal elements in the 2nd person". This explains the
> Sindarin pronoun _dîn_, btw.
> We also read "dj became ly medially in Quenya". I don't think the
> "medially" was stressed without any need: Initial dj (or DY in the
> Etymologies) did NOT change into _ly_! (cf. V:394, DYEL-, Q _yelma_)
> Since the word _lyenna_ obviously is pronominal 2nd person, the
> _dj_>_ly_ must have been medial, after some elided vowel, indeed.
has to be medial. As you cited, there is a variantion between de/le
in the 2nd person and _lyenna_ may well be from the element le,
not de. I am not sure where Tolkien intended the variant de to be
realized, because both pronominal suffixes _-l_ and _-le_ (e.g.
in _óle_, see VT43:29) seem to be from le. Perhaps he wanted
to explain _-lda_ "your" (in Aragorn's farewell _Arwen vanimalda,
namárie!_, LotR 1st ed.).
Mi dissero che a quell'epoca per quindici giorni e quindici notti
i retori Gabundus e Terentius discussero sul vocativo di _ego_,
e infine vennero alle armi. (Umberto Eco, _Il nome della rosa_)