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

Two questions about the "Early Qenya Grammar"

Expand Messages
  • ejk@free.fr
    In the typescript EQG (PE14:85) we have _úqe_ it rains , but _uqe_ with a short u in the manuscript EGQ (56). [Both are correct per the original. CFH]
    Message 1 of 9 , Nov 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      In the typescript EQG (PE14:85) we have _úqe_ 'it rains', but _uqe_ with a short u in the manuscript EGQ (56).

      [Both are correct per the original. CFH]

      Another thing: _muyeltal_ *"we both drive' (p. 86) looks like a mistake.
      It should be _muyeltas_. No? Cf. _muyantas_ *'we both give' on the same page,
      and the note on p. 76: "-t, -s ending of dual verbs".

      What do you think ?

      [It is inconsistent with that form and note, yes. But one must keep in mind the
      fluidity of these conceptions, particularly when arising in such handwritten
      rider sheets as those on which both of the forms and the note on dual endings
      you cite occur CFH]

      Namárië,

      Edouard Kloczko
    • William Cloud Hicklin
      ... wrote: [a very informative post] Erm- that ll teach me to read the endnotes carefully before spouting...... One (perhaps the only)
      Message 2 of 9 , Nov 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, John Garth
        <johnwgarth@...> wrote:

        [a very informative post]


        Erm- that'll teach me to read the endnotes carefully before
        spouting......

        One (perhaps the only) question Mr Garth leaves unplumbed is
        whether or not "_Mar Vanwa Tyalieva_" preceded the A-text of
        "The Fall of Gondolin". Unfortunately there is very little linguistic
        overlap, and such as there is is unhelpful: for instance, MVT
        uses the form _-los_ in _Gar Lossion_, where FG has original -los,
        changed to _-loth_; but this is plainly a very late change, 1919 or
        thereafter.

        I'm inclined to plump for MVT as being the earlier. I'll concede
        that my perception may be skewed by the fact that MVT exists as a
        first draft and literal copy thereof, while FG only exists (for
        the most part) in later revision. However, there are a few
        suggestions of evidence:

        1) FG ends, "And no one in all the Room of Logs spake...,"
        apparently in all versions. This of course is not proof that MVT
        was in existence, but it hints that way.

        2) FG is told by "Littleheart son of Bronweg," and Bronweg/
        Voronwe has a major role in the Tale. It would be a trifle odd,
        then, if MVT were written second and yet omitted mentioning that
        Littleheart's father was so important a character.

        3) The original of MVT has, "Earendel the wanderer, who alone of
        the sons of men..." A very thin reed, but perhaps a suggestion
        that Earendel's half-Elven status had yet to arise.

        4) (2) and (3) are really just particular points in an overall
        observation: MVT contains no references whatsoever to the later
        mythology, but numerous specific allusions to the early poems. I
        just think it would be very strange if Tolkien had already
        written FG, with so much of the later War of the Jewels present
        in embryo, and yet made no mention of any of it in MVT. In
        Tolkien, visitors to houses almost always get a dose of history!

        --William Hicklin
      • John Garth
        On Tuesday, 7 November 2006, at 19:07, William Cloud Hicklin wrote ... In fact, I also have something to say on this matter in my
        Message 3 of 9 , Nov 8, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          On Tuesday, 7 November 2006, at 19:07, William Cloud Hicklin
          <solicitr@...> wrote

          > One (perhaps the only) question Mr Garth leaves unplumbed is
          > whether or not "_Mar Vanwa Tyalieva_" preceded the A-text of
          > "The Fall of Gondolin". Unfortunately there is very little linguistic
          > overlap, and such as there is is unhelpful

          In fact, I also have something to say on this matter in my endnotes to
          _Tolkien and the Great War_ (p. 355), where I refer to the framing tale
          by its English title:

          "'The Cottage of Lost Play': name changes in or between the first, undated
          text and a fair copy begun by Edith Tolkien on 12 February 1917 match those
          in the early chart of names in 'The Poetic and Mythologic Words of
          Eldarissa', which clearly predated 'The Fall of Gondolin'. The elf-king's
          name Ing in 'The Cottage of Lost Play' was emended to Inwë, his name in 'The
          Fall of Gondolin'. The sun-tree of Valinor was first Glingol, a name given
          in the latter to the tree's seedling in Gondolin itself. Most interesting is
          the occurrence of Manwë as a name for an Elf (emended to Valwë): in 'The
          Fall of Gondolin' and all later mythological texts Manwë is the name of the
          chief of the Valar. (LT1, pp. 13, 21-2; Parma Eldalamberon 12, p. xx; Parma
          Eldalamberon 13, pp. 98-9.)"

          >I'm inclined to plump for MVT as being the earlier.

          Likewise.

          All the best,

          John Garth
        • William Cloud Hicklin
          ... My bad! I had intended to reference Mr Garth s published comments, which my own slender observations are merely meant to supplement; but somehow neglected
          Message 4 of 9 , Nov 9, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, John Garth
            <johnwgarth@...> wrote:

            > In fact, I also have something to say on this matter in my
            > endnotes to _Tolkien and the Great War_ (p. 355), where I
            > refer to the framing tale by its English title:

            My bad! I had intended to reference Mr Garth's published
            comments, which my own slender observations are merely meant to
            supplement; but somehow neglected to do so.


            Tolkien said, "I find it only too easy to write opening
            chapters" [_Letters_ no. 24]; and he was being truthful: the first
            chapters of both _The Hobbit_ and _LR_ languished for a long time
            before being carried forward, and we have the abandoned openings
            of _The New Shadow_ and the _Farmer Giles_ sequel. There is also
            the trunk of _The Lost Road_, where JRRT leaped ahead to the parts
            he was really interested in, the Anglo-Saxon episode and the Fall of
            Numenor.

            It seems to me that it was especially characteristic of Tolkien
            to envision a midpoint or endpoint for a story; to start writing
            the story from the beginning towards that point; and in the event
            never get there.* This happens *three* times in the _Lost Tales_
            (yes, this has a linguistic reference: bear with me). In the
            first instance, there was the Eriol-story, intended to bring
            about the preexisting identification of Tol Eressea with
            England. "_Mar Vanwa Tyalieva_" was the beginning, probably his
            first prose narrative - but he never reached the already-imagined
            end, either as envisioned or in the modified Aelfwine-form.

            Also from the pre-Somme period was the idea of Earendel and his
            voyages, which never reached narrative form then or later (save
            the _Qenta Noldorinwa_ epitome). I have little doubt that the
            "Fall of Gondolin" was the first actual Tale written precisely because
            it begins the story of Earendel, with his parentage and birth.**
            The title of the first text was "Tuor and the Exiles of Gondolin (which
            bringeth in the great tale of Earendel)". But then came Tinuviel,
            quite likely for personal reasons- and the Earendel story was
            never resumed, notwithstanding the many promises in the frame-
            story.

            But I believe that the "essential historical fact" (EHF) of Tolkien's
            conception as he lay in his hospital bed, already present in the
            "Fall of Gondolin", was mandated by the "essential linguistic
            fact:" the new language Gnomish and the need to explain its
            divergence from Qenya. The EHF was of course the "exile and
            thraldom of the Noldoli," which I strongly suspect were in the
            initial conception nearly coextensive. This was the point toward
            which Tolkien was driving when, armed with the "Valinorean"
            elements of the proto-mythology, he wrote the long continuous
            sequence from "The Music of the Ainur" to "The Tale of the Sun and
            Moon". But of course he never reached his goal - all we have are
            the outlines published under "Gilfanon's Tale". This conception
            would of course be preserved, but the expanding mythology would
            eventually make it untenable: the ages before _Nirnaeth Arnoediad_,
            and before the Return of the Noldor, would so stretch out, and
            the element of thrall-Noldor so diminish, that out of necessity
            Tolkien made the Great Linguistic Shift, Noldorin > Sindarin.

            And so Tolkien was being absolutely truthful when he called his
            mythos "linguistic in inspiration:" beyond even the perceived
            need for tongues to have a "history" in which to live, I submit
            that the core of the entire _legendarium_ was Tolkien's need to
            explain the relationship of Eldarissa and Noldorissa.


            * cf also the _Narn i Chin Hurin_, where Tolkien wrote the end
            before starting from the beginning, and never quite bridged the
            gap. I suspect he wrote the Brethil section first because the
            basic story-points in his conception of the _Turinssaga_ were the
            Sigurd-element (Glaurung) and the Kullervo-element (Nienor).

            ** Perhaps also because it was an outlet for the inner tension
            between JRRT's horrific experiences and his romantic spirit. In
            the "Link to the Tale of Tinuviel" he wrote, "'Aye, often enough,'
            said Eriol, 'yet not to the great wars of earthly kings and
            mighty nations, which are cruel and bitter, whelming in their
            ruin all the beauty both of the earth and of those fair things
            that men fashion with their hands in time of peace - nay, they
            spare not sweet women and tender maids, such as thou, Vëannë
            Melinir, for then are men drunk with wrath and the lust of blood,
            and Melko fares abroad. But gallant affrays have I seen wherein
            brave men did sometimes meet, and swift blows were dealt, and
            strength of body and of heart was proven."


            --William Hicklin
          • ejk@free.fr
            In looks to me that the Gnomish noun _saib_ a boat , according to the Gnomish Lexicon, p. 66, should read boot instead. It comes from the root Sayap- and in
            Message 5 of 9 , Nov 13, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              In looks to me that the Gnomish noun _saib_ a "boat", according to the Gnomish
              Lexicon, p. 66, should read "boot" instead. It comes from the root Sayap- and
              in the Qenyaqetsa p. 82 from it we have Eldarissa _saipo_ "a boot".

              Funny that in Ety. the translation from the related root SKYAP- was also misread
              "shore", instead of "shoe".

              Namárie,

              Edouard Kloczko

              [I have checked my photocopies of the GL ms., and yes the gloss of
              _saib_ should read "boot". Thanks for catching this! It also appears that
              the root SAYAP cited in this same entry has a dot over the Y, though this
              is not indicated in the published text. -- PHW]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.