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

_-eën_ as adj. subjective plural.

Expand Messages
  • Ugo Truffelli
    I m still analysing the Secret Vice Poems (note that I ve discarded some notes found in the working analysis of _Earendel_ put on-line 15 days ago, I ll
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 16, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm still analysing the "Secret Vice Poems" (note that I've discarded
      some notes found in the working analysis of "_Earendel_" put on-line 15
      days ago, I'll probably up-date it; however I would like to discuss
      with all of you in the future some interesting words),
      especially now I'm analysing evidences of cases in all 4 poems (using
      them also as dating evidences).

      [See <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/948>. CFH]

      [EAR="_Earendel_", NIE="_Nieninque_", BD=Bodleian Declension, ED="_Entu, Ensi,
      Enta_ Declension" (VT 36), SVP="A Secret Vice" poems]

      In TolkLang message 7.04, there's an interesting sentence: "[-e.en]
      which Carl Hostetter said recently was 1930's Quenya plural of
      adjectives in '-ea' < *'-eya'". Effectively it's something I had
      thought about, as the assimilation of _-ea + -in > *-ëen_, because the
      3 attested forms could be seen (not so easly however) as adjectives in
      agreement with plural nouns receiving the so-called "subjective ending"
      in BD.

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      (1) _wingildin wilwarindeën_ [NIE]
      Cf. QL-PME _wilwarinda_ "butterflylike" and Etym _wilwarin*(d-)_
      "butterfly" and adjectives like _aldea_ from _alda_ in I:249;

      (2) _tálin paptalasselindeën_ [NIE]
      However the other attestation in NIE is mysterious. For the first word
      cf. EQD _tal_ or _tál_ pl _tali_ "foot" translated in the poem "with
      feet"; the form _tálin_ is ambiguous, but can be abalyased as the (a) PL.
      subjective (in EAR and NIE the -n is used everywhere with a subject,
      cf. BD) of _tál_, but both in EQG and in EQD the plural is given with
      the shorter _a_, and probably it was the same in Etym as we find
      "_tál_ (g.sg. _talen_)" (b) SG. instrumental, but it should be noted that
      in BD _-in_ is given as the singular ending opposed to the plural
      _inen_, and we find an _-in_ in ED probably being the shorter form of
      _inen_ as it has been grouped together by Tolkien himself; another
      evidence for it being a singular is the fact that the other supposed
      instrumental plurals in SVP have the ending _-(l)ínen_ (_talalínen_
      (EAR, OM2), _lótefalmarínen, kulukalmalínen_ (OM1) (note that
      _talainen_ in OM1 was changed in _talalínen_ in OM2 mantaining the
      same meanings, the same attestation found in EAR), however if we
      consider that the so-called "shorter form" could be used for plural as
      well, we might have expected _*talín_ rather than _tálin_. As neither of
      the two preeceding hypotheses could be considered the best one alone,
      if we accept _paptalasselindeën_ as the subjective plural of an
      adjective, we have to consider _tálin_ a subj. pl. (with the lack of
      shortening of the _sundóma_).

      However the interpretation of the last word is not so clear: it
      could be composed of *_papta_ + _lasse_ + *_lindeën_. The 3rd part,
      is the expected plural of adj. _lindea_ in QL, while the 2nd is the
      well known word for "leaf". The difficulties lay in *_papta_, because
      if we follow Tolkien's translations, it should be interpreted as
      meaning "falling". In QL we find _pat (papt-)_ "small leaf" and
      _paptaqelesta_ = _lasselanta_, (_papt-_ + _*qelesta_ from _qele-_
      "vanish"), and an interesting verb _pata-_ "rap, tap (of feet)". In
      this view _*paptalasse_ could be seen as repetition of the word for
      "leaf" meaning a huge plurality of small and little leaves, or as a
      compound with a very strange form of _pata-_ (a pure oddity) meaning
      something like *"[feet] sounding like the music of (falling) leaves".

      (3) _wingildin o silqelosseën_ [EAR], could be analysed as a loose
      compound following the rule stating that "where the noun precedes there
      must be an additional adj. suffix [...] _rámandea_" [EQG:76], producing
      _*silqelossea_ [For _losse_ as adj, cf _-losse-_ glossed "rose" in QL
      under LORO and "blossom (usually, owing to association with _olosse_
      "snow", only used of white blossom [see GOLÓS])" under LÓT-,LOT(H) in
      Etym. Patrick Wynne in Elfling message 23757 argued that the meaning of
      _losse_ could be a blending of the glosses of both QL and Etym, however this
      hypothesis is not necessary because Tolkien seems to have changed his
      mind about this word, from a single kind of flower, to what Etym.
      identifes as an ensemble of flowers that due to its resemblance with
      _olosse_ (in QL "snow" was _niqis(ss)_ from NIQI) are usually white.
      The old word for "white", _ninqe_, has been mantained by Tolkien (see
      _ninqeruvisse_), but it's possible that as a poetical extension of
      meaning in the 30s, _losse_ could be used simply as an alternative
      word for "white", see _losselie telerinwa_ in "_Nieninque_" and _ondoli
      losse karkane_ in OM2.]. It's also possible that those loose compounds
      (being essentially similar to an adjective) agree with the nouns they
      refer to, and the logical function (as an adj. does not receive case
      endings) is expressed by prepositions (here _o_).

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------

      Refering to the quoted sentence in the message 7.04, I wasn't able to
      find a posting by Carl Hostetter stating that _-een_ should be
      considered the plural of _-ea_ adj. Where it is? And was it based on
      unpubblished materials?

      [I don't remember making this statement, though I have no doubt that I
      did, but I don't have time to look for it. In any event, what I said was not
      based on unpublished materials. It was _possibly_ based on the development
      _línaie_ > _linee_ Tolkien noted on the "Koivienéni Mansuscript" (VT27:8, 36),
      thought I simply do not remember at this point what my basis was. CFH]

      Thanks (and feel free to comment my analysis of the 3 attestations above).

      Ugo Truffelli
    • Ugo Truffelli
      ... I forgot to quote the example of assimilation _e
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 18, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, "Ugo Truffelli" <elistir@...>
        wrote:

        > Effectively it's something I had
        > thought about, as the assimilation of _-ea + -in > *-ëen_,

        I forgot to quote the example of assimilation _e < ai_ in EQG:45,77
        sg _anda_ pl _ande (<ai)_; this is the closer attestation of such
        assimilation, but it constantly occured in later texts. (Speaking
        of _-eai > -eë_, Tolkien may later have decided to change those _e_s
        in hiatus, further developping _-ië_ with *_eë > ië_ that is
        etymologically subsequent, as caused by the precedent assimilation
        _ai > eë_. _laurië_ the pl. of _laurea_ in "_Namárië_" probably was
        _*laureë_ in the pre-'31 period (producing later *_laurea > *laureë >
        laurië_.)

        It's interesting to note that in Leeds Qenya the plural noninal ending
        _-li_ is specifically said to be "a secondary (and special Qenya)
        formation with suffix -LI meaning 'many', and such plurals as -E
        (from -AI) in adjectival declension were once the plural of adjectives
        and nouns alike: a few traces of similar plurals for nouns occur in
        the oldest texts".

        This nominal plural pattern clearly changed in '31, but it's useful
        in the anlaysis of the "Secret Vice" poems (SVP), as Tolkien did not
        entirely reject _-li_ as the "normal" plural maker (different from the
        so-called partitive plural).

        OM2 has the clearest pattern for nouns:

        [a] _-li_ seems to be used to form plurals from nouns ending in
        _-o_ and _-a_:
        _ondoli_ < _ondo_
        (this could be seen as a plural of QL _ondole_ that does not contradict
        this assumption, but seems to not fit semantically)
        _rámali_ < _ráma_
        The only excpetion in SVP is _tyulmi[n_] < _tyulma_ 'mast', but this
        word is found in "_Earendel_" (EAR), which seems to have other "exceptions"
        (see _kalmainen_ below).

        [b] _-i_ seems to replace _-e_:
        _tinwi_ < _tinwe_ [QL under TINI];
        _maiwi[n]_ < _maiwe_ [Etym. under MIW-]
        _lómi_ < _lóme_;
        and probably _qímari_ < *_qímare_ (whose etymology is mysterious,
        because certainely it's not related to QIMI!).

        [c] *nouns ending in consonant add _-i_
        (this is not directly attested in OM2, but in EAR and "_Nieninque_" (NIE))
        in EAR:
        _falmari_ < _falmar_,
        _wingildi_ < _wingil(d)_
        and in NIE:
        _oromandi[n]_ < *_oroman(d) (from ORO- "up, rise, high" and MANAD-
        "bliss" (derived from MAN- "holy spirit") better related to QL MNÐN
        giving _Mandos_)
        _wingildi_ < _wingil(d)_

        [d] _-li_ is used as plural marker whenever a case ending is added:
        _tinwelindon_ < _tinwe_;
        _taurelasselindon_ < -_lasse-_;
        _ondolissen_ < _ondo_;
        _tollalinta_ (< OM1 _tollanta) < _tol(l))/*_tolla_ (evidently derived
        from "isle", or effectively meaning "isles").
        In OM2 [<OM1 _talainen_] and EAR we find the *instrumental plural
        _talalínen_; in a precedent analysis I've proposed the existence of a
        word _*talale_, however the lenghtened _i_ is probably the result of
        *_li + inen_: *_tala- + -li- + -inen_ > _talalínen_ (same derivation in
        OMI where we find _kulukalmalínen_ < _kulu- + -kalma- + -li- + -inen_.

        That word contrasts with the later _kalmainen_ in EAR translated by
        Tolkien 'in the lights'.
        (1) according to the "_Entu_... Declension" (ED) _kalmainen_ would be
        singular meaning *'(with) the light'
        (2) according to the "Bodleian Declension" (BD) _kalmainen_ would be
        plural *'(with) the lights', but this leads to analysing _talalínen_ in EAR
        as _*talale + -inen_ (plural),
        and coincidentally similar to _talalínen (tala+li+inen)_ in OM2.

        The two hypotheses above give two different intervals betwen (OM1>)
        OM2 and EAR (closer to NIE): nearer (and to BD also) according to (1), and
        an interval (and/or a successive conceptional stage) a little broader
        according to (2), which would help to give a more precise date to BD also.

        Ugo Truffelli
      • Ugo Truffelli
        Finally today I ve received The Collected Vinyar Tengwar vol. 3 , so I was able to look at the Bodleian Declension (BD). (Until now I ve tried to
        Message 3 of 3 , Dec 6, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Finally today I've received "The Collected Vinyar Tengwar vol. 3", so I
          was able to look at the "Bodleian Declension" (BD). (Until now I've
          tried to reconstruct it from other sources). That shocked me! Many of
          the assumptions I have made in the previous post need to be drastically
          changed!

          > This nominal plural pattern clearly changed in '31, but it's useful
          > in the anlaysis of the "Secret Vice" poems (SVP), as Tolkien did not
          > entirely reject _-li_ as the "normal" plural maker (different from the
          > so-called partitive plural).

          But in the BD a different plural with _li_ has been already developed .
          This is the biggest particular I have missed until today.

          > [a] _-li_ seems to be used to form plurals from nouns ending in
          > _-o_ and _-a_: > _ondoli_ < _ondo_ > _rámali_ < _ráma_

          These instead could be (and probably are, see below) so-called
          "partitive plural" forms (non-subjective) of _ondo_ and _ráma_.

          > The only excpetion in SVP is _tyulmi[n_] < _tyulma_ 'mast', but this
          > word is found in "_Earendel_" (EAR), which seems to have other
          > "exceptions" (see _kalmainen_ below).

          > and probably _qímari_ < *_qímare_ (whose etymology is mysterious,
          > because certainely it's not related to QIMI!).

          This is an invalid assumption. The singular form could be _*qímar_ as
          well.

          > [d] _-li_ is used as plural marker whenever a case ending is added:

          However, they could be "partitive plural" forms as above. Probably this
          is the right assumption, because it explains how in OM1 _talainen_ and
          _kulukalmalínen_ are both translated with plural words: _talainen_ is
          instrumental plural of _tala_ (like _kiryainen_ in BD) _kulukalmalínen_
          is instrumental "partive plural" of _kulu_ + _kalma_ (like _kiryalínen_
          in BD).

          This interpretation will also resolve the differences in EAR where
          _kalmainen_ and _talalínen_ are both translated with plural words:
          _kalmainen_ instrmental plural of _kalma_ _talalínen_ instrumental
          "partitive plural" of _tala_ (let's forget _**talale_!), in this
          scenario the change _talainen_>_talalínen_ in OM2 becomes only a change
          in usage of a plural form, and not the change of formation.

          > In OM2 [<OM1 _talainen_] and EAR we find the *instrumental plural
          > _talalínen_; in a precedent analysis I've proposed the existence of a
          > word _*talale_, however the lenghtened _i_ is probably the result of
          > *_li + inen_: *_tala- + -li- + -inen_ > _talalínen_ (same derivation in
          > OMI where we find _kulukalmalínen_ < _kulu- + -kalma- + -li- + -inen_.
          >
          > That word contrasts with the later _kalmainen_ in EAR translated by
          > Tolkien 'in the lights'.
          > (1) according to the "_Entu_... Declension" (ED) _kalmainen_ would be
          > singular meaning *'(with) the light'
          > (2) according to the "Bodleian Declension" (BD) _kalmainen_ would be
          > plural *'(with) the lights', but this leads to analysing _talalínen_ in EAR
          > as _*talale + -inen_ (plural),
          > and coincidentally similar to _talalínen (tala+li+inen)_ in OM2.
          >
          > The two hypotheses above give two different intervals betwen (OM1>)
          > OM2 and EAR (closer to NIE): nearer (and to BD also) according to (1), and
          > an interval (and/or a successive conceptional stage) a little broader
          > according to (2), which would help to give a more precise date to BD
          > also.

          Deleting all the considerations I had previously written (those quoted
          above), the grammar of SVP poems is very close both with the "_Entu_,
          _Ensi_, _Enta_" declension (VT36) and BD, leaning between the two.

          What in SVP differs from BD is: [a] Where in BD the "subjective" plural
          is _kiryar_<_kirya(n)_ in EAR it's still _tyulmin_<_tyulma [*tyulman]_.
          Evidence of the usage of _n_ also in "non-partitive" plural are also
          _wingildin_ in EAR and NIE, _maiwin_ in OM2 and probably _tálin_ in
          NIE. (in SVP the ending _-r_ seems to be used for dative/locative; see
          Ales Bican's article on "-s case"
          (<http://elm.elvish.org/scase.html>).)

          [b] the "allative" ending is *_-nta_ (_sapsanta; tollanta [OM1];
          tollalinta [OM2]_ as in "Entu, Ensi, Enta"; while in BD is *_-nda_
          (_kirayanda_).

          Now that I've received the full version of BD, many problems have
          been resolved.

          I'm looking forward to receiving PE16, to see the new materials on
          these poems.

          Ugo Truffelli.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.