_-eën_ as adj. subjective plural.
- 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"
(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
[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).
- --- In email@example.com, "Ugo Truffelli" <elistir@...>
> Effectively it's something I hadI forgot to quote the example of assimilation _e < ai_ in EQG:45,77
> thought about, as the assimilation of _-ea + -in > *-ëen_,
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 >
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))
_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
_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.
- 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
> This nominal plural pattern clearly changed in '31, but it's usefulBut in the BD a different plural with _li_ has been already developed .
> 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).
This is the biggest particular I have missed until today.
> [a] _-li_ seems to be used to form plurals from nouns ending inThese instead could be (and probably are, see below) so-called
> _-o_ and _-a_: > _ondoli_ < _ondo_ > _rámali_ < _ráma_
"partitive plural" forms (non-subjective) of _ondo_ and _ráma_.
> The only excpetion in SVP is _tyulmi[n_] < _tyulma_ 'mast', but thisThis is an invalid assumption. The singular form could be _*qímar_ as
> 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!).
> [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_
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 pluralDeleting all the considerations I had previously written (those quoted
> _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
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"
[b] the "allative" ending is *_-nta_ (_sapsanta; tollanta [OM1];
tollalinta [OM2]_ as in "Entu, Ensi, Enta"; while in BD is *_-nda_
Now that I've received the full version of BD, many problems have
I'm looking forward to receiving PE16, to see the new materials on