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

Plural of nouns in the "Secret Vice" poems (was Re: _-eën_ as adj. subjective plural.)

Expand Messages
  • Ugo Truffelli
    ... I forgot to quote the example of assimilation _e
    Message 1 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 2 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.