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

Plurals in the "Secret Vice" poems: "partitive"!

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.