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

Re: [mythsoc] naugladur

Expand Messages
  • Jason Fisher
    ... Yes, interesting, I agree; but can you account for the change in both the vowel (a au) and the second consonant (q and/or v k)? Are these really close
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 21, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for the additional (and much more qualified :) thoughts, Pat. A question for you, relating to this comment:

      > Andrew's supposition that there may be some connection with
      > NAQA 'steal, take' is quit interesting, and NAVA 'suspect, guess,
      > have an inkling of' might also be connected, considering that some
      > of its derivatives could apply to the negative portrait of Dwarves
      > in the Tales, e.g., _naus_ 'suspicion'. 

      Yes, interesting, I agree; but can you account for the change in both the vowel (a > au) and the second consonant (q and/or v > k)? Are these really close enough? A change of q > k is less of a leap in my mind, but v > k seems improbable at first glance.

      Best,
      Jason


      From: Patrick Wynne <pwynne@...>
      To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:19 PM
      Subject: Re: [mythsoc] naugladur

       

      On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:36 PM, Jason Fisher <visualweasel@...> wrote:

       
      > In the Gnomish Lexicon - the first part of his name (NAUGL) is glossed as (PE 11: 59)
      > - NAUGL - same as NAUG (a dwarf) from Qenya NAUKA

      > Now there is no Qenya word for NAUKA [...]
      Actually, there is. Quenya nauko "a dwarf" appears under NAUK in the Etymologies (The Lost Road), with additional notes in the Addenda and Corrigenda to the Etymologies (Vinyar Tengwar 45, p. 37). There is also an entry in the Addenda/Corrigenda for DUR (p. 11), though it is empty and struck through.

      I think what Andrew meant by "there is no Qenya word for NAUKA" is that this word does not appear in the Qenya Lexicon in that form, nor is its root immediately obvious among those given in QL. Andrew's supposition that there may be some connection with NAQA 'steal, take' is quit interesting, and NAVA 'suspect, guess, have an inkling of' might also be connected, considering that some of its derivatives could apply to the negative portrait of Dwarves in the Tales, e.g., _naus_ 'suspicion'. Moreover, there is an isolated pair of forms _nauto_ and _nawa-_ (perhaps a noun and verb respectively) that appear above the entry for NAVA in the QL manuscript, though separated from it by a space of four lines, and _nauto_ here draws VERY close to _nautar_ 'dwarves', which as Andrew notes appears in the chart "The Creatures of the Earth" (Parma 14, pg. 9) contemporary with the Lost Tales (_Nautar_ also appears as a name for the Dwarves in a rejected outline for "The Tale of the Nauglafring", LT II pg. 136).

      BTW, I should note that Andrew's statement that "there is the Qenya Base Root NAKA bite which has a past tense form NAUKE" is in error — the pa.t. of _naka-_ 'bite' in QL is _nanke_ (and also _náke_).

      > DUR - could possibly come from the Qenya base root TUR (PE 12: 96) with
      > the consonant mutation changing the /T/ to /D/  (PE 11: 7) 

      Close, but I think it's more straightforward. I think this is actually just the root (N)DUR "bow down, obey, serve" (see Parma Eldalamberon 17, p. 167). This would be the same element in Isildur (see PE 16, p. 28).

      I find Andrew's proposal more likely, given that both the elements he cites occur in sources contemporary with the Lost Tales. _Naugladur_ is apparently simply Goldogrin for *'King of the Dwarves' — cf. Gn. _tûr_ 'king' in the Gnomish Lexicon. The problem with proposing NDUR as a source of the second element in _Naugladur_ is that so far as I know NDUR is a _later_ invention; there does not seem to be an equivalent to it in either the Gnomish or Qenya Lexicons, and the appearance of NDUR in documents written decades _after_ the Lost Tales does not make a compelling case for it appearing in _Naugladur_. In the later names in which it appears as a suffix, _-ndur_ meant 'to serve' the person or thing named as the first element in the compound: _arandur_ 'king's servant, minister', _Earendur_ '(professional) mariner', lit. *'servant of the sea' (Letters pg. 386, note). We could suppose that in _Naugladur_ it meant rather 'one who is served, lord' — but this is pointless speculation when the root very likely did not yet exist when the Lost Tales were written.

      But to John's original question, is there an official gloss, meaning one directly from Tolkien himself? No, I don't think so. At least, I haven't seen one.


      Agreed on all counts here — I know of no translation of this form by Tolkien, and all of the Lost Tales linguistic material has been published at this point.

      — Pat


    • Andrew Higgins
      Patrick Many thanks for catching my NAKA past tense error (sloppy Tolkien linguistics mea culpa) . Have amended my notes for this interesting crux (like
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 22, 2013
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Patrick 

        Many thanks for catching my NAKA past tense error (sloppy Tolkien linguistics mea culpa) .   Have amended my notes for this interesting crux (like Tolkien I am keeping notebooks of linguistic cruxes - although unlike his three blue Beowulf crux notebooks mine are being kept on Evernote) correcting this error and incorporating both yours and Jason's notes. The reflection of Elvish bias on the construction of this name (and we know where that came from!) is quite interesting and one to trace through the early legendarium. 

        Also intrigued with the Nauglafring story which appears both in the Silmarillion papers and is mentioned in The Hobbit (John Rateliff's excellent work on the Sillmarillion/Hobbit link has inspired me to find more of these links.)  In re-reading The Hobbit for Verlyn Flieger's current Tolkien and Middle Earth course (directly after re-reading John's History of the Hobbit for Professor Corey Olsen's Hobbit course!) I was struck for the first time with Gandalf's final words of farewell to the Eagles 

        'May the wind under your wings bear you where the sun sails and the moon walks.' (Hobbit, p.354) 

        Just another little fragment of the greater mythology peeping into The Hobbit, 

        I have also double checked all the name lists and Naugladur as a name with a gloss does not appear - so to get to the name I guess it is a matter of Tolkienian reconstruction. 

        Thanks Andy 



        Sent from the IPAD of Andrew Higgins 

        Andrew Higgins Head of Development and Membership 
        Glyndebourne (andrew.higgins@...)
        and now a word from our supporters......
        http://glyndebourne.com/supporting-glyndebourne

        asthiggins@...  asthiggins on Facebook/Twitter 
        Mobile 07500 827793 
        And at his blog Wotan's Musings http://wotanselvishmusings.blogspot.com/


        On 22 Feb 2013, at 02:19, Patrick Wynne <pwynne@...> wrote:

         


        On Feb 21, 2013, at 5:36 PM, Jason Fisher <visualweasel@...> wrote:

         
        > In the Gnomish Lexicon - the first part of his name (NAUGL) is glossed as (PE 11: 59)
        > - NAUGL - same as NAUG (a dwarf) from Qenya NAUKA

        > Now there is no Qenya word for NAUKA [...]
        Actually, there is. Quenya nauko "a dwarf" appears under NAUK in the Etymologies (The Lost Road), with additional notes in the Addenda and Corrigenda to the Etymologies (Vinyar Tengwar 45, p. 37). There is also an entry in the Addenda/Corrigenda for DUR (p. 11), though it is empty and struck through.

        I think what Andrew meant by "there is no Qenya word for NAUKA" is that this word does not appear in the Qenya Lexicon in that form, nor is its root immediately obvious among those given in QL. Andrew's supposition that there may be some connection with NAQA 'steal, take' is quit interesting, and NAVA 'suspect, guess, have an inkling of' might also be connected, considering that some of its derivatives could apply to the negative portrait of Dwarves in the Tales, e.g., _naus_ 'suspicion'. Moreover, there is an isolated pair of forms _nauto_ and _nawa-_ (perhaps a noun and verb respectively) that appear above the entry for NAVA in the QL manuscript, though separated from it by a space of four lines, and _nauto_ here draws VERY close to _nautar_ 'dwarves', which as Andrew notes appears in the chart "The Creatures of the Earth" (Parma 14, pg. 9) contemporary with the Lost Tales (_Nautar_ also appears as a name for the Dwarves in a rejected outline for "The Tale of the Nauglafring", LT II pg. 136).

        BTW, I should note that Andrew's statement that "there is the Qenya Base Root NAKA bite which has a past tense form NAUKE" is in error — the pa.t. of _naka-_ 'bite' in QL is _nanke_ (and also _náke_).

        > DUR - could possibly come from the Qenya base root TUR (PE 12: 96) with
        > the consonant mutation changing the /T/ to /D/  (PE 11: 7) 

        Close, but I think it's more straightforward. I think this is actually just the root (N)DUR "bow down, obey, serve" (see Parma Eldalamberon 17, p. 167). This would be the same element in Isildur (see PE 16, p. 28).

        I find Andrew's proposal more likely, given that both the elements he cites occur in sources contemporary with the Lost Tales. _Naugladur_ is apparently simply Goldogrin for *'King of the Dwarves' — cf. Gn. _tûr_ 'king' in the Gnomish Lexicon. The problem with proposing NDUR as a source of the second element in _Naugladur_ is that so far as I know NDUR is a _later_ invention; there does not seem to be an equivalent to it in either the Gnomish or Qenya Lexicons, and the appearance of NDUR in documents written decades _after_ the Lost Tales does not make a compelling case for it appearing in _Naugladur_. In the later names in which it appears as a suffix, _-ndur_ meant 'to serve' the person or thing named as the first element in the compound: _arandur_ 'king's servant, minister', _Earendur_ '(professional) mariner', lit. *'servant of the sea' (Letters pg. 386, note). We could suppose that in _Naugladur_ it meant rather 'one who is served, lord' — but this is pointless speculation when the root very likely did not yet exist when the Lost Tales were written.

        But to John's original question, is there an official gloss, meaning one directly from Tolkien himself? No, I don't think so. At least, I haven't seen one.


        Agreed on all counts here — I know of no translation of this form by Tolkien, and all of the Lost Tales linguistic material has been published at this point.

        — Pat

      • Patrick Wynne
        I don t think that Q. _nauka_, _nauta_ in the Lost Tales derive directly from NAQA, no; but it may bear some connection with the root of these forms (I know:
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 22, 2013
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I don't think that Q. _nauka_, _nauta_ in the Lost Tales derive directly from NAQA, no; but it may bear "some connection" with the root of these forms (I know: vague much?). QL shows several related roots exhibiting a K/Q variation, e.g., PEKE > _pekte_ 'plume, comb (of cock)' and PEQE > _peqe-_ 'comb, card wool, tease', _peqen_ 'comb'; and KELU 'flow, run' > _kelu_ 'stream' and QEL + U > _qelu_ 'a well, spring, source'. So NAQA _could_ conceivably have a related form *NAKA (2) (distinct in meaning from attested NAKA 'bite'), and this does get us a lot closer to _nauka_ at least.

          The U > AU is tricksier, yesss. There are a few examples in QL of roots in O having an extended form in OU, e.g. "_Laum-_, _Loum_, extended from _lom-_" > _laume_ 'a storm, overcast sky' (cp. LOMO- *'hide' > _lóme_ 'dusk, gloom, darkness'). We have no _explicit_ reference in QL to such a process taking place in roots with A, although it might underlie the isolated form _laupe_ 'shirt, tunic', which was possibly derived via such a process from LAPA 'enfold', whence _lapa-_ 'wrap, swathe, wind' and _lapil_ 'a swathe, a flowing cloth'.

          Be that as it may, applying Occam's Razor to the pair _nauka/nauta_ the simplest phonological explanation is a root NAWA or NAVA to which derivative suffixes _-ka_ and _-ta_ have been applied. NAWA is not recorded, unfortunately, unless we are to assume from the pair _nauto_, _nawa-_ in QL that _nawa-_ is the root of _nauto_ (which could be construed as the masc. form of _nauta_ 'dwarf'). If so, we are still left in the dark as to what NAWA meant, assuming it had some other meaning besides simply 'dwarf'.

          BTW, it would be neat to derive _nau-_ from NU 'bow, bend down, stoop, sink', so that 'dwarf' was lit. 'stooped one', but this would require a-infixion, which was extremely common by the time of the Etymologies (e.g., THUS- > *_thausâ_ > Q. _saura_ 'foul, evil-smelling, putrid', whence _Sauron_) but so far as I can tell is NOT present in QL. (L- and N-infixion are attested in the earliest period, but provide no help for the current problem.)

          This leaves attested NAVA. Medial V in QL roots generally represents earlier "barred-B", a voiced bilabial fricative (to avoid going all Unicode on this list, I'll represent barred-B here with [B]). Notes placed with the Qenya Phonology state that [B] generally became V, but in the case of [B] + consonant became U (see Parma 12, pg. 23). With NAVA 'suspect, guess, have an inkling of', the development to V is seen intervocalically in _nâve_ 'shrewdness, sagacity, perspicacity' and _navillo_ 'whisper, hint suspicion, rumour, malicious comment, innuendo', whereas the preconsonantal development to U is seen in _naus_ 'suspicion', _nauma_ 'hint, clue', _nauta-_ 'guess', etc. So NAVA doesn't present any phonological problems as the source of _nauka/nauta_ (it would be the source of _nau-_, with _-ka/-ta_ being derivative suffixes). The _semantic_ aspect, however, is less compelling, unless we are to suppose that _nauka/nauta_ 'dwarf' literally meant something like 'suspicious one', either indicating the untrusting nature of the Dwarves themselves or the opinion held of the Dwarves by those who had dealings with them.

          If nothing else, I think the above demonstrates definitively why nobody wants to sit at the Linguist table at Mythcons.

          — Pat

          * * * * * * *

          On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Jason Fisher <visualweasel@...> wrote:

           

          Thanks for the additional (and much more qualified :) thoughts, Pat. A question for you, relating to this comment:

          > Andrew's supposition that there may be some connection with
          > NAQA 'steal, take' is quit interesting, and NAVA 'suspect, guess,
          > have an inkling of' might also be connected, considering that some
          > of its derivatives could apply to the negative portrait of Dwarves
          > in the Tales, e.g., _naus_ 'suspicion'. 

          Yes, interesting, I agree; but can you account for the change in both the vowel (a > au) and the second consonant (q and/or v > k)? Are these really close enough? A change of q > k is less of a leap in my mind, but v > k seems improbable at first glance.
          __,_._,__

        • Jason Fisher
          ... Well, *I* certainly enjoyed this. Save a seat for me, Pat. :) Best, Jason ... something like suspicious one , either indicating the untrusting nature of
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 22, 2013
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            If nothing else, I think the above demonstrates definitively
            why nobody wants to sit at the Linguist table at Mythcons.

            Well, *I* certainly enjoyed this. Save a seat for me, Pat. :)

            Best,
            Jason


            From: Patrick Wynne <pwynne@...>
            To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 7:11 AM
            Subject: Re: [mythsoc] naugladur

             
            I don't think that Q. _nauka_, _nauta_ in the Lost Tales derive directly from NAQA, no; but it may bear "some connection" with the root of these forms (I know: vague much?). QL shows several related roots exhibiting a K/Q variation, e.g., PEKE > _pekte_ 'plume, comb (of cock)' and PEQE > _peqe-_ 'comb, card wool, tease', _peqen_ 'comb'; and KELU 'flow, run' > _kelu_ 'stream' and QEL + U > _qelu_ 'a well, spring, source'. So NAQA _could_ conceivably have a related form *NAKA (2) (distinct in meaning from attested NAKA 'bite'), and this does get us a lot closer to _nauka_ at least.

            The U > AU is tricksier, yesss. There are a few examples in QL of roots in O having an extended form in OU, e.g. "_Laum-_, _Loum_, extended from _lom-_" > _laume_ 'a storm, overcast sky' (cp. LOMO- *'hide' > _lóme_ 'dusk, gloom, darkness'). We have no _explicit_ reference in QL to such a process taking place in roots with A, although it might underlie the isolated form _laupe_ 'shirt, tunic', which was possibly derived via such a process from LAPA 'enfold', whence _lapa-_ 'wrap, swathe, wind' and _lapil_ 'a swathe, a flowing cloth'.

            Be that as it may, applying Occam's Razor to the pair _nauka/nauta_ the simplest phonological explanation is a root NAWA or NAVA to which derivative suffixes _-ka_ and _-ta_ have been applied. NAWA is not recorded, unfortunately, unless we are to assume from the pair _nauto_, _nawa-_ in QL that _nawa-_ is the root of _nauto_ (which could be construed as the masc. form of _nauta_ 'dwarf'). If so, we are still left in the dark as to what NAWA meant, assuming it had some other meaning besides simply 'dwarf'.

            BTW, it would be neat to derive _nau-_ from NU 'bow, bend down, stoop, sink', so that 'dwarf' was lit. 'stooped one', but this would require a-infixion, which was extremely common by the time of the Etymologies (e.g., THUS- > *_thausâ_ > Q. _saura_ 'foul, evil-smelling, putrid', whence _Sauron_) but so far as I can tell is NOT present in QL. (L- and N-infixion are attested in the earliest period, but provide no help for the current problem.)

            This leaves attested NAVA. Medial V in QL roots generally represents earlier "barred-B", a voiced bilabial fricative (to avoid going all Unicode on this list, I'll represent barred-B here with [B]). Notes placed with the Qenya Phonology state that [B] generally became V, but in the case of [B] + consonant became U (see Parma 12, pg. 23). With NAVA 'suspect, guess, have an inkling of', the development to V is seen intervocalically in _nâve_ 'shrewdness, sagacity, perspicacity' and _navillo_ 'whisper, hint suspicion, rumour, malicious comment, innuendo', whereas the preconsonantal development to U is seen in _naus_ 'suspicion', _nauma_ 'hint, clue', _nauta-_ 'guess', etc. So NAVA doesn't present any phonological problems as the source of _nauka/nauta_ (it would be the source of _nau-_, with _-ka/-ta_ being derivative suffixes). The _semantic_ aspect, however, is less compelling, unless we are to suppose that _nauka/nauta_ 'dwarf' literally meant something like 'suspicious one', either indicating the untrusting nature of the Dwarves themselves or the opinion held of the Dwarves by those who had dealings with them.

            If nothing else, I think the above demonstrates definitively why nobody wants to sit at the Linguist table at Mythcons.

            — Pat

            * * * * * * *

            On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Jason Fisher <visualweasel@...> wrote:

             

            Thanks for the additional (and much more qualified :) thoughts, Pat. A question for you, relating to this comment:

            > Andrew's supposition that there may be some connection with
            > NAQA 'steal, take' is quit interesting, and NAVA 'suspect, guess,
            > have an inkling of' might also be connected, considering that some
            > of its derivatives could apply to the negative portrait of Dwarves
            > in the Tales, e.g., _naus_ 'suspicion'. 

            Yes, interesting, I agree; but can you account for the change in both the vowel (a > au) and the second consonant (q and/or v > k)? Are these really close enough? A change of q > k is less of a leap in my mind, but v > k seems improbable at first glance.
            __,_._,__



          • Andrew Higgins
            Jason Me too, Love this kind of exploration and to have it done by one of the Valar of Tolkienian linguistics who has seen and studied the hallowed materials
            Message 5 of 13 , Feb 22, 2013
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Jason 

              Me too,  Love this kind of exploration and to have it done by one of the Valar of Tolkienian linguistics who has seen and studied the hallowed materials themselves is a real treat. 

              To sit at Mythcon among the likes of the great lords of Tolkienian  linguistics -Wynne, Hostetter, Smith, Gilson, Welden who have given us these documents with brilliant notes for guidance  -  - as well as some of the best articles on Tolkien linguistics (e.g. Stone Towers, Tolkien and Esperanto, Tolkien and Gothic, Is Goldogrin Primitive) along with you - a kindred Tolkien linguistic spirit (and my blogger role model) would be the very wine of blessedness indeed - although I am sure I will feel like Frodo at The Council of Elrond! 

              I will bring my cruxes for exploration! See you there! 

              Best Andy 
               

              Sent from the IPAD of Andrew Higgins 

              Andrew Higgins Head of Development and Membership 
              Glyndebourne (andrew.higgins@...)
              and now a word from our supporters......
              http://glyndebourne.com/supporting-glyndebourne

              asthiggins@...  asthiggins on Facebook/Twitter 
              Mobile 07500 827793 
              And at his blog Wotan's Musings http://wotanselvishmusings.blogspot.com/


              On 22 Feb 2013, at 17:39, Jason Fisher <visualweasel@...> wrote:

               

              If nothing else, I think the above demonstrates definitively
              why nobody wants to sit at the Linguist table at Mythcons.

              Well, *I* certainly enjoyed this. Save a seat for me, Pat. :)

              Best,
              Jason


              From: Patrick Wynne <pwynne@...>
              To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 7:11 AM
              Subject: Re: [mythsoc] naugladur

               
              I don't think that Q. _nauka_, _nauta_ in the Lost Tales derive directly from NAQA, no; but it may bear "some connection" with the root of these forms (I know: vague much?). QL shows several related roots exhibiting a K/Q variation, e.g., PEKE > _pekte_ 'plume, comb (of cock)' and PEQE > _peqe-_ 'comb, card wool, tease', _peqen_ 'comb'; and KELU 'flow, run' > _kelu_ 'stream' and QEL + U > _qelu_ 'a well, spring, source'. So NAQA _could_ conceivably have a related form *NAKA (2) (distinct in meaning from attested NAKA 'bite'), and this does get us a lot closer to _nauka_ at least.

              The U > AU is tricksier, yesss. There are a few examples in QL of roots in O having an extended form in OU, e.g. "_Laum-_, _Loum_, extended from _lom-_" > _laume_ 'a storm, overcast sky' (cp. LOMO- *'hide' > _lóme_ 'dusk, gloom, darkness'). We have no _explicit_ reference in QL to such a process taking place in roots with A, although it might underlie the isolated form _laupe_ 'shirt, tunic', which was possibly derived via such a process from LAPA 'enfold', whence _lapa-_ 'wrap, swathe, wind' and _lapil_ 'a swathe, a flowing cloth'.

              Be that as it may, applying Occam's Razor to the pair _nauka/nauta_ the simplest phonological explanation is a root NAWA or NAVA to which derivative suffixes _-ka_ and _-ta_ have been applied. NAWA is not recorded, unfortunately, unless we are to assume from the pair _nauto_, _nawa-_ in QL that _nawa-_ is the root of _nauto_ (which could be construed as the masc. form of _nauta_ 'dwarf'). If so, we are still left in the dark as to what NAWA meant, assuming it had some other meaning besides simply 'dwarf'.

              BTW, it would be neat to derive _nau-_ from NU 'bow, bend down, stoop, sink', so that 'dwarf' was lit. 'stooped one', but this would require a-infixion, which was extremely common by the time of the Etymologies (e.g., THUS- > *_thausâ_ > Q. _saura_ 'foul, evil-smelling, putrid', whence _Sauron_) but so far as I can tell is NOT present in QL. (L- and N-infixion are attested in the earliest period, but provide no help for the current problem.)

              This leaves attested NAVA. Medial V in QL roots generally represents earlier "barred-B", a voiced bilabial fricative (to avoid going all Unicode on this list, I'll represent barred-B here with [B]). Notes placed with the Qenya Phonology state that [B] generally became V, but in the case of [B] + consonant became U (see Parma 12, pg. 23). With NAVA 'suspect, guess, have an inkling of', the development to V is seen intervocalically in _nâve_ 'shrewdness, sagacity, perspicacity' and _navillo_ 'whisper, hint suspicion, rumour, malicious comment, innuendo', whereas the preconsonantal development to U is seen in _naus_ 'suspicion', _nauma_ 'hint, clue', _nauta-_ 'guess', etc. So NAVA doesn't present any phonological problems as the source of _nauka/nauta_ (it would be the source of _nau-_, with _-ka/-ta_ being derivative suffixes). The _semantic_ aspect, however, is less compelling, unless we are to suppose that _nauka/nauta_ 'dwarf' literally meant something like 'suspicious one', either indicating the untrusting nature of the Dwarves themselves or the opinion held of the Dwarves by those who had dealings with them.

              If nothing else, I think the above demonstrates definitively why nobody wants to sit at the Linguist table at Mythcons.

              — Pat

              * * * * * * *

              On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Jason Fisher <visualweasel@...> wrote:

               

              Thanks for the additional (and much more qualified :) thoughts, Pat. A question for you, relating to this comment:

              > Andrew's supposition that there may be some connection with
              > NAQA 'steal, take' is quit interesting, and NAVA 'suspect, guess,
              > have an inkling of' might also be connected, considering that some
              > of its derivatives could apply to the negative portrait of Dwarves
              > in the Tales, e.g., _naus_ 'suspicion'. 

              Yes, interesting, I agree; but can you account for the change in both the vowel (a > au) and the second consonant (q and/or v > k)? Are these really close enough? A change of q > k is less of a leap in my mind, but v > k seems improbable at first glance.
              __,_._,__



            • John Rateliff
              Many thanks to Andrew, Jason, and Pat for the helpful posts. Sounds like interpreting Naugladur as King [of the] Dwarves [of Nogrod] is a reasonable gloss,
              Message 6 of 13 , Feb 23, 2013
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Many thanks to Andrew, Jason, and Pat for the helpful posts.

                Sounds like interpreting "Naugladur" as "King [of the] Dwarves [of Nogrod]" is a reasonable gloss, while links to Qenya nak/naqar, though interesting and suggestive, is speculative.

                There's nothing like watching experts at work! Again, thanks.

                --John R.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.