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

Re: [mythsoc] naugladur

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.