Re: [quenya] aselye
- "Carl F. Hostetter" wrote:
> > **As far as I can say and as far as I understand, Helge thought it was**As far as _I_ can say from the photocopy in VT43, there is a
> > possible to read it as _as elye_;
> Just take a look at the manuscript reproduction in _VT_ 43; there is
> simply no doubt that the word is _aselye_, and no reason ever to
> suppose otherwise, save for a desire for a simple uniformity of
> development that simply does not exist.
possibility that _aselye_ is in fact _as elye_. The gap between
_as_ and _elye_ is, in my view, comparable to the gap between _i_
and _Heru_ or _ëa_ and _han_. Of course, the overall layout of the
text speaks rather for _aselye_, but I would not certainly reject
_as elye_ if I had only one version of the prayers at hand, which
was Helge's case.
> > The etymology suggested in VT43:30 that _as-_ may be a prepositional**That is certainly possible, though I still cannot see why the
> > reflex of CE _as_ (being the source of the conjunction _ar_ "and") is
> > not convincing enough (in my view): why would CE _as_ produce _ar_
> > "and" but _as_ "with"?
> Perhaps the two regular phonological derivatives _ar(-)_ and _as(-)_
> (depending, perhaps among other factors, on stress patterns) were in
> distribution such that the one tended to occur most frequently in
> environments (phonological and semantic) where the form came to have
> the force of a conjunction, and the other of a preposition; and then
> the one form was selected as the conjunction, and the other as a
> preposition, overriding strict phonological development? This sort of
> thing happens frequently in real languages.
rhotacism happened in one case but not in the other, and why it did
not happen in _nísi_.
> > **I might have overlooked something, but I am not aware of any example**I am sorry I did not make myself more clear.
> > which would convincingly show that the change _s_ > _r_ did not happen
> > everywhere.
> What do you mean? I've already listed _ósanwe_, and there's _aselye_,
> and you listed a number of examples yourself.
Of course, there are examples of intervocalic _s_ that does not go
_r_. However, these examples are different to the case of _aselye_,
because in all examples I am aware of the _s_ is in a different
You mentioned _ósanwe_ and I mentioned _alasaila_. There might be
more examples. In these two examples the _s_ is the onset of roots
_san_ and _sai_. In case of _aselye_, the _s_ is the coda of the root
_as_. There is a fundamental difference between the onset and coda,
even in real languages, as far as I can say. While the former is the
least variable part of the root, the latter is very variable, undergoes
numerous changes and is even often missing. Probably any change of the
onset would result in confusion, but this confusion would not, I think,
be so drastic if the coda was changed instead.
So as regards _ósanwe_ and _alasaila_, both words are derived from
_sanwe_ and _saila_ and I am convinced that the relationship between
_sanwe_ and _ósanwe_, and _saila_ and _alasaila_ was clearly
perceived by elves, which prevented any change of _s_, because the
relationship would be then damaged and lost.
I think therefore that the reason why _ósanwe_ did not become
something like *_óranwe_ is not because of the stress (though it
might also have played its role), but because if the change happened,
the congruity between _sanwe_ and _ósanwe_ would be lost. Something
similar is, I mentioned, seen in _ohlon_ where the _hl_ could stand
medially, even though it is not normally found in such positions, as
could be (indirectly) shown on _Mirroanwi_ < *_mi-sro-_.
The same can be applied on _alasaila_. It is also possible that both
_ósanwe_ and _alasaila_ were late derivatives. The change _s_ > _r_
was productive only on a certain stage of the development of Quenya;
it seems that it was over when the change _th_ > _s_ took place.
As regards _aselye_, here we deal with another environment and
aspects. First of all, as I mentioned in the previous letter, the
origin of _as_ is not certain. Even though you were right that it
is a derivative of AS (> _ar_ "and"), we do not know it for sure,
which is not the case of _alasaila_ and _ósanwe_. Moreover, there
are uncertainties about the status of rhotacism at the times when
the prayers were composed. I mentioned them in my previous letter.
> And there is Tolkien's**The note I quoted did not state anything about the stress, because
> own statement, which you quoted again yourself, that the change of
> intervocalic _s_ to _r_ did not occur when _s_ was followed by a
> stressed vowel; right there is an entire class of exceptions.
I quoted Tolkien's note from _Quendi and Eldar_. The note I think
you mean was mentioned in VT44, but the precise reading of the note
was not, as far as I know, given. According to you, the note speaks
about the stress. I do not have any reason not to believe it is so,
but Tolkien's own words would be more appropriate, because the note
was given out of context.
> > **I think this confirmation was needed**I do not know whether it was Helge's contention, I am not in
> No it wasn't, for the reason that I've already stated: The example of
> _ósanwe_ itself was sufficient to show that Helge's contention (that
> intervocalic _s_ goes to _r_ everywhere) was wrong.
position that I could speak on his (for that matter on anyone else's
than mine) behalf. However, I do not suppose that Helge was
convinced that intervocalic _s_ goes to _r_ everywhere, because
I do not suppose he was not aware of the note in _Quendi and
Eldar_ which sufficiently shows that the change did not happen
> > even though it does not explain everything.**Definitely! Speaking of which, how do you explain the forms
> Nor was it portrayed as doing so.
_nísi_ and _óse_? I was sorry that I did not find it in VT, because
although I have presented here something like a criticism
(constructive, I hope -- there was _no_ intent to devaluate your
work!), I have always appreciated your and your colleague's thoughts
and opinions on Tolkien's languages.
> > I can simply say that "[m]edial _z_ < _s_ had become _r_ in the**Agreed. I only wanted to say the reason why _s_ > _r_ in _ósanwe_
> > Ñoldorin dialect of Q except when an adjacent syllable, or [...] the
> > same syllable, already contained an _r_" (WJ:413), and there is no
> > word about the stress.
> It is hardly news that Tolkien's invented phonology, and his
> explanations of it, changed over time. But unlike this quote, the
> statement on the matter that was quoted in _VT_ 44 does _potentially_
> explain such cases as _ósanwe_ and _aselye_, which fit the indicated
> stress pattern.
and _aselye_ did not have to do anything with the stress pattern.
> Anyhow, this is off-topic for this list. If you would like to continue**Ok, I am forwarding this to TolkLang, though I do not think people
> this discussion, let's do it elsewhere.
here mind. I also forward my first responce to give TolkLangers
kurvannapi vyalíkáni yah. priyah. priya eva sah.
anekadós.adus.t.ó 'pi káyah. kasya na vallabhah.