On 03.07.2004, at 23:17, Helios De Rosario Martinez wrote:

> I suggest that _(Aran) Chithlum_ might nevertheless be an instance of
> lenition, because in the earlier "Gnomish Grammar" _h_ > _ch_ does
> occur in the list of the "grammatical mutations" (PE11:7), and it may
> also be compared with the later famous title of the _Narn i Chîn
> Húrin_, where _hîn_ 'children' > _chîn_. Christopher Tolkien wrote in
> LR:322 that both _i Chîn Húrin_ and _Aran Chithlum_ are, among others,
> cases of the "Initial Variation of Consonants" of Exilic Noldorin,
> what from the explanations in V:298 and V:301 we might infer that is
> specifically the lenition or soft mutation.

Both 'lenition' and 'soft mutation' (which refer to the same phonetic
process) seem (to me) problematic here. Descriptively _h_ > _ch_ isn't
'softening' but rather 'hardening' or 'reinforcing'. The underlying
phonetics can be gleaned from the historical development:
PE (ON) *KH > S./N. _-ch-_ in inlaut, (and before liquid) but _h-_ in
anlaut. Cf. e.g. _*khithme_ > N. _hithw_ 'fog' [Etym. s.v.
KHIS/KHITH-] and (N. _bachor_ 'pedlar' < _*mbakhro_) and _bach_ 'ware,
thing' < _*mbakhâ_. In _i Chîn Húrin_ _ch_ shows up because it stands
between two vowels (i-KHî). _Aran Chithlum_ would be one of the cases
where the 'generalized rule' comes into effect, although the
'reinforcemnt' wasn't originally phonetically justified [PE11:7].

> Among Tolkien's published explanations about the consonant mutation
> in the Celtic-like Elvish language, the nearest in time to Etym. is in the
> "Early Noldorin Grammar". There, "_hîr_ 'lord', (a) _ihir_" shows no
> soft mutation of _h_ (PE13:121).

But it shows reinforcement in the Etymologies, cf. _Bara-chir_ s.v.
KHER-.

> A first overview would suggest that in fact _gilgalad_ should not be
> the result of any lenition, by comparison with the names _Gilbrennil_
> *'Star-lady' and _Gilthoniel_ 'Star-maker' that occur next to it in
> GIL-. _Gilbrennil_ shows no kind of mutation (cp. _brennil_ 'lady',
> s.v. BARÁN-), and the mutation of _Gilthoniel_ (perhaps < *_tânielle_
> or something similar, cp. _tanô_ s.v. TAN-) is doubtless the liquid
> assimilation _l_ + _t_ > _lth_, not a lenition that would have yielded
> *_Gildoniel_ instead.

1) _Gilgalad_: According to the Etymologies (s.v. GIL-) N. _gíl_ goes
back to < _*gilya_. Hence an older form of the compound would have
been: _*Gilyacalad_. Thus the development _calad_ > _•galad_ is quite
regular. Even if the compound isn't that old, it is reasonable for
_gíl_ to cause lenition as it would in other cases, given that it ended
originally in a vowel.

2) _Gilbrennil_: This is indeed problematic. _Gil_ here qualifies
_brennil_ whereas in _Dagor Vregedúr_ _bregedúr_ qualifies _dagor_. One
might ask oneself whether _gilbrennil_ stands instead of _*gilvrennil_
due to some sort of analogy (cf. _Elbereth_) or maybe it was easier to
pronounce (not a strong point) ?

3) _Gilthoniel_: In X:388 there is a note by J.R.R. Tolkien deriving
the second element of _Gilthoniel_ from root _than/thân-_ 'to kindle,
set light to'.

In brief, I think the most problematic form is _Gilbrennil_. Still,
Helios De Rosario Martinez is certainly right to point out all those
difficulties, as it's not clear what Tolkien's ideas were when writing
the Etymologies. Tolkien's note I cited sub 3) dates probably to the
late '50s. In the same essay he notes on _Elbereth_ that "... since
_b_ is not mutated the name is probably to b referred to _*elen-barathi
> _elmbereth_".

So Tolkien was (of course) keenly aware of the issues involving
mutation.

-David Kiltz