In Elfling message 34423
(<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/34423>),
in reference to the newly published _Words, Phrases and Passages in
Various Tongues in The Lord of the Rings_ by J.R.R. Tolkien
(published in _Parma Eldlamberon_ 17, ed. Christopher Gilson
<http://www.eldalamberon.com/parma17.html>)
David Salo writes, :

> Having had a chance to glance at a copy of this text, I must say
> that my first reaction is not to note all the places where past
> analysts (including me) got things wrong -- as such "errors"
> were inevitable and,  given the state of the data, irremediable
> at the time. It is rather to note where the analysts got things
> right, working only with published material. Such analyses, being
> often not the subject of controversy (though in all justice they
> might have been), often fall into "received wisdom" and so
> receive no notice. However, I have personal knowledge, in some
> cases, from what slender chains of evidence some of the
> conclusions were derived, and it is merciful to note when they
> are vindicated.

David is of course correct to highlight the happy instances where
previous guesses about the grammar of Tolkien's Elvish and other
invented languages, as exemplified in _The Lord of the Rings_, have
turned out to be correct (in the sense that they agree with Tolkien's
own explanations as he developed them in the 1960s -- or, in some
cases, agree with at least one of a set of competing explanations
Tolkien developed then). This is a testimony both to the prevailing
consistency of Tolkien's linguistic creations -- i.e. to Tolkien's
own adherence to the abstract systems of phonological and grammatical
rules he selected for his languages at any given time -- as well as
to the power of the application of the tools of historical and
comparative linguistics to Tolkien's languages. (I would however note
that in the case of conclusions derived from "slender chains of
evidence", turning out to have been "right" is more likely due to
mere luck, the more slender are the chains!)

The power of these tools, however, is not absolute, particularly when
they are applied to sets of inconsistent linguistic evidence (i.e.,
to evidence selected from multiple, inconsistent linguistic systems),
and when ultimately statistical inferences drawn from sets of data
far too limited to support them are relied upon to justify claims of
oddness (or even error). It is therefore unsurprising that those
analysts that did so produced what David alludes to at the start of
his statement: many guesses that turn out _not_ to accord with
Tolkien's explanations at all. And it is surely at least as important
to draw lessons from these errors as it is to find affirmation in
successes; for in fact, most of the errors David alludes to were
neither "inevitable" nor "irremediable" before the publication of
Tolkien's own explanations, but were the result of unsound methodology.

-----

To pick just one of the most prominent errors to exemplify the
matter, consider the past tense verb of Sindarin. What has come to be
regarded by many as the "standard view" (what David rightly now calls
the "received wisdom") of the formation of the Sindarin past tense --
as most prominently presented by Helge Fauskanger on his
_Ardalambion_ web site (from whence the "standard view" has been
received by the many) and later by David Salo in his book _A Gateway
to Sindarin_ -- holds that:

I) The "regular" past tense stem of most basic verbs is formed by the
infixion of _-n-_ (with subsequent phonological development) to the
verb stem.

II) The "regular" past tense of some basic verbs -- sc., those whose
stems end with a nasal or sonant (e.g. l, m, n, r) -- is formed by
the addition of a suffix _-n_ to the verb stem (with subsequent
phonological development).

III) An "irregular" past tense stem of some basic verbs is formed by
the infixion of _-a_, or by lengthening of the stem vowel (with
subsequent phonological development).

IV) The "regular" past tense stem of derived verbs is formed by the
addition of a suffix _-nt_ to the verb stem.

What is usually not understood by the many, however, is that the
formulation of this "standard view" relied on a set of assumptions
and exclusions that, far from being "inevitable" or "irremediable"
before the publication of _Parma_ 17, were already dubious, and even
demonstrably wrong, when _Ardalambion_ and _Gateway to Sindarin_ were
first published. For if it were true that only the publication of
_Parma_ 17 falsified the "standard view", then it would follow that
the "standard view" _did_ accurately and completely describe both
Sindarin and Noldorin as they were evidenced before the publication
of _Parma_ 17; but in fact the "standard view" failed to accurately
or completely describe either Sindarin or Noldorin, even just as they
were evidenced before the publication of the "Addenda and Corrigenda
to _The Etymologies_" in 2002; and it failed for three reasons:

1) The data counted as evidence in the formulation of the "standard
view" are drawn not just from Sindarin proper, but also, and
overwhelmingly, from Noldorin of _The Etymologies_. This was done
despite the clear knowledge that Noldorin and Sindarin are not
identical in all details of phonology, morphology, or semantics,
despite the clear knowledge that Tolkien (by his own account)
ceaselessly altered his descriptions and conceptions of his
languages, and despite the clear knowledge that Noldorin of _The
Etymologies_ preceded Sindarin in Tolkien's conceptual development by
at least 15 years. And so it was already known that the "standard
view" did not accurately describe either Sindarin or Noldorin, as
they were then evidenced, but rather described an artificial amalgam
of the two languages.

2) The data counted as evidence in the formulation of the "standard
view" also included purely hypothetical forms and formations that
were (and still are) actually nowhere attested. These supposed past-
tense forms are derived from past participles, on the assumption that
past participles are formed from "the" past-tense stem: e.g., from S.
_tirnen_ is derived the hypothetical form *_tirn_ (this was and is
the sole basis of formation II of the "standard view" above, the
"regular" past tense of basic verbs whose stems end with a nasal or
sonant: e.g. l, m, n, r.) But it was not then, nor yet, actually
demonstrated that past participles actually are formed from the past-
tense stem for all verb classes. And so it was already known that the
"standard view" did not accurately describe either Noldorin or
Sindarin as they were then evidenced (nor as now evidenced), since it
prescribed a formation not actually attested in either language.

3) Not all of the data either for Sindarin _or_ for Noldorin of _The
Etymologies_ that were then available were included; rather, certain
forms were discounted as evidence in the formulation of the "standard
view":

- One Noldorin past-tense form, _mudas_ *'laboured, toiled' (stem
*_muda-_ < *_môtâ- < MÔ-), which is given in _The Etymologies_ as
published in 1987, was excluded.

- One of the (only) four past-tense forms then actually attested for
Sindarin proper, _agor_ 'made, did' (stem _car_- < KAR-), which was
published in the essay "Quendi and Eldar" in 1994 (XI:415), was
excluded.

And so it was already known that the "standard view" did not
accurately describe either Sindarin or Noldorin as they were then
evidenced, since it excluded certain formations that actually were
evidenced for those languages.

It is important to understand just why two forms that exemplified
what in fact proved to be significant formations in Noldorin and
Sindarin, respectively, were excluded from the formulation of the
"standard view". In both cases, the chief explanation given was that
the form is "odd" (and in the case of _mudas_ as a mistake by J.R.R.
or Christopher Tolkien, and as in any event an impossible form
because it would clash with nouns in _-s_ < *_-sse_), since it didn't
accord with any other attested formation. Now, this argument is
ultimately statistical, and relies on statistical significance for
validity. A formation attested in only one form among hundreds or
even among dozens of other verbs might justifiably count as "odd".
But when a formation is attested in one of only about a dozen forms
(as _mudas_ was among derived verbs before the "A&C" was published),
or worse, in one of only _three_ forms (as _agor_ was among past
tenses of basic verbs in Sindarin, proper, when the "standard view"
was formulated; and one of only four past tense verbs of any
structure), it is surely dubious _at best_ to draw any statistical
inference, given the tiny sample space (a point that Thorsten Renk
made long ago).

Furthermore, the dismissal of _agor_ as "odd" is readily shown to
have been completely unjustified _at any time_, since Tolkien cited
it in "Quendi and Eldar" specifically as an example of _an entire
formation class_, and one which moreover he called the _usual_ past-
tense formation of basic verbs in Sindarin, characterized by "the
augment, or reduplicated base-vowel, and the long stem-vowel", i.e.,
_agor_ < *_a-kâr-_ < KAR-. Given this statement, and given the
invented nature of Sindarin, it was already known in 1994 that _agor_
stood for what must have been a large number of forms in this augment
+ long stem-vowel class in Sindarin proper. Had Tolkien's statement
simply been accepted at face value, this important formation class
would have been part of the "standard view" from long ago.

Unfortunately, still in 2004 (and beyond) _agor_, and thus this
formation class, was being discounted from the "standard view" by its
chief proponents, justified with an appeal to statistics. David Salo,
for example, in _A Gateway to Sindarin_, writes (p. 118) that:

"This formation was said to be 'usual in Sindarin "strong" or primary
verbs" ..., but in fact examples are much rarer than those of the
nasal past. One might expect such formations as *_udul_ 'he/she/it
came', *_idir_ 'he/she/it watched', *_egin_ 'he/she/it saw', etc.,
but these are not in fact found".

We see here, still in 2004, the failure to accept Tolkien's statement
about his own language at face value, and the unjustified appeal to
statistics that wrongly counts _agor_ as just one isolated form
instead of as an exemplar of an entire formation class -- both of
which errors were entirely avoidable. (Moreover, while it is true
that *_udul_, *_idir_, and *_egin_ are unattested, neither are the
forms prescribed by the "standard view", including by _Gateway_
itself -- sc., *_toll_, *_tirn_, *_cen(n)_ -- "in fact found" either,
though David gives both "_toll_" and "_narn_" in _Gateway_ without
any indication that they are in fact entirely unattested. Again, we
see an entirely avoidable, and frankly unjustified, inconsistency of
method and reasoning.)

In a similar vein, Helge Fauskanger writes (in his article
"Reconstructing the Sindarin Verb System",
<http://www.uib.no/people/hnohf/sverb-rec.htm>)
that: "Agor as the past tense of car- is of course a rather surprising
form. ...this way of forming preterites would seem to contradict
other sources" (But those "other sources" are, in fact, just one:
_The Etymologies_, and so this Sindarin formation only "contradicts"
Noldorin evidence, not Sindarin evidence, and so is no contradiction
at all!) Helge then writes: "Where would this leave the [Sindarin]
past passive participles that are apparently formed by adding -en
to the past tense? Does not [t]irnen as the word for "watched,
guarded" ... presuppose *tirn as the past tense of tir-?".

Now, _tirnen_ does _not_ in fact "presuppose *tirn as the past tense
of tir-", since this presupposition itself derives from an unproven
assumption that the past participle is always formed from "the" past
tense stem of the corresponding verb, an assumption that has yet to
be proven by any actually attested past tense forms of verbs of this
class. There is a basic rule of scholarly and scientific reasoning
that states that if evidence contradicts premises, it is the premises
that must be altered or discarded, _not the evidence_. In other
words, one does not get to exclude evidence merely because it
violates ones assumptions. Again, this was an entirely avoidable error.

-----

So, what can we learn from all this? As it happens, nothing much that
wasn't already known, and said, before, since it is mostly just good,
basic scholarly practice:

o Lesson 1: Keep your datasets coherent, consistent, and separate.

The "standard view" of the Sindarin past tense failed because it
included Noldorin data as Sindarin data, and because one (actually)
Sindarin form (of only four then attested) was discounted as "odd"
because it was inconsistent with the Noldorin data. But in fact,
Noldorin is Noldorin, and Sindarin is Sindarin: their data are
separated chronologically by at least 15 years, and are inconsistent
phonologically, morphologically, and semantically. Thus the data of
the former is not the data of the latter. Therefore, discrepancies in
the data between the two languages are not "contradictions" (as they
ought not be _assumed_ to be consistent in the first place) and
cannot be used as justification for excluding data from either: they
are (simply) differences between two distinct linguistic systems.

o Lesson 2: Don't count assumptions as facts against data.

The "standard view" of the Sindarin past tense failed because it
assumed that a) the past participle is formed from the past-tense
stem, and that b) there is only one "correct" past-tense stem for any
given verb: e.g., that the past tense of _tir-_ must be *_tirn_ (and
only *_tirn_) because of the attested past participle _tirnen_.
Since _agor_ did not conform to the "standard view", which prescribes
that the past tense of _car-_ is *_carn_, it was further discounted
as an "odd" form.

o Corollary: When data contradicts an assumption, the assumption, not
the data, must be discounted.

The form _agor_ proves that *_carn_ is not the (one and only)
"correct" past-tense form of _car-_, contrary to the "standard view";
and since no such formation as *_carn_, *_tirn_, etc. is actually
attested, the "standard view" should have been modified to account
for the data; instead, the data was discounted because it did not
conform to the "standard view". This is the opposite of the scholarly
method.

o Lesson 3: Statistical arguments are valid only when statistical
significance can be established.

The "standard view" of the Sindarin past tense failed because it
assumed that the fact that a formation is attested in only one form
out of a total corpus of just a handful of forms is significant. This
was an unjustified assumption.

There is one additional lesson, specific to Tolkienian linguistics;
indeed, to the study of any language that is solely the invention of
one man:

o Lesson 4: Tolkienian linguistics is largely a _metalinguistics_.

The "standard view" failed because it did not take Tolkien's own
statements about his own languages at face value, and so failed to
accept that _agor_ is not an isolated form, but rather an exemplar of
an entire formation class. This was because those formulating the
"standard view" believed that Tolkienian linguistics neither is nor
should be conducted differently from the linguistics of "real"
languages.

In the linguistics of "real" languages, the linguist collects all the
forms he can find, compares them with each other to find patterns of
correspondence, organizes them into classes according to these
perceived patterns of phonological, morphological, and semantic
correspondence and development, and then writes descriptions of these
classes of patterns, correspondences, and developments that account
for all the collected forms. The problem with trying to apply this
method to Tolkien's languages, however, is that Tolkien did not
create his languages by simply writing out texts in his languages, or
even by simply creating dictionaries: rather, he created his
languages (overwhelmingly) by providing _linguistic descriptions of
his languages_. That is, he created his languages by writing what in
the case of "real" languages would be the _end result_ of linguistic
study, _not_ by providing the masses of "raw data" that were the
_input_ to that linguistic study. In other words, Tolkien's writings
about his languages are designed to image the _results_ of the work
of numerous linguists that, within the fiction, _have already done_
the linguistic collection, classification, and description. In other
words still, Tolkien's languages exist not (just, or even primarily)
as masses of raw language data, but rather as _descriptions_ of the
phonological, morphological, and semantic classes and features of his
languages, most of which are only _exemplified_ by a handful of
forms: we are _not_ given the mass of data that within the fiction
would have been used to establish these descriptions.

Because of this, we in fact can know many things about Tolkien's
languages that cannot be established based solely on an inspection
and count of the forms he left behind, in isolation from Tolkien's
linguistic descriptions. For example, we know -- and have known since
1994, despite its absence from the "standard view" -- that the
_usual_ past tense of basic verbs in Sindarin proper is formed by the
augment with lengthening of the _sundóma_, and that this large
formation class is _exemplified_ but not exhaustively _evidenced_ by
Tolkien with the form _agor_. And we knew this because Tolkien
provided a linguistic statement describing this formation _class_,
_not_ because of the number of forms attested from this class.

The ongoing publication of Tolkien's linguistic descriptions thus
makes, and will continue to make, this source of information about
Tolkien's languages ever more important and preponderant, while
diminishing the reliance of our understanding on the collection and
linguistic examination of "raw data". The chief task of _Tolkienian_
linguistics, proper, will increasingly become a sort of
_metalinguistics_: that is, a study of Tolkien's _linguistic
descriptions_ and their implications, rather than of the exemplifying
(_not_ exhaustive) data embedded in those descriptions.

-----

I have detailed all this at such length because I believe that there
are in fact very important lessons to be learned from "not[ing] all
the places where past analysts got things wrong", and determining
which of those errors were not in fact "inevitable" and
"irremediable", but instead resulted from avoidable failures of
methodology. My convictions are that:

1) The methodological failures I've identified and given specific
examples of above are detectable throughout what has for some years
now been regarded as the chief "standard" presentations of "Quenya"
and (most especially) of "Sindarin";

2) These methodological failures were all along eminently avoidable
simply by adhering to the standards of scholarly practice and
reasoning, and by recognizing and acknowledging the true nature of
Tolkien's languages, of his creation of those languages, and of the
(increasingly) "metalinguistic" nature of Tolkienian linguistics; and

3) The sooner these methodological failures are recognized and
abandonded in favor of sound, scholarly methodologies, the better the
subsequent study and understanding of Tolkien's languages, and of
Tolkienian linguistics, will be.

Carl

In my previous post to this list
(<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/1019>)
I mentioned several times the assumption, underlying what has
previously been widely considered the "standard view" of the Sindarin
verb, that the Sindarin past participle was formed from the past-
tense stem of the verb: e.g., that the attested Sindarin past
participle _tirnen_ is to be analyzed as past-tense stem *_tirn-_ +
_-en_, from which the past-tense verb *_tirn_, though nowhere
actually attested, could then be assumed. David Salo, in _A Gateway
to Sindarin_ (p.120), expresses this assumption succinctly with the
statement:

"The past passive participle was formed by suffixing the ending _-en_
(OS _-ena_) to the past stem."

I also noted how this assumption had provided the (sole) basis for
the formation rule ('II') of the "standard" view that holds that the
"regular" past tense of some basic verbs -- sc., those whose stems
end with a nasal or sonant (e.g. l, m, n, r) -- is formed by the
addition of a suffix _-n_ to the verb stem (with subsequent
phonological development), and that this assumption and "rule" led to
such supposed past-tense verbs as *_toll_ and *_narn_ being routinely
cited as if they were attested.

But it should be noted that this was not the only possible
explanation of such participial forms as _tirnen_. Another
explanation, equally plausible phonologically, is that such
participles are formed on the bare verb stem (e.g. _tir-_) with the
addition of an ending *_-nen_. Both explanations would yield the same
participial forms phonologically, but this latter explanation avoids
the assumption of the former that the past participle is formed on
"the past stem". However, since the past participle involves past
time, it was not unreasonable to think its formation might indeed
involve a past tense stem (it was only unreasonable to treat that
assumption as fact).

However, new information in _Parma Eldalamberon_ 17 (p. 131) shows
that Tolkien had rather the latter explanation in mind (at least at
the time in Dec. 1962 when he wrote this figure):

"gp. _-n-ina_. _mantinâ_ > _manthen_, _mannen_. old aorist without
_n_. _matina_ > _maden_."

(There is a breve above the _i_ of _-n-ina_, and I represent a macron
with a circumflex in _mantinâ_.)

Now, _mannen_ seems to be a past participle of the familiar form (for
_mat-_ 'eat'). If so (and it seems clearly to be so), we see from
this figure that it is _not_ formed on a past-tense stem, but rather
from the basic stem, _mat-_. We further see from the figure "_-n-
ina_" that the past participle _mannen_ arose from 1) suffixion of
the nasal _-n-_ plus 2) the addition of an original suffix _-ina_. It
is quite possible that the suffixion of _-n-_ here was influenced by
the presence of an infixed nasal in certain past-tense formations in
Sindarin (e.g. _echant_ < _et-ka-n-t-_; though as we have long known,
nasal infixion is not the usual past-tense formation for basic verbs,
like _mat-_, _tir-_, etc.). But since it is made clear here that the
nasal seen in the past participle is due to the participial ending,
not to the form of the stem, it becomes clear that the past
participle in fact is not formed from the past tense stem.

So while it is true that the past-tense stem of certain verb classes,
sc. those that do form a past-tense stem with nasal infixion, may
indeed happen to coincide in form with the initial element of the
past participle, it is not the case that this initial element must
always have the same form as the (or any) past-tense stem of the
verb. And so Sindarin *_tirnen_, while certainly implying the basic
stem _tir-_, does not in fact imply a past tense verb *_tirn_.

Carl

P.S. The abbreviation "gp." that Tolkien places at the start of this
figure is of unclear significance. "p" is probably for "participle";
might "g" be for "general", referring to the original aorist basis of
the formation? Cf. Tolkien's reference to "the general (aorist)
'infinitive' formed by added _-i_" (VT41:17), and to "advice in
general 'aorist' terms" (VT42:34). If this is the case, it may even
be that the "past participle" in Sindarin has (or originally had) no
formal or felt association with past time at all, but instead denoted
a general state. In this connection, note that the Quenya
participial, i.e., verbal adjective, ending _-ina_, clearly cognate
with the ending *_-ina_ seen both in _-n-ina_ and in the "old aorist"
participial form _matina_ here, is likewise said to be
"aorist" (PE17:68) -- but is nonetheless seen in forms whose English
gloss uses a past participle, e.g. _hastaina_ 'marred' < *_hasta-_
'mar' (X:254).

It would seem to me that the most sensible interpretation of Appendix F on Black
Speech/Orkish is that the suffix _-hai_ is a group-plural, analagous to S.
_-hoth_: e.g. _Uruk-hai_ =  'the host of the (soldier-)Orcs.'

But some writers have suggested that it has some other signification; this
position is usually
advanced in connection with the idea that "_Uruk-hai_" is applicable solely to
Saruman's hybrids, not to Uruks as a whole.  By analogy with _Olog-hai_, I
suppose, it could be read as some sort of intensifier i.e. 'super-Orcs,
super-Trolls.'

To anyone's knowledge, did JRRT have anything more to say on this than appears
in App F and its drafts?

-- William Hicklin

[In the newly-published _Parma Eldalamberon_ 17, containing Tolkien's own notes
on "Words, Phrases & Passages in _The Lord of the Rings_", we find (p. 12)
Tolkien's gloss: "_Uruk-hai_ 'Orc-folk'". This shows that (at least at the time
Tolkien made this gloss) _-hai_ was indeed a collective term meaning 'folk', not
an intensifier. CFH]

In issue #49 of _Vinyar Tengwar_, p. 40, there are some observations on
DTS 72[1] "with particular focus on scribal errors and on deviations from
the Quenya mode of c. 1967 exemplified by Tolkien's _tengwar_ versions
of Galadriel's Lament in _The Road Goes Ever On_" (the "'classical'"
mode as Tolkien calls it in DTS 58). It seems to me, however, that we
get a more fitting explanation of that sample if we do not consider it
an instance of the 'classical' mode, but an instance of the "general
use" of the tengwar (as it is called in DTS 58) that uses the Westron
témar and tyeller assignations described in Appendix E of the Lord of
the Rings. DTS 72 shows two characteristic features that suggest this
interpretation:

[[1] I.e., the _tengwar_ inscription reading "_nai elen siluva parma-
restalyanna meldonya_"; for the DTS index, see
<http://www.forodrim.org/daeron/mdtci.html> -- CFH]

* The use of the tengwa ampa for "v" is characteristic of the general
use, while in the 'classical' mode, that tengwa represents "mp";

* the use of the tengwa anna for "y" is characteristic of the general
use, while in the 'classical' mode, that tengwa seems to have no sound
value of its own but is only used in combination with the palatalizing
double dots below, thus functioning as a kind of carrier.

There are some more features this sample shares with other general use
quenya samples: The use of the virama dot below (which is only found
in the non-classical texts of DTS 42 and 51); and the use of two
separate ómatehtar for the diphthong, also found in the general use
text of DTS 59 (in both instances in the word "nai"), whereas the
classical modes of DTS 20, 50 and 74 write the first vowel of a
diphthong with an ómatehta that is put on a tengwa representing the
second vowel.

Two features that have been noticed as differences from the
"classical" mode do not need to be considered as such:

* The representation of the long "nn" with a bar above númen is a
feature that we observe in the classical mode of DTS 74 (in one
instance), whereas the classical mode of DTS 20 uses a bar below (also
only in one instance), so we cannot say whether this is a feature of
the classical mode or not.

* Consonant + "y" combinations are represented with a separate
y-letter, whereas the classical mode samples of DTS 20, 55 and 74 use
a y-tehta below. However, DTS 73 also used separate y-letters. It is
not clear to me, though, whether DTS 73 should be considered classical
mode or not. It shares some typical features of the classical mode,
the use of vala for "v" and vilya for "w", though other features are
different from the classical mode, the use of yanta for "y" and the
use of vilya in the diphthong "au". If we really count DTS 73 among
the classical mode samples, then the use of a separate y-letter is
another feature where we cannot say whether it is typical for
classical modes.

---
grüess
j. 'mach' wust


[I'm approving this because I think the comparative discussion is of interest.
But I don't think Arden meant in any way to imply that he considered this
inscription to be "an instance of the 'classical' mode"; rather, I expect he
chose the _tengwar_ mode used by Tolkien for "Galadriel's Lament" as the basis
of comparison simply because it is the most readily available and most
substantial exemplar from about the same time. --CFH]

The use of _-hai_ as a group-plural is further evidenced, and the hypothesis
that "'_Uruk-hai_' is applicable only to Saruman's hybrids contradicted, by the
occurrence of "Uruk-hai" in a non-Isengarder context in LR:925: "First they say
it's a great Elf in bright armour, then it's a sort of small dwarf-man, then it
must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it's all the lot together" --
referring to the orc soldier's superiors' confused view of the killing of the
Orcs and the escape of the prisoner at Cirith Ungol -- a view that must derive
from the only surviving witness they knew of, Shagrat, for whom the "pack" would
refer to Gorbag's company.

(Note that in the old Ballantine three-volume paperback edition "Urukhai" is not
hyphenated; there's a hyphen in the 2004 edition, but the term also happens to
fall at a line break.)

*********************************************
*  Jerome Colburn   (;-{=''',,,=            *
*  jscolburn@...                  *
*  http://ccitcol.pbwiki.com                *
*********************************************

PE17 is a great issue with a large bunch of new words and stems. Here
are two small issues I just noted while browsing the Sindarin part of
the index in PE17:

_alaf_ 'elm' (PE17:153, root ALAB-) is missing from the Sindarin
index. (It should have appeared on p. 209 - Q. _albe_ from the same
entry is correctly listed in the index p. 194).

_serke_ 'blood' on p. 217 is a typo for _sereg_ (PE17:184, root
SEREK-). Of course, _serke_ is the Quenya form (correctly listed in
the index p. 205).

By the way, out of pure curiosity, why aren't these indexes
cross-referenced with the actual pages in that edition of PE? Such
internal cross-concordances would have been useful, in my opinion, for
checking the index entries and the texts back and forth. This could
maybe have been done more or less automatically during the production
of the indexes (setting target references on stems etc. - most modern
word processing software have such features), but if this is no longer
feasible now, would you be interested in someone doing it? (More
precisely, this is something I will do for my own projects and
interests, but you might have preferences or comments on how this
should be done and potentially presented).

Thanks for the very good (and no doubt pretty hard) job on that nice
edition.

Didier.

[Thanks for the two corrigenda! As for your questions regarding the
cross-references in the indexes, these can only be properly addressed
by Christopher Gilson. -- PHW]

In PE16:83 the editors have some trouble interpreting the Oilima
Markirya line _valka wilwarindon_ (OM2a) or _valkane wilwarindon_
(OM2) 'vague as a butterfly', since Q. _valka_ 'cruel, bitter' <
VL.KL. (PE12:101) and later Q. _nwalka_ 'cruel'< NGWAL- (V:377) don't
seem very fitting at the first glance.

However, in PE17 we find (p. 154):

GWAL- 'be stirred, excited, &c.', Q. _walya_ 'be excited (moved)',
_walta_ 'to excite, rouse, stir up', _walda_ 'excited, wild', _walme_
'excitement' and at last untranslated _walka_

This last form is fairly exceptional, since _-ka_ is not a very common
Quenya suffix and usually appears as an adjectival ending after
diphthongs: _tiuka_ 'thick, fat' < TIW- (V:394), _faika_
'contemptible, mean' < SPAY- (V:387), _fauka_ 'open-mouthed, thirsty,
parched' < PHAU- (V:381), _lauka 'warm' < LAW- (V:368).
In Sindarin the derivatives of GWAL died out due to coalescence with
BAL 'have power' except for _balch_ 'fierce, ferocious', cognate of
_walka_. Noldorin derives _balch_ 'cruel' from NGWAL- (V:377).

'Excited, stirring butterfly' indeed suits the simile of a 'rapid and
erratic motion of a butterfly that prevents it being distinctly
perceived' (wherefore 'vague'). So maybe this root was already
conceived at the time of OM2 (probably in a different incarnation,
like *WAL or *WL.K) or at least the idea that 'fierceness, cruelty'
derives from 'stirring, excitement', perhaps even by a blend with BAL-
or Q. _val-_.


Roman Rausch

Dear colleagues,

First, I want to congratulate and thank Christopher Gilson for his
enormous task editing "Words, Phrases and Passages" in _Parma_ 17. It
has been a surprise to learn that Tolkien had written so many detailed
explanations of nearly every item in his invented languages occurring in
_The Lord of the Rings_, and it is a pleasure to have all those notes
gathered in one book. It is really a gift not only for _lambengolmor_,
but also for those readers who just find the names, phrases and poems in
LR appealing and intriguing, and are willing to know something more
about them.

This being said, I must confess that it will take a lot of time for me
to read and digest it through, but in a quick overview, I think to have
found an erratum on p. 35, where D[warvish] _Khazad-dűm_ is matched to
Older S[indarin] _Domhabar_. I would expect _Dornhabar_ instead, from S.
_Dorn_, pl. _Dyrn_ 'dwarf' (PE17:181, s.v. POL, also cp. _Dornhoth_ 'The
Thrawn Folk' in XI:388), just like in XI:209 we read _Nornhabar_
connected to _Norn-folk_, _Nornwaith_ and (pl.) _Nyrn_.

Helios

[I've had a look at my (second-generation) photocopy, and to my eyes it is
certainly possible for me to read the form as _Dornhabar_. Furthermore, this
happens to be a case where Tolkien has written a form in nib pen over an earlier
form in ballpoint, and I can see that this earlier form began with capital "N",
and so probably read _Nornhabar_ as at XI:209, further supporting the reading
_Dornhabar_. However, I would ask Christopher Gilson to have another look at
this on his first-generation photocopy for confirmation. CFH]

I've accumulated a fair backlog of reported errata, which I'm consolidating
here into a single post. My thanks to all who have spotted these
errors and reported them.

This is a good time to remind people of the E.L.F. Errata web-page,
which contains a list of all confirmed errata reported to me for both
_VT_ and _Parma_, compiled and maintained by Per Lindberg:
<http://www.elvish.org/errata/>.

Please continue to report errata to me and Per at: errata@....

Carl

=======================

Diego Seguí notes the following:

In VT36:25, second paragraph, it is speculated that "primitive _3o_
could account for the ending..."; shouldn't this read _3ô_ [macron]
instead? Two lines below the hypothetical form which includes it is
*_assa-t-3ô_.

[For the greatest clarity, yes, it would have been best to cite the
putative ending as _-3ô_ (with macron); though at some point this
would have been reduced to _-3o_ by the regular shortening of
original final long vowels. CFH]

In VT49:6-7 and 17-18 there must be something wrong with _lasir_ vs.
_lasír_: on pages 17-18 it says that AS1 had _lasi_, then _la lasir_
[short] was added above, and then _la_ and _lasi_ were struck out,
"leaving just _lasir_ (with long _í_)" (!) On the other hand, page 7
says that in AS3 _lasír_ [long] >> _űsir_, but according to page 18
this version "had _lasir_ [short] as first written, emended to _űsir_".

[The parenthetical comment "(with long _í_)" in the note on AS1 (p.
18) is indeed an error; omit the comment. In AS3, the form as first
written is very clearly _lasír_, and the note on p. 7 is correct; the
note on p. 18 is in error, and should read "had _lasír_ as first
written" etc. CFH]

In VT49:19 _Tintalle_ should be _Tintallë_ (with diaeresis), since it
is the text of LR that is being quoted.

[Correct. Read _Tintallë_. CFH]

In VT49:23 is _numenna_ the correct reading, instead of _númenna_?
There is no comment on this short _u_ in _númen_ 'west', but the only
other occurrences in related words that I can find are _numenda_ and
_numenda-_ in PE12:68 (apart from _Numenorean_ in early editions of LR).

[The reading _numenna_ is correct. When writing hastily -- as he
definitely was in this glossary -- Tolkien did not always supply
diacritics. CFH]

In VT49:35 the base WA-N- from Etym. is quoted with a short A,
whereas according to VT46:21 the correct reading is WÂ-N- [macron]
(besides, the parenthesis that follows says "probably <
WÂ").

[Correct. Read WÂ-N- (with macron) and add citation of VT46:21. CFH]

In VT49:45 the root √_ber-_ appears with a hyphen in Tolkien's quote,
but as √_ber_ in the next line, without the hyphen; read √_ber-_?

[Tolkien cites it both ways, but for editorial consistency I ought
indeed to have cited it as √_ber-_. CFH]

In VT49:48 _lumissen_ should be _lúmissen_, as the word appears on
the previous page.

[Correct. Read _lúmissen_. CFH]

In VT49:48 "endings (_kse_, _kser_, _kset_)" should use hyphens
"endings (_-kse_, _-kser_, _-kset_"), as these appear in the table
below (or have the hyphens been added editorially in the table?)

[The hyphens were indeed supplied editorially, as the forms,
beginning with _ks_, cannot be anything else in Quenya (and since,
again when writing hastily as here, Tolkien was not himself
consistent in providing such hyphens). I should note here that in my
editorial notes and commentary I will often cite in unmodified form
such forms as I have tidied editorially in their presentation of
Tolkien's text, and without comment, when the change is so minor as
this. CFH]

Similarly, In VT49:49 "1 pl. incl. gen. _lmo_" should read "1 pl.
incl. gen. _-lmo_" with a hyphen (this is not quoting the table, but
decomposing _omentielmo_, and the argument continues "implies poss. _-
lma_", etc.)

[Correct. Read _-lmo_. CFH]

In VT49:52, note 1, _tengwea_ should be _tengwëa_, as the form
appears on pages 54-5 (note _-wëa_ on p. 48).

[Correct. Read _tengwëa_. CFH]

=======================

Merlin DeTardo notes the following:

PE17:6 first full paragraph, seventh line of that paragraph: "so that
Tolkien is translated ancalima 'brightest, very bright'".

[Read "so that Tolkien translated". CFH]

PE17: 8, fourth full paragraph, first line of that paragraph: "the
content of a dozen loose sheets place together".

[Read "placed together". CFH]

=======================

Fredrik Ström notes the following:

PE17:10 For "for some the terminology for which Tolkien assumes a
knowledge", read "for some of the terminology for which
Tolkien assumes a knowledge"

PE17:10 For "interested in lingistics" read "interested in linguistics"

PE17:15 The editor writes that in _RC_ 'the entry for _Sarn Ford_
gives the Sindarin form as
_Sarn-thrad_ (p. 775)'. It should be noted that an erratum for this
typo has been published at
<http://mysite.verizon.net/wghammond/addenda/readers.html>
(entry for page 775).

PE17:96 s.v. _Araw_, the reference to 'a note on _Earendil_' should
read 'see I 246' (not I 380).

PE17:165 Since the list of "Eldarin Roots and Stems" is intended to
be complete with cross-reference entries to all of the roots cited,
the following item should be added to the list: (note: <TH> should
be spelled with a capital thorn):

MI<TH>- [See I 394, s.v. _sinda_]

PE17:220 The following item should be added to the "List of
Abbreviations":

NT = "Notes and Translations" (in _The Road Goes Ever On_)

=======================

And finally, two of my own:

In VT49:40 I cite the "inscription Tolkien made for his erstwhile
student Elaine Griffiths (1909-1996), in her copy of the first
edition of _The Lord of the Rings_, which reads: '_Elainen tárin
Periondion ar meldenya anyáran_'".

That should of course read _Periandion_.

In PE17:126 we read: "_-nt_, Sindarin past of transitive verb. _-ir_
intransitive. _agarfast_, he talked. _agarfant beth_, he spoke
words." Editor Christopher Gilson further notes that: "A letter,
probably an _s_, was added in pencil above the ending _-ir_."

I've looked at my (second-generation) photocopy of this manuscript
and, to my eyes, it is possible to read this "_-ir_" as a very poorly
formed _-st_, in which the _s_ is a barely curvy, nearly vertical
stroke, and the top of the _t_ is formed just above and just to the
right of this _s_, curving right and down, with the cross of the
"_t_" looping out in one continuous stroke (very like the branch of
an _r_, it must be noted). If so, then the _s_ that Tolkien wrote
above this was a clarification to himself of his own handwriting
(something he occasionally had to do!). Given this, and given the
occurrence of _st_ in the form cited immediately afterwards as an
example of this intransitive ending, the possibility of reading this
as _-st_ should be noted.

However, it must also be noted that Christopher Gilson, who gives the
reading from his _first_-generation photocopy, maintains that the
correct reading is indeed _-ir_.

Carl

I have written a paper on Tolkien's English Runes in _The Hobbit_.

See http://www.forodrim.org/daeron/md_teng_primers.html

I hope that it will be of interest for young Hobbit readers and
writing systems experts alike. It should also be sufficient as a
writing guide.

This study is a by-product of the new Swedish translation by Erik
Andersson of _The Hobbit_ titled _Hobbiten_. Yours Truly had the
honour of re-transcribing the runes on the map and the foreword from
the translated Swedish text. A writing mode for Swedish had to be
determined (with ĹÄÖ and some other peculiarities), so a detailed
study was made of Tolkien's original writing mode, with more than a
little help from the other members of the Mellonath Daeron.

There is also another paper describing the Swedish writing mode used
in _Hobbiten_. It's in Swedish since it is aimed mainly at the
Swedish readers, but should be understandable by others too.

Hope this is of interest.

Suilaid o Mellonath Daeron,
Gildir, Per Lindberg

In Noldorin and Sindarin, etymological unvoiced stops generally appear to
have been vocalised in implosive positions before other stops or s, forming
diphthongs with the preceding vowel -- probably via an intermediary spirantal
stage, as general phonetics and the parallel of primary world languages suggest.

Quenya cognates generally preserve a consonant cluster, though sometimes
modified. The process is on the whole better attested in Noldorin than in
Sindarin. Examples (¤ = Tolkien's reconstruction, * = other reconstruction) :

¤_ektele_ "spring, issue of water, well" > N / S _eithel_, Q _ehtele_
(V:363, S:358, 360, TC:187)
¤_okta_ "war" > N _auth, Q _ohta_ (V:365, 379)
*_leptâ-_ "pick with the fingers" > S _leutha-_, Q _lepta-_ (VT47:10) (the
diphthong eu is problematic)
*_taksę_ "nail" > N _taes_, Q _takse_ (V:389, 390)
*_apsâ_ "cooked food, meat" > N _aes_, Q _apsa_ (V:349)

It also applies to g before liquids and nasals -- probably it was first
lenited to 3 (=spirant g) and then vocalised.

¤_magla_ "stain" > N _mael_ (V:386)
¤_magrâ_ "useful, fit, good"> N _maer_, Q _mára_ (V:371)
¤_magnâ_ "skilled" > N _maen_ (V:371)
¤_sagmâ_ "poison" > N _saew_, Q _sangwa_ (V:385)

This is a fairly common change in several primary world languages :

i. English is a case with the evolution of the former velar fricative spelt
gh in _eight_, _daughter_

ii. It is also found in (Western) Romance, e.g. Latin _lactem_, _laxare_ >
French _lait_ "milk", _laisser_ "leave, let"

iii. More interestingly for Sindarin, it is well attested in Brythonic
language, among them Welsh. The rules are the following (PIE =
Proto-Indo-European, CC = Common Celtic) :

PIE kt, pt > CC cht preserved in Gaelic, vocalised in Brythonic languages.
E. g. *kaptos > Irish _cacht_ "servant", Welsh _caeth_ "slave, captive" --
compare Latin _captus_ "taken"

PIE ks, ps > CC chs preserved in Gaulish, > s in Gaelic, > ch in Brythonic.
E. g. *oupselos > Gaulish _uxello-_ (Latinised spelling), Irish _uasal_, W
_uchel_, all meaning "high" -- compare Greek _hypsęlos_

(Adapted from : Henry Lewis & Holger Pedersen, _A Concise Comparative Celtic
Grammar_, 3rd edition, Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1974)

Latin ks (written x of course) however became a secondary xs which developed
differently, with x vocalised and s remaining : Latin _crux_ > Welsh _croes_
"cross", Latin _Saxô_ > Welsh _Sais_ "English"

This has been known for long. What I would like to point out in this message
is as series of regular differences between Noldorin and Sindarin in the
development of these clusters, which imply that Tolkien had partly revised his
ideas on the historical phonology of these two stages of his Welsh-sounding
Elvish language.
_____________________________________________________________________

1) okt, ukt > auth, uth in N but oeth, uith in S
N and S agree that vocalisation after _e_ gives _ei_ (>_ai_ in final
syllables in S) and after _a_ gives _ae_.

¤_ektele_ "spring, issue of water, well" > N / S _eithel_, Q _ehtele_
(V:363, S:358, 360, TC:187)
¤_wegtę_ > N _gweith_ "manhood, manpower, troop of able-bodied men, host,
regiment" / S _gwaith_ "people" (S:359, V:398, VT46:21)
¤_magrâ_ "useful, fit, good"> N _maer_, Q _mára_ (V:371)
S _úthaes_ "inducement to do wrong" dissimilated from _úthaeth_ compare Q
_úsahtie_ (VT44:30)

After _o_ the vocalisation gives _au_ in N

*_loksę_ "hair" > N _lhaws_, Q _lokse_ (V:370)
¤_okta_ "war" > N _auth_, Q _ohta_ (V:365, 379)

But the vocalisation gives oe in the only Sindarin example I can remember
of

¤_logna_ "soaking wet, swamped" > S _loen_ (VT42:10)

After _u_, the vocalisation is generally _ű_ or _u_ in Noldorin.

¤_lugni_ "blue" > N lhűn, Q lúne (V:370)
*_luktâ-_ "enchant" > N lhűtha-, Q luhta- (V:370 corrected in VT45:29)
¤_suglu_ "goblet" > N sűl, Q súlo (V:388)
*_suktu_ or *_suktô_ "draught" > N sűth, Q suhto (V:388)
ON _tulugme_ "support, prop" > N tulu (V:395)

Sometimes it is in _au,_ probably because here _u_ was opened to _o_ by
metaphony before the stop was vocalised.

*_suktâ-_ "drain" > N _sautha-_ (V:388)
¤_tupsę_ "thatch" > N _taus_, Q _tupse_ (V:395)

(Why this happened in *_suktâ-_ and not in *_luktâ-_ is not clear :
different sequences of changes ? inconsistency from Tolkien ?)

However _ui_ appears at least in the N _iuitho_ "?to enjoy [possibly a
misreading for "to employ"]" (V:400, VT46:23) from the root YUK; the same
evolution is seen in the related word _iuith_ "use". Perhaps the initial i
influenced
the vocalisation; alternatively Tolkien might have begun to introduce the
later Sindarin system. For in Sindarin, ui is seen:

*_gruktâ-_ "terrify" > S gruitha- (XI:415)
*_luktiâ-_ "quench" > S_ #luithia-_ in _uluithiad_ "unquenchable", literally
"without quenching" (IX:62)
*_nuktâ-_ "stunt" > S _nuitha-_, Q _nuhta-_ (XI:413)

It is also significant that Tolkien changed the etymology of _Lúthien_ from
¤_luktiēnē_ "enchantress" (V:370, VT45:29) to a derivative of the root
LOTH
meaning "daughter of flowers" (PE17:161). Was it because the old etymology
would now have given *_Luithien_ ?

____________________________________________________________________

2) ps, ks > diphthong + s in N but f, ch in S

In Noldorin, we see that the stop is vocalised in the clusters ps, ks:

*_apsâ_ "cooked food, meat" > N _aes_, Q _apsa_ (V:349)
*_khelkaraksę_ > N _Helcharaes_, Q _Helkarakse_ (V:362)
*_lapsę "babe" > N _lhaes_, Q _lapse_ (V:367)
*_loksę_ "hair" > N _lhaws_, Q _lokse_ (V:370)
*_taksę_ "nail" > N _taes_, Q _takse_ (V:389, 390)
¤_tupsę_ "thatch" > N _taus_, Q _tupse_ (V:395)

But PE17:134 says about Northern Sindarin :

...tt, pp, kk > t, p, k medially. ch, ţ, f only derived from kh, th, ph and
ks, ts, ps...

As I understand it, it implies that, while the (well-known) tt, pp, kk > ţ,
f, ch were specifically Southern Sindarin (the kind we are most familiar of),
the changes kh, th, ph & ks, ts, ps > ch, ţ, f were GENERAL, found in all
dialects of Sindarin.

We can note that in Noldorin already ts > tth > ţ :

ON _litse_ > ON _litthe_ > N _lith_ "sand" (V :369), in S _lith_ "ash,
dust" (S:361), compare Q _litse_
_etsiri_ > N _ethir_ "mouth of a river, estuary" (V:356), also in S (LR/II
ch. 10, S:364), compare Q _etsir_

We can probably generalize this pattern "unvoiced stop+s > double aspirated
stop > unvoiced fricative" in Sindarin :

ps > pph > f
ks > kkh > ch

The idea was already voiced by David Salo in _A Gateway to Sindarin_ p.
71 : starting from the correspondence of S _carach_ "jaw" (S:429, RC:607) / N
_#caraes_ "jagged hedge of spikes" (V:362) -- to be compared with Q _#caraxe_
from the famous name _Helkarakse_ -- he wrote :

...In a Sindarin dialect of unknown affiliation the sequences ks and ps
became kkh and pph respectively and eventually x [=ch], f. (...) It is possible
that this is the normal Sindarin development and that the forms in which ks
and ps changed to *is > es are actually Noldorin...

He appears to have been right. We can add as new evidence, beside Tolkien's
word, the correspondence Q _axo_ / S _achad_ "neck" (RC:537, PE17:146) from a
root AKAS.

It is noteworthy that Tolkien successively imitated the developments of the
two kinds of ks, inherited and borrowed from Latin, that are found in Welsh.

Yours,
Bertrand Bellet

At 05:49 PM 10/3/2007, BertrandBellet75@... wrote:

>After _u_, the vocalisation is generally _ű_ or _u_ in Noldorin.
>
>¤_lugni_ "blue" > N lhűn, Q lúne (V:370)
>*_luktâ-_ "enchant" > N lhűtha-, Q luhta- (V:370 corrected in VT45:29)
>¤_suglu_ "goblet" > N sűl, Q súlo (V:388)
>*_suktu_ or *_suktô_ "draught" > N sűth, Q suhto (V:388)
>ON _tulugme_ "support, prop" > N tulu (V:395)

[...]

>For in Sindarin, ui is seen:
>
>*_gruktâ-_ "terrify" > S gruitha- (XI:415)
>*_luktiâ-_ "quench" > S_ #luithia-_ in _uluithiad_ "unquenchable", literally
>"without quenching" (IX:62)
>*_nuktâ-_ "stunt" > S _nuitha-_, Q _nuhta-_ (XI:413)

To which can be added S _luin_ "blue", singular in _Mindolluin_ (LR:600),
plural in _Ered Luin_ (LR:map 1). The change to _ui_ left the name of the
river _Lhűn_ (LR:1134, map 1) unexplained; in his last years Tolkien tried
various roots that did not satisfy him, eventually resorting to Khuzdűl
(VT48:24, 26-29).

_luin_ "pale" appears as Doriathrin in V:370 s.v. LUG2-, and in the name
_Draugluin_ as early as the 1925-1931 Lay of Leithian (III:205).

[Also cf. the deleted base LUY- in the A&C, whence Q. _luina_, Dor. _luin_
'pale', the latter also in _Mabluin_ 'pale-hand' (VT45:30). In the early
occurrence of _Draugluin_ Jerome cites above, the meaning of _luin_ must
also be 'pale', for Lúthien's lengthening spell in the early Lay refers to
"the tail of Draugluin the werewolf pale". The phonology of this early _luin_
'pale' was apparently quite different from its later incarnation -- the early
"Noldorin Word-list" in PE 13 includes _lhui_ 'pale' < *_sleiwa_, = Q. _laiwa_,
T. _líva_, Ilk. _slíw_ (p. 149), and also _mablui_ 'pale-handed' (ibid.).
-- PHW]

The _lhűn/luin_ issue was discussed in 1996 on TolkLang beginning at 17.45,
but without the *_ukt_ > _uith_ examples now cited by Bernard being brought
to bear, although they had been published.

-- Jerome Colburn

We are pleased to announce the publication of a new article on
_Tengwestië_, the online journal of the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship:

"Rúmilian Numerals", by Helios De Rosario Martínez

This work examines the five tables of numerals in the Rúmilian
Alphabet as published in _Parma Eldalamberon_ 13 (edited by Arden R.
Smith). The phonemic values of the characters assigned to numerals
are commented on, as well as the type of numeral system that these
tables represent, the observed graphic and phonemic patterns, and the
possible internal groups of numerals in the series from 0 to 12.

The article can be read online at:

http://www.elvish.org/Tengwestie/articles/DeRosarioMartinez/
rumiliannumerals.phtml

and in PDF form at:

http://www.elvish.org/Tengwestie/articles/DeRosarioMartinez/
rumiliannumerals.pdf

We invite your comments on this article here on the Lambengolmor list.


The main _Tengwestië_ site is at:

http://www.elvish.org/Tengwestie/


Carl F. Hostetter
Patrick H. Wynne,
Editors

There is nothing significant that I can add here.  Helios is certainly correct
that the reading at PE 17, p. 35 should be _Dornhabar_.  And what is visible of
the letter in ball-point obscured by the "D" is shaped like an "N" so the
occurrence of _Nornhabar_ = _Dwarrowdelf_ in _War of the Jewels_ makes it beyond
doubt that an original _Nornhabar_ was emended to _Dornhabar_; and this is the
reason for Tolkien rewriting the form, as Carl observes.

It is interesting to note the possibility that the second element of this name,
also seen in _Anghabar_ 'Iron-delvings' (Silm. 138, 316), is related to Q _sap-_
'dig' in the "Qenya Word-lists" (PE 16, 145).  Is this an unusual case of a root
persisting in Tolkien's conception without being listed in "The Etymologies"?

-- Christopher Gilson

Dear colleagues,

I am interested in the analysis of the differences between some
grammatical features described in the "Early Qenya Grammar" (EQG,
PE14:37-86) and those observed in both earlier and later manuscripts
about Qenya, specially in the issue of verb conjugation.

The most intriguing thing for me is the striking similarity between the
Qenya compound tenses described in EQG:57 and Esperanto active compound
tenses. Both EQG's Qenya and Esperanto form these tenses by composition
of the active participle (that may be present, past or future) of the
main verb and the inflected verb 'to be'.

For instance, 'has come' is rendered in Qenya as _e tulien_ or
_tuliende_ (_túlien(d-)_ being the past active participle of _tul-_
'come', and _e_ the present singular form of 'to be'); likewise, in
Esperanto it would be _estas veninta_ (_veninta_ being the past active
participle of _veni_ 'to come' and _estas_ the present singular of
_esti_ 'to be'). And in both languages the three (present, past and
future) active participles may be systematically combined with the same
three inflections of 'to be' to form the nine active compound tenses.

I don't know of any other language that shows such a strict regularity
and symmetry in the formation of compound tenses. But I don't know the
conjugation system of many languages either, outside some few modern
tongues and Latin. So I would like to ask if any of you could illuminate
me with information of other languages that could compete with Esperanto
as possible model followed by Tolkien for this particular issue.

Best regards,
Helios

Helios,

> I don't know of any other language that shows such a strict
> regularity and symmetry in the formation of compound tenses.
> [...] So I would like to ask if any of you could illuminate
> me with information of other languages that could compete with
> Esperanto as possible model followed by Tolkien for this
> particular issue.

Well, one point I would make is that both languages, Esperanto and Qenya, are
artificial. Obvious, of course, but not inconsequential in this case. In my own
experience and study, artificial languages tend to be extremely regular as
compared with "real" ones at large in the wild. Real languages may start out
regular, but they erode over time, and in this way, many irregular forms evolve.
So, is it possible that neither Esperanto nor another "real" language was the
model for Tolkien on this matter, but rather, the natural tendency toward
"regularity" inherent in glossopoeia may be the responsible agent? As to the
particular choices involved (e.g., the choice of "to be", as opposed to "to
have" or another verb, for the auxiliary), that's a separate question, but as to
the issue of strict regularity, I don't know that we need look for a model per
se.

Just my two cents ...

Jason

[Oddly enough, I asked Helios to omit a paragraph from the original form of his
post, in which he offered an apologia for proposing the possibility of Esperanto
influence on Qenya, given the auxiliary purpose and highly regular nature of
Esperanto. I didn't feel any such justification was needed, since Tolkien was of
course free to draw inspiration from whatever languages he liked. CFH]

First I wanted to correct a detail from my original post:

> For instance, 'has come' is rendered in Qenya as _e tulien_ or
> _tuliende_ (_túlien(d-)_ being the past active participle of _tul-_
> 'come', and _e_ the present singular form of 'to be'); likewise, in
> Esperanto it would be _estas veninta_ (_veninta_ being the past active
> participle of _veni_ 'to come' and _estas_ the present singular of
> _esti_ 'to be').

In opposition to Qenya, in Esperanto _estas veninta_ ('has come') it is
the active participle _veninta_ that is in singular form, not _estas_.
Excuse me for the mistake.

On the other hand, Jason wrote:

> In my own experience and study, artificial languages tend to be
> extremely regular as compared with "real" ones at large in the wild.
> Real languages may start out regular, but they erode over time,
> and in this way, many irregular forms evolve.

But Qenya (and Noldorin, etc.) were conceived as languages derived from
older ones, so the erosion you speak of can be expected, and in fact it
occurs. Still in the EQG conjugation we see (PE14:58) that many past
forms are "irregularly" formed (with changes in the stem vowels and
consonants) due to phonological reasons. Tolkien actually labels
_nampie_, the past of _mapa-_ 'seize' as an "irregular dissimilation of
_mampie_".

Actually, had Qenya been created following that principle of "erosion",
I would expect EQG to show a greater irregularity, because I think that
the differences between its grammatical features and those of both
earlier and later writings might be due to historical reasons. Tolkien's
linguistic texts, specially the longer ones, were often inscribed within
the literary framework of his _legendarium_, as the writings of Elven
sages like Rúmil or Pengolođ, transitional human characters like
Eriol/Ćlfwine, or later copies of their original work. This is the case
of both EQG and the "Qenyaqetsa", which are "closely related and largely
complementary", as Carl and Bill Welden comment on (PE14:40). But the
historical references in these two works have substantial differences.
In the Qenyaqetsa we read (PE12:2):

"'Tis said that in England, or the land of Lósien (Lúthien) as Elves &
Gnomes name it, and Íverin (...) but of the manner of speech of the
Elves of England was nought known before the time of Eriol for no man of
the English had written or spoken it".

This contrasts with the rather modern terms in which the context of the
Elven languages is described in EQG (PE14:62):

"It was a representative of _Western Ilkorin_ of the same branch as that
which produced the present Ilkorin of Ireland, England, Wales and
Scotland. Related Ilkorin was probably once spoken in Scandinavia and
the lands bordering on the North Sea and the English Channel. Over the
whole of Europe now, including however only the westerly parts of Russia..."

This could be just a stylistic difference, but it could also be that
Tolkien intended EQG to be a later account of the Qenya language. In
that case, the grammar it describes could differ from the grammar
observed in both earlier and later writings because EQG was actually
describing a different (later) historical stage of Qenya!

But back to the point, even if this theory is wrong, I don't think that
Qenya had to be more regular than other languages just _because_ it is
an artificial one.

Finally, Carl commented on:

> I asked Helios to omit a paragraph from the original form of his post,
> in which he offered an apologia for proposing the possibility of
> Esperanto influence on Qenya, given the auxiliary purpose and
> highly regular nature of Esperanto.

Well, I don't see that Jason mentioned the auxiliary nature of Esperanto
in his argument. And it wasn't certainly my intention to mean that. I
just wanted to prevent the initial rejection that readers could have to
the comparison between Qenya and Esperanto, due to the fact that
relevant works about the matter (at least those found in a quick search
over the net, as I have not found anything on that topic in books or
journals) insist on the unlikeness between these two artificial
languages. But of course, as argued in the review of the message, that
question was off the point and could be omitted, since I was discussing
particular _grammatical_ similarities, and previous discussions on Qenya
vs. Esperanto did not deal with that, but on the nature and
"speakability" of these languages.

Regards,
Helios

In Volume II of _The History of the Hobbit_, John Rateliff addresses
the derivation of _Esgaroth_.  There is of course no doubt about the
first element, _esgar-_, which is given in the _Etymologies_ and
glossed 'reed-bed;' but the second element is not directly interpreted;
the whole name is confusingly defined as 'Reed-lake' (?!)

I'm not sure however that JDR is pursuing the right trail when he takes
the second element to be Ilkorin _-roth_, equivalent to N/S  _-rond_
'vaulted space,' and rather stretches the definition to include
'dwelling, town' by analogy to Nargothrond.

Is it not the case that in Noldorin (and for all we know Ilkorin)
compounds which abut initial and final _r_, the doubled consonant is
preserved? Cf. _rochir_ + _rimbe_  = _Rohirrim_. Thus the second
element should be not _-roth_ but _-oth_.

This I can't find anything on, except as the well-known
collective-plural suffix _-ath_, _-oth_, _-hoth_, as in _Lossoth_,
_Faroth_, and the early form _Rohiroth_.  In which case the name would
translate 'The Reed-beds,' a recognizable form of real-world placename,
referring either to actual reeds, or a kenning for the pilings upon
which the town was built (which JDR does point out).

-- William Hicklin

[Although _Esgaroth_ appears as an Ilkorin name meaning 'Reedlake' in
_Etymologies_ as published in _The Lost Road_ (V:356 s.v. ESEK-), that
is not the only attested gloss in _Etymologies_. Another entry, not
included in _The Lost Road_ version, reads: "SKAR[2]- [?and SKAT[2]-]
[?... stop, end; limit, marge]. _esgar_ shore; _esgaroth_
[?strand-burg]" (VT46:14). This etymology is more in line with the
English name (and apparent gloss) found in _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord
of the Rings_, "Lake-town". In any event, it is apparent that the
second element is indeed _-oth_ (perhaps related to S. _ost_
'fortress') and that it could mean, and here would most appropriately
mean, 'burg' or 'town'. I'll also point out that according to a note
published in _Parma Eldalamberon_ 17, _Esgaroth_ remained a
non-Sindarin form: "In the Hobbit all names are translated except
_Galion_ (the Butler), _Esgaroth_ and _Dorwinion_. _Galion_ and
_Esgaroth_ are not Sindarin (though perhaps ‘Sindarized’ in shape) or
are not recorded in _Sindarin_" (p. 54). CFH]

1) PE17:140 - For 'The last for lines' read 'The last
four lines'.

2) On PE17:138 we read: "This original association with
'speaking' would however help to explain how the
derived adjective _kwend(i)ja_ was partic[ularly]
applied to the way of _speaking_ characteristic of the
Quendi. And he[nce] appears to mean that _Quendya_ is
actually only found as the name of a language, and the
only one known to exist when the word was first made."

It should be noted that a very close parallel to the
second sentence is found in Appendix D to _Quendi and
Eldar_: "Pengolodh the Loremaster of Eressëa says, in
his _Lammas_ or Account of Tongues, that _Quenya_
meant properly 'language, speech', and was the oldest
word for this meaning. This is not a statement based
on tradition, but an opinion of Pengolodh; and he
appears to mean only that _Quendya_, _Quenya_ is
actually never recorded except as the name of a
language, and that language was the only one known to
exist when this word was first made" (XI:393).

Thus it seems clear that the editorial expansion
'he[nce]' is in fact incorrect, and that 'he' refers
to Pengolodh. Delete "[nce]" and add reference to WJ:393.

Also, the connection between the text quoted on
PE17:138 and the preceding notes (a connection
suggested by the phrase _queta quenya_, as noted by
the editor) is further strengthened.

Merry Christmas!

/Fredrik

Some questions and observations on PE17:

1) According to the editor's note on page 148 s.v. *AWA, WA*, there is a
root TEN in the "Definitive Linguistic notes" (DLN) group of etymologies.
But there is no root TEN attributed to DLN in the list of "Eldarin Roots and
Stems" (ERS), though all the other etymologies listed are published. Could
the editor please clarify?

2) ERS includes a root STEN attributed to "Quenya Notes" (QN; page 185),
but in the listing of etymologies in the QN on page 145 (s.v. ADA), STEN
does not appear. Where should STEN go in that list (supposing that the
roots are listed in the approximate order they appear in the QN)?

3) Page 182 s.v. RE<TH>: For '(see I 194 s.v. _Sarn Ford_)' read '(see I
184 s.v. _Sarn Ford_)' -- unless the reference to 'I 184' on page 14 is
wrong.

4) Page 89 s.v. lebethron: For 'the note on _hithlain_ given above (see
I 287f.)' read 'the note on _hithlain_ given above (see I 387f.)'.

5) The section on 'The names _Elbereth_, _Gilthoniel_, _Fanuilos_' on p.
22-23 reads like it might be part of the PMB materials (cf. the next
section), but it is not attributed to it. Is it from the "Words, Phrases
and Passages" proper?

6) On page 25 we read: "palan-díriel. Cf. Q _palantír_ 'far-gazer'.
See note." What 'note' is Tolkien referring to? The editor points to
'the entry for Q _palantír_  [...] at II 199'. But the entry on
_palan-díriel_ is from PMB, and the entries for II 199 _palantír_ and
_palan_ (page 86) are not from the same manuscript.

7) On page 161 s.v. MAG we read: "Thus _mánta_ 'their hand' would be
used = (they raised) their hands (one each), _mántat_ = (they raised)
their hands (each both), and _mánte_ could not occur."
The sentence is remarkably similar to one found in the essay _Eldarin
Hands, Fingers & Numerals_: "In cases such as 'they raised their hands'
_hand_ was in Eldarin syntax always singular, if each (which need not be
expressed) raised one hand, and always dual if each raised both hands;
the plural was impossible" (VT47:6).
Perhaps Tolkien had one of the texts in front of him while writing the
other? Just thought it might be worth mentioning.

8) In the Index (page 192), for "*a'stara" read "*as'tara" (I have omitted
the diacritical marks).

9) There should probably be a cross-reference entry for THAW in the list
of Eldarin Roots and Stems:
"THAW- [See SAWA-]".
(There should be a root sign before SAWA.) There is an entry for <TH>AW
(with a thorn), but the sense is different.

10) On page 189 s.v. WE (and in the editorial comment on WEG, p. 191), a
root WEK is referred to. I cannot find it in the list of "Eldarin Roots
and Stems". Was it deleted?

And now for some idle speculation:
On PE17:181 s.v. PHAW, we read: 'Q _foa_ = [?_furést_]'. I draw a blank
on the form "furést"; is it supposed to be Eldarin or English? Or could
it possibly be a misread Latin gloss? Cf. _hug-_ 'futuere', PE13:147.
Also cf. the deleted words '_khugu_; = _foa_' on PE17:86, which might
suggest that a derivative of _khugu_ would be a poor choice for the
first element in _huorn_ '? tree', because then it would mean
'foa'-tree, whatever _foa_ is.


A Happy New Year!

/Fredrik

--- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, Fredrik <frestro@...> wrote:

> Some questions and observations on PE17:
>
> 1) According to the editor's note on page 148 s.v. *AWA, WA*, there is a
> root TEN in the "Definitive Linguistic notes" (DLN) group of etymologies.
> But there is no root TEN attributed to DLN in the list of "Eldarin Roots and
> Stems" (ERS), though all the other etymologies listed are published. Could
> the editor please clarify?

This entry for root TEN was inadvertantly left out of PE 17.  It was
fairly hastily written in pencil in the top margin of that page of DLN,
above the entry for root MEN given on PE 17, p. 165.  This entry for
root TEN was cited in VT 49, p. 24.  I would have corrected the
reading given there very slightly, as the form _tenya_ is explicitly
identified as Quenya, and I believe the uncertain word is "speaker's"
rather than "specific" -- i.e. I would have given the etymology as:

"[root]TEN- = _end_ in sense of point aimed at.  (_met_ merely = finality.)
_tenna_, to the point, until.  † Q _tenya_, arrive (_not_ at speaker's[?]
place), pa.t. _tenne_."

> 2) ERS includes a root STEN attributed to "Quenya Notes" (QN; page 185),
> but in the listing of etymologies in the QN on page 145 (s.v. ADA), STEN
> does not appear. Where should STEN go in that list (supposing that the
> roots are listed in the approximate order they appear in the QN)?

It should have been included with the "Other etymologies in the bundle"
-- it is on the same page as and between the items SRIT and DEL.

> 3) Page 182 s.v. RE<TH>: For '(see I 194 s.v. _Sarn Ford_)' read '(see I
> 184 s.v. _Sarn Ford_)' -- unless the reference to 'I 184' on page 14 is
> wrong.

I rechecked in my copy of _The Fellowship_ and the mention of
"Sarn Ford" does occur on p. 184, not p. 194.

> 5) The section on 'The names _Elbereth_, _Gilthoniel_, _Fanuilos_' on p.
> 22-23 reads like it might be part of the PMB materials (cf. the next
> section), but it is not attributed to it. Is it from the "Words, Phrases
> and Passages" proper?

This note is indeed part of the main text of WPP.  Although we cannot
be certain of the absolute order in which certain entries of WPP were
written, it is clear that the whole constituted a well-defined if
incomplete work in Tolkien's mind.  All but one of the sheets of
WPP bears the heading "Vol. I ct." usually on both sides of the sheet,
and the pages were numbered sequentially at some later time.

Of course the whole premise behind the publication of WPP together
with other roughly contemporary notes, many placed with it by Tolkien,
is that these other notes were intended ultimately to be in some way
integrated with WPP, though presumably in a more smooth and
consistent fashion than is possible to reconstruct now.  It is to be
expected that texts from one of these collected documents could read
like those from others.

> 6) On page 25 we read: "palan-díriel. Cf. Q _palantír_ 'far-gazer'.
> See note." What 'note' is Tolkien referring to? The editor points to
> 'the entry for Q _palantír_  [...] at II 199'. But the entry on
> _palan-díriel_ is from PMB, and the entries for II 199 _palantír_ and
> _palan_ (page 86) are not from the same manuscript.

I don't know of any way to be sure what "note" Tolkien was referring
to -- I gave only a cross-reference to the possibilities among the
documents in PE 17.  But of course T. may have simply anticipated
writing such a note.  I should probably also have mentioned the
chapter on "The Palantíri" in _Unfinished Tales_.

> 7) On page 161 s.v. MAG we read: "Thus _mánta_ 'their hand' would be
> used = (they raised) their hands (one each), _mántat_ = (they raised)
> their hands (each both), and _mánte_ could not occur."
> The sentence is remarkably similar to one found in the essay _Eldarin
> Hands, Fingers & Numerals_: "In cases such as 'they raised their hands'
> _hand_ was in Eldarin syntax always singular, if each (which need not be
> expressed) raised one hand, and always dual if each raised both hands;
> the plural was impossible" (VT47:6).
> Perhaps Tolkien had one of the texts in front of him while writing the
> other? Just thought it might be worth mentioning.

Certainly this is a possibility; though it seems that once the idea
of the idiom had occurred to Tolkien he could easily come up with
a similar explanation in a context where it was relevant, without
having the earlier explanation of it in front of him.

> 10) On page 189 s.v. WE (and in the editorial comment on WEG, p. 191), a
> root WEK is referred to. I cannot find it in the list of "Eldarin Roots
> and Stems". Was it deleted?

This item was not deleted in the manuscript; but it was
accidentally left out of PE 17.

> And now for some idle speculation:
> On PE17:181 s.v. PHAW, we read: 'Q _foa_ = [?_furést_]'. I draw a blank
> on the form "furést"; is it supposed to be Eldarin or English? Or could
> it possibly be a misread Latin gloss? Cf. _hug-_ 'futuere', PE13:147.
> Also cf. the deleted words '_khugu_; = _foa_' on PE17:86, which might
> suggest that a derivative of _khugu_ would be a poor choice for the
> first element in _huorn_ '? tree', because then it would mean
> 'foa'-tree, whatever _foa_ is.

I drew a blank on "furést", too, and just gave as the reading what
it looked most like letter-by-letter.  Some possible English words
that occurred to me that might have fit the form were "finest" with
what appeared to be an acute-mark actually the dot of the "i", or
"fiercest" with a letter missing -- but neither of these seemed
entirely plausible as a gloss, and it wasn't clear that the intended
word was English.

But it now occurs to me that perhaps "fieriest" makes more sense
than either of these, especially if we suppose Tolkien spelled this
as "firiest" (i.e. superlative of "firy", obsolete form of "fiery").  Not
that it is completely clear how this sense is supposed to work
etymologically, so it is still very speculative.  If _foa_ has to do
with fire, this could make sense in explaining a _foalóke_ as the
most fiery of the _urulóki_.

Also I think Fredrik may be right insofar as this could explain the
passing idea of a connection with Huorns, as "fiery trees" in a
metaphoric sense.  Of course what is really interesting to me about
this is that _foa_ and _foalóke_ remained from the beginning in
Tolkien's mind as Quenya words associated with dragons, even if
they now wanted a connection with more newly devised forms.

-- Christopher Gilson

On page 112 in PE17 there are two texts on Idril. The editor notes for
the first one that "This note is on a page in NN ["Notes on Names"] with
notes on _Fingon_ and _Turgon_ (see below) and _Felagund_". For the
second text, it is said that "This is on a page in NN with notes on
_Turgon_ and _Fingon_(see below)".

The notes on Turgon and Fingon referred to are said to be on the same
page in NN.  So it would seem that the two notes on Idril are on the
same page in NN too, though this is not obvious from the editorial
notes. Just to be sure: Is it correct that Tolkien wrote the second note
on Idril on the same manuscript page as the first one?

Second, in the editorial note for III 363 Felagund (PE17:118), there is
a seemingly circular reference back to III 363: "NN, on the back of the
page with the notes on _Finrod_, _-rod_, and the names of the sons of
Finwë (see III 363)".

I _think_ the reference is to the note on "names _Fingon_, _Fingolfin_,
_Finrod_, _Felagund_, _Inglor_, &c", also on page 118. I am not positive
though, because that note is not really about _-rod_. There is also a
text "Problem of -rod", but it is said to be on another page in NN. And
to confuse matters (well, me) even more, there is another short text on
the names of the sons of Finwë, quoted for I 318 (PE17:39).

In the editorial note, perhaps "-rod" should have been deleted and the
page reference disambiguated to "see III 363 Finrod" (or just "see below")?

By the way, the notes on PHIN, SPIN and DEL are said to be on the same
page in NN as "notes on the names of the sons of Finwë" (PE17:181), but
it not clear to me which one of the texts mentioned above this refers to
(if any).

Finally, thanks to the editor for an excellent issue of PE!

/Fredrik

Christopher Gilson replied to my question #7 (for which see our previous
messages):

> Certainly this is a possibility; though it seems that once the idea
> of the idiom had occurred to Tolkien he could easily come up with
> a similar explanation in a context where it was relevant, without
> having the earlier explanation of it in front of him.

Yes, of course. In this case, I thought that the choice of an example
(to raise one's hands) and the similarity of sentence structure
(singular form; dual form; plural is impossible) was a remarkable chance
resemblance.

As for the idiom itself, a similar example may be _i karir quettar
ómainen_ 'those who form words with voices' in _Quendi and Eldar_
(XI:391). In later writings, _ómainen_ would probably be a plural form
(cf. instr. sg. _parmanen_, PE17:180); but the older singular form was
_-inen_ (_kiryainen_, PE16:113), and I am under the impression that by
1959 the older pattern was still valid as far as the instrumental case
is concerned.

As an aside, it seems only natural to me as a Swedish speaker to use the
singular form in expressions such as "all the students raised their
handS" or "those who form words with voiceS". In Swedish it might be
"alla eleverna räckte upp handen" and "de som formar ord med rösten" --
in the latter case, the plural form ("rösterna") would sound strange, as
if they had more than one voice each.

So I think that 'they raised their hands' was not necessarily an
isolated example of this idiom in Tolkien's mind.

>> 10) On page 189 s.v. WE (and in the editorial comment on WEG, p. 191), a
>> root WEK is referred to. I cannot find it in the list of "Eldarin Roots
>> and Stems". Was it deleted?
>
> This item was not deleted in the manuscript; but it was
> accidentally left out of PE 17.

Since it was intended for publication, could it perhaps be added to the
errata & addenda list for PE at http://www.elvish.org/errata, and/or
published on this list?

/Fredrik

(Sorry for my clumsy English)

We all know that "Eru" is translated "the One". But the English word "one" has
different meanings. Which one is the meaning of the name "Eru"?

I believe that in such a context "one" in English could mean three different
things:

1. The object with some particular qualities (which are explicitly mentioned or
implied). I.e. "the Holy One", "One above", "Evil One", "I am not the one",
etc.

2. One in contrast to two or more: one and no more, one only; a single.

3. One made up of many components, a united. A whole. I.e. "I am of one mind
with you", "all of them with one voice said", "he is made one with nature".


I believe all the three meanings are relevant here in some measure. All the
three could be confirmed by some Athrabeth quotations:

Meaning 1: "The Lord of this World is not he, but the One who made him"
Meaning 2: "nay, Eru is One, alone without peer"
Meaning 3: "Finrod therefore thinks that He will, when He comes, have to be
both 'outside' and inside; and so he glimpses the possibility of complexity or
of distinctions in the nature of Eru, which nonetheless leaves Him 'The One'."

Am I right here? This is quite an important question for the translation of
"the One" into other languages.

I am also inclined to think that Quenya "Eru" mostly has Meaning 2. The
Etymologies has "ERE- be alone, deprived. Q _er_ one, alone". Cf. Q Tol
Eressea, the Lonely Isle; S Erebor, the Lonely Mountain.

Also we have the quotation from The Rivers and Beacon-hills of Gondor: "In
Eldarin _er_ was not used in counting in series: it meant 'one, single, alone'.
_erui_ is not the usual Sindarin for 'single, alone': that was _ereb_ (<
_erikwa_; cf. Q. _erinqua_); but it has the very common adjectival ending _-ui_
of Sindarin."


             Diar Tuganbaev
--
Non justici et non justiciare esse

--- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, Fredrik <frestro@...> wrote:

> On page 112 in PE17 there are two texts on Idril. The editor notes for
> the first one that "This note is on a page in NN ["Notes on Names"] with
> notes on _Fingon_ and _Turgon_ (see below) and _Felagund_". For the
> second text, it is said that "This is on a page in NN with notes on
> _Turgon_ and _Fingon_(see below)".
>
> The notes on Turgon and Fingon referred to are said to be on the same
> page in NN.  So it would seem that the two notes on Idril are on the
> same page in NN too, though this is not obvious from the editorial
> notes. Just to be sure: Is it correct that Tolkien wrote the second note
> on Idril on the same manuscript page as the first one?

These two _Idril_ texts are on separate pages, thus the different
descriptions of their other contents.  Also note that I say about the
first of these pages that it "was deleted with a single vertical stroke."
From this fact and comparison with the other editorial notes the
reader can infer the note that begins "_Fingon : Turgon_ ?" (p. 113),
and also the notes on _Felagund_ near the top of page 118, are
the ones from the rejected NN page that also has the first of the
notes on _Idril_.  The other notes on _Turgon_ and _Fingon_ are the
ones that are from the same NN page as the second note on _Idril_.

-- Christopher

I have compiled a partial list of manuscripts referenced in PE 17,
mainly as an aid to resolve cross-references. As you know,
cross-references in PE 17 are to volume and page in _LR_ (1st ed.), not
to the actual page in PE where the word or phrase is discussed, which
can be confusing at times. I hope the following list may be useful to
others. (It was formatted to be concise, then formatted again as ASCII
text. It may need to be reformatted to be of much use.)

---------------


1) 'A dozen loose sheets placed together' (17:8).

1A) The 'Dec. 59' (D59) group of loose sheets:
RIG (17:182); WIRI (17:191); WAYA (17:189); LA (17:158); PHO/U (17:181);
PATH/PAS (17:171); note on 'The words for door' (17:40); 3AN,

YAN (17:155); SRA, SRAGA (17:185); THAR (17:187); PHEN (17:181); PAR
(17:171).

1B) Sheet placed immediately following D59:
'Prefixes' (NDAN, 17:166–167). Back of sheet: 'Dwarf' (17:45–46).

1C) Sheet placed 'following that containing the notes on Dwarf'
(17:191), labelled 'Changes':
WEK (left out of PE 17, see lambengolmor message 1039); WE (17:189).
Back: WEG, WE3 (17:190); 'Masculine suffixes' &c (17:190); RAYA (17:182).

1D) Sheet with more carefully written versions of notes on the preceding
sheet:
'Suffix' -nwe (17:189); RAYA (17:182).

1E) The continuation of the 'Definitive Linguistic notes' (DLN):
MAY continued; MAGA (17:162); 'ill' OKO (17:170); DAY, NDAY (17:151);
SAWA (17:183–184); DEWE (17:151). On a third sheet of the DLN: AWA, WA
(17:148); MEN (17:165); TUL (17:188); TEN (see VT49:24 and lambengolmor
message 1039); WEN-ED (17:191); WIN (17:191); GWAN (17:154); (G)LIS
(17:154). Back: TAG (17:186); 'Note' on AYA, AMAN, MAGA, and 'Opposites'
(17:149).

1F) Page headed 'Sindarin words', placed following the last sheet of DLN:
Sarn Ford (17:14–15); thar, pad (17:34); paran (17:86); reth (17:182).
There was also a draft version labelled 'Words', later torn apart, but
it is not clear where it was placed. It had notes for athra (17:14),
thar, pat- (17:34), and Ered (17:33).


2) 'The second group of sheets' (17:9).

2A) 'Definitive Linguistic notes' (DLN):
ABA, BA (17:143–145), three pages. On the 4th page (rejected): PEN
(17:171), 'Other prefixes' (17:172). On a new sheet: PEN (17:173); 'Some
prefixes' with subheadings: 'hard, difficult' GUR (17:154); 'easy' ATHA
(17:148); PHERE (17:181); 'well' ALA (17:146); MAY (17:163).

2B) Stems for 'flower' and 'snow', two sheets pinned together, placed
between the 'Beautiful' group of etymologies and DLN (17:9, 17:161):
LOT, LOTH, LOS (17:160–161). Back: NIK (17:168). Second sheet: LAW,
LAWAR (17:159); GAL (17:153). Back: ALAB (17:146); 'What is general word
= beautiful?' (17:165); WO, WONO (17:191); KOB, KOM (17:157).

2C) The 'Beautiful' group of etymologies, two sheets pinned together
(17:9, 17:150):
BAN (17:149–150); GWAY (17:154–155); WAN (17:150). MIR (17:165); IR
(17:155); MAY (17:163); AL (17:146); KOB/KOM (17:158).

2D) Placed in front of these were three torn half-sheets (17:9):
i) KWEND (17:137–138); draft of _Quendi and Eldar_ (not in PE17).
ii) Draft of _Quendi and Eldar_ (17:138); 'Sound words' (17:138–139).
iii) List of roots associated with _Quendi and Eldar_ (17:155), VT41:
SAM (17:183); LAT (17:159); LER (17:160); KEN (17:156); MEN (17:165);
NIR (17:168); PAK (17:171); KHAP (17:157); LEK (17:159); POL (17:181);
ISI (17:155); LER (17:160).


3) 'Quenya Notes' (QN; 17:8, 17:145).

3A)
i) The first group of longer etymologies: MAY (17:163); AYA-N (17:149);
MAG (17:161–162); MAN (17:162); AS and UR (17:148); AR (17:147); ADA
(17:145); ANA/NA (17:146–147), draft version AN/NA (17:147).
ii) A sheet with short etymologies: STOL (17:186); LOK (17:160); PHAW
(17:181); LAY (17:159); KEWE (17:159); SLOY (17:185); NEK (17:167); TAN
(17:186); TEN (17:187); KOL (17:158); note on Sindir (17:117); NEN
(17:167); MOT (17:165); LINI (17:160); SEREK (17:184); (U)RU<TH> (17:188).
iii) Other etymologies in the bundle: SAT||SATAR (17:183); SRIT
(17:185); STEN (17:185); DEL (17:151); WAL (17:189); IN-I-D (17:189).
iv) A short list called 'Lang. notes': GWAL (17:154); WIS (17:191); RON
(17:183).
v) A note on -we (17:189–190).
vi) Six pages of 'Phonological Notes' (not published in PE17).

3B) Placed after QN were notes on 'gwae/gwaew' (17:33–34) and 'thule'
(17:124–125).


4) Group of loose pages on various matters (17:150).

4A) 'Alter Arwen Vanimalda' (17:56).
4B) 'Comparison' (17:56-57); conjugation of Q verb cari- (17:57–58).
4C) 'Adverbs and Abstract Nouns' (17:58–59).
4D) Page with note on Dalath Dirnen (DD; 17:150); roots DAL (17:150);
<TH>OL (17:188); NAKH (17:166); TOR (17:188); LEWEK (17:160); LOK
(17:160); PHAW (17:181); RUTH (17:183); SEREK (17:184); RUY (17:183).


5) Letters.

5A) Draft of letter to Mr. Masson (17:4):
(p. 2 of the letter) "Quenya is supposed to have elaborated" (17:62);
"The [Q] verbs inflect for 'person'" (17:110); "The _o_ of Sindarin
'imperative'" (17:40–41)
(p. 3) "Sindarin verbal history" (17:43–44); "The use of the article
[...] with demonstratives" (17:44); GAL (17:153)
(p. 4) EL (17:151–152); GAL/KAL (17:153)
(p. 5) TIR (17:187); "The Eldar had many 'colour' words" (17:72)
(p. 5-7) EL (17:152)
(p. 7) "tark" (17:101); "The Sindarin word _thôn_" (17:82)
(p. 8) "Galadriel’s song is in Quenya" (17:76)
(p. 9-10) Word-by-word analysis (17:62 to 17:73)

5B) Letter to Mr. W. R. Matthews (17:5):
"The Quenya and Sindarin have a long history" (17:135–136)
"_Sangahyanda_ certainly does resemble Sanskrit" (17:116)
"The language of the Dwarves [...] is Semitic in cast" (17:85)
"The Black Speech was not intentionally modeled on any style" (17:11–12).


6) Miscellaneous references.

6A) Undated slip: hithlain (17:60), lebethron (17:89).

6B) Three sheets placed together:
i) Torn half-sheet: Q for 'hair' (17:17); SLAS (17:77).
ii) Roheryn and the genitive in Sindarin (17:97).
iii) 'Selection of recent notes': 'Quenya initial d-' (17:17); Roheryn
(17:97); RIK (17:182).

6C) Probably answers to indexer Mrs. Smith: Earendil (17:19); Araw (17:96).

6D) Notes on Lhűn (17:136–137). Back: Draft of 'Nomenclature': Isengard
and Isenmouthe (17:32–33).

6E) Draft of 'Nomenclature': Quickbeam, Ranger, Renewer (17:82–83);
Ringwraiths (17:79); Roheryn (17:98); NDEB and RIK (17:167).

6F) <NG>AL (17:169); 'Conjugation of the irregular verb av|va' (17:63);
-va (17:64); metre of Namárie (17:76); 'Adverbs from adjectives' (17:73–74).

6G) 'Some Quenya notes arising during revision of L.R. (March 1967)':
Miruvóre (17:64); 'Suffix' -ma &c (17:68).

6H) 'Some linguistic notes on Galadriel's Song: I 394' (NGS; 17:4, 17:61):
A word-by-word analysis (apparently there is no preamble; may have been
written as the continuation of a letter, see 17:61): laurie (17:61);
lantar, lasse, súrinen, yéni, únótime (17:62); ve, rámar, alda, linte,
yuldar, vánier, vánie-, mi, oromardi (17:63); lissi-, miruvore, -va, NU
(17:64); pella, Varda (17:65); telluma, luine, ya-, TIN, i (17:66);
eleni, óma, airetári-lírinen, aire, sí (17:67); ma, nin, enquantuva
(17:68); an, Tintalle, Oiolosse, fanyar, máryat (17:69); Elen-tári,
ortane, ar (17:70); ilya, tie, unduláve, sindanóriello, KAY (17:72);
MOR, falmalinnar, imbe, met, KHI<TH>, untúpa, Calaciryo, mire (17:73);
vanwa, Rómello, Valimar, na-marie (17:74); nai, hiruva (17:75); elye
(17:76). Sheets gathered with NGS:
i) Nűrnen and di’nguruthos (17:87); Orome, and a note on a-infixion
(17:99); IN-ID (17:155).
ii) Note on -kar (17:114); tense-stems of henta and other verbs (17:77).
iii) Note on 'Elvish sound laws' (17:95–96).
iv) 'For including in Quenya', dated July 16, 1964: henta (17:77);
KE<TH> and úlume (17:156); TALAT (17:186).
v) KJEL (17:157); nai (17:75); personal inflexions of Q verb (17:75–76).
vi) Possessive suffixes (17:67); personal inflexions of Q verb (17:75);
Tolkien's signature and a Tengwar dedication (not in PE17, see VT49).

6I) 'L.R. Etym. notes':
pella (17:65); NOR (17:168–169); POL (17:181).

6J) Draft of NT in _The Road Goes Ever On_:
Note on _fana_ (17:180); -ath (17:25). Back: verse translations of the
chant to Elbereth and Sam's invocation (17:21); Q diphthongs using the
Tengwar (not in PE17).


7) A group of pages clipped together, with a heading 'Changes affecting
"Silmarillion" nomenclature'.

7A) The endings -ion, -ien, ian(d) (17:42–43). Back: PAR (17:171); a
note to 'Delete entirely yondo = son' (17:43).
7B) -on, -ion in patronymics (17:170). May have been intended as a
continuation of the previous sheet.
7C) A note to 'Delete all references of <NG>oldo' (17:125).
7D) A loose half-sheet placed after the gathering: note on 'Q Wanted.
Son. Daughter' (17:170-171).


8) A collection of materials in the pocket of a cardboard folder,
labelled 'PHAN, MBAR, BAL and other Elvish etymologies' (PMB; 17:7, 17:21).

8A) Article on PHAN, first version (17:173-174).
8B) Article on PHAN, revised version (17:173–180). The first page was
written on the back of a note on SKAL (17:184).
8C) Note on 'The opening verse of the chant' to Elbereth (17:20–21),
along with a word-by-word analysis (either incomplete, or not published
in its entirety): 'El-bereth and Fanuilos', gil- (17:23); 'Participial
form from S míria' (17:24); elenath, palan-díriel (17:25); Fanuilos (17:26).
8D) A typed sheet placed immediately following the discussion of PHAN:
notes on Galadriel (17:59–60) and '[...] the elvish tongue of the
"Silvan Folk"' with a note on lembas (17:51–52).
There was also a writing-pad labelled 'Galadriel' and 'Some _Problems_
especially Silvan Language' (17:127). It contained, inter alia, two
pages that may be drafts of a letter to a reader (17:127). It seems
obviously connected to the 'typed sheet' above, but it is not clear
where it was placed.


9) Three articles numbered consecutively, though later reordered.
Written on paper from the same writing-pad as that used for the article
on PHAN and "probably at one time kept in the same cardboard folder" as
it (17:110).

9A) Article on 'Comparative in Eldarin', first version (17:90).
9B) Article on 'Comparative in Eldarin', revised version (17:90–94).
9D) Article on 'Ambar, umbar, Turambar' (17:104–110).
9C) Article on 'and' (17:70–72).
9E) Drafts of the article on Ambar &c: 'Umbar and Ambar' (17:123–124);
MBAR 'settle' (17:163-164), 'English "settle"' (17:164). The first of
these drafts was begun on the sheet containing the ending of the article
on 'and', so presumably placed together with it.
9F) Placed with the previous drafts was a note on Rhovanion (17:78).

Some more questions on PE 17, further to those in a previous message of
mine (lambengolmor message 1040):

1) On page 18 s.v. _Dúnadan_, the Quenya word_tarhildi_ appears. Is the
reading with -h- rather than -k- certain? _Tarkil_ (so spelled in
Appendix F:I) seems to have been the form used from early drafts on.

2) The text on "pronominal adjectival affixes" ("probably dating to the
mid-1960s") quoted in VT49:17 reads as a later version of the notes on
EQ possessive suffixes, PE17:130 ("placed in a bundle of papers enclosed
in a folded newspaper dated 5 May 1965"). Or could it be the other way
round?

3) The draft letter to Mr. Masson includes a detailed analysis of
Galadriel's Song. Curiously, Tolkien made no comment on the first
two lines, or on the part after 'imbe met' (i.e. the lines 'ar hísie /
untúpa Calaciryo míri oiale', &c). Is a page missing from the draft?

4) I just posted a partial index (of sorts) to manuscripts referenced in
PE 17, mainly as an aid to resolve cross-references. In it I assumed
that the excerpts from the letter to Mr. Matthews were basically
published in the reverse of their original order. Did I get the order right?

/Fredrik

(At first I sent this message and a previous version of the "index" as
one post, but then decided to cancel it and turn them into separate
messages -- in case someone was wondering about the 'cancellation
message' that unexpectedly appeared on the list. :) )

Thanks to the clarifications from Mr. Gilson in lambengolmor message
1045, the following can be added to my list:

10) Notes on Names (NN; 17:6, 17:29, 17:118), a gathering of pages
paper-clipped together, the last page of which was dated 'Oct. 1957'.

10A) On the first page of the gathering was a note beginning 'I think
names Fingon, Fingolfin, Finrod, Felagund, Inglor, &c' (17:118); and
notes on roots AS (17:148), <NG>AR (17:169), ARA|N|T (17:148), RETE
(17:182), ON/NO (17:170), KHIN (17:157). Apparently on the back of this
page was a note on various names ending 'Don't like Felagund' (17:117-118).

10B) A page with the actual heading 'Notes on Names', and with notes on
the Q word for 'Green' and Legolas (17:84).

10C) A rejected page with notes on _phelga_ and Feleggund (17:118);
'Fingon : Turgon?' (17:113-114), and the first of the notes on Ídril
(17:112).

10D) "Another page in NN" with the second of the notes on Idril
(17:112); Turgond- and Felagund (17:112); the 'Problem of -rod'
(17:118–119). Further to this there were notes on 'Fingon, a poor name'
(17:112-113), leading into notes on Turgon, Turgond, TUR (17:113), with
'a genealogical chart of the descendants of Finwe' (17:119; not
published, unless it is the chart of father and son reproduced on page 113).

10E) A page with notes on the sons of Finwe (17:39); curu (17:83); and
(apparently) the notes on DEL (17:151), SPIN (17:185), PHIN (17:181).

10F) A sheet with notes on Gondolin (17:29), Dor-lómin and Hithlum (not
published in PE 17).

10G) A page with a note 'Some corrections of nomenclature' (17:139–140).

10H) Next to the previous page was a sheet with a note 'In Sindarin the
old words ...' (17:140) and a paradigm of Sindarin forms (17:46). Back:
derivatives of _edelo_ (17:141).

10I) Notes on _kwenede_ and other forms (17:141). Back: 'Noldor: called
dúnelt' &c (17:142).

In the gathering there were also notes on Narog (17:47); IN (17:155); IR
(17:155); IT/ITH (17:156); KIN, KIT (17:157).

--- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, Fredrik <frestro@...> wrote:

> As for the idiom itself, a similar example may be _i karir quettar
> ómainen_ 'those who form words with voices' in _Quendi and Eldar_
> (XI:391). In later writings, _ómainen_ would probably be a plural
> form (cf. instr. sg. _parmanen_, PE17:180); but the older singular
> form was _-inen_ (_kiryainen_, PE16:113), and I am under the
> impression that by 1959 the older pattern was still valid as far as
> the instrumental case is concerned.

Even though it's an interesting hypothesis, it seems to me quite
improbable. I've already highlighted in #1004 that the documents
identified with the first half of the 30s clearly seem to suggest the
emergence of _-inen_ as instr. pl. rather than sg. The latter was
first identified in _-in_ (QD3 and ED give it as an alternative
form, while BD as the only one), but already in the song included
in "Lost Road" we find the form _-nen_. From this occurrence we always
find the pair sg/pl _-nen/-inen_. "Galadriel's Lament" has _surínen_
and _lírinen_ and the "Masson Letter" (1955, cf PE17:4) says "_most
nouns have an instrumental in _-nen_", just to cite a few exemples of
the period immediately earlier.

The statement cited previously in PE17:161 is preceded by "_Quenya
idiom in describing the parts of body of several persons the _number_
proper to each individual is used, the _plural_ of parts existing in
_pairs_ (as hands, eyes, ears, feet) is seldom required." Well, in the
light of these words I find it too difficult to see _ómainen_ as a
usage of such an idiom, because _óma_ is neither a part of the body
that can have more than one number in a person, nor falls into the
category of "part existing in a pair". And if the idiomatic usage wants
the sg or dual for the (normal) pl (in order to specify the "number
proper to each individual"), we may easily suppose that the non-
idiomatic usage should require the plural. And in fact we find
_ómainen_.

> As an aside, it seems only natural to me as a Swedish speaker to
> use the singular form in expressions such as "all the students
> raised their handS" or "those who form words with voiceS". In
> Swedish it might be "alla eleverna räckte upp handen" and "de
> som formar ord med rösten" -- in the latter case, the plural form
> ("rösterna") would sound strange, as if they had more than one
> voice each.

Italian instead, while agreeing with Quenya about parts of the body
such "hands" (so your exemple would be "tutti gli studenti alzarono
la loro mano", while "le loro mani" would have meant "both hands
each"), allows both "voce" (voice) and "voci" (voices) ("coloro che
formano parole con la voce/le voci").

-- Ugo Truffelli

Ugo Truffelli wrote, in reply to me:

> The statement cited previously in PE17:161 is preceded by "_Quenya
> idiom in describing the parts of body of several persons the _number_
> proper to each individual is used, the _plural_ of parts existing in
> _pairs_ (as hands, eyes, ears, feet) is seldom required." Well, in the
> light of these words I find it too difficult to see _ómainen_ as a
> usage of such an idiom, because _óma_ is neither a part of the body
> that can have more than one number in a person, nor falls into the
> category of "part existing in a pair".

I agree with much of what you say. But of course I did not mean to
suggest that _voice_ (the concept) might somehow fall into the category
of "parts [of the body] existing in pairs".

My question was, is the idiom an isolated example? Why did Tolkien find
it proper to Quenya grammar? Perhaps it was not suggested to him by
anything in particular in Elvish; it might be an anomaly, a whim even.
"[Body] parts existing in pairs", and that's it! Perhaps.

However, if we do not look just to the literal words on the page, we may
ask ourselves whether the idiom presented itself because it follows from
some larger pattern in the language? I don't know; that's why I put it
as a question.

You are probably right about my suggested "similar case", if I was
mistaken as to when (in the external history of Quenya) forms such as
_ómainen_ ceased to be plurals.

> And if the idiomatic usage wants
> the sg or dual for the (normal) pl (in order to specify the "number
> proper to each individual"), we may easily suppose that the non-
> idiomatic usage should require the plural.

Seems reasonable enough, if "idiomatic" here means something like
"irregular". Or perhaps Tolkien just wanted to point to the Quenya idiom
as contrasted with a literal translation from English. In which case the
word does not really tell us much about "non-idiomatic" usage (which to
me suggests Elvish as spoken by a foreigner).

Best regards,
/Fredrik