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

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

--- 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

--- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, "cgilson75" <cgilson75@...>

wrote:

>

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

>

>> Some questions and observations on PE17:

>> 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.



How does this item read? If I get the text then I can add it to

the errata list.



Suilaid o Mellonath Daeron,

Gildir, Per Lindberg

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

--- 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