The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog
Show Message Summaries
Sort by Date
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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org, 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
> 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).
Is there a linguistic reason why the _hu-_ in _Huorn_ might not be semantically
to that in _huine_ 'gloom, darkness' (S 358)? Searching the archives to this
list, I see that
all discussion about _hu-_ in the context of _Huorn_ deals with the quality of
speech or at
Although the ability to speak was a defining characteristic of Huorns in early
47-55), and this ability is still mentioned in the final text of LR (LR 551),
the ability to
speak is hardly relevant in the narrative context of the final text. In the
final text, Huorns
are defined by their ambiguity (second only perhaps to their ability to uproot
They move in shadow, vaguely heard or sensed but not seen (no one actually sees
move, except perhaps the Ents: LR 551, 539; Merry says "they seem to be able to
themselves in shadow" [LR 551]). In the only scene where readers get a good look
Huorns (standing still), "the great aisles of the wood were already wrapped in
stretching away into impenetrable shadows" (LR 533).
Another aspect of the Huorns' ambiguity is that no one seems to know quite what
(Ents that have become like trees? Trees that have become like Ents?); early
demonstrate that Tolkien himself vacillated on the issue (VIII 47-55). Even the
final text is
not definitive. Merry and Treebeard, each speaking with considerable
contradict one another: Merry thinks that Huorns "are Ents that have become
trees" (LR 551), yet Treebeard speaks of trees "getting Entish" (LR 457).
A further semantic connection to _huine_ may lie in the suggestion that Huorns
and wild. Dangerous" (LR 551, per Merry). Treebeard explains that, when a tree
Entish, "you find that some have bad hearts," alluding to "some very black
Fangorn (LR 457). Treebeard connects these negative points to "some shadow of
Darkness" which still lingers in the area.
I am aware that Tolkien glosses the earlier names for Huorns as "Talking Trees"
50), but I wonder whether the intended meaning of the name may have changed as
Huorns' role in the narrative evolved. Given the narrative context in the final
text of LR,
there seems to be good reason to gloss the _hu_ in _Huorn_ with some suggestion
'gloom, darkness' or perhaps 'shadow.'
I am a Tolkien scholar but not a linguist by any means, so please forgive me if
making a linguistically ridiculous suggestion. One potential obstacle I see is
is a Sindarin word (per Jim Allen 1978) and _huine_ is Quenya (S 358); can a
be found in the way in which the Ents use both forms of Elvish (LR 1105)? If the
languages in this instance is permissible, I wonder whether "ui" treated as a
might be a problem?
Your input is much appreciated.
- Cynthia Cohen
A late answer, but nevertheless:
>Although the ability to speak was a defining characteristic of Huorns
>in early drafts (VIII 47-55), and this ability is still mentioned in
>the final text of LR (LR 551), the ability to speak is hardly relevant
>in the narrative context of the final text. In the final text, Huorns
>are defined by their ambiguity (second only perhaps to their ability
>to uproot and travel). They move in shadow, vaguely heard or sensed
>but not seen (no one actually sees them move, except perhaps the Ents:
>LR 551, 539; Merry says "they seem to be able to wrap themselves
>in shadow" [LR 551]).
That very paragraph actually contains a clear explanation of the name:
'They still have voices, and can speak with the Ents – that is why
they are called Huorns, Treebeard says'
>One potential obstacle I see is that _Huorn_
>is a Sindarin word (per Jim Allen 1978) and _huine_ is Quenya (S 358)
Yes, that'a point. Original aspirated PH becomes _h_ before _u_ in
Quenya only. PHUY- yields Q. _Fui_, _Hui_ 'Night' as well as _fuine_,
_huine_ 'deep shadow', but N. _fuin_ only (V:382).
>If the mixing of languages in this instance is permissible, I wonder
>whether "ui" treated as a dipthong might be a problem?
Oh yes, it is, there is no known mechanism to simplify a diphthong
like that. Examples of hybrid Quenya/Sindarin words do exist, e.g. Q.
_Ondohir_ which substitutes _-hir_ 'lord' from S. _hîr_, pure Quenya
would be _Ondoher_ (XII:210). But also given _#hu-_ instead of _*hui_
the possibility of a derivation from PHUY- just doesn't appear likely
by Occam's razor.
Still, your guess was not unreasonable. Tolkien apparently considered
an element _hô_ 'spirit, shadow' (PE17:86) > *S. _hû_ as a possibility
among others, although the translation is not very readable. Look here
for a quick discussion (use the browser search to get to _Huorns_):
But one should note that Tolkien wrote down almost every possible
retrospective interpretation for a lot of LR names and it's seldom
clear in favour of which possibility he decided (if he did at all). In
any case, earlier variants are a helpful means of analysis, often
showing the original intention for the meaning of a name. In this case
it's clearly 'talking trees'.
I am a graduate student in medieval languages & book history and am
currently working on Tolkien language scholarship from a reception
studies perspective. I was hoping to pose a couple questions which
perhaps you have thought about yourselves.
Namely, would you consider yourself and your work part of a larger
Tolkien readership community? Part of an even larger fantasy
readership community? What about Tolkien fan communities?
How would you characterize yourself vis-a-vis Tolkien studies? Would
you consider yourself mainly a fan? An enthusiast? A scholar? Or an
author in your own right?
How does composing in Quenya or debating niceties of Tolkienian
linguistics affect your relationship to the JRRT corpus?
These are a couple examples. I would immensely appreciate hearing
any thoughts & if anyone would be willing to fill out a more in-depth
survey for me, please email me at anna.dysert@....
[Please reply to Ms. Dysert directly, not on the list. Ms. Dysert, when you have
finished your study, feel free to report the results to the list. CFH]
I have received an email from someone who has said my university
email address wasn't behaving. If you are considering responding,
directing an email to dysert_a at yahoo.ca would be just fine as well.
Thank you again! apologies for the off-topic
--- In email@example.com, "cgilson75" <cgilson75@...>
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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
Since (at least) the publication of _Unfinished Tales_, we know that the
Telerin branch of Eldarin (which includes Sindarin and the Telerin of
Aman) shifted _kw_ to _p_. This was explicitly mentioned in the footnote
of UT:344, where we are given the example of Eldarin _alkwa_ 'swan',
which became Telerin _alpa_ and Sindarin _alf_ (transcribed _alph_), and
there are plenty of other examples and texts that confirm it.
The _kw_ > _p_ development in some Elvish languages goes back to
Tolkien's earliest works, though with variations. The language of the
Sea-elves had this feature since its very first conception, when it was
called "Solosimpilin" (cf. PE12:16-17, 21). The Gnomish/Noldorin
language kept _kw_ (spelt _cw_) in the first Grammar and Lexicon, but
it adopted the shift to _p_ during the Leeds period in 1920-5, when
Tolkien wrote the "Noldorin Word-lists" (see many of the words with _p-_
in PE13:152, and the editor's commentary on p. 134).
In the _Etymologies_, both Telerin and Noldorin (Old and Exilic) share
this characteristic. In fact we may find the same example as in UT under
the entry ÁLAK:
*_alk-wâ_ swan: Q _alqa_; T _alpa_; ON _alpha_; N _alf_ (V:348).
But there is a strange thing here: Noldorin, contrary to Sindarin in the
later conception, was not of the same linguistic branch as Telerin. On
the other hand, languages that _did_ descend from Telerin, like Ilkorin
or Doriathrin (see the trees of tongues in V:169-170, 196-197), kept the
original _kw_. In the example above we find Ilk. _alch_ and Dan. _ealc_
(where _kw_ has been transformed because of its final position). And
there are clearer examples in the entries starting in KW- (V:366):
- Ilk. _côm_ 'sickness' (< *_cwâm_) like Q. _qáme_ but unlike N.
_paw_, from KWAM-.
- Ilk. _cwess_ 'down' (the noun, not the adverb), like Q. _qesset_ but
unlike N. _pesseg_, from KWES-.
- Dor. _cwindor_ 'narrator', from _kwentrô_ (KWET-) and like Q.
_qentaro_, but unlike N. _pethron_.
And A&C, in VT45:24, provides two further examples:
- Ilk. _cwên_ 'small gull, petrel', borrowed in N. as _cuen_, but
unlike obsolete ON. _paine_, Exilic _poen_ and Tel. _pâne_, from KWÆ
- Dor. _cwend_ 'elf', like Q. _qende_ (as well as Dan. _cwenda_), but
unlike N. _penedh_, from KWEN(E)D.
Thus, I would say that the "Telerin" represented in Etym. should not be
regarded as the common ancestor of Valinórean Telerin and the
Beleriandic languages, but specifically the Telerin of Valinor, and that
the change _kw_ > _p_ was developed after they left Beleriand. The
coincidence with Noldorin in this aspect would be explained by the
approximation between Nolorin and (Valinórean) Telerin mentioned in the
_Lhammas_: "[The converse of Noldor in Valinor] was rather with the
Teleri of the neighbouring shores than with the Lindar, and the tongues
of Teleri and Noldor drew somewhat together again in those days" (V:173).
But in this case, which language developed that change originally? In
the external history of the languages, we have seen that it was first a
feature of the language of the Solosimpi (> Teleri), afterwards "copied"
in Noldorin. However, in the context of the _Lhammas_ and the
_Etymologies_ it could have happened the other way round: Noldorin "was
altered much by new words and devices of language ... invented anew by
the Noldor" (V:174).
Thus, the _kw_ > _p_ shift might have well been one of the older
inventions (other features of Noldorin, like the "Initial Variation of
Consonants" in compounds and after articles (V:298), and the plural
formation through vowel mutation, are observed only in Exilic Noldorin).
This Old Noldorin invention would have then been adopted by Telerin, as
opposed to the later development, when Noldorin was transformed into
Sindarin, a descendant of Telerin.
A recent discussion on the "sindict" mailing list* raised the question
of whether the reading _mistrad_ given in _The Etymologies_ at V:373
s.v. MIS- might be an error. Having looked again at (my photocopy of)
the manuscript, and at some other, contemporary documents on Noldorin,
I can now say with high confidence that the correct reading is
So, as an addendum to my and Patrick Wynne's "Addenda and Corrigenda
to the _Etymologies_", Part One, in _Vinyar Tengwar_ 45, p. 35 s.v.
"[for:] _mistrad_ [read:] _mistiad_."
* See <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sindict/message/370> and
In PE17:68 I find the description of the formation of participles:
"Simple past participle passive _kari-nwa_, adj. _-ina_, after vowel stems
_-nwa, sinwa, sÃ®na_ 'known, certain, ascertained'. After intransitives
often = active participle, _va_nwa_. This has a past form _kÃ¡rienwa_
As it is printed, 'this' seems to refer to the previously mentioned active
participle. However, given the style of Tolkien's notes, this may be an
accident and 'this' may in fact refer back to 'simple past participle
passive' at the beginning of the sentence. I wonder of anyone with access
to a copy of the original note could clarify if the text arrangement on
the original document can provide any clue as to what is meant here?
I took another look at the photocopy of the manuscript, and the
arrangement of the text does suggest that the "This" in the third
sentence of the passage Thorsten quoted refers back to the first
sentence. Of course these are somewhat rough phrases and not entirely
grammatical as sentences, but I think the meaning of the third one is
that _kárienwa_ is a rare past passive participle.
The facet of the arrangement that suggests this is that the second
sentence, "After intransitives often = participle active, _va-nwa_," is
substantially indented from the rest of the text, as if Tolkien may
have meant it as a sort of parenthetical note, with the beginning of
the third sentence lined up horizontally with the first sentence, as
though continuing the interrupted thought. But this is only a
suggestion, since the alignment of the texts on the margin of the
manuscript page is irregular. And it is clear that Tolkien composed
these three sentences is in the order given, i.e. the second sentence
is not a later insertion.
Of the two possible interpretations of the ambiguous "This" in context,
I think its reference to the passive rather than active examples
preceding makes more logical sense as well; since the reason _va-nwa_
can be understood in an active sense is because the verb is inherently
intransitive. In other words the suffix _-nwa_ seems normally to add a
passive sense, or "select" that sense from the two possibilities when
the inherent meaning of the verb is transitive.
I hope this is helpful.
--- In email@example.com, "Thorsten Renk" <trenk@...> wrote:
> In PE17:68 I find the description of the formation of participles:
> "Simple past participle passive _kari-nwa_, adj. _-ina_, after vowel stems
> _-nwa, sinwa, s?na_ 'known, certain, ascertained'. After intransitives
> often = active participle, _va-nwa_. This has a past form _kárienwa_
> As it is printed, 'this' seems to refer to the previously mentioned active
> participle. However, given the style of Tolkien's notes, this may be an
> accident and 'this' may in fact refer back to 'simple past participle
> passive' at the beginning of the sentence. I wonder of anyone with access
> to a copy of the original note could clarify if the text arrangement on
> the original document can provide any clue as to what is meant here?
> * Thorsten
I have another kind of clue, Thorsten.
Tolkien was a fan of Nordic languages, he may well have made a calque of the
procedure where past participles like "gången, kommen" are "active" =
intransitive, because the verb is intransitive and as such cannot have a
But if anyone with access to the original note has more to say, so be it.
I have the pleasure to announce a new major article
on Khuzdul written by Magnus Åberg of the Mellonath
Daeron, available on:
An older version has been available in Swedish,
this version is up to date and written in English.
I daresay that this is *the* most comprehensible
paper on the subject so far. We in the Mellonath
Daeron are honoured by the author to publish it.
For more new publications, see:
Meneg suilaid o Mellonath Daeron
I and some friends wondered if any of you could help us with the
etymology and the meaning of the following names: _Amillo_ and _Ómar_
(cf. BLT1&2). We found a few things in PE 12 about _Amillo_ but couldn't
manage to find any further pieces of information. Can anybody help ?
* * * * *
[In the early list "Names of the Valar" published in Parma 14,
Q. _Omar_ (so spelled with a short _o_) and _Amillo_ have as
their Gnomish equivalents _Ûmor_ and _Gamlos_ (PE14:12). The
editorial note to these names (pg. 13, n. 11) gives the following
brief etymological analysis: "Gn. _Ûmor_ contains _ûm_ 'voice'
(GL 74). Compare Q _Ómar_, "whose voice is the best of all voices"
(I 75), from Q _ôma_ 'voice' (QL 69). Gn. _Gamlos_ = Q _Amillo_
('one of the Happy Folk (the Valar); Hilary', QL 30). The name
_Hilary_ is derived from Latin _hilaris_ 'cheerful'. The meaning
of the Qenya form suggests that Gn. _Gamlos_ is an agentive <
_gama-_ 'call, shout to' (GL 37), perhaps meaning *'one who
shouts for joy'. Gn. _gama-_ is also cognate with Q _yamin_
'shout, call'. This varying correspondence of initial Gn. _g-_ to
initial _y-_ or lack of initial consonant in Qenya may also be
seen in Gn. _ger_ 'ore, metal' (GL 38) and Q _yere(n), ere(n)_
'iron or steel' (QL 36." -- PHW]
Probably someone here can help me with this:
The runes in Thrór's map have 'wh' for 'hw' in 'when', Tolkien following a
regular usage in writing Anglo-Saxon runes (noted e.g. by D. Anderson in his
Annotated Hobbit, p. 97); that is, it says 'hwen the thrush knocks'. Now, the
same map in standard Spanish editions (Minotauro, 1982-), where the runes have
not been translated, has 'when', even though the transcription in the first page
says 'hwen' again. (The map itself has been redrawn and translated, and the
runes seem to have been copied very carefully.)
The question is: was there ever any map in English editions that had 'when'
instead of 'hwen' and that may have served as a model for the Spanish map, or
should this change be ascribed to the person who copied it?
Thanks a lot,
On Sep 18, 2008, at 1:02 PM, Diego Seguí wrote:
> The question is: was there ever any map in English editions that had
> 'when' instead of 'hwen' and that may have served as a model for the
> Spanish map, or should this change be ascribed to the person who
> copied it?
I think it must be the latter. I've never seen an English edition
with "when" on Thrór's map (and I have quite a few different editions
in my collection).
Arden R. Smith erilaz@...
Perilme metto aimaktur perperienta.
Is _ává_ a misprint for _áva_ on PE 17:143?
"The longer form _avá, ává_ was only used..."
[Having checked my photocopies, I can confirm
that the reading _ává_ for the second form is
definitely correct. However, the published text
does contain a different error at the beginning of
that same paragraph, where "_Va!_ as interjection
or adverb" should have _Vá!_ instead of _Va!_.
With the release of the Gentium Basic font family:
which adds a bold face to (much of) the rich character set of regular
Gentium font family:
I have modified the _Tengwestië_ site to use Gentium/Basic throughout
as the default font family. Therefore, readers of _Tengwestië_ should
be sure to have those two font families installed on their computer
for best results. As always, though, every _Tengwestië_ article is
also available in PDF, which eliminates any font or browser
I have also added a "Change Log" feature to _Tengwestië_ articles, which will
allow readers to know the nature of any changes made.
_Tengwestië_ is the online journal of the Elvish Linguistic
Fellowship, edited by myself and Patrick H. Wynne:
Carl F. Hostetter
I am pleased to announce the publication of a new article on
TITLE: Early Ilkorin Phonology
AUTHOR: Helios De Rosario Martínez
This article analyzes all the published data about Ilkorin in its
earliest conceptual stages, during the composition of the _Book of
Lost Tales_ and while Tolkien lived in Leeds. The first period was
characterized by the obscurity of Ilkorin, which was almost unknown
even by the sages of Tol Eressëa. In constrast, the second period
provides relevant information on the history and nature of that
language, and twenty-six Ilkorin words with cognates in other
languages and prehistoric forms. The phonological analysis of these
words reveals a consistent set of sound laws that resemble those of
the earliest Germanic languages, especially Grimm's Law, and give a
characteristic aspect to the language.
_Tengwestië_ is the online journal of the Elvish Linguistic
Fellowship, edited by myself and Patrick H. Wynne:
Carl F. Hostetter
Regarding Helios De Rosario Martínez's article, "Early Ilkorin Phonology"
Being involved in the topic myself I have read the article with great
interest and have some comments to make. The special characters are
changed in the following post (macron to circumflex etc.) so that it
will hopefully be readable.
>Long vowels in prehistoric forms are normally marked in ND with a
>macron (¯), but in the NW instances Tolkien also uses an acute
>accent (´) or a colon (:) for long vowels, except in t'lê'pe,
>where the acute accent means that long ê is stressed (cf. PE13:135).
There is no mention that the acute accent often represents stress (as
is also written in PE13:135), even if not grouped with the macron or
colon. And stress is very important in understanding the derived forms
in the case of _y_. The data is explained remarkably well if one
assumes different developments depending on whether _y_ comes before
or after the stress. It can be summarized as following:
_y_ before accent | _y_ after accent
Quenya i|y | y
Telerin i | r
Noldorin i|j | dh
Ilkorin ? | gg
I cite relevant examples in parts III.3.2. and IV.1.2. of my article.
One can compare the Noldorin changes with an almost identical
stress-dependent development in Welsh as mentioned in Morris-Jones'
_Welsh Grammar_. Therefore I believe that _míye_ has the stress, not
the length marked by the accent with the development indicated in the
second column: Q. _mie_ < _*miye_, T. _mire_, N. _midh_, Ilk. _migg_.
>Under this model, the development of preh. pisye would be explained
>as *pisje > *pisðe, which by assimilation > *pisze or *pisse (or one
>after the other), and eventually > fiss through regular loss of
>final vowel and Ilkorin Sound Shift.
Following the previous idea: There is no stress marked in _pisye_, but
looking at the resulting forms, Q. _pihye_, T. _pirie_, N. _hí_ it
seems that it should be _*pisyé_, otherwise one would expect _dh_ in
Noldorin (I cannot say what _*sdh_ would have evolved into).
Therefore I believe that _pisye_ shows a development different from
_míye_. Looking at the first column of the table above it appears that
_y_ is kept in all the languages (but may become vocalic depending on
its environment). Hence, I would expect that _sy_ was inherited by
Ilkorin and later changed to _ss_ by a different mechanism.
With the little amount of examples availible there is of course a
chance that the change of _y_ is not dependent on stress in Ilkorin,
but the bottom line is: Assuming _migg_ < _*miðe_ does not require the
assumption of _*pisðe_.
>the change from dentals to velars is not unknown in Elvish languages
> — one example occurs in Gn. feigien worse < faiðn (PE13:114)
I'm not convinced here. Both forms are written beside each other, but
can one really be sure that _feigien_ is derived from _faiðn_ and not
vice versa? The adjectival ending is _-(k)ka_ (_fêka_, _fekka_), so
maybe _*feiX'n/*feigh'n_ > _faiðn_?
Also, one has to assume a comparative ending involving _d_ which may
be similar to N. _-iad_ < _*jat-_ (PE13:125), but looking at the
counterpart _mawr_ 'good', adj. _maien_, _mairien_ 'better' one rather
sees _-ien_ once appended to a form combined with the adjectival
ending _-r_ and once not. So maybe we are even dealing with
_*feik-ien_ > _faigien_ (with suffix _-k(a)_) and _*fei-j'n_ > _faiðn_
(without suffix and _y_ > _dh_)?
I find it difficult to believe that the interdental spirant _ð_,
becoming intervocalic, suddenly changes to a velar stop, although
intervocalic _ð_ is perfectly acceptable in Goldogrin/Noldorin phonology.
>And in Old Norse (which is not a West Germanic language, however),
>sometimes /j/ was lengthened to /jj/ according to Holtzmann's Law
>(Prokosch, 1939: §33c), and eventually hardened to /gg/, as here
>in mîye > migg.
This is very interesting and seems to be a likely development for
Ilkorin, given that some fairly complex sound changes of Welsh are
closely imitated in Noldorin of that time.
Being self-educated in linguistics I assumed that /gg/ from a single
/j/ would be unlikely and therefore tentatively suggested /ž/ or /dZ/
for Ilk. _gg_ by pure speculation (cf. the pronounciation of initial
_j-_ in English and French).
>Roman Rausch interprets in his article that Ilk. þerr comes from
>tésare, the primitive form of the N cognate teiar, instead of
>from terar (whence Q. telar). In fact all these words are given
>in the same entry of NWL, and it is likely that terar < tésare.
>But preh. terar seems to be closer to the Ilkorin form, both by
>phonology and by their relative position in the entry of NWL.
As I interpet the entry, _tésare_ is the primitive form of all the
three words mentioned. Noldorin vocalizes _s_ > _i_ (or > _j_ as part
of a diphthong), the Qenya form _telar_ looks strange at the first
glance, so Tolkien explains that it is from _terar_, i.e. with
rhotacism and vowel loss followed by dissimilation. That would make
_terar_ an old Qenya form.
If rhotacism occurs in Ilkorin as well (it's Germanic in style after
all), Ilk. _þerr_ might have evolved from a parallel _terar_ as well;
otherwise I would assume _*þesr_ > _þerr_. In any case I believe that
_tésare_ is the older form.
>Other vowel mutations [...]
>mîgg < smeigê
Of course, I will link 'Early Ilkorin Phonology' in my work and add
some references to it in the text.
I thank Roman for his valuable commentaries on the article of "Early
Ilkorin Phonology". I have modified it to reflect some of his ideas,
which improve my original hypothesis on the origin of Ilk. _migg_.
> There is no mention that the acute accent often represents stress (as
> is also written in PE13:135), even if not grouped with the macron or
> colon. And stress is very important in understanding the derived forms
> in the case of _y_.
After a more careful examination of the sources, I think that you are
certainly right in the case of preh. _míye_. In the cited introduction
to the Noldorin Word-lists, its editors tell that
"in ENF 3, 4, 8 and 10 Tolkien used the acute accent in place of the
macron to mark vowel length when he typed reconstructed forms".
I had applied this interpretation to all the prehistoric forms involved
in Ilkorin phonology, except for _t'lépe_ (with the accent over a macron
on the first _e_), because this case was explicitly marked as an exception.
However, now I notice that _míye_ is not in any of the pages cited by
the editors, but in ENF 13. And _dâ_, one of the prehistoric forms
related to Ilk. _þah_, which is in ENF 13 too, has a macron to mark
vowel length. Therefore, Roman is probably right when he says that
_míye_ features a stressed _i_, so marked in order to explain a distinct
development of _y_ after a stressed syllable.
All the other Ilkorin terms for which the prehistoric forms bear an
acute accent are in ENF 3, 4, 8 or 10. Therefore, _míye_ seems to be the
only case, together with _t'lépe_, in which that sign should be read as
a mark of stress.
>> the change from dentals to velars is not unknown in Elvish languages
>> — one example occurs in Gn. feigien worse < faiðn (PE13:114)
> I'm not convinced here. Both forms are written beside each other, but
> can one really be sure that _feigien_ is derived from _faiðn_ and not
> vice versa?
> I find it difficult to believe that the interdental spirant _ð_,
> becoming intervocalic, suddenly changes to a velar stop, although
> intervocalic _ð_ is perfectly acceptable in Goldogrin/Noldorin phonology.
The change from dental to velar is rare, but not impossible. It is
explicitly mentioned in PE11:31 s.v. _edh_, which is said to be _eg_
before _l_, as in _egla_. I have replaced the original example for this
one, because your hypothetical reconstructions of the development of
_faiðn_ and _feigien_ are convincing, and therefore they do not seem to
be a good argument for the case.
Anyway, I acknowledge that even this new example depends on a
phonological context different from that of *_miðe_, and that the
hypothetical origin of _migg_ as a development of that form is one of
the weakest ideas in the article. In fact, it is only suggested in a
secondary place, as a possible alternative to the likelier West-Germanic
or Old Norse-like development.
In order to understand why the "mîðe" hypothesis was suggested
originally in the article, perhaps I should clarify that it was the only
idea that I was able to conceive. But one of the advantages of
publishing in a peer-reviewed journal like _Tengwestië_ is that your
articles can be improved by the suggestions of the editor and the
reviewers, and in this case they gave me the idea of Holtzmann's Law, as
explained in the "Acknowledgements". Thus I enhanced the section of
"Development of _y_" with their suggestions, and moved the original idea
to a secondary position, although I did not remove it. Now you give me a
new opportunity to improve it, for which I thank you again.
>> Other vowel mutations [...]
>> mîgg < smeigê
> typo: _smíg_
Yes, you are right again! It has been corrected, too.
Christopher Gilson wrote in Lambengolmor mesage #1039 :
"† Q _tenya_, arrive (_not_ at speaker's[?] place)."
But in VT 49:24 we read : "† _tenya_ arrive (_end_ at [?specific] place)."
So which is the correct or right reading ?
[I've had another look at my photocopy of the passage in
question, and Christopher's reading is almost certainly the
correct one. -- PHW]
In PE:17 page 141 we learn that (some) Sindar called the Exiled Noldor
_eglon_ from the etymon _etlô_.
Just one line over that statement we have the plurial form _Etlôi_,
which gave the S. _igli_; but on top of that same page we read :
Could this _igil_ be a misprint for _igli_?
[I've checked my photocopy of this ms., and the reading "_eglir,
igil_" in the passage cited is certainly correct. In this text Tolkien
was experimenting with a great many possible Sindarin developments
from original _*etlô, *etlôi_, and on pg. 142 you will see that these
include BOTH _igli_ and _igil_, as well as alternative sg. forms such
as _egol_ and _egel_. -- PHW]
On p. 91 we read : "... and survived only in this construction. 6)"
But I do not find a note 6. On p. 93 the last note is numbered 5.
Did I miss something ? Or maybe Tolkien never wrote the note 6 ?
[Tolkien never wrote a note 6 to this essay; the discussion of how
to say "try harder" in Elvish follows immediately after note 5 in
the ms., exactly as represented in the published text. -- PHW]
In all my editions of _The Lord of the Rings_, in App. F S. _Fimbrethil_
is translated "slender-*beech*". But in the Index to the Second Edition
_Fimbrethil_ is translated "slim-*birch*".
Just another discrepancy? In _Etym._ Noldorin _brethil_ is a beech, not
a birch, and in his notes for _LotR_ (published in PE 17 pp. 19, 23,
and 82) _brethil_ is translated "birch" and never "beech".
Could the App. F text be in error, e.g. a typo? I wonder what Tolkien
first wrote in his first _LotR_ typescript when he wrote App. F. I have
not read it in Marquette. Has anyone here?
[Hammond and Scull note the discrepancy in their _Lord of the Rings: A
Reader's Companion_ (pp. 386-7), but do not indicate whether they
checked the reading "beech" in the typescript version of App. F. CFH]
Here is another collection of errata in _Parma Eldalamberon_ reported
to me over the past months. I have also added them to the omnibus lists
of _PE_ errata maintained at <http://www.elvish.org/errata> (which,
together with the omnibus _VT_ errata list, has further been revised
with corrections of errata to the errata). My thanks to Helios De
Rosario Martínez, John Garth, Edouard Kloczko, Javier Lorenzo, Diego
Seguí, and Fredrik Ström for alerting me of these.
I would also like to thank Per Lindberg for his long and careful
efforts in maintaining these lists of errata. His schedule does not
permit continuing to do so, so I have taken over the task. Please
continue sending all as-yet-unreported errata to me at
Note that throughout a circumflex indicates a macron in the original.
PE11:33 s.v. Faiglim: Note that the hyphen in "_Aur-faiglim_" is
PE11:37 s.v. _gantha_: for "_yonta-" read "_yanta-_" (noted in
PE11:42 s.v. _govin(d)riol_: for "_scilicit_" read "_scilicet_".
PE11:62 s.v. _ochlad_: for "_ot·glâta_" read "_ot·g'lâta_" (noted in
PE14:16 footnote 4).
PE12:xvi: for "_sié_" read "_sie_"; also, for "_falde_" read "_falde_
(_faldi-_)" (the latter is the form that actually appears in the
Phonology, on p. 16).
PE12:xvii: for "MAWA" read "MAWA-" (as the root is given throughout
PE12:31: s.v. (NÐN), in "(U)NQ(U)N" the dot below the second N is
PE12:39: for "GWINGI" read "GWINGI-" (the only way this root is given
elsewhere; in both NG stands for a N with a hook).
PE12:46 s.v. KAYA: for "_kaitoile_" (with dot above the _o_) prob. read
"_kaitoile_" (with no dot, as on p. 44 (first line); a dot does appear
in our photocopy of the MS, but may well be a stray mark, of which
there are many in this very old and darkening MS).
PE12:53 s.v. LI + ya, editorial note: "_lîne_" should have a dot below
the _e_ (as in the entry).
PE12:64, last line of editorial note cnt'd from p. 63: for "_blich_"
read "_blich-_" (as in the entry).
PE12:81 s.v. SANGA-: Note that the hyphen in "_anga-yasse_" is
PE12:92 s.v. TIFI, editorial note: for "_Quendi_" read "_Qendi_".
PE12:103 s.v. GWALA: for "VALA" read "VALA-" (as it is given throughout
PE12:111 entries for page 84b: for "M(B)ASA" read "M(B)ASA-" (as the
root is given throughout PE12); also, in the entries for page 98b:
there should be a caron above the R in "NARA" instead of a breve.
PE13:121 end of footnote 15: for "_kekt(e)lê_" read "_kekt(@)lê_" (@
stands for a schwa) (as in the source, PE11:25).
PE13:132, note 119: for "_gredhaint_" read "_gwredhaint_".
PE13:135, line 26: for "incicate" read "indicate".
PE13:138 s.v. _Balrog_, editorial note: for "_i'Maulraugin_" read
"_i'Malraugin_" (as the plural is given in the source, PE11:21).
PE13:139, editorial note: for "_boto_ >> _bot-_" read "_*boto_ >>
PE13:141 s.v. _cuil_: for "_cuilborn_ >> _cuilborn_" read "_cuilborn_
>> _cuilvorn_"; also s.v. _cum_: a closing single quotation mark is
missing after "burial mound".
PE13:142 s.v. _difedhui_: after the cross-reference "Perhaps cf. GL
_Nifedhin_ 'outlaw, outcast'" add "; also _difedhin_ 'lawless man', GL
PE13:143 s.v. _elven_: for "_*elmendiyá_" read "_elmendiyá:_" (as
discussed on p. 135).
PE13:151 s.v. _orost._, editorial note: for "_orost_" read "_orost·_"
(see erratum for PE11:63).
PE13:152 s.v. _rhanc_, editorial note: for "_rachos_ >> _rach_" read
"_rhachos_ >> _rhach_" (as in the entry).
PE13:154 s.v. _Thorndor_, editorial note: for "_-otura_" read
"_-oturá_" (as in the entry); also, s.v. _Tiledh_, editorial note: for
"_Telidhian_ >> _Teledhian_"; read "_Tilidhian_ >> _Tiledhian_" (as in
PE13:155 s.v. _únoth_, editorial note: for "_udathnorol_" read
PE13:159 s.v. AMROST, editorial note: for "_bodramros_" read
PE14:1: for "PARMA ELDLAMBERON" read "PARMA ELDALAMBERON".
PE14:7: for "MAWA" read "MAWA-" (as throughout PE12).
PE14:14 note 16: for "VRDR" read "VRDR" with dots under each R (as
PE14:23: for "HOTYO" read "HOTYO-"; for "KLKL" read "KLKL" with a dot
under each L; for "MURU" read "MURU-"; for "LLTL" read "LLTL" with a
dot under each L but the first (all as throughout PE12).
PE14:25: the Greek _aoristos_ is lacking an acute accent on the first
omicron; also, last line: for "_-uva_" read "_-uva-_" (all future
suffixes on the page have both hyphens, and "_-uva-_" appears so on p.
PE14:42 footnote 6: for "_N·alamino_" read "_N·alalmino_".
PE14:58 footnote 110: for "_tansine_ [with breve over _i_] << _tulîne_"
read "_tansine_ [with breve over _i_] << _tansîne_".
PE14:73: for "KALMALION" read "KALMALION" (with comma underposed on the
second "A"); for "ONDOLION" read "ONDOLION" (with comma underposed on
the second "O"); for "PILINDION" read "PILINDION" (with comma
underposed on the second "I").
PE14:74 footnote 15: for "accute" read "acute"; for "KARMALION" read
"KALMALION" (with comma underposed on the second "A").
PE14:81 footnote 17: for "_manalda_" read "_manyalda_" (as on p. 48).
PE15:1: for "PARMA ELDLAMBERON" read "PARMA ELDALAMBERON".
PE15:14 last paragraph: for "_heno (u)_" read "_heno (u)_" (with a
breve above the _u_) (as given in PE12:40).
PE15:18: for "Ælfwine" read "Aelfwine" (as given just above it).
PE15:20 s.v. _Âd Ilon_: for "_Ilúvatar_" read "_Ilûvatar_" (as given
PE15:37 s.v. _tuktalla_: for "_tuku-_" read "_tuku_" (as given in
PE15:39 commentary on line 11: for "_malto fustûme ..._" read "_nalto
PE15:48 fourth paragraph: for "enclitic pronouns _qe-_ and _-we_" read
"pronouns _qe-_ and enclitic _-we_" (since _qe-_ cannot be "enclitic";
cf. p. 33: "pronoun _qe-_ and _-we_, enclitic").
PE15:50: for "_lyu-_" read "_lyu_" (as given in the table).
PE15:57 first paragraph: for "_yunt_" read "_yunt[o]_" (as in the
PE15:59 note 2: for "Turin" read "Túrin".
PE16:56 commentary on line 2: for "_turinqe_ >> _turinqen_" read
"_tinweninqe_ >> _tinweninqen_".
PE16:63 commentary on line 4: for "QC _kiryainen_" read "QD
_kiryainen_" (the form _kiryainen_ is analyzed in the chapter "Qenya
Declensions" (QD), not in "Qenya Conjugations" (QC)).
PE16:67 commentary on line 25: for "_Núri Nyenna_" read "_Nûri
Nyenna_", as the name is given in PE12:38.
PE16:73: for "_säpsänta_" read "_säpsäntä_" (as the word is given on
pp. 54 and 72).
PE16:82 line 18: for "_*qimar_" read "_*qímar_".
PE16:93, commentary on line 5: for "feminine sg. _túliéro_" read
"feminine sg. _túliére_".
PE16:95 fifth line: for "_wilwarindeën_ >> _wilwarindeën_" read
"_wilwarindear_ >> _wilwarindeën_"
PE16:98 second paragraph: for "The poem seems to have achieve" read
"The poem seems to have achieved"; also, last paragraph: for "The Lost
Ark" read "The Last Ark".
PE16:129, line 6: for "_huon_" read "_huan_".
PE16:141 s.v. _sok_, editorial note: for "_slp-_" (dot below the l)
read "_slp_" (idem), as the form is given in PE14:58.
PE17:1: for "PARMA ELDLAMBERON" read "PARMA ELDALAMBERON".
PE17:11 s.v. _krimp-_: for "transcibed" read "transcribed".
PE17:42, line 2: for "empasize" read "emphasize"; also, penultimate
line: for "apsect" read "aspect".
PE17:106, line 3: for "halls" read "halts".
PE17:130, lines 5 and 12: for "accomodate" read "accommodate".
PE17:159, s.v. ? √LAN: for "See I 287 f." read "See I 387 f."
PE17:166, penultimate line: for "last sentence was was written" read
"last sentence was written".
Happy new year to all the Lambengolmor!
I am trying to find out what Tolkien meant in one of the paragraphs of
the Gnomish Grammar, where the historical phonology of Gnomish plurals
is discussed (PE11:10), and I would like to know if any of you have a
clearer view of it.
There is a table with the singular and plural forms of the
nominative/inessive, genitive/ablative and dative/allative cases. And
then the origin of all those forms is briefly discussed, comparing them
with their Qenya cognates.
Of the nominative/inessive forms: _-in_ or _-th_, is written:
"_-in_ is a double plural _-î_ = Q _i_ + _-n_, cp. adjectives."
"_-th_ is original and same as Q _-r_"
But then the following note is provided:
"The existence in G. of an _-r_ plural sign in verbs has given rise to
conjecture [...] that G _-th_ does not represent Q _-r_ but that _-r_
is a true plural ending (i.e. _r_ liquid) and _-tt_ = Q _-t_ dual from
_-tt@_ [@ = schwa] a dual ending = _-nt@_. This is possible."
That is the paragraph that I don't entirely understand.
The last part ("_-tt = Q _-t_ dual ...") does not say anything of Gn.
_-th_, the object of the previous part of the note. Had it been "_-th_ =
Q _-t_ dual" instead, I would have understood that those who said that
Gn. _-th_ does not represent Q. _-r_, believed that its origin was the
same as Qenya dual _-t_ (both < _-tt@_).
If that is the implied meaning, _-tt_ could be explained (if it is not
just a mere slip) as a prehistoric form of _-th_, like in _gôtha_
'possess, have, hold' < _iotta_ [semivocalic _i_], or _nith_ 'wax_ <
_nêgitte_ (PE11:42, 60).
But what follows is also somewhat ambiguous: "_-tt@_ a dual ending =
_-nt@_". Both _-tt@_ and _-nt@_ seem to be old dual endings, but what is
their relation, and why is _-nt@_ introduced in the discussion? Perhaps
because they are genetically related (_-tt@_ < _-nt@_ by assimilation,
or the opposite)? Or because _-nt@_ was still active as a Gnomish dual
in some cases? Notice that _-tt@_ could not have that function if it
yielded Gn. plural _-th_, and among the "commonest old duals" below in
PE11:10 there is _hunt_ 'the nose (originally nostrils)', from "old
_-nt_ ending" (cp. PE11:50). It is even possible that the gentive dual
_-wint_ (PE11:11) was formed as a "double dual" = _-wi_ + _-nt_.
However, this would not mean that _-nt@_ had no reflex in Qenya. At
least in verbs and pronouns, _-nt_ was also a dual mark (cf. PE15:46,
s.v. _munt_, _lunt_).
>Had it been "_-th_ = Q _-t_ dual" instead, I would have understood
>that those who said that Gn. _-th_ does not represent Q. _-r_,
>believed that its origin was the same as Qenya dual _-t_
>(both < _-tt@_).
I think that's exactly the intended meaning, the correspondence of
_th_ and _tt_ probably being so trivial for Tolkien that he doesn't
explicitly mention it.
>But what follows is also somewhat ambiguous: "_-tt@_ a dual ending =
>_-nt@_". Both _-tt@_ and _-nt@_ seem to be old dual endings, but what is
>their relation, and why is _-nt@_ introduced in the discussion?
It might be a bit of an overinterpretation, but I propose the following:
In Quenya, a dual ending _-t_ is seen, but it may come from _-tt@_
with loss of the schwa just as well as from _*-t@_. The parallel
existence of _-nt_ suggests that there were different modifications of
a more simple suffix _*-t@_, one with reduplication of the consonant,
another with nasalization.
Note that there is a suggested alternative reading _-tta_, _-nta_; in
either case both suffixes are most probably derived from the dual root
ATA (PE12:33, beside WI/U).
So basically the existence of _-nt_ supports _-tta/-tt@_ which on its
turn might be the source of Goldogrin pl. _-th_. Or else Tolkien
simply mentions it for the sake of completeness.
The suffix _*-t@/*-ta_ seems to appear in _-wid_ (PE11:11). Note also
the allative endings _-nta_, _-tta_ in EQG (PE14:46).
In Ety, in "The Shibboleth of Feanor" and D59 we find the root RIG-
meaning "'twine, wreath".
In Ety as printed the word meaning "crown, garland" in Q. is rie
(short i). Later corrected in Ety 46, p. 11 as having long Ã : rÃe.
But in D59 (Parma 17:182) the word is printed with a short i rie and
the word in Ety. on the same page is given with a short i too.
In PM:347 we find not rie or rÃe but rÃa instead, which could be a
misprint for rÃe but then the etymon is there printed *rÃ®gÃ¢.
So am I right if I assume that it is rÃe only which is the "correct"
word for "garland, wreath, crown" in Quenya ? Or is the reading in
"The Shibboleth of Feanor" certain and what about rie in D59 ?
[I have just checked my photocopy of the ms., and the form _riÃ«_
with short _i_ in PE17:182 is correct. However, the accompanying
editorial cross-reference to _rie_ in the Etymologies is in error,
since as you point out the correct reading in Etym. (given in the
A&C, VT 46) is _rÃe_.
I don't have photocopies of the ms. of "Shibboleth", but given that
it was a _typescript_, the chance that the final _-a_ is erroneous
in Q, T _rÃa_ and _*rÃ®gÃ¢_ in the published text seems vanishingly small.
So not surprisingly, there _is_ no "correct" form meaning 'garland,
wreath, crown' in Quenya -- the word was _rie_, _rÃe_, or _rÃa_ at
varying times during Tolkien's life. -- PHW]
Just address an email to firstname.lastname@example.org
Jump to a particular message