Mellyn!

     Omentielva Nelya, 6-9 August in Whitehaven, England, is
drawing nigh. All information is found at <www.omentielva.com>.
     For practical reasons, we will now close the online registration.
If you want to join us in this last minute, write to me about it,
and as long as it is at all still possible we will welcome you!

	 Meneg suilaid,

		 Beregond
		 secretary of Omentielva

Mellyn!

     In six weeks, it will be time to pack the suitcase for a trip to
Britain and Whitehaven.
     Omentielva Nelya will be held there on 6-9 August. If you have the
opportunity to attend, do not miss it! On the website of the conference,
www.omentielva.com, you can register online (go to "Next Conference",
then "Registration").
     There are papers and other items on the programme to attract anyone
with an interest in Tolkien's languages:

      *  Agnieszka Tańczuk (in absentia): “The Language of Magic in J.R.R.
Tolkien’s Works�
      * Helios De Rosario Martínez: “A Methodological Study of Elvish
Writing Systems�
      * Petri Tikka: “God’s Names in Elvish�
      * Valeria Barouch: “Some Notes on Arvernien�
      * Måns Björkman: “Attested Verb Classes in Late Quenya�
      * Helge Fauskanger (in absentia): “Challenges in the Exegesis of
Tolkien's Linguistic Material�
      * “An Elvish Learning Curve� — report from a primary school Tolkien
Reading Fellowship
      * “A Discussion on Elven Poesy� led by Tuilinde, Susan Edwards
      * “Towards an encoding of Tengwar and Cirth in the Universal
Character Set� — workshop led by Michael Everson

     More is coming!

	 Nai tuluvalye omentielvanna!

		 Beregond, Anders Stenström

C. S. Lewis, unlike Tolkien, was not an inveterate language maker. Also
unlike Tolkien, he features children from 20th century England as protagonists.
Which poses two language problems: how is it that English children speak
"Narnian" so well? And where do Narnian names come from?

<http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df92695_1ds4fn2fv>

Hans Georg Lundahl

[Please make sure that any comments in reply to this article posted to this list
are related to Tolkien's languages. CFH]

Mellyn!

     The production of _Arda Philology_ 2, the proceedings of the
second Omentielva conference, held in Antwerp in 2007, has been
interrupted by other concerns for some months. It will, however,
soon be continued, and the volume will appear in time for
Omentielva Nelya, if not sooner.

	 Suilad,

		 Beregond   [Anders Stenström]

[Reminder to all members to please sign your posts with your given names, per
list policy. CFH]

For Omentielva Nelya we call for scholarly papers on all aspects of
any or all of Tolkien's invented languages, in any or all of their
conceptual stages.

The proceedings of the conference will be published in the third volume
of Arda Philology, to appear in 2010.

To propose a paper, send an abstract to Beregond, Anders Stenström, the
Omentielva Secretary. Do not make the abstract too short; a couple of
hundred words will normally be needed (but it of course depends on the
complexity of your subject). You do not need to have your conclusions
all worked out in the proposal, but delineate how you intend to reach
them. Append a short presentation of yourself (four lines or less).
Specify which sources you will rely on, and whether you will discuss any
previous studies.

We expect the presentation of a paper to take 40 minutes. But we aim at
a single-thread programme, and so can accommodate papers of varying
length. Please specify how long you expect to speak, and any technical
equipment you need. Be prepared for questions and discussion at the end
of your presentation.

Copyright or similar considerations may apply. For publication, you have
to provide a copy of your paper in which all quotation is highlighted
and the source given.

Append a short presentation of yourself (four lines or less).

If you wish to submit a paper but can not attend the conference, you may
send a paper to be read and discussed. In the latter case, state any
directions or preferences you may have for the presentation.

[Anders Stenström]

========================================================
Information about Omentielva Nelya: <www.omentielva.com>

The Third International Conference on J.R.R. Tolkien's Invented
Languages
'Omentielva Nelya'
6 - 9 August, 2009


* Change of venue

     Omentielva Nelya was previously announced to take place in
Cambridge, England. It has unfortunately proved impossible to
hold it there.
     Fortunately, however, the respected Elfling poster Tuilinde,
Susan Frances Edwards, was able to provide an alternative at
short notice, and made it possible for Omentielva Nelya to
instead be held in Whitehaven, England.

* Registration opens

     The full registration fee is 75 GBP, which includes the volume
of proceedings, as well as all meals and simple sleeping-space.
(For a smaller fee, £ 20, you may register as a non-attending
participant; in this way you support the conference and will get a
copy of the published proceedings.)
     Registration at this price will be open from now, and at least
until July 1. If we then cannot accept more participants, we will
announce it here. The registration fee may be raised after July 1.

     Omentielva's website at <www.omentielva.com> is about to be
updated with the new information, and more will be added by and by.
There is (or will be tomorrow) a registration page ("Next
conference", then "Registration") where you can register online.

	 Namárie tenn' Omentielva!

		 Beregond   [Anders Stenström]

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 í : ríe.

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 ríe but ría instead, which could be a
misprint for ríe but then the etymon is there printed *rîgâ.

So am I right if I assume that it is ríe 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 ?

Thank you,

Edouard Kloczko

[I have just checked my photocopy of the ms., and the form _rië_
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 _ríe_.

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 _ría_ and _*rîgâ_ 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_, _ríe_, or _ría_ at
varying times during Tolkien's life. -- PHW]

>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).

Roman Rausch

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_).

Helios

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
errata@....

Carl

Note that throughout a circumflex indicates a macron in the original.


Issue 11:
---------


PE11:33 s.v. Faiglim: Note that the hyphen in "_Aur-faiglim_" is
editorial.

PE11:37 s.v. _gantha_: for "_yonta-" read "_yanta-_" (noted in
PE12:106).

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).


Issue 12:
---------


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).

PE12:31: s.v. (NÐN), in "(U)NQ(U)N" the dot below the second N is
missing.

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
editorial.

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).

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.


Issue 13:
---------


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_ >>
_*bot-_".

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
s.v. _ufedhron_".

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
the entry).

PE13:155 s.v. _únoth_, editorial note: for "_udathnorol_" read
"_udathnarol_".

PE13:159 s.v. AMROST, editorial note: for "_bodramros_" read
"_bodamros_".

Issue 14:
---------


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
throughout PE12).

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.
34).

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).


Issue 15:
---------


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
s.v. _Ainon_).

PE15:37 s.v. _tuktalla_: for "_tuku-_" read "_tuku_" (as given in
PE12:95).

PE15:39 commentary on line 11: for "_malto fustûme ..._" read "_nalto
fustûme ..._".

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
chart).

PE15:59 note 2: for "Turin" read "Túrin".


Issue 16:
---------


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.


Issue 17:
---------


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. ? &#8730;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".

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?

Elfiquement,

Edouard Kloczko

[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]

Hello,

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 ?

Thank you.

Edouard Kloczko

[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 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 :

"_eglir, igil_"

Could this _igil_ be a misprint for _igli_?

Edouard Kloczko

[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]

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 ?

Thank you,

Edouard Kloczko

[I've had another look at my photocopy of the passage in
question, and Christopher's reading is almost certainly the
correct one. -- PHW]

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.

Helios

Regarding Helios De Rosario Martínez's article, "Early Ilkorin Phonology"
(<http://www.elvish.org/Tengwestie/articles/DeRosarioMartinez/earlyilkorin.phtml\
>):

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).
[...]
>mîye

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

typo: _smíg_

Of course, I will link 'Early Ilkorin Phonology' in my work and add
some references to it in the text.

Roman Rausch

I am pleased to announce the publication of a new article on
_Tengwestië_:

<http://www.elvish.org/Tengwestie/articles/DeRosarioMartinez/earlyilkorin.phtml>

TITLE: Early Ilkorin Phonology

AUTHOR: Helios De Rosario Martínez

ABSTRACT:
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:

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

--
Carl F. Hostetter

With the release of the Gentium Basic font family:

<http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=Gentium_basic>

which adds a bold face to (much of) the rich character set of regular
Gentium font family:

<http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=Gentium>

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
compatibility issues.

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:

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

--
Carl F. Hostetter

Is _ává_ a misprint for _áva_ on PE 17:143?

"The longer form _avá, ává_ was only used..."

Thank you,

Edouard Kloczko

[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!_.
-- PHW]

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.
						 --Elvish proverb

***************************************************

Hello,

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,

Diego Seguí
Argentina

Hey there.

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 ?

Thank you!

Vivien Stocker

* * * * *

[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]

I have the pleasure to announce a new major article
on Khuzdul written by Magnus Åberg of the Mellonath
Daeron, available on:
http://www.forodrim.org/daeron/publications.html

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:
http://www.forodrim.org/daeron/updates.html

Meneg suilaid o Mellonath Daeron
   Gildir
     Guild-master

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
personal passive.

But if anyone with access to the original note has more to say, so be it.

--
Hans

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.

- Chris

--- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.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_
> (rare)."
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
>
> * Thorsten
>

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, sîna_ 'known, certain, ascertained'. After intransitives
often = active participle, _va_nwa_. This has a past form _kárienwa_
(rare)."

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?

Thanks,

* Thorsten

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
_mistiad_.

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.
MIS- add:

"[for:] _mistrad_ [read:] _mistiad_."

Carl

* See <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sindict/message/370> and
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sindict/message/371
  >

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
(long Æ).

   - 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.

Helios

--- 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

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