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_ <

_nęgitte_ (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

>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