Petri Tikka wrote:

> > **So the _j_ is not pronounced there, right? Speaking of which, what
> > is it like in Finnish? I do not know a lot about it. Does Finnish have
> > j as a separate phoneme distict to /i/?
>
> The _j_ is an easening sound here, it is sometimes not pronounced
> at all, but most often it is a gliding sound to help the transition to the
> next vowel after an _i_. The gliding sound is not the same as the _j_
> that is not next to an _i_. In Finnish, /j/ and /i/ are seperate phonemes,
> eg. _paju_ "willow" is never pronounced with an _i_.

**I see. However, it does not imply from the fact that _paju_ is never
pronounced with [i] that the j and i are necessarily separate phonemes.
Their distribution may be limited: [j] between vowels and [i] between
consonants, for instance. It may depend on the position and the
environment. Similarly as in the Third Age Quenya, the sound [ñ] occurs
only before velars ([k], [g]), that is in a position where [n] is never
pronounced. In the Third Age Quenya the sounds [ñ] and [n] are
allomorphs of the phoneme /n/.

> > **Well, is [w] really independent from [u]? Now that I think about
> > it, is [w] not just a variant of [u]? These two sounds are very
> > similar. As far as I am aware [w] occurs only before vowels and [u]
> > only before consonants, and we never find combinations -uw- or
> > -wu- in Quenya.
>
> Of course they are very similar. They probably never happen to
> be beside each other because of euphony, just as [g] and [k]
> are never met together: [g] can only occur with [ñ].

**Note that this does not make [k] and [g] allomorphs, since
they are in free distribution while [w] and [u] are (presumably)
in complementary distribution. This means that if we replace [k]
with [g], the replacement will change the meaning of a word.
For instance, there is a minimal pair _anga_ and _anka_. On
the other hand, you cannot freely replace [w] with [u], and there
is no minimal pair in Quenya involving w contra v (as far as I am
aware).

> > The word _haia_ may be pronounced as either [ha-ja], [hai-a] or
> > [hai-ja]. In my opinion, the pronounciation [ha-ja] is possible,
> > though I do not find it very likely.
>
> [ha-ja] is not possible because it is written with an _i_. Tolkien
> never stated that he used _i_ as _j_ in Quenya.

**Sure, but this does not mean it is not possible. Cf the. word-initial
_i_ in words like _ia_ etc. (already mentioned by Hans (gentlebeldin)).
And although Tolkien rejected these words, it is possible that, say,
_ia_ was pronounced as [ja].

> > Now _sarniye_ would clearly be an istance of [i] and [j] standing
> > beside one another. However, if it is possible to pronounce _sarnie_
> > as [sar-ni-e] and _haia_ as [hai-a], the [j] would be, in my opinion,
> > only to ease the pronounciation of hiatus.
>
> The most likeliest explanation is that _y_ is an easening sound here,
> not the same _y_ as in _Yavanna_. That would explain why it is
> sometimes written, sometimes not. This situation would be exactly
> as in Finnish.

**I think so.


Ales Bican

--
Mi dissero che a quell'epoca per quindici giorni e quindici notti
i retori Gabundus e Terentius discussero sul vocativo di _ego_,
e infine vennero alle armi. (Umberto Eco, _Il nome della rosa_)

Martin Blom wrote:

> > **I am convinced that _heru_ plus a patronymic ending _-ion_
> > would produce *_heruion_, because we have _Eruion_ "son of
> > god" (VT44:12). And whether we can have *_heruyon_, I am
> > not sure, I think such a form would become *_heruion_.
>
> Well, I agree in part. A compound *_heru-yon_ (of the same type as
> _Elda-lambe_) might exist for some time however, perhaps
> distinguishing some special lord-son or in some other case like when
> the relationship is stressed, or something like that.

**I see. Now I understand, because I misunderstood you a little bit:
I thought you wanted to indicate a morpheme boundary by the
hyphen in *_heru-yon_; it did not occur to me you meant an
_Elda-lambe_-type compound.

> > As for _heruion_ itself, it depends on how it was pronounced. The
> > morpheme boundary is evidently between _u_ and _i_, so it might
> > be pronounced as [he-ru-i-on]. If this was the case, the [i] may
> > then occur between vowels and be distinct to [y]. However, if it
> > was, and I believe it was, pronounced as [he-rui-on], then it is
> > parallel to _haia_/_haiya_.
>
> I think I might have been fooled by the morphemes here. On closer
> thought I agree with your interpretation of ui as a diphtong. Now if
> we assume that ai, oi and ui always are diphtongs the only possible
> places for syllabic /i/ between vowels is after /e/.

**Do you mean before /e/? As in _tyalie_?

> A quick search
> on Ardalambion's corpus wordlist (by no means all Q. words but all I
> can do a quick digital search on) reveals no such [i].

**_io_ and _ia_ are also possible: e.g. in _Silmarillion_ and _Ungoliante_
(_iu_ is a diphtong).

> And I think
> Hans mentioned word initial /i+V/ some posts ago in this thread,
> again with negative results. Therefore one might ...
>
> > [...] wonder whether the pair _heruion_ "of lords" /
> > *_heruion_ "son of lord" was distinguished in speech. I would say
> > no, though I cannot prove or disprove it.
>
> And this is what it all comes down to, isn't it? Lacking natives to
> describe it's hard to do good descriptive linguistics, no? ;)

**Yes. : )

> Still,
> I think your reasoning has much to it and I like /y/=/i/ more the
> more I think on it.

**Glad to hear it. However, I still may be wrong and still am open
to suggestions and corrections.


Ales Bican

--
Mi dissero che a quell'epoca per quindici giorni e quindici notti
i retori Gabundus e Terentius discussero sul vocativo di _ego_,
e infine vennero alle armi. (Umberto Eco, _Il nome della rosa_)

[Javier Lorenzo writes: ]

I write to inform you about a possible typo in the last issue of
_Vinyar Tengwar_ #44. It's stated in the last paragraph on page 35:

"The preposition _tenna_ 'up to, as far as' (UT:317 n. 43) was deleted,
and _apa_ was emended to _pa_"

Though we are informed that this form _apa_ is found in other of
Tolkien's papers (VT44:26, 36), the text presented in the analysis of
the _Gloria in Excelsis Deo_ in Quenya (called "Text AF I", p. 33)
gives the form _apo_, and so is also cited in the first sentence of the
very same paragraph on page 35: "The phrase as first written was _tenna
yéni apo yéni_".

Should we read, then, "and _apo_ was emended to _pa_" instead of _apa_?

Yours,

Javier Lorenzo

[Arden Smith replies:]

You are quite correct:  I should have written _apo_ rather than _apa_.
I added this paragraph in the course of the proofreading process, so my
error slipped through unnoticed by the review panel.

Petri Tikka wrote:

> > The _j_ is an easening sound here, it is sometimes not pronounced
> > at all, but most often it is a gliding sound to help the transition to
>> the next vowel after an _i_. The gliding sound is not the same as
>> the _j_ that is not next to an _i_. In Finnish, /j/ and /i/ are seperate
>> phonemes, eg. _paju_ "willow" is never pronounced with an _i_.

Ales Bican wrote:

> **I see. However, it does not imply from the fact that _paju_ is never
> pronounced with [i] that the j and i are necessarily separate phonemes.
> Their distribution may be limited: [j] between vowels and [i] between
> consonants, for instance. It may depend on the position and the
> environment. Similarly as in the Third Age Quenya, the sound [ñ] occurs
> only before velars ([k], [g]), that is in a position where [n] is never
> pronounced. In the Third Age Quenya the sounds [ñ] and [n] are
> allomorphs of the phoneme /n/.

**In Finnish, the sound [ñ] occurs only before [k] (the voiced [g] is
unknown in Finnish) or another [ñ], that is in a position where [n] is
never pronounced. One can say that both in Finnish and Quenya [n]
and [ñ] or [i] and [j] are allomorphs, but in their pronunciation
they are so different that they are often written with a different letter.
To my knowledge, in Finnish all these four sounds are considered
separate phonemes, not allomorphs.

> **Note that this does not make [k] and [g] allomorphs, since
> they are in free distribution while [w] and [u] are (presumably)
> in complementary distribution. This means that if we replace [k]
> with [g], the replacement will change the meaning of a word.
> For instance, there is a minimal pair _anga_ and _anka_. On
> the other hand, you cannot freely replace [w] with [u], and there
> is no minimal pair in Quenya involving w contra v (as far as I am
> aware).

**But might not the free distribution between [w] and [u] or
[j] and [i] be historical? There must be a difference between
_áya_ "awe" (XII:363) and _aiya_ "hail" (L:385). It might
be that _aiya_ is an older form of _áya_ that survived as
a reverential form, distinct from _áya_. It is also possible that
they are only distinct having different meanings by their context,
not by form.

> > [ha-ja] is not possible because it is written with an _i_. Tolkien
> > never stated that he used _i_ as _j_ in Quenya.
>
> **Sure, but this does not mean it is not possible. Cf the. word-initial
> _i_ in words like _ia_ etc. (already mentioned by Hans (gentlebeldin)).
> And although Tolkien rejected these words, it is possible that, say,
> _ia_ was pronounced as [ja].

**Everything is possible in Tolkienian linguistics, but that is not proof.

Petri Tikka  Helsinki, Finland
kari.j.tikka@...
http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/

Ales Bican wrote:

> In the Third Age Quenya the sounds [ñ] and [n] are allomorphs of the
> phoneme /n/.

Petri Tikka wrote:

>  in Finnish all these four sounds are considered separate phonemes,
> not allomorphs.

I believe the term wanted is _allophone_, not allomorph....

Carl

Aiya!

   So it seems that we have three prepositions of similar meaning.

   _epe_
         1) "before" (*_A naa calima epe B_ - VT42:32, VT44:38)
         2) "after"  (_epesse_ - XII:339)

   _apa_
         1) "fore-" (_apacenye_ - X:216)
         2) "after" (_Apanoonar_ - XI:387)
            "behind" (_ap-pata_ - XI:387)

   _noo_
         1) "before" (_merin sa haryalye alasse noo vanyalye Ambarello_ - MS),
            "ahead, in front" (PE12:66)
         2) "*next" (_Nootuile_ - XII:135),
            "after (of time)" (PE12:66)


   Let's try to make it clear. _epe_ "before" (A is bright before B) is
   obviously not temporal, so it is spatial. _epe_ "after" (after-name)
   is temporal.

   _apa_ "fore-" is spatial (to see what lies before one), _apa_
   "after" (after-born) is temporal. But is _ap(a)_ "behind" temporal or
   spatial?

   _noo_ "ahead, in front" is spatial, but is _epe_ "before" (before
   you leave Middle-earth) spatial or temporal? _noo_ "after (of time)"
   is temporal, but is _noo_ "*next" spatial or temporal? I'm a bit
   bewildered.



Namaarie! S.Y., Elenhil Laiquendo [Boris Shapiro]


: masse sii nar i nuunatani · elessar · elessar? :


[I think the question to ask is, what is the _primary_ sense of each word?
Looking at the occurrences of _apa-_, I think we can fairly surely take
'after' as the primary meaning (and taking the translation of _apacenye_
as 'foresight' being non-literal, as I suggested before, since it refers
more literally to sight of something that occurs after the present time).
With _epe_ and _nó_, it is much harder to say. _nó_ in particular seems to
have had its primary meaning changed by Tolkien, since its usages in both
the "_merin_" sentence ('before') and the QL ('after, of time') are
temporal and apparently irreconcilable. Carl]

If anyone is having trouble with accented characters and the like not
displaying properly in your e-mail client, be aware that the fault lies
in the poster's e-mail client being set to a platform-specific encoding
scheme (e.g., "Windows-1251/Windows Latin 1") instead of a
standards-based scheme (e.g., "ISO-8859-1/ISO Latin 1").  To
compensate, you may need to temporarily set your e-mail client to use a
different, compatible encoding to display any problematic messages. You
can also go to the Lambengolmor message archives on the web at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/ to see the message
displayed with the proper encoding.

I encourage all list members who are able to do so to set your e-mail
client to use a standards-based encoding scheme (such as ISO-8859-1/ISO
Latin 1) for all messages you send to the list.

Thanks.

Carl

In "Appendix E" of LR Tolkien informs us that V "has the sound of English v"
in Quenya and Sindarin. Now, as is well known, the V of English is a voiced
labio-dental fricative. F in Quenya is also identical to English F, being an
unvoiced labio-dental frecative. Yet this was not always so. Before the
exile of the Ñoldor it was a bilabial fricative (VT41:7,8). It was
strengthened to labio-dental by the influence of Telerin, to avoid merging
with the bilabial approximant HW. This change did not occur in the Valarin
dialect.

_wilya_ is listed as the older form of _vilya_ in "Appendix E" and the
"Etymologies" lists several words originally beginning in W changing to V,
e.g. _wahta_ > _vahta_. This change does not seem plausible if it were
straight to fricative _and_ labio-dental. Such immediate changes do not
usually occur. It would seem more reasonable, if the change was first from
the weak bilabial approximant W to a stronger bilabial fricative V. The
resulting forms would not collide with any pre-existing forms, since the
"Etymolgies" list no words beginning originally with V. After getting close
to F in form, it would change with it to labio-dental.

But why the change? Maybe the Eldar of Aman did not consider the approximant
W very euphonious. To state my personal sound-taste, I think that the sound
is too loose and floating. To me, it is in too large a contrast with the
other sounds of Quenya. Why did Tolkien change it? Perhaps also for euphony.
The sound is unknown in Finnish, Tolkien's inspiration for Quenya. Through
the years as he gradually perfected Quenya, he seems to have made the
phonology of Quenya closer and closere to Finnish. This would be one example
of it.

Petri Tikka  Helsinki, Finland
kari.j.tikka@...
http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/

Just a couple of brief comments arising from Petri's latest post on the
change of _w_ to _v_ in late Quenya:

On Sunday, September 8, 2002, at 06:10  AM, Petri Tikka wrote:

> This change did not occur in the Valarin dialect.

You mean "Vanyarin", surely?

> The sound is unknown in Finnish, Tolkien's inspiration for Quenya.
> Through the years as he gradually perfected Quenya, he seems to have
> made the phonology of Quenya closer and closere to Finnish. This would
> be one example of it.

The same change of _w_ to _v_ also occurred in Latin, another of
Tolkien's chief influences in creating Quenya.

Your observation about Tolkien making the phonology of Quenya closer to
that of Finnish over the years is intriguing. Could you give us some
other examples of this?

Carl

This discussion concerned, among other things, the interpretation of
Tolkien's pencilled markings above the form _úcarer_ in At. V
(VT43:12), with the suggestion of Patrick Wynne in _VT_ that they were
and indication of Tolkien's considering changing it to *_úcarir_ (the
expected aorist form) being questioned, and other interpretations,
including past-tense (i.e., *_úcárer_) and plural nominal forms.

I would like to point out that Tolkien's contemporary Sindarin
translation of the line in question employs the form _gerir_ (VT44:21),
which certainly looks like an aorist verb, and does not look either
like a Sindarin past-tense or a Sindarin plural noun.

Carl

--- In lambengolmor@y..., Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@e...> wrote:
[...]
> On Sunday, September 8, 2002, at 06:10  AM, Petri Tikka wrote:
>
> > This change did not occur in the Valarin dialect.
>
> You mean "Vanyarin", surely?

Yes, of course.

> > The sound is unknown in Finnish, Tolkien's inspiration for Quenya.
> > Through the years as he gradually perfected Quenya, he seems to have
> > made the phonology of Quenya closer and closere to Finnish. This would
> > be one example of it.
>
> The same change of _w_ to _v_ also occurred in Latin, another of
> Tolkien's chief influences in creating Quenya.

By the way, if it wasn't enitrely clear, the sound W has never occurred in
the development of Finnish from proto-Finno-Ugrian. This is also, in
another way, a bad example of the closening to Finnish over the years,
since early Qenya seemed to have about as much Ws as mature Quenya. Both
the early and late _Oilima Markirya_ seemed to have only a couple of words
with W (MC:213-213, 221-222). But there are real examples of a nearing of
Finnish and Quenya phonology in its external hisroy, cf. below.

> Your observation about Tolkien making the phonology of Quenya closer to
> that of Finnish over the years is intriguing. Could you give us some
> other examples of this?
>
> Carl

1. _findl_, _petl_, _tantl_, _nark_ (Q) and other words ending with
multiple consonants are unacceptable in Finnish phonology and in later
Quenya,cf. L:425.

2. KT is a common consonant cluster in Q (e.g. _ekta-_,  _mekta_ and
_palukta_), but it is unacceptable in the phonology of both Finnish and
mature Quenya. Earlier KT developed to HT in both languages, e.g. a
body of _kaksi_ "two" _kaht-_ < *_kakte_ in Finnish and _ehte_ "spear"
from EKTE in Quenya (V:355).

3. There are some known "Qenya" words that begin with two successive
vowels that would normally be diphtongs, but are inidcated as seperate
vowels by  _¨_, e.g. _kaïkta-_ (Q), _oïkta_ (VT40:8). This phenomenon is
unknown in mature Quenya and Finnish, and is probably allowed in neither
of them.

I can not currently think of any other firm examples of change in the
external history of the Quenya phonology that brought it closer to
Finnish. I can neither think of anything that distanced it from Finnish
phonology. As an example of how close their phonology is, L:425 states
that Quenya permitted "the 'dentals' _n_, _l_, _r_, _s_, _t_ as final
consonants". This is exactly the same in Finnish!

Petri Tikka  Helsinki, Finland
kari.j.tikka@...
http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/


[Thanks, Petri! Carl]

Carl wrote:

> _nó_ in particular seems to
> have had its primary meaning changed by Tolkien, since its usages in both
> the "_merin_" sentence ('before') and the QL ('after, of time') are
> temporal and apparently irreconcilable.

Before we start using it as data: do we know that the "_merin_" sentence
(_merin sa haryalye alasse nó vanyalye Ambarello_ 'I hope that you have
happiness before you pass from the world') is authentic? And even if it is,
do we know that it means what it's purported to mean?

In a message to Elfling dated 24 April 1999 David Salo tentatively dated
the "_merin_" sentence to the period 1954-1959.  In that same period,
Tolkien was working on _The Athrabeth_, in which Finrod says, on the
subject of Elvish and Human forms of mortality:

"If we are indeed the _Eruhin_, the children of the One, then He will not
suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by
ourselves. This is the last foundation of _Estel_, which we keep even when
we contemplate the End: of all His designs the issue must be for His
Children's joy." (X:321)

So based on internal evidence, the interpretation 'I hope that you have
happiness after you pass from the world' is as reasonable as (albeit hardly
any more tactful than) the one usually given.

Irene

---
Irene A Gates                     Webmaster, aviculturist, linguaphile
Campbellville, Ontario, Canada            <112321.3163@...>

"The function of the expert is not to be more right than other people,
but to be wrong for more sophisticated reasons"
                              -- Dr David Butler, in the Observer, 1969

Your [Petri Tikka's] examples are interesting, but the impression is
slightly marred by a certain vagueness in terminology. Are you
speaking of internal or external history of Quenya? An ill-defined
(and undefinable, in my humble opinion) term like "mature Quenya"
makes it easy to confuse the two very different matters.

--- In lambengolmor@y..., "Petri Tikka" <kari.j.tikka@w...> wrote:

> 2. KT is a common consonant cluster in Q (e.g. _ekta-_,  _mekta_ and
> _palukta_), but it is unacceptable in the phonology of both Finnish
> and mature Quenya. Earlier KT developed to HT in both languages,
> e.g. a body of _kaksi_ "two" _kaht-_ < *_kakte_ in Finnish and
> _ehte_ "spear" from EKTE in Quenya (V:355).

The development EKTE > _ehte_ reflected in Etymologies was internal,
obviously.

What does the acronym "Q" mean? Qenya, Quenya or the Qenya Lexicon?
Your "(Q)" is used like a reference, but it isn't one of the common
abbreviations (and a reference without a page number would be Elfling
style).

> [...]
> I can not currently think of any other firm examples of change
> in the external history of the Quenya phonology

Why "other"? You're explicitly speaking of external history only now.

Hans

[The "Q" in Petri's post was clearly a slip for "QL", an error which your
humble but human moderators ought to have caught. The forms _ekta-_,
_mekta_, and _palukta_ cited by Petri are all from QL. The term "mature
Quenya" is a well-known Fauskangerism referring in an external sense
to Quenya in accord with _The Lord of the Rings_ and other late
writings, and I didn't find Petri's use of it in his post to be either
confusing or inaccurate. And Petri's point stands: the combination
KT was allowed in the Qenya of the Lost Tales era (as in the three
examples cited), but was not retained in Quenya of the LotR era
and later, where it "became" (in both internal and external
senses) HT. -- Patrick Wynne]

--- In lambengolmor@y..., "gentlebeldin" <gentlebeldin@h...> wrote:

> Are you speaking of internal or external history of Quenya? An ill-
> defined (and undefinable, in my humble opinion) term like "mature
> Quenya" makes it easy to confuse the two very different matters.

I was speaking both of the internal and external devopment. "Mature
Quenya" is a term based on Tolkien's assesment's that his early Qenya
of the 1910s (from which the QL dates) was "very primitive", cf. XII:379.

> The development EKTE > _ehte_ reflected in Etymologies was internal,
> obviously.

The development of KT to HT in Quenya was both an internal and external.

> What does the acronym "Q" mean?

The (Q) was intended to mean "Qenya Lexicon" published in PE#12. I can't
quote from it, because I don't own it and it is out of print. I had to
use Helge Fauskanger's "Index to the Qenya Lexicon" as my source:
http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/qlindex2.htm

> > [...]
> > I can not currently think of any other firm examples of change
> > in the external history of the Quenya phonology
>
> Why "other"? You're explicitly speaking of external history only now.
> Hans

Because Carl F. Hostetter's question concerned external history, the
reference to internal history was only a sidetrack, but still illuminating.

> [ ... Petri's point stands: the combination KT was allowed in the Qenya
> of the Lost Tales era (as in the three examples cited), but was not
> retained in Quenya of the LotR era and later, where it "became" (in both
> internal and external senses) HT. -- Patrick Wynne]

It is funny to note that modern Finnish doesen't consider the combination
KT contrary to its phonology, as is explicit in such loan words as
_laktoosi_ "lactose" and _kaktus_ "cactus" used by common people. This
strange development is quite new in Finnish. A hundred years ago those
words would have been unpronouncable to lay people.

Petri Tikka  Helsinki, Finland
kari.j.tikka@...
http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/

Like Hans, I too find the term "mature" when applied to Tolkien's
languages inadequate and best avoided. Even if it in fact reflects the
opposite of Tolkien's later opinion about his earlier languages (and I
do not grant that as given), and if in fact that judgment was about the
internals of the languages (and not about their external presentation
in the _Lost Tales_ notebooks and associated loose papers and jottings,
organized on the one hand by internal roots (Qenya) and on the other by
internal lexical items (Goldogrin), rather than grouped etymologically
by primitive base), it is an _aesthetic_ judgment, one that Tolkien is
certainly entitled to, as is everyone else; but as such it is _not_ a
scientific judgment, and has no value as a term of linguistic
scholarship.

The term "perfected" suffers from the same deficiency. There was
nothing lacking in the Qenya and Goldogrin of the Lexicons _as
languages_ (certainly, no more so than the later stages of the
languages): they have a phonology, a grammar, and (if we are to
consider Helge's pronouncement that Tolkien ultimately "rejected" them
as accurate) in many ways a richer, fuller, and far more modern
vocabulary than the later stages. I fail to see therefore how they
count as any less "perfected" than the later stages. What changed over
time was not some nebulous level of Platonic perfection, but rather
Tolkien's own aesthetic (as reflected in the changing phonology,
grammar, and lexicon), as well as the fictive situations of the
languages (becoming more and more remote in time from the present), and
Tolkien's mode and manner of describing the languages and their
interrelationships.

The problem that arises in linguistic discourse is finding terms that
distinguish between the internal development of Tolkien's languages,
and their external development by Tolkien, without being unwieldy. For
the former, we have Tolkien's own terms: Primitive, Common, Old,
Middle, Modern (usually unmarked), Exilic, "of the Third Age", etc.,
all of which are linguistically precise. To be similarly precise when
discussing the external development, we can (and on this list should)
associate stages of the language with 1) the documents in which they're
found or described (e.g., "the Qenya of the Lexicons", "the Noldorin of
the 'Lays'," etc.) or 2) the time in which they're found or described
(e.g., "the Quenya of the late '60s", "the Noldorin of the early '30s",
etc.

I will note that my colleagues and I have been writing on Tolkien's
languages, including editing his papers and describing their history
and development, for many years now, without once having or wanting to
use the terms "mature" and "perfected" to do so. And I daresay our work
is hardly the poorer for it.

Carl

But what if the stages overlap? For example: Tolkien wrote Elessar's
Coronation Oath (LR:946) in the late 40s. It was publised in the mid-
50s. In the mid-60s he wrote an almost identical version of it (VT44:36).
How is one to refer to this type of Quenya that was identical in several
texts?

Petri Tikka  Helsinki, Finland
kari.j.tikka@...
http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/


[There is _not_ a single, unified "type" of Quenya spanning the 40s and
later, at least not in the sense of being grammatically invariant. This
much should already be clear from the published materials. The fact that
a particular text (and a short one at that) could and did remain unchanged
from the 40s through the 60s is not particularly relevant to the real
question, which is: how do we refer to broader groups of stages? For such,
I should think that there are several ways: For one, we can distinguish
"Quenya" from "Qenya", using a convenient orthographic distinction that
separates earlier from later Quenya, and "Gnomish" from "Noldorin" from
"Sindarin". For another, we can talk about "pre-LotR" vs. "post-LotR"
forms of the languages. For yet another, we can talk about "earlier" vs.
"later" forms of the languages. Any of these terms is much more precise,
scholarly, and informative than "mature" or "perfected". Carl]

On Samstag, September 7, 2002, at 03:17  Uhr, Boris Shapiro [227] wrote:
A few remarks:

> Aiya!
>
>   So it seems that we have three prepositions of similar meaning.
>
>   _epe_
>         1) "before" (*_A naa calima epe B_ - VT42:32, VT44:38)
>         2) "after"  (_epesse_ - XII:339)
>
>   _apa_
>         1) "fore-" (_apacenye_ - X:216)
>         2) "after" (_Apanoonar_ - XI:387)
>            "behind" (_ap-pata_ - XI:387)
>
>   _noo_
>         1) "before" (_merin sa haryalye alasse noo vanyalye Ambarello_
> - MS),
>            "ahead, in front" (PE12:66)
>         2) "*next" (_Nootuile_ - XII:135),
>            "after (of time)" (PE12:66)

<snip>

>   _apa_ "fore-" is spatial (to see what lies before one), _apa_
>   "after" (after-born) is temporal.

<snip>

As Carl already mentioned, _apa_ in _apacenye_ is hardly spatial. It
does not mean "what I see [spatially] in front of me" but what I see in
times ahead. I think there is no doubt it is temporal. So the use in
Quenya is actually straight forward. _apa_ refers to events that take
place in the future as related to the point of reference. The events
that will lead to the justification of the name of "foresight" lie in
the future at the time the name is given. Also, the birth of Men lies
in the future at the moment of reference, (scil. the birth of the
Elves).

P.S. It might be interesting to note that Adunaic possesses
prepositions that somewhat recall the Elvish ones phonetically. Cf.
_ob-roth_ "fore-cutting" and _nad-roth_ "hind-track" [XII:376].

David Kiltz

--- In lambengolmor@y..., "Petri Tikka" <kari.j.tikka@w...> wrote:

> But what if the stages overlap? For example: Tolkien wrote Elessar's
> Coronation Oath (LR:946) in the late 40s. It was publised in the mid-
> 50s. In the mid-60s he wrote an almost identical version of it
(VT44:36).
> How is one to refer to this type of Quenya that was identical in several
> texts?

I'd suggest to call it just "Quenya", then. OF COURSE, there is some
element of continuity included! In fact, Quenya is (no matter whether we
look at it from an external or internal point of view) rather
conservative. At least, that's the impression you get from meaningful
sentences written in Qenya and Quenya, no matter whether they were
meant for publication. Look at the lines published in Carpenter's
well-known biography (p. 83):

"Ai lintulinda Lasselanta
Pilingeve suyer nalla ganta
Kuluvi ya karnevalinar
V'ematte singi Eldamar"

This is Quenya phonology, already, and even part of the vocabulary
looks very familiar... and it's 1915 or 1916.

The "Lost Road" and the "Notion Club Papers" hint at the truth: those
words and sentences came to JRRT because they sounded and felt right.
Another example of relative invariance: Alboin's fragments (V:51) are
almost identical to Lowdham's fragments (IX:246), and the latter
aren't really earlier than "Lord of the Rings"! So they'd certainly be
"mature" enough, but the inclusion/exclusion of texts into/from
"mature Quenya" doesn't seem to be based on objective criteria,
anyways. It's arbitrary and thus inherently inaccurate, meaningless
for scholarly discussion.

All of his life, JRRT tried to understand those fragments, i.e. to
interpret their etymology and grammatical structure. The latter part
was REALLY variable, but that's true for every language. German
grammar is changing during my lifetime, and I'm not even fifty.
But JRRT didn't change words or sentences more than he absolutely had
to, not only because they were published (most weren't!), but because
they contained truth (yes, I agree: harmony and euphony are a sort of
truth).

So if we feel like naming stages, we don't need very many for
phonology: Qenya and Quenya (and the difference isn't big). There's a
late stage (re-introducing _z_ even intervocalic, for instance, cf.
VT43:8--12), but it's easily internalized (Vanyarin).
Vocabulary was relatively stable, first based on QL, from the late
thirties based on Etymologies, still later (at need) some additions
(but sometimes returning to QL, as it seems).
There were more changes in grammar, of course. Some were internalized:
ancient past tense (XI:415), past tense and perfect getting closer,
ancient allative suffix _-da_>_-d_>_-r_ (XI:366), ancient plural
marker _-m_ (cf. V:401, root 3O- in Etymologies), but still leaving
Quenya very conservative internally. German dialects are more variable
(not all being mutually intelligible).
The case system changed, and so did the system of pronouns (including
the change prefix->postfix). But still, I could name only three or
four major phases. I'll have a look into some earlier declensions now,
maybe they'll help to make this more precise. And maybe they help to
understand the specifics of the grammar of earlier writings like
Fíriel's song. I mean, if somebody thinks he HAS TO write in Quenya,
why not a love poem to Fíriel in her own style?! Elendil said "Fíriel
was fair" (V:69), and I believe him! :-)

Hans

[The phonological similarity between Qenya as evidenced in the early
poem "Narqelion" and the Quenya of Tolkien's later writings is even
more striking when one eliminates Carpenter's errors in transcription:

Ai lintuilind(ov)a Lasselanta
Piliningwe súyer nalla qanta
Kuluvai ya karnevalinar
V'ematte sinqi Eldamar.

The full poem was reprinted (in both transcript and holograph)
in VT 40, with an analysis by Christopher Gilson.

-- Patrick Wynne]

Greetings !

This post is about the way some consonants were turned to vowels or
diphthong elements during the evolution from Common Eldarin to Noldorin/
Sindarin, especially after the vowel u.

(I will not asterisk Tolkien's own reconstructions of primitive stages,
in order to distinguish them from other reconstructions.)

Such vocalizations are seen for instance in N/S _eithel_ "spring, well"
from Common Eldarin _ektelê_ (N : V:363 root KEL ; S : Silmarillion
Appendix), N _aes_ "cooked food, meat" (V:394 root AP) from _*apsâ_, N
_auth_ "war, battle" from _okta_ (read _*oktâ_ ? ; V:365 root KOT), N
_maer_ "useful, fit, good" from _magrâ_ (V:371 root MAG)...

With the help of Welsh, which offers similar - though not identical -
evolutions (reference : _ Language and History in Early Britain_ -
Kenneth Jackson - Edinburgh University Press 1953), the following
developments can be assumed :

- p and k become ch (Ach-Laut) before s and t (which itself turned to th,
i.e. t+h, in such a position in Old Noldorin ; probably true too in the
equivalent "Old Sindarin"). Later, this ch turns to i or u, depending on
the preceding vowel, and forms a diphthong (or merges) with it.

- g is regularly lenited to gh (spirant g) between a vowel and a liquid
or nasal. Later, gh turns to i or u, depending on the following vowel,
and forms a diphthong (or merges) with it.

After a, the developing vowel is i, giving a diphthong ai, later ae :

CE _maktâ-_ > ON _*maktha-_ > _*machþa-_ > _*maiþa-_ > N _maeþa-_,
written _maetha- "to fight" (V:371 root MAK)
CE *apsâ > ON *apsa > *achsa > *ais > N aes "cooked food, meat" (V:394
root AP)
CE _magrâ_ > ON _*magra_ > _*maghra_ > _*mair_ > N _maer_ "useful, fit,
good" (V:371 root MAG)
CE _magnâ_ > ON _magnâ_ (read _*magna_ ?) > _*maghna_ > _*main_ > N
_maen_ "skilled, clever" (V:371 root MAG)

After e, the developing vowel is i, giving a diphthong ei, becoming ai
later in final syllable in Sindarin :

CE _et-kelê_ > _*ektelê_ > ON/Old Sindarin _*ekthele_ > _*echþele_ > N/S
_eiþel_, written _eithel_ "spring, well" (N : V:363 root KEL ; S :
Silmarillion Appendix)
CE _keglê_ > OS _*kegle_ > _*keghle_ > _*keil_ > S cail "fence" (UT:282)

After i, the developing vowel is i, which merges with the preceding i -
which appears to remain short, however :

CE _k'riktâ-_ > ON _*kriktha-_ > _*krichþa-_ > N _criþa-_ "reap"; actually
the form written is the infinitive _critho_ (V:365 root KIRIK)
CE _*riktâ-_ > ON _*riktha-_ > _*richþa-_ > N _rhiþa-_ "jerk, twitch,
snatch"; actually the form written is the infinitive _rhitho_
(V:383 root RIK(H))

After o, the developing vowel is u, giving a diphthong ou, later au :

CE _okta_ (read _oktâ_) > ON _*oktha_ > _*ochþa_ > _*ouþ_ > N _auþ_,
written _auth_ "war, battle"(V:365 root KOT)
CE _*loksê_ > ON _*lokse_ > _*lochse_ > _*lhous_ > N _lhaws_ "hair"
(V:370 root LOKH)


But after u, two developments are seen :

- the developing vowel is u, which merges with the preceding u to produce
long ú ;
- the developing vowel is i, giving a diphthong ui.

In "Noldorin", the u-development occurs in most cases :

CE _*luktâ-_ > ON _*luktha-_ > _*luchþa-_ > N _lhúþa-_, written _lhútha-_
"to enchant"(V:370 root LUK)
CE _*suktô_ > ON _*suktho_ > _*suchþo_ > N _sûþ_, written _sûth_ "draught"
(V:388 root SUK)
(Early) CE _lugni_ > ON _*lugne_ > _*lughne_ > N _lhûn_ " blue " (V:370
root LUG)
(Early) CE _suglu_ > ON _*suglo_ > _*sughlo_ > N _sûl_ "goblet" (V:388
root SUG)

but i-development occurs in

CE _*juktâ-_ > ON _*juktha-_ > _*juchþa-_ > N _juiþa-_ , written _iuitha-_
"to employ [C. Tolkien hesitatingly reads "enjoy", but the root is said
to mean "employ, use"]"(V:400 root YUK)

Quite inconsistenly, there are also cases with u > o opening by A or E-umlaut :

CE _*suktâ-_ > ON _*suktha-_ > _*sochþa-_ > _*souþa- > N _sauþa-_, written
_sautha_ "drain" (V:388 root SUK) ; I don't see why it is different from
the case of CE _*luktâ-_
CE _tupsê_ > ON _*tupse_ > _*tochse_ > _*tous_ > N _taus_ "thatch" (V:395
root TUP)

Conversely, i-development seems somewhat regular in Sindarin ; I found
the following forms :

CE _nuktâ-_ > OS _*nuktha-_ > _*nuchþa-_ > S _nuiþa-_, written _nuitha-_
"stunt" (XI:413)
CE _g-ruktâ-_ > OS _*gruktha-_ > _*gruchþa-_ > S _gruiþa-_, written
_gruitha-_ "terrify"(XI:415)
And the word _uluithiad_ "unquenchable" (IX:62) points to the same
direction; the central element may come from a CE form_*luktjâ-_.

Thus it seems that at some point - in the last times of his work on the
Etymologies, seeing _iuitha-_ ? - Tolkien chose the i-development.

However, the form of _Lúthien_ (according to the Etym, from _luktiênê_,
V:370) was not changed. Another surviving case of u-development might
also be hidden in _rûth_ "anger" (Silmarillion Appendix) if it comes from
the stem RUKU which appears to be associated with fear (XI:389) ; the
primitive form may be *ruktê - final vowel uncertain. Interestingly, both
names come from Doriath.

To say that the evidence is scanty is mild. Is it possible, nevertheless,
that in the late linguistic scenario such an u-development was a
peculiarity of the variety of Sindarin spoken in Doriath ?


Nai Anar caluva tielmanna !

Bertrand Bellet


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tchitrec@... skrev:

CE _*juktâ-_ > ON _*juktha-_ > _*juchþa-_ > N _juiþa-_ , written _iuitha-_
"to employ [C. Tolkien hesitatingly reads "enjoy", but the root is said
to mean "employ, use"]"(V:400 root YUK)

employ vs enjoy, cp latin uti vs frui, on whose relations in meaning see further
St Augustine (who is basically saying we must employ earthly life in order later
to enjoy God) whom Tolkien would certainly have read.

Hence a root meaning employ could yield a derivative meaning enjoy by a shift of
meaning easily understood. Or Tolkien could have changed his mind about what the
root meant by an association as  easily understood.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Gratis e-mail resten av livet på: www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


[One of the meanings of "enjoy" is "to have the use or benefit of". Carl]

On Samstag, September 14, 2002, at 05:02  Uhr, Hans Georg Lundahl [230]
wrote:

>
>   Tchitrec@... skrev:
>>
>> CE _*juktâ-_ > ON _*juktha-_ > _*juchþa-_ > N _juiþa-_ , written
>> _iuitha-_ "to employ [C. Tolkien hesitatingly reads "enjoy", but the
>> root is said to mean "employ, use"]"(V:400 root YUK)
>
> employ vs enjoy, cp latin uti vs frui, on whose relations in meaning
> see further St Augustine (who is basically saying we must employ
> earthly life in order later to enjoy God) whom Tolkien would certainly
> have read.

This  may be relevant in this context:

"To employ, use; enjoy" is exactly the range of meaning the Germanic
verb *bruk- (Goth. _brukjan_, OE _brucan_, OHG _bruhhan_[all "u"s are
long]) has. It is derived from the same root as Latin  _frui_, frux and
fructus. The primary meaning seems to have been "take in food, use
food", hence "use in general" and "enjoy".

Given the fact that J.R.R. Tolkien was of course intimately acquainted
with Germanic, it is very likely we have a parallel development here.
Indeed, similarity of semantic fields, as well as resemblances in
grammar and word shape between Elvish and Germanic are manifold.

David Kiltz

I had forgotten that an interesting text by Tolkien discussing just
this problem has been published, in Verlyn Flieger's fascinating book,
_A Question of Time: J.R.R. Tolkien's Road to _Faërie_ (Kent State,
1997; and recently available in trade paperback, see Amazon.com). The
text is given on pp. 69-70. Some excerpts:

"Our language is confused using _after_ and _before_ both (in certain
circumstances) of the _future_. We sometimes think and speak of the
future as what lies before us, we look ahead, are provident,
forward-looking, yet are ancestors preceded us and are our
fore-fathers; and any event in time is _before_ one that is later. We
speak as if events and a succession of human lives were an endless
column moving forward into the unknown.... As far as a single
experiencing mind goes, it seems a most natural transference of spatial
to linear language to say that the past is _behind_ it and that it
_advances_ forwards into the future, that later events are _before_ or
in _front_ of earlier ones.

"In Elvish sentiment the _future_ was not one of hope or desire, but a
decay and retrogression from former bliss and power....  Their
position, as of latter day sentiment, was one of exiles driven forward
(against their will) who were in mind or actual posture ever looking
backward.

"But in _actual language_ time and place had distinct expressions."

And there Tolkien's text breaks off.

Carl

I wrote:

> > **I see. However, it does not imply from the fact that _paju_ is never
> > pronounced with [i] that the j and i are necessarily separate phonemes.
> > Their distribution may be limited: [j] between vowels and [i] between
> > consonants, for instance. It may depend on the position and the
> > environment. Similarly as in the Third Age Quenya, the sound [ñ] occurs
> > only before velars ([k], [g]), that is in a position where [n] is never
> > pronounced. In the Third Age Quenya the sounds [ñ] and [n] are
> > allomorphs of the phoneme /n/.

Petri replied:

> **In Finnish, the sound [ñ] occurs only before [k] (the voiced [g] is
> unknown in Finnish) or another [ñ], that is in a position where [n] is
> never pronounced. One can say that both in Finnish and Quenya [n]
> and [ñ] or [i] and [j] are allomorphs, but in their pronunciation
> they are so different that they are often written with a different letter.
> To my knowledge, in Finnish all these four sounds are considered
> separate phonemes, not allomorphs.

**I think you are right: if [ñ] occured only before [k] in Finnish, it
would be an allophone of /n/, but since it occurs also before another
[ñ], it is a phoneme distinct to /n/.
As regards [j] and [i], I checked a Finnish grammar book and found
out that one can stand beside the other (I cannot find the example
right now, though), which means they are separate phonemes (most
likely -- it depends on the actual pronunciation of the combination).
However, we are talking here about Quenya, not Finnish, and Quenya
is different to Finnish, so the situation in Quenya is also different.
In the Third Age Quenya, [ñ] is an allophone of /n/, because it
occurs only with velars /k/ and /g/. -- In case of [j] and [i], it
is not certain whether they are allophones, though I would say they
are, because of the reasons I mentioned earlier.

I also wrote:

> > On
> > the other hand, you cannot freely replace [w] with [u], and there
> > is no minimal pair in Quenya involving w contra v (as far as I am
> > aware).

Petri replied:

> **But might not the free distribution between [w] and [u] or
> [j] and [i] be historical? There must be a difference between
> _áya_ "awe" (XII:363) and _aiya_ "hail" (L:385). It might
> be that _aiya_ is an older form of _áya_ that survived as
> a reverential form, distinct from _áya_. It is also possible that
> they are only distinct having different meanings by their context,
> not by form.

**This takes us back to the triplet _vaháya_, _vahaiya_ and
_vahaia_ I also mentioned earlier. All three variants occur in
different versions of the same text (the Atalante fragments).
It means that each form (from the triplet) could be used at the
same time (i.e. in the M-e time). Hence I think the difference
among the particular words is not historial, but it just reflects
Tolkien's being undecided whether the first _a_ would also
be shortened. The development was like this: _âjâ_ > _âya_
> _aya_ > _aia_ (also written as _aiya_).


Ales Bican

--
Mi dissero che a quell'epoca per quindici giorni e quindici notti
i retori Gabundus e Terentius discussero sul vocativo di _ego_,
e infine vennero alle armi. (Umberto Eco, _Il nome della rosa_)

Aiya!

   Do you have any ideas for a Quenya verbal intensive prefix? There
   used to be _a-_ in QL, but I do not remember whether it occurs in
   later sources. Perhaps it could be reasonable enough even in later
   stages, because of the possible connection with the PE intensive
   stem variations. Any ideas?


Namaarie! S.Y., Elenhil Laiquendo [Boris Shapiro]


: eressea, eldamar i laa fiirimo tuvitas pole :

--- In lambengolmor@y..., Boris Shapiro <elenhil@p...> wrote:

>   Do you have any ideas for a Quenya verbal intensive prefix? There
>   used to be _a-_ in QL, but I do not remember whether it occurs in
>   later sources. Perhaps it could be reasonable enough even in later
>   stages, because of the possible connection with the PE intensive
>   stem variations. Any ideas?

There are traces of a-infixion in Etymologies and other sources: root
MIL-IK with the derivation _maile_ "lust" (V:415), containing also the
(later obviously abandoned) derivation of _Melko_ frorm _*Mailikô_,
and the etymology of _maeg_ via the 'strong adjective' _*maikâ_
"sharp, penetrating" from the root _mik_ "pierce" (IX:337).
In both cases, an intensification was intended, as the 'strong' in the
latter example indicates explicitly. Maybe those are the stem
variations Boris had in mind.

There's at least one example pointing at _a_ as a verbal prefix: under
root SUK- in Etymologies, we find the Sindarin verb _sogo_ "drink",
and a past tense form _asogant_ is given (V:434).
However, it seems that JRRT in Etymologies was inclined towards the
augment, i.e. the reduplication of the stem vowel, already: the entry
I- says "intensive prefix where i is base vowel" (V:401).
In later sources, examples abound. Of course, this gives the same
result when the _sundóma_ is _a_, and that's frequent.

Hans

--- In lambengolmor@y..., "Hans" <gentlebeldin@h...> wrote:

> There are traces of a-infixion in Etymologies and other sources:
> root MIL-IK with the derivation _maile_ "lust" (V:415), containing
> also the (later obviously abandoned) derivation of _Melko_
> frorm _*Mailikô_, and the etymology of _maeg_ via the 'strong
> adjective' _*maikâ_ "sharp, penetrating" from the root _mik_
> "pierce" (IX:337). In both cases, an intensification was intended,
> as the 'strong' in the latter example indicates explicitly. Maybe
> those are the stem variations Boris had in mind.

The excerpt from Appendix D to "Quendi and Eldar" published
in VT 39 discusses just this process of a-infixion, which it also
calls "vocalic strengthening" (p.11 Note 7), whereby _u_ > _au_
and _i_ > _ai_. Particularly relevant to Hans's comments is the
following passage (p. 10):

"The examples of _ai_, _au_ of this origin are not very numerous.
They were mostly "intensive", as in _rauko_ "very terrible creature"
(*RUK); _taura_ "very mighty, vast, of unmeasured might or size"
(*TUR). Some were "continuative", as in _Vaire_ "Ever-weaving"
(*WIR)."

Boris's search for an intensive verbal _prefix_ puts me in mind
of _an-_ in _ancalima_ 'exceedingly bright', which Tolkien
says consisted of _an-_ "superlative or intensive prefix" +
_kalima_ 'shining brilliant' (L:278-79), though _ancalima_ is,
of course, an adjective rather than a verb.

-- Patrick Wynne

--- In lambengolmor@y..., "pa2rick" <pwynne@g...> wrote:

> The excerpt from Appendix D to "Quendi and Eldar" published
> in VT 39 discusses just this process of a-infixion, which it also
> calls "vocalic strengthening" (p.11 Note 7)

Ah, good that VT39 is among the five back issues I ordered last
week! :-)

I remembered one more instance of _au_ from a-infixion: _saura_
(foul, evil-smelling, putrid) from THUS-, V:439.

And I found a more direct hint at an a-prefix: _atalante_ is derived
from TALÁT. It could be an augment, but the general idea wasn't fully
formed yet at that time, I think. Indeed, the entry in Etymologies
says specifically "Atalante (a-prefix=complete)".

Again, this doesn't seem to be limited to verbs, and "complete"
doesn't contradict the interpretation "exceedingly" of _an-_.
Maybe that's closer to what Boris was looking for.

Hans

In Sindarin, there is _ aníra ‘(he) desires’ (IX:128–29), perhaps more
literally _a-níra_ *'(he) greatly desires' (cf. _níra_ n. ‘will, as a
potential or faculty’, VT39:30; though it is possible that it is
instead _an-íra_, with the same literal meaning; cf. the base ID- ‘heart,
desire, wish’, V:361).

Carl

In response to a vehement objection to the rejection of a post to this
list (a post which both Pat and I felt was neither pursuant to the
scholarly purposes of this list nor added anything new to arguments
already made, and further felt was at heart a personal attack), I
hereby announce the formation of an unmoderated companion list,
lambengolmor-d. The purpose of this list is to serve as a forum for the
publication and discussion of rejected posts, and of the moderatorial
policies and practices of the Lambengolmor list.

The only restriction on the list is that only list members can post.
The purpose of this is to prevent virus-generated posts from being
published on the list.

Carl

Greetings,

     Recently I was sorting some references to Tolkien's works when it came
to me the following: in _Namaarie_ the adjectival case seems to be
invariable and _lisse-miruvooreva_ doesn't agree with _yuldar_; this is
well known, but the really puzzling thing is: why?

     Sorting some documents chronologically I got the following list:

1) in _Namaarie_ (194X, LotR1/II chap. 8) the adjectival case seems to be
     indeclinable

2) in "Quendi and Eldar" (1959-1960, XI:369 and XI:407) the adjectival case
     agrees in number with the object it describes and we see that plural
     nouns are declinable with this case

3) again in _Namaarie_ (1966, RGEO:66) the adjectival case seems to be
     indeclinable

4) in the Plotz Letter (1966-1967, VT6) we don't have anything that could
     tell us if the adjectival case agrees in number or not, but we learn
     that in "`Classical' or Book Quenya" it cannot be applied to a plural
     noun (or so I understand the long line next to _ciryava_)


     The Plotz Letter doesn't directly contradict "Quendi and Eldar" because
it lists the forms of `Classical' Quenya (in XI:407 it is said that "it
[i.e., -va] could not, however, indicate plurality of source, originally,
and the Q distinction _Eldava_ `Elf's' and _Eldaiva_ `Elves'' was a Q
innovation"; I wonder if with those Tolkien was trying to detail the
differences between Vanyarin and Noldorin Quenya) even if it isn't clear to
me whether we're facing the same time-frame or not.

     What hardly fits into this system is, of course, _Namaarie_. In the
second edition of LotR Tolkien changed some little bits of Quenya here and
there, but kept _lisse-miruvooreva_ as it was in the first edition; the text
of RGEO:66 is the same of the Lotr second edition and it and the linguistic
notes were written in 1966 (or a bit earlier, I don't know, but I'm quite
sure after "Quendi and Eldar"). In RGEO we still have _lisse-miruvooreva_
where we could expect _**lisse-miruvooreve_. Why?

     Did Tolkien change his mind again about number agreement of the
adjectival case? Did he simply forget to change an _-a_ into _-e_? Wasn't he
willing to change _Namaarie_ text again? Is there any reason, perhaps a very
particular use of the adjectival case, behind the invariability of
_lisse-miruvooreva_?


     Saluti,
     Emanuele.


______________________________________________________________________
Mio Yahoo!: personalizza Yahoo! come piace a te
http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/?http://it.my.yahoo.com/