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/

Aiya!

   What do you think is the exact meaning of the term "apposition" in
   that quote about the last declinable word ("...in the case of two
   declinable names in apposition only the last is declined", UT:317)?

[Any decent English dictionary will give a sufficient definition. Here is one
for the _American Heritage Dictionary_:

"1. Grammar a. A construction in which a noun or noun phrase is placed with
another as an explanatory equivalent, both having the same syntactic relation
to the other elements in the sentence; for example, Copley and the painter in
The painter Copley was born in Boston. b. The relationship between such nouns
or noun phrases. 2. A placing side by side or next to each other." CFH]


   We know about examples (namely in "Oilima Markirya") of this rule
   being ignored (_raamainen elvie_), and I wonder could there be any
   regular reason for that? Perhaps "apposition" is the clue. While
   *_Elendil Voronda_ surely has two "names" in apposition, *_raamar
   elvie_ hasn't. If I understand the term correctly. I won't translate
   the Russian definition I use into English, but according to it
   simple noun + adjective combinations are not always cases of
   apposition. But that is also true of cases like _isilme ilcalasse_!

[Inversions and other alterations of normal word order are among of the
hallmarks of poetic diction. CFH]


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


: sii man i yulma nin enquantuva? :

Aiya!

      A line in VT43:14 puzzles me: "_na_ also has a subjunctive or
      imperative sense when preceding a verb".

      Could you explain what you mean by "subjunctive" here? Do we
      really have some info on conditional mood in Quenya (well,
      obliquely) now?

[From the context, Tolkien's own note, and the examples given there, what is
intended is clearly what is sometimes called the "hortatory" or "volitive"
subjunctive, which implies a condition contrary to (known) fact, and expresses
an exhortation and/or desire to change that condition. CFH]


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


: masse sii rocco ar roquen? : masse naa romba i suuyane? :

Aiya!

Tuesday, October 1, 2002, 8:21:16 PM, CFH wrote:

CFH> From the context, Tolkien's own note, and the examples given
CFH> there, what is intended is clearly what is sometimes called the
CFH> "hortatory" or "volitive" subjunctive,

You mean the context, the note, and the examples present in VT43?

[Correct. CFH]

Then I sadly find it not obvious. But I suggest you had more data in your
disposal to figure that out, hadn't you?

[No. What is said in _VT_ 43 is based solely on the evidence presented in
that issue. CFH]

That's OK. I simply cannot make the same deduction out of the VT43 material
alone and I would appreciate if you help me.

As you may guess, the question of Quenya conditional mood is of great
interest for us, and several questions rise immediately: what do you
think, what makes the "_na_ preced. verb" construction imply a false
condition (that is contrary to the fact)?

[It was not said that the _na_ + verb construction is "conditional". It was
said that it is a "subjunctive or imperative" construction. The hortatory or
volitive subjunctive nature of the construction follows from Tolkien's
statement on it: "_na_ preced[ing] = 'let it be': _na aire_ 'be holy'", and
from the known meaning of the construction as used in the prayers. When one
says "let it be", one is exhorting others to make some desired condition so,
and/or expressing a wish that some desired condition will arise. In both
cases, if the desired condition is not contrary to known fact, there seems
little point in expressing the wish, except perhaps in the sense that one
hopes that some present condition will persist throughout future history;
but even here, there is an implication that that persistence is not assured,
and so that its persistence is not a known fact. Does that help? CFH]


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


: linde nar i oomar tolesse vanwa yaamala :

Aiya!

CFH> [Inversions and other alterations of normal word order are among
CFH> of the hallmarks of poetic diction. CFH]

Yes, but regardless of word order noun + adjective combinations are
not appositions!

[In the strictest grammatical sense, that is true. The key point of
apposition, in this sense, is that the two elements in apposition bear
exactly the same syntactic relationship to the rest of the sentence as
each other. Obviously, this is not the case with (strict) noun + (strict)
adjective pairs. CFH]

The key feature of apposition is that it is a noun [phrase] (or an adjective
used as a title, as in Elendil's case) which attributes another noun [phrase].
Thus in "Elendil the Faithful" "the Faithful" is the appositive element of
"Elendil", while in "a faithful Númenórean" "faithful" is only the attribute
of "Númenórean". The question is: if _isilme ilcalasse_ does not seem to be a
case of apposition, why is the last-declinable-word rule applied to it?


[OK, first, let's get straight the data we're talking about. The phrase
"_isilme ilkalasse_" is line 17 of the third and latest version of the
poem _Oilima Markirya_ (given at MC:221-22). It corresponds syntactically with
lines 18 and 19 of the same poem: "_isilme píkalasse_ / _isilme lantalasse_".
This version of the poem is untranslated, and so the phrases in question
are untranslated; but they seem to correspond to lines 16-18 of the
preceding version of the poem (MC:213-14), which _is_ translated (MC:215-16):
"_silda-ránar_, / _minga-ránar_, / _lanta-ránar_", "'in the moon gleaming, /
in the moon waning, / in the moon falling'". So it is reasonable to interpret
the later phrases as (noun verb+present participle+locative) sequences of the
same meaning. Similarly, _rámainen elvie_ (third version l. 9; apparently
noun+instrumental plural adjective) corresponds to _tinwelindon talalínen_ 'on
wings like stars' (second version l. 8).

[Second, let's note that Tolkien does not say that the last-declinable-word
"rule" does _not_ apply in other (non-appositive, in the strict grammatical
sense) cases. Indeed, in a language with an LDW rule for apposition, it would
not be surprising to see a similar rule applied in other syntactic environments
having a sequence of potentially declinable words (i.e., where there is a
choice of which word or words to decline). Of course, we don't really know for
certain that any such "rule" obtains in this specific case, since poetic
diction and metrical constraints will often dictate grammatical choices (where
a choice exists) that may not be made in normal prose.

[Third, although _ilkalasse_ *'gleaming-in', _ píkalasse_ *'waning-in', and
_lantalasse_ *'falling-in' are pretty clearly formed with present participles
in _-la_ + locative ending, and thus serve as declined adjectives, it is to
be noted that adjectives and nouns in Quenya, as in many other languages,
often blend across category; and that this blurring of categorical boundaries
is likewise a hallmark of poetic diction. So if, in fact, the LDW rule is
responsible for the selection of declined element in these phrases (and it is
not at all clear that it is), it may have something to do with this
interchangability.

[Ultimately, though, there seems to be no reason to assume that Tolkien's
statement about _Elendil Vorondo_ (prose, noun noun) either does or does not
apply to constructions like _isilme ilkalasse_ (poetry, noun adjective) or
_rámainen elvie_ (poetry, noun adjective), or to assume that all these data
must reflect (in origin or intention) a single underlying "rule" with which
they must be reconciled; or even that the LDW "rule" is _never_ "broken" in
poetry or prose, even in the case of strict apposition. Rather, we have the
fact that, in poetry at least, sometimes it is the noun, and sometimes the
adjective, that is declined. CFH]


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


: yasse laa lantar lassi · i noore nossenyo tennoio! :

Aiya!

Wednesday, October 2, 2002, 1:59:49 PM, Boris Shapiro wrote:

CFH> [It was not said that the _na_ + verb construction is
CFH> "conditional". It was said that it is a "subjunctive or
CFH> imperative" construction. The hortatory or volitive subjunctive

But doesn't conditional include subjunctive?

[Conditional aspect implies subjunctive, yes; but subjunctive does not
(necessarily) imply conditional. CFH]

I think that's where misunderstanding is. In Russian, constructions like
E. "let it be" are imperative rather than subjunctive, and subjunctive
constructions are for the most part conditional ("[subj] by [pred] esli";
N.B. "esli" - "if").

[In _form_, yes (or so I must accept your testimony, since my Russian is
non-existent (contrary to fact? ;) ); but in _function_, in _meaning_, "let
it be" can be regarded as either imperative (hortatory) or subjunctive
(volitive) or both. There is not a one-to-one relationship between
grammatical form and semantic function, nor is linguistic terminology
always mutually exclusive. CFH]

As far as I know, most new European languages developed new conditional
types to express dependence, assumption, possibility, desirability and
non-categorical predication of an action. All of them seem to imply a
condition in some degree, though it is not always declared. I do not
understand the difference between your hortative subjunctive and imperative,
for even imperative implies that its goal is not achieved and therefore the
desired condition is contrary to the present state of things.

[Well, I didn't invent the terms hortatory or volitive subjunctive. They are
standard linguistic terms. Nor did I say that hortatory/volitive subjunctive
and imperative are completely separate and distinct terms or functions. CFH]

I've always thought that the difference between subjunctive and imperative is
that subjunctive implies some cause making (or capable of making, in theory)
the desired condition unachievable because it depends on that cause-matter,
while imperative simply urges to achieve the desired condition regardless of
any antagonizing causes.

[Again, I would refer you to a dictionary of grammar or a grammatical treatise
to resolve your understanding of these standard linguistic terms. But I would
say that it may well be that imperative and hortatory subjunctive can and
probably often do blur as semantic functions, if not formally. CFH]

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


: manen i orne polis tyule ai miste uulantuva nentien olwaryar? :

Aiya!

Wednesday, October 2, 2002, 7:55:40 PM, CFH wrote:

CFH> But I would say that it may well be that imperative and hortatory
CFH> subjunctive can and probably often do blur as semantic functions,
CFH> if not formally. CFH]

By the way, do you know other languages besides English with cases of
formally identical imperative and (non-hortative) subjunctive?

[Yes: Greek, at least in the first person. See:
    http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/subj-hortatory.htm
CFH]

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


: man hostuva usque wilwa turuo hessa uryala? :

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

> I think that's where misunderstanding is. In Russian, constructions like
> E. "let it be" are imperative rather than subjunctive, and subjunctive
> constructions are for the most part conditional ("[subj] by [pred] esli";

Indeed, that's the source of the misunderstanding. Russian is a highly
inflected language, but it doesn't distinguish between conditional and
subjunctive. Both moods are indicated by the particle "by", analytically.
But there's a difference: "conditional" means that the truth of your
statement depends on conditions, while subjunctive indicates your
faith: you use subjunctive I if you think it possible, and subjunctive
II if you don't. Unfortunately, subjunctive is rudimentary in English
(most forms of subjunctive I coincide with indicative present tense,
and most forms of subjunctive II coincide with indicative past tense).
If you want to see a working system with one conditional and two
subjunctives, look at Italian.

Hans

In Germanic languages numerals that are plural in sense pluralize the noun
they describe, e.g. _one book_ and _two books_. In Finnish numerals that
are plural in sense do not pluralize the noun they describe, they render
the noun partitive, e.g. _yksi kirja_ "one book" and _kaksi kirjaa_ "two
books". But what is the case in Quenya? Do numerals pluralize nouns in
that language?

A compound word _Otselen_ is glossed as "Seven Stars" in the Etymologies
(V:379). It is listed under a root for the number "seven OT- (OTOS, OTOK),
and it has the Quenya derivative of _otso_ "seven". _otselen_ is not plural
in form; it does not have any apparent Quenya plural markers, neither _i_
nor _r_. It can not possibly be conceived to mean "Seven Star", a single
star marked by seven points for example, for it is associated with the
constellation of Great Bear. Thus we have an example of a number word
behaving as any other adjective does in Quenya when it is used as an
attribute.

The cases in the published corpus with numeral words and nouns together
are rare; this is the only example of such in Quenya that I know of.
The behaviour of numerals as adjectives is similar in Sindarin, cf.
_edegil_ "Seven Stars" (V:369) and _Menegroth_ (XI:415). To me, it seems
pretty obvious that numerals do not pluralize their noun in Quenya. That
has been silently asumed before, but without real basis.

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

Hans wrote:

H> If you want to see a working system with one conditional and two
H> subjunctives, look at Italian.

Another example is Spanish. It has one conditional verb tense and two
subjunctives.

Ben Echols

On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 10:03 PM, Ben Echols wrote:

> Hans wrote:
>
> H> If you want to see a working system with one conditional and two
> H> subjunctives, look at Italian.
>
> Another example is Spanish. It has one conditional verb tense and two
> subjunctives.

Ben, I'm not sure what you mean by "one conditional" and "two
subjunctives". Spanish (like every West-Romanic language,
including, e.g. French) has a category "subjunctive" and one
"conditional". Both occur in two forms:

Conditional 1) compraría
Conditional 2) habría comprado

Subjunctive 1)  (que) compre
Subjunctive 2) comprara or comprase (note: the first goes back to the
Latin pluperfect and is also sometimes used as such, especially in
South America).

Germanic languages mostly employ the subjunctive for conditionals often
with an extra auxiliary (e.g. English _would_ or German_würde_).
So, for conditionals, where they are distinguished from subjunctives,
we see periphrastic or agglutinative formations. Note that the Romanic
languages' conditional is really a periphrastic formation (e.g.
comparare habebam etc.).

No explicit marker for the conditional is needed in Quenya. Cf.
VT42:33, in the bottom most paragraph, starting from _lá karita i
hamil..._.

David Kiltz

On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 04:05 PM, Petri Tikka wrote:

> In Germanic languages numerals that are plural in sense pluralize the
> noun they describe, e.g. _one book_ and _two books_. In Finnish
> numerals that are plural in sense do not pluralize the noun they
> describe, they render the noun partitive, e.g. _yksi kirja_ "one
> book" and _kaksi kirjaa_ "two books". But what is the case in
> Quenya? Do numerals pluralize nouns in that language?

Very interesting question. There a number of ways to handle this in
different languages (branches). Altaic languages (e.g. Turkish or
Korean) don't take agreement at all. Semitic, for example, Arabic has
genitive plural after numerals 3-9 and 10+ take the accusative singular.

The name of _Lebennin_ might give a clue to how Sindarin works in this
respect. That is, if the entry NEN- in V:376 was still valid at the
time of the creation of that name, _nin_ should be plural here.
However, it is also conceivable that the Sindarin for "water" wasn't
_nen_, pl. _nîn_ anymore but rather _nín_, pl _nîn_. Any evidence for
that ?

David Kiltz

--- In lambengolmor@y..., David Kiltz <dkiltz@g...> wrote:

> The name of _Lebennin_ might give a clue to how Sindarin works in this
> respect. That is, if the entry NEN- in V:376 was still valid at the
> time of the creation of that name, _nin_ should be plural here.
> However, it is also conceivable that the Sindarin for "water" wasn't
> _nen_, pl. _nîn_ anymore but rather _nín_, pl _nîn_. Any evidence for
> that ?
>
> David Kiltz

No, there is actually evidence against that in _Emyn Arnen_ (LR:734),
which is of unknown meaning, but presumably *'Hills of Royal Water'.
_Arnen_ has a plural form of _Ernin_ in _Lonnath-Ernin_ (VIII:294).

[In the 1969 essay on "The Rivers and Beacon-hills of Gondor", Tolkien
writes of _Emyn Arnen_ that an historian of Gondor "thinks therefore
that _Arnen_ originally was intended to mean 'beside the water, sc.
Anduin'; but _ar-_ in this sense is Quenya, not Sindarin. Th
ough since
in the full name _Emyn Arnen_ the _Emyn_ is Sindarin plural of _Amon_
'hill', Arnen cannot be a Sindarin adjective, since an adjective of
such shape would have a Sindarin plural _ernain_, or _ernin_. The name
must therefore have meant 'the hills of Arnen'" (VT42:17). CFH]

But _Lebennin_ seems strangely contradicting to the late example of
_Menegroth_ 'the Thousand Caves or Delvings' (XI:415), which has
_groth_ 'a large excavation' (XI:415) in an unchanged form. Maybe it
is a genitive construction from *_Meneg 'Roth_ 'Thousand of Cave'?
That would seem strange to me.

And what about the earlier example of _Edegil_ 'Seven Stars' (V:379)?
Is *_gil_ plural in form? No, the plural of _gîl_ 'star' is listed as
_geil_ (V:358) in the same text. No definite conclusion about the
behaviour of numerals as adjectives in Sinarin can be drawn from these
examples. More examples or a statement from Tolkien would be needed.


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

Hello,

> But _Lebennin_ seems strangely contradicting to the late example of
> _Menegroth_ 'the Thousand Caves or Delvings' (XI:415), which has
> _groth_ 'a large excavation' (XI:415) in an unchanged form. Maybe it
> is a genitive construction from *_Meneg 'Roth_ 'Thousand of Cave'?
> That would seem strange to me.

First off, the second elements in genitive appositive constructions are
not lenited, though that is not the matter.

To the point, actually there is nothing strange in that. For instance,
those Slavic languages that have a genitive usually employ the genitive
(plural though) after numerals like a thousand (though sometimes the the
gen.sg. after small numbers): cf. Russian _tys'acha pescher_ 'thousand
caves' (where _peschera_ 'cave' is in the gen.pl.) and _tri peschery_
'three caves' (gen.pl.)

Even closer to that, Welsh. Numerals can be either in the form 'numeral
+ sg. noun' (and so that is essentialy an appositive genitive
construction) - _pedwar ceffyl_ 'four horses' or, usually with higher
numerals, in the form 'numeral + _o_ + plural noun': _unarbymtheg o
geffylau_ 'sixteen horses'. It is true that _mil_ 'thousand' requirwes
the _o_ + plural construction, but why would Sindarin follow Welsh
patterns?

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...

Is mall a mharcaicheas am fear a bheachdaicheas
                  --Scottish proverb

[OK, folks, let's bring this back to Tolkien's languages. CFH]

--- In lambengolmor@y..., David Kiltz <dkiltz@g...> wrote:

> Germanic languages mostly employ the subjunctive for conditionals often
> with an extra auxiliary (e.g. English _would_ or German_würde_).

I'm sorry, David, but I have to disagree. The German "würde" is a
modern development, following the general tendency of replacement of
the older, strong inflections by analytical (or, as you call it,
periphrastic) constructions. German still has two genuine subjunctives
(I'm afraid they'll vanish within the next hundred years, though), "er
komme/ er käme" in the case of the verb "to come". Most of the forms
of subjunctive I are very similar to forms of indicative present
tense, ok. But some are different, and it's interesting that one of
the differences has parallels in other languages: "be it so" is "so
sei es" in German, different from indicative "so ist es". In Italian,
you would use "sia" for "sei".

> Note that the Romanic languages' conditional is really a periphrastic
> formation (e.g. comparare habebam etc.).

That's not true for Italian. The conditional is much used to express
wishes politely (not unlike German or English or some other languages!),
but forms like "vorrai" (I would) are real inflections, not periphrastic
constructions or agglutinations.

> No explicit marker for the conditional is needed in Quenya.

That's true, unfortunately. A language lacking a word for "if"
certainly doesn't need a conditional.

Hans

[I'm letting this through, but in general, follow-up messages of this
sort, basically simply acknowledging a correction, will not be accepted
on this list. Any such response should be made in conjunction with
offering new information on the question at hand. Otherwise, make your
acknowledgments privately. CFH]

I never learned the other conditional. I am sorry for the mistake, I know
about the two different ways to do subjunctive. I am not a native speaker
of spanish, however I have been taking spanish classes for 4 years and
have been to spanish countries. But thanks for the information, you learn
something new everyday. :)

Ben Echols

--- In lambengolmor@y..., "Pavel Iosad" <pavel_iosad@m...> wrote:

> For instance, those Slavic languages that have a genitive usually employ
> the genitive (plural though) after numerals like a thousand (though
> sometimes the the gen.sg. after small numbers): cf. Russian _tys'acha
> pescher_ 'thousand caves' (where _peschera_ 'cave' is in the gen.pl.)
> and _tri peschery_ 'three caves' (gen.pl.)

Of course, you meant "gen. sg." here (peschery). It's really interesting
that Russian uses the genitive singular for small numbers, and it's still
more interesting that the language has a precise notion of "small":2--4.
The use of genitive plural starts with 5 (so thousand is on the safe side
:-). Genitive itself is not surprising, naturally (partitive genitive).

Hans

--- In lambengolmor@y..., "Hans" <gentlebeldin@h...> wrote:
> [OK, folks, let's bring this back to Tolkien's languages. CFH]

Er... yeah, I'm afraid this is a well-deserved rebuke.

[I wouldn't call it a "rebuke", just a reminder that posts to this list
are, according to the guidelines, supposed to deal in some manner with
Tolkien's languages. That by no means excludes discussion of grammatical
features of other languages for purposes of comparison or illustration
or even speculation; but each such discussion should touch on Tolkien's
languages at some point. When we start _debating_ the grammatical
features of other languages, and comparing them to one another, we're
drifting off course. CFH]

Quenya may not have a conditional, but it's well known that JRRT thought
of a subjunctive once. Now the English subjunctive II is almost identical
with forms of past tense, and the German forms are close, too (though
with umlaut). Interestingly, the  Quenya word glossed as a subjunctive
("should flow", IX:247) coincides with an (augmentless) perfect,
"ullier", forms usually translated by JRRT with past tense. Of course,
that's one of the cases of later reinterpretations. In "Lost Road",
the word "ullier" was glossed "poured" (V:51). Nonetheless, there
can't be much doubt JRRT thought of a subjunctive later: the Adunaic
forms in the Notion Club Papers were meant to be translations of the
"Avallonian" ones, and the respective word _du-phursâ_ is glossed
"so-as-to-gush" (IX:247, again), and that's certainly not an
indicative mood.

Hans

Aiya!

   Has anybody tried to make a list of Quenya 'basic' verbs (that end
   in a consonant)?


Namaarie! S.Y., Elenhil Laiquendo


: linde nar i oomar tolesse vanwa yaamala :

> --- In lambengolmor@y..., "Pavel Iosad" <pavel_iosad@m...> wrote:

>> _tri peschery_ 'three caves' (gen.pl.)

> Of course, you meant "gen. sg." here (peschery).

Err, isn't it rather nom. pl. ?

--------------------------------------------------------
A: Philosophy is the making of significant distinctions.
B: Why isn't that just taxonomy?
A: Your question proves my point.
                                           (Philip Davis)

[Again, let's bring this back to Tolkien. Also, please sign your posts.
And if all you have to submit is a correction like the above, especially
one not involving Tolkien's languages, please point them out to the
author privately, and let the author make any necessary correction to
the list. I've been very pleased with the very high "signal-to-noise"
ratio of this list, and I intend to maintain it. CFH]

And while I'm on the topic of keeping the "signal-to-noise" ration
high: While queries like Boris's are not prohibited on this list, I
would like to keep them to a minimum, as they don't add much to the
conversation. And above all, please do _not_ respond to such queries on
the list. Instead, contact the enquirer directly, and let them compile
the replies and share the result with the list.

You can find any list member's e-mail address at:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/members

Carl

-------------


On Saturday, October 5, 2002, at 06:15  AM, Boris Shapiro wrote:

>   Has anybody tried to make a list of Quenya 'basic' verbs (that end
>   in a consonant)?

-I'm sorry if this is drifting away from Quenya but my response will
(hopefully) set some things straight. This will ultimately be
beneficial for the discussion of the Quenya forms.

On Friday, October 4, 2002, at 09:54 PM, Hans wrote:

> --- In lambengolmor@y..., David Kiltz <dkiltz@g...> wrote:
>
>> Germanic languages mostly employ the subjunctive for conditionals
>> often with an extra auxiliary (e.g. English _would_ or German_würde_).
>
> I'm sorry, David, but I have to disagree. The German "würde" is a
> modern development, following the general tendency of replacement of
> the older, strong inflections by analytical (or, as you call it,
> periphrastic) constructions. German still has two genuine subjunctives,
> "er komme/ er käme" in the case of the verb "to come".
<snip>

Hans, but that's exactly what I said. Germanic languages (such as
German, even Modern German ;-) do use the subjunctive. In addition,
formations with an auxiliary arise. (Certainly with the idea of
disambiguating). I don't see how this is not "Germanic" although it is
a younger formation (which I never denied).

>> Note that the Romanic languages' conditional is really a periphrastic
>> formation (e.g. comparare habebam etc.).
>
> That's not true for Italian. The conditional is much used to express
> wishes politely (not unlike German or English or some other
> languages!), but forms like "vorrai" (I would) are real inflections,
> not periphrastic constructions or agglutinations.

1) Your analysis of the form is factually wrong. Even Italian _vorrai_
is ultimately _velle_ (or rather Proto-Romanic _volere_) + habui. The
only difference between Italian and Spanish is that Italian uses the
perfect as second part, Spanish the imperfect. By "really" I meant
"originally".

2) The semantics are irrelevant to the question of periphrasis or not.
I never said they weren't employed like that.

>> No explicit marker for the conditional is needed in Quenya.
>
> That's true, unfortunately. A language lacking a word for "if"
> certainly doesn't need a conditional.

Well, Tolkien writes that "if this uncertainty [i.e. a conditional
proposition for the future] is emphasized Quenya can say _nauva_ "will
be". So, Quenya does not require a specific marker if the semantics of
the sentence are clear.

It would be interesting to see whether the _-uva_ forms are a "pure"
future tense or rather some kind of prospective.

David

In VT44:8 a suffix _-nde_ that forms nouns from verbs or verbal stems is
mentioned. _arcande_ 'petition' < _arca-_ 'pray' (VT44:8), _ulunde_ 'flood'
< ULU- 'pour, flow' (V:396) and _qiqirinde_ 'murmuring' < _qiri-_ 'murmur'
(PE12:78 s.v. QISI & QIRI) are given as examples.

Looking through the publised corpus that I have for nouns formed with
_-nde_, I found these:

_arcande_ 'petition' < _arca_ 'pray' (VT44:8)
_merende_ 'feast, festival' < MBER- (V:372)
_Therinde_ 'Needlewoman' (XII:333) < ? *_theri-_
_tingilinde_ 'a twinkling star' < TIN, GIL (V:393)
_ulunde_ 'flood' < ULU- 'pour, flow' (V:396)

I am not sure if all of these are formed with this suffix, but I hope I
didn't leave out anything major that I have access to.

What is the origin and purpose of this ending? How does it differ in usage
from other noun forming suffices? Can anything be found out from these
or other examples?

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

On September 29th, Emanuele Vicentini wrote :

>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? (...)

>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_)

> 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_?


It would not be very surprising if he changed his mind back and forth : just
remember how his opinion changed as ebb and flow to decide if the Sindarin
word for sea would be "aear" or "gaear"...

It is clear from "Quendi and Eldar" (XI:368-369 and 407) than the -va suffix
is originally a derivational and more specifically adjectival ending. Quite
naturally such adjectives could often be used to show possession (does
Russian not display a similar method ?). Consequently the -va ending slowly
came to be considered as a case suffix, a change shown by the fact that
Quenya speakers introduced a singular/plural distinction : _Eldava_ vs.
_Eldaiva_ (XI:407). I am not aware of other adjectival suffixes that can be
added to specifically *plural* stems like Eldai-. Invariability of the suffix
is the further step in this transformation of a derivational into a regular
case ending.

Hence I think that the discrepancy between "Quendi and Eldar" and "Namárië"
may lie only in the stage reached by Quenya ; i.e. Tolkien knew what the
general direction of linguistic change was, but found it hard to decide if
the transformation was or was not complete. That's, of course, fully
hypothetical.

There is an example of a similar phenomenon in the development of Old
Noldorin sm- to hm- or m-. Hm- looks like an intermediary stage. Some
Noldorin words have m-, which was changed later to hm-, but not consistently
: see V:386-387 entries SMAG and SMAL.. At the time of that change Tolkien
evidently thought that the development had reached hm- only. But in later
Sindarin Tolkien chose m- again, otherwise the _mallorn_ would be presumably
a _**hmallorn_.

Nai Anar caluva tielmanna !

Bertrand Bellet


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