In VT43:33, it was proposed that the noun _yaime_
'wailing' (MC:223) is a derivative of the base YAMA
'call' (PE12:105) with intrusion of _i_ into the stem.
This would imply, in my opinion, that it would be an
intensive form of YAMA, similar in nature to a-infixed
forms such as _maika_ (from MIK), _taura_ and
_rauko_. However, if I read Quendi and Eldar right
(VT39:11, Note 7) those forms with i-infixion are
actually of a "desiderative" nature, such as _maita_
or _soika_ or _mína-_ [< _*meinaa-_].

Therefore, my question is, if the etymology of _yaime_
is correct (based on YAMA), would it then follow that
it was originally a desiderative form?
BTW, I have previously assumed that _yaime_ was a
derivative of the stem YAY- in the Etymologies (V:400).

-- Vicente Velasco

[It is _not_ proposed in VT 43 that _yaime_ 'wailing'
is a derivative of the base YAMA 'call'. It is proposed
that _hyame_ 'pray' in AM III, IV is derived from an
s-prefixed form of a verb-stem _*yam-_, and that this
stem is probably the later equivalent of YAMA 'call'
in QL. All that is said of _yaime_ is this: "Note also
the noun _yaime_ 'wailing' (MC:223)." Undoubtedly
_yaime_ derives, as you have supposed, from
YAY- 'mock' in the _Etymologies_, whence also
Q _yaiwe_ 'mocking, scorn'; a desiderative formation
by i-infixion from YAMA seems extremely unlikely. It
seems possible that the roots YAY- 'mock', YAM- 'call',
and YAG-  'yawn, gape' (V:400) are all related as
onomatopoeic formations recalling a mouth opened
wide (to yawn or call out or mock). -- Patrick Wynne]]

I have found a Finnish influence on Quenya that has not been noted before.
Quenya has an allative case ending _-nna_ (VT6:14), which signifies movement
towards a point. Finnish has (a now seldom used) lative case ending _-nne_,
which signifies movement towards a point. It is seen in such paricles as
_tuonne_ 'thither', _tänne_ 'hither' and _minne_ 'whither'.

The Quenya _-nna_ is also similar to Finnish essive case _-na_. They are
almost identical in form, and they are both known to signify temporal place.
Cf. Telerin _Él síla lúmena vomentienguo_ (WJ:407), Quenya _Elen síla
lúmenna omentielvo!_ 'A star shines upon the hour of the meeting of our
ways.' (WJ:367) and Finnish _Jo vuonna yheksäntenä_ 'Now in the ninth year'
(The Kalevala, 1: 256).

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

Hello,

One long-standing problem in Quenya phonology has been the anomal
behaviour of the _tyelpetéma_ consonants with regard to syllable weight,
which is in turn connected with the permission/prohibition of long
vowels in non-final syllables and stress. That is, since Quenya does not
allow extra-heavy non-final syllables and at the same time a heavy
penult bears the stress, we are facing a problem of how to interpret the
(both well-attested) heavy weight of a syllable where a short vowel is
followed by a _tyelpetéma_ consonant (as in _hiruválye_, the acute
accent indicates stress) and the permitted long vowel in _máryat_ (this
time it is length that is indicated by the acute accent).

It was suggested in _An Introduction to Elvish_ that the phenomenon is
somehow connected with etymology and/or morphemic boundaries. This does
not seem too likely, since, for instance, the morpheme boundary is also
present in _hir+uva+lye_ and nevertheless the penult is heavy. One
possible solution would be noting that the word _má_ 'hand' was
originally _ma3_, with the velar voiced spirant which could be still
detected in later Quenya, which would mean that the long _á_ was a
biphonemic combination. I wouldn't bet my money on this theory, but it
is a possible solution. One flaw with it is that the primitive _3_ was a
thing quite different from Quenya's later disappearing _3_ < _g_, since
it had disappeared apparently much earlier than the latter even
appeared, since we have signs of its disappearance in the primitive
stems already (Cf. MÁ-, MA3-; TÁ-, TA3-), and much earlier than the
formation of the Quenya proper stress system and phonotactics anyway.

Besides, such an explanation fails to account for the _hiruvalye_ case.
Since the _a_ is short, we expect the penult to be closed. Thus, _ly_ is
bimoraic - whether a geminate or [l] + a glide (to which we will return
anon) - but if it is, it wouldn't be permitted initially, since Quenya
does not tolerate initial clusters. True, _lyenna_ - the only example of
initial _ly_ - is somewhat doubtful, but the other _tyelpetéma_
consonant are perfectly allowed: _nyelle_, _tyelpe_ (I know it's not
quite pure Quenya, but it's an example all right), save _ry_, which
can't be there for historical reasons, and not because of an abhorrence
of initial _tyelpetéma_ liquids (there wouldn't be anyway a lot of
places for _ly_ to go if _tyelpetéma_ liquids were avoided, since _ry_
would also be impermissible and initial _d_ is forbidden). It would be
strange if part of the series was allowed initially and part not (_ry_
is a special case apparently).

In the above discussion I have carefully avoided using the words
'palatal' or 'palatalized' with reference to _tyelpetéma_ consonants,
since we should first determine whether they are the former or the
latter. I suggest they are palatalized.

One obvious reason is that we would then have problems with interpreting
_r_. A *palatal* _r_ (as opposed to palatalized) is simply nonexistent
in the world's languages, and even if it is, the nearest _I_ can come to
a palatal trill or flap is a retroflex approximant (true, I have
inherent problems with trilling non-palatalized apical _r_ (not with
palatalized though), as Ivan can testify, but I would still much wonder
if anyone could do it), which is in phonetic effect far removed from the
other _tyelpetéma_ consonants, and from Tolkien's pronunciation of
_Namárië_.

In fact, other evidence can be both for and against: thus, the
pronunciation of Quenya _ty_ as _ch_ [tS] speaks for both
interpretations - since [t_j] is an assibilated consonant in itself, and
can be assibilated quite strongly into [tS], for instance in certain
Irish Gaelic dialects. _hy_ is somewhat a problem, since it apparently
_is_ palatal. However, velar consonants when palatalized are turned into
palatals - at least in Russian - since they articulated with the dorsum,
and thus the lifting of the dorsum towards the soft palate (which *is*
palatalization) changes their place of articulation, while the
articulation of, say dentals, is made with the apex, and the dorsum
movements are only additional articulations. However, this supposition,
in my opinion, allows to present a better theory for what we are
discussing here.

My suggestion is the following. The stress in _hiruvalye_ is to be
explained by the fact that Quenya stress, not being phonological, is
determined by purely phonetic environs, unlike the (phonemically
relevant) length.

I would suggest that _ly_, being palatalized, was articulated with a
very audible [j] off-glide, which had at some time become an additional
mora. So _ly_ is bimoraic, the first mora being the rhyme of the
preceding syllable and the second the onset of the next one.
*Phonologically* this _ly_ is single, as it *is* allowed initially.

A situation when phonological entities are pronounced as two segments on
the phonetic level is not unheard-of in real-world languages. This, in
Archi the affricates behave in a strange way. The Archi consonantal
system is built on a fortes:lenes opposition, and at some point in time
the lenis affricates disappeared. Thus, on the synchronic level, only
the former fortes affricates remain. But since they are not in
opposition to any other row of consonants by the fortes:lenes ratio
alone, we have to decide they are unmarked. Now in initial position
those fortes affricates were of course pronounced as simple ones, since
geminates (not biphonemic clusters of identical consonants, as Russian
_v+ves+ti_) are quite unlikely initially. Word-medially, however, these
are pronounced as geminates - synchronically for *no* apparent reason!
(Add to it the fact that Archi also does not allow extra-heavy syllables
and forces vowel shortening in closed syllables, and we have a
troublingly familiar situation!).

Moreover, such discrepancies can even violate phonological constraints -
as in the Polish dialectal pronunciation of _bial/y_ 'white', where the
first [b_j] can be pronounced as a strong [j] (standard Polish has a
very weak glide there, more like a formant going back-forth for a
negligibly short time), and in Polish initial _bj_ is of course
impermissible (it has nowhere to come from anyway, since ProtoSl. _bj_ >
_bl_ very very long ago). If we agree that purely phonetic phenomena can
violate phonological constraints in Quenya as well, we find a
justification for the attested pronunciation of the monophonemic /k_w/
and /N_w/ as clustered [kw] and [nw].

Such a supposition (additional articulations becoming full-fledged
morae) could also explain away the stress in _cirya:quen_ (XI:372),
since we know that /k_w/ was pronounced as [kw], i.e. bimoraically.

Now with regard to length, there is a different situation. Stress,
phonologically irrelevant in Quenya, can be determined by the purely
phonetic environs. Length, being phonologically important, should be
judged on the phonological level. Now if _ry_ is a single consonant (it
apparently is *phonologically*), then the syllable division in _máryat_
is _má+ryat_. There is the question of unattested syllable- (=word-)
initial _ry_, but the tendency for open syllables must be much stronger
than the tendency for maximum onsets. The only example of VC-V syllable
division I can think of is in the syllabic languages of E and SE Asia,
as in Chinese (Putonghua) _Tian-an-men_. But Chinese works in a quite
different way from Quenya - Quenya is not a syllabic language.

Thus, my suggestion is the following: a CV[Cy]V sequence is phonetically
(for purposes of stress) divided into syllables as CV[C+y]V and
phonemically (relevant to length) as CV+[Cy]V.

I am eager to hear your comments.

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...

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

[Suilad o Galadhorn am mellyn în phain! This is my first post to
Lambengolmor list.]

The evolution of the pronominal forms in the papers of J.R.R. Tolkien is a
very interesting, though complicated story *. According to VT43:6 one of
Tolkien's last attempts in this matter was a revision of Quenya pronominal
markers of 1 pl. exclusive and inclusive in the Revised Edition of LR in
1965. In the texts from 1950s and early 1960s earlier markers are attested
in: (a) "Five Catholic Prayers in Quenya" (cf. VT43 and 44) and (b) First
Edition of LR and the texts like "Quendi and Eldar". These were:

(a) _-mm-_ 'we, but not you' 1 pl. exclusive (VT43:6, 36); _-ngw-_ 'we, me
and you' 1 pl. inclusive (VT43:36);

(b) _-mm-_ 1 pl. exclusive (XI:371); _-lm-_ 1 pl. inclusive (XI: 367, 417).

In the time of the Second Edition of LR the pronominal markers were changed
to:

_-lm-_ 1 pl. exclusive (cf. VT43:6);
_-lw-_ (VT42:34) or _-lv-_ (cf. VT43:6) 1 pl. inclusive;

The endings in _-mm-_ became dual (cf. VT43:6).

It seems that these markers are etymologically related to the pronouns in
the period (a):

We can see that the common element of _-lm-_ and _-lw-_/_-lv-_ is plural
marker _-l-_ (cf. VT43:20, entry _avatyarir_). If this _-l_ is really a
plural element (seen also in early forms of 3 pl.: _kárielto_ in V:72;
_avatyarilta_ in VT:43:20) we can separate hypothetical stems of 1 pl.
exclusive & inclusive. They can be *ME- and *WE- respectively: Q _-lm-_ < CE
_*-l-m-_ and Q _-lw-_ , CE _*-l-w-_. On the other hand we have forms like
Telerin _vomentienguo_ (XI:407, Note 1), which predate by some years the
shift of inclusive _-lm-_ > _-lv-_, but can also be informative. They cannot
be explained by the stem *WE. In this case it is rather *GWE-, which would
be also a good explanation for the earlier form of 1 pl. inclusive, cf.
_etengwe_, _mingwe_ in VT43:36 (can it be in some degree related to WO-
'together' from XI:367?). Compare it also with the independent pronoun
_n(g)wen_ (or _n(g)win_?) *'for us' (? 1 pl. incl.) of the mid-50s (cf. VT
21, and see further comment in subsequent issues.

The shorter form of Quenya _-ngwe_ might have been _*we_ (like _-mme_ and
its short form _me_). Maybe the forms _-mme_ and _-ngwe_ were composed of:
plural marker _-m-_ (cf. XI:361) + respectively _-me_ and _-gwe_ (_*-m-gwe_
> _-ngwe_) in the earlier conceptual phase of Quenya? I hope you can help me
to answer these questions.

Yours sincerely,

Ryszard Derdzinski (Galadhorn)

* I have prepared a table with the attested pronominal forms in the
published texts of J.R.R. Tolkien; it contains both
Goldogrin/Noldorin/Sindarin and Eldarissa/Qenya/Quenya forms. It is very
interesting to compare the forms which were in Tolkien's mind since 1917 to
the end of his life. The final form of this table will be published on my
website, but if you want to see the up-to-date result of my work, send a
message to me.

Greetings !

This post is an attempt to track back the origins of mixed mutation in
Sindarin, partly with what we can deduce from the internal evolution of
the language, partly thanks to the evidence of Welsh and Breton.

I will used the following notations: N = velar nasal (Tolkien often used
an n with tilde); T = unvoiced dental spirant (Sindarin th); D = voiced
dental spirant (Sindarin dh) ; 3 = voiced velar spirant (spirant g). I
have preferred accents and circumflexes to doubling and tripling of
vowels, following the advice given in the list's guidelines.

While the grammatical uses of mutations in Sindarin are not always easy
to determine, their ultimate phonetic origin is usually quite transparent:
they are the reflects in external sandhi of sound changes regularly noted
inside unitary words: so for soft mutation (arising from internal
slackening of s > h; internal voicing of unvoiced stops and spirantisation
of voiced stops and m, or lenition proper; initial strengthening of w- >
gw-; and initial weakening of ch- > h-), the so-called stop mutation (from
the aspiration of unvoiced stops when geminate or after a consonant) and
the rather hypothetical liquid mutation (aspiration of unvoiced stops and
spirantisation of voiced stops and m after liquids). Nasal mutation is a
bit more complicated - difficulties arise with unvoiced stops - but
reflects more or less clearly the evolution of clusters including a nasal.

However, mixed mutation appears puzzling at first sight. Let us summarise
what we know.

- Unvoiced stops appear to be voiced : _Narn e-Dinúviel_ "Tale of the
Nightingale" (MR:373), from Tinúviel, the nickname of Lúthien ; _erin
dolothen Ethuil_ "on the eighth day of Spring" (King's Letter, SD:128-
129), cf. _toloth_ "eight" in LR:394.

- Voiced stops from primitive *b-, *d-, *g- are generally unchanged:
_ben genediad Drannail_ "in the Shire-reckoning" in the King's Letter,
cf. _gonod-_ "count, reckon" (LR:378,379); _Narn e-Dant Gondolin_ "Tale
of the Fall of Gondolin" (MR:373), the basic form being undoubtly _dant_
"fall", attested in the season name Dantilais "leaf-fall = autumn",
PM:135, coming from the root DAT (LR:354), to compare with the Quenya
_lante_ in Maglor's lament _Noldolante_ "Fall of the Noldor" (Silm.
ch. 9).

- gw- (from primitive *w-) is unchanged: _erin Gwirith edwen_ "[on] the
second day of April" in the King's Letter; the name of the month is
given as _Gwirith_ in LotR, Appendix D.

- Voiced stops from primitive *mb-, *nd-, *Ng- "revert" to their
primitive prenasalised form: _ ered e_mbar nín_ "[the] mountains of my
home" (UT:40,54) and _Narn e-mbar Hador_ "Tale of the house of Hador"
(MR:373) with _bar_ "house, home" from _mbár_ (read _mbar_? Silm.
Appendix); _Bar-en-Danwedh_ "House of Ransom" (Silm. ch. 21), a possible
spelling variant of _Bar-e-Ndanwedh_, the last word probably including a
product of the root NDAN "back", cf. for instance PM:395 ; _Haudh-en-
Ndengin_ "Hill of the Slain" (Silm. ch. 20) with a descendant of the root
NDAK "slay" (Silm. Appendix entry "dagor"). We also see this treatment in
_Taur-e-Ndaedelos_ "Forest of the Great Fear" (LotR Appendix F), though
_daedelos / daedhelos_ rather comes from a simple D-stem (LR:354, 355).

- Fewer examples are available for other cases: at least f and n are
unaffected: _Taur-en-Faroth_ (Silm. Appendix entry "faroth"), _Haudh-en-
Nirnaeth_ "Mound of Tears" (Silm. ch. 20); _nirnaeth_ is attested
initially in the famous battle name _Nirnaeth Arnoediad_ (Silm. ch. 20).

So we have something like lenition for unvoiced stops, nothing for
"normal" voiced stops and something like nasal mutation for voiced stops
from old prenasalised voiced stops. How can we explain these confusing
phonetic developments? I suggest we consider a process called provection.
Kenneth Jackson in _Language and History in Early Britain_ (Edinburgh
University Press, 1953), pp. 561-62, describes it so for Welsh:

        When two consonants came together secondarily in WCB [Welsh-
     Cornish-Breton], either by syncope of the intervening vowel or
     by the creation of a new compound, or even at the end of one word
     and the beginning of the next, there may take place the
     accommodation of articulation such as the unvoicing of voiced
     sounds or the change of spirants to stops, which is called
     provection. The result may be to nullify the effects of lenition:
     as, for instance, where the Latin _benedictio_, Late Brit.
     _*beneDixtî_, becoming _*ben'Dixt_ by loss of final syllables and
     syncope, appears in W. _bendith_ with its lenited _D_ once more a
     stop _d_....

[D is the dental voiced spirant, a d with a bar in the original; x is
the Ach-Laut, a chi in the original; the circumflex is a macron is the
original.]

Jackson also writes: "CB. have a much more thorough-going system, built up
into what amounts to a regular morphophonological external sandhi".

Breton has indeed two kinds of provective mutations:

- one called in French "mutation durcissante", i.e. hardening mutation,
or provection; it unvoices voiced stops;
- another called "mutation mixte", i.e. mixed mutation, or leniprovection;
it is sometimes similar to lenition, sometimes to provection. Kenneth
Jackson analyses it in "A Historical Phonology of Breton" (The Dublin
Institute for Advanced Studies, 1967). Very grossly, it comes from a
complex succession of lenition, spirantisation, provection and new
lenition (a secondary voicing of spirants occurring in many Breton
dialects), with much dialectal variation.

The latter may indeed give ideas for Sindarin. Now the question naturally
arises to know whether provection is attested in Sindarin. I think it
may be; it may explain sometimes why lenition fails to occur where it
might be expected, though it is necessarily somewhat speculative since
lenition rules are not completely understood. In particular, it is
noteworthy that lenition fails to occur in second element of compounds
after a nasal, though these are often lenited. Here are a few examples
(the list is not exhaustive):

- _Baranduin_ (LotR map and Appendix F): _baran_ "brown" + _duin_ "(long
and large) river"
- _Annúminas_ (LotR map): _Annûn_ "west, sunset" + _minas_ "tower"; not
_**Annúnvinas_
- _Glanduin_ (UT:264, LotR map): _glan-_ "border" + _duin_ "(long and
large) river"
- _Thuringwethil_ (Silm. Appendix): _thurin_ "secret, hidden" + _gwethil_
"she-of-shadow" (certainly from _gwath_ "shadow")
- _Glamdring_ (the Hobbit, LotR): _glam_ "uproar > orcs > foes" + _dring_
"hammer" (LR:355)
- _dangweth_ "answer" from _*ndanagwetha_ (PM:395).

Perhaps also some failed lenitions like in _Lond Daer_ "Great Harbour",
but this is doubtful: we have also _Eryn Vorn_ "Dark Wood" (LotR map).

In Didier Willis' Sindarin dictionary, David Salo puts forward the
following etymology for the genitival article _en_: it would come from an
earlier _*ina_, i.e. the deictic particle (or already article?) _i_ +_na_
used as a genitive sign, as is well-known in Noldorin (cf. names like
_Taur-na-Fuin_, _Dor-na-Fauglith_, and the note in the Etymologies, root
NA, LR:374) and, less so, in Sindarin (cf. names like _Taur-na-Neldor_ and
_Orod-na-Thôn_ sung by Treebeard in LotR book III ch. 4). So _Haudh-en-
Ndengin_ would be etymologically "mound the (one) of slains". This
etymology goes quite well with the idea of a mixed mutation caused by
_lenition followed by provection_. Let us imagine a few home-made
examples (@ = schwa; 3 = back voiced spirant):

- "of the tree": Old Sindarin *_ina galada_ > [lenition and umlauts]
*_en@ 3alaD@_ > [loss of final vowels] *_en 3alaD_ > [provection] *_en
galaD_ > Sindarin *_e-galadh_
- "of the word": OS *_ina pettha_ > *_en@ betth@_ > *_en beT_ >
S *_e-beth_
- "of the land": OS *_ina ndore_ > *_en@ ndor@ > *_en ndor_ >
S. *_e-ndôr_.

I must admit that there is an important weakness in this: why would _en_
be reduced to _e_? I cannot explain it satisfactorily. Nevertheless,
special reductions of this kind are not unknown in unstressed grammatical
words. The English indefinite article "a(n)" - with the same etymology
as "one" - provides an interesting parallel. Also, the plural article
_in_, used as a plural genitive article too, regularly appears under a
reduced form _i_, especially before stops, because the -n is swallowed in
nasal mutation. Perhaps it influenced somewhat the genitive singular
article _en_, whose reduced form _e_ would have originally arisen in cases
like *_en ndor_ > S. *_e-ndôr_? There might in fact have been some
variations (externally or internally) if we consider the above quoted form
_Taur-e-Ndaedelos_ as an alternative spelling for _Taur-en-Daedelos_.

As for the suffixed article _-in_, mixed mutation could be explained in
the same way if the primitive form was _*-inV_ (V = a vowel, not = a
because it would have caused a-umlaut).

The form _Taur-in-Duinath_ "Forest between Rivers" (Silm. map) might also
be explained thus. _Im_ "between" is presumably related with the Quenya
word _imbe_ of the same meaning appearing in "Namárië". The Old Sindarin
form must have been similar, and since its ended in a vowel it is
surprising that its descendant does not trigger the lenition of _Duinath_.
But the final -m may have had a provective effect, turning back voiced
spirants to stops. Hence _im_ would trigger mixed mutation. However, the
evidence available today does not allow us to check this, and other
theories are equally possible.

Lastly, the fact that the mixed mutation of gw- appears to be gw- may be
interesting in establishing the chronology of sound changes producing
Sindarin: if it was not influenced by the mutation of g- (that's a big
"if"), it points out that the strengthening of initial w- > gw- is
anterior to lenition, the evolution being OS *ina w- > *ina gw- >
*en@ 3w- > *en 3w- > *en gw- > S e gw-. If it had been posterior, we
would have conceivably OS *ina w- > *en@ w- > *en w-, which would give
**en w- or perhaps **e w- in Sindarin. But see the "if" above... we
cannot be sure.

Thank you for your attention. Comments are welcome.

Bertrand Bellet

[Re: _Annúminas_, this may be an example of the orthographical
representation of long _mm_ (< *_n-m_) as simple _m_; cf. Tolkien's
comments on the representation in Appendix E: Appendix E: "_mb_ became
_m_ in all cases, but still counted as a long consonant for purposes of
stress ..., and is thus written _mm_ in cases where otherwise the stress
might be in doubt". CFH]

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

Petri Tikka <kari.j.tikka@...> wrote:

"Could the original have gone something like *_Olosse íre losse ve_ or
*_Olosse íre sílala_ (cf. _íre_ 'when' V:72, _ve_  'as, like' R:66,
_sílala_'shining' MC:214)? The Westron version would be a poetic
paraphrase."

_Olosse íre losse ve_

metre: sSsSsSss (s=unaccented syllable, S=accented syllable)

_Olosse íre sílala_

metre: sSsSsSss

This presupposes that there are no elisions in Quenya poems, doesn't
it? Perhaps there aren't. Just checking and asking.

[-- Hans Georg Lundahl]



[A reminder to our members to please sign your posts. Proudly. CFH]

On Dienstag, Dezember 3, 2002, at 03:55  Uhr, Hans Georg Lundahl wrote:

[Quoting of nearly the whole of the original post deleted by the
moderator. DO NOT DO THIS! CFH]

> This presupposes that there are no elisions in Quenya poems, doesn't
> it? Perhaps there aren't. Just checking and asking.
>
> [-- Hans Georg Lundahl]

Elisions can be found e.g. in V:72 "...kár(e) eldain..." or "...ír(e)
ilqa...", the elision being noted by a dot underneath the respective
vowel. Long vowels seem to block it. Monosyllabics are seemingly not
affected and do not affect.

David Kiltz

David Kiltz <dkiltz@...> wrote:

"Elisions can be found e.g. in V:72 "...kár(e) eldain..." or "...ír(e)
ilqa...", the elision being noted by a dot underneath the respective
vowel. Long vowels seem to block it. Monosyllabics are seemingly not
affected and do not affect."


Which would give us:

_Oloss'íre losse ve_ sSSsSss/sSssSss/ssSsSss

_Oloss'íre sílala_ sSSsSss/sSssSss/ssSsSss

But that was not the rhythm or metre of the "translation", was it?

Hans Georg Lundahl


[In general, elision is not mandatory. Even if we suppose that the
elisions you propose would in fact occur in normal speech, there is
no reason to think they could not be avoided in poetry for metrical
purposes. CFH]

I don't know if articles on Nevbosh are accepted on this list, but here is one.
A quote from the Nevbosh entry in Ardalmbion
<http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/nevbosh.htm>:

"Another such "primitive and arbitrary sound-law" was to replace final -ow of
native words with -oc: "how" > hoc, "row" > gyróc (but where did the gy come
from?)"

and another one:

"gyróc "row" (noise) (Distortion of English word + an unanalyzable prefixed
element gy-.) [Daniel Dawson comments: "The gy- in gyróc is probably related to
the Germanic Ge-, which I know in at least Ger. and Anglo-Saxon (AS) tend(ed)
to  make a noun collective, or something along those lines. This is made
plausible by the fact that one Ger. word for 'noise' is (das) Geräusch or, in a
technical sense, (das) Rauschen, which are similar to gyróc. Additionally, my
dictionary suggests that E. 'row' (in the sense of noise -- quite British,
also) might be a back-formation from rouse, which is extremely similar to
Rauschen."]"

and a third:

"woc "cow". (English word reversed; cf. also Latin vacca, French vache; the
kids were well aware of this double "etymology")"

and a final, vital piece of evidence:

"roc "ask". Past tense *roct "asked"? (Latin rogo)"

My two observations:

A - since he started reversing _cow_ to _woc_, the not yet Professor made a
sound law: Engl. _ow_ > Nevbosh _oc_. This is the first cause of _woc_ as well
as of _(gy)roc_. That _woc_ has a phonetical relation to _vache_ as _gyróc_ to
_Geraeusch_ is subsidiary.

B - since _roc_ means _ask_, _row_ could not _just_ become _roc_ but one had to
add something - like something related to Ge/OE _ge_, ME _y_ MnE _a_. THey
settled for _gy_, an obvious compromise between _ge_ and _y_, if JRRT was
already familiar with OE.

I think the question is solved.

Hans Georg Lundahl

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

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

Hi,

Has anybody ever figured out how to analyse the word
_miqilis_ 'kisses' from the poem _Nieninque_ (A Secret Vice). The
full sentence is _yar i vilya anta miqilis_ 'to whom the air gives
kisses'. Evidently it is plural, but what is the singular, and how
could it be transformed into a verb?

Regards,
Peter Edelberg

On Donnerstag, Dezember 19, 2002, at 02:00  Uhr, Peter
<edelberg@...> wrote:

> Has anybody ever figured out how to analyse the word
> _miqilis_ 'kisses' from the poem _Nieninque_ (A Secret Vice).

In addition to assuming that Quenya did have a plural in -s at the time
of the poem's composition, one might assume that _miqilis_ stands for
_miqilisse_. A shorter form _-s_ for the locative _-sse_ is widely
attested (e.g. entos v. entosse). The same shortening seems to occur in
abstracts/collectives in _-sse_ (e.g. _veasse, lótesse_) as well. It may
be seen in, e.g., niquis, niquesse (the latter owing its first "e" to
association with _quesse_) "frost-pattern" [XI:417].

So, a more literal translation of _miqilis_ might indeed be "kissing,
ensemble of kisses". That means, we're dealing with a collective rather
than a proper plural.

As far as any rules governing the occurrence of _-s_ v _-sse_ go, one
might assume that _-s_ is a pausa variant. Thus, it would naturally
occur at the end of a sentence.

A verbal root (if used thusly) would be _*miqu-_ with _*miquil(e)_ " a
kiss" and _*miquilisse_ "kissing".

David Kiltz

Peter Edelberg asked:

> Has anybody ever figured out how to analyse the word
> _miqilis_ 'kisses' from the poem _Nieninque_ (A Secret Vice).
> The full sentence is _yar i vilya anta miqilis_ 'to whom the air
> gives kisses'. Evidently it is plural, but what is the singular,
> and how could it be transformed into a verb?

The Qenya Lexicon gives the following entry:

MIQI kiss.
      _miqe (e)_ a kiss.
      _miqile_ kissing.
      _miqilitse_ little or tender kiss.
      _miq-_ to kiss. [_minqe_.

_miqilis_ in the 1931 poem is probably a shortened form of
_miqilitse_ 'little or tender kiss'. With omission of the final _-e_,
_miqilits-_ would become _miqilis_ -- compare _oaris_
'mermaid' in QL, in which the final _-s_ is reduced from _-ts_
in the stem _*oarits-_ (the _ts_ of the stem is retained medially
in the pl. _Oaritsi_, I:227).

The diminutive suffix _-litse_ in _miqilitse_ also occurs in QL
in the form _inwilitse_ 'little fairy', < _inwe_ 'one of the royal
house of the Eldar'. It is also possible that in _miqilis_ the final
element has been reinterpreted as a shortened form of _lisse_
'sweet' (LR:368).

_miqilis_ is therefore probably _not_ a plural form, despite its
gloss as 'kisses'. Tolkien clearly used some poetic leeway in
his translations of the poems in "A Secret Vice" -- for example,
the line _nu karne vaiya_ in _Oilima Markirya_ must contain
sg. _karne_ 'red' (given in QL) and sg. _vaiya_ 'Outer Sea or Air'
(V:397), but the English translation is plural: 'under red skies'.

As for "transforming" _miqilis_ into a verb, QL gives the verb
_miq-_ 'to kiss', pa.t. _minqe_. If this verb survived into the
later corpus, it may have taken the form _*miku-_ 'to kiss',
_*mique_ 'it kisses', etc., analogous to _niku-_ 'be chill, cold
(of weather)', _nique_ 'it is cold, freezes' (XI:417). On the other
hand, _Nieninque_ employs the equally serviceable idiom
of the verb _anta_ 'to give' followed by the noun 'kiss'. This
same idiom occurs in Goldogrin -- the Gnomish Grammar
cites _ôni cailthi_ 'he pressed a kiss, he kissed' (PE11:11),
with _antha-_ 'give' (pa.t. _ôni_) and noun _cailthi_ 'kiss'.

-- Patrick Wynne

[Cross-posted to elfling and lambengolmor. -- ab]

"pa2rick " wrote:

> _miqilis_ in the 1931 poem is probably a shortened form of
> _miqilitse_ 'little or tender kiss'. With omission of the final _-e_,
> _miqilits-_ would become _miqilis_ -- compare _oaris_
> 'mermaid' in QL, in which the final _-s_ is reduced from _-ts_
> in the stem _*oarits-_ (the _ts_ of the stem is retained medially
> in the pl. _Oaritsi_, I:227).
>
> The diminutive suffix _-litse_ in _miqilitse_ also occurs in QL
> in the form _inwilitse_ 'little fairy', < _inwe_ 'one of the royal
> house of the Eldar'. It is also possible that in _miqilis_ the final
> element has been reinterpreted as a shortened form of _lisse_
> 'sweet' (LR:368).

**While this is a very likely interpretation of _miqilis_ (and I thought
about it myself), it is possible that the segment _-lis_ is not a short
variant of the (diminutive) suffix _-litse_, but it is the same _-lis_
that appears in a number of Qenya words in QL. Here they are:

_arqilis_ "desert", _arqa_ "arid, parched, dry" (32L)
_avestalis_ "January", _avesta_ "opening, beginning, overture" (29L)
_indolis_ "domicile", _indo_ "house" (43L)
_Inwilis_ "Faëry", _inwe_ "1 of the royal house of the _Eldar_" (42R)
_lattulis_ "window" (51R), cf. _latsina_ "open, level, broad" (50R)
_loqilis_ "question" (56L, deleted)
_maksilis_ "lordship", _maksi-_ "hold, grip, power, possession" (57R)
_niqilis_ "fine snow", NIQI "white" (66L)
_oinalis_ "ointment", OYO "salve, rub, oil" (71R)
_qindelis_ "a nun", _qinde_ "womanliness, femininity" (77L, R)
_sintilis_ "a sparkling as of crystal", _sint_ (ty) "a gleam, spark,
glister, drop of dew, etc." (85L)
_turinqilis_ "princess" (95L)

It seems to be some kind of abstract suffix. Hence if we have _miqe_
"a kiss" and _miq-_ "to kiss" (61R), than _miqilis_ might mean
"kissing".


Ales Bican

--
Words are useless, especially sentences, they don't stand for anything,
how could they explain how I feel? (Madonna, _Bedtime Story_)

Ales Bican wrote, responding to my interpretation of _miqilis_:

> **While this is a very likely interpretation of _miqilis_ (and I
> thought about it myself), it is possible that the segment _-lis_
> is not a short variant of the (diminutive) suffix _-litse_, but it
> is the same _-lis_ that appears in a number of Qenya
> words in QL.

After giving a list of these forms in _-lis_, Ales adds:

> It seems to be some kind of abstract suffix. Hence if we have
> _miqe_ "a kiss" and _miq-_ "to kiss" (61R), than _miqilis_
> might mean "kissing".

This is certainly a possible interpretation of _miqilis_. However,
your assumption that _all_ of the forms ending in _-lis_ in QL
contain "the same _-lis_", which is "some kind of abstract
suffix", is far too general. In the list you provided, there appear to
be at least _three_ different but homophonous suffixes _-lis_,
each with a distinct application and probably a distinct
etymology.

[N.B. All forms in the following discussion are from QL unless
otherwise noted.]

Certainly in _maksilis (st)_ 'lordship', from noun-stem _maksi-_
'hold, grip, power, possession', _-lis_ appears to be an abstract
suffix; _sintilis (ss)_ 'a sparkling as of crystal', from _sinty-_
'sparkle' might be another instance (though note the difference
in the stem endings: _st_ vs. _ss_). The ending _-s_, _-sse_ is
well-attested as an abstract noun ending in QL, which gives for
example _meles (ss)_, _melesse_  'love' (< _mel-_ 'to love'),
and _piqis_, _piqisse_ 'grief' (< PIQI). A suffix _-lis_, _-lisse_
may have been generalized from instances in which _-s_,
_-sse_ was added to nouns ending in _-le_ -- for example,
_siqilisse_ 'lamentation' < _siqile_ 'sighing, lament' < _siqi-_
'sigh'.

There also appears to be a suffix _-lis_ meaning 'land, place'.
This appears in _arqilis_ 'desert' (*'arid land' < _arqa_ 'arid,
parched, dry'), _Inwilis_ 'Faëry' (*'Inwir-land' < _inwe_ 'one of
the royal house of the Eldar'), _indolis_ 'domicile' (*'house-
place', i.e. *'place where one resides', < _indo_ 'house').
Perhaps _lattulis_ 'window' belongs with this group too,
meaning lit. *'shutter-place' < _lat (latt-)_ 'flap, small hinged
door, lid' (or, if _lattu-_ is a dual, then *'place with a pair of
shutters'). If this seems an odd etymology for 'window', it is
hardly any odder than the etymology of English _window_
itself, which originally meant 'wind's eye'! In these instances,
the suffix _-lis_ might derive from the multiplicative root LI, ILI
'many', whence _lie_ 'people, folk' -- note that even in QL, the
word _nóre_ means both 'family' and 'country, nation'.

Finally, there are instances in which _-lis_ appears to be a
diminutive. The clearest example is _turinqilis_ 'princess',
probably lit. *'little queen' < _turinqi_ 'queen'. Another possible
example is _qindelis_ 'a nun', in which the diminutive ending
acts as a particularizing or singular ending when added to the
collective noun _qinde_ 'women as a whole'. In these forms
(as perhaps in _miqilis_), the ending _-lis_ might be a
reduction of _-litse_. The suffix _-litse_ itself appears to contain
two distinct elements, the first of which is diminutive _-l_, _-il_,
seen in forms such as _katl_, _kakil_ 'chuckle' (i.e. *'a little
laugh' < _kaka-_ 'laugh'), _lipil_ 'a tiny glass' (< LIPI),
_Elwenillo_ 'Littleheart' (< _elwen_ 'heart'), and probably
_turillo_ 'prince' (*'little king') and _turille_ 'princess' (*'little
queen'). The element _-tse_ apparently serves as a diminutive
or hypocoristic in such forms as _melitse_ 'darling' (< _mel-_
'to love'), _eulitse_ (< _eule_ 'lamb'), and _heritse_ term
applied to "an Inwe" (< _heri_ 'Lady').

-- Patrick Wynne

I wrote:

> > It seems to be some kind of abstract suffix. Hence if we have
> > _miqe_ "a kiss" and _miq-_ "to kiss" (61R), than _miqilis_
> > might mean "kissing".

Patrick responded:

> This is certainly a possible interpretation of _miqilis_. However,
> your assumption that _all_ of the forms ending in _-lis_ in QL
> contain "the same _-lis_", which is "some kind of abstract
> suffix", is far too general.

**I am aware of this. I should have made myself more clear, because
I did not mean to imply that the suffix _-lis_ was always the same
suffix in all those words.

The message I sent to the lambengolmor list was the second version of
my response. In the first version, which was meant to be sent to
Elfling (that is why I also sent my reply to Elfling in the end), I
suggested the possible connection of _miqilis_ with _miqilitse_ and
discussed the suffix _-lis_. Since Patrick was quicker than me, I
restricted the second version only on the suffix _-lis_. I thought
it would be convenient to cite all instances of words ending in
_-lis_.

Since I saw that we may deal with several homophonous suffixes, I
just wrote that it is some kind of abstract suffix.

> In the list you provided, there appear to
> be at least _three_ different but homophonous suffixes _-lis_,
> each with a distinct application and probably a distinct
> etymology.

**There is yet another one: _-is_ in _niqilis_ "fine snow" (66L) which
is from _is (iss-)_ "light snow" (43R).

[This analysis of the form does not explain the _-l-_. It seems
to me that the form is instead to be analyzed as _niqi-_ 'snow' + the
(now familiar to us all!) diminutive ending _-lis_ 'fine'. Carl]

> [N.B. All forms in the following discussion are from QL unless
> otherwise noted.]

**Page numbers would be welcome.

[But not really necessary when citing (esp. a large number of) forms
from the Lexicons, which are arranged alphabetically, with alphabetic
cross-references. Carl]

> Certainly in _maksilis (st)_ 'lordship', from noun-stem _maksi-_
> 'hold, grip, power, possession', _-lis_ appears to be an abstract
> suffix; _sintilis (ss)_ 'a sparkling as of crystal', from _sinty-_
> 'sparkle' might be another instance (though note the difference
> in the stem endings: _st_ vs. _ss_). The ending _-s_, _-sse_ is
> well-attested as an abstract noun ending in QL, which gives for
> example _meles (ss)_, _melesse_  'love' (< _mel-_ 'to love'),
> and _piqis_, _piqisse_ 'grief' (< PIQI).

**We may deal with at least three abstract suffixes: _-sse_, _-sta_
and _-ste_. The second is not very common: _piqesta_ "bitterness"
(74L). Perhaps the same _-sta_ is found in _qindesta_ "convent"
(77R), perhaps meaning something like "a collection/group of women/
nuns" (see below). As regards _-ste_: _rauste_ "hunting, preying" from
RAWA/RAVA *"run, chase" (79L, R); _seste_ "similarity" from _se_
"as, like"; _teluste_ "extremity" from _telu_ "end, close; to finish,
to end" (91L). All three suffixes seem to have a short variant _-s_.

> There also appears to be a suffix _-lis_ meaning 'land, place'.
> This appears in _arqilis_ 'desert' (*'arid land' < _arqa_ 'arid,
> parched, dry'), _Inwilis_ 'Faëry' (*'Inwir-land' < _inwe_ 'one of
> the royal house of the Eldar'), _indolis_ 'domicile' (*'house-
> place', i.e. *'place where one resides', < _indo_ 'house').
> Perhaps _lattulis_ 'window' belongs with this group too,
> meaning lit. *'shutter-place' < _lat (latt-)_ 'flap, small hinged
> door, lid' (or, if _lattu-_ is a dual, then *'place with a pair of
> shutters').

**This is certainly possible. However, I am not quite sure about
these ones. I think it might be possible that _-lis_ in these cases
is still the same abstract _-lis_, though the final derivatives are
not abstracts any longer.

_arqilis_ might be *"dryness, aridness"; it is possible that this
abstract was used for "desert" (Czech 'poust' "desert", related to adj.
'pusty' "waste, desert", is in fact "waste-ness, desert-ness").
The same with _Inwilis_: it might be *"Inwe-ness", hence "Faëry".
In case of _lattulis_, since it is related words are _lá_ "open
space", _láta-_ "stread, extend" and _latsina_ "open, level, broad"
(50R), it might be "open-ness, spread-ness". I like, however, the
idea of the dual, though it does not explain homonym _lattin_ (51R).

> If this seems an odd etymology for 'window', it is
> hardly any odder than the etymology of English _window_
> itself, which originally meant 'wind's eye'!

**'wind's eye' is not at all odd. Czech 'okno' "window" is related
to 'oko' "eye". Cf. also Sanskrit 'gavákSa-' literally meaning
"bull's eye".

[Most English speakers have no knowledge of the origin of "window",
since it has no apparent formal relationship to "eye". It is indeed
an odd fact, when first learned. Carl]

> Finally, there are instances in which _-lis_ appears to be a
> diminutive. The clearest example is _turinqilis_ 'princess',
> probably lit. *'little queen' < _turinqi_ 'queen'. Another possible
> example is _qindelis_ 'a nun', in which the diminutive ending
> acts as a particularizing or singular ending when added to the
> collective noun _qinde_ 'women as a whole'.

**While I agree with the interpretation of _turinqilis_, I am not
quite sure about _qindelis_. First of all there is the fact you
mention, sc. that _qinde_ is a collective while _qindelis_ is just
one nun. However, this would not such a big problem -- more problematic
is that _qinde_ by itself probably means "nun(s)", cf. _i.aira qinde_
"nuns" (lit. *"holy women") and _qindesta_ "convent" (*"group
of nuns"?; 77R). Another question is why it was not derived directly
from _qin_ "woman, female".

> In these forms
> (as perhaps in _miqilis_), the ending _-lis_ might be a
> reduction of _-litse_. The suffix _-litse_ itself appears to contain
> two distinct elements, the first of which is diminutive _-l_, _-il_,
> seen in forms such as _katl_, _kakil_ 'chuckle' (i.e. *'a little
> laugh' < _kaka-_ 'laugh'), _lipil_ 'a tiny glass' (< LIPI),
> _Elwenillo_ 'Littleheart' (< _elwen_ 'heart'), and probably
> _turillo_ 'prince' (*'little king') and _turille_ 'princess' (*'little
> queen').

**Seen also in _qimelle_ "little woman" (77L) and comparable to _-le_
in _nen-le_ "brook" (Etym s.v. NEN).

> The element _-tse_ apparently serves as a diminutive
> or hypocoristic in such forms as _melitse_ 'darling' (< _mel-_
> 'to love'), _eulitse_ (< _eule_ 'lamb'), and _heritse_ term
> applied to "an Inwe" (< _heri_ 'Lady').

**While it is possible that _-tse_ serves as a diminutive or
hypocoristic suffix, I do not think it is the case in examples cited.
_-tse_ in _melitse_, _heritse_ and probably even in _eulitse_ is,
in my opinion, a feminine suffix.

A short variant of this suffix would be seen in _aris, arits-_
"daughter, maid", derived from _ar_ "child" (32L). Other instances
of this may be _akairis_ "bride" (46L) and perhaps _kargaris_ "spider"
("she-spider"?; 45L).

A variant of this suffix is apparently _-ss(e)_, because _akairiss-_
alternates with _akairits-_. Another, similar, suffix is _-ste_, seen in
_Teleste_ "she little elf" (91L).

Hence _melitse_ might be "she-darling", _eulitse_ "she-lamb" and
in case of _heritse_ feminineness would be multiplied (though here
_-tse_ is most likely to be a hypocoristic suffix).

Ales Bican

[I see nothing necessarily or even apparently feminine about 'darling'
(which is itself in origin a diminutive form, 'little dear', as for
_mel(i)-_ + _-(li)tse_); nor about 'lamb'. But both are clearly
diminutive. It is not uncommon that diminutive endings are applied to
specifically feminine forms; but that does not make the diminutive ending
necessarily feminine. While interjecting, I'll also note that it may be
that the ending in all these cases is in fact _-litse_ (not _-tse_), with
syncope of *_-lilitse_ > _-litse_ in  _melitse_ and _eulitse_, and of *_-
rilitse_ > _-ritse_in _heritse_. Carl]

--
Words are useless, especially sentences, they don't stand for anything,
how could they explain how I feel? (Madonna, _Bedtime Story_)

I wrote:

> **There is yet another one: _-is_ in _niqilis_ "fine snow" (66L) which
> is from _is (iss-)_ "light snow" (43R).

Carl responded:

> [This analysis of the form does not explain the _-l-_. It seems
> to me that the form is instead to be analyzed as _niqi-_ 'snow' + the
> (now familiar to us all!) diminutive ending _-lis_ 'fine'. Carl]

**However, the problem is that _niqi-_ is rather "white" than "snow".
We have base NIQI "white" and derivatives _ninqe_ "white", _niqis (ss)_
(_niqi-_ "white" + _is_ "(light) snow"). As regards the _-l-_, it might
be a diminutive affix (cf. _katl_ "chuckle" Patrick mentioned) or an
adjective marker.

[Actually, the _root_ NIQI means 'white'; but among the derivatives of
NIQI are many forms in _niqi-_ meaning 'snow'; while 'white' itself is
_ninqe_. Carl]

> > [N.B. All forms in the following discussion are from QL unless
> > otherwise noted.]
>
> **Page numbers would be welcome.
>
> [But not really necessary when citing (esp. a large number of) forms
> from the Lexicons, which are arranged alphabetically, with alphabetic
> cross-references. Carl]

**Sure, but words would be easier to locate. I had, for instance,
problems with _Elwenillo_. And I must note, it was *not* an objection
or complaint.

[I would myself tend to give the page numbers, so no argument here. But
I do understand Pat's reason for omitting them from Lexicon references,
and wouldn't reject a post for not using them in that case. Carl]

> **'wind's eye' is not at all odd. Czech 'okno' "window" is related
> to 'oko' "eye". Cf. also Sanskrit 'gavákSa-' literally meaning
> "bull's eye".
>
> [Most English speakers have no knowledge of the origin of "window",
> since it has no apparent formal relationship to "eye". It is indeed
> an odd fact, when first learned. Carl]

**I had not either, until I read Patrick's post. What I meant is that
it is not odd that words for "window" were connected with words for
"eye".

Carl commented my suggested analysis of _eulitse_ and _melitse_:

> [I see nothing necessarily or even apparently feminine about 'darling'
> (which is itself in origin a diminutive form, 'little dear', as for
> _mel(i)-_ + _-(li)tse_); nor about 'lamb'. But both are clearly
> diminutive.

**You may be right, but since I am not sure I wrote that these words
might be analyzed thus and thus. I would not say they are clearly
diminutive and I thought this was your objection about David Salo's
attitude toward _Elpino_.

[But they _are_ diminutive: I mean, 'darling' (< 'dear-ling' =
'little dear') and 'lamb' = 'little sheep' _are_ diminutives. Carl]

At any rate, I see something feminine in "darling" and especially in
_melitse_. I do not know but I would rather imagine a woman as a
darling than a man, but sure I am a man. : ) Anyway, MELE seems
to be somewhat connected with feminines, cf. _mella_ "girl", which is
probably just *"beloved". And there is another thing I overlooked last
time. There is an adjective _melitsa_ "beloved, favourite". It is
possible that _melitse_ is derived from this adjective. In that case
the final _e_ would more likely be a feminine marker than a
masculine one.

[I can only say that I more often hear women call men "darling" than
vice versa. Carl]

As regards _eulitse_, it is unglossed in QL, so my interpretation was
necessarily a guess. This may not be your case, of course.

[I followed your lead on that; I know nothing more than what is in QL.
Carl]

> It is not uncommon that diminutive endings are applied to
> specifically feminine forms; but that does not make the diminutive ending
> necessarily feminine. While interjecting, I'll also note that it may be
> that the ending in all these cases is in fact _-litse_ (not _-tse_), with
> syncope of *_-lilitse_ > _-litse_ in  _melitse_ and _eulitse_, and of *_-
> rilitse_ > _-ritse_in _heritse_. Carl]

**That is certainly possible. (By the way, the change you mention here
is normally called haplology, not syncope, if I am not mistaken, but I
understood what you meant.)

[Re: haplology: quite right. The term eluded me at the time, for some
reason. Carl]


Ales Bican

--
Words are useless, especially sentences, they don't stand for anything,
how could they explain how I feel? (Madonna, _Bedtime Story_)

I wrote:

> **However, the problem is that _niqi-_ is rather "white" than "snow".
> We have base NIQI "white" and derivatives _ninqe_ "white", _niqis (ss)_
> (_niqi-_ "white" + _is_ "(light) snow").

Carl responded:

> [Actually, the _root_ NIQI means 'white'; but among the derivatives of
> NIQI are many forms in _niqi-_ meaning 'snow'; while 'white' itself is
> _ninqe_. Carl]

**Well, the whole entry goes like this:
NIQI white
     _ninqe (i)_ white.
     _niqis (ss)_ snow.
     _niqissea_ snowy.
     _niqilis_ fine snow.
     _niqileninqe_ snow-white.
     _niqetil (d), niqetilde_ snow-cap.
     _niqisya, niqista-_ to snow. [pret. _-stine_ or _-stane_.
     _nikte-_ to whiten, cleanse. [_niqente_.

As far as I can see the only speculative word is _niqileninqe_ "snow-
white"; the others can be more or less easily explained as containing
the element _niq(i)_ meaning "white".

First of all there is _ninqe_ "white", then _niqis_, presumably _niq(i)
+ is_ "white + snow"; _niqissea_ would be an adjectival derivative
thereof; _niqisya_ and _niqista_ seem to be verbal derivatives thereof
(_niqis + ya/ta_). _nikte-_ seems to be _niq + te_, showing the change
_q_ > _k_ before _t_.

As regards _niqetil(de)_, although it is translated as "snow-cap", I
think it is not a literal translation but rather an English idiom
(though I was not able to find it my dictionary; I found only
'snow-capped'). _tilde_ is translated as "point" and "tip, peak" in
QL resp. PME (QL:92R). I believe _niqetil_ means just "white-peak"
(cf. Tolkien's statement in _Quendi and Eldar_: "_nique_ does not
refer to snow" (WJ:417), thought this may not be relevant, since the
underlying base _nique_ (_niku-_) was reinterpreted).

So except for the dubious _niqilis_ we are left with _niqileninqe_
"snow-white". I think it is safe to say that the segment _ninqe_ is
the same as _ninqe_ "white". If the translation "snow-white" is
(which may not be the case, though) a literal one, then _niqele-_
would be "snow". In that case it might be just "whiteness", sc.
"snow", if _-le_ is an abstract suffix.

This is my view and it may not be the best one. I am eager to see
yours (Carl's), and for that matter any other else's.

[My own view is that _niqi-_ does in fact mean 'snow', as a concrete
noun derived ultimately from, but not sharing precisely the same meaning
as, the primitive root NIQI 'white' with abstract meaning. This view, in
my opinion, more succinctly explains the derivative given, and avoid the
gymnastics required to develop an explanation for such words as
_niqileniqe_ 'snow-white' and _niqetilde_ 'snow-cap' if one assumes that
the reflex _niqi-_ must have the same meaning as the root. Carl]

> **Sure, but words would be easier to locate. I had, for instance,
> problems with _Elwenillo_. And I must note, it was *not* an objection
> or complaint.
>
> [I would myself tend to give the page numbers, so no argument here. But
> I do understand Pat's reason for omitting them from Lexicon references,
> and wouldn't reject a post for not using them in that case. Carl]

**I understand it, too. As I said, it was not any complaint or
objection. I think I should have formulated it otherwise, since my aim
was just to ask for page numbers, since it would ease my searching.
And I certainly did not want to imply that posts without references
should be rejected (I am against rejecting, anyway).

> **You may be right, but since I am not sure I wrote that these words
> might be analyzed thus and thus. I would not say they are clearly
> diminutive and I thought this was your objection about David Salo's
> attitude toward _Elpino_.
>
> [But they _are_ diminutive: I mean, 'darling' (< 'dear-ling' =
> 'little dear') and 'lamb' = 'little sheep' _are_ diminutives. Carl]

**I see: you meant the English words. We misunderstood. However,
I would not call 'lamb' a diminutive, just as I would not call "child"
a diminutive, because it is 'little human'.

Another problem is that it is _eule_ that means "lamb"; _eulitse_
would be then "little lamb" if it was a diminutive.

It must be pointed out that there is a gap is my theory that _eulitse_
is a feminine form: if it is, why its masculine counterpart was not
mentioned? One possible answer may be that _eule_ covers both
"he-lamb" and "lamb in general". Another answer may be that the
entry EWE is not finished or written hastily. Are there any indications
of this in Tolkien's manuscript?

[I'll check this when I get a chance, and let you know. Carl]

> As regards _eulitse_, it is unglossed in QL, so my interpretation was
> necessarily a guess. This may not be your case, of course.
>
> [I followed your lead on that; I know nothing more than what is in QL.
> Carl]

**Ok, though I find it strange that Tolkien did not write anything which
could shed more light on _eulitse_.


Ales Bican

--
Words are useless, especially sentences, they don't stand for anything,
how could they explain how I feel? (Madonna, _Bedtime Story_)

There's a formation in Finnish to express future time: a conjugated
(person, time) form of the verb _olla_ 'to be' and the present
participle of a verb, e.g. _olen oleva_ 'I will be'. (Present
participles are formed from a verb stem + _-va_ adjectival
ending.) It is quite a formal and archaic construction. It is used
in the Finnish translation of the Bible (_Raamattu_), and people
often remember it thence.

Now, in Qenya the future tense is marked with an ending _-va_,
e.g. in _antáva_ 'will give' (V:72) < _anta-_ 'give' (V:348). (This
persisted to later Quenya in _-uva_.) It is possible that this future
construction was inspired by Finnish, since it also uses an ending
_-va_ to mark the future. Cf. "my 'own language' ... became heavily
Finnicized in phonetic pattern and _structure_" (L:214; emphasis mine).

Quenya is  probably not overmuch influenced by Finnish in
vocabulary or syntax, but it has some similar or identical grammatical
endings, e.g. Quenya _-sse_ locative case (VT6:14) vs. Finnish
_-ssa/-ssä_ inessive case ending; and Quenya _-ra_ adjectival ending
(e.g. in _tára_ 'lofty' < TA3-, V:389) vs. Finnish _-ra_ adjectival
ending (e.g. in _avara_ 'expansive' < *_ava_ 'open'). Tolkien seems
to have borrowed old or obsolete grammatical features, e.g. Quenya
_-nna_ allative case ending vs. Finnish _-nne_ lative case ending.
This future formation could be another such a loan.

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

Teithant Petri Tikka:

> There's a formation in Finnish to express future time: a conjugated
> (person, time) form of the verb _olla_ 'to be' and the present
> participle of a verb, e.g. _olen oleva_ 'I will be'.

    When you say "conjugated (person, time)", do you mean that
the auxiliary is in the future tense (so that _olen oleva_ more
literally means "I will be being")?

     Suilad,

         Beregond

Hello,

>There's a formation in Finnish to express future time: a conjugated
>(person, time) form of the verb _olla_ 'to be' and the present
>participle of a verb, e.g. _olen oleva_ 'I will be'.

If that is a participle, the more literal translation will be 'I will be
being', won't it?

>Now, in Qenya the future tense is marked with an ending _-va_,
>e.g. in _antáva_ 'will give' (V:72) < _anta-_ 'give' (V:348). (This
>persisted to later Quenya in _-uva_.) It is possible that this future
>construction was inspired by Finnish, since it also uses an ending
>_-va_ to mark the future. Cf. "my 'own language' ... became heavily
>Finnicized in phonetic pattern and _structure_" (L:214; emphasis mine).

To my senses as a non-native speaker, that doesn't sound as if it
implied wholesale borrowings of formants. Of course, it doesn't preclude
these, and indeed several affixes are clearly influences from other
languages, not only Finnish - one can't help thinking of Latin on seeing
the 3pl. affix _-nte_.

Which after all raises the question of the etymology of the Quenya (and
Eldarin) future formation.

The Sindarin future in -thV- and the Quenya one in _-uv(a)-_ do not seem
to be immediately related (if there is a phonological possibility, I'd
be happy to consider it). Their ultimate origin remains obscure (even
though one can consider the possibility of the Sindarin _-th-_-future
being somehow connected with THAR- 'across, beyond' (V:392; though it is
a 'scribbled additional entry', which creates all kinds of textual
complications) - primitive CV- roots yielding several CVC- ones are not
unknown in Eldarin).

The Quenya future formant _-uv(a)-_ points to a primitive form in
*_-ub-_ or *_-uw-_. A connection with UB- 'abound' (V:396) seems
possible, but all too strained. _-uw-_ is difficult to etymologize. One
possibility is of course an unpublished/uninvented element (especially
if Petri's suggestion is true). It is also possible to suggest a
derivation from long *-ú-. Such a development is to my knowledge
unattested in Quenya, but it finds typological evidence. Cf. Old Church
Slavic ú-stems:

Nom. _kry_  *_krú_
Acc. _krUvI_ *_kruwI_ < *_krúis_

(the oblique cases stem was in most modern Slavic languages generalized
to the nominative as well)]

Which would lead us to suppose that *-ú- is a (theoretically) possible
predecessor of the Quenya future. Thus we could stretch our imagination
even further, and suggest that the -a of _-uva-_ is the same -a seen in
the continuative tense (in fact, such a supposition is valid even if
_-uv-_ is of another origin)

Then we can conjure the following structure of the Quenya verbal stems.
A Quenya verb possesses a number of different stems (cf. the several
stems of a Slavic verb) - the basic stem (which can apparently be
consonant-final or u-final as in _hlapula_, *_turuna_), the aorist *-i
stem, the present *-a stem. Thus the past tense could be formed from the
basic stem, and the present tense stem gives rise to the continuative
(with lengthening of vowel where possible) and to the future (with
insertion/suffixion of _-uv-_) - this makes sense as the lack of
distinction between present and future is a phenomenon not unknown to
Indo-European languages, Germanic included. The perfect could then be
derived either from the basic stem or from the continuative (the latter
would also make sense, as it'd include the perfect into the present
tenses paradigm)

This question stands in close relation to the classification of verbal
stems in Quenya with regard to their morphological features, as the
established division between 'basic' and 'derived' stems is clearly
insufficient to present a full picture of Quenya morphology (it cannot
account for many things, such as the presence/absence of nasal infixion
in the perfect etc.)

Thoughts?

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...

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

--- Mi lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, Beregond. Anders Stenström
<beregond@u...> wrote:

>    When you say "conjugated (person, time)", do you mean that
> the auxiliary is in the future tense (so that _olen oleva_ more
> literally means "I will be being")?

No, because there is no future tense in Finnish (nor in any other
known Finno-Ugrian language). The only tenses are the present
and the past. _olen oleva_ more literally means 'I am being'.
One can also say _olin oleva_ 'I was going to be', literally 'I
was being'. The morpheme _i_ indicates the past tense.

That is one thing that was not borrowed to Quenya. _i_ in
Quenya actually indicates the present tense, e.g. in _carir_
pl.'make' (WJ:391). This could lead to confusion. For example,
_tulin_ means 'I come' in Quenya (V:395), while in Finnish it
means 'I came'!

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

Petri wrote, regarding the Finnish pa.t. morpheme _i_:

> That is one thing that was not borrowed to Quenya. _i_ in
> Quenya actually indicates the present tense, e.g. in _carir_
> pl.'make' (WJ:391). This could lead to confusion. For example,
> _tulin_ means 'I come' in Quenya (V:395), while in Finnish it
> means 'I came'!

Actually, in the Quenya verbal system _i_ indicates the _aorist_,
not the present tense. Examples include:

_i KARIR quettar ómainen_ 'those who FORM words with voices'

_lá karita i HAMIL mára alasaila (ná)_ 'not to do (in this
case) what YOU JUDGE good (would be) unwise' (VT42:33)

_Eleni SILIR lúmesse omentiemman_ 'The stars SHINE on the hour
of our meeting' (VI:324)

As I noted in message #157:

"The _Etymologies_ also gives many 1 sg. aorist forms translated
with the present tense: _karin_ 'I make, build', _tyavin_ 'I taste',
_lavin_ 'I lick', _lirin_ 'I chant', _nyarin_ 'I tell', _nutin_ 'I
tie', _serin_ 'I rest', _hyarin_ 'I cleave', _tulin_ 'I come', etc.

"It is clear from these numerous examples that the Q. aorist is more
closely rendered by the English present, specifically the English
present in its 'gnomic' sense, i.e., 'when denoting a permanent
situation or periodically recurrent action, without particular
emphasis or definite indication of the temporal aspect' (Mario
Pei, _A Dictionary of Linguistics_, 1954). As Alex Grigny de Castro
put it in Elfling post 16447, 'Unlike Greek, Q aorist is more akin
to present tense than to past. Like Greek, it can express general
truths etc.' "

-- Patrick Wynne

--- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, "Pavel Iosad" <edricson@t...> wrote:

> Which would lead us to suppose that *-ú- is a (theoretically) possible
> predecessor of the Quenya future.

That would clash with the negative element _u- (uv-, um-, un-)_,
_ú, ?ugu_ (VT42:32). Unless they are related? Tolkien glossed
it as 'originally expressing _privation_'. Privation is an 'act of
depriving', which (often) happens in the head when one wants
something. One takes away other things and concentrates on
having the thing. To express the future, English uses _will_ as an
auxiliary verb, which originally had more of a meaning 'to want'.
Similar semantics might be in question, if Quenya _-uva_ derives
from _-uv_. Adding the frequent verbal ending _-a_, you
have _-uva_. _-uva_ would have had a stronger meaning
originally, but it would have softened as a possible cognate
of Sindarin _-thV_ fell out of use, similarly to English _shall_
vs. _will_.

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

Partit (Patrick) tence:

> Actually, in the Quenya verbal system _i_ indicates the _aorist_,
> not the present tense.

Yes, that was known to me. There's no aorist vs. present
(continual) tense distinction in Finnish, only one present
tense. I find it quite strange that the term _aorist_ is applied
to a tense that points to the present in Quenya. Why can't
the term _present tense_ be applied here? Is it to distinguish
it from the present tense with vocalic lengthening + _-a_,
e.g. in _síla_ 'shines' (XI:367) < SIL- (V:385)?

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

[Since Quenya, unlike Finnish and English, _does_ possess
morphologically distinct present (continuative) and aorist
tenses, it would be highly confusing to refer to the Q. aorist
as a "present" tense, all the moreso since the Q. aorist
does not refer specifically to the present, but is instead used
to express general truths or habitually recurrent actions,
without specifying whether said action takes place in the
past or present (hence the term 'aorist' < Gk. _aoristos_
'indefinite'). English does not possess a separate aorist
tense, and so the present tense is used in situations where
an aorist sense is required -- the so-called 'gnomic' present.

The aorist phrase _i karir quettar ómainen_ 'those who form
words with voices' (XI:391), describing the Elves, is a good
example of how the aorist was typically used in Quenya. It
does not mean that there are necessarily Elves speaking at
this very present moment, it means that speaking with
words is something that Elves habitually or periodically
do _in general_. One could thus presumably correctly
describe a group of Elves standing in utter silence as
_i karir quettar ómainen_, since in general Elves do speak,
even though these particular ones are currently silent.

-- Patrick Wynne

On Donnerstag, Januar 30, 2003, at 09:09  Uhr, Petri Tikka wrote:

> I find it quite strange that the term _aorist_ is applied
> to a tense that points to the present in Quenya

Aorist in Greek means "undefined, not fixed". Hence it fits the Quenya
"tense" quite well (compare Patrick's description). Indeed, the name
"aorist" fits the Quenya tense better than the Greek since the latter
was mostly used as a past tense. The past value, however, did not
originally reside in the aorist form as such but in the augment e-.
Note that the Quenya "perfect" tense employs  a similar strategy. For a
very close typological parallel you might want to look at Turkish.
Turkish has an "aorist" as well which is used for general or gnomic
statements. It's a present tense as well.

David Kiltz

Partit (Patrick) tence:

> Since Quenya, unlike Finnish and English, _does_ possess
> morphologically distinct present (continuative) and aorist
> tenses, it would be highly confusing to refer to the Q. aorist
> as a "present" tense, all the moreso since the Q. aorist
> does not refer specifically to the present, but is instead used
> to express general truths or habitually recurrent actions,
> without specifying whether said action takes place in the
> past or present (hence the term 'aorist' < Gk. _aoristos_
> 'indefinite'). [...]

Thank you, I understand now. But what about _Eleni SILIR
lúmesse omentiemman_ 'The stars SHINE on the hour
of our meeting' (VI:324)? Here the time is locked by
_lúmesse_ 'on the hour', so it can not express a recurrent
action, let alone a general truth. The moment is thus
defined as present.

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

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

[I disagree that the time in this phrase is locked by
_lúmesse_, "so it can not express a recurrent action,
let alone a general truth." There is nothing inherent in
_lúmesse_ 'on the hour' that would restrict its point
of reference to a single, non-recurrent moment in
present time. In English, for example, one can say
"My grandfather clock chimes _on the hour_", which
expresses both a recurrent action and a general
truth: the clock in question rings every hour, 24
hours a day, seven days a week. Note that "chimes"
in this sentence would be a gnomic present
(= aorist).

In the phrase _Eleni silir lúmesse omentiemman_
'The stars shine on the hour of our meeting', the
aorist _silir_ comes first in the sentence, and its
context affects the interpretation of the next word
_lúmesse_, not vice versa. Since the aorist indicates
a general truth rather than a specific present event, the
sense of the greeting in this case must be something
like *'The stars shine whenever we meet'. No matter
that the words are uttered by Frodo on his _first_
meeting with Gildor -- this is, after all, meant to be a
traditional greeting, not an expression coined by
Frodo for that specific occasion.

This contrasts with the Elvish greeting as it finally
appears in _The Lord of the Rings_: _Elen síla
lúmenn' omentielvo_ 'a star shines on the hour
of our meeting' (LR:79). As you noted in message
#307, this contains the present continuative _síla_,
so that in the final text the Elvish greeting now (in
contrast to the earlier aorist versions) refers only
to the present, specific encounter: *'a star is
shining (now) upon the hour of (this) our meeting'.

-- Patrick Wynne]

In message 5, "Pavel Iosad" <pavel_iosad@m...> wrote:

> may it be noted that the realm of _Annwfn_ as portrayed in _Pwyll
> Pendefig Dyfed_ is of no association to 'hell' at all.

Tence sinanna Aelfwine:

> True enough. But 1) later associations often are quite altered from
> the primitive/formative semantics indicated by etymology; and 2) Tolkien
> did not reject Jones's derivation. What the Welsh made of the word/name they
> inherited as _Annw(f)n_ has no necessary bearing on what the word's
> antecedents originally meant.

----

Técanye:

Depends on what Hell means, linguistically speaking: are we talking
about a place of Punishment and eternal damnation? Like Hebrew
Gehenna or the Pagan Greek/Latin concept of Tartarus? Then, clearly,
Annwfn of Mabinogion is not portrayed as Hell in that sense.

Or are we talking about the place of departed souls in the
Netherworld, to whom Heaven is not open, as yet, or wasn't until a
moment ago, as when we say of Christ:

descendit ad inferos...
He descended to Hell...

where the Greek would certainly not be Tartarus, but Hades, and the
Hebrew would be Sheol? In that sense Annwfn meant Hell even to Pagan
Celts, though their guess of its characteristics might not be the best
one. At least if the scholars on Celtic mythology are correct in
identifying Elflands of all sorts with Netherworlds, Lands of the
Dead, whether the text states so or not. If they were wrong, it was
on their wrong guess that Jones and Tolkien based theirs.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Patrick Wynne responded to Petri Tikka:

> In the phrase _Eleni silir lúmesse omentiemman_
> 'The stars shine on the hour of our meeting', the
> aorist _silir_ comes first in the sentence, and its
> context affects the interpretation of the next word
> _lúmesse_, not vice versa. Since the aorist indicates
> a general truth rather than a specific present event, the
> sense of the greeting in this case must be something
> like *'The stars shine whenever we meet'. No matter
> that the words are uttered by Frodo on his _first_
> meeting with Gildor -- this is, after all, meant to be a
> traditional greeting, not an expression coined by
> Frodo for that specific occasion.

This is one interpretation. Is not there another possible one, namely
that the aorist is used in a sense not excluding temporal determination,
but merely abstracting from it, not expressing it, leaving the job to
the "luumesse" - that would be just another example of the principle
that unnecessary grammatical determination is left out (like the "last
declinable word" rule or absence of verbal personal endings if the
subject is expressed)?

[Certainly this is a _possible_ alternative interpretation, though I
wouldn't say it's a _probable_ one, because -- again --it assumes
that _lúmesse_ 'on the hour' somehow inherently points to a single
incident in present time. -- Patrick.]

> This contrasts with the Elvish greeting as it finally
> appears in _The Lord of the Rings_: _Elen síla
> lúmenn' omentielvo_ 'a star shines on the hour
> of our meeting' (LR:79). As you noted in message
> #307, this contains the present continuative _síla_,
> so that in the final text the Elvish greeting now (in
> contrast to the earlier aorist versions) refers only
> to the present, specific encounter: *'a star is
> shining (now) upon the hour of (this) our meeting'.

Or perhaps Tolkien decided that it sounds better to express the
singularity of reference by means of the verbal tense as well? :-)

As to the matter of future tense, I have always been under the
impression that the "-uva" formation is originally rather optative
than purely future. I think that several things point to that: the use
of "future" in the "nai" formula, the difference of the future tense
from all the other tenses and the difference between Sindarin and
Quenya future, which jointly suggest that the future tenses are quite
young formations (and thus presumably derived from some other
formations), the possibility of Tolkien's taking his inspiration from
English (will="wish"), Greek (Greek furture seems to be an
elaboration of aorist optative) and perhaps also Latin (Latin future of
consonantal and -i stems is similar to present subjunctive, and future
perfect differs from perfect subjunctive only in 1st sg. form)...
For support Cirion's Oath may be cited as well - "Vanda sina termaruva..."
sounds rather "optative" to me (and such usage of the -uva form would
be archaism, which fits very well the occasion).

However, I don't see how this -uv- can be associated with the
"privative" stem "uu" - I cannot see how the optative meaning can
be gained by attaching a negative or privative particle to the end of
the verb. I could imagine that the "privative" meaning arose from the
"optative", but this seems not to be the case, both because -uva seems
to be a late formation and because the meaning of the "uu" stem in the
Etymologies is probably intended as the original, primitive one.

I would agree with Pavel in dividing the "uva" into "uv-" and "-a",
but I suggest that the "-a" is maybe rather the "-a" of imperative
(or perhaps the both a's can be traced to common meaning - certain
feel of intensity or anxiety, that marks the action described by the
verb as immediately concerning the situation?). A further step would
be to suppose a primitive verb "ub-" or "uba(a)-", in imperative
"uba(a)-" could perhaps give the desired meaning in connexion with
verbal stems? (Well, I don't in fact believe that - I rather suspect
that the elves simply liked the sound and made the ending up... ;-))

Lukas

Lukas Novak wrote:

> This is one interpretation. Is not there another possible one, namely
> that the aorist is used in a sense not excluding temporal determination,
> but merely abstracting from it, not expressing it, leaving the job to
> the "luumesse" [snip]

to which Patrick Wynne responded:

> Certainly this is a _possible_ alternative interpretation, though I
> wouldn't say it's a _probable_ one, because -- again --it assumes
> that _lúmesse_ 'on the hour' somehow inherently points to a single
> incident in present time.

While I agree that 'on the hour' may not necessarily point to a single
incident in time, the hour we are talking about is specified by an
attribute ('the hour of our meeting') which seems quite exact to me.
And even disregarding that, Novak's point still holds, that the aorist
is maybe used not to exclude temporal determination, but merely to not
give any, something not unheard of in real languages (Chinese for
instance almost never has to).

ta-dam
Martin Blom

I would like to draw attention to Ales Bican's substantial and
thoughtful linguistic analysis of "The _Atalante_ Fragments", just
published on his web site:

	 http://www.elvish.org/elm/atalante.rtf


--
=============================================
Carl F. Hostetter   Aelfwine@...   http://www.elvish.org

		    ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
			        Ars longa, vita brevis.
	         The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
"I wish life was not so short," he thought.  "Languages take such
      a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."