At 07:47 PM 2/8/03 +0100, Didier Willis wrote:

>And there happen to be a good canditate for such a tree, with leaves like
>fingers, forming by group of five the shape of a hand, with a hard wood used
>by carpenters, with a dark-grey bark, nearly black : the "mountain chestnut
>oak" or "chestnut oak", Quercus Prinus a.k.a. Quercus Montana. Cf. picture:
>     http://www.mindspring.com/~psisco/www/ChOakLvstemtb.jpg
>
>The only weak point in this demonstration is that it grows mainly in America,
>and was introduced late in Europe (Great Britain first), around 1688 according
>to resources I found on the internet. The standard oak in England is the
>Quercus
>Robur or "English oak".

I'm no aldangolmo, but of Q. prinus the _Audubon Society Field Guide to
North American Trees, Eastern Region_ (Knopf, 1980), p. 406, says, "The
wood is marketed as White Oak."

>"Spanish oak" is indeed a very dark color, esp. compared to a few other oaks:
>http://www.woodfinishingsupplies.com/blond-it_colors.jpg

A veritable casket of "Spanish oak" is shown at
http://www.clarksburgcasket.com/c_oak_spanish.htm

Red oak (Q. rubra, Northern red oak, and Q. falcata, Southern red oak)
doesn't seem so dark on
http://www.ahec-europe.org/technical_guide/species/oakred/index.php/en

Yet for the Northern red oak, "high tannin content allows the wood to be
treated with ammonia to yield a nearly black or 'Jacobean' finish" and "Red
oaks grown in the north [Q. rubra --JC] are less coarse textured than the
faster-grown red oak from the southern states [Q. falcata --JC]"
(http://www.toolcenter.com/wood/redoak.html)

+-------------------------+
+ Airesseo Kolvorno       +
+ Jerome Colburn          +
+ jcolburn@...     +
+-------------------------+

[I'm allowing this post, even though it's beginning to wander off-topic.
Although I personally find discussions of the botany of Middle-earth
highly interesting, given that this is a _linguistic_ discussion group
I request that future posts on the topic of _lebethron_ and other plants
of Middle-earth focus on analysis of their Elvish names. Discussion of
the specific species referred to by Tolkien (when these can be plausibly
determined) is still welcome, but only when this is _directly pertinent_
to making a _linguistic point_. -- Patrick Wynne.]

[Sorry for such a belated responce: I meant to react to this letter,
but was occupied by other things. -- ab]

Pavel Iosad wrote:

> 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).

**First of all, I think there is no published writing of Tolkien's
where he would state Quenya does not permit, to simplify it, long
vowels before consonant clusters. Or course, I may be wrong, so
correct me.

It is true that we do not practically find any example of this,
there might be indications that it is possible, nevertheless. First,
it might be just _máryat_ if _ry_ stands for a consonant cluster (which
is possible). Then there is the form _Hrísto_ in a version of The
Litany of Loreto (VT44:12). Yes, it might be a slip or we may argue it
was changed to _Hristo_, but the striking fact is that Tolkien allowed
it to stand at least for a while! Another important thing to mention
is the presence of diphthongs before consonant clusters, at least _ai_
in _aista-_. Diphthongs, at least for purposes of the stress, are
treated like long vowels and are bimoraic.

[_aista-_ 'to dread' (V:358) -- PHW]

It must also be realized that what is written as Cy does not have to
stand for a palatal(ized) sound. Surely _my_ in _lamya-_ "to sound"
(Etym s.v. LAM) cannot stand for a palatal _m_, as no palatal _m_
exists (as far as I know it is impossible). It might be a palatalized
_m_ (which is not unusual). The question is whether the _y_ in _lamya_
stands for [j] or whether _my_ is a digraph for [m'] (palatalized _m_,
I will use the apostophe for palatalization). And the same can be
applied to other Cy combinations: it is hard to say whether _ry_ in
_máryat_ stands for [R] (palatal _r_, I will use capitals for palatals)
or [r'] or [rj] (resp. [r'j]). How did Tolkien pronounce it in
Namárie?

I wonder how is this dealt with in the tengwar, though I am not sure
if we have enough examples. Combinations Cy (i.e. consonant + y) are
written with the tehta "following y" in Namárie (the same way the
tyelpetéma was written according to App. E). This is a little bit
problematic, since I think _my_ then might also be written as <malta>
+ y-tehta.

With this are connected what I would call primary and secondary Cy
combinations. Primary Cy combinations are those that existed from
Primitive Quendian (resp. Common Eldarin). They occur exclusively
word-initially. For instance _ny_ in _nyello_ which is derived from
the base NYEL. Or _ty_ in _tyelpe_ which is from KYELEP. Probably
even at the PQ/CE stage these Cy combinations stood for palatals
(KY being a palato-velar). Then there are secondary Cy combinations
which arose from the contact of C and y, mostly if a y-mopheme was
suffixed: _van + ya_, _tul + ya_, _quend + ya_ etc.. What we do not
know is whether e.g. _n + y_ in _vanya_ produced [N] or [n'j]/[nj].
The same holds for _máryat_ and _hiruvalye_. There are some
indications that (some) secondary Cy combinations stand for two sounds.
I think I mentioned it in earlier posts: (a) in VT42:27 Tolkien
mentioned that "_atatya_ remained [unreduced] because the second _a_
was not syncopated, being in a long syllable"; (b) in a table in
VT43:29, suffixes _-nye_ and _-lye_ seem to cause reduction of the
length of the preceding vowel: _onye_ and _olye_ vs. _óni_ and _óle_.
The latter example is expecially interesting, because the forms
_onye_ and _olye_ are comparable with _máryat_ in structure.
However, there is another fundamental thing to remember: published
sources are from different stages of the development of Quenya and
they do not have to compatible.

Another thing must also be mentioned. Quenya does not like sequences
of consonants much and if there is a sequence, it does not consist
of more than two members. In other words, we do not see combinations
of three and more consonants in Quenya. Nevertheless, we see
combinations CCy: _nty_, _ndy_, _rty_ (_lty_ not attested), _sty_,
and _hty_. This suggests that combinations Cy (at least _ty_ and
_dy_) stand for single consonants.

* * *

The theory about morphemic boundary from _Introduction to Elvish_ was
snipped, Pavel rejects it himself. Then he suggests that _á_ could be
interpreted as biphomenatic, though he is not sure with this. However,
I think it is not such impossible a theory, given that _á_ could be
interpreted as bimoraic, as a succession of two identical vowels
(i.e. _aa_). He then writes:

> 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,

**It certainly is. _lyenna_ seems to be our sole example of this.
However, I spoke about the word-initial _ly_ with Helge Fauskanger
long before the _lyenna_ phrase appeared and he said that he seemed
to remember he had seen an example of a word-initial _ly_ somewhere,
presumably it was a Qenya example, but he was not sure where he had
seen it; he suggested some Vinyar Tengwar. Maybe the editors of VT
and PE could help us?

[Fauskanger's "Quenya-English wordlist" (downloadable at
http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/wordlists.htm) lists
"_lyá_ ??? (_Narqelion_)". No page citation is provided, but
Fauskanger is apparently referring to the analysis of _Narqelion_
in _Parma Eldalamberon_ No. 9 (by Christopher Gilson and
myself), which gives line 15 as _N-alalmino lyá lanta lasse_
(PE9:14). However, _lyá_ in the PE9 transcription is in error,
the analysis having been written before the complete con-
tents of the Qenya Lexicon were available to us. In Christopher
Gilson's post-QL presentation and analysis of _Narqelion_
in VT40 (which scholars should consider the standard edition
of this text) line 15 is corrected to _N-alalmino hyá lanta
lasse_, with _hyá_ 'here by us' as in QL (PE12:41). -- PHW]

Anyway, _lyenna_ is clearly a grammatical word. It was suggested that
it might be an elided form of *_elyenna_, which is utterly possible.
It also might be a product of analogy of forms like _tye_ (perhaps
even *_nye_ which was also suggested). These forms would not bring
any problem, since we normally see word-initial _ty_ and _ny_.
As I said _lyenna_ is a grammatical word. By this I mean that it
bears certain grammatical marks (it is therefore marked) and such
forms may behave otherwise than other, unmarked, forms. An example
of this may be _ciryant_ which appears in the Plotz Letter. In Letters
no. 347 Tolkien stated that Quenya did not tolerate final consonants
other than dentals; he repeated the same idea in VT42:7, mentioning
_t, n, l, r_ (he forgot _s_). Hence _ciryant_ contradicts this
statement, but as it is a grammatical (inflected) word, it is
allowed to exist.

> 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).

**In other words, an intial _d_ is not found (though _Aldudénie_ might
be an example of this under certain assuptions), which does not
necessarily mean it is forbidden. One would be inclined to say that
a medial _ky_ is not permitted if _Erukyerme_ (UT) and _Ekyanáro_
(VT41:14) were not attested.

[Initial Q. _d-_ does occur rarely in QL in such forms as _die_
'yesterday', _diéra_ (adj.) 'yesterday's; bygone, over, passed'
< DYÊ- 'behind, back (before of time)' (PE12:105). The note
"Inwelin forms such as _gw_, _dy_ also given" appearing at the
head of the Y-entries in QL (PE12:104) suggests that these
forms in _d-_ are from the Inwelin dialect -- interestingly,
it has often been proposed that _Aldudénie_ is from the
Vanyarin dialect of Quenya (the Vanyar replacing the Inwir
in the later versions of Tolkien's mythology). -- PHW]

> It would be
> strange if part of the series was allowed initially and part not (_ry_
> is a special case apparently).

**That would, but it is not certain whether _ry_ is a member of
the tyelpetéma, see below.

> 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.

**I think members of the tyelpetéma are palatal consonants.
Tolkien himself said that Quenya had a palatal series (tyelpetéma,
LotR, Ap. E). In PE13:63, _ty_ is said to be "a very forward
palatal stop foll[owed] by a distict _y_ off-glide". Also, the
grouping of sounds in _The Qenya Phonology_ suggest that the
_ty_-series was a palatal one (PE12:15).

> 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 [...]

**That is an importand fact, but actually it may mean nothing. The fact
that a palatal _r_ seems to be nonexistent does not mean that it does
not exist in Quenya. Although I am not familiar with any language
possessing a palatal _r_, I read it occurred in a language called
Malayalam (I read this in _Trends in Phonological Theory_ by Eli
Fischer-Jorgensen p. 65). It is also supposed to have existed in old
Czech (as a reflex of _rj_), but this does not mean anything.
The existence of a palatal _r_ is, however, suggested in _The Alphabet
of Rúmil_ in PE13. Tables R12 and R14 have signs for "front r or rj".
However, first, it is not said whether these signs were used in Q(u)enya
and secondly, other tables do not have these signs, though they have
signs for _ly_ (R13, R17b, R18). On the other hand, the table R15
(Qenya Grammar Excerpt) does not show any sign for either of them.
Even _The Qenya Phonology_ (PE12) does not also seem to hint _ly_
and _ry_ existed in Qenya. Of course, it is still Qenya and not Quenya,
so the situation may be (and actually is) a little bit different in the
LotR Quenya.

A short discussion on [tS] snipped. Then follows:

> _hy_ is somewhat a problem, since it apparently _is_ palatal.

**This sound worries a little bit, since I am not very skilled in
phonetics. I wonder whether is the same thing as [TH], that is,
the palatal counterpart of [th], because all the tincotéma
consonants (t, d, n + r, l) seem to have tyelpetéma counterparts
(ty, dy, ny + ry, ly). Theoretically, there could be a combination
_thy_ in a derivative of a root with coda _th_ (such as KHITH).
If such a combination existed, what happened with it when
_th_ was changed to _s_? Did _thy_ > _sy_? As I am not a
phonetician, I cannot say whether there is a difference between
_thy_ and _sy_ (whether the distinction strident/not-strident might
exist even among palatals).

(By the way, if combinations Cy stand for palatals, then there
must have existed /S/ (i.e. a palatal _s_), realized as [Z] between
vowels -- this was the source of _ry_ [R].)

Let me note that the idea of _thy_ entered my mind when I saw
VT8. It contains "Full Chart of the _Tengwar_" by Edouard
Kloczko. I ordered the issue, because the item was marked as
"contain[ing]  previously unpublished primary material from the
Tolkien archives" on the VT site. The chart is actually the one
we know from LotR expanded by the tyelpetéma and the grade
for aspirates. The names for the tyelpetéma are as follows: _tyelpe_,
_indyo_, _ithtyar_, -- (aspirates do not have names), _intya_,
_nyelle_ and _arya_. The tyelpetéma counterpart of _th_ is
therefore not _thy_ but _thty_!

I was (and still am) quite puzzled by this chart, because if it
contains some previously unpublished information, I want(ed) to
know more. I contacted Edouard therefore, but he did not appear
to be very willing to talk about it with me, he only wrote to me
that it had been him who had made the chart with his own brain.
I wanted to ask Carl Hostetter about this but forgot to do it,
so maybe I can ask now?

[In Elfling message # 11088, Anders Stenström stated: "In his
_Dictionnaire Quenya-Francais-Anglais_ Edouard Kloczko cites
names given to him by Christopher Tolkien for the six tengwar of
the tyelpetéma: _tyelpa_, _indyo_, _ithtyar_, _intya_, _nyelle_ and
_arya_. In addition, there is a special name for _lambe_ with y-dots:
_alya_." In reply, Carl pointed out that: "Edouard was _not_ given
the name **_ithtyar_; instead, he altered the actual name, _istyar_,
in accordance with his (false) belief that the _s_ in the name came
from original _th_." -- PHW]

[The part about palatalization in Russian snipped. -ab]

> 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,

**I think it is a palatal, being distinct to a palatalized _l_, which
occured between _e, i_ and a consonant, cf. App. E s.v. L: "[_l_] was,
however, to some degree 'palatalized' between _e, i_ and a consonant,
or finally after _e, i_".

> was articulated with a very audible [j] off-glide,

**Which is utterly possible, cf. the citation about _ty_ from PE13
above.

> 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.

**Well, this may be possible. Yet it does not seem to me as a
satisfying explanation, but then I have a lot to learn.

[The part about Archi and Polish snipped. -- ab]

> 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*),

**I do not think it is obvious.

> 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.

**Morphological criterion might also have played its role, because
there is a morpheme boundary between _má_ and _rya(t)_. The same
morpheme boundary is, however, between _ma_ and _nna(r)_ in
_mannar_ (FS, LR:72). Here the geminated (or long) _n_ may also
be phonologically a single consonant, though phonetically a succession
of two identical consonants. For that matter there would be the same
syllable division.

[...]

> 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.

**While this may be possible, I think there are many uncertainties.


Ales Bican

--
kurvannapi vyalíkáni yah. priyah. priya eva sah.
anekadós.adus.t.ó 'pi káyah. kasya na vallabhah.

Hello,

Ales Bican has raised several most interesting points in response to my
proposals regarding the various domains of phonetics and phonology in
Quenya with regard to the status of the tyelpetéma, for which I am most
grateful. Now, on to the specifics.

>**First of all, I think there is no published writing of Tolkien's
>where he would state Quenya does not permit, to simplify it, long
>vowels before consonant clusters. Or course, I may be wrong, so
>correct me.

Indeed you are correct. Nevertheless the lack of vowel lengthening in
the perfect of _lelya-_, which exhibits nasal infixion, or in the
present tense of verbs like _lanta_- shows that this shortening in
closed syllables is regularly forced by the phonotactics. It would
nicely be described by a generative-style phonology, where the
morphological module would give a form like _lántar_, and the 'phonology
proper' module would then give the actual output _lantar_).

[snip examples of bimoraic segments before clusters]

> Diphthongs, at least for purposes of the stress, are
> treated like long vowels and are bimoraic.

True. See below, however.

> [_aista-_ 'to dread' (V:358) -- PHW]

Also _aistana_ 'blessed' in AM, and _aista-_ in _Alcar i Ataren_.

This may have to do with etymology, since *_aistana_, the editors inform
us, can be connected with an old base like GAYA(S)- (VT43:38), which
gives a formation like _*(g)aiastanâ_. Now the syncope of the second _a_
is a bit hard to explain, it being in a long syllable. Or are we dealing
with a special status of the _st_ group (it would also be possible to
write the long vowel of _Hrísto_ off to the suggestion)? I am however at
a loss at the moment as to how to explain it.

>It must also be realized that what is written as Cy does not have to
>stand for a palatal(ized) sound. Surely _my_ in _lamya-_ "to sound"
>(Etym s.v. LAM) cannot stand for a palatal _m_, as no palatal _m_
>exists (as far as I know it is impossible).

Unless it were a coarticulated palato-labial nasal plosive, which is
nowhere phonemic, though imaginable. (Well, there are no phonemic
palato-whatever coarticulated stops, though it is not inconceivable that
a _kp_ shift to a palato-labial before, say, front vowels. Just
guessing, you might figure out)

>It might be a palatalized _m_ (which is not unusual).

We the Slavic-speaking ought to know ;-)

> The question is whether the _y_ in _lamya_
> stands for [j] or whether _my_ is a digraph for [m'] (palatalized _m_,
> I will use the apostophe for palatalization).

As I suggested, it might as well stand for a [t_jj], or, in your
notation, [t'j], with the [j] approximant rather than the more of a
fricative than it is  in, say, Russian.

>And the same can be applied to other Cy combinations:

This is true, and in fact, can be used as an argument for my
interpretation. If we consider the _my_ palatalized (which we apparently
agree upon), it does mean that palatalization is a phonemically relevant
feature. Offhand, I think that at least in Europe, languages which have
a palatal series but do not consider palatalization phonemically
relevant prevail over those which do both. Off the top of my head, the
only instance of the second-type language is Macedonian. On the other
hand, it has, as far as I remember, all but eliminated the old Slavic
palatalization opposition. I am eager to be corrected though.

> it is hard to say whether _ry_ in
>_máryat_ stands for [R] (palatal _r_, I will use capitals for palatals)
> or [r'] or [rj] (resp. [r'j]).

In the official IPA table (cf., for instance,
http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/fullchart.html; this one is quite in
accord with the latest version of the IPA handbook I have access to),
palatal taps/flaps or trills are not shaded (which means the
articulation is considered possible), but do not have a symbol assigned,
which means that no described languages has a phonemic sound of those
types. Thus Quenya would be entirely untypological here, were there a
palatal [r] (I am a bit uncomfortable with [R], as it stands for the
uvular fricative in X-SAMPA)

>I wonder how is this dealt with in the tengwar[...]

So do I.

>With this are connected what I would call primary and secondary Cy
>combinations. Primary Cy combinations are those that existed from
>Primitive Quendian (resp. Common Eldarin). They occur exclusively
>word-initially.

That isn't as obvious. Apparently you mean that certain word-initial
consonants were palatalized, but then your use of 'combinations' is
somewhat misleading. Combinations of C+_j_ were clearly present on the
CE level, since medial combinations of this kind consistently turn out
as tyelpetéma-consonants in Quenya, but also cause i-affection in
Sindarin.

> What we do not
> know is whether e.g. _n + y_ in _vanya_ produced [N] or [n'j]/[nj].

Indeed. That is what the whole problem hinges on, anyway.

> The same holds for _máryat_ and _hiruvalye_. There are some
> indications that (some) secondary Cy combinations stand for two
sounds.
> I think I mentioned it in earlier posts: (a) in VT42:27 Tolkien
> mentioned that "_atatya_ remained [unreduced] because the second _a_
> was not syncopated, being in a long syllable";

Indeed. This is a very instructive example.

Now the gist of my explanation is the following: sound-changes can be
broadly divided into two classes, viz., phonetically driven and
phonologically driven, and we should clearly distinguish the two fields
when dealing with this part of the Eldarin language system.

Syncope, for instance, is driven phonetically. From a phonological (here
phonotactical) point of view, there is nothing inherently wrong with
three consecutive syllables sharing a similar nucleus, phonetics
however, aiming at easing of articulation, is the driving force behind
the simplification of the 'redundant' elements. Since this is a phonetic
rather than a phonological phenomenon, we should consider the _ty_ as a
phonetic unit. According to my suggestion, _ty_ is *phonetically*
bimoraic, and therefore the second syllable of _atatya_ is indeed
closed.

(As a rather important aside, I have quite forgotten to explain how, in
my theory, the syllable boundary splits the [t_j] and the [j] if they
are permissible word-initially. It is possible to suggest that
bisegmental sequences are forbidden on both the phonetical and the
phonological levels, so word-initially the _ty_'s and sundry could be
pronounced without the glide owing to these constraints, but with it
intervocalically. In post-pausal position, as after the nasals, it would
of course be also pronounced in a single segment, but this does not
create a lot of problems with regard to syllable division, since the
preceding syllable would be closed anyway)

[snip _óne_/_óle_ stuff]
> However, there is another fundamental thing to remember: published
> sources are from different stages of the development of Quenya and
> they do not have to compatible.

Indeed.

>Another thing must also be mentioned. Quenya does not like sequences
>of consonants much and if there is a sequence, it does not consist
>of more than two members. In other words, we do not see combinations
>of three and more consonants in Quenya. Nevertheless, we see
>combinations CCy: _nty_, _ndy_, _rty_ (_lty_ not attested), _sty_,
>and _hty_.

Which further suggests that they are phonologically single, as Ales
notes. One should however note the Ñoldorin shift _Quendya_ > _Quenya_
(XI:361), which suggests the instability of the aforementioned
combinations (this instability, coupled with the general abhorrence of
voiced stops, contributes to the total loss of the [d_j]), and thus
their somewhat indefinite status.

> The theory about morphemic boundary from _Introduction to Elvish_ was
> snipped, Pavel rejects it himself.

It doesn't stand up to evidence anyway, since _hir+uva+lye_ is stressed
_hiruválye_.

[...]
> _lyenna_ - the only example of
> initial _ly_ - is somewhat doubtful,

> Anyway, _lyenna_ is clearly a grammatical word. [...]
> By this I mean that ['grammatical words']
> bear[] certain grammatical marks (it is therefore marked) and such
> forms may behave otherwise than other, unmarked, forms. An example
> of this may be _ciryant_ which appears in the Plotz Letter. In Letters
> no. 347 Tolkien stated that Quenya did not tolerate final consonants
> other than dentals; he repeated the same idea in VT42:7, mentioning
> _t, n, l, r_ (he forgot _s_). Hence _ciryant_ contradicts this
> statement, but as it is a grammatical (inflected) word, it is
> allowed to exist.

Indeed. It can be suggested that the instability referred to above
contributed towards the gradual elimination of the strict phonotactical
system. The presence of sequences usually realised bisegmentally in
initial position and the suppression of the bisegmentality can be a
driving force behind this weakening of structure. The weakening leads to
possible overriding of phonotactics by the constraints of grammar (resp.
the _ciryant_ case) or phonetics (which is what we are discussing).

After all, it must be noted that the mere fact of the phonologically
irregular stress in _hiruvalye_ points that the form is marked,
otherwise its formation would be blocked by a rule higher on the
hierarchy (i. e. more marked)

[...]
>**In other words, an initial _d_ is not found (though _Aldudénie_ might
>be an example of this under certain assumptions), which does not
>necessarily mean it is forbidden.

But cf. L:1094-5, where the phrase definitely says that the /b g gw/
were only met in conjunction with the nasals, and /d/, from the turn of
the phrase, is only met after /n l r/. (There's also Christopher's
apparent slip in UT, where he gives the name of a Númenórean city as
_Almaida_, it should apparently be #_Almalda_)

> One would be inclined to say that
> a medial _ky_ is not permitted if _Erukyerme_ (UT) and _Ekyanáro_
> (VT41:14) were not attested.

By the way, if you asked me, I'd give these as probable candidates for
palatal rather than palatalized stops; the articulatory mecanism is the
same as behind the palatal status of _hy_, for which see my original
post. If we suggest that _ty_ is palatal, then these are just
alternative orthographies, if it is palatalized, Quenya falls into the
Macedonian category. A third possibility is that _ky_ is an alternative
orthography for palatalized _ty_, but this is unlikely.

>> 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.

>**I think members of the tyelpetéma are palatal consonants.
>Tolkien himself said that Quenya had a palatal series (tyelpetéma,
>LotR, Ap. E).

The distinction between 'palatal' and 'palatalized' can be blurry,
especially for one who isn't deep into synchronic phonology. Tolkien
surely knew about it, but it wasn't his primary area of interest (which
is probably why we seldom get any coherent synchronic picture of
Tolkien's invented languages - it doesn't possess an independent value
for Tolkien, and is justified by writing poetry, cf. the passage in 'The
Secret Vice'). If _ty_ were palatal, it is difficult to justify why
Tolkien described it as 'similar to English _t_ in _tune_' (L:1088)',
since the sound is not palatal (but rather, in British speech,
pronounced with a glide!). Also he might have included the Spanish ñ as
a description of NY in the Appendix (though this is of no value as an
argument)

[Snip another example of probable confusion between 'palatal' and
'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 [...]

> **That is an importand fact, but actually it may mean nothing. The
fact
> that a palatal _r_ seems to be nonexistent does not mean that it does
> not exist in Quenya. Although I am not familiar with any language
> possessing a palatal _r_, I read it occurred in a language called
> Malayalam (I read this in _Trends in Phonological Theory_ by Eli
> Fischer-Jorgensen p. 65).

See above, on the IPA table.

> It is also supposed to have existed in old
> Czech (as a reflex of _rj_), but this does not mean anything.

That is rather off-topic, but that is somewhat strained to me. As I
understand, the transition from palatalized [r] to the Czech r-haczek
(coarticulated [r] and [Z] as in 'pleasure') only implies the addition
of the fricative character and removal of the flap, and does not
necessarily imply a back-and-forth place of articulation shift.

[...]

> _hy_ is somewhat a problem, since it apparently _is_ palatal.

>I cannot say whether there is a difference between
>_thy_ and _sy_ (whether the distinction strident/not-strident might
>exist even among palatals).

I don't think so, as the strident/non-strident distinction is very
difficult to handle by the dorsum. The IPA also confirms that the
distinction, even if existent, is apparently nowhere phonemic.

> (By the way, if combinations Cy stand for palatals, then there
> must have existed /S/ (i.e. a palatal _s_), realized as [Z] between
> vowels -- this was the source of _ry_ [R].)

Let me note that the presence of intervocalic voicing of _s_ (with or
without rhotacism) does not necessarily imply voicing of other
fricatives. True, the Germanic languages voice both the _s_ and the /f þ
x/ series, but Latin had rhotacism but not voicing of other fricatives.
This is not a very good example, since Latin does not possess
intervocalic fricatives word-internally (the initial ones stem from the
IE voiced aspirates, which were realized word-medially in Italic as
voiced unaspirated stops), and thus the morpheme boundary (as in
_de+fici+o_ or _de+fend+o_) can contribute to the lack of voicing. I am
sure other examples can be found though.

[...]
>> 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,

>**I think it is a palatal, being distinct to a palatalized _l_, which
>occured between _e, i_ and a consonant, cf. App. E s.v. L: "[_l_] was,
>however, to some degree 'palatalized' between _e, i_ and a consonant,
>or finally after _e, i_".

The part about 'to some degree' worries me a lot. I don't know much
about degrees of palatalization in European languages (since the Russian
non-palatalized [l] is heavily velarized, which interferes a lot), but
it seems possible that the palatalization distinction could possess
three grades.

[...]
>> 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*),

>**I do not think it is obvious.

I never said it was obvious. This situation is difficult to resolve
(just as in natural languages), since not one of the two tests
applicable to Quenya (whether the consonant makes a syllable closed;
whether it can be word/syllable-initial) is not applicable to the sound
in question - the first test is what we are discussing, the second one
is inapplicable in case of word-initial [ry] because there's just no
possible etymology for an initial [ry] (unless a RY-root is found), in
case of internal syllable-initial because the first element of a cluster
is either a nasal or a spirant fricative, both of which tend to
assimilate with [r] and blur the distinctions.

>> 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.
>
>**Morphological criterion might also have played its role, because
>there is a morpheme boundary between _má_ and _rya(t)_. The same
>morpheme boundary is, however, between _ma_ and _nna(r)_ in
>_mannar_ (FS, LR:72). Here the geminated (or long) _n_ may also
>be phonologically a single consonant, though phonetically a succession
>of two identical consonants. For that matter there would be the same
>syllable division.

The forcing of the vowel shortening here definitely shows that the
syllable division is _man+nar_. Had Quenya not possessed single
intervocalic nasals, the situation would be just like the Archi system
described in my original post, but it just doesn't.

[...]
>> 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.
>
>**While this may be possible, I think there are many uncertainties.

Indeed there are, that's just why I posted this :-)

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...

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

On the subject of "palatalized" consonants I think it is paramount to
hold up the distinction between primary and secondary palatalized
sounds, as pointed out by Ales Bican.
Also, it is important to look at the (historical) formation of the
words in question to understand their behaviour.
As the examples adduced by Pavel Iosad and Ales Bican show combinations
such as Cy and Ry, when deriving from C+y, R+y, are biphonemic in
Quenya and form long syllables.
As phonetics tell us, a syllable ideally starts with a higher degree of
consonanticity followed by a sound with a lower value. A somewhat
simplified consonanticity hierarchy may look like this: Occlusives >
Spirants (Sibilants, s having a special status) > Nasals > L,R >
"half-vowels". We may call these sounds then class 1,2,3,4, and 5.
Word-initially Quenya seems to allow for the following combinations:
1 + 5 (cf. _tyulusse, tyálie_),
2 + 5 (cf. _hyarin_ < SWAR-. As "h" probably represents [ç] here, it
should be treated as a spirant which, historically, it certainly is.),
3 + 5 (cf. _nyello_),
4 + 5 (doubtful, _lyenna_ ?).
-Note: For completness a class 6 (vowels) belongs here. It has been
left out for obvious reasons. Any class + 6 would work.-
Adding to this, PQ allows for the following additional combinations: s
+ 1, 3, 4, 5. (Abundant examples can be found in V, "The Etymologies".
Of course, certain combinations within these classes do not occur, e.g.
p+y. This is most probably due to euphonic reasons.
Given the attested Quenya words, I will argue that Quenya in principle
honours the biphonemic rule but may, under certain historical
circumstances, allow for a different syllabification.
Case 1) The obvious instance where e.g. _ty_ is primary and hence
monophonemic. Cf. _intya-_.
Case 2) _máryat_. In my view this is not a violation of the biphonemic
rule but has to be syllabified as  má (<ma3-) +ryat. The division is
due to morphological reasons and is phonetically permissible since a
syllable-initial cluster "ry" is in accord with the consonanticity
hierarchy for syllable-onsets outlined above.

Now for the case of _aistana-_.

In "The Etymologies" one can see that PQ (or PE) allowed for a wide
range of s + C clusters initially.
Excursus: On the peculiarity of "s" in consonant clusters.
In many languages it can be seen that "s" in consonant cluster does not
behave in accord with the regular consonanticity hierarchy but can
apparently be added at certain points without appending any extra
weight to the cluster. Rather on the contrary it would seem.
I will exemplify what I mean on the basis of the Indo-European language
family.

The special status can (very briefly indeed) be shown by the following:
1) I.-E. does not, in principle, allow for word inital consonant
clusters running counter to the c. h. with the exception of s + C
(leaving laryngeals aside for the moment).
2) Certain consonant clusters are "split open" by an intrusive "s" in
I.-E. Cf. the ubiquitous treatment of dental + dental in I.-E.:
_*wid-to-_ ("seen, known", root _*weid-_) Sanskrt. _vitta_, Avest.
_vista_, OE. _wiss_ etc. These forms go back to an intermediate
_*witsto-_.
Apparently a cluster _d-t_ which is not permissible in Indo-European,
is facilitated by the insertion of "s". Similarly in cases such as
I.-E. _*louksnaH_ "moon" (< _*louk+naH_) which is derived from the root
_*leuk-_ "to shine", cf Greek _leukós_ "white", NHG _Lohe_ "flame",
Latin _lucere_, Sanskrt. _roc-_ "to shine etc. Again, the cluster "k+n"
is split up (clearly for phonetic reasons) to yield ultimately Latin
_lúna_, avest. _raoxshna_ etc.
Other phenomena belong here too but would call for too long
explanations.
End excursus.

The special behaviour of "s" that can be seen e.g. in Indo-European
also seems to feature in PQ (PE). As I argued in the case of _máryat_,
Quenya seems to allow certain PQaic clusters at the onset of a syllable
which it has otherwise simplified word-initially.
Hence, I would suggest that this is the case for "st", too.
_Aistana-_ is therefore to be syllabified as _ai-stana_.

If this appraisal of the situation is correct, it not only rids us of
"overlong" syllables in Quenya but would give us a more detailed
picture of what syllable-onsets are permissible in Quenya and for what
reason.

David Kiltz

David Kiltz has set forth a theory proposing how one can resolve the
difficulty regarding the apparent violations of the syllable weight
limitation. While I agree with the principle, I have to point out
several issues that, in my opinion, need more dwelling upon.

[...]
> As the examples adduced by Pavel Iosad and Ales Bican show
> combinations such as Cy and Ry, when deriving from C+y, R+y,
> are biphonemic in Quenya and form long syllables.
> As phonetics tell us, a syllable ideally starts with a higher
> degree of consonanticity followed by a sound with a lower value.
> A somewhat simplified consonanticity hierarchy may look like
> this: Occlusives > Spirants (Sibilants, s having a special status) >
> Nasals > L,R > "half-vowels". We may call these sounds then class
> 1,2,3,4, and 5.

While this is good, I feel compelled to point out that the special status
of 's' appears to be a specific Indo-European feature, provoked, I'd
suggest, by the special status of 's' in the PIE sound system, it being
the only non-laryngeal fricative. This markedness of the sound and its
important role in the root-building process (witness the 's-mobile')
give it a certain special status. 's' is not always the most consonant
sound. While I cannot think of any non-Indo-European examples off the
top of my head (I'm not taking modern Slavic languages into account
here, since they have killed the IE syllable structure, witness a word
like Polish _pstra,g_ 'salmon'), but Ancient Greek, for instance allows
initial combinations of the _muta cum liquida_ type (_prosêkei_, _khraô_
etc. etc.), sC ones (_sphallô_) *and* Cs - _pseudomai_. Thus the
consonanticity status of 's' is actually ambiguous. It is also
demonstrated by the fact that Romance languages (and not only Romance)
did develop a prosthetic vowel before Latin initial sT(R)- groups (Fr.
_écrire_, Sp. _escrebo_, Welsh _ysgrifennu_), because a sT(R)- onset is
somehow uncomfortable (compare this with the appearance of the
prosthetic vowel before undoubtedly offending clusters, as in Russian
_rzhanoj_ 'of rye', Byelorussian _arzhany_, Rus. _mgla_ 'mirk', Byel.
_imgla_). It must also be noted that a Latin word like _magister_ is
stressed _magíster_, not *_mágister_ as it would were the medial -st-
tautosyllabic (i. e. fully identical to the _muta cum liquida_ group in
_emígrô_).

> Word-initially Quenya seems to allow for the following combinations:
> 1 + 5 (cf. _tyulusse, tyálie_),
> 2 + 5 (cf. _hyarin_ < SWAR-. As "h" probably represents [ç] here, it
> should be treated as a spirant which, historically, it certainly is.),
> 3 + 5 (cf. _nyello_),
> 4 + 5 (doubtful, _lyenna_ ?).
[...]
> Given the attested Quenya words, I will argue that Quenya in principle
> honours the biphonemic rule but may, under certain historical
> circumstances, allow for a different syllabification.
> Case 1) The obvious instance where e.g. _ty_ is primary and hence
> monophonemic. Cf. _intya-_.

Indeed, if the _Cy_'s are monophonemic, this is not much of a problem

> Case 2) _máryat_. In my view this is not a violation of the biphonemic
> rule but has to be syllabified as  má (<ma3-) +ryat. The division is
> due to morphological reasons and is phonetically permissible since a
> syllable-initial cluster "ry" is in accord with the consonanticity
> hierarchy for syllable-onsets outlined above.

While it certainly is in accord with the hierarchy, it must be mentioned
that Quenya does avoid clusters of that type, because, as David notes,
the phonetic rules do require that a consonant cluster where the first
element is more consonantic than the first one be tautosyllabic (i. e.
the syllable boundary should not split it). VT42:26 says:

'...the strong predilection which Quenya showed for the sequences of
sonants: _m_, _n_, _ñ_; _l_, _r_ before stops, as against those in which
the sonants followed. Transposition also occurs in Quenya in ancient
forms of _tr_, _tl_, etc. > _rt_, _lt_'

With this confer Quenya _alcar_ 'glory' from AKLA-R, cognate with
Noldorin/Sindarin _aglar_ (V:348). The very point here is that the
sequences, being of the 1 + 3 or 1 + 4 types (in David's notation),
require to be regarded as parts of one syllable. But the reversal argues
to support the point made in IX:417-8, that Quenya does not tolerate
onsets of more than segment (confer the lack of the reversal in
Sindarin, which does allow initial mutae cum liquidis), even if they
comply with the consonanticity/sonority hierarchy rules.

> Now for the case of _aistana-_.
> In "The Etymologies" one can see that PQ (or PE) allowed for a wide
> range of s + C clusters initially.

However, if one suggests that Quenya did so as well, one may well wonder
why the initial _st-_ was simplified to _s_. (I realise this is however
weak as an argument, being _ex nihilo_).

> Excursus: On the peculiarity of "s" in consonant clusters.

[snip excursus on the special behaviour of _s_ in IE]

> The special behaviour of "s" that can be seen e.g. in Indo-European
> Also seems to feature in PQ (PE).

Now there is also the question of what to allow as initial PQ clusters.
There is no compelling need to suggest initial /MB ND ÑG/ are single
phonemes in PQ. The African languages where such consonants are viewed
as single phonemes do not allow any other initial clusters, which is not
the case in PQ. There is also a solution in the lines of Modern Greek,
where the /mp nt ng/ used to substitute voiced stops in loans, as in
_mpar_ 'bar', but as opposed to the /mp/ type, /mb/ cluster are
semiotically suspect (just as the traditional PIE reconstruction, which
can be a strong argument *for*).

> As I argued in the case of _máryat_, Quenya seems to allow certain
> PQaic clusters at the onset of a syllable which it has otherwise
> simplified word-initially.

It can, apparently, true; but I am at a loss to reconcile this with the
stress in _hiruvalye_.

> Hence, I would suggest that this is the case for "st", too.
> _Aistana-_ is therefore to be syllabified as _ai-stana_.

...and _Hrísto_ as _Hrí-sto_. This would also explain the syncope which
must have given the form _aistana_ rather than *_aiastana_.

Alternatively, one can suggest that in _aistana_ that _ai_ is not a
diphthong, but rather two vowels on the model of _oïkta_ in Narqelion
(see Christopher Gilson's article in VT40). The only problem with this
is that Tolkien did not mark it as such. Only too bad.

In spite of the above criticism, I think this is very much possible
theoretically and even not unlikely (in fact, I implicitly suggested
this in my latest post ('Or are we dealing with a special status of the
_st_ group [...]?)), and can be reconciled with the explanation I have
been propounding. One can then ascribe a special (near-monophonemic?)
status to the _st_ group and describe the lack of bisegmental initial
realization as a marked situation. This however raises several problems,
such as lack of a _sC_ in words from SC-initial roots when that group is
intervocalic (_Nurufantur_ rather than *_Nuruspantur_. Overall, this is
a complex case (surprise, surprise...).

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...

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

Greetings,

I am submitting for peer review my essay about the lebethron tree. The list
moderators have made it available in the "Files" area of the list:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/files/
It consists in two PDF files (that you can view with tools such as Acrobat
Reader or Ghostscript).

The first part (lebethron I) is the main discussion, of general interest,
focussing on the nature of the lebethron (as briefly discussed in messages
316-318 on the list).

The second part (lebethron II), probably of more interest to the Lambengolmor,
is a detailed etymological and linguistic analysis of the issue.

Though carefully reread, the essay might still contain casual errors, and my
English is probably not perfect. I hope, though, that the subject will be
found interesting.

Didier.

On Mittwoch, Februar 19, 2003, at 03:50  Uhr, Pavel Iosad wrote:

<snip>
[...]
>> As the examples adduced by Pavel Iosad and Ales Bican show
>> combinations such as Cy and Ry, when deriving from C+y, R+y,
>> are biphonemic in Quenya and form long syllables.
>> As phonetics tell us, a syllable ideally starts with a higher
>> degree of consonanticity followed by a sound with a lower value.
>> A somewhat simplified consonanticity hierarchy may look like
>> this: Occlusives > Spirants (Sibilants, s having a special status) >
>> Nasals > L,R > "half-vowels". We may call these sounds then class
>> 1,2,3,4, and 5.
>
> While this is good, I feel compelled to point out that the special
> status of 's' appears to be a specific Indo-European feature,
> provoked, I'd suggest, by the special status of 's' in the PIE
> sound system, it being the only non-laryngeal fricative.

They are two things.  Yes, "s" also has a special status in I.-E.
because it is the only spirant or fricative (next to the laryngeals).
That is not the relevant point here though, I think. No other fricative
serves the same function in later I.-E. languages (e.g. ph, th, kh). It
is also noteworthy that "s" is not a homorganic fricative to any other
sound in I.-E. Its "intervening" function can hardly be "just"
explained by the fact that it is a fricative. Ultimately, the reason
will be phonetic (i.e. biology).

>  This markedness of the sound and its
> important role in the root-building process (witness the 's-mobile')
> give it a certain special status.

While true I, again,  don't think that has anything to do with the
point at hand. What matters is that such combinations are
*phonetically* possible.

<here follows an account on certain behaviours of consonant clusters. I
agree with the phenomena but don't see how that changes anything>.

Just for interest: Sino-Tibetan seems to exhibit similar behaviour (as
PIE in respect to "s").

<snip>
>
>> Case 2) _máryat_. In my view this is not a violation of the biphonemic
>> rule but has to be syllabified as  má (<ma3-) +ryat. The division is
>> due to morphological reasons and is phonetically permissible since a
>> syllable-initial cluster "ry" is in accord with the consonanticity
>> hierarchy for syllable-onsets outlined above.
>
> While it certainly is in accord with the hierarchy, it must be
> mentioned
> that Quenya does avoid clusters of that type, because, as David notes,
> the phonetic rules do require that a consonant cluster where the first
> element is more consonantic than the first one be tautosyllabic (i. e.
> the syllable boundary should not split it). VT42:26 says:

Where the first element is more consonantic than the first one. There
must be a typo here.

> '...the strong predilection which Quenya showed for the sequences of
> sonants: _m_, _n_, _ñ_; _l_, _r_ before stops, as against those in
> which
> the sonants followed. Transposition also occurs in Quenya in ancient
> forms of _tr_, _tl_, etc. > _rt_, _lt_'
>
> With this confer Quenya _alcar_ 'glory' from AKLA-R, cognate with
> Noldorin/Sindarin _aglar_ (V:348). The very point here is that the
> sequences, being of the 1 + 3 or 1 + 4 types (in David's notation),
> require to be regarded as parts of one syllable. But the reversal
> argues
> to support the point made in IX:417-8, that Quenya does not tolerate
> onsets of more than segment (confer the lack of the reversal in
> Sindarin, which does allow initial mutae cum liquidis), even if they
> comply with the consonanticity/sonority hierarchy rules.

I don't follow the argument. _AKLAR_ is _ak-lar_. The metathesis
provides a softer syllable ending (l) and the highest possible degree
of consonanticity for the syllable onset (k).
Why would you syllabify AKLAR as _a-klar_ ? Maybe I didn't understand
correctly.

Note that I made mention only of a case of 4+5.

>> Now for the case of _aistana-_.
>> In "The Etymologies" one can see that PQ (or PE) allowed for a wide
>> range of s + C clusters initially.
>
> However, if one suggests that Quenya did so as well, one may well
> wonder
> why the initial _st-_ was simplified to _s_. (I realise this is however
> weak as an argument, being _ex nihilo_).

I didn't suggest that. I suggested that Quenya kept that possibility
inside a word.

<snip>
>> The special behaviour of "s" that can be seen e.g. in Indo-European
>> Also seems to feature in PQ (PE).
>
> Now there is also the question of what to allow as initial PQ clusters.
> There is no compelling need to suggest initial /MB ND ÑG/ are single
> phonemes in PQ. The African languages where such consonants are viewed
> as single phonemes do not allow any other initial clusters, which is
> not the case in PQ. There is also a solution in the lines of Modern
> Greek, where the /mp nt ng/ used to substitute voiced stops in
> loans, as in _mpar_ 'bar', but as opposed to the /mp/ type, /mb/
> cluster are semiotically suspect (just as the traditional PIE
> reconstruction, which can be a strong argument *for*).

MB, ND, ÑG, (ÑGw) are described as the corresponding nasals to
parmatéma, tincotéma, calmatéma, and quessetéma. I think they are to be
understood as monophonemic. The African example is not compelling.
While the lack of initial clusters in those languages points to the
fact that MB etc. aren't as well, in those languages, the reverse is
not necessarily true. Just because PQ has some initial clusters, MB
etc. don't have to be too.

I don't understand the point about Modern Greek. "mp" etc. are only
graphical for [b]. This is a question of the writing system.

I don't know what traditional PIE recontruction you refer to. Glottalic
vs non- glottalic ? It can be a strong argument for what ?

>> As I argued in the case of _máryat_, Quenya seems to allow certain
>> PQaic clusters at the onset of a syllable which it has otherwise
>> simplified word-initially.
>
> It can, apparently, true; but I am at a loss to reconcile this with the
> stress in _hiruvalye_.

In _hiruvalye_ the a is short. Hence it is to be syllabified
_hi-ru-val-ye_. That's quite regular. l+y are biphonematic here and
hence we have a long syllable. I fail to see a problem here.

>> Hence, I would suggest that this is the case for "st", too.
>> _Aistana-_ is therefore to be syllabified as _ai-stana_.
>
> ...and _Hrísto_ as _Hrí-sto_. This would also explain the syncope which
> must have given the form _aistana_ rather than *_aiastana_.

Yes, thank you.

> Alternatively, one can suggest that in _aistana_ that _ai_ is not a
> diphthong, but rather two vowels on the model of _oïkta_ in Narqelion
> (see Christopher Gilson's article in VT40). The only problem with this
> is that Tolkien did not mark it as such. Only too bad.

Yes, that's of course possible but doesn't seem likely.

> In spite of the above criticism, I think this is very much possible
> theoretically and even not unlikely (in fact, I implicitly suggested
> this in my latest post ('Or are we dealing with a special status of the
> _st_ group [...]?)), and can be reconciled with the explanation I have
> been propounding. One can then ascribe a special (near-monophonemic?)
> status to the _st_ group and describe the lack of bisegmental initial
> realization as a marked situation. This however raises several
> problems, such as lack of a _sC_ in words from SC-initial roots
> when that group is intervocalic (_Nurufantur_ rather than
> *_Nuruspantur_.

Well, you alluded to a special status of the "st" group. Sorry, I
should have mentioned that.
Your criticism doesn't seem to say anything really contrary to what I
suggested though.

Your last point (_Nurufantur_ vs *_Nuruspantur_) is a very strong one,
I think. Maybe it can be solved by assuming that _Nurufantur_ is a
later combination.

David Kiltz

On 19 Feb 2003, Pavel Iosad wrote _inter alia_:

> There is also a solution in the lines of Modern Greek, where the /mp nt ng/
> used to substitute voiced stops in loans, as in _mpar_ 'bar', but as opposed
> to the /mp/ type, /mb/ cluster are semiotically suspect (just as the
> traditional PIE reconstruction, which can be a strong argument *for*).

It must be noted here that this is a matter of Modern Greek _spelling_, not of
_phonetics_ or _phonology_.  The spelling rule for foreign borrowings arose out
of the historical development of clusters of nasal + voiceless stop to nasal +
voiced stop, and the constraint against spirantization of original voiced stops
following nasals, followed by the loss of homorganic nasal before voiced stops
in certain positions.  Following these changes, the spellings which once
represented [mp] [nt] [Nk] represented first [mb] [nd] [Ng], and later, in most
dialects, [b] [d] [g].

In Cretan Greek, initial voiced stops became prenasalized, as a development
from sandhi of the accusative case of the article (which ended in [n]); in
other dialects, they became fricatives, as elsewhere.  So the only way to spell
a voiced stop in Greek is with the grapheme clusters <mp> <nt> <gg>.

So Greek spelling has nothing to tell us about PQ phonology.

								 Rich

Hello,

David Kiltz wrote:

> They are two things.  Yes, "s" also has a special status in I.-E.
> because it is the only spirant or fricative (next to the laryngeals).
> That is not the relevant point here though, I think. No other
> fricative serves the same function in later I.-E. languages
> (e.g. ph, th, kh).

'No other' here no doubt means 'not derived from _s_', as the
s-prefixion could turn into z-prefixion in a Slavic root like *_zdorv-_
'hale, healthy'.

> It is also noteworthy that "s" is not a homorganic fricative to
> any other sound in I.-E. Its "intervening" function can hardly be
> "just" explained by the fact that it is a fricative. Ultimately, the
> reason will be phonetic (i.e. biology).

Just as a matter of niggling, I'd rather say the two factors would be
intertwined, assisting each other.

[...]

> <here follows an account on certain behaviours of consonant
> clusters. I agree with the phenomena but don't see how that
> changes anything>.

Well, by this I wanted to demonstrate that the status of 's' can be
ambiguous, and that when building a sonority/consonanticity hierarchy,
one should exercise caution when assigning 's' a sonority level lower
than that of the occlusives.

> Just for interest: Sino-Tibetan seems to exhibit similar
> behaviour (as PIE in respect to "s").

ObOT: Could a pro-Nostratic case be made out of this?

[Let's not do so here! CFH]

[...]

> > the phonetic rules do require that a consonant cluster where the
> > first element is more consonantic than the first one be tautosyllabic
>
> Where the first element is more consonantic than the first one. There
> must be a typo here.

Sure there is. This should read '...than the second one'.

[...]
> > With this confer Quenya _alcar_ 'glory' from AKLA-R, cognate with
> > Noldorin/Sindarin _aglar_ (V:348). The very point here is that the
> > sequences, being of the 1 + 3 or 1 + 4 types (in David's notation),
> > require to be regarded as parts of one syllable. But the reversal
> > argues to support the point made in IX:417-8, that Quenya does
> > not tolerate onsets of more than segment [...] even if they
> > comply with the consonanticity/sonority hierarchy rules.
>
> I don't follow the argument. _AKLAR_ is _ak-lar_. The metathesis
> provides a softer syllable ending (l) and the highest possible degree
> of consonanticity for the syllable onset (k).

I have been under the impression that you suggested that _st_ as an
internal syllable onset is permissible because _s_ is more consonantic
than _t_. Unless we single out _st_ specifically (or _sC_), this would
imply (to me) that the only reason for a syllabification of the CV+stV-
kind can come about if we assume that all groups where the first element
is more consonantic than the second one require that the syllable
boundary be shifted to include both consonants in one syllable. Such a
state of affairs is only natural (it's biology, as you rightly note).
However, it appears that in Quenya, the limitation on syllable onsets
forces that the sound-structure of a word should be changed so as to
preclude the possibility of violating it (the limitation)

> Why would you syllabify AKLAR as _a-klar_ ? Maybe I didn't understand
> correctly.

Because if we strip the word of Quenya phonotactics, such a
syllabification is only natural.

The singling out of _st_ would seem unlikely - there's nothing so
special about them in comparison with the other sonority-raising
clusters except the fact that it contains _s_ (after all, I'd rather
expect that it would be sequences like _kl_ which acted as
tautosyllabic, rather than _sC_; cf. Latin).

> <snip>
> > There is no compelling need to suggest initial /MB ND ÑG/ are single
> > phonemes in PQ.
> > <snip>
>
> MB, ND, ÑG, (ÑGw) are described as the corresponding nasals to
> parmatéma, tincotéma, calmatéma, and quessetéma. I think they
> are to be understood as monophonemic.

We're speaking about PQ here, not Quenya (one should also point out that
in the tengwar _t_ : _nt_ = _d_ : _nd_; is that then proof of _nt_ being
monophonemic as well?)

> The African example is not compelling.
> While the lack of initial clusters in those languages points to the
> fact that MB etc. aren't as well, in those languages, the reverse is
> not necessarily true. Just because PQ has some initial clusters, MB
> etc. don't have to be too.

That is true. I am however yet to see an argument that MB and sundry ARE
monophonemic in PQ.

> I don't understand the point about Modern Greek. "mp" etc. are only
> graphical for [b]. This is a question of the writing system.

I stand corrected.

> I don't know what traditional PIE recontruction you refer to.
> Glottalic vs non- glottalic ? It can be a strong argument for what ?

The t - d - dh. That'd be pegged as 'non-glottalic' I think.

What I wanted to say is that a T - D - ND system is semiotically and
typologically suspect. However, if we substitute nasalisation for
aspiration, we get the IE reconstruction. Certainly Tolkien knew (and
probably liked) quite a bit about it, and could implement a similar
system here.

> In _hiruvalye_ the a is short. Hence it is to be syllabified
> _hi-ru-val-ye_. That's quite regular. l+y are biphonematic here and
> hence we have a long syllable. I fail to see a problem here.

So are you suggesting that the syllable boundary shifts to immediately
after a vowel only if the vowel is long?

[...]
> Your criticism doesn't seem to say anything really contrary to what I
> suggested though.

Well, anyway it's not that I reject your suggestions. You might after
all be right (that is not unlikely, in my opinion)

> Your last point (_Nurufantur_ vs *_Nuruspantur_) is a very strong
> one, I think. Maybe it can be solved by assuming that _Nurufantur_ is
> a later combination.

We surely can. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of Quenya words
derived from SK/SP/ST-initial roots with some kind of sundokarme. In the
Etymologies, there's only _terhat_ (s.v. SKAT-), but that doesn't afford
any help.

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...

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

Zdorovo,

Pavel Iosad wrote:

> David Kiltz wrote:
>
>> They are two things.  Yes, "s" also has a special status in I.-E.
>> because it is the only spirant or fricative (next to the laryngeals).
>> That is not the relevant point here though, I think. No other
>> fricative serves the same function in later I.-E. languages
>> (e.g. ph, th, kh).
>
> 'No other' here no doubt means 'not derived from _s_', as the
> s-prefixion could turn into z-prefixion in a Slavic root like *_zdorv-_
> 'hale, healthy'.

Two things: I was actually referring to the role of "s" (and its
allophone "z") as a cluster splitter. Not to the s-mobile.
As for the Slavic, that surely is Proto-Slavic _*sudorvu (where u =
"tverdyj znak", i.e. an overshort "u"). After the first short "u"
dropped, the "s" was progressively assimilated in voice. But that's
regular morphology (PIE *som-). I don't know whether you view the
s-mobile in PIE as such a prefix.

Surely allophonic "zd-" can be included but it doesn't seem to figure
in Elvish.

>> It is also noteworthy that "s" is not a homorganic fricative to
>> any other sound in I.-E. Its "intervening" function can hardly be
>> "just" explained by the fact that it is a fricative. Ultimately, the
>> reason will be phonetic (i.e. biology).
>
> Just as a matter of niggling, I'd rather say the two factors would be
> intertwined, assisting each other.

Yeah. So, "not just".

>> <here follows an account on certain behaviours of consonant
>> clusters. I agree with the phenomena but don't see how that
>> changes anything>.
>
> Well, by this I wanted to demonstrate that the status of 's' can be
> ambiguous, and that when building a sonority/consonanticity hierarchy,
> one should exercise caution when assigning 's' a sonority level lower
> than that of the occlusives.

I don't see how that is ambiguous. Do you think you can make a case for
"s" having lower sonority ?

<snip>
>>> With this confer Quenya _alcar_ 'glory' from AKLA-R, cognate with
>>> Noldorin/Sindarin _aglar_ (V:348). The very point here is that the
>>> sequences, being of the 1 + 3 or 1 + 4 types (in David's notation),
>>> require to be regarded as parts of one syllable. But the reversal
>>> argues to support the point made in IX:417-8, that Quenya does
>>> not tolerate onsets of more than segment [...] even if they
>>> comply with the consonanticity/sonority hierarchy rules.
>>
>> I don't follow the argument. _AKLAR_ is _ak-lar_. The metathesis
>> provides a softer syllable ending (l) and the highest possible degree
>> of consonanticity for the syllable onset (k).
>
> I have been under the impression that you suggested that _st_ as an
> internal syllable onset is permissible because _s_ is more consonantic
> than _t_. Unless we single out _st_ specifically (or _sC_), this would
> imply (to me) that the only reason for a syllabification of the CV+stV-
> kind can come about if we assume that all groups where the first
> element
> is more consonantic than the second one require that the syllable
> boundary be shifted to include both consonants in one syllable. Such a
> state of affairs is only natural (it's biology, as you rightly note).
> However, it appears that in Quenya, the limitation on syllable onsets
> forces that the sound-structure of a word should be changed so as to
> preclude the possibility of violating it (the limitation)

I understand now. No, I don't think "s" is more consonantic than "t".
Rather my argument is that the hierarchy can be "violated" by groups of
the kind "sC-". Or, in other terms, that "s", for some reason, does not
violate the rule. It is sort of a "moot" consonant. That's what the
examples from PIE where meant to illustrate. I would posit such a
behaviour for PQ as well.

>> Why would you syllabify AKLAR as _a-klar_ ? Maybe I didn't understand
>> correctly.
>
> Because if we strip the word of Quenya phonotactics, such a
> syllabification is only natural.
>
> The singling out of _st_ would seem unlikely - there's nothing so
> special about them in comparison with the other sonority-raising
> clusters except the fact that it contains _s_ (after all, I'd rather
> expect that it would be sequences like _kl_ which acted as
> tautosyllabic, rather than _sC_; cf. Latin).

Okay, yet Quenya seems to try to avoid a cluster onset CR- (as it does
in anlaut).

I do maintain, however, that sC- *is* a special case. We do not have a
**_aitsana_. Also, there is no case of s+t > t+s that I'm aware of.
Note that the case of _máryat_ is still special because _-rya_ is a
morpheme.

>>> There is no compelling need to suggest initial /MB ND ÑG/ are single
>>> phonemes in PQ.
>>> <snip>
>>
>> MB, ND, ÑG, (ÑGw) are described as the corresponding nasals to
>> parmatéma, tincotéma, calmatéma, and quessetéma. I think they
>> are to be understood as monophonemic.
>
> We're speaking about PQ here, not Quenya (one should also point out
> that
> in the tengwar _t_ : _nt_ == _d_ : _nd_; is that then proof of _nt_
> being
> monophonemic as well?)

No, and my notation was wrong. What I meant was M, N, Ñ, Ñw.

>> The African example is not compelling.
>> While the lack of initial clusters in those languages points to the
>> fact that MB etc. aren't as well, in those languages, the reverse is
>> not necessarily true. Just because PQ has some initial clusters, MB
>> etc. don't have to be too.
>
> That is true. I am however yet to see an argument that MB and sundry
> ARE monophonemic in PQ.

Okay. Nevertheless, pre-nasalized stops are a breed of their own. Their
behaviour in PQ would certainly merit a separate investigation.

>> I don't know what traditional PIE recontruction you refer to.
>> Glottalic vs non- glottalic ? It can be a strong argument for what ?
>
> The t - d - dh. That'd be pegged as 'non-glottalic' I think.
>
> What I wanted to say is that a T - D - ND system is semiotically and
> typologically suspect. However, if we substitute nasalisation for
> aspiration, we get the IE reconstruction. Certainly Tolkien knew (and
> probably liked) quite a bit about it, and could implement a similar
> system here.

Well, I don't know about semiotically. Tolkien's PE (and PQ) phonology
largely differs from PIE. It is more similar to Proto Finno-Ugric I'd
say. I cannot say whether Tolkien "liked" the traditional
reconstruction in terms of lámatyáve. Any clues to suggest either way?
Be that as it may, let it just be said that the traditional
reconstruction of the PIE consonant system is also typologically
problematic. Also, DH doesn't figure in Elvish.

>> In _hiruvalye_ the a is short. Hence it is to be syllabified
>> _hi-ru-val-ye_. That's quite regular. l+y are biphonematic here and
>> hence we have a long syllable. I fail to see a problem here.
>
> So are you suggesting that the syllable boundary shifts to immediately
> after a vowel only if the vowel is long?

Exactly.

>> Your last point (_Nurufantur_ vs *_Nuruspantur_) is a very strong
>> one, I think. Maybe it can be solved by assuming that _Nurufantur_ is
>> a later combination.
>
> We surely can. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of Quenya words
> derived from SK/SP/ST-initial roots with some kind of sundokarme. In
> the Etymologies, there's only _terhat_ (s.v. SKAT-), but that doesn't
> afford any help.

Yes, all examples that show retaining of sC- are, unfortunately,
Sindarin. Having looked through The Etymologies et al. I do agree
though that the  assumption of later formation looks increasingly likely.

[Not _all_ examples --  cf. Q. _estel_ 'hope' < STEL 'remain firm'
(XI:318) and Q. _sandastan_ 'shield-barrier' < _stama-_ 'bar, exclude'
(UT:282 n.16). There are probably other Q. examples besides these.
-- PHW.]

David Kiltz

PHW wrote:

> [Not _all_ examples --  cf. Q. _estel_ 'hope' < STEL 'remain firm'
> (XI:318) and Q. _sandastan_ 'shield-barrier' < _stama-_ 'bar, exclude'
> (UT:282 n.16). There are probably other Q. examples besides these.

I was referring to The Etymologies. But your examples are wonderful, I
didn't find them then.
So _st_ would be retained.

David Kiltz

[As would _sk_, on the basis of _askante_ 'sunder-broke' (IX:310),
which evidently derives from SKAT- 'break asunder' (V:386).
-- Patrick Wynne]

Pavel Iosad wrote:

> Ales Bican wrote:
>
> >**First of all, I think there is no published writing of Tolkien's
> >where he would state Quenya does not permit, to simplify it, long
> >vowels before consonant clusters. Or course, I may be wrong, so
> >correct me.
>
> Indeed you are correct. Nevertheless the lack of vowel lengthening in
> the perfect of _lelya-_, which exhibits nasal infixion, or in the
> present tense of verbs like _lanta_- shows that this shortening in
> closed syllables is regularly forced by the phonotactics.

**Er, did I miss something? As far as I know neither the perfect of
_lelya-_ (did you mean _auta-_?) nor the present tense of _lanta-_
(I suppose you mean the continuous form as opposed to the aorist)
is attested -- or am I wrong? What do you mean?

> It would nicely be described by a generative-style phonology, where the
> morphological module would give a form like _lántar_, and the 'phonology
> proper' module would then give the actual output _lantar_).

**I see: you mean that _lantar_ in Namárie is the present tense form?
This is possible, though I do not think so. (However, I agree that it
might have be an instance of the present tense in the stage of
Q(u)enya when the aorist was a past tense with the perfective
aspect.)

Nevertheless, there is a form which may show that the stem-vowel
is not shortened if preceded by _nt_: it is the preterite _lantie_
"fell" (be it either the past tense or perfect; LR:56).

> > [_aista-_ 'to dread' (V:358) -- PHW]
>
> Also _aistana_ 'blessed' in AM, and _aista-_ in _Alcar i Ataren_.

**This is what I meant because this occurence of _aista-_ is compatible
with _onye_ and _olye_ I mentioned. Anyway, since Helge Fauskanger
published his wordlists (for which I think we should be very grateful,
because it helps the scholarship), I wonder whether it is necessary
to give always pages for each and every single word.

[It is on this list, at least for words not cited from such well-known contexts
as Galadriel's Lament, etc. CFH]

> This may have to do with etymology, since *_aistana_, the editors inform
> us, can be connected with an old base like GAYA(S)- (VT43:38), which
> gives a formation like _*(g)aiastanâ_. Now the syncope of the second _a_
> is a bit hard to explain, it being in a long syllable.

**I do not think this was the form, because the syncope would not only
be hard to explain but probably even impossible. I think _aista-_ was
derived from *_(g)ais-tâ_, as the primitive form _gais-_ under the
entry GÁYAS- in Etym suggests.

> >And the same can be applied to other Cy combinations:
>
> This is true, and in fact, can be used as an argument for my
> interpretation. If we consider the _my_ palatalized (which we apparently
> agree upon), it does mean that palatalization is a phonemically relevant
> feature.

**I am not sure if we mean the same thing, so I will specify it:
personally, I think _my_ in _lamya_ does not stand for a single
sound (phoneme) but a sequence of two sounds (phonemes), the latter
being [j]. If the _m_ is palatalized I cannot say, but if it is,
then it is palatalized syntagmatically, that is to say, the
palatalization is caused by the following [j]. In my opinion,
_my_ might be either [mj] or [m'j] phonetically, but it is /mj/
phonologically.

> > it is hard to say whether _ry_ in
> >_máryat_ stands for [R] (palatal _r_, I will use capitals for palatals)
> > or [r'] or [rj] (resp. [r'j]).
>
> In the official IPA table (cf., for instance,
> http://www2.arts.gla.ac.uk/IPA/fullchart.html; this one is quite in
> accord with the latest version of the IPA handbook I have access to),
> palatal taps/flaps or trills are not shaded (which means the
> articulation is considered possible), but do not have a symbol assigned,
> which means that no described languages has a phonemic sound of those
> types.

**Yes, I am aware of the fact it is not shaded, but I do think that if
there is no sign for it means it does not exist in described languages.
There is no sign for Czech _r-hacek_, either.

> >With this are connected what I would call primary and secondary Cy
> >combinations. Primary Cy combinations are those that existed from
> >Primitive Quendian (resp. Common Eldarin). They occur exclusively
> >word-initially.
>
> That isn't as obvious. Apparently you mean that certain word-initial
> consonants were palatalized, but then your use of 'combinations' is
> somewhat misleading.

**I realize I did not make myself clear, which leads to confusion.
Sorry. By the Cy combination I meant the way Tolkien transribed
his languages -- I meant graphemes but not phonemes. Such a Cy
combination may stand for different things on the phonological level.
For instance, I think the Cy combination in _tyálie_ stands for /T/
(sc. a voiceless palatal stop), which the Cy combination in, say,
_lamya_ stands for /mj/.

Now by the primary Cy combinations I meant cases where it stood
for one phoneme; the secondary ones stood for sequences of C + /j/.

> Combinations of C+_j_ were clearly present on the
> CE level, since medial combinations of this kind consistently turn out
> as tyelpetéma-consonants in Quenya, but also cause i-affection in
> Sindarin.

**Yes, this is what I mean by the secondary Cy combinations: they
arose from the contact of two mophemes in derivational processes
of the Elvish language.

> > What we do not
> > know is whether e.g. _n + y_ in _vanya_ produced [N] or [n'j]/[nj].
>
> Indeed. That is what the whole problem hinges on, anyway.

**Definitely!

> > I think I mentioned it in earlier posts: (a) in VT42:27 Tolkien
> > mentioned that "_atatya_ remained [unreduced] because the second _a_
> > was not syncopated, being in a long syllable";

[...]

> Syncope, for instance, is driven phonetically. From a phonological (here
> phonotactical) point of view, there is nothing inherently wrong with
> three consecutive syllables sharing a similar nucleus, phonetics
> however, aiming at easing of articulation, is the driving force behind
> the simplification of the 'redundant' elements. Since this is a phonetic
> rather than a phonological phenomenon, we should consider the _ty_ as a
> phonetic unit. According to my suggestion, _ty_ is *phonetically*
> bimoraic, and therefore the second syllable of _atatya_ is indeed
> closed.

**While I agree with this, I still ask why we have _onye_, _olye_ but
_máryat_.

> (As a rather important aside, I have quite forgotten to explain how, in
> my theory, the syllable boundary splits the [t_j] and the [j] if they
> are permissible word-initially. It is possible to suggest that
> bisegmental sequences are forbidden on both the phonetical and the
> phonological levels, so word-initially the _ty_'s and sundry could be
> pronounced without the glide owing to these constraints, but with it
> intervocalically. In post-pausal position, as after the nasals, it would
> of course be also pronounced in a single segment, but this does not
> create a lot of problems with regard to syllable division, since the
> preceding syllable would be closed anyway)

**Although this sounds likely and might be true, especially what regards
the _nCy_ sequences, I do not dare to combine all Cy combinations --
I mean I am not quite convinced that, say, _ty_ in _tyálie_ in the same
thing as _ty_ in _atatya_. At least _ny_ in _nyello_ is hardly the same
thing _ny_ in _enyalie_ (Cirion's Oath) -- I would say.

> >Another thing must also be mentioned. Quenya does not like sequences
> >of consonants much and if there is a sequence, it does not consist
> >of more than two members. In other words, we do not see combinations
> >of three and more consonants in Quenya. Nevertheless, we see
> >combinations CCy: _nty_, _ndy_, _rty_ (_lty_ not attested), _sty_,
> >and _hty_.
>
> Which further suggests that they are phonologically single, as Ales
> notes.

**Only if we assume that Quenya does not allow sequences of three
consonantal phonemes.

[...]

> After all, it must be noted that the mere fact of the phonologically
> irregular stress in _hiruvalye_ points that the form is marked,
> otherwise its formation would be blocked by a rule higher on the
> hierarchy (i. e. more marked)

**As David Kiltz already noted, the stress is not irregular if _ly_
here stands for /lj/, which I think is the case as is also suggested
by _olye_. But what about _máryat_?

> [...]
> >**In other words, an initial _d_ is not found (though _Aldudénie_ might
> >be an example of this under certain assumptions), which does not
> >necessarily mean it is forbidden.
>
> But cf. L[R]:1094-5,

**Where? Ok, just kidding, I know what you mean, because I am
familiar with the phrase. Even if I did not, I am lucky to have the
same edition of LotR, though other people may not be as lucky.

[It is not a question of "luck"; the one-volume edition is (for now) the most
authoritative, and is therefore the one that all _scholars_ should reference.
CFH]

> where the phrase definitely says that the /b g gw/
> were only met in conjunction with the nasals, and /d/, from the turn of
> the phrase, is only met after /n l r/.

**You are right.

> (There's also Christopher's
> apparent slip in UT, where he gives the name of a Númenórean city as
> _Almaida_, it should apparently be #_Almalda_)

**Can you tell me where, I did not find in the index? And please, avoid
giving page numbers, as I may not be so lucky this time.

[It's at UT:7; Christopher Tolkien does note there that the name is hard to
read.
Ales, you know the policy of this list, and the reasons for it. You don't have
to like
it, or agree with it, but you do have to follow it if you want to participate in
this
forum. I also won't have you discouraging others from acting in a scholarly
manner. CFH]

> > One would be inclined to say that
> > a medial _ky_ is not permitted if _Erukyerme_ (UT) and _Ekyanáro_
> > (VT41:14) were not attested.
>
> By the way, if you asked me, I'd give these as probable candidates for
> palatal rather than palatalized stops;

**If the _ky_ combination stands here for one phoneme, then I think
it is a voiceless palato-velar stop, the same sound that is
reconstructed for Indo-European (if I am not mistaken). However, if
the _ky_ stands for two phonemes, it is most likely /k/ + /j/.
_Erukyerme_ might be an example of the former, _Ekyanáro_ of the
latter.

> the articulatory mecanism is the
> same as behind the palatal status of _hy_, for which see my original
> post. If we suggest that _ty_ is palatal, then these are just
> alternative orthographies, if it is palatalized, Quenya falls into the
> Macedonian category. A third possibility is that _ky_ is an alternative
> orthography for palatalized _ty_, but this is unlikely.

**As I suggested, I still need more phonetic training, but as far as I
undertand _ky_ as a palato-velar and _ty_ as a palatal (palato-dental)
are different sounds.

[_tyelpetéma_ palatal or palatalized:]

> The distinction between 'palatal' and 'palatalized' can be blurry,
> especially for one who isn't deep into synchronic phonology. Tolkien
> surely knew about it, but it wasn't his primary area of interest (which
> is probably why we seldom get any coherent synchronic picture of
> Tolkien's invented languages - it doesn't possess an independent value
> for Tolkien, and is justified by writing poetry, cf. the passage in 'The
> Secret Vice'). If _ty_ were palatal, it is difficult to justify why
> Tolkien described it as 'similar to English _t_ in _tune_' (L:1088)',
> since the sound is not palatal (but rather, in British speech,
> pronounced with a glide!).

**That is not surprising for me at all. The book was written for English
readers, Tolkien could not suppose that they would know other
languages than English. Neither of the most commonly taught languages
(i.e. French, Spanish, German) have a palatal _t_. In fact, which
European languages besides Czech, Slovak and Hungarian have it?
The example of 'tune' was probably the one Tolkien could use (not
to mention that he wrote it was "probably similar", which can mean
anything).

> Also he might have included the Spanish ñ as
> a description of NY in the Appendix (though this is of no value as an
> argument)

**Am I blind or Tolkien did not give any hint how NY should be
pronounced? I have not realized it until now. As a matter of fact,
he did not mention LY and RY, either. If these combinations stands
for palatal _l_ and _r_ respectively, why was it not mentioned?

> > It is also supposed to have existed in old
> > Czech (as a reflex of _rj_), but this does not mean anything.
>
> That is rather off-topic, but that is somewhat strained to me. As I
> understand, the transition from palatalized [r] to the Czech r-haczek
> (coarticulated [r] and [Z] as in 'pleasure') only implies the addition
> of the fricative character and removal of the flap, and does not
> necessarily imply a back-and-forth place of articulation shift.

**To quote a "classic": "Many foreigners perceive Czech _r-hacek_,
an absolutely homogeneous sound, as the sound sequences _rZ_.
[...] In reality _r-hacek_ is only an _r_ with less amplitude in
vibration of the tip of the tongue, so that a frictionlike noise
resembling an _Z_ is audible between the trills of the _r_."
(Trubetzkoy, _Principles of Phonology_).

> >> I would suggest that _ly_, being palatalized,
>
> >**I think it is a palatal, being distinct to a palatalized _l_, which
> >occured between _e, i_ and a consonant, cf. App. E s.v. L: "[_l_] was,
> >however, to some degree 'palatalized' between _e, i_ and a consonant,
> >or finally after _e, i_".
>
> The part about 'to some degree' worries me a lot. I don't know much
> about degrees of palatalization in European languages (since the Russian
> non-palatalized [l] is heavily velarized, which interferes a lot), but
> it seems possible that the palatalization distinction could possess
> three grades.

**At any rate, this to-some-degree-palatalized _l_ must still be
phonologically regarded as /l/, because this palatalization is
a syntagmatic assimilation of [l] to immediate _e, i_. The palatal
_l_, if existing in the language, is not depended on the phonetic
environment.

> >> Now if _ry_ is a single consonant (it apparently is *phonologically*),
>
> >**I do not think it is obvious.
>
> I never said it was obvious. This situation is difficult to resolve
> (just as in natural languages), since not one of the two tests
> applicable to Quenya (whether the consonant makes a syllable closed;
> whether it can be word/syllable-initial) is not applicable to the sound
> in question - the first test is what we are discussing, the second one
> is inapplicable in case of word-initial [ry] because there's just no
> possible etymology for an initial [ry] (unless a RY-root is found), in
> case of internal syllable-initial because the first element of a cluster
> is either a nasal or a spirant fricative, both of which tend to
> assimilate with [r] and blur the distinctions.

**Let me know that any LY-root is not found, either. _lyenna_
cannot, in my opinion, be regarded as a "normal" form. It is
noteworthy that DY, the most likely candidate for the origin of
a word-initial _ly_, did not become _ly_ (as it did word-medially)
but instead it lost its occusive component and retained its palatal
one, becoming _y_. This can suggest that _ly_ is not monophonematic.
On the other hand, the "d" component is often lost, as _Quendya_
> _Quenya_ shows.


Ales Bican

--
kurvannapi vyalíkáni yah. priyah. priya eva sah.
anekadós.adus.t.ó 'pi káyah. kasya na vallabhah.

David Kiltz wrote:

> [...]As phonetics tell us, a syllable ideally starts with a higher degree
> of
> consonanticity followed by a sound with a lower value. A somewhat
> simplified consonanticity hierarchy may look like this: Occlusives >
> Spirants (Sibilants, s having a special status) > Nasals > L,R >
> "half-vowels". We may call these sounds then class 1,2,3,4, and 5.
> Word-initially Quenya seems to allow for the following combinations:
> 1 + 5 (cf. _tyulusse, tyálie_),
> 2 + 5 (cf. _hyarin_ < SWAR-. As "h" probably represents [ç] here, it
> should be treated as a spirant which, historically, it certainly is.),
> 3 + 5 (cf. _nyello_),
> 4 + 5 (doubtful, _lyenna_ ?).
> -Note: For completness a class 6 (vowels) belongs here. It has been
> left out for obvious reasons. Any class + 6 would work.-

**I may not understand you and perhaps the confusion was caused by
my failure to explain precisely what I meant the by Cy combinations.
At any rate I would not call what you describe here combinations
(except for any class + 6, which are combinations of C + V). Although
we see here two graphemes (_ty_, _hy_, _ny_; _ly_ is doubtful), I am
convinced these _graphemic_ combinations stand for single phonemes.
So for instance, the case of _tyálie_ is not, in my view, an instance
of 1 + 5 (i.e. occlusive plus semivowel _y_), but just 1 (+ 6, the vowel
_á_), as palatals would belong to the same class with occlusives.

> Adding to this, PQ allows for the following additional combinations: s
> + 1, 3, 4, 5. (Abundant examples can be found in V, "The Etymologies".

**I think the situation in PQ was not much different. What is
transcribed as Cy (on _sy_ see below) does not stand for two phonemes
but for just one, I think. Basically, PQ does not allow any other
phonemic combinations than sC if graphemic combinations Cy are
monophonematic (on nasal + stop see below).

> Of course, certain combinations within these classes do not occur, e.g.
> p+y. This is most probably due to euphonic reasons.

**While the reasons can certainly be euphonic on Tolkien's side,
I think the reason why there is nothing like _p+y_ is still because
the word-initial graphemic Cy combinations stand for one phoneme,
not a combination of phonemes.

PQ had three basic series of localization: labial, dental and velar.
The dental series was split into two related series: plain dentals
and palato-dentals. The velar series was split to three related
series: plain velars, palato-velars and labio-velars. Each series
had a voiceless occlusive, voiced occlusive, nasal and some of
them voiceless aspirated occlusives. So:

labials: P, B, M, Ph
plain dentals: T, D, N, Th
palato-dentals: Ty, Dy, Ny (Thy not found)
plain velars: K, G, Ñ, Kh
palato-velars: Ky, Gy, (Ñy not found), Khy
labio-velars: Kw, Gw, (Ñw, Khw not found)

The rest, i.e. S, 3, R, L, Y and W stood outside this system. Then
there are combinations nasal + voiced occlusive (such as _mb_)
which may be evaluated as monophonematic (if so, they are not
found in palato-dentals, sc. no _ndy_ word-initially) but it is
not certain. I will return to them.

This system was reduced in noninitial positions in the root
(syllable): for instance, while we see aspirates on the coda
of a PQ syllable (e.g. KHITH), we do not see there any palatals.

> Given the attested Quenya words, I will argue that Quenya in principle
> honours the biphonemic rule but may, under certain historical
> circumstances, allow for a different syllabification.
> Case 1) The obvious instance where e.g. _ty_ is primary and hence
> monophonemic. Cf. _intya-_.
> Case 2) _máryat_. In my view this is not a violation of the biphonemic
> rule but has to be syllabified as  má (<ma3-) +ryat. The division is
> due to morphological reasons and is phonetically permissible since a
> syllable-initial cluster "ry" is in accord with the consonanticity
> hierarchy for syllable-onsets outlined above.

**As I have already noted, the _onye_ example does not seem to be
compatible with _máryat_. Something similar may be with _ohlon_:
why is it not *_óhlon_, _hl_ being a single phoneme which implies
from the fact it occurs word-initially?

> Now for the case of _aistana-_.
>
> In "The Etymologies" one can see that PQ (or PE) allowed for a wide
> range of s + C clusters initially.

[the excursus snipped]

> The special behaviour of "s" that can be seen e.g. in Indo-European
> also seems to feature in PQ (PE). As I argued in the case of _máryat_,
> Quenya seems to allow certain PQaic clusters at the onset of a syllable
> which it has otherwise simplified word-initially.
> Hence, I would suggest that this is the case for "st", too.
> _Aistana-_ is therefore to be syllabified as _ai-stana_.

**There may be another explanation of _aista-_. Although it was me
who mentioned the form _aista-_, I cannot remember any other example
of a diphthong before a consonant cluster. If it is an isolated
example, then it might be an exception.

As the entry in Etym suggest, the form _aista-_ was derived from was
_gais-_. Since the base does not appear to be verbal and there was a
need for a verbal derivative, the Elvish language did not have a lot
of possibilities than to suffix a verbalizer. While there are a number
of verbalizers, the formant _-ta_ was chosen. This suffixion caused
that now there was a diphthong (a two-moraic unit) before a consonant
cluster. I think it would have normally led to reduction (change) of
the diphthong to _e_ (as in _Melkor_ < *_Mailkó_ < _Mailikó_, Etym s.v.
MIL-IK), but this change would have confused the original base GAYAS
with a distinct base ES-, because the form would then have been *_esta-_
(_esta-_ "to name"). In order to preserve the relationship with the
base GAYAS, the change may not have happened. In case of _aistana_,
the relationship was perhaps more desired to be retained because of
the words such as _aire_.

As regards _Hrísto_, this is a doubtful example, because Tolkien
change it to _Hristo_ immediately.

* * *

Pavel Iosad then replied to David's letter mentioning:

> Now there is also the question of what to allow as initial PQ clusters.
> There is no compelling need to suggest initial /MB ND ÑG/ are single
> phonemes in PQ. The African languages where such consonants are viewed
> as single phonemes do not allow any other initial clusters, which is not
> the case in PQ.

David replied:

> MB, ND, ÑG, (ÑGw) are described as the corresponding nasals to
> parmatéma, tincotéma, calmatéma, and quessetéma. I think they are to be
> understood as monophonemic. The African example is not compelling.
> While the lack of initial clusters in those languages points to the
> fact that MB etc. aren't as well, in those languages, the reverse is
> not necessarily true. Just because PQ has some initial clusters, MB
> etc. don't have to be too.

**I think it is possible to evaluate MB, ND, NG, NGy and NGw (NDy
missing) as monophonematic, even though as David notes PQ had some
initial clusters. However, the first component in these clusters
(as far as I know) was always /s/. We have these: SK, SL, SM, SN,
SP, ST, SW and SY + SR from a non-Etym source. In other words,
S is always combined with voiceless (plain) occlusives P, T and K,
nasals M and N (SÑ not found), liquids L and R, and semivowels Y
and W. Since there does not seem to be other initial clusters
(GR, GL, DR being late PQ/Sindarin variations of R and L, see
WJ:411 and VT39:11), we could perhaps evaluate these combinations
as monophonematic.

Above I tried to describe the phonologic system of PQ. The system
was practically the same as the system of Eldarin at the Qenya
stage (Eldarin being an ancestor of Qenya, PE12:15). The most
significant difference was the presence of spirants in all series
of localization, i.e. something that is not found in PQ. The role
of spirants was taken up by aspirates. Another difference is that
the Eldarin system did not have palato-velar, it had only palato-
dental or just palatals.

Now all series of localization (q-, k-, c-, t- and p-like) had
several "degrees": voiceless explosive, voices explosives, voiceless
spirants, voiced spirants, nasal and the last "degree" was
_nasalized explosive_. This of course may mean that these nasalized
explosives were monophonematic in Eldarin, though there may represent
two sounds phonetically, because Tolkien apparently used a bow over
a graphemic combination if it stood for a single sound, which is
not the case of the nasalized explosives.

What was the situation in the Etym Quenya is not certain. Another
important thing to mention is that the nasalized stops behaved
variously: sometimes they were reduced to either plain nasals
(in Quenya, e.g. MB > M) or plain stops (in Sindarin, MB > B),
but sometimes the nasal became syllabic: e.g. MBARAT > Q _umbar_.
This rises a question whether stems like MBAR were dissyllabic
or monosyllabic. Phonetically according to the sonority scale
they should be dissyllabic. Phonologically, however, they seem
to be monosyllabic.

Now I am eager to hear your opinions, I am sure I overlooked
or misunderstood several things.


Ales Bican

ps. For more on the PQ bases and syllabic sonorants in PQ
see Helge Fauskanger's article _Primitive Elvish_

     http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/primelv.htm

and David Salo's Elfling post _Qenya -> Quenya; vocalized
sonorants_ from Oct, 8th, 2000

     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/3516

[Not to mention, Tolkien's own Qenya Phonology, in PE12. CFH]

--
kurvannapi vyalíkáni yah. priyah. priya eva sah.
anekadós.adus.t.ó 'pi káyah. kasya na vallabhah.

On Sonntag, März 2, 2003, at 09:34  Uhr, Ales Bican wrote:

> **I may not understand you and perhaps the confusion was caused by
> my failure to explain precisely what I meant the by Cy combinations.
> <...>). Although we see here two graphemes (_ty_, _hy_, _ny_; _ly_ is
> doubtful), I am convinced these _graphemic_ combinations stand for
> single phonemes.

Seems you understood me right. There was no confusion. I simply think
that _ty_, _hy_, _ny_, _ly_ are combinations of C+y.

> Basically, PQ does not allow any other phonemic combinations than
> sC if graphemic combinations Cy are monophonematic (on nasal +
> stop see below).

I beg to differ (v.s.).

> I think the reason why there is nothing like _p+y_ is still because
> the word-initial graphemic Cy combinations stand for one phoneme,
> not a combination of phonemes.

I don't see the causality here. Even *if* the instances of Cy are
monophonemic, how would that preclude a combination _py_ (being also
monophonemic). Do you think a palatalized _p_ is a priori impossible ?
If it's not, the reason for its non-occurence is euphonic, either way.

**Ales gives the inventory of PQ, including:

> palato-dentals: Ty, Dy, Ny (Thy not found)

In my view there is no palato-dental series.

>> Case 2) _máryat_. In my view this is not a violation of the biphonemic
>> rule but has to be syllabified as  má (<ma3-) +ryat. The division is
>> due to morphological reasons and is phonetically permissible since a
>> syllable-initial cluster "ry" is in accord with the consonanticity
>> hierarchy for syllable-onsets outlined above.
>
> **As I have already noted, the _onye_ example does not seem to be
> compatible with _máryat_. Something similar may be with _ohlon_:
> why is it not *_óhlon_, _hl_ being a single phoneme which implies
> from the fact it occurs word-initially?

Indeed, _onye_ and _ohlon_ seem to contradict what I said about
_máryat_. However, if we look very closely, the cases aren't exactly
the same. _Má_ is a full blown noun whereas _ó_ is a preposition.
_Ohlon_ is a new word. Also, inflected prepositions tend to be viewed
as one word as the developments of such inflections in e.g. Welsh and
Irish show. With _máryat_, the situation is different. Note that the
_á_ of _máryat_ is indeed shortened when combined with a derivational
element yielding a whole new word, cf: _-maite_.

>> As I argued in the case of _máryat_, Quenya seems to allow certain
>> PQaic clusters at the onset of a syllable which it has otherwise simplified
>> word-initially. Hence, I would suggest that this is the case for "st", too.
>> _Aistana-_ is therefore to be syllabified as _ai-stana_.

Ales notes _aista_ may be an exception and continues:

> As the entry in Etym suggest, the form _aista-_ was derived from was
> _gais-_. <...>, the formant _-ta_ was chosen. This suffixion caused
> that now there was a diphthong (a two-moraic unit) before a consonant
> cluster. I think it would have normally led to reduction (change) of
> the diphthong to _e_ (as in _Melkor_ < *_Mailkó_ < _Mailikó_, Etym s.v.
> MIL-IK), but this change would have confused the original base GAYAS
> with a distinct base ES-, because the form would then have been *_esta-_
> (_esta-_ "to name"). In order to preserve the relationship with the
> base GAYAS, the change may not have happened. In case of _aistana_,
> the relationship was perhaps more desired to be retained because of
> the words such as _aire_.

*Maybe* an irregular soundshape was retained. But that seems highly
unusual. In all instance of homophony that Tolkien notes, the words
fall out of use.

> As regards _Hrísto_, this is a doubtful example, because Tolkien
> change it to _Hristo_ immediately.

Which may be indicative and may not. The Greek _i_ is also short. (Note
that _hr_ here stands by all likelihood for two sounds, representing
Greek "chi+rho". If _hr_ was indeed monophonemic, why would it have
been chosen over simple _r_ or  e.g. _kr_. Do you think that _hr_
represents another sound than it does normally in Quenya ?).

> **I think it is possible to evaluate MB, ND, NG, NGy and NGw (NDy
> missing) as monophonematic, <...>
>  Another important thing to mention is that the nasalized stops behaved
> variously: sometimes they were reduced to either plain nasals
> (in Quenya, e.g. MB > M) or plain stops (in Sindarin, MB > B),
> but sometimes the nasal became syllabic: e.g. MBARAT > Q _umbar_.
> This r[a]ises a question whether stems like MBAR were dissyllabic
> or monosyllabic. Phonetically according to the sonority scale
> they should be dissyllabic. Phonologically, however, they seem
> to be monosyllabic.

I agree with you in your assessment of _MB_ etc. as monophonemic. Your
last sentence, however, I think is wrong. In my opinion, there is no
phonetic/phonological contradiction here. If _MBAR_ is indeed
monosyllabic it also is phonetically so. Because there is no scale
then. _MB_ has óne pitch, then. We are dealing with prenasalized stops
here, I'd say. _umbar_ may well not be a case of a syllabic _m_ but
actually *_ú-mbar_ "ill fate".

David Kiltz

(Unfortunately I'm unable to access two of the sources mentioned by
Ales an Carl: David Salo's post and PE 12 (as well as 11).

--- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, David Kiltz <dkiltz@g...> wrote:
> Which may be indicative and may not. The Greek _i_ is also short. (Note
> that _hr_ here stands by all likelihood for two sounds, representing
> Greek "chi+rho". If _hr_ was indeed monophonemic, why would it have
> been chosen over simple _r_ or  e.g. _kr_. Do you think that _hr_
> represents another sound than it does normally in Quenya ?).

Cf. "RH represents a voiceless _r_ (usually dervied from older initial
_sr-_). It was written _hr_ in Quenya." (LR:1088). I know of  no examples,
but another origin for _hr-_ might be _kr-_. The preceding voiceless
sound would have devoiced the folowing voiced sound, and then dissapear.
_kr-_ is an impossible option intially, since in Quenya does not tolerate
consonant clusters in that position (cf. SD:417-418). Being conservative,
the original (this time hypothetical) pronunciation of voiceless _r_ as
voiceless is retained as its own grapheme by the Eldar.

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

[PLEASE be sure to indicate clearly and accurately to whom you are
responding in your posts! CFH]

[David Kiltz wrote:]

> Rather my argument is that the hierarchy can be "violated" by
> groups of  the kind "sC-". Or, in other terms, that "s", for some
> reason, does not  violate the rule. It is sort of a "moot" consonant
> That's what the examples from PIE where meant to illustrate. I would
> posit such a behaviour for PQ as well.

Well, yes. (I agree, anyway) Though one would still wonder what gives it
the special status, since 's' is less consonantic than the stops. In
PIE, that's apparently its status as the only fricative. I'd hazard a
guess that is also the case for PQ.

> Okay, yet Quenya seems to try to avoid a cluster onset CR-
> (as it does in anlaut).

Exactly. With st-, however, it avoids the thing in anlaut but not in
inlaut.

> I do maintain, however, that sC- *is* a special case. We do
> not have a **_aitsana_. Also, there is no case of s+t > t+s that I'm aware of.

Yes, though _sk_ > _ks_ is present (irregularly):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/58
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/59

> > That is true. I am however yet to see an argument that MB and sundry
> > ARE monophonemic in PQ.
>
> Okay. Nevertheless, pre-nasalized stops are a breed of their own. Their
> behaviour in PQ would certainly merit a separate investigation.

Yes.

> Well, I don't know about semiotically.

[unmarked] - [marked by contrast 1] - [marked by contrast 1][marked by
contrast 2] (t-d-dh) is strange. A system like [unmarked] - [marked by
contrast 1] - [marked by contrast 2] (p-b-ph) is extremely widespread
and more concise (and caters for better transmision of distinctions).

> Tolkien's PE (and PQ) phonology
> largely differs from PIE. It is more similar to Proto Finno-Ugric I'd
> say. I cannot say whether Tolkien "liked" the traditional
> reconstruction in terms of lámatyáve. Any clues to suggest either way?

None. That's why I say it *can* be an argument.

> Be that as it may, let it just be said that the traditional
> reconstruction of the PIE consonant system is also typologically
> problematic. Also, DH doesn't figure in Elvish.

Substitute [+ nasalized] for [+aspirated] and you get it.

> > So are you suggesting that the syllable boundary shifts to immediately
> > after a vowel only if the vowel is long?
>
> Exactly.

OK. So are you suggesting that the mono- or biphonemic realization of
the _Cy_'s depends on whether the vowel before them is short or long?


Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...

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

Hello,

Petri Tikka wrote:

> Cf. "RH represents a voiceless _r_ (usually dervied from older initial
> _sr-_). It was written _hr_ in Quenya." (LR:1088). I know of no examples,
> but another origin for _hr-_ might be _kr-_.

I strongly doubt that. The first syllable of a KAR-initial stem
wouldn't suffer any kind of syncope in Quenya, since stress
was retracted exactly to the first syllable:

'The main (high-toned) stress was originally on the first syllable of
all words, but in words of 3 or more syllables it had been moved forward
to fall on the penultimate syllable, if that was long; if it was short,
then the main stress fell on the antepenult irrespective of length (as
in _éleni_).' (R:69)

XI:366 also contains a reference to a 'retraction period', in connection
with stress, one must note.

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...

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

Hello,

Ales Bican wrote:

> **Er, did I miss something? As far as I know neither the perfect of
> _lelya-_ (did you mean _auta-_?)

I was referring to IX:56, where the forms _lendien_ and
_nilendie_ occur, and they are to be compared with the first edition's
_vánier_, as well with the facing page (IX:57), where the perfect of
#_tuv-_'find' consistently shows a long vowel (in both of the texts):
_túvien_.

> Nevertheless, there is a form which may show that the stem-vowel
> is not shortened if preceded by _nt_: it is the preterite _lantie_
> "fell" (be it either the past tense or perfect; LR:56).

_nt_ is straightforwardly a cluster, I think, there's not a lot of
problem with it.

> **I do not think this was the form, because the syncope would not only
> be hard to explain but probably even impossible. I think _aista-_ was
> derived from *_(g)ais-tâ_, as the primitive form _gais-_ under the
> entry GÁYAS- in Etym suggests.

This is also possible, of course.

> In my opinion, _my_ might be either [mj] or [m'j] phonetically,
> but it is /mj/ phonologically.

I agree.

> **Yes, I am aware of the fact it is not shaded, but I do think that if
> there is no sign for it means it does not exist in described
> languages.

Yes, but it means that it has been nowhere to date found as a phoneme.

> There is no sign for Czech _r-hacek_, either.

That'd be coarticulated [r] and [Z].

> **While I agree with this, I still ask why we have _onye_, _olye_ but
> _máryat_.

One explanation is because the long _á_ in _máryat_ is etymological (<
*_-A3_), but the _o_ in _onye_, _olye_ is etymologically short.

> **Although this sounds likely and might be true, especially what regards
> the _nCy_ sequences, I do not dare to combine all Cy combinations --
> [Ales suspects that the Cy combinations in anlaut and inlaut are not
> one and the same thing]

Well, yes, they would be pronounced differently (the difference being
the presence/absence of the glide).

> **Only if we assume that Quenya does not allow sequences of three
> consonantal phonemes.

Arguments against?

> **If the _ky_ combination stands [in _Erukyerme_ and _Ekyanáro_]
> for one phoneme, then I think
> it is a voiceless palato-velar stop, the same sound that is
> reconstructed for Indo-European (if I am not mistaken).

The difference between palato-velar and palatal is not so great, anyway
the two are not attested as distinctive anywhere.

> **As I suggested, I still need more phonetic training, but as far as I
> undertand _ky_ as a palato-velar and _ty_ as a palatal (palato-dental)
> are different sounds.

Vide supra. This is possible, but highly untypological.

> Neither of the most commonly taught languages
> (i.e. French, Spanish, German) have a palatal _t_. In fact, which
> European languages besides Czech, Slovak and Hungarian have it?

Latvian. Macedonian. Albanian. (note all of these are not only European,
but also Indo-European)

> The example of 'tune' was probably the one Tolkien could use (not
> to mention that he wrote it was "probably similar", which can mean
> anything).

Yes.

> **Am I blind or Tolkien did not give any hint how NY should be
> pronounced? I have not realized it until now. As a matter of fact,
> he did not mention LY and RY, either. If these combinations stands
> for palatal _l_ and _r_ respectively, why was it not mentioned?

_Argumenta ex nihilo_ are dangerous, so I'd answer 'Tolkien only knows'

> **At any rate, this to-some-degree-palatalized _l_ must still be
> phonologically regarded as /l/, because this palatalization is
> a syntagmatic assimilation of [l] to immediate _e, i_. The palatal
> _l_, if existing in the language, is not depended on the phonetic
> environment.

Yes

> **Let me know that any LY-root is not found, either.[...]
> This can suggest that _ly_ is not monophonematic.

Alternatively, this may suggest a prohibition of initial palatal[ized]
liquids (since there's no _ry_)

> On the other hand, the "d" component is often lost, as _Quendya_
> > _Quenya_ shows.

Are there examples of this in _The Etymologies_? Remember that the
example is from Q&E.

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@m...

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

Pavel Iosad tence:

> Petri Tikka wrote:
>
> > another origin for _hr-_ might be _kr-_.
>
> I strongly doubt that. The first syllable of a KAR-initial stem
> wouldn't suffer any kind of syncope in Quenya, since stress
> was retracted exactly to the first syllable:

Yes, there was probably no _kr-_ in PQ, or at later stages before
Quenya. I mean possible loan words, since the cluster couldn't be
understood. By analogy with the only similar example _sr-_, initial
unvoiced consonant followed by _r_, _kr-_ would be changed to _hr-_.

- Petri Tikka

Hello,

Petri Tikka wrote:

> Yes, there was probably no _kr-_ in PQ, or at later stages before
> Quenya. I mean possible loan words, since the cluster couldn't be
> understood. By analogy with the only similar example _sr-_, initial
> unvoiced consonant followed by _r_, _kr-_ would be changed to _hr-_.

It could be lost altogether.

It might be noted that the only non-Eldarin language from which Quenya
is known to have borrowed is Khuzdul (well, there's the Druedain - what
would you suggest the Quenya borrowing be, BTW?), and no attested
Khuzdul word has a consonant cluster in anlaut. Neither do most Semitic
languages, by the way.

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...

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

On Donnerstag, März 6, 2003, at 07:10  Uhr, Pavel Iosad wrote:

> [David Kiltz wrote:]
>
>> Rather my argument is that the hierarchy can be "violated" by
>> groups of  the kind "sC-".
>
> Though one would still wonder what gives it
> the special status, since 's' is less consonantic than the stops. In
> PIE, that's apparently its status as the only fricative. I'd hazard a
> guess that is also the case for PQ.

Note however (Pomp. comm. Don.: s littera hanc habet potestatem, ut ubi
opus fuerit excludatur de metro. "The character of the letter s is such
that it can, when necessary, be omitted in meter"). Latin has more
fricatives than just s and yet this applies only to s.

Pavel and I differed in the use of the word "semiotical".
Pavel sees a typological similarity between PIE and PQ plosive
inventories, to which I replied:

>>  DH doesn't figure in Elvish.
>
> Substitute [+ nasalized] for [+aspirated] and you get it.

Well yes, but that would work with plosive inventories of many
languages.

> So are you suggesting that the mono- or biphonemic realization of
> the _Cy_'s depends on whether the vowel before them is short or long?

No. I was indeed thinking of an elvish SIEVER'S at a time. But I don't
see any compelling reason to assume it.

David Kiltz


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

"Cum autem nobis non dicitur, sed nobiscum; quia si ita diceretur,
obscoenius concurrerent litterae, ut etiam modo, nisi autem
interpossuissem, concurrissent". -Cicero

Pavel Iosad tence:

> Petri Tikka wrote:
>
> > Yes, there was probably no _kr-_ in PQ, or at later stages before
> > Quenya. I mean possible loan words, since the cluster couldn't be
> > understood. By analogy with the only similar example _sr-_, initial
> > unvoiced consonant followed by _r_, _kr-_ would be changed to _hr-_.
>
> It could be lost altogether.

Without the example _Hristo_ < _Christus_ (VT44:16,18), that would
be a convincing arguement. The example is what I base my hypothesis on,
otherwise that would be perfectly sensible and expectable. Please
remember the previous posts of a thread, arguments don't exist
without context.

> It might be noted that the only non-Eldarin language from which Quenya
> is known to have borrowed is Khuzdul

Only Khuzdul? What about _María_ < Latin _Maria_ (VT43:28)?

[There is also Valarin; see XI:397-407. -- PHW]

>(well, there's the Druedain - what

And what a surprise! That language does have a "consonant cluster in
anlaut": _Drughu_ (UT:385).

> would you suggest the Quenya borrowing be, BTW?),

I was writing about _Hristo_, or this thread wouldn't have arisen.

[To answer Pavel's (perhaps rhetorical) question -- _Drughu_
was adopted into Q. as _Rú_ and _Rúatan_, pl. _Rúatani_
(UT:385 n.6). Compare this to DARÁK- > _*d'râk_, which
yielded Q. _ráka_ 'wolf' (V:354). -- PHW]

> and no attested Khuzdul word has a consonant cluster in anlaut. Neither
> do most Semitic languages, by the way.

That's not relevant, since Quenya is known to have borrowed from Latin
and Greek, internally or externally (of Tolkien's fiction).

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

Petri Tikka wrote:

> Ales Bican suggests in his study of the "Atalante Fragments"
> that _nahamna_ "to hýþe" (V:47) might be analyzed as _na-_ "to"
> prefixed preposition (V:374)  + HAM- *"ground" (QL:39L) +
> _-na_ (?) noun ending.

**This is actually one of possibilities I suggested. I tried primarily
to find the base from Etym and the most likely ones I could think
of were KHAM- "sit" and KHAP- "enfold"; in the latter case,
_hamna_ might be "something that is enfolded", hence "harbor".

> One problem with this is that _-na_ is not
> necessarily a noun ending;

**You are quite right that the suffix _-na_ means a problem here,
since it is rather an adjectival/participial suffix and the words
(adjectives/participles) derived by it could be nominalized (and it
seems that even some _-na_ adjectives could be verbalized, as
_lumna-_ "heavy" and "to lie heavy").

> _-na_ in _samna_ "wooden post" <
> _STAB-_ might be an adjectival ending later developing a nominal
> meaning (since the original meaning of STAB- isn't known)

**Judging from _stabrô_ "carpenter, wright, builder", the base
STAB- might mean something like "to hew, to wright, to build
from wood". Hence _samna_ "wooden post" might literally be
"something built from wood".

> as also
> _namna_ "statute" < *_nam-_ "judge" (in _namin_ "I judge",
> VT41:13).

**Here _namna_ "statute" might be "something that is/was judged",
what do you think?

> Another is that _-na_ might also be a form of the allative
> case ending _-nna_ before consonants, since _-nna_ is in all likelihood
> derived from _NÂ-_ (V:374).
>
> These are minor points, but I would rather analyze _nahamna_ as
> _na-_ "to" nominal prefix

**What do you mean by "nominal prefix"?

> + HAM *"ground" + _-na_ allative case
> ending. A similar construction is _nuhuinenna_ (SD:246) < _nu_
> "under" (LR:398) + _huine_ "shadow" (LR:56) + _-nna_ allative
> case ending. *_nahan_ "to ground" is indeed where ships come when
> arriving at a harbour.

**You may be right, though the word _nahan_ does not seem like
a usual Q word. But then if a harbor can have a name like _Elenna_... : )

> Prefixed prepositions (indicating grammatical
> position in a sentence) are not used in the context where this word is
> found, but instead case endings (e.g. _kilyanna_ "to-chasm"). Suddenly
> having such a form would be surprising indeed, and the explanation
> of euphony seems fragile, since understanding the meaning is mostly
> outweighing in non-poetic texts.

**You may be right, but the form *_hamnanna_ is slightly odd -- too
many nasals. At any rate, there must be something unusual about the
word _nahamna_, because it is the only word that is not a proper name
that was not translated by Alboin.


Ales Bican

--
kurvannapi vyalíkáni yah. priyah. priya eva sah.
anekadós.adus.t.ó 'pi káyah. kasya na vallabhah.

Ales Bican tence:

> Petri Tikka wrote:
>
> > _-na_ in _samna_ "wooden post" <
> > _STAB-_ might be an adjectival ending later developing a nominal
> > meaning [...]
> [...]
> > as also _namna_ "statute" < *_nam-_ "judge" (in _namin_ "I
> > judge",VT41:13).
>
> **Here _namna_ "statute" might be "something that is/was judged",
> what do you think?

Isn't that what I just implied? So I do agree.

> > These are minor points, but I would rather analyze _nahamna_ as
> > _na-_ "to" nominal prefix
>
> **What do you mean by "nominal prefix"?

I'm not actually certain, but I think I mean it here as a preposition
used as a mark of location regardless of grammatical context, being
an independent word, like _under-_ in _under-world_.

> > + HAM *"ground" + _-na_ allative case
> > ending. A similar construction is _nuhuinenna_ (SD:246) < _nu_
> > "under" (LR:398) + _huine_ "shadow" (LR:56) + _-nna_ allative
> > case ending. *_nahan_ "to ground" is indeed where ships come when
> > arriving at a harbour.
>
> **You may be right, though the word _nahan_ does not seem like
> a usual Q word. But then if a harbor can have a name like _Elenna_... : )

That would be quite impossible in Finnish; adding case endings to nouns
in order to form place names, I mean, because Finnish can't have
identical case endings adjacent (though different ones are possible),
and pre- and postpositions are rare.

This introduces a question to me:

How would one express grammatical movement to the place called _Elenna_
in Quenya? One possibility is adding the allative case _-nna_ again to
_Elenna_; it would produce a quite uneuphonic (*)*_Elennanna_, which
would be subject to haplology. Thus simply _Elenna_ could be a possibility.
Another is the preposition _na_ "to, towards" (V:374): *_na Elenna_, but
this would induce tautology with two nearby allative elements of the same
origin.

> > Prefixed prepositions (indicating grammatical
> > position in a sentence) are not used in the context where this word is
> > found, but instead case endings (e.g. _kilyanna_ "to-chasm"). Suddenly
> > having such a form would be surprising indeed, and the explanation
> > of euphony seems fragile, since understanding the meaning is mostly
> > outweighing in non-poetic texts.
>
> **You may be right, but the form *_hamnanna_ is slightly odd -- too
> many nasals.

If euphony is the problem, one may wonder why not *_na hamna_, with
_na_ as a simple unglued preposition. I would consider analysing _na-_
in _nahamna_ as a grammatical preposition quite implausible, though not
impossible; I would suggest that you could update your analysis of the
_Atalante_ fragments on this matter.

>At any rate, there must be something unusual about the
> word _nahamna_, because it is the only word that is not a proper name
> that was not translated by Alboin.

Yes, but it was translated into Old English.

Mára mesta,

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

On Samstag, März 8, 2003, at 12:48  Uhr, Petri Tikka wrote:

> Ales Bican tence:
>
>> Petri Tikka wrote:
>>>  I would rather analyze _nahamna_ as
>>> _na-_ "to" nominal prefix
>>
>> **What do you mean by "nominal prefix"?
>
>  I mean it here as a preposition
> used as a mark of location regardless of grammatical context, being
> an independent word, like _under-_ in _under-world_.

Nominal prefixes occur frequently in Quenya: E.g. _mirroanwi_,
tercenye_ etc.

[_Mirroanwi_ 'Incarnates, those (spirits) put into flesh' < _mi-
srawanwe_ (X:350); _essi tercenye_ 'names of insight' (X:216).
Give glosses and page references, please! -- PHW]

A discussion of euphony or dysphony follows.

I think it's quite clear from the attested corpus that Quenya could use
either a local preposition or a case ending in these cases: _mi Númen_
vs. _Númessier_, _mi oromardi_ vs. _mahalmassen_. This should be
possible with _na_ vs _-nna_ as well.

> Why not *_na hamna_, with
> _na_ as a simple unglued preposition. I would consider analysing _na-_
> in _nahamna_ as a grammatical preposition quite implausible, though not
> impossible.

Because it's not a preposition here.

I think to understand the meaning of _nahamna_ one has to see it in the
context of the evolving text. _Nahamna_ changed to _kamindon_ >
_akamna_ > _nukumna_ (IX:311). None of these forms seems to
correspond to the OE "translation" _to h´ythe_. Indeed, I think all
the above forms mean "humbled" as does the Adunaic
translation _zabathaan_(IX:247 et al.).

This leaves us with 3 roots, HAM-, KAM-, KUM-. Petri Tikka notes that
HAM can be interpreted as"ground" in the QL. KAM might mean the same
(cf. KEM- in The Etymologies or, perhaps, Adunaic _kamaat_.) I don't
know about KUM. Maybe it's a further derivative ? Do KU3- "bow" or
KUM- "void" come in ?

At any rate, if we assume that HAM/KAM here means "ground", we get:
"to-ground-ed", "ground-ed-like" (_kamin-ndon_), and "very-ground-ed"
(with sundóma as an intensifier). _Nukumna_ may be "down-bow-ed"
or "down-void-ed", if it doesn't also contain "ground".

Of course, this is just an assumption for heuristic reasons. It shows,
however, I think, that _-in_/_na_ here are indeed participle endings.
If anything, the semantic connection with Latin _humilis_, as already
noted by Ales, makes the case only stronger.

David Kiltz

On Sunday, March 9, 2003, at 03:50  AM, David Kiltz wrote:

> I think to understand the meaning of _nahamna_ one has to see it in
> the context of the evolving text. _Nahamna_ changed to _kamindon_ >
> _akamna_ > _nukumna_ (IX:311). None of these forms seems to correspond
> to the OE "translation" _to h´ythe_. Indeed, I think all the above
> forms mean "humbled" as does the Adunaic translation
> _zabathaan_(IX:247 et al.).

This presentation fails to account for a critical fact concerning the
first stage of the (indeed) evolving text: Tolkien's Old English
translation accompanies only the _first_ version; indeed the OE text is
written on "a slip of paper giving the Quenya fragments in their
original form" (IX:317), i.e., as Christopher Tolkien goes on to note,
in a form identical to that in _The Lost Road_, not incorporating even
the minor changes found in the first version of the text in _The Notion
Club Papers_ (IX:310). The natural implication of this is that OE _to
hy'the_ is a translation of _nahamna_.

Of course, it remains _possible_ that _to hy'the_ does _not_ translate
_nahamna_; i.e., that in the act of translating the restated _Lost
Road_ text into OE, Tolkien, _at that point_, decided that the meaning
he wanted to express was not whatever  _nahamna_ means (in this
scenario, perhaps Tolkien, in the intervening years, had himself
forgotten what it meant when he wrote it!), and instead wrote _to
hy'the_, meaning to subsequently alter the Quenya to match. But there
are at least two problems with this: first, Tolkien's normal work
pattern would have been to simply mark up _nahamna_ on the spot, to
change it to the revised form, which he did not do; and second, the
next time he wrote the passage out (for Text E, IX:310), it still has
_nahamna_ (note that this version precedes the version accompanying the
first Adunaic translation).

Even the third time he wrote it, it has _kamindon_, which looks for all
the world like an adverbial form, and indeed against it is written the
partial gloss "-ly" (IX:311); hence, it cannot translate _to hy'the_
either. Moreover, _kamindon_ first appears in the version of the text
that accompanies the first Adunaic translation, and corresponds there
to _zabathaan_ 'humbled'; so it seems pretty clear that _kamindon_ is
meant to translate 'humbled', and so too _akamna_, as _nukumna_ does
explicitly (it is glossed thus, IX:246). But despite the apparent similarity
of _nahamna_ and _akamna_, they must come from different bases
(_nahamna_ from a base in KH-, _akamna_ from one in _K-_). So we
can't really infer anything about _nahamna_ from _akamna_. Nor can we
_necessarily_ infer anything about _nahamna_ from any of the later
Quenya and Adunaic forms.


--
=============================================
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."

David Kiltz tence:

> I think it's quite clear from the attested corpus that Quenya could use
> either a local preposition or a case ending in these cases: _mi Númen_
> vs. _Númessier_, _mi oromardi_ vs. _mahalmassen_. This should be
> possible with _na_ vs _-nna_ as well.

All nice and well, except that _mi_ "in, within" (V:373) and _-sse_
aren't cognates, while _na_ and _-nna_ are.  One can sit _mahalmassen_
"upon thrones" (UT:305), but not *_mi mahalmar_ "in thrones". The root
of this preposition _mi_ indeed means "inside" (V:373). The applicability
of _-sse_ is presumably more general, since it is the general "locative"
case (VT6:14), not specific "inessive" or "adessive" as there are in
Finnish. So the possibility of _na_ and _-nna_ co-existing and being
used equivalently can't really be inferred from these examples.

But there are other examples, such as the prepositional cognate of
_-sse_: _se_ "at, in" (VT43:30). Its known usage in the (admittedly
sparce) corpus is limited, while examples of the cognate locative case
are abundant. Their interchangability is indeed a possibility: "It is
noteworthy that _mi kon-alkorin_, _(mi) SEkormen_, and
_kokormeneSSE_ were all allowed to stand, even though they seem
to mean the same thing." (VT27:25; emphasis mine). The same
interchangability might be true also for the cognates _na_ and _-(n)na_,
at least in the earlier (external and internal) stages, because _-nna_
evolved from postpositional use of _na_. Cf. Quenya _lúmenna_
"upon the hour"(WJ:367) vs. Telerin _lúmena_ (WJ:407).

Later stages present a problem, because, as far as I know, there are no
known direct correspondances between a pre-/ postpositional element being
equivalent in usage to a cognate case ending in later (external) Quenya.
This might (speculatively) be because Tolkien had decided that the original
postposition _na_ had been glued into its nouns and become a case
ending _-na_. Its postpositional usage would have been forgotten because
of analogy with the common words glued to which it had become a case
ending. Prepositional usage is another matter, which might have survived if
it was common enough in CE beside the evidently very common
postpositional use. Much can't be said firmly on this matter.

> On Samstag, März 8, 2003, at 12:48  Uhr, Petri Tikka wrote:
>
> > Why not *_na hamna_, with
> > _na_ as a simple unglued preposition. I would consider analysing _na-_
> > in _nahamna_ as a grammatical preposition quite implausible, though not
> > impossible.
>
> Because it's not a preposition here. [Basis for this]

That is a possibility (though not convincing; see a recent post 343 by Carl
Hostetter on this subject matter), but the context was around the
possibilitythat there is a preposition or case ending in _nahamna_. I
objected to thepossibility that _na-_ in _nahamna_ is a glued
preposition, concidering it highly unlikely. For basis, see my previous
posts on the subject .

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

On Sonntag, März 9, 2003, at 06:25  Uhr, Petri Tikka wrote:

> David Kiltz tence:
>
>> I think it's quite clear from the attested corpus that Quenya could
>> use
>> either a local preposition or a case ending in these cases: _mi Númen_
>> vs. _Númessier_, _mi oromardi_ vs. _mahalmassen_. This should be
>> possible with _na_ vs _-nna_ as well.
>
> All nice and well, except that _mi_ "in, within" (V:373) and _-sse_
> aren't cognates, while _na_ and _-nna_ are.  One can sit _mahalmassen_
> "upon thrones" (UT:305), but not *_mi mahalmar_ "in thrones". The root
> of this preposition _mi_ indeed means "inside" (V:373).
> So the possibility of _na_ and _-nna_ co-existing and being
> used equivalently can't really be inferred from these examples.

I didn't mean to say that.

The Etymologies give Quenya _an, ana, na_ "to, towards", prefix _ana_.
That is pretty close to the meaning of _-nna_. I do not say that _na_
(as preposition) and _-nna_ were used in exactly the same way. Although
the fact that _na_ and _-nna_ seem to be of identical origin makes it,
if anything, more likely. But I think it is very likely that _na-_
actually exists since it is attested in _nahamna_. Or, if you don't
accept that example, it is listed in The Etymologies.

>> Because it's not a preposition here. [Basis for this]
>
> That is a possibility (though not convincing; see a recent post 343 by
> Carl
> Hostetter on this subject matter), but the context was around the
> possibilitythat there is a preposition or case ending in _nahamna_. I
> objected to thepossibility that _na-_ in _nahamna_ is a glued
> preposition, concidering it highly unlikely. For basis, see my previous
> posts on the subject

I entirely agree. A "glued" preposition is not a preposition at all.
It's a nominal prefix. While a preposition _na_ might mean the same as
_-nna_ a nominal prefix creates a new word.

Prepositions are written separately, normally. Or does Tolkien's habit
differ ?

David Kiltz

David Kiltz tence:

> The Etymologies give Quenya _an, ana, na_ "to, towards", prefix _ana_.
> That is pretty close to the meaning of _-nna_. I do not say that _na_
> (as preposition) and _-nna_ were used in exactly the same way. Although
> the fact that _na_ and _-nna_ seem to be of identical origin makes it,
> if anything, more likely.

I said as much in the post you are replying to.

> But I think it is very likely that _na-_
> actually exists since it is attested in _nahamna_.

  Certainly it exists, no one is denying that, but its meaning is in dispute.

> Or, if you don't
> accept that example, it is listed in The Etymologies.

  Listed in the Etymologies? I can't find such a prefix, only independent
preposition _na_ and prefix _ana-_ (VT:374).

> I entirely agree. A "glued" preposition is not a preposition at all.
> It's a nominal prefix. While a preposition _na_ might mean the same as
> _-nna_ a nominal prefix creates a new word.

  Not always; cf. below.

> Prepositions are written separately, normally. Or does Tolkien's habit
> differ ?

Sometimes it does; e.g. the chart of pronouns suffixed with preposition
  _ó-_ "with" (VT43:29) and _sekormen_, possibly with _se-_ locative
prefix (VT27:25). This is why Ales suspected (and beforme him also
Patrick Wynne and Christopher Gilson in VT27), by the translation
"to hýþe", that _na-_ in _nahamna_ is a grammatical preposition. I
have been objecting this; see previous posts on this thread by me.


[Not to mention _nuhuinenna_ 'under-shadow', showing _nu-_ 'under',
right there in the very text in question (IX:246). CFH]


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

There seem to be two main objections to accepting the phrase "_to
hýþe_" (OE 'to (the) haven') in the parallel Old English translation as
indicating Tolkien's intended meaning (at that time, at least) for Q
_nahamna_ in the first draft (restated from _The Lost Road_) of what
can be called the "Atalante Fragments" (IX:317):

Objection 1: It would be odd to have a prepositional prefix _na-_ 'to'.

The evidence of Tolkien's Quenya prayers shows that, at least for
Quenya as conceived at that time (mid to late 50s), prepositions could
indeed be prefixed to pronouns. Since pronouns are nouns, it does not
seem at all inconsistent, typologically, to suppose that prepositions
could also be attached to nouns generally. But even more convincing for
the specific time and text under consideration in the form
_nuhuinenna_, which is given the English gloss 'under-shadow', and so
most naturally analyzed as containing a prepositional prefix _nu-_
'under' derived from the base NU(U)- and cognate with the independent
preposition _no_ (primitive short *_-u_ becoming _-o_ in word-final
position in Quenya).

Objection 2: _nahamna_ looks like an adjective, not a noun.

It has long been observable that many nouns in Quenya were originally
adjs.: consider, e.g., _kolla_ 'borne, worn, especially a vestment or
cloak' (X:385n.19); or even the word _Elda_ itself.

In my opinion, therefore, these objections do not withstand the
evidence.

As for etymology, it is not much of a stretch to conceive that the
putative element _hamna_ 'haven' could be related to either (or even
both) of at least two attested bases in _Etymologies_: KHAM- 'sit',
indicating a ship's place of resting at anchor; or KHAP- 'enfold',
indicating the enclosed, protected waters of a haven (both of these
possibilities were first mentioned long ago, I believe by Patrick Wynne
and Christopher Gilson).

I would also like to note that the interpretation of _nahamna_ as  'to
(the) haven' may have been further suggested to Tolkien by the striking
similarity of the putative element _hamna_ 'haven' to various Germanic
cognates (of uncertain etymology) to English "haven", including:
Icelandic _höfn_, Danish _havn_, and Swedish _hamn_.



--
=============================================
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."