Carl wrote:

>[Arden was of course referring to versions published by Tolkien, i.e.
>within Tolkien's lifetime. But if we expand his distinction to include
>draft versions, there is in addition to the early draft Pavel is
>referring to the variant pre-publication version on the Caedmon recordings
>(now published on CD by HarperCollins). And there are a number as yet
>unpublished draft versions in the Marquette archives. Carl]

Yes, indeed!  In fact, there are *two* recordings of Galadriel's
Lament on Caedmon LP #TC1478, _J. R. R. Tolkien Reads and Sings His
The Lord of the Rings_:  one spoken and one sung.  Phonetic
transcriptions of both renditions appear in _An Introduction to
Elvish_, ed. Jim Allan (Frome: Bran's Head, 1978), p. 158.  These
might be regarded as the same version with regard to the underlying
text, but there are a number of differences in pronunciation between
the two recordings.

--
********************************************************************
      Arden R. Smith                          erilaz@...

     "Do you know Languages?  What's the French for fiddle-de-dee?"
     "Fiddle-de-dee's not English," Alice replied gravely.
     "Who ever said it was?" said the Red Queen.

                                       --Lewis Carroll,
                                        _Through the Looking-glass_
********************************************************************

Pavel Iosad wrote:

> Nevertheless, given the roots' opposite meanings, I would suggest
> that it is possible that the _d_ > _r_ shift should be blocked by
> the necessity of disambiguation.

I don't think so.  The prime directive is:  No /d/ in Quenya
except in the combinations /ld nd rd/ (LR:1155).

> It doesn't seem likely that antonyms should be homonyms in a
> language (oh yes, there's Mandarin _míng_ which means both
> 'bright' and 'dark', but still...).

There's also Mandarin _guai1_ (1) `obedient, well-behaved';
(2) contrary, in spite of'.  Or Russian _zadut'_ `blow out
(a candle); blow in (a blast-furnace)', _zalechit' `heal (a
wound); doctor (a patient) to death'.  Or Persian <qarIb>
`close, kin' and its homophone <.garIb> `strange, alien'.
Or the famous English examples such as _cleave_.

Languages don't exactly love this kind of thing, but they
can live with it.  And when they do seek to eliminate it,
they do so by replacing one of the conflicting lexical
units by a synonym, not by irregular application of
an otherwise regular sound shift.

> Therefore the question is still valid - can sound changes
> be blocked by semantic necessities in Quenya?

I'll grant that such consideration might catalyse or inhibit
an instance of a sound shift in a particular word in Quenya,
provided that the irregularly derived word is still in line
with the language's phonology, incl. phonotactics.  However,
when a sound is generally on its way out, its exceptional
preservation in one or two words on semantic grounds is high
on my list of things that just can't happen.

> Can then the _d_ in _Aldudénië_ be written off
> to disambiguation requirements?

I think _Aldudénië_ has to be a misreading or a miswriting,
or perhaps a word wrongly interpreted as Quenya.

--
<fa-al-_haylu wa-al-laylu wa-al-baydA'u ta`rifunI
  wa-as-sayfu wa-ar-rum.hu wa-al-qir.tAsu wa-al-qalamu>
                        (Abu t-Tayyib Ahmad Ibn Hussayn al-Mutanabbi)
Ivan A Derzhanski                   <http://www.math.bas.bg/ml/iad/>
H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria          <iad@...>
W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences

Hello,

Carl wrote:

> There is another factor to consider about the possible convergence
> of these two particular roots. While "along side" and "against,
> opposed to, opposite" may seem impossibly disparate in sense,
> English itself shows a blending and blurring of these concepts.

Fair point. As a matter of fact, these things can blend in other
(Indo-European?) languages as well. In Russian, for example, the
situation with 'fighting' is identical to the English. The question
however reamins - would the two roots merge on the phonemic
level or not? I would contend that it is possible that the two
roots do remain asunder. We could try and reconstruct the
earliest root as *AD-A with the meaning of 'adjunction', possibly.
It would then show divergence in later Eldarin, mainly in the
Vanyarin dialects. And we still don't know whether these could
converge _back_ in Quenya (gues it is possible they wouldn't).
Alternately, this could be a case of a hypothetic D/R variation,
similar to the alternation of D/L, referred to in XI:363.

But then, it's been a long time since I told myself not to build
grandiose theories out if a single example! The above is pretty
likely to be completely bogus :-)

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...

'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
                  --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_

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

[Even if "completely bogus", it is thoughtfully constructed and
raises interesting questions about language that are worthy of
exploration. Carl]

Hello,

Ivan wrote:

(not that I am not convinced...)

[...]
> > It doesn't seem likely that antonyms should be homonyms in a
> > language (oh yes, there's Mandarin _míng[2]_ which means both
> > 'bright' and 'dark', but still...).
>
> There's also Mandarin _guai1_ (1) `obedient, well-behaved';
> (2) contrary, in spite of'.  Or Russian _zadut'_ `blow out
> (a candle); blow in (a blast-furnace)', _zalechit' `heal (a
> wound); doctor (a patient) to death'.  Or Persian <qarIb>
> `close, kin' and its homophone <.garIb> `strange, alien'.

I'm no expert at Persian, but as regards the first two (actually three)
examples, the syntactic properties and/or context are sufficient to make
clear which meaning is intended. As regards Quenya, clearly the
distributive properties of the two will be identical (but hey, there's
the case system which can be used for disambiguation after all!).

> Or the famous English examples such as _cleave_.

Again, there are the sytactic properties ('cleave to sth.' vs. 'cleave
sth.')

[...]
OK, so we can establish that the two roots may have fallen together.
Anyone has suggestions on which cases to use with which _*ara_?
(Allative vs. Ablative? Dative vs. Ablative? Or something completely
different?)

[...]
> I think _Aldudénië_ has to be a misreading or a miswriting,

For what? :-))

> or perhaps a word wrongly interpreted as Quenya.

What is it then? Obviously not Telerin - no _*#g-_!

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...

'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
                  --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_

Boris Shapiro wrote:

> In a message on Elfling Pavel has argued that there could
> be no general "Namaarie-style Quenya", for that particular
> phase of Quenya begins and ends with "Namaarie"...

and then:

> ... comprehensive ... Creed ...

I don't know about "comprehensive" and "Creed", but the
question is one close to my heart. I can certainly contribute to a
thread which might then be mined for a creed (or at least a FAQ).

The statement is bold (as you say), and true as far as it goes; but
it fails to take into account the most important transformation in
all of the (external) history of Quenya: a transformation in which
_Namárie_ played a pivotal role.

This will be a _compare and contrast_ exercise. _Quenya_ and
_natural language_.

Almost all of our energy has been directed toward the
similarities. I don't think I will get any argument when I say that
Quenya is extraordinary in this regard: what fictional language is
more realistic? Lewis' Old Solar is just a scattering of nouns.
Klingon is purely synchronic. I am particularly touched by
LeGuin's Kesh, but it is a sketch compared to the tapestry of
Quenya. Quenya will always be for me the bright window through
which I first glimpsed the vivid reality of Middle-earth. I
acknowledge this at the outset so that I can let it go, because it
obscures the point I want to make.

Which is this: that Quenya is also different from natural
language, and the way in which it is different changed on the day
that the first copy of _Fellowship_ hit the newsstands.

Prior to publication, Quenya was a sort of workshop in which
Tolkien could try out his _lámatyáve_, his sense of what was
pleasing in language. I will call this "workshop Quenya".
Tolkien's development of Quenya has often been characterized
as a progression from primitive to polished, but it seems to me
rather to be a series of sketches, with experimental features
more often discarded than making an immediate and lasting
contribution to the language. One day subject inflections precede
the verb, but before long follow again with no proclitic legacy
(other than a clarification in Tolkien's mind of word-order in
Common Eldarin). Features appear and are rejected only to
appear and be rejected again many years later (e.g., _lá_ = `no').
What is constant in Quenya was mostly there to begin with.

Note that Tolkien's essays and compositions do not document
distinct stages of the development of the language, as might at
first be expected. They are, instead, the driving force behind the
development, so that almost all of the change in the language
happens between some first draft and some final draft. This,
together with the fact that most drafts are incomplete and that
subsequent drafts tend to become progressively sketchier and
less complete, accounts for quite a bit of the difficulty in
preparing this material for clear presentation.

Whether this wandering Quenya would have converged (or
"matured") in the absence of publication is academic. What
happened instead was that the nature of Quenya changed, and it
changed overnight. It became a literary illusion, no different than
the History of the Third Age or the Geography of Gondor.

A skillful author (and Tolkien was among the best in this regard)
will give us glimpses of a greater reality: exactly the sort of
glimpses we would get if we had really been there. Of course, if
we really _were_ there, we could explore what intrigued us
(counting the layers of rock in the weathered outcrops of the
White Mountains or cornering an Elf and demanding the word for
`if'), but this is fancy. The glimpse is well constructed, but it is
only our own minds that fill in the details (or rather assume their
existence).

Actually, the transformation in Quenya was subtler. Tolkien held
the principle of "canonical Quenya" (as I will call this literary
illusion, in order to maintain consistency with my earlier posts on
the subject) in high respect, and was reluctant to change it; but
workshop Quenya was still a passion for him, and the tension
between the two fractured the language: Quenya became
_partitioned_. The word _ar_ `and' is canonical (and therefore
fixed); words for `if' came and went: they still belong to the
workshop.

Note that these are the _only_ two aspects of Quenya. At least
there is no "mature" Quenya which we could query as if the Elves
were still with us.

We know that the fixed portion of Quenya chafed ("The history of
the Eldar is fixed and the adoption of Sindarin by the Exiled
Noldor cannot now be altered." XII:331 – many more examples
remain unpublished). Tolkien took advantage of the second
edition revisions to change bits of it. It was clear to him that every
bit of information that he published (or sent to correspondents in
letters) passed out of his hands into canonical Quenya where he
could no longer change it; and he was very deliberate and
careful about doing so. For example, the workshop partition of
Quenya continued to change after publication, perhaps as much
and as fast as it had beforehand; but letters written in the last
years of Tolkien's life (see, e.g. Letters, number 347 to Richard
Jeffery from December of 1972, p. 426 in particular) give only the
most conservative glimpses, consistent with the 1955 version of
the language, of the grammar and history underlying what was
published. It now makes perfect sense to me why Dick Plotz
never received his verb conjugation. I am rather surprised that he
got the nouns.

_Namárie_, of course, was a linchpin of canonical Quenya, and
contained more grammar than all other bits of Elvish combined,
and quite a bit of vocabulary. It constrained everything which
followed, including workshop Quenya, but only and exactly in
those aspects fixed by the published text. To say, then, that "there
could be no general `_Namárie_-style Quenya'", while true
enough when speculating about the workshop partition of
Quenya (which is, of course, where all of the speculation takes
place), does not take account of the fact that there is (by
definition) no overlap between _Namárie_ and workshop
Quenya. That Quenya is SVO (and many other facts of vocabulary
and grammar) was established once and for all, and honored
even behind the scenes.

But it was only the Elvish text and a (loose) gloss which were
published. These admitted, naturally, of a range of interpretation.
It is unlikely that Tolkien's "clearer and more normal style" of
word-order would have been the same when the published
version of _Namárie_ was finished as it was in 1966 when the
commentary for RGEO was being written. The gloss "beyond
(the borders of)" for _pella_, from that commentary, looks to me
like an attempt to change the derivation of this word to be from
the root PEL (V:380), which never exactly meant "border" before.

The distinction "canonical Quenya" has not really caught on:
when I have seen it used, it most often refers simply to anything
that Tolkien wrote. Such a distinction ("anything Tolkien wrote") is
important, but not as powerful a tool as "canonical" as I have
used it here.

For example, for many years we had two stories about
_omentielvo_: Plotz' story that it was simply a correction (along
with the "inclusive/exclusive" bit), and Carpenter's more fanciful
tale of Frodo's mistake and its subsequent correction by a scribe
(and something not quite interpretable about the dual). Many
factors were weighed (both were second-hand reports), but
nobody asked about canonicity: Plotz' explanation was released
deliberately by Tolkien into the realm of canon; but Carpenter's
was lifted from Tolkien's notes without his cooperation. We
would have done better to hold it in this light.

One more example: I have made vague reference to _Cirion's
Oath_ (UT:305) in this regard. It is often taken to have the force of
canon, because it is, in grammar and vocabulary, utterly
consistent with _Namárie_. But if you have followed my
argument you will see that this is a consequence,  not of both
being drawn from an unattested grammar of Mature Quenya, but
simply of its having been composed subsequent to and under
the influence of the published canonical _Namárie_. It can add
nothing to our knowledge of canonical Quenya, because it is not
canonical. Note in particular, the third-person plural ending
_-nte_, one of my favorites in the whole declension (because of
its natural connection both with Eldarin and Indo-European
structure), is still only workshop. Tolkien would have felt perfectly
free  to change it (and remember that he was moving away from
primary-world influence at this time). He would have been very
aware of the freedom he would have sacrificed in publishing it or
sending it to a correspondent.

The distinction of canon has not been brought into the current
discussion, further clouding the issue of the relationship
between _Namárie_ and _Quenya_. The earliest version of
_Namárie_ is definitely in a class by itself and also (most
important) it is not canon. The published version is also in a
class by itself, _and_ as the most important text of canonical
Quenya has had a profound impact on all subsequent
development of the language.

Perhaps the term _canon_ was not the best for what I want to
convey. I would welcome other suggestions, but I would like to
see the concept kept in the forefront of discussions.

I hope this gets the ball rolling.

--Bill

As something of an aside in a longer message making a different
overall point, Bill Welden says:
> This will be a _compare and contrast_ exercise. _Quenya_ and
> _natural language_.
>
> Almost all of our energy has been directed toward the
> similarities. I don't think I will get any argument when I say that
> Quenya is extraordinary in this regard: what fictional language is
> more realistic? Lewis' Old Solar is just a scattering of nouns.
> Klingon is purely synchronic. I am particularly touched by
> LeGuin's Kesh, but it is a sketch compared to the tapestry of
> Quenya. Quenya will always be for me the bright window through
> which I first glimpsed the vivid reality of Middle-earth.

As I occasionally do, I here feel the need to interpose a
corrective to our own local version of bardolatry....

If by 'fictional language' you mean 'invented language that appears
in a work of literary fiction', you won't get any argument, but
this in itself is no great testimony to the extraordinariness
of Quenya; rather it reflects the rarity of those skilled and
motivated enough to produce publishable fiction multiplied by the
rarity of those skilled and motivated enough to invent a language.
The very paucity of rivals to Quenya reveals this, with Tsolyani
being the only worthy contender.

But if by 'fictional language' is meant 'invented language', which
thereby locates Quenya among a much larger pool of rivals, to
Quenya's potential greater glory-by-comparison, then we must
realize that realism is proportional to, among other things,
derivativeness and functional incompleteness.

To take the latter first, if a grammar of Quenya were written
as though it were natural language, the description would clearly
be drastically incomplete; Quenya's realism would lie in its
resemblance not to fully-fledged living languages, but rather
to a dead language, of which only fragments are known, imperfectly,
gleaned from highly fragmentary evidence. In this sense, then,
realism is somewhat a reflection of a lack of ambition or
achievement, vis a vis creating a fully fledged (simulacrum
of a) living language.

As for derivativeness, the more derivative (from Real World
natural languages) the materials worked with, the more realistic
the product. Since the grammatical devices of Quenya and the
sound changes it underwent are pretty much all drawn from
European languages and their histories, it is not surprising
that Quenya should seem realistic. But a more derivative
invented language might be still more realistic (e.g. an
invented Romance language created by someone with a decent
knowledge of Romance diachrony).

Given the specific properties of Quenya -- its degree of
derivativeness, and Tolkien's concentration on exactly those
things that give the patina of realism -- the elaborate
history & its synchronic traces in half submerged patternings
and irregularities, Quenya is indeed extraordinary and
without equal. But move the goalposts, change the criteria
for what counts as realistic, and add in other criteria for
extraordinariness (such as functional completeness), and
his achievement is, though still inspirational, less
extraordinary.

I realize that these remarks are not germane to the main thrust
of your post, but I think it's important to recognize that
Tolkien's greatness lies in his work when taken collectively,
as a totality, or perhaps also specifically in _The Lord of
the Rings_, though this cannot be separated from the mythopoeia
that underlies it so profoundly. If we isolate Quenya from
the rest of the oeuvre it remains a delight and the epicentre
of the conlang canon, but not so ineluctably sans pareil.

--And.

One purpose I would like to put this list to is a forum for feedback on
_Vinyar Tengwar_. Given the irregular nature of its publication, and further
given the fact that there has for years now usually been too much new,
primary material in each issue to allow for a lengthy or active letters
section (not that anyone's complained, mind you!), I think a mailing list
such as this may be the most practical way for readers of _VT_ to
communicate with one another about its contents.

There is something in particular that I would like to solicit input on from
any readers of _VT_ that are on this list: namely, errata. If you've noticed
typos of any sort (spelling, punctuation, grammar, citation error,
misquotation, etc.) in any issue of _VT_ (well, 10 and up, since issues
earlier than that can only be "reprinted" by photocopying), I want to know
about them so that I can correct them in future reprintings.

If you'll provide me with errata (_off list_, that is, to:
Aelfwine@...) I'll compile a list of them and put them on a Web page
at:
     http://www.elvish.org/VT/errata.html
and update it periodically with new errata as they are found.

As an added incentive (beyond the satisfaction of invaluable service to
future humanity, that is), the first person to alert me of a genuine but
previously unnoticed erratum for any issue will receive a complimentary copy
of the corrected issue when it is next reprinted.

Oh, please help me out by prefixing VT ERRATUM: to the subject line of any
erratum report e-mail.

Thanks!


|======================================================================|
| 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."   |
|======================================================================|

In a recent post on the Quenya list:

     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quenya/message/349

Helge Fauskanger notes that he "would expect A-stem verbs to be able to make
the same distinction between aorist and continuative forms as the primary
verbs can make (e.g. _quete_ "says" vs. _quéta_ "is saying"). Especially in
a constructed language I would expect considerable structural symmetry."

In other words, Helge expects that since Quenya has a formal aorist vs.
present continuative distinction in the basic verbs, it will have it in
other verb classes (i.e., derived verbs, such as those in _-ta_, _-ya_,
_-a_, etc.).

Setting aside the implication that Tolkien would be expected to deliberately
make his invented languages _less_ naturalistic than real languages in
pursuit of "structural symmetry", I would like to explore Helge's
expectation. Now, having not studied Ancient Greek (alas!), and further not
having studied languages having a significant _formal_ aorist vs. present
(or other tense) distinction, I'd like to ask the group:

Are there languages having this formal aorist/non-aorist distinction in
which the distinction is observed is some verb classes but not in others?

Thanks for your consideration.



|======================================================================|
| 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."   |
|======================================================================|

"Carl F. Hostetter" wrote:
> Helge Fauskanger notes that he "would expect A-stem verbs to be
> able to make the same distinction between aorist and continuative
> forms as the primary verbs can make (e.g. _quete_ "says" vs. _quéta_
> "is saying"). Especially in a constructed language I would expect
> considerable structural symmetry."
[...]
> Setting aside the implication that Tolkien would be expected
> to deliberately make his invented languages _less_ naturalistic
> than real languages in pursuit of "structural symmetry",

Real languages differ widely in the amount of structural
symmetry they have:  Turkish has plenty of it, for example,
whereas Arabic has very little.  It is well known, however,
that Quenya was inspired by, and modelled on, Indo-European
and Uralic languages with little structural symmetry.

> I would like to explore Helge's expectation.
[...]
> Are there languages having this formal aorist/non-aorist
> distinction in which the distinction is observed is some
> verb classes but not in others?

Of course there are.  The first one that comes to mind is
(for some reason) Bulgarian.  The first form in the pairs
below is 3sg aorist, the second one is 3sg present:

_vze_,  _vzème_ `take'
_kla_,  _kòli_  `slaughter'
_kàza_, _kàzhe_ `say'
_sùka_, _sùche_ `suck'
_jàde_, _jadè_  `eat'
_ìska_, _ìska_  `want'

As one can see, there are several ways in which the two forms
(and their stems) can be related, from quasi-suppletivism to
a fossilised alternation to a more recent alternation to stress
shift to identity.  The latter is typical of lexical innovations,
esp. verbs derived by means of suffixes.

(The Bulgarian aorist is semantically different from the Quenya
one in that it is a kind of past tense; it is structurally
similar, however, in that it is the morphologically simplest
tense in the paradigm.  In the other persons and numbers
the present and the aorist differ in their endings, but in
the 3sg, where the endings of both tenses are zero, only
context can disambiguate the forms if the stems are the same.
This is the case of all verbs with present stems in _-a_,
but also part of those with present stems in _-e_ and _-i_.)

I'll let someone else tell us about Greek.

--Ivan

I'm afraid I have no Greek to add, but Ivan's remark that "the latter is
typical of lexical innovations" reminds me of the French infinitive forms:
the older and most "basic" words may have several endings such as -ir -aire
-endre etc, while "innovations" (along with a majority of other verbs) are
always formed with the "-er" ending, in effect making them "regular".

I'm not sure whether the other endings are due to the influence of a
language from which French used to take words or just a natural shift from
(say) latin which is no longer used because we have taken all the words we
are ever likely to get from Latin.

The point being that the more recent or "lingosyncratic" (ie. which are
derived using methods particular to that language) words tend to be regular.

This could mean that derived stems either have no aorist; or that their
aorist is identical to their "present continuous".

So although I know of no other languages with aorist, it does not seem
particularly strange that some verb classes should have a particular form
which others don't.

This is an effect that also happens in some more "archaic" tenses like the
German subjunctive: which has forms only for the auxiliary and modal verbs
(and for some strange reason the verb "to know") all the other verbs having
this tense formed with the assistance of a the modal "werden".

Do we explicitly know:
- what this tense is for
- of texts where both aorist and continuous co-habit
- whether it really _is_ comparable to the Greek aorist

I would also like to ask another question: Do the perfect and ?simple past
(tulle, utuulie) coincide with English tenses? I see no reason for this to
be so as English has one of the oddest tense systems of the European
languages I know. It also seems that throughout most of the corpus, these
tenses are not consistently translated into English (even within LotR)

Greg

[The relevant source for the aorist in Quenya is Tolkien's "Notes on _Óre_",
published in _Vinyar Tengwar_ 41 (see esp. pp. 15-16, n.5; p. 17 n.11; and
p. 18 n.14). To answer your questions: 1) The aorist denotes punctual,
habitual, or otherwise durationless action; 2) Yes, that just cited; and
3) Yes, in the features just listed, though as I understand it, the Greek
aorist is used exclusively of past action. Carl]


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lambengolmor-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

In a message dated 6/5/2002 11:43:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
gordon.dyke@... writes:


> This could mean that derived stems either have no aorist; or that their
> aorist is identical to their "present continuous".
>

If this is continuing the example of French, Greg, I would like to point
out that, as far as I know, there is no distinction made in French between
the present indicative (close to Quenya's "aorist") and the progressive
present ("present continuative").  Admitedly, I am nowhere near fluent in
French, so I might be incorrect.

_Je regarde_ translates to both "I watch" (present indicative or "aorist")
and "I am watching" (progressive present).  The circumlocution _en train
de_ "in the middle of" is often used if a more exact "progressive present"
is desired.

I'm afraid I'm not polyglot enough to make any more contributions to this
subject, but using the example of French given, it would certainly seem
that a distinction between aorist and progressive present is not always
necessary.

--Inga


[Certainly there are many languages -- actually, all the ones I've studied,
other than Quenya! - that make no _formal_ (i.e. _structural_) distinction
between present continuative and present indicative. Usually, if the
distinction is important to the meaning (as it very often isn't), these
languages will employ periphrasis to express the difference, or rely on
context, or other extra-structural strategies. The question at hand,
though, is, in those languages that _do_ have a formal distinction of
aorist vs. non-aorist, or even present continuative vs. present
indicative, is the distinction maintained across all verb classes. Carl]

[Greg had written:]

> This could mean that derived stems either have no aorist; or that their
> aorist is identical to their "present continuous".

I'm sorry, I was going back to Quenya on that one.

I talked to a greek studying friend of mine who assures me that in ancient
greek at any rate, there are no whole verb classes which do not have an
aorist, although you do come across the odd verb or two which don't

Greg

"G. Dyke" wrote:
> I'm afraid I have no Greek to add, but Ivan's remark that
> "the latter is typical of lexical innovations" reminds me
> of the French infinitive forms:

Roughly speaking, the presence of more derivational morphology
in lexical innovations may conflict with whatever inflexional
morphology distinguishes the two stems in the verbs of the core
vocabulary.

[...]
> although I know of no other languages with aorist, it does not seem
> particularly strange that some verb classes should have a particular
> form which others don't.

Going back to Quenya:  If it is the case that the present stem
is obtained from the aorist one by lengthening the root vowel
and replacing the final vowel by _-a_ (as in the pair _quete_
`says' vs _quéta_ `is saying'), what shall we expect if (as in
the case of _-ta/-ya_-verbs) the aorist stem already ends in _-a_
and the root vowel can't be lengthened, because it is in a closed
syllable? -- The two stems will coincide, which the language may
or may not do something about.  I'd say that, on the whole,
languages tend to tolerate this sort of ambiguity.

--Ivan

--- In lambengolmor@y..., "G. Dyke" <gordon.dyke@b...> wrote:

> This is an effect that also happens in some more "archaic" tenses like
> the German subjunctive: which has forms only for the auxiliary and modal
> verbs (and for some strange reason the verb "to know") all the other
> verbs having this tense formed with the assistance of a the modal
> "werden".

This is not entirely correct, sorry!
1. The subjunctive is not a tense, it has forms in all tenses.
2. There are two subjuntives in German.
3. Both have basic forms (without auxiliary verbs) for all verbs, but
some of them may coincide with other verb forms.

Let's concentrate on subjunctive 2 (expressing wishes, irreal
assumptions,...).

Example: "singen" (sing). It's a strong verb, past tense "er sang"
(3. sg.), past participle "gesungen" (that's called ablaut). The
subjunctive (present tense) would be formed by umlaut mutation of the
stem vowel in past tense: "er sänge".

This rule was adopted for the less ancient weak verbs, forming past
tense with suffix "-t(e)(n)", even for some without ablaut:
brauchen -> er brauchte -> er bräuchte.

However, there's a whole class of verbs where the forms coincide with
past tense, because umlaut mutation is impossible (stem vowel "i/ie"
or umlaut in past tense). In other cases, the umlaut mutated forms
were abandoned for historical reasons ("wöllte"), or ancient strong
forms were replaced by weak forms: "fragen" (ask) has past
tense "fragte" instead of "frug" now, and the subjunctive 2 would
be "früge", not "*frägte".

In all those cases, the subjunctive coincides with forms of past
tense, and where this could lead to ambiguity, the construction with
an auxiliary verb  ("fragen" -> "würde fragen") was introduced.
This leads to the consequence that the original forms of the
subjunctive are almost out of usage in vernacular now, replaced by
the auxiliary construction even when it isn't necessary.

They still exist in correct, literary German, however (listen to the
news in tv :-): "Ich wünschte, Du kämest" (I wished you came).
Since it is the continuation of an old, natural trend towards weak,
analytical construction, the subjunctive will probably vanish in the
standard language, too, whether one likes it or not (I don't :-).

There's a question connected with ablaut in past tense related to
nasal infixion: "gehen" (go) -> "er ging". The other direction would
be "denken" (think) -> "er dachte", cf. "Gedanke" (thought).

Since one would only expect another vowel here, this is an indication
for ancient nasal vowel, changing into "in/en/an" later. Such nasal
vowels remained in some other Indo-European languages (Polish), they
aren't a mere hypothesis.

Now nasal infixion plays an important role in Quenya. Is there any
hint at the former existence of nasal vowels in primitive Elvish?
(this was my first, never answered question in the Elfling list).

Hans

[I'm allowing this post, because it is instructive to consider these
mechanisms, but this is getting rather far afield, both from the original
topic and from Eldarin. I'd also like to ask Hans to repose his final
question in a separate post, with a new topic description. Carl]

Hello All,

Answering my question on Quenya intervocalic -d-'s, Ivan wrote:

> The prime directive is:  No /d/ in Quenya
> except in the combinations /ld nd rd/ (LR:1155).

Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis of
Quenya. To wit: are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd ñg/ single
phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?

I hold it is the latter.

But evidence is scanty, and I would like to discuss this question with a
more knowledgeable company. So what would the assembly's opinion be,
taking into account the following pieces of evidence:

1) Consistent use of the word _combinations_ in Appendix E when
referring to Grades 2 and 4 seems to argue that the sequence is
biphonemic.

2) These groups were clearly considered "long" for purposes of stress in
early (and later) Sindarin, as per LR:1089 (it appears I am using a
different edition than Ivan above). This would imply that in the
structure of a word like _*periandath_ the _a_ in the penult qualifies
as a vowel followed by two consonants, ergo /nd/ is biphonemic. This
meets two objections - even early Sindarin is not Quenya (though I'd
assume the phonological workings of the two would be exceptionally
similar), and the second of a more fundamental nature. If we assume /nd/
is monophonemic, the stress would still fall on the penult in this case,
since /nd/ (be it mono- or biphonemic) is an impermissible onset, since
no word in Quenya begins with it. On yet another hand, this latter
argument could be taken as evidence for the biphonemic status of the
group in question, as the restriction could then be explained in terms
of the restriction on initial clusters in Quenya.

3) There is little reason to distinguish /nd/ from /ld/ and /rd/. The
latter are clearly biphonemic. It would then seem that a voiced stop is
in a strong position when clustered with an alveolar sonorant. It is
unclear whether /b/ shifted to /v/ after /l/ as a matter of some later
dialect, or of a regular phonological process (since it appears that the
Elves themselves did use _lb_ (LR:1095)). To clarify: /g/ shifted to a
voiced /h/ regularly in Ukrainian and southern Russian dialects,
however, there was no process of a regular voiced stop > homorganic
voiced fricative shift. The only argument to see nasalisation as
phonemically relevant attribute is its typological justification.
Otherwise, we could as well argue that /ld/ is a phoneme while /nd/ and
/rd/ are biphonemic. This doesn't seem likely at all

4) However, there are clear cases of metathesis (e.g. in the past tense
of basic verbs). A biphonemic sequence yielding a single phoneme is not
at all impossible (cf. the conduct of Slavic *tj and *dj). Why would
*_tek-ne_ yield *_tencë_? An answer might be positing not a metathesis
(i.e. not the development of two sounds), but a nasalisation of the last
consonant of a CVC- root as a phonological process a bit like the Irish
attenuation and broadening (caolú and leathnú). Such an interpretation
seems to be an argument for the monophonemic status.

Overall, I still think the biphonemic interpretation is the better one,
not the least because it is the less complex one. I am sure there is
more to it than the outline above.

Any comments?

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...

'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
                  --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_

--- Pavel Iosad <pavel_iosad@...> wrote:

> Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis of
> Quenya. To wit: are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd ñg/ single
> phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?

They can only be biphonemic.  The question is are they coarticulated
or not?  For example, Ladefoged ignores "phonemes" like [tS] and [d3]
in the IPA, in fact they aren't in the IPA, because his phonetic work
has shown that they are two sounds that are coarticulated (see
Ladefoged _A Course in Phonetics_ 1975. 4th edition).  Clusters like
[mb], found in some African languages etc., are also not in the IPA
because they are coarticulated.

I believe by phoneme you mean coarticulate and by biphonemic you mean
two independently articulated segments.

A crucial test (which may be beyond us) is to see if the cluster
splits into a coda and an onset:

e.g. /lambe/ > 1. [lam.be] or 2. [la.mbe].

If (1) then the cluster has two independently articualted segments;
if (2) then the cluster is coarticulated and thus a "phoneme."

An example from English is 'judging:' /d3Ud3 + Ing/ > [d3U.d3Ing],
where /ng/ = the sound ingma, i.e. the velar nasal.  In the English
example it's clear that /d3/ is coarticulated as the sound does not
split across syllable boundaries.

I don't remember if Tolkien has given us discriptions of the
syllabification of these clusters.  If he hasn't then we need to
listen again to his recordings (but these maybe inaccurate as he
wasn't a native speaker of Quenya, alas).

Candon


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

On 11-12 July, 2002, Sotheby's will be auctioning a number of Tolkien
rarities. Of particular interest to Tolkienian linguists is item 785, a copy
of _The Lord of the Rings_ inscribed by Tolkien to his friend and colleague,
M.R. Ridley. The inscription, which includes the familiar Quenya phrase "Nai
hiruvalye Valimar", is accompanied by a letter, dated 27 September 1961
(from Tolkien's 76 Sanfield Road address in Oxford). According to the
auction catalogue, in this letter:


      Tolkien thanks Ridley for his writing in "Elvish", praising it
      as "very much better than the 'Elvish' of those mis-guided
      correspondents who write to me in the script". Tolkien then
      translates the phrase and includes a "better rendering":

          ...this is not very well translated "maybe thou
          shalt find Valimar"; in Elvish nai with the Future
          expresses a wish rather than a doubtful statement.
          A better rendering is "may you come to the Blessed
          Realm".


Catalogue details (based on preliminary proof information): CHILDREN'S AND
ILLUSTRATED BOOKS AND DRAWINGS from SOTHEBY'S SALE OF ENGLISH LITERATURE,
HISTORY, CHILDREN'S AND ILLUSTRATED BOOKS AND DRAWINGS Including the Library
of Neville L. Fakes, C.B.E. (Charles Dickens and other authors). Sale no
L02303 ("BOZ"),


|======================================================================|
| 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."   |
|======================================================================|

Hello,
Candon wrote:
> > Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis
> > of Quenya. To wit: are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd ñg/
> > single phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?
>
> They can only be biphonemic.

Evidence? :-) I do agree, but still... :-)

> I believe by phoneme you mean coarticulate and by biphonemic you
> mean two independently articulated segments.

As a matter of fact, I was referring to the phoneme as a unit of
structural analysis (which And rejects, just don't beat me now :-))
and not as a segment in the speech.

> A crucial test (which may be beyond us) is to see if the cluster
> splits into a coda and an onset:
>
> e.g. /lambe/ > 1. [lam.be] or 2. [la.mbe].
>
> If (1) then the cluster has two independently articualted segments;
> if (2) then the cluster is coarticulated and thus a "phoneme."

I believe coarticulation in Quenya at least isn't the primary test,
as demonstrated by the fact that the Quenya _qu_, which was
pronounced as a cluster (in the Third Age at least), was still
permitted word-initially, demonstrating it was not a cluster
phonologically.

Besides, the syllabification test allows both interpretations, as
the whole of the /nd/ group obviously is included in the prceding
syllable, as per the Maximum Onset Principle. Quenya words do not
start in /d/, ergo /d/ is an impermissible onset. Ditto with /nd/,

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...

'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
                  --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_

There's a question connected with ablaut in past tense related to
nasal infixion: "gehen" (go) -> "er ging". The other direction would
be "denken" (think) -> "er dachte", cf. "Gedanke" (thought), or "bringen"
(bring) -> "er brachte".

Since one would only expect another vowel here, this is an indication
for ancient nasal vowels, changing into "in/en/an" later. Such nasal
vowels remained in some other Indo-European languages (Polish), they
aren't a mere hypothesis.

Now nasal infixion plays an important role in Quenya. Is there any
hint at the former existence of nasal vowels in primitive Elvish?
(this was my first, never answered question in the Elfling list).

Hans

PS: Am I supposed to be somewhere else? I don't think so, but I'm open for
other opinions... if they are stated openly.

[Are you asking whether you "belong" on this list? If you are interested
in its contents, then yes, of course you do. Moreover, you've posed a
interesting question in a thoughtful, informed manner. 'Nuff said. Carl]

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Hello,

Hans wrote:
> Since one would only expect another vowel here, this is an
> indication for ancient nasal vowels, changing into "in/en/an"
> later. Such nasal vowels remained in some other Indo-European
> languages (Polish), they aren't a mere hypothesis.

The Polish nasals are a remainder of the Proto-Slavic nasal vowels,
in which respect Slavic is, to the best of my knowledge, unique. The
Slavic nasal vowels have appeared as a result of the open syllable
law, which did not permit closed sylables, and so all -Vn(-) and -Vm-
  groups changed into either o~ or e~ (also the appearance of
syllabic liquids and the reduced vowels). I do not recall reading of
PIE nasal vowels anywhere.

> Now nasal infixion plays an important role in Quenya. Is there any
> hint at the former existence of nasal vowels in primitive Elvish?

I'd say no. We have lots of PQ/CE forms, but nowhere is a nasal
vowel indicated by Tolkien. And anyway is there such a kind of
ablaut anywhere? The more knowledgeable people will doubtless
clarify!

The Quenya nasal infixion, it would seem, arose by analogy with the
behaviour of basic verbs, where the nasal slipped inside the root by
metathesis.

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...

'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
                  --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_

Hi,

--- pavel_iosad <pavel_iosad@...> wrote:

>>> Which leads us to the problem of a proper phonological analysis
>>> of Quenya. To wit: are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd ñg/
>>> single phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?

Candon wrote:
>> They can only be biphonemic.

Pavel wrote:
> Evidence? :-) I do agree, but still... :-)

The evidence is in acoustic phonetics which shows overlapping
wave-forms for sounds like [tS], i.e. [t] peaks and before its wave
has ended [S] begins.

I believe this work was started in the 50's and 60's at Edinburgh,
which perhaps means Tolkien was aware of it.

Candon wrote:
>> I believe by phoneme you mean coarticulated and by biphonemic you
>> mean two independently articulated segments.

Pavel wrote:
> As a matter of fact, I was referring to the phoneme as a unit of
> structural analysis (which And rejects, just don't beat me now :-))
> and not as a segment in the speech.

The acoustic analysis is clear that this isn't so, but for
convenience and a shorthand lable, perhaps we could call
coarticulated segments a phoneme (as long as we remember that they
are not).

Candon wrote:
>> A crucial test (which may be beyond us) is to see if the cluster
>> splits into a coda and an onset:
>> e.g. /lambe/ > 1. [lam.be] or 2. [la.mbe].
>> If (1) then the cluster has two independently articualted segments;
>> if (2) then the cluster is coarticulated and thus a "phoneme."

Pavel wrote:
> I believe coarticulation in Quenya at least isn't the primary test,
> as demonstrated by the fact that the Quenya _qu_, which was
> pronounced as a cluster (in the Third Age at least), was still
> permitted word-initially, demonstrating it was not a cluster
> phonologically.

I'm not sure I follow this.  In English we have word initial /kw/ and
it is biphonemic.  Quenya <qu> seems to be of the same sort.

Pavel wrote:
> Besides, the syllabification test allows both interpretations, as
> the whole of the /nd/ group obviously is included in the prceding
> syllable, as per the Maximum Onset Principle. Quenya words do not
> start in /d/, ergo /d/ is an impermissible onset. Ditto with /nd/,

I'm not sure it's obvious.  It's true that Quenya only allows
palatalized or labialized consonant clusters word initially, but what
happens word internally isn't clear.

So, your claim is because /d/ is never an onset /nd/ will not split
word internally.  I don't believe this _has_ to be true.  But let's
say it is.  What about the cluster /nt/?  /t/ is allowed in onset
position.  So the syllabification of a word like _tintalle_ > 1.
[tin.tal.le], or 2. [tint.al.le] will help us decide if clusters are
coarticulated or not.

Perhaps we can make an argument based on Tolkien's asthetic tastes to
help us decide.  It's clear that Tolkien was interested in creating a
euphonic language.  Which is the more euphonic syllabification of
Quenya _sinda_?  1. [sin.da] or 2. [sind.a]  It seems clear to me
that (1) is more euphonic, and it is easier to articulate (the same
can be said of _tintalle_(1)above.  Ease of articulation also seems
to have been important to Tolkien (cf. /n/ + /s/ > [ss] (e.g.
_Elessar_).

Notice also that when segments assimilate (for ease of
articulation) they don't disappear.  This would indicate that both
segments [ss] in _Elessar_ are pronounced (as compared with
_*elesar_.

If both segments are indeed pronounced, this in turn seems to
indicate that the cluster is _not_ coarticulated as the best way to
make [ss] salient (i.e. perceivable) is to split the cluster [s.s]


If we don't have Tolkien's ideas on syllabification (and I haven't
had time to look into it), then his desire for euphony and ease of
articulation perhaps can shed some light on whether quenya clusters
are coarticulated, i.e. "phonemic," or not.

Candon

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

Hello,

I'm still sceptical about acoustic evidence, nevertheless.

Candon wrote:
[...]
> The acoustic analysis is clear that this isn't so, but for
> convenience and a shorthand lable, perhaps we could call
> coarticulated segments a phoneme (as long as we remember that they
> are not).

But I was trying to find out exactly whether they are or are not! :-)


> > I believe coarticulation in Quenya at least isn't the primary
> > test, as demonstrated by the fact that the Quenya _qu_, which
> > was pronounced as a cluster (in the Third Age at least), was
> > still permitted word-initially, demonstrating it was not a
> > cluster phonologically.
>
> I'm not sure I follow this.  In English we have word initial /kw/
> and it is biphonemic.  Quenya <qu> seems to be of the same sort.

Quenya doesn't allow initial clusters at all. Thus, _qu_, which is
permissible initially, is _not_ a cluster

> I'm not sure it's obvious.  It's true that Quenya only allows
> palatalized or labialized consonant clusters word initially, but
> what happens word internally isn't clear.

I'd say that the palatalized and labilaized sounds are precisely
monophonemic.

> So, your claim is because /d/ is never an onset /nd/ will not split
> word internally.  I don't believe this _has_ to be true.  But let's
> say it is.  What about the cluster /nt/?  /t/ is allowed in onset
> position.

Good point, but it is obvious that the unvoiced stops have much
fewer phonotactical restrcitions imposed on them than the voiced
ones.

On the ohter hand, this example amply demonstrates that /mp nt ng/
are biphonemic sequences. This would mean that plosives
(phonemically) present a rather strange system /p/ ~ /b/ ~ /mb/.
Such a system is highly untypological. The only structurally
analogous situation I can think is the traditional PIE
reconstruction (substitute aspiration ofr nasalisation). But that
may precisely have been the inspiration! It would be "very
Tolkien" :-)

[...]
> If we don't have Tolkien's ideas on syllabification (and I haven't
> had time to look into it), then his desire for euphony and ease of
> articulation perhaps can shed some light on whether quenya clusters
> are coarticulated, i.e. "phonemic," or not.

Still, I do not see any direct correlation between coarticulation
and monopohnemic status.

But perhaps the better-learned ones here will clarify it for me...:-)

Pavel
--
Pavel Iosad               pavel_iosad@...

'I am a philologist, and thus a misunderstood man'
                  --JRR Tolkien, _The Notion Club Papers_

Candon McLean wrote:
> --- pavel_iosad <pavel_iosad@...> wrote:
> >>> are the 'nasalised' voiced stops /mb nd Óg/
> >>> single phonemes, or biphonemic sequences?
[...]
> >> They can only be biphonemic.
[...]
> The evidence is in acoustic phonetics which shows overlapping
> wave-forms for sounds like [tS], i.e. [t] peaks and before
> its wave has ended [S] begins.

Acoustic phonetics is not about phonemes at all.  Whatever sequence
of wave forms the language treats as a phoneme is by virtue of that
fact a phoneme.

> > I believe coarticulation in Quenya at least isn't the primary test,
> > as demonstrated by the fact that the Quenya _qu_, which was
> > pronounced as a cluster [...], was still permitted word-initially,
> > demonstrating it was not a cluster phonologically.
>
> I'm not sure I follow this.  In English we have word initial /kw/
> and it is biphonemic.  Quenya <qu> seems to be of the same sort.

English allows word-initial (and generally syllable-initial)
clusters.  Quenya doesn't.  So the evidence of English isn't
automatically relevant to Quenya.

> Pavel wrote:
> > Besides, the syllabification test allows both interpretations, as
> > the whole of the /nd/ group obviously is included in the prceding
> > syllable, as per the Maximum Onset Principle. Quenya words do not
> > start in /d/, ergo /d/ is an impermissible onset. Ditto with /nd/,
[...]
> So, your claim is because /d/ is never an onset /nd/ will not split
> word internally.  I don't believe this _has_ to be true.

As a matter of fact, it does not.  Think of Finnish medial /ht/.
It has to split as /h/+/t/, because a cluster can be neither an
onset nor a coda, but we have to live with the fact that /h/ can
be a coda of a non-final syllable (though not a final one).

--Ivan

Candon McLean wrote:

>>> They can only be biphonemic.
>> Evidence? :-) I do agree, but still... :-)
>The evidence is in acoustic phonetics which shows
>overlapping wave-forms for sounds like [tS], i.e. [t] peaks and
>before its wave has ended [S] begins.

Few sounds in speech are *not* coarticulated in that sense. For
example, by anticipatory coarticulation, /k/ has lip rounding in the
word "coo". The labialized feature of the vowel is anticipated in
the realization of the velar stop, [k^w]. That would be an example
of coarticulation. But "biphonemic" of course refers to a
sequence of two phonemes. These phonemes may or may not
be further analysed into sequences of sounds on the phonetic
level, but that is irrelevant here. It is important to remember that
phonemes, while the smallest units of speech *phonologically*
speaking, are not necessarily "atomic" *phonetically* speaking
but may be broken down into smaller segments of sound.
Affricates are sequences of homorganic sounds on the phonetic
level that make up single units on the phonological level: they
are phonemes (no scare quotes). In his _Course in Phonetics_
earlier referred to, Ladefoged points out that "From the point of
view of a phonologist considering the sound patterns of English,
the palato-alveolar affricates are plainly single units" (3rd ed.,
63). I don't have the 4th ed. though.

Sorry if I missed your point and just reiterated the obvious.

/Fredrik Ström

Hans-Juergen Fischer wrote:

>Now nasal infixion plays an important role in Quenya. Is there any
>hint at the former existence of nasal vowels in primitive Elvish?

For the later versions of the languages, I would agree with Pavel's
statement that there's no evidence of nasal vowels in
Quendian/Eldarin.

In the earliest version, however, it's another story.  According to
the Qenya phonology that accompanied the Qenya Lexicon (circa 1915),
primitive Eldarin had long and short syllabic versions of _l_, _r_,
and _n_, "and _n_ perhaps represented a nasal to each of the five
positions" [i.e. points of articulation] (_Parma Eldalamberon_ 12, p.
10).  In the Qenya Lexicon we find a considerable number of roots
with forms like LNQN (with dots below the n's), whence _lanqa_ 'lot.
luck, piece of fortune, happening'.

--
********************************************************************
      Arden R. Smith                          erilaz@...

     "Do you know Languages?  What's the French for fiddle-de-dee?"
     "Fiddle-de-dee's not English," Alice replied gravely.
     "Who ever said it was?" said the Red Queen.

                                       --Lewis Carroll,
                                        _Through the Looking-glass_
********************************************************************

Ivan and Fredrik both wrote that phonetic analysis isn't relevant to
phonemes (or something similar to that effect).

I agree.  My mistake.  Indeed sounds like [tS] are phonemes.

The point I was trying to make is that these kind of complex phonemes
with coarticulated sounds can't be split, and so if we wanted to test
whether Quenya clusters are phonemic or not, we should be able to do
so by focusing on the coarticulated properties of these sounds (like
affricates, etc).

Candon


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

"Arden R. Smith" wrote:
> Hans-Juergen Fischer wrote:
> >Now nasal infixion plays an important role in Quenya. Is there any
> >hint at the former existence of nasal vowels in primitive Elvish?
[...]
> According to the Qenya phonology that accompanied the Qenya Lexicon
> (circa 1915), primitive Eldarin had long and short syllabic versions
> of _l_, _r_, and _n_, "and _n_ perhaps represented a nasal to each
> of the five positions" [...].  In the Qenya Lexicon we find a
> considerable number of roots with forms like LNQN (with dots below
> the n's), whence _lanqa_ 'lot. luck, piece of fortune, happening'.

Was the question about nasal vowels in the sense of syllabic nasals
(syllabic /m/, /n/, /N/, etc.), or about nasal vowels in the sense
of nasalised vowels (nasalised /a/, /e/, /o/, etc.)?  I understood it
as referring to the latter.

--Ivan

The Q. phrase _Anaxartaron Onyalie_ is the title pencilled on an amanuensis
typescript of the tale of the creation of the Ents and the Eagles of the
Lords of the West (XI:340) This tale (probably dating to c. 1963; see
XI:341) was used by Christopher Tolkien to provide the second half of Ch. 2
of the published _Silmarillion_, "Of Aule and Yavanna" (S:44-46). A second
amanuensis typescript of the tale bears a pencilled title in English: "Of
the Ents and the Eagles".

There has been some interesting discussion online over whether 'Of the Ents
and the Eagles' translates _Anaxartaron Onyalie_, or whether the Q. title
means something else; see in particular Tolklang messages 33.73, 33.74, and
33.82, and Elfling messages 125, 131, 138, 144, 148, 150, 155, 3736-38, and
3742-46. The general concensus in these postings has been that the Q. title
probably means something else, a view largely predicated on the assumption
that _anaxar-_ in _Anaxartaron_ is a borrowing of Valarin _anashkaad_ 'ring'
seen in V. _Maachananashkaad_ 'Doom-ring', the latter adapted into Q. as
_Maahanaxar_ (XI:401; in my ascii rendition of the V. forms, _ch_ = chi and
_sh_ = s-hacek).

I would like to make a case here for the possibility that _Anaxartaron
Onyalie_ does in fact mean 'Of the Ents and the Eagles', and that
_Anaxartaron_ consists entirely of native Elvish elements. In the following
discussion, forms cited are Quenya unless otherwise noted.

Interpretation of _Onyalie_ as 'Ents' presents few difficulties (as has been
noted in the online discussions); the form can be analyzed as _*onya_ 'Ent'
+ _lie_ 'people' (V:369 s.v. LI-), the latter element seen also in the
compound _Eldalie_ 'the Elven-folk' (S:326), making _Onyalie_ the semantic
equivalent of S. _Onodrim_ 'the Ents' (L:178, 224). It has been proposed
(see Salo, Elfling message #144) that given S. _onod_ 'Ent' (L:224),
apparently from _*onot-_, one would expect the Q. equivalent to be _*onto_.
However, the pair Q. _*onya_, S. _onod_ suggests instead that the Q. form
derives from a simple base *ONO- (perhaps whence also the augmentive suffix
seen in Q. _andon_, pl. _andondi_ 'great gate', vs. _ando_ 'gate'; V:348
s.v. AD-), while the S. form derives instead from an _extended_ form *ONO-T-
of the same base. A similar disparity in primitive stems also occurs, for
example, in the Eldarin words for 'seven' -- on the basis of N. _odog_ alone
(< base OTOK) one would expect the Q. equivalent to be _**ohto_ (_**otokoo_
> _**otko_ > _**ohto_), but the Q. word for 'seven' is in fact _otso_ (<
base OTOS, with different consonantal extension; V:379 s.v. OT- (OTOS, OTOK)
'seven').

_Anaxartaron_ appears to be the genitive pl. of a noun _*anaxarta_. If
_Anaxartaron Onyalie_ means 'Of the Ents and the Eagles', _*anaxarta_ would
have to mean 'Eagle'. The usual Q. word for 'eagle' is however _soron_,
_sorne_ < THOR- 'come swooping down' (V:392-93). According to the
_Etymologies_, this same root is the source of the final element in the
river-name _Brilthor_: adj. _tho^r_ 'swooping, leaping down' (the language
of _Brilthor_, _tho^r_, and _thoorod_ 'torrent' is not identified; they are
probably Ilkorin). An interesting parallel to this connection between a
river-name and a word for 'eagle' occurs in Adunaic, in which the neuter pl.
subjective form _Nariika_ 'Eagles' is attested (IX:251). This Ad. word, the
normal sg. of which would be _*narak_ or _*naraak_, appears to be cognate
with the Eldarin base NARAK- 'tear, rend', whence Q. _naraka_ 'harsh,
rending, violent' (< _*naraaka_ 'rushing, rapid, violent') and the N.
river-name _Narog_ (V:374).

This semantic association of rivers and eagles as things that 'rush, tear,
swoop or leap down' points to a possible etymology for _*anaxarta_ as
'eagle'. The _Etymologies_ gives a root SKAR- 'tear, rend', whence
_*askaraa_ 'tearing, hastening' > N. _asgar_, _ascar_ 'violent, rushing,
impetuous', Ilk. _ascar_, the latter also providing the name of the river
_Ascar_ (V:386). No Q. development of _*askaraa_ is given, though if one
existed it would have the form _*askara_, or _*axara_ (_*aksara_) with
metathesis of _sk_ > _ks_ (See "Note on _SK_ > _KS_ (_X_)" at the end of
this post). _an-_ is an intensive/superlative prefix applied to adjectives,
as _ancalima_ 'exceedingly bright' < _kalima_ 'shining brilliant' (letter to
Rhona Beare dated 1958, L:278-79). Added to our hypothetical Q. adj.
_*axara_ 'rushing, hastening', this prefix would yield _*anaxara_
'exceedingly swift', which I propose is the initial element in _*anaxarta_
'eagle'. The final element in _*anaxarta_ is probably _arta_ 'exalted,
lofty' (XII:354), used substantively as *'lofty one, exalted one', with
_*anaxarta_ being a haplological shortening of _*anaxara-arta_, lit.
'exceedingly swift and lofty one'. We can probably assume, since _soron-_,
_sorno_ continued to exist as a word for 'eagle' (letter to Richard Jeffery
dated 1972, L:427), that _*anaxarta_ was a learned term referring only to
one of the spirit-inhabited Eagles of Manwe, whereas _sorno_ 'eagle' was a
general term encompassing both the _*Anaxartar_ (hence its use in the name
_Sorontar_ 'King of Eagles', XI:272) and the more ordinary varieties of
non-spirit-possessed, non-talking, non-wizard-carrying eagles we are
familiar with today. In other words, all _*Anaxartar_ were _sorni_, but not
all _sorni_ were _*Anaxartar_.

This still leaves the syntax of _Anaxartaron Onyalie_ to be explained. Two
factors appear to come into play in this phrase:

1) In the Q. titles of literary works, a genitive plural is often used
alone, with a preceding noun such as _quenta_ 'account, history' or _nyarna_
'legend' (XI:420) implicit but unexpressed; thus _Silmarillion_ 'the History
of the Silmarils', _Narsilion_ 'the Song of the Sun and Moon' (S:99), and
_Atanataarion_ 'the Legendarium of the Fathers of Men' (X:373).

2) According to the Q. Rule of Apposition, "in the case of two declinable
names in apposition, only the last is declined"; hence _*Elendil Voronda_
'Elendil the Faithful', gen. _Elendil Vorondo_ (UT:305, 317 n.43). Another
example of this occurs in _Namna Finwe Miiriello_ 'the Statute of Finwe and
Miiriel' (X:258). In _Finwe Miiriello_ 'of Finwe and Miiriel' only the last
name is declined, although _both_ genitivally modify _Namna_ 'Statute'. Also
notable here is that the conjunction _ar_ 'and' is implied but not
expressed.

It appears, then, that _Anaxartaron Onyalie_ 'of the Ents and the Eagles',
like _Finwe Miiriello_ 'of Finwe and Miiriel', is a phrase consisting of two
appositional nouns, with only one of the nouns explicitly declined for the
genitive and with _ar_ 'and' implied but not expressed. The reason why the
_first_ noun in _Anaxartaron Onyalie_ is declined rather than the last (as
one would expect according to the Rule of Apposition) is probably due to the
fact that the noun that these genitives modify is implied rather than
explicitly present (_quenta_ 'account', _nyarna_ 'legend', etc.). In the
titles of literary works it is usual for a genitive to follow the noun
modified, e.g., _Quenta Silmarillion_, _Yeenie Valinooreo_ 'The Annals of
Valinor' (X:200), _Indis i-Kiryamo_ 'The Mariner's Wife' (UT:8), _Heru
i-Million_ 'The Lord of the Rings' (PE10:46 n.40) -- so if the last form in
'Of the Ents and the Eagles' were declined, say _**Anaxartar Onyalieeva_,
this would appear to mean **'The Eagles of the Ents'. Similarly, if the
existing forms were reversed, _**Onyalie Anaxartaron_ would seemingly mean
**_The Ents of the Eagles'. Declining the first noun for the genitive in
this title rather than the second makes it clear that a preceding but
unexpressed noun _quenta_ or _nyarna_ is to be understood: _*(Quenta)
Anaxartaron Onyalie_ '(Account) of the Ents and the Eagles'. This may be
viewed as a refinement or elaboration of the Rule of Apposition, rather than
as a contradiction of it.

* * * * * * * * * *

NOTE ON _SK_ > _KS_ (_X_)

Metathesis of earlier medial _*-sk-_ > _-ks- (sometimes spelled _-x-_) is an
attested but irregularly occurring development in Quenya. In the
_Etymologies_, for example, may be found MISK- > _miksa_ 'wet' and MASAG-
'knead' > _*mazgaa_ > _maksa_ 'pliant, soft' (i.e., presumably _*mazgaa_ >
_*maska_ > _maksa_), beside EZGE- 'rustle, noise of leaves' > _eske_ in
which metathesis does not occur -- though this entry was struck out (V:373,
371, 357). The later corpus is equally contradictory; a note associated with
the c. 1968 essay "The Shibboleth of Feanor" cites C.E. _(u)rus_ 'brownish
red' > _rusko_ 'a fox', _ruskuite_ 'foxy' (VT41:10), while the Valarin form
_Maachananashkaad_ 'Doom-ring' (from "Quendi and Eldar", c. 1960) was
phonetically adapted into Q. as _Maahanaxar_, with V. _-shk-_ > (presumably)
_*-sk-_ > Q. _-ks-_ (_-x-_).

Many more examples of this disparity occur in QL, e.g., M(B)ASA- 'cook,
bake' > _maksa-_ 'cook' vs. MASA(2) 'dusk' > _maska_ 'dusky, misty'
(PE12:59). This issue is addressed in the accompanying Qenya Phonology,
which states: "An 's' transposition period must be assumed that must be held
to have been early discontinued and to have been uncertain in its area". It
is also said there that "_sc_ > _x_ is commoner than _sc_." (PE12:19) The
apparent irregularity of metathesis of _-sk-_ > _-ks-_ in the _Etymologies_
and later may have a similar explanation.

* * * * * * * * * *

-- Patrick Wynne

On 6/9/02 6:47 PM, "Patrick Wynne" <pwynne@...> wrote:

> Metathesis of earlier medial _*-sk-_ > _-ks- (sometimes spelled _-x-_) is an
> attested but irregularly occurring development in Quenya.... This issue is
> addressed in the accompanying Qenya Phonology, which states: "An 's'
> transposition period must be assumed that must be held to have been early
> discontinued and to have been uncertain in its area". It is also said there
> that "_sc_ > _x_ is commoner than _sc_." (PE12:19) The apparent irregularity
> of metathesis of _-sk-_ > _-ks-_ in the _Etymologies_ and later may have a
> similar explanation.

Indeed, it is not unusual for metathesis to exhibit variable application in
real languages.  In Old English, for example, metathesized and
non-metathesized versions of words occur even within the same text. As forms
of the word _fisc_ 'fish' (Gothic _fisks_), the poem _Andreas_ has both
_fisces_ gen. sg. and _fixum_ (_x_ -= _ks_) dat. pl. The pl. _fixas_ also
occurs (and _dixas_ 'dishes', _muxle_ 'muscle', _tux_ 'tusk', _waxan_
'wash', and many others beside). The doublet _acsian_, _ascian_ 'ask' is
particularly well-known. Other doublets include _aepse_/_aespe_ 'aspen',
_cops_/_cosp_ 'fetter', and _wlips_/_wlisp_ 'lisping' (all < *_sp_); and
_waesp_/_waeps_ 'wasp' (< *_ps_).


|======================================================================|
| 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."   |
|======================================================================|

--- In lambengolmor@y..., Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@m...> wrote:

> Was the question about nasal vowels in the sense of syllabic nasals
> (syllabic /m/, /n/, /N/, etc.), or about nasal vowels in the sense
> of nasalised vowels (nasalised /a/, /e/, /o/, etc.)?  I understood it
> as referring to the latter.

I meant nasalised vowels, indeed. Let's illustrate it by an example
from  PIE (cf. http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/phonetics/word4.html):
The root *wed-/*wod-, *wed-r- (meaning wet, water) has some cognates
with infixed -n-, like "unda" (wave) in Latin, or "vanduo" in
Lithuanian. Could it be that the proto-vowel was nasal? Since the
vowel could have a different quality in different derivations (vowel
gradation), it's clear that only some forms would have the nasal infix
later, when the nasal character was lost.

Let's have a look at some examples from Quenya:

ID- has the derivation _iire_ (desire) without nasal infixion, and
_indo_ (heart, mood) with an infixed -n-. (Etym., LR p. 401). This
could be explained by the different quality of the vowel in
Proto-Eldarin.

Quenya doesn't have noticable traces of vowel gradation (if you don't
count the "irregular vocalism" in MEL- > _maalo_), but since it's
present in Sindarin, we must assume that it was present in PE, too.
It should be emphasized that I'm speaking of nasal vowels in PE here:
Quenya and Sindarin have almost the same nasal infixions, so the
change to normal vowel + nasal consonant must have happened before the
splitting of both lines of development, or at the same time (BAT- >
_bâd_ in EN, _vanta_ in Q, LR p. 390).

I have to admit that the theory may very well share the fate of other
theories which
1. are elegant,
2. explain a lot of facts,
3. are utterly wrong.

There's Occam's razor: it may be that we don't need the assumption,
because there are simpler explanations. In the entry AD- in Etym. (LR,
p. 385) _ando_ is derived from _*adno_, so the nasal infix comes from
a suffix (?) through metathesis. But then, it may be that the suffix
would be _-do_ without the nasal character of the stem. :-)

I know it's speculative, but I was reminded of Old Church Slavonian
with its open syllables, its short final vowel -i, and the nasal
vowels, explaining the "rebyonok/rebyata" (child/children) in Russian.

Hans

The theory could explain why otherwise similar roots developed with or
without nasal infixes: