On 02.11.2003, at 17:58, Pavel Iosad wrote:

> Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
>> In regard to the "'controversy'" whether Sindarin verbs with no person
>> marker present should better be called "3rd.sg." forms or "personless"
>> forms, I'd like to question the relevance of both terms.
> [...]

I think it is very relevant as we are dealing with two different
entities. Clearly, they coincide in form (seemingly, I'll write more on
that later) but not in function. So, they should be called what they
are according to their respective function in a sentence. Surely, it
doesn't make sense to call _echant_ in "Im... echant" a 3rd sg.,
because it isn't.

> This is indeed a question of terminology. Personally, I'd
> vote for 'unmarked' or '{un|under}specified'. It would mean that an
> underspecified form such as _tôg_ or _echant_ will be interpreted as a
> 3sg. form, unless there are indications of the contrary (i. e. an overt
> non-3rd person pronoun). Carl's 'personless' runs along these lines,
> but is somewhat confusing: 'personless' vs. 'impersonal'.

I'd stick with 'personless' as the best term for reasons pretty much
along the line with what Carl has said. 'Unmarked' doesn't seem to fit
as it does not mean 'lacking a marker' but rather 'not unusual', 'not
sticking out'. 'Underspecified' conveys (to me) the notion of 'lacking
a substantial marker', which is not the case. 'Unspecified' doesn't
work because the forms  are specified, just not for person, hence
'personless'.

Lastly, 'impersonal' is indeed in use for similar forms but should be
avoided because it is too ambiguous. In fact, it does not only refer to
things like "it is raining" but also to French/German "on voit/man
sieht", Spanish "se nota", Breton "greer", OldIndic "vidé" etc..

David Kiltz

Quoting Pavel Iosad <edricson@...>:

> Neither are overt pronouns and agreement markers in complementary
> distribution in Sindarin: cf._le linnon im Tinúviel_ (IV:354). The
> subject is not exactly 'prefixed', but this seems to present a
> counterexample to Andreas' hypothesis.

Indeed it does. (Standard disclaimer; in at least one moment in time, Tolkien
appears to have envisioned Sindarin not to work like I assumed!)

But as "Im ... echant" demonstrates, they're not simply obligatory agreement
endings either.

I did not actually suggest the forms be called "unsuffixed" - in the past
tense, these verbs of course commonly display a _tense_ suffix - but "without
a suffixed pronoun", which we would surely shorten as "pronounless" or some
such. I still think this is an acceptable conclusion - Pavel's example may
perhaps be interpreted as having a duplicated pronoun for emphasis - but if
the choice is between "3rd sg" and "personless", I think the later is the less
confusing option.

                                                                  Andreas

Yesterday night I was thinking of the Noldorin word _nad_ 'thing'
(Etym. s.v. NÂ2-) and it came to me that it could be a gerund form
of a verb *_na-_ 'to be': thus *'being' > 'thing'. What do you think?

Lucy

[I think such a form might have come to be interpreted as a gerund,
though the fact that it is clearly cognate with Q _nat_ 'thing' (same
entry), which looks rather like an extended, nominalized formation
than a Qenya gerund, suggests that N _nad_ was probably not
gerundial in origin. Note the somewhat similar Quenya word _eala_
'being, spirit', apparently a participial formation in _-la_ <
_ea_ 'to be, exist' (X:165). CFH]

Andreas Johansson wrote: "This would seem to suggest that it is
better thought of as a cliticized pronoun than a person agreement
marker."

Yes I quite agree.  I do not see it particuarily necessary that
Sindarin be a rich agreement language like Spanish or Italian.

Pavel wrote: "_tôg_ or _echant_ will be interpreted as a 3sg. form,
unless there are indications of the contrary (i. e. an overt non-3rd
person pronoun".

Pavel, I quite agree with you here as well.  Though this does bring
up several questions.  First, why would you need such seemingly
double forms (both synthetic and analytic)?  If such is possible,
would there be a semantic difference?  An emphatic essence perhaps
(though one would expect both inflection and a pronoun)?  Secondly,
what about the possible aorist forms that we see - how do they fit
in here (or do they at all?).  [WJ/254, WJ/30]

[I think the question of "need" is not compellingly relevant in natural
languages, all of which have, no doubt, features that could be
dispensed with without loss of expressive power. CFH]

What is also, perhaps, of use to note here is that Tolkien talks
about _-so_, _-se_ gender inflections on verbs.  I can only assume that
this was in reference to the third person.   What this means I don't
have a clue - but perhaps it is an indication that the idea of a
cliticized pronoun is most accurate (as these forms would correspond
to the assumed "Noldorin Pronouns" of the Etym. s.v. S-).

David Kiltz wrote: "Surely, it doesn't make sense to call _echant_
in "Im... echant" a 3rd sg., because it isn't".

Can we be sure of that?  I'm not so sure that this is set in stone.
Tolkien gives us an english translation of "I" for _im_ but that
does not necessarily imply that this has a direct correlation with
Sindarin (I would in fact expect such a nominative pronoun form to
be _ni_ [cf. Etym NI2-]).  _Im_ is, in my opinion, an emphatic and/or
reflexive form of sorts.  Perhaps we have some interesting
phenomena with co-arguementation or binding that is
throwing us off here ... though that of course doesn't imply that
this isn't first person either.  I just sense that the structure
here is much deeper than an "I made" with an appositive thrown in
there (though I am most likely wrong ;-) )

Anyway, just some thoughts that aren't nearly organized yet.. =)

Aaron Shaw

Question: are there any known primary world languages that, in a construction
like "I, Narvi, made ...", would use a 3rd sg verb, because the appositional
noun is treated like the antecedent?

                                                                Andreas

On 04.11.2003, at 23:54, Aaron Shaw wrote:

> Tolkien gives us an english translation of "I" for _im_ but that
> does not necessarily imply that this has a direct correlation with
> Sindarin (I would in fact expect such a nominative pronoun form to
> be _ni_ [cf. Etym NI2-]).  _Im_ is, in my opinion, an emphatic and/or
> reflexive form of sorts.

Well, we have _anim_ 'for myself' [LRIII:423] and again in the above
sentence Tolkien translates _im_ as 'I', also, in Luthien's chant we
find "...le linnon im Tinúviel" [III:354]. No translation is given here
but the sentence can hardly mean anything but 'to thee I sing, I,
Tinúviel'. _Im_ here is in agreement with the 1st sg. pr. _linnon_ 'I
sing'. _Im_ may well be used emphatically, or be an emphatic form but
that doesn't change the meaning of 'pronoun of the 1st sg.' one bit. I
think one should not be misled by English "myself" as that is clearly a
compound = "my self". In Gilraen's _linnod_ "myself" is used as a variant
of 'me'. Still, even in Modern English (correct me if I'm wrong) you
wouldn't say **"myself writes this inscription" but rather "I, myself,
*write* this inscription". I think it's unlikely to the utmost that _im_
denotes anything but a 1st. sg. and not just 'self', 'atman' or the
like.

Lastly, _im_ cannot be a reflexive as far as I can see, as "Narvi made
myself them" doesn't make any sense. Note that "myself" in a phrase
like "I myself washed it" is not a reflexive but an emphatic. In
"I washed myself" _myself_ is a reflexive.

Lastly, I wouldn't expect the casus rectus (nominative) of the 1. sg.
pronoun to be _ni_ as the attested form in Quenya is _inye_ possessive
_-(i)nya_. Besides _anim_, only oblique forms show _ni-_ (cf. S. _nin_
(for) me [LRII:425], _nín_ 'my' [UT:40] and _enni_ '(to) me' [VT41:11]).
Admittedly, the _-m_ in _im_ looks a little problematic. Theoretically,
it could be e.g. < _*in-bV_. Still, the evidence seems to suggest that
_im_ is the 1. sg. pronoun. As it is not obligatory in Sindarin, it serves,
when used, as an emphatic.

David Kiltz

--- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Johansson <andjo@f...>
wrote:

> like "I, Narvi, made ...", would use a 3rd sg verb, because the
> appositional noun is treated like the antecedent?

I think _im_ is here treated as the determiner of _Narvi_, so I find
it quite possible that _Narvi_ would be the "true" antecedent.  I
don't think it's possible for a determiner to be an antecedent.  Or
can it be?

Aaron Shaw

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

> _Im_ may well be used emphatically, or be an emphatic form but
> that doesn't change the meaning of 'pronoun of the 1st sg.' one
>bit.

Oh, I quite agree.  I was not trying to imply such.  But it is good
to see that we agree that _im_ could very well be an emphatic form.

>I think one should not be misled by English "myself" as that is
>clearly a compound = "my self".

Yes, and _anim_ is clearly a compound of _an_ + _im_.  I don't
expect _im_ to indicate "self" as in the English equivalent. You bring
up some very good points, so it seems clear to me now that we are
dealing with a 1st person form (which I never ruled out before, just
questioned).  What would be interesting to know is whether Sindarin
verbal "inflections" are an agreement phenomenon or a clitized
pronoun.  If this were to be a cliticized pronoun that would suggest a
nominative, or casus rectus as you put it, form  _ni_.

> Lastly, _im_ cannot be a reflexive as far as I can see, as "Narvi made
> myself them" doesn't make any sense.

Yes, quite right.  I was quite wrong here.

> Lastly, I wouldn't expect the casus rectus (nominative) of the 1. sg.
> pronoun to be _ni_ as the attested form in Quenya is _inye_ possessive
> -(i)nya_.

Oh, very interesting.  I'm not sure that we can be compare these languages
so closely though in this case.  They are separate entities and deserve to
be treated as such, even if they do share a common origin.  I see no
reason why pronouns in an agglutinating language would have to
resemble those of a more analytic tongue.


Aaron Shaw

On 05.11.2003, at 08:35, Andreas Johansson wrote:

> Question: are there any known primary world languages that, in a
> construction like "I, Narvi, made ...", would use a 3rd sg verb, because
> the appositional noun is treated like the antecedent?

Not that I know of, if you mean something like +"I, Narvi has made
them" but cf. below for a possible explanation.

To me it seems that as the primary reference is to the subject in the
1. person, a 'taking over' of the apposition would be self-contradictory.
Just as in a sentence like "Thou, Jesus, king of the Jews" both appositions
"Jesus" and "king of the Jews" are (in that particular sentence!) 2nd sg. as
they are subordinate to the primary subject "Thou". The whole thing
changes when the actual reference of the verb is something else, namely a
relative pronoun. Cf. below on Breton.

There are languages that do not mark person at all in the verb. Cf., e.g.
Japanese _iku_ 'XY go(es)' depending on what pronoun you use with it
or, indeed, simply the context.

Also, there are Celtic languages that have somewhat similar
constructions. Cf. Modern Irish _tá mé/tú/sé_ 'I am, you are, he is'
where _tá_ is formally = 3rd sg..

This isn't, however, exactly the situation in Sindarin. Maybe this
comes closer: In Breton there is a "conjugaison impersonelle":

_Me a skriv_
_Te a skriv_
_Eñ a skriv_
_ni/c'hwi/i a skriv

which looks a bit like Sindarin. Historically that is '(It is) me who
writes' = I write. Interestingly this has been leveled so that in the
plural the form is still only _skriv_. This form is used when the subject
precedes the verb. Otherwise you have e.g. _eun istor a skrivan_
'I write a story'.

Perhaps in Sindarin a similar development is to be assumed: _Im hain
echant_ for older *_Im i hain echant_ '(It is) I who made them', with
_i_ being left out to avoid confusion between an explicative and a
restrictive relative sentence: *_Firn guinar_ (< *_Firn i guinar_?) 'Dead
live' vs _Firn i guinar_ 'The (particular) dead that live'. Possibly also,
two different relative pronouns where used. So, maybe, likewise
_Im echant_ (< *_im i echant_). Sindarin, like Breton, seems to use
fronting of the personal pronoun as a means to denote emphasis: I,
Narvi ... made ....

David Kiltz

On 05.11.2003, at 17:32, Aaron Shaw wrote:

>> Lastly, I wouldn't expect the casus rectus (nominative) of the 1. sg.
>> pronoun to be _ni_ as the attested form in Quenya is _inye_ possessive
>> -(i)nya_.
>
> Oh, very interesting.  I'm not sure that we can be compare these
> languages so closely though in this case.  They are separate entities and
> deserve to be treated as such, even if they do share a common origin.
> I see no reason why pronouns in an agglutinating language would have to
> resemble those of a more analytic tongue.

Certainly they are separate entities. Yet, I believe it is justified to
compare them because they are 'genetically' related. The typological
difference (which isn't really all that big, cf. S. _guren_ 'my heart'
with Q. _órenya_ [VT41:11]) doesn't matter here I think. Note that
independent pronouns aren't effected by 'agglutination vs analysis'.
E.g. Turkish has the independent pronouns _ben, sen, o_ 'I, you,
he/she/it' just as an analytical language, say English. Compare also
English, an 'analytical' (or even isolating') IE language, with Old Indic
which is rather more agglutinative (inflective). The similarity of the
pronouns is there because these languages are historically related,
that is, have sprung from one root. Eng. _I_, Thou < PIE _*eg'oH_,
_*tuH_ and Old Indic _aham, _tvam_ < PIE _*eg'H-om_, *_tu(H)-om_.
Typology doesn't bear on this matter, as far as I can see.

> What would be interesting to know is whether Sindarin
> verbal "inflections" are an agreement phenomenon or a clitized
> pronoun.  If this were to be a cliticized pronoun that would suggest a
> nominative, or casus rectus as you put it, form  _ni_.

I don't know whether I understand you right. Historically, verbal
endings have their origin in pronouns (clitics). Inflecting languages
don't normally employ an independent pronoun with a verb unless the
endings have been worn down to a certain degree. In the latter case
languages tend to make the use of independent pronouns with a verb
obligatory. Still, inflecting languages and thus inflected verbs do
agree with the subject of the sentence. So, actually, it's an agreement
phenomenon + they are (originally) cliticized pronouns (or forms
thereof). So, Sindarin has its 1. sg. verbal marker in -n.

But no, as far as I know, Sindarin doesn't attach forms of the
independent pronoun to the verb (inflected or not) synchronically. That
means, while the ending _-n_ would be related to _nin_, _enni_ etc., it
is not the synchronical equivalent of the independent pronoun 'I' in
Sindarin.

David Kiltz

Quoting Aaron Shaw <lemnas@...>:
> What would be interesting to know is whether Sindarin
> verbal "inflections" are an agreement phenomenon or a clitized
> pronoun.

I think Pavel has demonstrated to satisfaction that there is no simple answer
to that question - either Tolkien changed the rules, or the rules are, well,
intricate. Or both, of course.

                                                             Andreas

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

>Yet, I believe it is justified to compare them because they
>are 'genetically' related.

>The similarity of the pronouns is there because these languages are
>historically related, that is, have sprung from one root.

Both true statements.  It just makes one (perhaps just me as I know
much less than I wish ;)) wonder whether these similarities might
also be misleading.  Unless we can theoretically "unlayer" a word, so
to speak, who can say what suffixes, infixes, etc. might have occured
in one language and not the other.  I suppose I am merely
questioning our _knowledge_ of how Quenya and Sindarin pronouns are
to be derived.  I personally don't know much about this - are we
fairly sure in our knowledge of how these forms were derived? (both
morphologically and semantically?).  I just am not sure whether a
suffix on a quenya pronoun would make that much of a difference in
the derivation of a Sindarin form. =)

[It is indeed a dangerous thing to assume that any particular feature,
of Quenya, phonological, morphological, semantic, or otherwise,
will have a direct cognate in Sindarin, as, to pick just a few examples,
the example of Q. _esse_ 'name' but S. _eneth_ 'name' in Tolkien's
translations of the Lord's Prayer, the plural _-r_ of Quenya nouns, or
the future-tense marker Q _-(u)va_ but S _-ath-_, show. CFH]

>Inflecting languages don't normally employ an independent pronoun
>with a verb unless the endings have been worn down to a certain
>degree.

Yes, "pro-drop" or rich inflectional languages versus modern English
for example.  I am just curious whether these "personless" forms
originally were derived from a clitic + verb (or later inflection)
with a later loss of an agreement morpheme, or whether these are
entirely differing forms that at no point in time were inflected.

> But no, as far as I know, Sindarin doesn't attach forms of the
> independent pronoun to the verb (inflected or not) synchronically.

No, I wouldn't assume so either.

>it is not the synchronical equivalent of the independent
>pronoun 'I' in Sindarin.

An old _ni_ inflection would be, which after vowel dropping has
become _-n_.  This suggests to me that the only true "nominative"
forms were archaic ("Sindarin" as we know it then seemingly lacking
true "nominative" forms?) and that all others (currenly _im_?) are
emphatic - syntactically and possibly in form as well.  While
certainly emphatic forms retain the person, I just am not sure
whether they can truly be treated as normal "pronouns" in both
interpretation or syntax.  I don't know much about the diachronic
views on modern romance languages but they must be similar in
development?  Does anyone know more about these?

Aaron Shaw

On 05.11.2003, at 21:51, Aaron Shaw wrote:

> Unless we can theoretically "unlayer" a word, so to speak, who
> can say what suffixes, infixes, etc. might have occured in one
> language and not the other

I perfectly agree. I adduced Q. _inye_ etc. solely because you had
suggested that a 1. sg. in Sindarin should be _ni-_ referring to the
entry NI2- in _The Etymologies_. I simply wanted to illustrate that the
order of elements nasal+vowel isn't irreversible. Of course, the fact
that Q. has _inye_ doesn't prove anything for Sindarin.

On the other hand it is known that 1st and 2nd person pronouns
(especially singular) tend to be very archaic.

David Kiltz

[While I agree with David's statement in general, it isn't clear to me
that _inye_ exhibits the reversibility of CV- (and VC-) bases. Rather,
it appears that the basic element is modified, not reversed, to _-nye_,
and the _sundóma_ _i_ prefixed. Note that _elye_ seems also to be
formed in this same manner. CFH]

On 06.11.2003, at 08:51, Carl Hostetter wrote:

> While I agree with David's statement in general, it isn't clear to me
> that _inye_ exhibits the reversibility of CV- (and VC-) bases. Rather,
> it appears that the basic element is modified, not reversed, to _-nye_,
> and the _sundóma_ _i_ prefixed. Note that _elye_ seems also to be
> formed in this same manner. CFH]

Quite. 'Seemingly reversible' might have been better. I meant to say
that _iN_ (N = any nasal) is quite possible, whatever the exact process
that leads to that form. Indeed, I think Carl's suggestion is a very
good idea. So in _elye_ you would assume influence of the 1st person
pronoun? In strict analogy we would expect _+ele_ <_*elê_ <_*ele-e_,
wouldn't we?

[As my friend and colleague Christopher Gilson once observed,
"Go not to the Lambengolmor for counsel, for they will say both
perhaps and maybe". CFH]

While not noted as such in _The Etymologies_, we might have cases of a
stem that is virtually INI, ELE with the possibility of left and right
branching vowels. Just as e.g. ANA 2/NÁ 2 which yields _ná_ 'is', _nat_
'thing' and _anwa_ 'actual, true' [V:348/374].

As for the 'm' in S. _im_, there is, perhaps, a faint possibility that
it has been influenced by the 1st pl. That would, however, be
typologically unusual.

David Kiltz

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

> Petri Tikka wrote (on the subject of Qenya words similar to Finnish):
>
>> _kantl_ 'a large harp', _kantele_ 'harping' (45) | kantele 'harp'
>
[...]
>
> With this, one has to compare Welsh _cathl_ 'hymn, lay, song'. Together
> wth [Old] Irish _cétal_ it points to an earlier *_knt-l-_ (syllabic
> nasals yield -en- in Goidelic, hence *kentl- > *kétl- > *kédl > kédal
> (orthographic _cétal_)). Now these two words [*_kntl_ and _kantele_] do
> show a remarkable similarity, both in the form and content (surely the
> meanings are akin).

Specifically, Tolkien would have encountered this Celtic etymology in
J. Morris Jones's _Welsh Grammar_ (pp. 17, 150), with mention also of
a variant Irish form _céol_; Breton _kentel_ 'lesson'; and
interestingly enough Old Welsh _centh(i)liat_ 'singer', a gloss of
Lat. _canorum_.  The second (principal) mention is in connection with
his explanatation of the development of original nasal + stop +
resonant combinations like -ntl-, which brings out the connection of
these words with the root *_kan-_ 'to sing': Lat. _canere_, W _canu_,
etc.

If my interpretation of the Naffarin verse is correct -- message 492
-- then this particular sound-sense association was long-standing in
Tolkien's private language, with Naff. _cangor (luttos)_ = *'song,
poetry'.  So the combined resemblance with Finn. _kantele_, _kantelo_
'harp' would certainly have attracted Tolkien's attention.

The earlier mention of these forms by Jones is in connection with the
"inorganic _y_" that appears in certain Middle Welsh word-final
consonant combinations, as in _pobyl_ for _pobl_ 'people'.  In Old
Welsh the spelling is _i_ (there is an Early Middle Welsh attestation
of _cathil_ = _cathl_) and the sound can occur medially, as in
_centhiliat_.  This is remarkable because QL seems to have certain
forms with an _i_ that have a similar "inorganic" origin and in a
context phonetically similar to the pattern of _centh(i)liat_:
_evandilyon_ 'gospel' (beside _evandl_ 'Christian missionary'); and
_Earendilyon_ 'sailor' = *'son of Earendl' (beside _Earendl_ "the
wanderer").

Qenya forms ending in an _-e_ that alternates with _-i-_ when followed
by an inflection at least sometimes reflect an earlier form in _-y-_
(or consonantal _i_) followed by a reduced vowel (schwa), as stated
explicitly for QL _ande_ 'long' and _ore_ 'seed, grain'.  So to the
extent that _kantele_ is structurally equivalent to *_kantely-_ +
schwa, we can see its first _e_ as phonotactically comparable to the
_i_ of _evandilyon_.  Thus its relation to _kantl_ is comparable to
the relation of _evandilyon_ to _evandl_.  Since the inorganic vowel
has no inherent quality, we can suppose that its actual realization is
assimilated to the following vowel or semivowel, according to the
latter's ultimate realization.  The pair _kantl_, _kantele_ is
comparable to _mantl_ 'glove' beside _mantele_ 'gauntlet'; and
rejected _qintl_ or _-ele_ 'a lyre'.

> I think it possible to suggest that here we see a reflection of
> Tolkien's early conception of the Elvish languages as a sort of
> 'mediators' between the language of North-Western Europe. The words in
> Celtic and Finnish are, to the best of my knowledge, unrelated, but
> Tolkien supplies a story-internal explanation for the perceived
> similarity.
>
> Or is it just wishful thinking?

As to whether W _cathl_ and Finn. _kantele_ are *actually* related, I
can only note that Aimo Turunen in his _Kalevalan Sanat ja Niiden
Taustat_ explains the latter as "joko baltt[ilainen], vrt. liett[uan]
_kãnklis_, tai omaper. _kansi_, _kanta_-sanoihin liittyvä nimitys."  I
don't know what all of this says literally (perhaps Petri or our other
Finnish-speaking members can illucidate further), but I think Turunen
is suggesting a connection either with Lithuanian _kãnklis_ (I also
don't know the meaning or etymology of this), or else with Finn.
_kansi_ 'lid, cover; deck (of ship)' or _kanta_ 'base; heel (of shoe);
head (of nail)'.

But I do agree with Pavel that Tolkien must have imagined a common
Elvish origin as the explanation for the resemblance between W _cathl_
'song' and Finn. _kantele_ 'harp'.  This is especially suggested by
the fact that Q (_kantil_ 'a small harp' >>) _kantl_ 'a large harp' is
closer in form to W _cathl_ (Early MW _cathil_) 'song', while Q
_kantele_ 'harping' is equivalent in form to Finn. _kantele_ 'harp'.
Apparently then, Tolkien intended to suggest that these various
concepts and forms developed from a single original.

And indeed, if we imagine the typical context in which all of these
concepts have a role, i.e. the performance of a song or recital of a
poem together with the playing of a harp, then each of these -- the
harp, the song, and the playing -- is *instrumental* to the overall
purpose of the presumably underlying verbal concept, which is to
convey the sense of the song or poem to the listener.  Perhaps the
various Q. forms in both _-l_ and _-ele_ are to be seen as
instrumentals derived ultimately from an enclitic application of the
form _le_ 'with' (accompaniment).


-- Christopher Gilson

Christopher Gilson wrote:

>As to whether W _cathl_ and Finn. _kantele_ are *actually* related, I
>can only note that Aimo Turunen in his _Kalevalan Sanat ja Niiden
>Taustat_ explains the latter as "joko baltt[ilainen], vrt. liett[uan]
>_kãnklis_, tai omaper. _kansi_, _kanta_-sanoihin liittyvä nimitys."  I
>don't know what all of this says literally (perhaps Petri or our other
>Finnish-speaking members can illucidate further)

You got the idea, Chris.  Turunen's statement means: "a name [or
term] connected with either Baltic,  cf. Lithuanian _kãnklis_, or
original [i.e. native Finnish] _kansi_, _kanta_-words."

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

              Perilme metto aimaktur perperienta.
                                          --Elvish proverb
*********************************************************************

Version 3, revised after very instructive discussions with several
tolkiendili, has been published at
http://www.geocities.com/otsoandor/FTMME.htm

At 02:10 PM 11/5/03 +0100, David Kiltz wrote:
>On 04.11.2003, at 23:54, Aaron Shaw wrote:
>
>Still, even in Modern English (correct me if I'm wrong) you
>wouldn't say **"myself writes this inscription" but rather "I, myself,
>*write* this inscription".

...well, perhaps more likely, "I, myself, write inscriptions," "I, myself,
am writing this inscription," or "I, myself, wrote this inscription."

But **"myself writes this inscription" reminds me of the dialectal English
ascribed to Irish speakers and commonly found in folk texts, where "myself"
stands for Gaelic _mise_. Yet that too is emphatic rather than reflexive.

+-------------------------+
+ Airesseo Kolvorno       +
+ Jerome Colburn          +
+ jcolburn@...     +
+-------------------------+
"Do you not be happy with me as the translator of the books of you?" -- New
Yorker cartoon

There has been further discussion of the Noldorin past-tense verb
_mudas_ *'laboured, toiled', continuing topics first broached on this
list, on the Elfling discussion list (with a further contribution from
myself made on the Elfling-d discussion list, since David Salo banned
me from Elfling). Here is a list of links to the relevant posts, in the
order they appeared:

  From Patrick H. Wynne:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/27382

  From Helge K. Fauskanger:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/27425

  From Patrick H. Wynne:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/27429

  From David Salo:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/27459

  From Patrick H. Wynne:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/27463

  From Carl F. Hostetter:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling-d/message/88

  From Helge K. Fauskanger:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/27487

  From Patrick H. Wynne:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/27491

Carl F. Hostetter posted a slew of links to posts from an Elfling thread about
_mudas_ as the somewhat unexpected past tense of _mudo-_ in Etym. I do not
at the moment have anything relevant to say on that topic, but I'd like to
comment on one of Carl's tangential comments in said thread, namely:

> For that matter, what "historical explanation" can David offer for the plural
> ending in _-r_ in Quenya? None, in fact, because it is a Quenya innovation.

I assume Carl is talking about the nominal pl. ending _-r_, because as Carl is
perfectly aware the verbal pl. _-r_ is well attested in both Quenya and
Sindarin, strongly suggesting that is inherited from Common Eldarin.

I have repeatedly suggested that the Q nominal -r is not an innovation "out of
thin air", but simply the verbal ending applied also to nouns. Whether JRRT
actually imagined this way is now, as far as I am aware, impossible to say,
but one might well think it represents an "historical explanation".

                                                          Andreas


[Andreas is right that I was referring to the Quenya nominal general plural
ending
_-r_. And his suggestion that this _-r_ might have arisen from the verbal
personless plural ending is indeed a strong possibility (and has in fact been
bandied about by Tolkienian linguists for decades now). But in the specific
context
in which I wrote my comment, even this hypothesis does not seem to represent
sufficient "historical explanation" for this _-r_ of the sort David Salo
requires for
the Noldorin pa.t. ending _-as_; for if it did then he could, for example,
similarly
suppose that _-as_ arose as a verbal application of the ending *_-ssê_ evidenced
in Eldarin abstract nouns, or that it represents a remnant of a long form in
*_-ss-_
of the apparent 3rd sg. ending *_-s_ seen in ON _persôs_ 'it affects, concerns'
(< PERES-). No such verbal application of *_-ssê_ or application or long-form
3rd sg.
pronominal ending is evidenced in Quenya or elsewhere in Noldorin (at least, not
that I can think of at the moment, please correct me if I'm wrong), but that in
no way
exlcudes the possibility that such existed in Eldarin or arose independently in
Noldorin. The point being, and remaining, that mere absence of an obvious or
secure
"historical explanation" evidenced by more than one language does not render a
grammatical form or feature anomalous, and certainly not erroneous, despite
David's
apparent argument that it does. CFH]

Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

> [Andreas's] suggestion that this _-r_ might have arisen from the verbal
> personless plural ending is indeed a strong possibility (and has in fact been
> bandied about by Tolkienian linguists for decades now).

That's interesting to know - when I first brought up the topic on Elfling a
few years ago, I did, as far as I can recall, not get any indication the idea
wasn't new. (The original context, BTW, was what ending Amanya Telerin may
use on verbs - Helge's Ardalambion article at the time suggested _-i_, which I
found unlikely given that Q and S both have _-r_. Has any evidence on this
come to light in the years since?)

[You'll have to remember that there have been at least three distinct
generational "waves" of Tolkienian linguists, starting with those centered
around _Parma Eldalamberon_, Robert Foster's _Guide to Middle-earth_,
and Jim Allan's _An Introduction to Elvish_ back in the '70s, including such
still-active scholars as Christopher Gilson and Bill Welden; then joined by
those participating in _Quettar_ and (later) _Vinyar Tengwar_ in the '80s
and '90s, including myself, Arden Smith, and Patrick Wynne; and finally
those participating primarily on the Internet in the latter half of the '90s
until the present, including Helge Fauskanger and (to a much lesser extent,
at least overtly) David Salo. Most of those who joined the endeavor only with
the rise of the Internet seem quite unaware of their predecessors, the true
pioneers of the field; a blindered view unfortunately fostered by the most
vocal participants and founders of the main Internet fora. CFH]

Regarding possible "historical explanations" of _-as_: Since no explanation
not coming from JRRT can be regarded as certain, the issue is, or ought to be,
whether we can offer a probable historical explanation. While nominal _-r_ <
verbal _-r_ seems a convincing enough explanation to me, I can't think of any
convincing one for a past ending _-as_. Now I, unlike David apparently, do
not see this as much of a problem - as you've mentioned there's quite enough
Sindarin endings of whose origins we can say very little - but I do think
there's
a difference.

[Agreed on all counts. I ought to have noted that I didn't offer those ideas as
real proposals, only as illustrative examples of the sorts of explanations one
might offer for consideration. CFH]

> The point being, and remaining, that mere absence of an obvious or secure
> "historical explanation" evidenced by more than one language does not render
> a grammatical form or feature anomalous, and certainly not erroneous, despite
> David's  apparent argument that it does.

I certainly agree on that. I'd still consider _mudas_ rather 'anomalous' -
despite Patrick's listing of more-or-less similar forms, it remains an isolate
within the Noldorin of _The Etymologies_.

[I think it is generally unwarranted to assume that sparsely or even uniquely
attested formations _in languages that are themselves sparsely attested_, of
which the Noldorin of _Etymologies_ is one (and Sindarin of _The Lord of the
Rings_ even more so), are necessarily isolates. They may only appear to be
such due to the selective vagaries of records preservation (and, in the case of
invented art-languages, of records _production_). Moreover, the idea that such
things as linguistic isolation need to be decided and declared, one way or
another, arises only when one departs from language description, and begins
to construct rules purporting to prescribe what is "normal": itself a comically
absurd thing to do for any sparsely-attested language. CFH]

                                               Andreas

I'm sending this message to let the readers of and subscribers to
_Vinyar Tengwar_ know of some changes that are being made effective
immediately.

With the rise of the Internet and, more recently, the release of Peter
Jackson's movie trilogy, there has been a steady increase in the number
of subscribers to _Vinyar Tengwar_, and in the number of back-issue
orders I receive each month. While this is welcome news to us as a
community of scholars, allowing us to reach a wider audience of
enthusiasts and, hopefully, to cultivate new scholarship, it comes at a
cost to your editor.

I have been self-publishing _VT_ since shortly after I took over its
editorship, laser-printing, folding, stapling, trimming, and mailing
each copy of each issue. When subscribership was less than 200, this
was not too burdensome, and allowed me to hold the cost of
subscriptions down low, and unchanged now for more than a decade,
despite rising postage costs. In addition, I have been doing the same
to produce back-issues all along, and again, when the number of issues
that had been produced was still in the 20s or 30s, the burden of
filling an order for a complete set of back-issues was not excessive,
especially since such orders came in about once or twice a month, tops.

However, at now nearly 400 subscribers, with 44 back issues in print
(soon to be 45), and with complete back-issue orders coming in
sometimes 5 or 6 per month, it has become all but impossible for me to
keep up (and those who have now waited, in some cases, for many months
for their back-issue orders to be filled and mailed, might remove the
"all but" from that statement). I hoped to enlist some local volunteer
labor to help me catch again and keep up, but an e-mail appeal for help
produced no results. Therefore, I am faced with the necessity of making
such changes as I can to reduce the labor burden on me, while keeping
costs down and keeping issues in print. Electronic publishing and
back-issue archiving immediately suggests itself; but while that may
prove to be a possibility at some point, it is not yet. So, effective
immediately:

1) New issues of _Vinyar Tengwar_ will no longer be printed and
produced by the editor, but instead will be offset-printed at a
commercial print shop. The number of subscribers now makes this
cost-effective (but see next item), and will maintain a print-quality
that I find acceptable.

2) To offset the rise in printing and mailing costs, the cost of each
issue of _Vinyar Tengwar_ will increase by $1.00, and subscriptions
will increase accordingly. Thus a 4-issue subscription for US delivery
is now $12, for Canada and South America delivery it is $14, and for
everywhere else (sent airmail) it is $16. All current subscriptions
will remain in effect at the previous price -- the new cost applies
only to subscriptions made from this point on.

3) Until I can fill all existing back-issue orders, only issues 36-45
will be available for ordering, at the new per-issue cost, but with a
%25 discount for orders of 5 or more issues. When I have caught up with
orders, I will announce renewed availability on the VT web page at
http://www.elvish.org/VT/

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank all
of the readers and subscribers for your interest, and patience, over
the years.


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

On 14.11.2003, at 20:30, Andreas Johansson wrote:

> I have repeatedly suggested that the Q nominal -r is not an innovation
> "out of thin air", but simply the verbal ending applied also to nouns.

Typologically that would, AFAIK, be unique. Glottogonically speaking
the reverse would be more likely. In many languages verbal inflection
is basically a nominal part + pronominal, or personal endings. Thusly,
_síla_ would originally mean *'shining one, a shiner' to which personal
forms are added: *'Shining-I', *'shining-you' etc... At least in the 3rd
persons we only have a specific (originally) pronominal ending when no
subject precedes the verb (cf. UT:317). That, of course, makes sense
when _síla/sílar_ are originally nominal forms: *'the star, a shiner',
*'the stars, shiners' but *'may be guarders', who? they! = _tiruva-nte_.
Conversely, there would be no apparent motivation for two sets of
endings if both were purely 'verbal'.

So, whatever its ultimate origin, the Q. plural marker _-r_ seems to be
entirely nominal in origin.

David Kiltz

Quoting David Kiltz <dkiltz@...>:

> On 14.11.2003, at 20:30, Andreas Johansson wrote:
>
> > I have repeatedly suggested that the Q nominal -r is not an innovation
> > "out of thin air", but simply the verbal ending applied also to nouns.
>
> Typologically that would, AFAIK, be unique.
[snip]
> So, whatever its ultimate origin, the Q. plural marker _-r_ seems to be
> entirely nominal in origin.

I'm not about to question your superior expertise in these matters, but early
Quenya was apparently happy to use verbs as nouns; "Quendi and Eldar" informs
us that _Vala_ was originally a verb _vala-_ "has power", and offers the
translation "they have power" for _valar_ (XI:403). Could this not represent a
way in which a verbal ending might have sneaked into nominal inflection?

Andreas

[Perceived "superior expertise" should never be an issue on this list. The
only one with superior expertise is J.R.R. Tolkien, and arguments should
stand or fall based on the evidence in Tolkien's writings, not on the
authority of the scholar proposing a particular theory.

The passage Andreas refers to above also cites _eques_ as a Q. verb
form that also came to be used as a noun. Earlier in Q&E Tolkien writes:
"In Quenya the form _eques_ originally meaning 'said he, said someone'
(see Note 29) was also used as a noun _eques_, with the analogical
plural _equessi_, 'a saying, dictum, a quotation from someone's
uttered words', hence also 'a saying, a current or proverbial dictum'."
(XI:392) -- PHW]

Quoting Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>:

> Quoting David Kiltz <dkiltz@...>:
>
> > On 14.11.2003, at 20:30, Andreas Johansson wrote:
> >
> > > I have repeatedly suggested that the Q nominal -r is not an innovation
> > > "out of thin air", but simply the verbal ending applied also to nouns.
> >
> > Typologically that would, AFAIK, be unique.
> [snip]
> > So, whatever its ultimate origin, the Q. plural marker _-r_ seems to be
> > entirely nominal in origin.
>
> I'm not about to question your superior expertise in these matters
[snip]
>
> [Perceived "superior expertise" should never be an issue on this list. The
> only one with superior expertise is J.R.R. Tolkien, and arguments should
> stand or fall based on the evidence in Tolkien's writings, not on the
> authority of the scholar proposing a particular theory.
[snip]
> -- PHW]

Clarification: I meant superior expertise as regards what is and what is not
found in primary-world languages, not Tolkienian ones.

I, however, see that my snipping above made Patrick's misinterpretation pretty
much inevitable, for which I apologize.

Andreas

[No apology is necessary -- my comments regarding "superior expertise"
were not meant to _admonish_ you, but to _encourage_ you to not indimidate
yourself into abandoning a theory purely on the assumption that others have
a broader knowledge. And this is as true regarding references to primary-
world languages on this list as it is to Tolkien's languages. -- PHW]

It will be best to refer to JRRT himself for an answer... even though
there will be more than one. Unfortunately, I don't own PE 11, so I
have to quote after a secondary source, VT40, which used the early
lexicons to analyse Narqelion. Here's a comparision of case endings
(genitive-ablative) in Qenya and Goldogrin, singular and plural: "with
-ion cp. Q -ion, both being double plural -i + ô + n; with -a cp. Q
-o, [from] ô; with -thon cp. Q -ron, where -r- is from the
nom[inatives,] for -son; with -n cp Q -n" (VT40:9/10).

This is supposed to mean that both -i and -n were plural markers, and
that -r is a nominative (plural, obviously) coming from rhotacism and
compares to Goldogrin -th. So it isn't an innovation at all: "-th is
original and [the] same as Q -r".

Obviously, JRRT hesitated whether this is was the right way, and
explained:

"The existence in G. of an -r plural sign in verbs has given rise to
the conjecture (coupled with [the] Q. form gen.pl. -ron) that G -th
does not represent Q -r[,] but that -r is a true plural ending (i.e. r
liquid) and -tt = Q -t dual". (both VT40:22, from PE11:10)

This would mean three original plural markers -i, -n (from former -m,
as the entry 3O- in Etymologies suggests) and -r. We are told it is
also a plural marker in G verbs, but that seems to be secondary.
At that time, -r was not always a plural marker in Q verbs, as
examples in the Secret Vice poems show: "i lunte linganer... i súru
laustaner" (MC:216), the subjects (boat and wind) being singular.
The above quote seems to indicate that G -th was originally dual. It
may be that Noldorin -ath was interpreted as dual in origin, too, but
we know that this notion was dismissed, later. "ath: Though it cd. be
an S. form of Q. atta '2', it is not in fact related, nor a sign of
dual". (Letters: 427)

So, externally speaking, we have -r as a noun plural in Q (even in
Qenya) before it became a plural marker in Q verbs. There's also no
hint at an internal derivation devised later.

People seem to be surprised because this gives 3 original plural
markers in Quenya. The surprise may be provoked by the fact that most
modern European languages have only one (English has one and a half,
remember "geese" and "mice"). German has -e, -er, -(e)n, -s, depending
on the noun, and the occasional Umlaut, so why should Quenya have only
one or two?

Hans

On 20.11.2003, at 07:40, Andreas Johansson wrote:

> <snip>
>  early Quenya was apparently happy to use verbs as nouns; "Quendi and
> Eldar" informs us that _Vala_ was originally a verb _vala-_ "has
> power", and offers the
> translation "they have power" for _valar_ (XI:403). Could this not
> represent a
> way in which a verbal ending might have sneaked into nominal
> inflection?

Good point. Yet the question is, in my opinion, how frequent are this
kind of derivations ? Of course, from a *synchronic* point of view
_vala_ and _valar_ are verbal forms (whatever their ultimate origin).
Note, however, that Tolkien says "...these words are from the point of
*Q* structure verbal in origin..." (emphasis mine). This doesn't, IMHO,
say anything about their *Eldarin* origin. And yes, in some cases a
'zero derivation' seems possible. _Ea_ is another such case and,
slightly different _eques_  cited by Patrick H. Wynne. Such direct
nominalizations do also, e.g. occur in English, cf. something like _a
caveat_. However, as far as I can see, such derivations are rare at
best in Quenya. Other agental construction show derivational morphology
and are attested much more amply (e.g. sundóma +r(o), -ô, -mo etc.).
The words _Vala_ and by all probability _Ea_ are translations of
Valarin words. I wouldn't be surprised if that played a role in their
peculiar derivation. _Eques_, on the other hand, was deliberately
re-interpreted with an analogical plural _equessi_ which exactly shows
*no* verbal morphology. So, at least in the case of _eques_ it is not
really correct to say that "Quenya uses verbs as nouns".It is
interesting in this context to ask why the plural of _Vala_ isn't
+_valante_. Possibly, in the case of _vala/Vala_ the same is true.
So, while your point on _valar/Valar_ is a very acute and enticing
observation, I still doubt that these, apparently few, forms could have
caused the creation of an entire plural paradigm. Moreover, if indeed,
the plural of the verbs would have been taken over by nouns, I wonder
why they didn't in the case of nouns in _-e_ as there must have been
lots of instances of past tense plurals in _-er_. ( _Tyeller_ [LR3:502]
might be interpreted in that way, but it is, as far as frequency is
concerned, an exception).

David Kiltz

Quoting Hans <gentlebeldin@...>:

> "The existence in G. of an -r plural sign in verbs has given rise to
> the conjecture (coupled with [the] Q. form gen.pl. -ron) that G -th
> does not represent Q -r[,] but that -r is a true plural ending (i.e. r
> liquid) and -tt == Q -t dual". (both VT40:22, from PE11:10)
>
> This would mean three original plural markers -i, -n (from former -m,
> as the entry 3O- in Etymologies suggests) and -r. We are told it is
> also a plural marker in G verbs, but that seems to be secondary.

I'm not clear why you assume the verbal -r in G to be secondary? The passage
you quote does not appear to say either way.

> People seem to be surprised because this gives 3 original plural
> markers in Quenya. The surprise may be provoked by the fact that most
> modern European languages have only one (English has one and a half,
> remember "geese" and "mice"). German has -e, -er, -(e)n, -s, depending
> on the noun, and the occasional Umlaut, so why should Quenya have only
> one or two?

Well, multiple pl formations are common enough in modern Europe, aren't they?
Besides German, we've got the rest of Germanic family; Dutch has -en and -s,
Swedish has -ar, -er, -or, -n and -0 (zero), and so on. Italian has a couple,
as has Rumanian, if I remember correctly. And if you count 1.5 for English,
I figure you'd get something similar for French. I've heard Welsh has nineteen.

More on topic, there's of course no reason Quenya could not have had three or
more inherited nominal pl markers. It's just that that we know that in the
scenario as JRRT imagined it in later years, -r was a Quenya innovation, at
least as a pl marker on nominatives; we've for instance got _Banyai_ as an
early nom pl of _Vanya_ in PM:402.

I guess it's always possible that nominal pl -r is an innovation _only in
nominatives_ - there's to my knowledge no evidence to say whether the -r in
allative pl _-nnar_ and ablative pl _-llor_ is "original" or not. But since
these case forms are relatively infrequent, we'd rather expected the
nominative pl to spread to them rather than vice versa.

                                                         Andreas

> People seem to be surprised because this gives 3 original plural markers in
> Quenya. The surprise may be provoked by the fact that most modern European
> languages have only one (English has one and a half, remember "geese" and
> "mice"). German has -e, -er, -(e)n, -s, depending on the noun, and the
> occasional Umlaut, so why should Quenya have only one or two?

Of course, you have cited *three* English formations (-s, umlaut, and zero
ending).  There is also the -en plural formation (ox-oxen, brother-brethren,
extended analogically to computers in VAX-VAXen), and the borrowed Latin -i or
-ii which is more often misused than used correctly.  The -s formant has been
spreading through the vocabulary at the expense of the others for centuries,
but enough remnants exist for naive native speakers to have a feel for their
usage.

Why would you expect JRRT, a Germanic philologist, to stint on plurals in his
languages?

Rich Alderson 				    | /"\ ASCII ribbon     |
quenya@... 		    | \ / campaign against |
"You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime."    |  x  HTML mail and    |
			  --Death, of the Endless    | / \ postings         |

_Vinyar Tengwar_ 45 has been published. This 40-page issue features the
first part (of two) of a complete "Addenda and Corrigenda to the
_Etymologies_" by Carl F. Hostetter and Patrick H. Wynne, detailing
additions and corrections to the published work derived from an
examination of the original manuscript and comparison with the
published text.

_Vinyar Tengwar_ (ISSN 1054-7606) is a not-for-profit refereed journal
of the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship, devoted to the scholarly study of
the invented languages of J.R.R. Tolkien. _VT_ is indexed by the Modern
Language Association.

For more information about _VT_, including a downloadable sample issue
and subscription and back-issue ordering information, see:

	 http://www.elvish.org/VT/


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