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."

There is a lecture by Dr Steven Pinker available online for free at

    http://mitworld.mit.edu/play/141/

which may be of interest to members of these groups. It's
called "Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language".

Pinker presents and explains the natural history of words in modern
English, using verbs among others to illustrate phylolinguistic
hypotheses regarding language development as well as ontolinguistic
ones.  Of interest is how irregular verbs are displaced by regular
forms and why irregular verbs form in the first place. Since, as Pinker
acknowledges, much of the most colorful and resonant literary language
available is based upon irregular forms, such as those Tolkien uses and
I daresay loved, it's interesting to understand this process. Pinker
illustrates using a 20th century newspaper description of a baseball
game.  The same can be found today in, e.g., UK Telegraph coverage of
soccer.

While we might be saddened by this process, of greater interest is
something Pinker implies and is very much in the spirit of what Tolkien
tried to do:  Linguistic archaeology may be empowered by recovering the
old rules which applied to the formation of verbs and other parts of
speech.  These rules then could be used beyond the evidence that
suggests them.

I wonder what they are for Sindarin, Quenya, and Noldor?


ABOUT THE LECTURE:

Why does a three year-old say "I went," then six months later start
saying "I goed"? When you first heard the word "fax," how did you know
the past tense is "faxed"? And why is it that a baseball player is said
to have "flied out," but could never have "flown out"?

After fifteen years of studying words in history, in the laboratory,
and in everyday speech, Steven Pinker has worked out the dynamic
relationship - searching memory vs. following rules - that determines
the forms our speech takes. In one of his final lectures at MIT Pinker
gives the ultimate lecture on verbs, in a rich mixture of linguistics,
cognitive neuroscience, and a surprising amount of humor. If you've
ever wondered about the plural of Walkman, or why they are called the
Toronto Maple Leafs and not Leaves, this lecture provides answers to
these and other questions of modern language.

This lecture is based upon the subject of Pinker's book, presented and
reviewed at:

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/wr.html


ABOUT THE SPEAKER: Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor of
Psychology at Harvard University. He returned to Harvard in September
2003 after 21 years at MIT, where he was most recently the Peter de
Florez Professor of Psychology in the Department of Brain and Cognitive
Sciences and a MacVicar Faculty Fellow at MIT. A native of Montreal, he
received his BA from McGill University in 1976 and his PhD in
psychology from Harvard in 1979. His scholarship has brought him awards
and election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Many more
awards and worldwide recognition have come from several popular science
books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, and most
recently, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.


NOTES ON THE VIDEO (Time Index): The video length is 1:09:38 and begins
with an introduction by Mriganka Sur, Ph.d., Chair of the Department of
Brain and Cognitive Sciences

Pinker begins at :40 Q&A begins 59:32

Cuio mae!

    -- Jan

Jan Theodore Galkowski  wrote :

> There is a lecture by Dr Steven Pinker available online for free at
>
>    http://mitworld.mit.edu/play/141/
>
> which may be of interest to members of these groups. It's
> called "Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language".

Pinker has been at the "Chomsky¹s School", so to speak. ;-)

Here is what he said on his web page :

"My research includes both empirical studies of linguistic behavior and
theoretical analyses of the nature of language and its relation to mind and
brain."

My source, which has many other links (some "dead"), is :

http://www.math.tohoku.ac.jp/~kuroki/Pinker/

Edouard Kloczko

[Just a gentle reminder to all to keep any comments regarding this lecture
or Dr. Pinker's other work relevant to Tolkien's languages. CFH]

Today it is my great pleasure to announce _Tengwestië_, a new, online
journal of the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship:

	 http://www.elvish.org/Tengwestie/

This journal's name is the Quenya term for 'Language', as a general
concept and topic (as opposed to _tengwesta_, the term for an
individual linguistic system). The title was chosen to reflect the
broadness of the subject of this journal, which like the print journals
of the E.L.F., _Parma Eldalamberon_ and _Vinyar Tengwar_, and its
e-mail discussion forum, the _Lambengolmor_ list, is intended as a
forum for the scholarly study of Tolkien's invented art-languages. The
common goal of its readers and contributors is to explore all aspects
of Tolkien's art-languages, through all the shifting course of
Tolkien's lifelong conceptualization and presentation of them, and
through all the stages of historical development that Tolkien created
for them. We believe that Tolkien's art-languages, at all stages of
their development, both internal and external, are worthy of study in
their own right, as the lifelong intellectual and aesthetic production
of a master philologist and author, and separate from any concerns of
utility or synthetic systemitization.

To this end, which we believe to be the proper concern of Tolkienian
linguistics as a scholarly endeavor, _Tengwestië_ eschews all efforts
aimed at obscuring either the differences or similarities of Tolkien's
languages across the stages of their conceptual development, and all
prescriptive approaches or assertions regarding their supposed degrees
of "usefulness" or "maturity" (terms that have no place in lingusitics
or scholarship). Instead, our aim and method is purely descriptive,
accepting all the information that Tolkien provided concerning his
art-languages, comprising both the attested and hypothetical forms and
grammatical devices he invented for them and his own descriptions of
their nature, features, and processes, at face value, and as equally
valid, valuable, and interesting; and basing all our exploration,
discussion, and claims upon this evidence.

The _Tengwestië_ site is designed and coded in strict conformance with
the open standards of the World Wide Web Consortium, including
validated XHTML Strict markup and CSS styling. The degree to which your
browser supports these standards will determine how well the articles
and other pages will display. For information regarding the system
requirements for the site, and on obtaining a PDF version of each
article published in _Tengwestië_, see:

	 http://www.elvish.org/Tengwestie/requirements.phtml

I thank you for your interest in _Tengwestië_, and hope that you will
join us in our exploration.


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

A new article has been published on _Tengwestië_, the online journal of
the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship (<http://www.elvish.org/Tengwestie/>):

"The Past-Tense Verb in the Noldorin of the _Etymologies_: A Formal
Classification"
by Carl F. Hostetter

	 http://www.elvish.org/Tengwestie/articles/Hostetter/noldpat.phtml


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

A new article has been published in _Tengwestië_
(<http://www.elvish.org/Tengwestie/>):

	 The Two Phonetic Values of _ll_ in Elvish Sindarin in _The Lord of the
Rings_
		 — by Carl F. Hostetter

	 <http://www.elvish.org/Tengwestie/articles/Hostetter/sindll.phtml>


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

I have a question concerning the passage from Tolkien's essay on
_The Rivers and Beacon-hills of Gondor_  (VT42:27), quoted in
Carl Hostetter's article "The Two Phonetic Values of _ll_ in Elvish
Sindarin in _The Lord of the Rings_" in _Tengwestië_:

"Medially however _nth_ (_nþ_), _nch_ (_ñx_), _mf_ (_mp_ with bilabial
_f_), and _lth_ (_lþ_) became long voiceless _n_, _ñ_, _m_, _l_, though
the old spelling was mostly retained (beside _nh_, _ñh_, _mh_, _lh_)"

Does this mean that the voiceless _n_, _ng_, _m_ and _l_ were spelt
/nth/, /nch/, /mf/ and /lth/ medially and initially they were spelt as
noted in parentheses, to distinguish them as evolving from older initial
clusters _sn-_, _sm-_ and _sl-_? If so, how does initial _ñh_ evolve?

Jonathan Avidan
Israeli Tolkino-Linguistics Community.

[No, I don't think that Tolkien is saying that. He is speaking
specifically about the development of _medial_ combinations to long
voiceless resonants, and noting that despite this development these
new medial long voiceless resonants retained an etymological
spelling, in addition to the new spellings noted (those in _-h_).

While on the subject of long voiceless resonants, and more
generally on the dialectal variations Tolkien describes in the
passage quoted in my _Tengwestië_ article, I would like to point
out that these developments and dialectal variations are clearly
modelled on very similar themes in Welsh and Welsh dialectal
variances. Perhaps one of our Welsh-speaking and/or Celticist
members could enlighten us more on this point. CFH]

In the second article recently published on Tengwestië, Carl Hostetter gives
reasons for seeing two distinct values assigned to the grapheme LL in the
Sindarin of _The Lord of the Rings_: geminate l, phonetically [l:], and long
voiceless l, phonetically [L:]. The latter would be heard in _mallorn_ (cf.
VT42:27).

I am however rather unconvinced, and still think that externally speaking,
the value of [L:] for <ll> is a late development. I doubt very much that Tolkien
already saw things likewise when he wrote LR and its Appendices - without
absolutely convincing arguments, but with some serious presumptions.

[I don't think it takes much presumption to accept Tolkien's own account
of the orthographic choice he made at face value, unless there are very
strong reasons not to. CFH]

Firstly, it is striking that no reference to a double pronunciation of ll is
given in LR's Appendix E, or to a special pronunciation of the (important)
word _mallorn_ in particular. True, absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence, so this does not allow certitude, yet it is troubling. Although the
data in
Appendix E are quite compressed, they contain minute details (for instance
the slight palatalization of L in some contexts, or the closer or more open
nature of long E and O's in Quenya and Sindarin respectively) and mention
exceptional cases (such as the stress of _Annûn_ and _Amrûn_ in Sindarin).

[I don't find this striking or troubling at all. Tolkien likewise did not note
in
App. E that /d/ in certain phonetic environments in Sindarin words represents
_dh_; yet we know that it does, and that Tolkien chose to use /d/ nonetheless
because he found /dh/ uncouth for English readers. This precisely parallels the
decision to use /ll/ instead of /lh/ or /lth/, and could be explained by
precisely the same reasoning. Yet I don't recall anyone finding the use of /d/
for /dh/ to be troubling, or the absence of an account of this in App. E
striking. CFH]]

Secondly, it is true that other graphemes have double values in Elvish
languages, such as H in Quenya or F in Sindarin, but those cases are explained
in
Appendix E. Why would he not have done the same for LL if needed? I also doubt
that it was a way to avoid an "uncouth" spelling, since Tolkien used LH from
the very beginning, which is alien to English as well. Using the ambiguous
spelling LL while LH was at hand, and already seen elsewhere, would be quite
unfriendly to the reader, and slightly odd anyway. The analogy with the use of D
for
DH is interesting... but notice that this was revised later.

[Tolkien's explanation of finding /dh/ uncouth was specifically applied to it
use in _The Lord of the Rings_, and for the lay, English audience that would
form its readership. But Tolkien used both /dh/ and edh in his _linguistic_
writing from the very beginning. So his use of /lh/ and /lth/ in his linguistic
writing is no evidence against what Tolkien says about /ll/ and its use in
_LotR_. CFH]

Thirdly, I do not think that the comparison with English spelling is
relevant. It is well known how complex and sometimes inconsistent English
orthography
is, whereas Sindarin's romanized orthography, if admittedly not an entirely
phonological representation, comes quite close to it. The example mentioned in
the article ("It is rather as though it were regarded as contradictory to say
that English S is pronounced /s/, but then to note that the plural marker -es
is pronounced /?z/.") is plainly an instance where English favours
morphological unity at the expense of phonetic accuracy. Moreover, the
orthographic issue
is not exactly the same in a living and a constructed language. For a living
language, it is possible to depart from phonetic accuracy for other purposes
(notably morphological unity or etymological preoccupations) without too much
trouble: the competence of users will supply. For a constructed language
presented to others, it cannot be counted on, and one first needs to give a
clear
picture of pronunciation, as Tolkien claimed to try doing in LR's Appendix E:
"In
transcribing the ancient scripts I have tried to represent the original
sounds (so far as they can be determined) with fair accuracy, and as the same to
produce words and names that do not look uncouth in modern letters".

[Tolkien found the comparison with English spelling relevant, so I don't see
how your personal disagreement with his judgment can count as a relevant
argument against the veracity of Tolkien's account. You don't have to agree
with his judgment, but you do have to accept that it was, as he claims, the
basis upon which he made his decision. As for the analogy I drew with
pronunciation of _s_ vs. _-es_, that was intended to show that two linguistic
statements can be seemingly contradictory, _if_ misinterpreted, but yet remain
both true, when understood appropriately and in context. In this specific case,
the contrast is between a general statement of typical valuation of a grapheme,
_s_, and a more specific statement about its value in a particular historical
and
phonetic environment. Which is precisely the case with Tolkien's description
of the value of _ll_  in the particular historical and phonetic environment
where /-L-/ < /-lth-/ < *_-lt-_. And finally, I disagree fundamentally with
your claim regarding the difference between living languages and Tolkien's
art-languages, which were _intended_ by their creator to _appear_ to be and
behave just as actual, historical languages do. As for App. E, the very words
you quote undermine your claims: Tolkien writes of representing sounds
with _fair_ accuracy, not complete accuracy; and to _avoid_ what he judged
to be "uncouth" appearance. We know that he avoided _dh_ for this reason;
and there is no reason to think he would not avoid _lh_, which looks extremely
similar to _dh_, for precisely the same reason. CFH]

Fourthly, it is not the only discrepancy between Sindarin in LR and in VT42.
There are at least two other irreconcilable points:

- former mp, nt, ñk are said here to give mf, nþ, ñx and later the long
unvoiced nasals mh, nh, ñh in the southern dialects of Sindarin including what
Men
learnt. Yet in LR and the published S they rather seem to give mm, nn, ng. In
the appendix C of his article "Reconstructing the Sindarin verb system",
http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/sverb-rec.htm, Helge Fauskanger discusses this
question - in a prescriptive approach, but it does not affect the relevance of
examples. He notes that in LR Appendix E, it is said that "Grade 6 (21-24)
should
then have represented the voiceless nasals; but since such sounds were of very
rare occurrence in the languages concerned...", which would not have been
true of Sindarin as presented in VT:42.

[Even if this really were a discrepancy with _LotR_, that has no bearing on the
specific claim Tolkien's account of _ll_ must be revisionist. But in fact I see
no
_necessary_ discrepancy. First, the examples that Helge gives are mostly from
the Noldorin of the _Etymologies_, which Tolkien was not describing in this
late essay. Second, Helge's discussion takes no account of the possibility of
analogical levelling in these forms, even though we know that analogy played
a major role in Sindarin grammar. Third, those examples Helge gives from
_The Lord of the Rings_ are only _assumed_ to have developed from the
specific combinations Tolkien is discussing here, and only _assumed_ to
belong to the specific dialects Tolkien is describing. These assumptions are
made for the sake of argument, which is fair enough -- Helge himself points
the uncertainties he is navigating with the _LotR_ forms; but you can't treat
these
assumptions as fact and then use them to "prove" that Tolkien was making a
contradictory statement. In fact, when contradictions are arrived at, it is the
_assumptions_ that must be discarded. CFH]

- the correspondence Telerin _glania-_ / Sindarin _gleina-_ shows that in
VT42 the development of a medial sequence VCiV in Sindarin is thought to be
DiphthongCV with the diphthong arising from a mutated vowel + epenthetic i. This
is
not uncommon: compare Ancient Greed _bainô / Latin _veniô_ "I come" from an
reconstructed prototype *gwmyô (gw = labiovelar), Latin _ratiône(m)_ / French
_raison_ "reason", _gloria(m)_ / _gloire_ "glory" (the oi diphthong
subsequently > oe > we > wa today). It certainly stands beyond Sindarin plural
patterns
like _aran_ "king", pl. _erain_. Yet in the Sindarin seen in LR and S it is
seen finally, and not medially; otherwise we would get things like **Gilthoenel
and not _Gilthoniel_, **peiran and not _perian_, **egleiro and not _eglerio_,
all three well_known from LR; **geneidad and not _genediad_ (King's Letter,
IX:126-9); **arnoeidad and not _arnoediad_ (where clearly oe=fronted o, not a
diphthong) in S, etc. I remember only two similar cases, probably: _Einior_
"Elder" XII:358, and _Eirien_ "Daisy" IX:129-31.

[Again, whether or not this is a real discrepancy with _LotR_is irrelevant to
the
issue of the value of _ll_. But any claim of revisionism on the basis of this
case founders utterly on the fact that the very essay in question also shows
what you seem to think is the development required in terms of Sindarin
as exhibited in _LotR_, as, for example, in S _seidia-_ < _satya-_ (VT42:20).
Since both developments are exemplified within this essay, it cannot be said
that Sindarin as Tolkien conceived of it when _LotR_ was published did not
also have this alternation, but simply by circumstance happened only to
use forms exhibiting the one but not the other. The proper scholarly response
to this situation ought to be to examine what might account for the
apparent variation of development (if indeed it is not only apparent)
within Sindarin, not to simply dismiss the phenomenon as an inconsistency
with what was previously, and wrongly, thought to be an established,
"canonical" fact about Sindarin of _LotR_. CFH]

All this inclines me to the opinion that Tolkien did change his mind about
several points of his Sindarin in writing _The Rivers and Beacon-hills of
Gondor_. It is even possible that he was beginning a throughout revision of the
language - that he never had the time to complete.

[I certainly do not dispute that Tolkien's conception of Sindarin changed
between the time that _The Lord of the Rings_ was published in 1954-55 and
the time that he wrote _The Rivers and Beacon-hills of Gondor_ in 1969. But
a) I see no _necessary_ change in the specific cases you highlight; and b)
that is not the issue: the issue is whether his account of the two values of
_ll_ in Elvish Sindarin in _LotR_ represents a revision, as David Salo claims
and Helge suggests. I see no reason whatsoever to think it is, as Tolkien's
specific statements regarding _ll_ are not in any way contradicted by the
actual evidence in _The Lord of the Rings_. CFH]

In the post n°551, December 8th, Carl Hostetter also observed:

> While on the subject of long voiceless resonants, and more generally on the
dialectal variations Tolkien describes in the passage quoted in my
_Tengwestië_ article, I would like to point out that these developments and
dialectal
variations are clearly modelled on very similar themes in Welsh and Welsh
dialectal variances.

Certainly. I notice that by the changes I alluded to above, Sindarin
evolution as seen in VT:42 seems to parallel Welsh's even more closely.
Currently I
have with me only notes from _Language and History in Early Britain_ by Kenneth
Jackson, Edinburgh University Press, 1953, especially his chronology of
phonetic changes in the three Brittonic languages (Welsh, Cornish, Breton) till
the
twelfth century, pp. 694 and following. Some are interesting with regard to
the discussion:
- the several waves of i-affection have differences between Welsh on the one
hand, Cornish and Breton on the other hand
- in Welsh mp, nt, nc > mh, nh, ngh medially (in Modern Welsh the h has
disappeared in non-initial unstressed syllables), whereas Cornish and Breton
preserve the stops
- in Welsh specifically, lt > ll.

Bertrand Bellet


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

On Dec 9, 2003, at 7:33 AM, Tchitrec@... wrote:

> it is true that other graphemes have double values in Elvish
> languages, such as H in Quenya or F in Sindarin, but those cases are
> explained in Appendix E. Why would he not have done the same for LL if
> needed?

A further thought on this point: The correct value of _h_ in Quenya and
_f_ in Sindarin can be readily discerned by the reader strictly on the
basis of phonetic environment in the various forms involved. This is
not the case with the multiple values of _ll_ and _d_, where the
correct value can only be determined through a knowledge of the
etymology of the forms exhibiting them. Since the reader of _The Lord
of the Rings_ would have no ready means of knowing the etymologies of
the forms involved, information regarding the dual values of _ll_ and
_d_, unlike that for discerning the values of _h_ and _f_, would have
been essentially useless for the target audience of App. E, the
interested lay reader.


--
=============================================
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 10.12.2003, at 04:50, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

> Since the reader of _The Lord of the Rings_ would have no ready
> means of knowing the etymologies of the forms involved, information
> regarding the dual values of _ll_ and _d_, unlike that for discerning the
> values of _h_ and _f_, would have been essentially useless for the target
> audience of App. E, the interested lay reader.

Useless only as a way of indicating the correct pronunciation of every
single word. But isn't it useful to the 'interested lay reader' to know
that they _d_ and _ll_ etc. could have such value ? Or indeed simply the
statement on etymology as such.  Tolkien does furnish the
reader with etymological details although they're not strictly
necessary for pronouncing the words correctly.

[Apparently, in Tolkien's judgement, no, the information was not
useful _enough_ to be included. Quite reasonably so: with no way
to determine the etymology of most Sindarin words in _ll_, so as
to distinguish the correct pronunciation, what would the reader
do with the information? In the event, the number of words in
_LotR_ that seem at all likely to have the pronunciation /L:/ of _ll_
are small; so the errors of pronunciation would likewise be small,
small enough to satisfy Tolkien's stated goals of describing the
pronunciation with "fair" (not scientific) accuracy, while avoiding
what he judged to be spellings uncouth to his English readers. CFH]

In fact, while Tolkien gives the reason for excluding _dh_ originally
(a point on which he later changed his mind), he doesn't say anything
about _ll_. The exclusion of _dh_, in my view, precisely doesn't
parallel the writing _ll_ as _lh_ is indeed used in the Lord of the
Rings.

[You're entitled to your view, but in my opinion the visual parallel
between uncouth _dh_ and _lh_ could hardly be more striking.
And note that Tolkien did not merely "exclude" _dh_, he altered its
_representation_ to _d_, which thus, like _ll_, represents two
different values depending on etymology. CFH]

Tolkien writes: In the transcription of Elvish Sindarin in _The Lord of
the Rings_ _ll_ is used in the manner of modern Welsh for the medial
voiceless _l_; as in _mallorn_ < _malhorn_ < _malþorn_ < _malt_
‘gold’ and _orn_ ‘tree’. So apparently we have the following scenario:
S. _lh_ = _ll_ when < *_-lC-_.

[No, that is not at all apparent, nor is that at all what Tolkien is saying.
He is speaking specifically and _only_ of _-ll-_  < _-lh-_ < _-lth-_
< *_-lt-_. Neither the etymological figure nor Tolkien's statement makes
any claims whatsoever about the value of _ll_ developed from other
combinations (e.g., *_-ld-_). This was _precisely_ the point of my article.
CFH]

Phonetically that is; they both represent a *short* voiceless _l_.

[No. Tolkien states specifically that "Medially ... _lth_ (_lþ_) became _long_
voiceless ... _l_, though the old spelling [_lth_] was mostly retained (beside
... _lh_)" (emphasis mine), and that he used _ll_ in _The Lord of the Rings_
to represent the sound arising from this specific source.  Now, we don't know
for certain -- because Tolkien doesn't say, nor does his statement prevent
the possibility -- that the long voiceless /L:/ that developed from medial
_-lth-_, and was spelt as both _lth_ and _lh_, didn't eventually shorten to
simple /L/ by the Third Age, in which case _ll_ could indeed represent short
/L/; but we would need other evidence to show or support this development.
Nor, of course, does this conjecture of possible simplifcation beyond the
stage of development that Tolkien describes have any bearing on the point
of my article, or on the point of Tolkien's statement, which concerns the fact
(previously unknown, and thus now disruptive of certain "canonical" notions,
and therefore eagerly desired to be set aside) that _ll_ was used in _The Lord
of the Rings_ to represent two different values, depending on etymology. CFH]

So, the phonetic value (voiceless l) is represented in _The Lord of the
Rings_ by both _lh_ and _ll_. Thus neither orthography can be considered
uncouth (especially as _lh_ doesn't figure in English but didn't give
rise to worry).

Interestingly Tolkien says that he uses _ll_ *medially* as in Welsh.
Briefly,  the differentiation _-lh-_ and _-ll-_ could be an
etymological one but would still not be exactly in the manner of Welsh,
which uses _ll_ for a simple voiceless _l_ in all places.

[That is because Tolkien is specifically describing a development that
only occurs medially: _-lh-_ < _-lth-_ < *_-lt-_. He is not addressing
at all the development of initial _lh-_ < initial *_sl-_. CFH]

Or else, we take Tolkien's above cited statement [VT42:27] as meaning
"...medial [long] voiceless _l_". In that case there is a good
phonetic reason for the orthographic differentiation of _lh_ and
_ll_. This would be in tune with Tolkien saying that: "Medially however
_lth_ ... became long voiceless _l_ .... Still, the usage wouldn't
exactly be in the manner of Welsh either.

At any rate, if _ll_ in _The Lord of the Rings_ is to represent voiceless
_l_ in the manner of Welsh (that is short) what about _nn_, _mm_, and
ng ? (Modern Welsh only has one more voiceless resonant written _rh_ at
all times although in Middle Welsh, _rr_ too occurs). Do they also at
times represent voiceless sounds in the manner of... Tolkien (?)
altough he never says so (the Elves, when not retaining the old
orthography, that is _lth_ etc., wrote _lh, _nh_ etc.) ?

Are we to assume that these doubly written consonants were at some
point meant to primarily represent double consonants rather than
voiceless ones?

Whatever the answer, I don't think the 'revision' theory can be easily
discounted.

[I don't think the "revision theory" is a theory at all, as it does not explain
all the available evidence. Again, precisely the point of my article. CFH]

David Kiltz

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

I'd like to say a little more here about the purpose of _Tengwestië_,
and the reason for its creation. For years now, it's been clear that
what space I have in an issue of _Vinyar Tengwar_ (40 pages is the
practical limit) must primarily be devoted to the work of myself and my
colleagues on Tolkien's lingusitic papers. Unfortunately, this has
squeezed out most room and opportunity for us and others to offer
analytical articles, or for columns (such as Arden Smith's very popular
"Transitions in Translations"). I view _Tengwestië_ as, in part, a
means to "extend" _VT_ to provide a forum for such articles and columns
again.

To this end, I should point out that submisssions are welcome and
encouraged, so long as they adhere to the scholarly and descriptive
purposes of the journal. I've spent a considerable amount of time
developing a template for articles, so that others can relatively
easily apply the styles and markup conventions I've developed to
prepare their articles for publication in XHTML format. When I have
some time, I mean to detail how to obtain and use this template and the
site's style sheets, so that anyone that wishes can use them, and so
that I can reduce the workload on myself in preparing articles for
publication in _Tengwestië_. I also mean to solicit some volunteers to
help authors with marking up articles for _Tengwestiê_, if for some
reason they are unable to do so themselves. So keep an eye out for
further details on these points.

In the meantime, if anyone is eager to try their hand at writing and
marking up an article, you can examine the source of the two
_Tengwestië_ articles published to date as examples of the standards of
markup I've developed so far, and examine the style sheets that are
referenced in the header of the articles.

Carl



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

Carl wrote:

> [...We know that he avoided _dh_ for this reason; and there is no reason to
> think he would not avoid _lh_, which looks extremely similar to _dh_, for
> precisely the same reason. CFH]

Also lh in Portuguese, like ll in Castilian, has the value of l mouillé. Hence
it is unclear (as indeed any Latin spelling of any non-Latin sound, except for
those familiar with the conventions: sh is a Schin in English but an h in
Gaelic, th Thorn or Edh in English but h in Gaelic, final a is Latin a in
Castilian but Sch'wa in Catalan, sz is Schin in Polish but s in Hungarian - were
Schin is spelled s! - and so on). No doubt Tolkien used Tengwar to circumvent
the difficulty, and he specifically states that the Tengwa alda - ld in Quenya -
is used for voiceless l (whatever be the Welsh name for that sound) in Sindarin.

> [...These assumptions are made for the sake of argument, which is fair enough
> -- Helge himself points the uncertainties he is navigating with the _LotR_
forms;
> but you can't treat these assumptions as fact and then use them to "prove"
that
> Tolkien was making a contradictory statement. In fact, when contradictions are
> arrived at, it is the _assumptions_ that must be discarded. CFH]

A good point in _any_ branch of science, whether grammar (Tolkienian or
non-Tolkienian) or astronomy or whatever.

Hans Georg Lundahl


Höstrusk och grå moln - köp en resa till solen på Yahoo! Resor

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

---------------------
PARMA ELDALAMBERON 14
-------------------------------------------------------
EARLY QENYA and The VALMARIC SCRIPT by J. R. R. TOLKIEN
-------------------------------------------------------

This forthcoming issue has three sections containing newly published
writings by J. R. R. Tolkien: "Early Qenya Fragments", edited by
Patrick Wynne and Christopher Gilson; "Early Qenya Grammar", edited by
Carl F. Hostetter and Bill Welden; and "The Valmaric Script", edited
by Arden R. Smith.  Each of these has been prepared with the guidance
of Christopher Tolkien and with the permission of the Tolkien Estate.

"Early Qenya Fragments" is a collection of Tolkien's tables and
name-lists associated with _The Book of Lost Tales_, including early
names of the Days of the Elvish Week and the Valinorian Fortnight, and
names of the Valar and various Creatures of the Earth, as Tolkien
conceived of them in his earliest mythology.  Also included are
paradigms of the Regular Qenya Verb conjugation associated with the
_Qenya Lexicon_.

"Early Qenya Grammar" includes early writings on Qenya Phonology,
together with the earliest complete Qenya Grammar, describing the
forms and inflections of the Article, Nouns, Adjectives, Adverbs,
Numbers, Pronouns, and Verbs.  Both of these texts date from the
1920s.  Annotations and commentary are provided for all of the Early
Qenya texts, detailing their interconnections and the evolution of the
linguistic conceptions contained within them.

"The Valmaric Script" is an edition of various documents relating to
an Elvish writing system devised by Tolkien in the 1920s.  One example
of the script has been published already in a drawing for the story
_Roverandom_.  This edition incudes various charts of the sounds
represented by the letters, tracing Tolkien's experimentation with
their forms and applications.  There are also examples of the Valmaric
script used for writing both Qenya and English, including an excerpt
from the Old English poem _Beowulf_.  Transcriptions of these texts
and commentary on the chronology of the documents and their conceptual
evolution are included in this edition.

Parma Eldalamberon Issue Number 14 is Currently at the Printer.

The expected publication date is December 23, 2003.

Advanced Orders can be made now at the cost of $25.00 per copy
including postage and handling world-wide.

(Expect from 1 to 2 weeks for delivery, after the date of publication,
depending on the destination.)

Electronic payment by PayPal is available at the following link:

<http://www.eldalamberon.com/parma14.html>

Or send check or money-order (U.S. funds only) to:

Christopher Gilson
10646-A Rosewood Road
Cupertino, CA 95014
U.S.A.

On 10.12.2003, at 20:46, Carl Hostetter wrote:

> with no way to determine the etymology of most Sindarin words in _ll_,
> so as to distinguish the correct pronunciation, what would the reader
> do with the information?

Know the truth.

[There are very many facts about his languages that Tolkien could have
included in the Appendices had his purpose in writing them been to allow
the reader to know every linguistic truth. But that was not his purpose;
instead, his purpose was, as he stated in the Appendices, "to represent
the original sounds (so far as they can be determined) with _fair_ accuracy,
and at the same to produce words and names that do not look uncouth in
modern letters" (emphasis mine). CFH]

> [You're entitled to your view, but in my opinion the visual parallel
> between uncouth _dh_ and _lh_ could hardly be more striking.
> And note that Tolkien did not merely "exclude" _dh_, he altered its
> _representation_ to _d_, which thus, like _ll_, represents two
> different values depending on etymology.

1) Let me get this straight: Was there no _#lh-_ in the first edition
of the LotR?

If there was, why wouldn't it be used medially ? That's my point.

[I can think of only one instance: _Amon Lhaw_. This might be an isolated
case where Tolkien forgot his own decision. On the other hand, how else
could he have represented it? _Ll_ would be out of the question, because
_in initial position_ _Ll_ would be even more uncouth and foreign to
English readers than _Lh_ (or so feels this English reader). Tolkien could
instead have used _L_, but for whatever reason did not. In the particular,
rare (if not unique) case, Tolkien may have weighed the balance of accuracy
and uncouthness in favor of _Lh_ because it was in initial position; medially,
_lh_ would tend to be pronounced by English readers as _l_ + _h_ -- as,
indeed, it is _sometimes_ to be pronounced; so again, one would have to
know the underlying etymology in order to decide on the correct
pronunciation; and thus it would be no improvement, in addition to
being uncouth. CFH]

2) Let's not play with words! By using _d_ instead of _dh_ the spelling
_dh_ is excluded from the text. Your point about the double value is
valid but note that I never doubted the fact that _ll_ is meant to
represent two different values in strict accordance with Tolkien's
statement cited in VT42.

I wrote:

>  So apparently we have the following scenario:
> S. _lh_ == _ll_ when < *_-lC-_

That's a typo. It should of course read <*_lt_.

Regarding the issue of whether _ll_ is single or double voiceless _l_,
the big point, which you seem to miss, is that Tolkien does say that
_ll_ represents short voiceless _l_. He implies it when saying (VT42:27):

"In the transcription of Elvish Sindarin in _The Lord of the Rings_ _ll_
is used in the manner of modern Welsh for the medial voiceless _l_;
as in _mallorn_ < _malhorn_ < _malþorn_ < _malt_
‘gold’ and _orn_ ‘tree’."

Clearly, there is no 'conjecture' as Welsh _ll_ represents short
voiceless _l_ (1). Also Tolkien writes "... voiceless _l_" not
**"...voiceless _ll_". So the passage you cite must refer to a
transitional stage, not the one reflected in the LotR and its spelling.

[I certainly recognize this as a possible _implication_ of what Tolkien
writes, as I have already said; but I do not consider this an explicit
statement or proof. To my mind, Tolkien may only be referring to an
orthographic convention in Welsh, not intending thereby to make a
precise claim as to phonetic length. Alternatively, he _may_ have had
such in mind, but I don't see this as a _necessary_ implication of his
wording. CFH]

Thus, if we take what Tolkien himself says seriously, we have a double
representation of one and the same sound (unless _#lh-_ doesn't figure
in the original version of the LotR, which I don't know).

[I do take Tolkien's words "seriously"; seriously enough to consider the
context in which statements are made, and to distinguish possible
implication from established fact. CFH]

If _lh_ figures the reason for not using _lh_ medially is etymology not
aesthetics.

[I maintain that the reason Tolkien _ll_ instead of _lh_ _may_ have
been for visual aesthetic reasons, as explained further above. CFH]

(Or does initial _lh_ look less uncouth to English speaking eyes that
medial _lh_ ? Seriously.).

[Again, see above. And thank you for giving my article serious attention,
and for sharing your thoughts on it, and giving me an opportunity to
further consider, explore, and clarify my own thoughts on the matter. CFH]

David Kiltz

(1) In Modern Welsh, that is. In Middle Welsh _ll_ could represent both
long voiced _l_ or short voiceless _l_.

I have made a small addition to my article on "The Past-Tense Verb in
the Noldorin of the Etymologies" in _Tengwestië_
(<http://www.elvish.org/Tengwestie/articles/Hostetter/noldpat.phtml>),
near the end among my "resultant observations":

"It can also be seen that, with the sole (and somewhat dubious)
exception of _nîdh_, there is a strict division in the Strong I and
Strong II formations according to the phonetic class of the final basic
consonant: all verbs arising from bases ending in a liquid (here, -L
and -R occur) form their strong pa.t. by root vowel strengthening or
A-infixion (Strong I), while with one possible execption all verbs
arising from bases ending in a stop or a nasal (here, -P, -T, -K, -D,
and -M occur) form their strong pa.t. by nasal infixion (Strong II).
This suggests, inter alia, that the strong pa.t. of verbs like _garo_
(< GAR-) and _melo_ (< MEL-), if in fact they ever had strong forms,
would be Strong I: i.e., *_gor_ < *_gâ?r-ê_ and *_mêl_ < *_mêl-ê_. Note
further in this connection that nowhere do verbs arising from bases
ending in a liquid form a pa.t. by simple suffixion of _-n_ (i.e., as
though employing the weak pa.t. tense ending *_-nê“_ evidenced in such
weak pa.t. Quenya verbs as _ortane_ 'uplifted', LR:368). Hence we see
no evidence whatsoever for pa.t. formations like *_garn_, *_tirn_, or
*_mell_."


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

NOTE: I had originally intended to post the following comments on
Elfling, but as of this morning I have been banned from that forum
by David Salo, without explanation or warning.

[List members are invited to read and join the Elfling-d meta-discussion list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling-d/
if they share our concern for the policies and practices of the owner and
moderators of Elfling. CFH]

The thread to which this responds was begun by Chris Friederich
in Elfling message #27849:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/27849

A list of links to followup messages is found at the bottom of
the above page.

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

On Dec 23, 2003, at 12:02 AM, chris_friederich wrote:

> ... So now we have either #_ingwe_ or #_pingwe_ as possible
> forms for "insect", and we have no real way of telling which
> is the correct one.  One could simply take #_pingwe_, which
> has no homophones as far as I know, and run with it, I
> suppose. I still wish there were a way to be sure, though...

This has been a very interesting thread. I'm inclined to take
Q _ingwe_ in QL at face value as meaning 'fish' and not *'insect',
since the meaning 'fish' seems thoroughly confirmed by the other
derivatives of root IWI given in QL:

_ingwilin (ng), ingwil_ 'eel' -- evidently lit. *'fish-snake',
      with Q _lin_ (_ling-_) 'snake' (PE12:54)

_Uin (d)_ 'a fish', (also the name of "the primeval whale" in the Lost
      Tales) pl. _uini, _windi_; adj. _uindea, windea_ 'fishlike';
      and _Ui_ "Queen of Mermaids", name of the wife of Osse, which
      QL compares to _Uin_ 'a fish' -- all said to derive from "some
      such form as _wî_", itself from root IWI (PE12:97).

We can also note the Gnomish cognates given in GL: _ing_ 'fish',
_igli_ 'young of fish, small fry', and _uin_, which can mean either
'a whale' in general, 'Gulma's great whale' in particular, or,
poetically, 'a wave'. This last meaning suggests some confusion
or blending with Gn. _gwing_ 'a wave-crest, crest, foam' (in GL
this word is cross-referenced to _uin_); QL also notes that
_winge_ 'foam, spindrift, froth, scud' derives from _uingê_,
"also = wave". Perhaps the meaning of the root IWI was originally
*'undulate'?

It seems possible that Q _ingwe_ 'fish' is the second element in
both _telpingwe_ 'silverfish' and _ulumpingwe_ 'caterpillar', in
both instances the sense 'fish' being _pictorial_ (describing
how these insects look and move) rather than literal. In the case
of _telpingwe_ 'silverfish', this word (like its English counterpart)
might refer to _both_ the insect and the fish; these insects, with
their silver scales, torpedo-shaped bodies, and darting movements,
do in fact resemble tiny fish. Ditto for _ulumpingwe_ 'caterpillar',
the literal meaning of which might be *'camel-fish', referring
to the "hump" a caterpillar makes as it inches along, and to its
elongated eel-like body shape and fish-like undulating mode of
movement.

And certainly "camel-fish" would be no stranger a pictorial metaphor
for these creatures than English _caterpillar_ itself, which traces
back to Old French _chatepelose_ 'hairy cat' < Latin _catta_ 'cat'
+ _pilosus_ < _pilus_ 'hair' (according to one theory, at least;
it has also been proposed that the second element is _piller,
pilour_ 'pillager, plunderer, spoiler'). French uses a canine
metaphor instead, _chenille_ 'caterpillar' deriving from Latin
_canicula_ 'little dog', dim. of _canis_ 'dog'. Portuguese uses
_lagarta_, from _lagarto_ 'lizard'.

There are similarly non-literal, metaphorical names for 'dragonfly'
in the Gnomish Lexicon. Dragonflies are neither Orcs nor snakes, yet
the names for this insect in GL are _sithagong_ *'fly-goblin' (Gn.
_sitha_ 'fly' + _gong_ 'one of a tribe of the orcs, a goblin') and
_sithaling_ 'dragonfly (fly snake)' (Gn. _ling_ 'small snake').

As for interpreting _telpingwe_ and _ulumpingwe_ as haplologies of
*_telpe-pingwe, *ulumpe-pingwe_, with *_pingwe_ meaning 'insect' --
while hapolology would probably occur if these forms existed, there
are etymological problems with *_pingwe_. In QL, words ending in
_-ngwe_ consistently derive from two kinds of roots: 1) roots with W
as their medial consonant -- thus _ingwe_ 'fish' < IWI, _rangwe_
*'ran' pa.t. of _rawa-_ 'run, chase' < RAWA; and 2) roots with NG
(usually spelled with an _eng_) as their medial consonant --
thus _ongwe_ 'pain' < ONGO, _ringwe_ 'frost' < RINGI, _tengwe_
'knowledge' < TENGE 'know', _ungwe_ 'spider' < GUNGU. Thus we would
expect a noun *_pingwe_ to derive either from a root *PIWI or *PINGI.
There is no root *PINGI in QL, though there is a root PIWI, apparently
meaning *'fat', with derivatives including _pîwe_ 'fatness,
richness, goodness' and _pingwa_ 'fat, rich (of soil)', the latter
very close to our hypothetical *_pingwe_. But if a noun *_pingwe_
were formed from PIWI, it would almost certainly have the meaning
'fat' or 'fatness', not 'insect'. And although it is tempting to
suppose that a noun *_pingwe_ could derive from PIKI, PINI, PÎ
*'slender, small', especially in light of the derivative _pin, pink_
'a little thing, a mite' (the latter gloss possibly referring to the
tiny parasitic arachnids of that name), none of these roots has the
form that all the attested examples of words in _-ngwe_ in QL would
lead us to expect.

-- Patrick H. Wynne

Patrick H. Wynne wrote:

> As for interpreting _telpingwe_ and _ulumpingwe_ as haplologies of
> *_telpe-pingwe, *ulumpe-pingwe_, with *_pingwe_ meaning 'insect' --
> while hapolology would probably occur if these forms existed, there
> are etymological problems with *_pingwe_.

[...]

I had in my mind something like PIK-ME > PINGWE - but I surmise this
pattern is a feature of much later stages of the language...?
I think you have convinced me that it is more probable that the words
contain -ingwe.

Lukas

[You are right that the development of *_-k-mê_ > Q _-ngwe_ seen in
the Etymologies -- e.g. *_rakmê_ > Q _rangwe_ 'fathom' -- does _not_
occur in QL, in which all words in _-ngwe_ derive instead from roots
with medial W (IWI etc.) or with medial NG (TENGE etc.) -- PHW]

Patrick H. Wynne wrote:

>NOTE: I had originally intended to post the following comments on
>Elfling, but as of this morning I have been banned from that forum
>by David Salo, without explanation or warning.

Carl F. Hostetter added:

>[List members are invited to read and join the Elfling-d meta-discussion list:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling-d/
>if they share our concern for the policies and practices of the owner and
>moderators of Elfling. CFH]

**Eh, I am puzzled. I see I have misunderstood the purpose of this
mailing list. I have re-read the description on the yahoo site but
I am still puzzled. What is going on on elfling-d is certainly of
interest, I myself am a member of it and read its messages but
the purpose of this list is not (if I understand it correctly, though I
probably do not) to be engaged in such affairs but only in discussions
concerning Tolkien's invented languages. If I wrote something like
this and sent it to this list, I do not doubt (and do not object in fact)
that it would be rejected as off-topic. Similarly, I would be very
surprised if this post of mine was not rejected, because it is off-topic
for the lambengolmor list. Or am I wrong?


Ales Bican

--
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)

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

[My mention of the fact that I have been banned on Elfling was necessary
to explain why I was posting a lengthy response to an Elfling thread here
on Lambengolmor instead of on Elfling itself (my post on _ingwe_ and
*_pingwe_ was completed before I learned of my ban, and I felt it was a
shame to waste the research). Carl's moderatorial addition of a link to
Elfling-d for those who might have an interest in this situation is
perfectly reasonable, since it is 1) simply a _link_, not an actual dis-
cussion of the situation; 2) hardly a regular occurrence on this list; and
3) a mere single sentence added to a lengthy post _otherwise devoted
entirely to a discussion concerning Tolkien's invented languages_.
Ales's puzzlement thus strikes me as both unjustified and exaggerated.

This having been said, I will note that the proper forum for discussion
and/or criticism of the moderation of the Lambengolmor list is on the
Lambengolmor-d meta-discussion list, which you will find at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor-d/

To quote from Carl's introductory message, "The purpose of
[Lambengolmor-d] is to serve as a forum for the publication and
discussion of rejected posts, and of the moderatorial policies and
practices of the Lambengolmor list".

I am allowing Ales's post, despite the fact that it does not concern
Tolkien's languages, as an opportunity to remind the members of
Lambengolmor of the existence of Lambengolmor-d and of its purpose.
From this point on, however, all further queries or criticisms regarding
moderatorial policy should be directed to Lambengolmor-d and
not to this list. -- Patrick H. Wynne]

>French uses a canine
> metaphor instead, _chenille_ 'caterpillar' deriving from Latin
> _canicula_ 'little dog', dim. of _canis_ 'dog'.

No, not the French, who are quite unaware that "chenille" is etymologically
related to dog, chien in French. It is the Romans of the IV century or so
who thought that the _head_ of a caterpillar looked like a *bitch*. Anyway,
*canicula "young bitch" is unattested, it is Vulgar Latin.

Edouard Kloczko

It is noted in LR:1097 that "[the tengwa] _áre_ was originally _áze_,
but when this _z_ became merged with 21 [_óre_], the sign was in
Quenya used for the very frequent _ss_ of that language».

That statement apparently means that there was an original sound [z]
that was changed into [r] by rhotacism and therefore lost in Quenya.
Some research on this issue reveals that it is far more complex than
just a single evolution [z] > [r]. I have attempted to study it, and
have some doubts on which I hope that some of you may help.

  I have noticed that, while [z] is common in Archaic Quenya (as seen
in some words of _Quendi and Eldar_ or in the _Átaremma_), it is not
so in the Common Eldarin tongues. The best resource for researching
the phonology of Quenya is, of course, the _Qenya Phonology_ (QPh):
it is a very early text, not revised after 1919 or 1920 (PE12:xvii),
but it seems clear to me that the phonology was a very stable element
(far more than the lexicon), since much of the information given in QPh
coincides with what is -- scantly -- told in LR Appendixes and later
linguistic texts.

Regarding the rhotacism, in QPh it is said that:

  - Eldarin had the sound [z] as variant of [ð], but in Cor-Eldarin it
gave [r] or [s] (see tables in PE12:15, 16).

  - After _þ_ > _s_ "_s_ gave _z_ and then _r_ before _l_, _r_, _n_, _m_,
_w_, _y_, _bh_, _3_ [approximated transcription; _bh_ is the labial spirant,
a crossed _b_ in the text, and _3_ is yogh] giving _ll_, _´r_, _rn_, _rm_,
_rw_, _ry_, _rb_ [or] _rw_, _rg_ [or] _´r_" (PE12:19).

  - "Finally all the voiced spirants were weakened and voiced: ... _s_ >
_z_ > _r_" (PE12:20).

  - "_ð_ > _z_ > _r_ everywhere", with some exceptions (PE12:24).

  - "_ð_ dialectal _rð_ >_rz_ > _rr_ or _´r_" (PE12:24).

So, it seems that the oldest stage of the tongues of the Eldar did
have the sound [z], but it was lost _before_ Quenya split from the
other Eldarin tongues. This was apparently by rhotacism or unvoicing,
but we have no details of this early change, since (alas!) Tolkien did
not reach a revision in ink of the section for liquids and sibilants
(and the pencil layer was deleted, it seems).

Other texts which indirectly deal with phonology point to this also.
The "Qenya Lexicon" has no root with Z. In the later _Etymologies_ (Etym.)
there are only two primitive words with _z_, _mazgâ_ and _mazgê_
(V:371), which are obviously a voicing (maybe in some stage of
Quenya, after it split from other tongues) of _s_, since they come
from the root MASAG-. And also in Etym. we find three roots with _z_:
EZDE-, EZGE- (both in V:357) and MIZD- (V:373); but though in some
stage of the composition of Etym. Tolkien thought of primitive roots
with _z_, he seems later to have changed some of them for alternative, or
maybe older ones from which they were derived. To EZDE- there is the
related root SED-, later mentioned in XI:403 as the origin of the name
_Este_< _ezdê_ < _esdê_, so it is apparent that EZDE- may be regarded as
a derivation from SED-; EZGE- was struck out for ESEK-, and although
there is no alternative for MIZD-, we can find MISK- and MITH- that
are semantically related, and show no _z_.

I think that this scarcity of roots with _z_ for Quenya and other
Eldarin tongues clearly shows that it was not a feature of the
primitive language, or whether it was, it was lost in a very early
stage. But I do not have all the linguistic resources that I should,
and I would like to know if anyone found some evidence of the opposite
(or the like, maybe).

On the other hand, I want to share with you some inkling derived from
this, in order to know whether you think it reasonable or not. Looking
in _Quendi and Eldar_ I noticed that Valarin is a language in which _z_
is actually characteristic, and that the Vanyarin dialect of Quenya
did not developed rhotacism, as seen in Vanyarin _auzel_ and _oäzel_,
besides usual Quenya _aurel_ and _oärel_ (XI:363), or in _ezella_
(borrowed from Valarin), used among Vanyar but not among Noldor
(XI:399). So I wonder whether it may be that:

  1) the Eldarin tongues developed the sound [z] again by influence of
Valarin?
  2) the Noldorin dialect of Quenya (what usually we tell just Quenya)
developed the rhotacism as a rejection of Valarin features?

The question 1) may be easily laid down if some evidence is found of
Alamanyarin (Eldarin, but not Amanyarin) words in which the raising of
[z] is present; for instance, in Sindarin (but in words not borrowed
from Quenya).

And the question 2) is more conjectural (it is difficult to find
evidence to accept or reject it), but I find it very in the line of
the matter of þ/s (see _The Shibboleth of Fëanor_), and I like it.

Finally, I would also ask something about rhotacism patterns other
than those cited from QPh. As I told before, I find the ideas of that
text very stable throughout all the stages of Quenya, but the document
is incomplete, and other cases of rhotacism may be found. I would like
to have a comprehensive relation of the typical cases of Quenya
rhotacism, and I would be very grateful if you could help.

[You will find some additional information in Tolkien's "Early Qenya
Grammar" in _Parma Eldlamberon_ 14, which should be published
any day now. CFH]

But of course, first my two cents. The only case I have found (apart from
the already commented cases explicited in QPh), is final _-d_ > _-r_, as
stated in XI:388 about the name _Kasar_, adapted from _Khazad_. From
other sources it may be guessed that it is not only final _-d_, but
every post-vocalic _-d_: see _aw(a)delo_ > _aurel_ and _awâdelo_ >
_oärel_ (XI:363), and earlier cases (in Etym.) as _nidwô_ > _nirwa_
(s.v. NID-), _tad_ > _tar_ (s.v. TA-). The examples of
_aw(a)delo_/_awâdelo_, through the Vanyarin forms with _z_, show that
the evolution was _d_ > _z_ > _r_. (Helge Fauskanger posits, in his
article "The Evolution from Primitive Elvish to Quenya",
<http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/qevolution.pdf>, that there
was a intermediate _ð_, thus: _d_ > _ð_ > _z_ > _r_.)

And I have found also some cases of rhotacism (or absence of it) about
which Tolkien did change his mind. One of the most noticeable is the
rhotacism of intervocalic _s_. Although the section about the _s_ is
lost in QPh, we luckily have the comments on _þ_, which yielded _s_,
and there it is explicitly told that "_-þ_- > _s_ did not suffer medial
voicing, as the other _s_". In the Lexicon we clearly see that no medial
_s_ goes to _r_ (there are some cases in which seemingly to goes, but
only seemingly; see below). But in Etym. and later texts wee see that
it changed: for instance, _thausa_ > _thaura_ (V:393 s.v. THUS-);
_besû_ > _veru_ (V:352 s.v. BES-); *_olosi_ > _olozi_ > _olori
(UT:396), as probably *_lôsê_ > _lóre_ (from LOS-, in V:370); and the
paradigmatic case of _áze_ > _áre_, which perhaps arises ultimately from
*_âsê_, if related to the root AS- 'warmth' mentioned in VT43:18.

There is also noticeable the retention of _rr_, that in the early
conception seems to yield _´r_ (see the citations of QPh above). This
is clearly seen in the combination of _s_ + _r_. This combination is not
explicitly regarded in QPh (it should be in the "lost" sections), but
its effect is indirectly seen in some entries of the Lexicon: in
PE12:79 we see _rêrô_ < _rerro_ < _res-ru_, from RESE, and in PE12:40
_herendô_ ('brother'), from HESE, which is likely to be _hes_
('brother' or 'sister') + _rendo_ (= _rendo_, 'kinsman, cousin').
These are the two words which seem to undergo rhotacism of medial _s_,
but we see that it actually is rhotacism in a combination with another
_r_ (or it is assimilation?), plus unvoicing of the first _s_.
However, in later texts we see that this last step does not occur, as
_mi-srawanwe_ > *_mirroanwe_ (deducted from pl. _mirroanwi_; X:350);
or _cas-raya > _carrea_ (VT42:12). I must also note that _initial_ _s_ +
_r_ is a different case, as it is clearly told in LR:1088 that _sr_- is
the usual origin of unvoiced _r_ (in Quenya _hr_).

But the same may be said of other combinations of consonant + _r_,
specifically of _n_ + _r_. The name _Eler(r)ína_ is a clear example: The
entries to EL- (V:355) and RIG- (V:383) show that it must be a
compound of _elen_ + _rína_. Such a combination in Sindarin gave _-ðr-_
(see _caran_ + _rass_ > _caradhras_ in LR:1087, or _elen_ + _rim_ >
_Eledhrim_ in XI:363); I guess that this is not unique to Sindarin,
but that it may be a common Eldarin change, that in Quenya would go
further: _nr_ > _ðr_ > _zr_ > _rr_. _Elerína_ was spelled with single _r_
since its first occurrence about 1938 (see V:200); this shows, I
think, the same _rr_ > _´r_ told above. But in X:154 we see in a text of
1951 the explicit change _Elerína_ > _Elerrína_, again to show that
Tolkien had changed his mind on this.

There is one more case where this might have occurred, but it is
unclear: In his cited article, Helge Fauskanger says that, probably,
_nyano_ in Etym. (from _nyadrô_, V:379 under NYAD-) should be read
*_nyarro_, and that this would show a development similar to those
that I have suggested, but with the consonant _d_: _dr_ > _ðr_ > _zr_ >
_rr_. It looks likely, but it is also odd that in this case the _rr_ was
retained (since Etym. is about 1937, and the idea of retaining _rr_
in _Elerrína_ is of 1951). Is there something for casting light on it
in the recently published "Addenda and Corrigenda to the Etymologies"?

[I will have to defer comment until the second part of the "A&C" is
published in _VT_ 46; but of course the reading *_nyarro_ proposed
by Helge and others is a reasonable proposal for an apparently
problematic form. CFH]

Well, that's all I could gather. In spite of the amount of text I have
written, I feel that there are many gaps of information that I don't
know. I'll be very grateful if you are so kind to provide more
information, and discuss my hypotheses.

Regards.
Helios.