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.

Helios De Rosario Martinez wrote:

> 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.

**The Qenya Phonology is not, in my opinion, the best resource
for researching the Quenya as conveived by Tolkien when he
was writing and after he wrote The Lord of the Rings, though
it is not still the only source of such a nature published (I hope
this will change with publication of PE14). Tolkien made a lot
of changes during his lifetime and while Qenya of QL and
Quenya of LotR are two terms of the same idea, the structure
(phonological, morphological etc.) of Qenya is different to Quenya
of LotR. But as you note, there are things in common.

>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).

**Did it? It is long since I studied QPh and QL in detail but my
undestanding is that _z_ was originally a variant of _s_ just as
_ð_ was a variant of _þ_. At least this is my reading of the sentence
"_s_, _z_ appear to have been variants similarly of _þ_, _ð_, but
separated early, and to be treated separately as certain cases in
Qenya show but the development of Noldorin clearly proves."
(PE12:15) Since the table (p. 16) of Cor-Eldarin reflexes of primitive
Eldarin sounds does not mention what happened to voiced spirants
word-initially, I suppose that voiced _z_ and _ð_ developed as
variants only word-medially.

> - 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).

**This is an instance where later development of Quenya differs.
First of all, Primitive Quendian appears to have had no other
spirants besides /s/ and /h/. I am not sure about Common Eldarin.

Anyway, the spirant /þ/ developed from an aspirate /th/ and its
fate was somewhat different. For instance (/th/ >) /þ/ + /w/ gave
*/þw/ > /sw/, cf. _hiswe_ from KHITH in Etym. Though not
attested, we may suppose the same for /þ/ + /y/ > */þy/ > */sy/.

I cannot say what happened to /th/ + /n/, /m/, it is possible the /th/
was deaspirated and the whole sequence underwent metathesis
producing */nt/, but I am guessing only.

As regards _bh_ and _3_ it is even more dubious; note that
combinations _rb_ and _rg_ are mentioned only in QPh, as far as
I know they are attested in no Quenya word, not even in the Qenya
Lexicon alone.

Finally, as regards /þ/ + /r/ it may be noted that /th/ + /r/ gives /ss/
in Etym, see _Nessa_ < _nethrâ_ (s.v. NETH-). It is interesting
that WJ:416 gives a different etymology of _Nessa_: this time it is
from _neresâ_. Is it because Tolkien changed his mind again and
now _Nessa_ could not come from _nethrâ_?

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

**Note that it should read: "Finally all the voiceless spirants...".

This is also an instance where development of later Quenya differs: it
seems that word-final /s/ did not undergo rhotacism, though it still did
in Etym. A classical example is _olor_ "dream" from ÓLOS- in Etym
but _olos_ from _olo-s_ (UT:The Istari). I do not know what
happened to word-final /þ/ in later Quenya. It is true that we do not
find any instance of word-final /þ/ but then virtually all instances are
in Noldorin Quenya where /þ/ > /s/. As we know, Quenya allowed
only dentals word-finally (cf. Letters no. 347). Could /þ/ (belonging to
the dental series) appear word-finally in Vanyarin Quenya? I am
inclined to think so.

> - "_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).

**As I have already said, it is necessary to distinguish between
development of Qenya as imagined in the QL era and development
of Quenya as imagined later.

My understanding of the development of later Quenya is as follows:
It seems that Primitive Quendian had no other sibilants besides
/s/ (and no other sibilant besides /s/ is reconstructed for
Proto-Indo-European). The sibilant might have had basically two
variants/realizations: [s] and [z], the former occuring
word-initially, the latter intervocalically and before a voiced
obstruent (there were probably other variants, perhaps a voiced
palatalized [z] before [j]?), though it is not certain whether
this existed already in PQ or the [z] variant developed in CE
or later. The point is that intervocalic /s/ could have been
realized (pronounced) as [z].

At a certain stage voiced occlusives were spirantized intervocalically:
/b/ > /bh/, /d/ > /ð/, /g/ > /3/. All of these phonemes are later
lost, either be a complete disappearence (in case of /3/),
rephonologization (in case of /bh/ > /v/ -- I suppose that before
turning to /v/, /b/ became /bh/, sc. a voiced bilabial spirant)
or merging with another phoneme. The last is the case of /ð/
because it merged with /s/ (realized as [z] intervocalically).
There was still only one sibilant phoneme in Quenya at that stage.
It remained so in the Vanyarin dialect. However, in the Noldorin
dialect the merge of /þ/ with /s/ caused phonologization of the
opposition between [s] and [z] because now both [s] (from /þ/) and
[z] could stand intervocalically.

It is not certain when the change _z_ > _r_ happened but I suppose
it was after the change of _þ_ to _s_. It is even possible that the
phonologization of _z_ in Noldorin Quenya triggered the change
_z_ > _r_, because _z_, until then regarded and actually being
a variant of _s_, assumed its own phonological status. It was the
only voiced spirant phoneme in Quenya and it entered into the
correlation of voice which was otherwise functional for occlusives
only: /p/ : /b/, /t/ : /d/ etc. (and liquids /hr/ : /r/, /hl/ : /l/
where it was later lost). The position of /z/ was therefore
exceptional in the phonological system of Noldorin Quenya.

>Other texts which indirectly deal with phonology point to this also.
>The "Qenya Lexicon" has no root with Z.

**Similarly (if I am not mistaken) it does not have any root/base
with þ. I suppose the bases given are Cor-Eldarin.

After this sentence Helios turns to Etym mentioning several forms
that contain a _z_ (such as _mazgâ_ and _mazgê_, bases EZDE-,
EZGE- and MIZD-). To this I would like to say that if I am not
mistaken, these forms are believed to be Common Eldarin or later
elaborations. As I said, I believe Primitive Quendian did not
possess _z_ as a separate phoneme.

Then Helios remarks that Vanyarin Quenya had forms with a _z_
and that Valarin had also forms with a _z_, He wonders whether:

> 1) the Eldarin tongues developed the sound [z] again by influence of
>Valarin?

**As I have written, I think that [z] (always?) existed as
a variant of [s] even in CE and PQ.

> 2) the Noldorin dialect of Quenya (what usually we tell just Quenya)
>developed the rhotacism as a rejection of Valarin features?

**It is possible, though it may be the other way round: Vanyar
adhered to _z_, because they had contacts with Valar and adopted
and adapted a number of Valarin words.

>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.

**The question of rhotacism is not as simple as it may seem,
there was even a disagreement between Helge Fauskanger
and Carl Hostetter concerning the analysis of _aselye_ from Aia
María. I intervened into it; if you are interested, see messages
entitled _aselye_ from Feb 21th-23rd 2003 on the Quenya
mailing list (the discussion was meant to continue on the TolkLang
list, because as Carl noted it was off-topic for the Quenya list,
but it did not).

The point is that Tolkien was changing his views on his languages.
In WJ:413 he states explicitly that "[m]edial _z_ < _s_ had become
_r_ in the Noldorin dialect of Q except for when an adjacent syllable,
or [as in case of _Kasar_] the same syllable, already contained
an _r_". However, in VT44:20 Patrick Wynne, Arden Smith and
Carl Hostetter mention (not cite unfortunately) an unpublished note
that "states that this change did not occur when _s_ was followed
by a stressed vowel". This type of rhotacism is similar to rhotacism
in the Germanic languages (Verner's law) as is also mentioned by
Patrick, Arden and Carl (a cross-reference is made to VT27:16 n. 7
where Carl discussses it).

> 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-);

**Speaking of the base BES-, it is quite interesting that _verno_ that
is given in Etym as a reflex of primitive  _besnô_ is recognized by
Patrick and Carl as _venno_ instead. On this occasion I would like
to ask if the reading was obvious, since it would mean that _s_
before _n_ was not rhotacized but assimilated to _n_ instead.

[Yes, the reading _venno_ is clear. For future reference, readers of
the A&C can assume that corrigenda presented using the formula
"[for:] THIS [read:] THAT" are certain. If there is any uncertainty about
the correct reading, this is _always_ indicated, most often by the
formula "[for:] THIS [perhaps read:] THAT". -- PHW]

>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.

**I would be careful with concluding that _Elerína_ must be from
_elen_ + _rína_. It is possible that _Elerína_ exhibits a shorter
version of _elen_, sc. the element _el-_ with a connecting element
_e_ (or a suffixed stem-vowel). Note that the Quenya form of the
name of the first Númenórean king is given in _The Shibboleth of
Fëanor_ (written cca. 1968) as _Elerosse_. The form may also
exhibit the element _ele-_, which is even suggested by the form
_Elros_.

>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]

**It is also possible that _nyano_ is to be read as *_nyaro_ (or even
*_nyáro_), but we will have to wait until VT46 is published.

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_)

Quoting Ales Bican <ales.bican@...>:

> **This is an instance where later development of Quenya differs.
> First of all, Primitive Quendian appears to have had no other
> spirants besides /s/ and /h/. I am not sure about Common Eldarin.

In Etym, entry-head, MA3-, we see "Eld" *_mahtâ-_ derived from earlier *_ma3-
tâ-_, and under WA3 we find *wahtâ and *wahsê. I would tend to interpret this
that PQ /h/ (AKA /3/) became [x] before voiceless consonants, but there is no
reason to suppose a phone_m_ic split. The there does not seem to be any reason
to suppose that the Eldarin of Etym had more than two fricative phonemes, and
I'm not aware of any evidence that later CE had either.

> As regards _bh_ and _3_ it is even more dubious; note that
> combinations _rb_ and _rg_ are mentioned only in QPh, as far as
> I know they are attested in no Quenya word, not even in the Qenya
> Lexicon alone.

In Etym, under TARAG, we se *_targâ_ as the ancestral form of Q _tarya_. I'm
not aware of any attest example of what happened to *rb, but my money's on
_rv_.

                                                                     Andreas

Ales Bican wrote:

> It is long since I studied QPh and QL in detail but my
> undestanding is that _z_ was originally a variant of _s_ just as
> _ð_ was a variant of _þ_. At least this is my reading of the
> sentence "_s_, _z_ appear to have been variants similarly of _þ_,
> _ð_, but separated early, and to be treated separately as certain
> cases in Qenya show but the development of Noldorin clearly proves."
> (PE12:15)

I see. You say it means: _s_ and _z_ are variants (one to each other)
similarly as _þ_ and _ð_ are (one to each other). But I interpreted it
otherwise: that _s_ was a variant of _þ_ similarly as _z_ was a
variant of _ð_.

[Helios's interpretation here is undoubtedly the correct one. Note that
Tolkien says _s_ and _z_ are variants _of_ _þ_ and _ð_, not that _s_ is
a variant of _z_ _as_ _þ_ is of _ð_. Note too that in the accompanying
chart to this statement, "(_s_)" and "(_z_)" were originally written in as
variants to _þ_ and _ð_, respectively. CFH]

There are two main reasons which lead me to think so. First, that in
the Eldarin > Cor-Eldarin evolution _þ_ > _s_ (initially), and _ð_ >
_z_ ( > _r_) (medially, at least). And second, that I thought that the
cited sentence was the same as "_s_, _z_ appear to have been variants
of _þ_, _ð_ similarly" (I am not native English-speaker, and such
anastrophes or hyperbatons make me miss the precise meaning of the
sentences).

But of course, if you are a native English-speaker (or know more
English than me, what I think easy indeed), I trust your
interpretation.

> Since the table (p. 16) of Cor-Eldarin reflexes of primitive
> Eldarin sounds does not mention what happened to voiced spirants
> word-initially, I suppose that voiced _z_ and _ð_ developed as
> variants only word-medially.

That is a good point to discuss, by the way. Does not the table of
PE12:16 mention what happened to initial voiced spirants? I am not
sure. Of course, there is no row with the label "4/ initial", ("4" is
the grade of voiced spirants), but there _is_ a "(4)" before "2/
initial" like the "(2)" before "4/ medial". Since we explicitly learn
that "2 medial = 4 medial", may it mean that voiced spirants behavied
initially the same way as voiced stops?

I wonder why would Tolkien codify it so oddly, nevertheless I think it
is possible. And you?


Now, back to the _r_.

I agree that the examples you provide show that the _s_ rhotacism did
not have a stable model, and there were more changes from the _Qenya
Phonology_ model than previously noticed by me. A comment to some:

> > - "Finally all the voiced spirants were weakened and voiced: ...
> > _s_ > _z_ > _r_" (PE12:20).
>
> **Note that it should read: "Finally all the voiceless spirants...".

Of course!

> This is also an instance where development of later Quenya differs:
> it seems that word-final /s/ did not undergo rhotacism, though it
> still did in Etym. A classical example is _olor_ "dream" from ÓLOS-
> in Etym but _olos_ from _olo-s_ (UT:The Istari).

Yes, more or less. Although I was aware of it, I forgot to point that
in later stages we can find many exceptions in the model of the _s_
rhotacism. This is clearly seen in the case of intervocalic _s_
developed in Etym. and later (I will not mention examples or possible
causes, since they are already discussed in the messages of the
_Quenya_ Group you mentioned -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quenya/
messages #830-832, for any who wants the reference). But I thought
that the case of final _-s_ is also retained depending of the
circumstances, not a general rule.

Let's just take the same example you provide, the note on _olos_ in
UT:396. You must have noticed that in another note the term _olor_ is
mentioned instead. By your words I suppose you think that the note with
_olor_ was somewhat older, and that when Tolkien discarded the final
_-s_ > _-r_ he then wrote the alternative of _olos_.

It may be so, but also that both _olos_ and _olor_ existed, coming
from the original unrhotacized _olos_, but developed differently
depending of their precise meaning. Notice that _olor_ is translated
as 'dream' (in the Elvish mood, related to memory, imagination, clear
vision...), and _olos_ as 'vision, phantasy' (related to mind
construction, art...). This would be similar to the dicotomy between
_ar_ (conjunction) / _as_ (preposition), both from Common Eldarin _as_
('and') that Carl commented in the message #831 of the _Quenya_ list.

Anyway, I cannot find evidence of this. It could even be that the word
_olor_ (the etymology of which is not accurately described in UT:396),
did not come from _olo-s_ (opposite to _olos_), but from _olo-sV_ (V
being a short vowel), and so rhotacized because it was intervocalic
but later lost the sort final vowel. I don't know.


Then you discuss the matter of the absence of _z_ in Primitive
Quendian and Common Eldarin words. You give an hypothesis on the
evolution of these languages distinct from the one described in the
_Qenya Phonology_. However I think it agrees in one point: that these
ancient languages did not have the phoneme /z/ (although you point
that the sound [z] already existed as an allophone of [s], both
belonging to the phoneme /s/).

> **I would be careful with concluding that _Elerína_ must be from
> _elen_ + _rína_. It is possible that _Elerína_ exhibits a shorter
> version of _elen_, sc. the element _el-_ with a connecting element
> _e_ (or a suffixed stem-vowel).

I don't think it was _ele-_ + _rína_. If so, Tolkien would not have
changed it to _Elerrína_ in later stages (when, according to what I
said, some combinations of consonant + _r_ > _rr_ did not derived into
single _r_).

Helios

Quoting Helios De Rosario Martinez <imrahil@...>:


> > **I would be careful with concluding that _Elerína_ must be from
> > _elen_ + _rína_. It is possible that _Elerína_ exhibits a shorter
> > version of _elen_, sc. the element _el-_ with a connecting element
> > _e_ (or a suffixed stem-vowel).
>
> I don't think it was _ele-_ + _rína_. If so, Tolkien would not have
> changed it to _Elerrína_ in later stages (when, according to what I
> said, some combinations of consonant + _r_ > _rr_ did not derived into
> single _r_).

An obvious point, perhaps, but the change _Elerína_>_Elerrína_ could reflect a
change in analysis from _el_+_rína_ to _elen_+_rína_.

                                                            Andreas

Helios De Rosario Martinez wrote:

>I see. You say it means: _s_ and _z_ are variants (one to each other)
>similarly as _þ_ and _ð_ are (one to each other). But I interpreted it
>otherwise: that _s_ was a variant of _þ_ similarly as _z_ was a
>variant of _ð_.

Carl F. Hostetter remarked:

>Helios's interpretation here is undoubtedly the correct one. Note that
>Tolkien says _s_ and _z_ are variants _of_ _þ_ and _ð_, not that _s_ is
>a variant of _z_ _as_ _þ_ is of _ð_. Note too that in the accompanying
>chart to this statement, "(_s_)" and "(_z_)" were originally written in as
>variants to _þ_ and _ð_, respectively.

**I see. I took a second look on the sentence and yes, it could be
read like this. I am not a native English speaker either, so my
reading does not have to be natural. I will trust Carl as a native
speaker.

I wrote:

>>Since the table (p. 16) of Cor-Eldarin reflexes of primitive
>>Eldarin sounds does not mention what happened to voiced spirants
>>word-initially, I suppose that voiced _z_ and _ð_ developed as
>>variants only word-medially.

Helios replied:

>That is a good point to discuss, by the way. Does not the table of
>PE12:16 mention what happened to initial voiced spirants? I am not
>sure. Of course, there is no row with the label "4/ initial", ("4" is
>the grade of voiced spirants), but there _is_ a "(4)" before "2/
>initial" like the "(2)" before "4/ medial". Since we explicitly learn
>that "2 medial == 4 medial", may it mean that voiced spirants behavied
>initially the same way as voiced stops?

**It is interesting that we are explicitly told what happened to
voiced stops (explosives) word-initially and what happened to
voiced spirants word-medially. We are also told that voiced stops
medially = voiced spirants medially. Could it be that the two
series had a complementary distribution? What I mean is that voiced
stops occurred only word-initially and voiced spirants only
word-medially. Or is it to suggest that initially voiced spirants
merged with voiced stops and medially voiced stops merged with
voiced spirants (which would also result in complementarity)?

To put it diagrammatically:
first phase
initially:
    voiced stops - remained
    voiced spirants > voiced stops
medially:
    voiced stops > voiced spirants
    voiced spirants - remained
second phase
initially:
    voiced stops - developed as described in PE12:16
medially:
    voiced spirants - developed as described in PE12:16

Note that (as I mentioned in the previous post) later (in real
time) voiced stops seem to become voiced spirants medially, so
perhaps this aspect was incorporated and present already in
developments in the Qenya era. As commonly known, Tolkien was
inspired by Finnish and Finnish is not very fond of voiced
stops. Note also that in draft notes on pp. 23-4 (op. cit.)
Tolkien mentioned only voiced spirants, there does not seem
to be any note on voiced stops.

[_olos_ vs. _olor_:]

>Yes, more or less. Although I was aware of it, I forgot to point that
>in later stages we can find many exceptions in the model of the _s_
>rhotacism. This is clearly seen in the case of intervocalic _s_
>developed in Etym. and later (I will not mention examples or possible
>causes, since they are already discussed in the messages of the
>_Quenya_ Group you mentioned -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quenya/
>messages #830-832, for any who wants the reference). But I thought
>that the case of final _-s_ is also retained depending of the
>circumstances, not a general rule.

**Let me note that the messages 830 through 832 is actually the
discussion on _aselye_ that I had with Carl and that I mentioned
last time. In the discussion I theorized that the exceptions like
_ósanwe_ or _alasaila_ may rather be due to analogy and
congruence with _sanwe_ and _saila_.

>Let's just take the same example you provide, the note on _olos_ in
>UT:396. You must have noticed that in another note the term _olor_ is
>mentioned instead. By your words I suppose you think that the note with
>_olor_ was somewhat older, and that when Tolkien discarded the final
>_-s_ > _-r_ he then wrote the alternative of _olos_.

**My opinion is that in the Etym era final _s_ turned to _r_ but
it did not later (say, after publication of LotR). Actually, I
overlooked the fact that the text on Istari in UT mentioned also
_olor_. It may be that the _r_ in _olor_ was original, sc. not
a product of rhotacism, unlike the _r_ in _olor_ from Etym which
< _s_.

>It may be so, but also that both _olos_ and _olor_ existed, coming
>from the original unrhotacized _olos_, but developed differently
>depending of their precise meaning.

**This is of course possible.

> Notice that _olor_ is translated
>as 'dream' (in the Elvish mood, related to memory, imagination, clear
>vision...), and _olos_ as 'vision, phantasy' (related to mind
>construction, art...). This would be similar to the dicotomy between
>_ar_ (conjunction) / _as_ (preposition), both from Common Eldarin _as_
>('and') that Carl commented in the message #831 of the _Quenya_ list.

**While this is possible as well, it need not be so. As
I wrote in the message no. 830 on the Quenya list, I am not
quite convinced that _ar_ "and" and _as_ "with" are really derived
from the same root, sc. AS. The status of rhotacism in the
Prayers is, I think, not obvious, there are several uncertainties,
e.g. _nísi_ -- why not *_níri_? Let me note that I also touched
this matter in my article _the -s case_:
http://www.elvish.org/elm/scase.html

>Anyway, I cannot find evidence of this. It could even be that the word
>_olor_ (the etymology of which is not accurately described in UT:396),
>did not come from _olo-s_ (opposite to _olos_), but from _olo-sV_ (V
>being a short vowel), and so rhotacized because it was intervocalic
>but later lost the sort final vowel. I don't know.

**This is possible, too. However, it would mean that rhotacism
took place before loss of final short vowels. We do not know
when rhotacism was meant to happen in the Etym era but the
essay _Quendi and Eldar_ suggests that it was quite a late
change when final CE short vowels were most likely dropped.

Another instance of possible different development of final _s_
can be seen in instances of the short 3rd person pronominal
suffix. It seems to appear as _-r_ in Earendel (see MC): _lútier
... Earendil_ "sailed Earendel", _langon ... kírier_ "the throat
... clove", _i lunte linganer_ "the boad hummed" and _i súru
laustaner_ "the wind 'lausted'". However, it appears as _-s_ in
famous _utúvienyes_ (LotR) or _eques_ "said he / she" (WJ:415).

On my suggestion that _Elerína_ may be _ele + rína_ instead
of _elen + rína_ Helios wrote:

>I don't think it was _ele-_ + _rína_. If so, Tolkien would not have
>changed it to _Elerrína_ in later stages (when, according to what I
>said, some combinations of consonant + _r_ > _rr_ did not derived into
>single _r_).

**I am not sure if I understand you. If it was once _ele + rína_,
why could Tolkien not decide later it was rather _elen + rína_?

* * *

I wrote:

  >>As regards _bh_ and _3_ it is even more dubious; note that
  >>combinations _rb_ and _rg_ are mentioned only in QPh, as far as
  >>I know they are attested in no Quenya word, not even in the Qenya
  >>Lexicon alone.

Andreas Johannson remarked:

  >In Etym, under TARAG, we se *_targâ_ as the ancestral form of Q
  >_tarya_.

**This is an interesting development. I wonder what the next part
of A&C will say about it because I cannot quite understand the
change of _g_ to _y_. Perhaps the _y_ in _tarya_ is a misreading
for _g_ and we will have the very first word with _rg_? And
looking at development of _gh_ (written as gamma) in PE12:24 where
_rgh_ gave _rg_, it may even be that the _y_ is a misreading for
a gamma.

  > I'm
  >not aware of any attest example of what happened to *rb, but my money's
  >on _rv_.

**I would place the same bet, though QPh allows existence of
_rb_ along with _lb_. And if later Quenya has variation _lb_ ~
_lv_, it could also have _rb_ ~ _rv_.

And Andreas, as regards spirant phonemes in CE, I agree
with you: I also think CE of Etym did not have more
spirant phonemes other than /s/ (realized as [s]
word-initially and [z] intervocalically?) and /h/ realized
as, inter alia, [x] before a voiceless sound. (A question
may be asked if _kt_ had already become _xt_ when _3t_
became _xt_. If so, I would be tempted to intepret [x]
in _mahta_ as a realization of an archiphoneme /k-h/
but that is a different matter.)


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_)

The contrastive forms _olos_ and _olor_ can be explained with ease in two
different ways:

A) originally _olos_ gets its final _s_ voiced in position before vocalic
endings to _z_ which then becomes _r_ (cf. Old Latin _honos_, Classic & Vulgar
Latin _honor_).

B) originally *_oloz_ (wherever that came from) remains in position before
vocalic endings, and later becomes _olor_, but gets its final _z_ devoiced to
_olos_ in word-final position (cf. Polish G.Pl. spelled _ów_ [Croatian _ov_] and
pronounced _uf_).

As _s_ is a more common phoneme than _z_: do we actually _know_ that explanation
A can be excluded so that explanation B must be accepted and raise the problem
of where that _z_ came from? I am speaking of the internal evolution of
_LotR_-style Quenya from Primitive Eldarin, I am well aware that _z_ occurs in
Qenya.

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

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

Quoting Ales Bican <ales.bican@...>:

> Andreas Johannson remarked:
>
>> In Etym, under TARAG, we se *_targâ_ as the ancestral form of Q >_tarya_.
>
> ... I cannot quite understand the change of _g_ to _y_. Perhaps the _y_ in
> _tarya_ is a misreading for _g_ and we will have the very first word with
> _rg_? And looking at development of _gh_ (written as gamma) in PE12:24
> where _rgh_ gave _rg_, it may even be that the _y_ is a misreading for a
> gamma.

Well, as there's to the very best of my knowledge no (other) Q word with a
gamma in it, it would rather surpise me. And _g_>_gh_>_y_ is hardly very odd.
Greek's done it before front vowels, f'rinstance, and Noldorin seems to much
the same in _Diriel_<_Dirghel_ (mentioned under DER in Etym), where the second
element is from GYEL. Unchanged _-rg-_ wouldn't agree with the statement in
Appendix E that Q only had _g_ in _-ng-_, but of course, the Professor may
have changed his mind between writing Etym and LotR.

There's also Q _felya_ from PHELEG- - no primitive form listed, but almost
certainly *_phelgâ_; cf AT _felga_ and ON _phelga_. This would be a parallel
development.

(And yes, I'm aware of Q _ulundo_ < _ulgundô_, which raises the question why
we're not seeing **fela instead.)

> (A question may be asked if _kt_ had already become _xt_ when _3t_ became
> _xt_. If so, I would be tempted to intepret [x] in _mahta_ as a realization of
an
> archiphoneme /k-h/ but that is a different matter.)

It cannot have, since _ma3-tâ-_>_mahtâ-_ and _maktâ-_ yields different forms
in Noldorin; _matho_ (with the Noldorin infinitival -o) and _maetha_ (glossed
as infinitive, but apparently a "personless" present tense) respectively.

"Quendi and Eldar" has AT _hecta-_ from _hek-tâ-_, confirming that _kt_ > _ht_
is a specifically Quenya development.

                                                               Andreas

I have always supposed that the form _olor_ arose by analogy with
the other cases (comp. Latin _honos_/_honor_) . This seems to
me to be the most natural explanation.

Lukas

I have recently specified a set of standard Conventions and
Abbreviations guide for the web-journal _Tengwestië_, and would like to
use the same for this list from now on. I ask all authors to adopt the
conventions and abbreviations listed there for their posts.

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

Thanks,

Carl


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

Greetings:

If one wished to test a hypothesis that some invented Tolkien language I is
"based on" some primary-world language P, how ought one go about it?

What features and criteria would be sufficient demonstration of an influence?
What documentation would be expected?

Darrell


Darrell A. Martin     darrellm@...
a native Vermonter currently in exile in Illinois
http://www.darrell-martin.net/genealogy


[I would say that phonetic character, sc. inventory and permitted patterns, and
especially the phonological developments that produced them, must rank as the
chief influence on Tolkien's languages from primary-world languages. If you can
demonstrate a persuasive similarity between the phonological development of
language I from Common Eldarin and that of language P from Proto-Indo-European
(assuming P is an IE language), I would count the influence demonstrated. Other
influences exist as well, of course, as with grammatical mutation in Sindarin
and Welsh, or the rich inflectional systems of Quenya and Finnish (and to a
lesser extent Latin). For Tolkienian and/or primary-world languages where
phonological information is spotty or non-existent (e.g., Khuzdul, Black
Speech), one must instead rely on synchronic features, such as an inventory of
phonemes and permitted sound patterns, apparent derivational mechanisms, etc.
etc. CFH]

Thank you all (specially to Ales) for your comments on the matter of
rhotacism. I find them very instructive and helpful.

Some time ago I started to write an article for the Spanish linguistic site
Lambenor (http://lambenor.free.fr/) on the matter of the _r_ in Quenya,
with the ideas provided by the members of the Lambenor group (those
who know Spanish may read the messages 384-395, 3287-3290,
4999-5003, 5005, 5009, 5010, 5015, 5026, 5031, 5036, 5038, 5040,
5052, 5123-5124, 5127-5128 and 5765-5768 in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambenor).

The issue of rhotacism is one of the most complex items of the article,
that was mainly discussed by me and Lambenor member Javier Lorenzo.
But, as may be expected, the discussion dealt mainly with the issue of
pronunciation and spelling in _tengwar_.

I am aware that in other lists (I suppose TolkLang and Elfling, the
most known) this must have been already discussed; but I have searched
in their archives (through the mirror in TolkLang), and never found a
comprehensive and coherent statement on the matter. We are trying to
do it in Lambenor, but since there it shall be only available for
Spanish-speaking people, I translate the conclusions and post them
here, for you to evaluate them.

I skip the discussion on the variants _rd_, _ry_, _hr_ and _rr_, and
go directly to the controversial item: the duality of the pronunciation and
spelling of the single _r_.

We found the main information in the Appendix E:

"R represents a trilled _r_ in all positions; the sound was not lost
before consonants (as in English _part_)." (LR:1088)

"[Óre] was often used for a weak (untrilled) _r_, originally occurring
in Quenya and regarded in the system of that language as the weakest
consonant of the _tincotéma_." (LR:1094)

"[Rómen] (in origin a modification of [óre]) was used for 'full'
trilled _r_" (LR:1095)

From those citations we have seemingly contradictory information,
since first one says that _r_ is always trilled and second that there
was an untrilled _r_. But it is clear that the key is on the words
"originally", "in origin". The second and third citations are from the
section about writing, that deals with the history of the _tengwar_, the
phonemes they _originally_ represented, and their changes, while the first
citation deals with how they must be pronounced Quenya and other
languages in the context of LR, that is, in the late Third Age.

So, we may infer that when Fëanor invented the _tengwar_ there were
a weak untrilled and a full trilled _r_, clearly different, but in
later stages there was only one trilled phoneme.

The phonemes we are dealing with must be the trilled, tap and
approximant alveolars. If we take the literal meaning of the
citations, we learn that the phoneme the of _r_ in Third Age was the
alveolar trilled, as well as the original sound of _rómen_; and that
the original sound of _óre_ should be tap or approximant. We found the
approximant a likelier option, since the other _tengwar_ of the sixth
grade also represented Quenya approximants (_anna_ = /j/, and _wilya_
= /w/).

But others stated that the citations must be interpreted otherwise,
since they are oriented to a general (though interested) English
public, not to phoneticians, and that the terminology used in the
Appendixes does not accurately match the phonetic terminology we
are used to, say, the one of the IPA.

According to this idea the weak untrilled _r_ must undoubtedly be the
weakest for English, the approximant. And we may also suppose that the
trilled _r_ of _rómen_ and in the Third Age is rather the tap, more
usual for English-speakers (in opposition to the approximant, stated
to be _un-trilled_); however we cannot absolutely discard that it was
the phonetically trilled _r_, although this is more difficult for
English-speakers to identify.

A more elaborate version of this interpretation is that the
emphasized adjective "'full' trilled" means something different from
just "trilled", similar to the distinction of the Spanish "vibrante".
We Spanish do not have any approximant _r_, but the tap and the
trilled, which are called "vibrante simple" and "vibrante múltiple".
This idea means that:

  - "'full' trilled" is like "vibrante múltiple" ("trilled" for IPA).
  - "trilled" is like "vibrante" ("trilled" or "tap" for IPA).

So original _rómen_ would be the trilled (according to IPA) and _óre_
approximant, but the _r_ in the Third Age could be either trilled or
tap.

The weak point of this interpretation is that (according to a native
English speaker in Lambenor), the parallelism between the English term
"trilled" and Spanish "vibrante" is quite odd for most languages, except
for Spanish, and that such an interpretation may be regarded as a
typical interference of Spanish speakers, having nothing to do with
Tolkien's purpose.

So, the first interpretation (original _óre_ approximant, original
_rómen_ and Third Age _r_ trilled) seems to be likelier. And I think
that it can be supported by the nature of Finnish _r_. As far as I
know (a Finnish member will please tell if I am mistaken) in that language
there is only "a trilled _r_ in all positions" (paraphrasing Tolkien in
LR:1088),
the trilled alveolar according to IPA. Since Quenya is inspired by Finnish,
it is a good hint.

However, this does not mean that there was only one _sound_ for _r_.
Although the only Finnish phoneme for _r_ is the trilled, I believe
that there are distinct allophones for it. I may be wrong, since I
have no knowledge of Finnish, but listening to the samples of Finnish
names in http://www.saunalahti.fi/~kajun/finns/alpha.htm I hear that
before vowels the _r_ is really trilled (like Spanish _perro_), but
before consonants and in final position it is tap (like Spanish
_pero_). Am I right?

Moreover, this duality of allophones may be compared with the duality
in the spelling. We have few samples of tengwar in Quenya: following
the notation of Mellonath Daeron
(http://www.forodrim.org/daeron/mdtci.html) they are only DTS
12, 19, 20, 38, 40, 42, 46, 54, 55 and 59. The longest and most important
is the tengwar version of the _Namárië_ in _The Road Goes Ever On_, where
we see that _rómen_ goes before vowels and _óre_ before consonant and
final, the same pattern of the Finnish allophones previously commented.
Although the other samples of _tengwar_ are too short for any conclusion to
be found, that pattern seems to be kept, with the only exception the
illustration 182 of _Artist and Illustrator_, where the word _moruvan_ is
written with _óre_ (althoug the _r_ is before a vowel).

The dual writing of _r_ does not seem to be of etymological origin
(in contrast with the other dual-form writings, as the one of _thúle_ and
_silme_ deduced from the statement in LR:1088, "[_th_] had become _s_ in
spoken Quenya, though still written with a different letter"). In the
text of _Namárie_ we have the words _oromardi_ ("lofty halls") and
_ortane_ ("[she] raised"), both with the evident particle _or(o)-_
related to "raise", but in one case spelt with _rómen_ and in the
other with _óre_; as well as the plural suffix _-r_ is always spelt
with _óre_ but the genitive form _-ron_ (as in _aldaron_) with
_rómen_.

So it is possible that the pattern is of phonetic origin, and each
_tengwa_ matches one of the allophones of _r_. However others have
discussed other possible reasons for that spelling. Some said that it
is just an stylistic issue (as the duality between _ss_ and _ß_ in
German). Some highlighted David Salo's hypothesis in
http://www.elvish.org/elm/spelling.html
that such a pattern helps to indicate whether there is or not an _a_ after
_r_ in the style of writing which omits that vowel. However, there is
little evidence for any such hypothesis.

And that it all the information (in summary) that we gathered in
Lambenor about the issue. What do you think?

Helios

Andreas Johansson wrote:

> (And yes, I'm aware of Q _ulundo_ < _ulgundô_, which raises
> the question why we're not seeing **fela instead.)

Perhaps because of the difference of the stress pattern?
In "felga>felya" the "felg>fely" syllable is stressed, whereas
in "ulgundo>ulundo" the "ulg>ul" syllable is not stressed?
To me it makes sense - but who is me :-) ?

Lukas

----------
>De : Helios De Rosario Martinez <imrahil@...>
>À : lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com
>Objet : [Lambengolmor] Pronunciation and writing of _r_ in Quenya
>Date : Dim 4 jan 2004 23:24
>

<snip>

>
> "[Óre] was often used for a weak (untrilled) _r_, originally occurring
> in Quenya and regarded in the system of that language as the weakest
> consonant of the _tincotéma_." (LR:1094)

I read here "originally occurring in Quenya" as meaning "originally
occurring in Common Eldarin (?)or/and Primitive Quendian", e.g. *not* in
Quenya as the living language of Aman and later in Exile, in which we had
only one trilled r.

There was no such thing as a "Third Age" Quenya (of the Eldar): e.g. a
dialect used in the T.A. as distinct of the one spoken by the Eldar in the
First or the Second Age. This is clearly stated by Tolkien in his letter to
Dick Plotz.

As for Men Quenya was never their mother tongue; they spoke it either with
an adûnaic accent and later with a sôval phâre accent. ;-)
But most of the time it was for them a "Book language".

Namárië,

Edouard Kloczko

I wrote:

> I may be wrong, since I
> have no knowledge of Finnish, but listening to the samples of
> Finnish names in http://www.saunalahti.fi/~kajun/finns/alpha.htm I
> hear that before vowels the _r_ is really trilled (like Spanish
> _perro_), but before consonants and in final position it is tap
> (like Spanish _pero_). Am I right?

A fellow of the Lambenor list has already pointed that actually I am
wrong, since the _r_ in those samples are always trilled (with various
lengths, but always trilled).

So, when I said of the dual writing of _r_ in Quenya that:

> it is possible that the pattern is of phonetic origin, and each
> _tengwa_ matches one of the allophones of _r_.

... I cannot support such an idea with the model of Finnish _r_.

Helios.