In VT45:14 (s.v. 3EL-) we read :

"*_Helwe_ name of Teler-lord, N _Elwe_, always recorded in Tel. and N
form _Elwe_"

I think there is a typo here (else the editors would have noticed this
slip) and the correct reading should be :

"Q _Elwe_, always recorded in Tel. and N form _Elwe_"

(or, perhaps "N _Elwe_, always recorded in Tel. and Q form _Elwe_")


Sébastien Bertho

[The passage as given in VT45:14 is correct; in this instance there
was no slip by the editors, nor a slip by Tolkien. In the Etymologies,
bases beginning in 3- have Qenya derivates in _h-_: thus 3AN- 'male'
> Q _hanu_ 'a male', 3AR- 'have, hold' > Q _harya-_ 'possess', etc.
In Noldorin initial 3- disappeared: thus 3AN- > N _anw_ 'a male',
3AR- > N _ardh_ 'realm'.

The point of the passage cited above s.v. 3EL- is that etymologically
the Qenya form of the name of the lord of the Teleri would have
been *_Helwe_, but the only name used in written records (apparently
even records written in Qenya) was the Telerin/Noldorin form _Elwe_.
The asterisk preceding *_Helwe_ does not indicate that it is a
primitive or early form, but rather that it is a form not recorded
in writing.

-- PHW]

Patrick Wynne wrote:

> [The passage as given in VT45:14 is correct; in this instance
> there was no slip by the editors, nor a slip by Tolkien. In the
> Etymologies, bases beginning in 3- have Qenya derivates in
> _h-_: thus 3AN- 'male' > Q _hanu_ 'a male', 3AR- 'have,
> hold' > Q _harya-_ 'possess', etc. In Noldorin initial 3-
> disappeared: thus 3AN- > N _anw_ 'a male', 3AR- > N _ardh_
> 'realm'.]

It is important to note that at least by the sixties, if we judge by
"Notes on _Óre_", for example (VT41), Tolkien had already changed
his mind and reversed this change. Thus from 3OR- we have Q.
and T. _óre, ora, órea_ and other derivatives lacking initial consonant,
yet the  cognate of Q. T. _óre_ is S. _gûr_. The change of initial 3-
to G- appears in Doriathrin (or Ilkorin?) of the thirties, according to
the Etymologies. Is this a case of Etym.-Doriathrin incorporated into
S. (as opposed to Noldorin)?

-- Jonathan Avidan

[This is an interesting point. The "Notes on _Óre_" date to c. 1968,
and the typescript text on VT41:11 does indeed state that Common
Eldarin 3OR- yielded Q _or-_, T. _or-_, and S. _gor-_. However, the
forms _óre, ora, órea_ cited by Jonathan are A) from a different
(albeit contemporary) set of notes; B) are in fact said to derive from
Common Eldarin root HOR (VT41:13); and C) are evidently Quenya, not
Quenya and Telerin. It is interesting that Tolkien gives _(h)ore_ as
one of the derivatives of HOR in the latter notes, showing that initlal
H- in the root was sometimes retained (dialectally, perhaps).

But Jonathan's basic point stands, that Tolkien clearly changed his mind
in his later writings about what the developments of original initial 3-
should be in the various descendant languages. He was also uncertain
whether this sound should be 3- or H- in the primitive tongue, as
shown by the variation between 3OR- and HOR- in the notes mentioned
above. In "Quendi and Eldar" (c. 1959-60) we can note the root
*HO 'away, from, from among' (XI:368), which is clearly a later conception
of 3O- 'from, away, from among, out of' in the Etymologies. In "Q&E"
this initial *H- was retained in Quenya and Telerin, but lost in Sindarin;
thus *HEK- > Q. _heka!_, T. _heca!_ 'be gone! stand aside', but S. _ego!_
'be off!' (XI:364-65). -- PHW]

My page on tengwar-inspired fonts
<www.geocities.com/otsoandor/Fonts.htm> now includes Tengwar Hereno, a
joint job with Paulo Otto, who designed the characters in 1994. I
redistributed and completed the font according to the keymapping that
is becoming standard for tengwar fonts [Tengwar Help File at
<www.acondia.com/font_tengwar/index.html>].

Hello,

It looks to me that lhampa- on p. 66 in Parma 14 is a typo for
_hampa-_, isn't it ? From *E skamp- above on the same page I guess. :-)

Cheers,

Edouard Kloczko


[Indeed it is. The correct reading should be _hampa_. Thanks for catching this!
CFH]

Reprint of PARMA ELDALAMBERON No. 11

I Lam na Ngoldathon
The Grammar and Lexicon of the GNOMISH TONGUE.
By J. R. R. Tolkien.
Edited by Christopher Gilson, Carl F. Hostetter, Patrick Wynne, and
Arden R. Smith.

Parma Eldalamberon No.11 presents the Gnomish Lexicon (selections from
which were published in the Appendices to _The Book of Lost Tales_ )
in its entirety.  This is the dictionary of the language called
Goldogrin, or I-Lam na-Ngoldathon, which Tolkien eventually
transformed into the Noldorin of The Etymologies and later into the
Sindarin of The Lord of the Rings.  This issue also includes Tolkien's
own partial grammar of Gnomish, contemporary with the lexicon, which
covers the inflections and syntax of the article, noun, and
adjective.  The lexicon itself also contains much grammatical
information, frequently citing verbs in both their present and past
tenses, and nouns in both singular and plural.  Other parts of speech
are also well-represented in what is a quite comprehensive dictionary,
and there are a number of sample sentences in Gnomish.

The original lexicon fills a 150-page notebook and consists of about
3000 entries.  Compiled in 1917, this remarkable document reveals the
well-spring of Tolkien's linguistic genius in its 'Celtic' mode.  It
also displays the basic phonological nature of the historical relation
between Noldorin and Quenya at its inception, with numerous
etymological annotations and the citation of many cognates, some of
which are Quenya words that occur nowhere else.

A reprint of Parma Eldalamberon No. 11 is currently in preparation.
We expect copies to be available for shipping on June 7, 2004.

Orders:
The cost is $20.00 per copy including postage and handling
world-wide.
Please use the PayPal button at this link:
<http://www.eldalamberon.com/parma11.html>
Or send check or money-order (U.S. funds only) to:

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

--- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, "laurifindil" <ejk@f...> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> It looks to me that lhampa- on p. 66 in Parma 14 is a typo for
> _hampa-_, isn't it ? From *E skamp- above on the same page I guess.
> :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Edouard Kloczko
>
>
> [Indeed it is. The correct reading should be _hampa_. Thanks for
catching this! CFH]

Actually the real situation is more complicated than this suggestion
or the casual agreement with it would imply.  The 'l' in the published
form _lhampa-_ is certainly not a "typo" in the sense of being an
accidental mistyping for intended _hampa-_, but rather represents
something Tolkien wrote in the original that was interpreted (perhaps
by mistake) as an 'l'.

Tolkien originally typed "... (*skapia-).;hampa- hop." at the end of
this sentence (which begins with "N. hab- ...").  There is no space
typed between right parenthesis mark and period, between period and
semicolon, or between semicolon and 'h'.  (It is not unusual for
spaces to be left out when Tolkien types, but clearly something else
was mistyped here -- either the period or the semicolon.)  Tolkien
manually added the diacritic under the 'i' and manually underlined the
Elvish forms.  And either at that time or later he wrote a vertical
stroke through the semicolon thick enough to look like the other
letters that he replaced by hand (e.g. _dagula_ >> _tagula_ at the top
of p. 66).

It is possible that Tolkien was simply striking out the semicolon.  If
on the other hand the stroke is a valid correction of mistyped
"hampa-" to intended "lhampa-" the explanation could be that he typed
a ';' when he intended to type an 'l'.  Since these two keys are right
next to each other on the keyboard this seems slightly more likely
than typing a semicolon by mistake for a space.

The form _lhampa-_ is enigmatic here, but not impossible to account
for -- the combination -lk- would yield -lch- medially in Noldorin, we
know, so if it could occur initially the result would probably be
_lh-_.  (Note that forms in _lh-_ have emerged in the contemporary
Noldorin wordlists -- PE 13, pp. 148-9, 163.)  Tolkien does list
_nkap-_ as one of the varieties of root _kapa-_ 'leap' that "are
evidenced".  Perhaps, analogous to variants like _skap-, skamp-_, he
imagined a variety _nkap-_ yielding *_nkampa-_ with dissimilation to
*_lkampa-_ .

I don't recall much, if any, later evidence to support this
interpretation -- it need not have had a long life.  Even if a
short-lived conception, however, _lhampa-_ 'hop' might ultimately have
inspired the name _Labadal_ 'Hopafoot' (UT 60).  Or provide a sort of
link with its even earlier conceptual echoes in QL _lapatte_ 'rabbit',
GL _laboth_ 'a hare', which were only hesitantly connected with the
words like QL _lopo-_ 'gallop, run', _lopeta-_ 'amble, lop', GL _lob
(lompi)_ 'run, gallop'.  Tolkien seems to have liked this association
of the sounds _lap-, lab-_ with the sense 'hop', but may have remained
uncertain how to account for it within his system.

The upshot is that the reading _lhampa-_ is not entirely certain.  And
perhaps this should have been indicated in the editorial comments.
But I don't feel that it is obviously wrong...

-- Christopher Gilson

There is a form _neldelume_ on page 50 (footnote #57). Should it read
_neldellume_ instead, as it appears on following page 51?

[Yes, it should read _neldellume_. CFH]

Reference in note #54 (p. 69) should be "PE 12, p. 20" instead of "PE
13, p. 20".

[Yes. CFH]

On page 76 we read: "ANDA RÁMA '(a) long wing'." and footnote #28
explains that the "translation was originally '(a) long wing', altered
in ink". Is the original gloss actually "(a) long arm"? A similar
change in meaning is stated on p. 75 (note #27): ANDARÁMA 'long-armed'
>> 'long-wing'.

[Yes. Footnote 28 on p. 76 should read: "The translation was originally '(a)
long arm', altered in ink."

The Qenya sentence on page 54 has _ie-rautanéma_ 'had been stolen',
consisting of what seems a singular past tense form of the verb 'to
be' (_ie_, p. 57) and the past passive participle of the verb _rauta-_
(pa.t. *_rautane_ + ending _-ma_ for passive participle, p. 56; the
vowel lengthening obeys apparently the same mechanism seen in the
case of the indefinite article suffixed to trisyllabic nouns:
_tantare_ 'dance', _tantaré·ma_ 'a dance' p. 42). In note #89 it is
said that _ie-rautanéma_ was changed from _nye-rautanéma_. On the
other hand, _hye_ is another singular past tense form of the verb 'to
be' (beside _ie_ and _ye_). Is it possible that _nye-_ and _hye_ are
actually the same form in the manuscript?

[No, the first element of the deleted form is very clearly _nye_. Good
observation, though. And thanks for catching these! CFH]

Regards,
Javier

Per Lindberg has graciously volunteered to compile and maintain a web
site listing known, corroborated errata to the two print publications
of the E.L.F., _Parma Eldalamberon_ and _Vinyar Tengwar_, at:

	 http://www.elvish.org/errata/

I encourage everyone who spots a potential erratum to these
publications to report it to Per at:

	 errata@...
	 (errata at elvish dot org to avoid Yahoo's mangler)

He and I can then confer and, if the error is confirmed, add it to the
list.

My thanks to Per, and to all who have and will take the time to find
and report errors.

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."

In Lambengolmor message #653 I argued that Sindarin _nin_ could be
interpreted as 1. sg. pronoun in the accusative. Prima facie, an
accusative in _-n_ may seem uncouth but there might be another instance
recorded. Namely, in the 'King's Letter' [IX}: "...Perhael i sennui
Panthael estathar aen...". 'Samwise who should rather be called
Fullwise'.

_Aen_ might be interpreted here as 3rd sg. acc. 'him'. This
interpretation isn't new, it was e.g. suggested by Bill Welden in PE 8.
Cf. also two (more or less) recapitulatory posts by me:
http://tolklang.quettar.org/messages/Vol40/40.41 and
http://tolklang.quettar.org/elfling-mirror/094nn/09418.
(My interpretation of _aen_ differs from the one tentatively given
here).

My interpretation is 'Samwise who better Fullwise they(one)-
should-name him'. This construction equals e.g. the Old Irish
'passive', cf. _carthar_ 'one loves': 1 sg. _no-m charthar_, 2. sg.
_no-t charthar_ 3. _carth(a)ir_ 'I'm loved, thou art loved, he/she/it
is loved/ one loves'.

It is also very much paralleled by a Qenya construction described in
the 'Early Qenya Grammar in Manuscript [PE14:56] "...(b) -r for the
impersonal (...): this becomes a *passive* if pronominal elements are
added, for these are in the *accusative* (rarely dative)." I would find
it hard to interpret _aen_ in the above phrase as dative (< *an-e ?)
for both phonetic and syntactic reasons.

An interesting but possibly unsolvable question is whether Tolkien saw
_estathar_ here truly as a plural or as an 'impersonal'. The only clear
attestation of verbal _-r_ as plural in Sindarin I know of is _Dor Firn
i Guinar_ [S:226]. Of course, there is massive evidence for plural _-r_
in Noldorin cf. PE13:126ff. The difference doesn't even have to be
significant as many languages use 3rd pl. verbs in a general 'one does'
sense.

However,  because I adduced Old Irish as a parallel example, I would
like to point out that in this language, e.g., _no-t charat_ 'they love
you' and _no-t charthar_ 'you're loved', are clearly distinct.
So, we might have another instance of a Sindarin pronoun with an
accusative ending in -n. It seems unlikely that _-n_ here is an old
accusative marker. Rather, the development (or interpretation) of these
forms as accusatives must have been more complex. Note that this
interpretation doesn't contest the fact (as I see it) that genitival
forms also end in _-n_ (cf. ered e.mbar nín 'mountains of my home'
[UT:40]).

-David Kiltz

David Kiltz wrote:

> accusative in _-n_ may seem uncouth but there might be
> another instance recorded. Namely, in the 'King's Letter' [IX}:
> "...Perhael i sennui Panthael estathar aen...". 'Samwise who
> should rather be called Fullwise'.
> . . . I would find it hard to interpret _aen_ in the above phrase
> as dative (< *an-e ?) for both phonetic and syntactic reasons.

    Can you explicate that? Looking purely at what the phrase
means, it does not seem out of bounds to suppose that _est(a)-_
means 'utter a name' or 'use a name', the name thus being its
accusative object and _aen_ a dative. The interpretation would
then be 'they(one)-shall-[utter-as-a-name] Fullwise to-him', or
'they(one)-shall-[use-as-a-name] Fullwise for-him'.

     Meneg suilaid,

         Beregond

I wrote:

> it does not seem out of bounds to suppose that _est(a)-_
> means 'utter a name' or 'use a name', the name thus being its
> accusative object and _aen_ a dative. The interpretation would
> then be 'they(one)-shall-[utter-as-a-name] Fullwise to-him', or
> 'they(one)-shall-[use-as-a-name] Fullwise for-him'.

Or the interpretation of _i sennui Panthael estathar aen_ might
be 'who rather Fullwise they(one)-shall-[use-as-a-name] for-whom',
with _aen_ < *_an-i_, '(to/for) whom'. (This may have been
suggested before, but it was not mentioned in the two posts that
David Kiltz referred to.)

But then again, _aen_ may not be a pronoun at all, but a modal
particle that turns 'they shall' into 'they ought to'. I think these
two ideas indicate the essential possibilities for interpreting the
phrase.

Suilaid,

Beregond

Thanks to the publication of the "Addenda and Corrigenda to the
_Etymologies_" (VT #45), some later words from Tolkien's manuscript
can now find a correct interpretation. _Gwahaedir_ "Palantir", _Fornarthan_
"North-beacon" and _im_ "vale" are among these.

A&C, p. 21, lists "N. _hae (hoe), haen, gwahae_" under the stem
KHAYA, along with an interesting note nuancing the meaning of this
stem (with regard to Q. _palan_, "distant and remote" vs. "far in
distance").

Previously published in XII:273 (PM), the word _Gwahaedir_ was there
used as the name of the Palantiri in Sindarin/Noldorin. It may now
find a complete interpretation: "remote-seing" stone. It seems worth
mentioning that several people had already deduced the word _hae_,
by comparison with _haered_ (LotR Book II Ch. I) and _haeron_ (RGEO:72).
For instance, refer to the article "Compound Sindarin Names in ME" on
the _I Lam Arth_ website, or to the gloss for that entry in my own
Sindarin dictionary project). As it seems, however, these interpretations
generally failed to interpert _gwahae_ as a unitary word and suggested
it could be a compound including the prefix _gwa-_ and henceforth meaning
"all-seeing stone" (or something to that extent). We now have the
complete and accurate interpretation, to be linked, as noted by the
editors of the A&C, with the cognate intensive form in Q., _vahâya_.

Further on, A&C, p. 37, lists a previously unpublished stem NARTA,
with _nartho_ "to kindle" as S. derivative.

It may be linked to _Fornarthan_, a word published VT #42, p. 30,
where _narthan_ is transparently intended to be a "beacon",
a signal of fire. According to the Webster's 1913, the English
word "beacon" is in origin a "signal", but not necessarily of
fire, so it would not have been easy to fully analyze the
S. word without this new imput from the A&C.

This relation is also interesting as it adds another word to a
small list of nouns ending in -an and derived from a verb: of
course the well known _leithio, leithian_, but also and more
interestingly _neithan_ "the deprived" (UT:456) - For the latter,
people had suggested that *_neitha-_ could be a verb meaning
"to deprive". To my knowledge, this small class of nouns has
seldom been studied.

Finally, A&C, p. 18, also lists "N. _im(b), imm_" as a "dell" or
"deep vale". Later words such as _imloth_, _imlad_ (both attested
in LotR) and _imrath_ (UT:465) now all find a satisfying
explanation, that fits well with their actual meanings as we
know them from.

For the record, it is worth mentioning again that people had
often failed to interpret these three words correctly, assuming
that the first element might have been related to Q. _imbe_
"between", and then trying to interpret them differently (such as
_imlad_ as "a watercourse between (hills or mountains)", hence "a
valley", etc.). From the A&C, we now learn that there are actually
two similar stems (even leading to homonyms in Q.), but that
they are wholly distinct.

The _Etymologies_, as presented in HoME V, allowed us to interpret
many words and were immediately regarded as a major document at
their publication. There is no doubt that they haven't finished
to astonish us and that the A&C will reveal other "pearls" as the
ones mentioned above - For the greatest pleasure of people studying
Tolkien's invented languages.

Didier.

[I'd like to take this opportunity to say that my intention is to publish
the second part of the A&C this month, if profession and events finally
decide to conspire to give me the necessary free weekends to complete
the layout and proofing and get everything to the printers soon. CFH]

Didier Willis wrote:

> Previously published in XII:273 (PM), the word _Gwahaedir_ was there
> used as the name of the Palantiri in Sindarin/Noldorin. It may now
> find a complete interpretation: "remote-seing" stone. It seems worth
> mentioning that several people had already deduced the word _hae_,
> by comparison with _haered_ (LotR Book II Ch. I) and _haeron_
(RGEO:72).

For the sake of accuracy, note that the page reference given here
for _haeron_ is in error; the word actually occurs in XII:273 in _Dor
Haeron_, a name for the region (in what would become Rohan) between
the Entwash and the Isen. According to Christopher Tolkien, this is
the only known occurrence of the name.

-- Patrick H. Wynne

Patrick H. Wynne wrote:

> Didier Willis wrote:
> > [...] by comparison with _haered_ (LotR Book II Ch. I) and _haeron_
> > (RGEO:72).
> For the sake of accuracy, note that the page reference given here
> for _haeron_ is in error; the word actually occurs in XII:273 in _Dor
> Haeron_, [...]

My mistake, of course, and RGEO:72 should also have applied, instead,
to _haered_, as readers might have corrected by themselves. Thanks for,
pointing this error. I should also have noted that the association of
this word with _hae_ or _haered_ is, of course, a guess, for a region
made less accessible because of a river boundary and probably
regarded as distant from Gondor, with respect to the closer part
of Calenardhon. But it's not unusual for Elvish words to look alike
in surface, as actually illustrated for _im_ "vale" in my message,
so I should have been more cautious and noted that fact more
carefully.

In addition to my list, I could also have mentioned another
interesting item from the A&C, on p. 13, regarding another
entry of interest but not published in HoME V.

Under the stem GALÁN "bright", we find N. _glan_ "clear" (first
glossed as "daylight").

This could perhaps be linked to  _Curunír 'Lân_, an Elvish
(sur)name for Saruman the White (UT:390). People had long
deduced that _'lân_ could be a mutated adjective *_glân_,
related to other derivatives of GAL/ÑAL -- but along with
this hitherto unpublished entry, we could perhaps interpret
it more precisely as "white, *(shining as bright light)".

For the sake of completeness, note that this deduced word
has an homonym, _glân_ "hem, border" (VT 42 p.8), also
_glann, _gland_ "boundary", _glan-_ (ibid.).

Didier.

[The proposal that _'lân_ in _Curunír 'Lân_ 'Saruman the
White' = N _glan_ 'clear' (<< 'daylight') in the A&C seems
likely, especially in light of the fact that most of the words
meaning 'white' in the IE languages come from the original
notion of 'bright' -- e.g., Greek _leukós_ 'white' is cognate
with Latin _lucere_ 'to shine', _lux_ 'light'. -- PHW]

I wrote:

> Previously published in XII:273 (PM), the word _Gwahaedir_
> was there used as the name of the Palantiri in Sindarin/Noldorin.

Further to Patrick's correction to my post, it actually seems
the slip in my notes was more serious and that all references
got switched in my message as submitted. The above should read
"Previously published in XII:186 (PM)..."

Sorry for the inconvenience :(

Didier.

Hello,

Dider Willis wrote:

>Under the stem GALÁN "bright", we find N. _glan_ "clear"
>(first glossed as "daylight").
>
>This could perhaps be linked to  _Curunír 'Lân_, an
>Elvish (sur)name for Saruman the White (UT:390). People
>had long deduced that _'lân_ could be a mutated adjective *_glân_,

Which is not at all surprising, given its outstanding
similarity with the Welsh word _glan_ 'clear, bright'
(where the vowel, incidentally, is long, which is
concealed by Welsh orthographic convention).

>related to other derivatives of GAL/ÑAL -- but along with
>this hitherto unpublished entry, we could perhaps
>interpret it more precisely as "white, *(shining as bright
>light)".

I agree. It must be pointed out that this association of
these senses with this form must have followed Tolkien
from very early on: cf. PE11:39, which has _glan_ 'clean,
pure' (originally 'bright') and PE13:144, where we find
_glann_ 'clean'; pl. _glainn_.

Pavel

On 12.06.2004, at 10:05, Beregond. Anders Stenström wrote:

> David Kiltz wrote:
>
>> accusative in _-n_ may seem uncouth but there might be
>> another instance recorded. Namely, in the 'King's Letter' [IX}:
>> "...Perhael i sennui Panthael estathar aen...". 'Samwise who
>> should rather be called Fullwise'.
>> . . . I would find it hard to interpret _aen_ in the above phrase
>> as dative (< *an-e ?) for both phonetic and syntactic reasons.
>
>    Can you explicate that? Looking purely at what the phrase
> means, it does not seem out of bounds to suppose that _est(a)-_
> means 'utter a name' or 'use a name', the name thus being its
> accusative object and _aen_ a dative. The interpretation would
> then be 'they(one)-shall-[utter-as-a-name] Fullwise to-him', or
> 'they(one)-shall-[use-as-a-name] Fullwise for-him'.

1) In Indo-European languages (to which Sindarin bears great
resemblance syntactically and morphologically) a denominative from
'name' would normally take the accusative. The problem (I think) with
your paraphrasing is that (again, at least in IE) syntactically such
verbs precisely do not work that way. E.g. Goth. _namnjan_ etc. 'call,
name' take a direct object. (The same is obviously true for verbs like
'to call, appeler. zvatj' etc.). In Finnish _nimittä_ takes the
partitive.

So, a construction with *one* verb takes a direct object. Something to
be expected. Of course, the syntax changes the moment you use an
'instrumental' complement [as-a-name]. That's even more true for 'utter
a name', 'use a name' where you have an object 'name' precisely because
that meaning is not yet contained in the original verb. I. e. in such a
construction, obviously you would need a dative as the place of the
direct object is taken. While you may paraphrase (one) meaning of the
verb that way, I think it's not permissible break up the verb so that
the syntactical construction changes. (1)

That's why I think _aen_ (if it is a pronoun) to be much more likely
accusative. I'm not 100% excluding a dative, though. Maybe there is a
derivative of 'name' that works that way in some language? I'm curious.

2) Phonetically, I simply don't know whether _*an-e_ > _aen_.

-David Kiltz

(1) Doing so would, IMHO, be the same as to argue that 'to feed' takes
an indirect object (dative) because it can be paraphrased as 'give food
(to sb.) or 'to ask' as it may be paraphrased as 'to put a question to
sb.' etc.. I think you get the point.

David Kiltz wrote:

> 2) Phonetically, I simply don't know whether _*an-e_ > _aen_.

    Neither do I. In a previous post I suggested *_an-i_ > _aen_,
but I now doubt it. More normally *_an-i_ would > *_ain_, and
the occurrence of _phain_ in the same text as _aen_ (the King's
Letter, IX:128-131) is an obstacle to any argument for *_an-i_
that might be advanced.

    If _aen_ is to be analyzed as a compound with _an_ as its first
element, perhaps the second element could be from the relative
root YA- (in Etymologies, and see VT43:16)..

> (1) Doing so would, IMHO, be the same as to argue that 'to feed' takes
> an indirect object (dative) because it can be paraphrased as 'give food
> (to sb.) or 'to ask' as it may be paraphrased as 'to put a question to
> sb.' etc..

    I did not suggest that 'call, name' can be paraphrased as 'use as
a name', but that the S verb _est(a)-_ might, for all we know,
actually mean 'use as a name' and not 'call', despite Tolkien's use
of _called_ in his translation of the phrase. As you noted in your
discussion with David Salo, the translation may not be so literal as
to gloss each word exactly.

    There is a gloss "name" given for Q _esta-_ (VT45:12), but I do
not think there is an authorial gloss for its S cognate.

    If _est(a)-_ has the name as its direct object, it would be
comparable (not quite similar) to the verb _nominalize_.

     Suilaid,

         Beregond

Hello,

David Kiltz wrote, on the subject of assuming an indirect
patientive object for 'name', 'feed' and sundry:

>(1) Doing so would, IMHO, be the same as to argue that
>'to feed' takes an indirect object (dative) because
>it can be paraphrased as 'give food (to sb.) or 'to
>ask' as it may be paraphrased as 'to put a question to
>sb.' etc.. I think you get the point.

Well, in real-world languages of course a patient (that
which is given, be it name name, or food as in the case
  of 'feed') will be expected to take a more privileged
syntactic position (sc. direct object) than the recipient.
However, applicative constructions and/or derivatives
(promoting peripheral arguments to core syntactic
positions) are not quite infrequent: for instance, Russian
_kormitj_ 'to feed' normally codes the one who is fed in
the accusative and the food with the instrumental.
However, its derivative _skarmlivatj_ (which means the
same, but also carries stylistic overtones) takes the food
as direct object and the one being fed as indirect object
in the dative.

Pavel

On 14.06.2004, at 19:48, Beregond. Anders Stenström wrote:

>  I did not suggest that 'call, name' can be paraphrased as 'use as
> a name', but that the S verb _est(a)-_ might, for all we know,
> actually mean 'use as a name' and not 'call', despite Tolkien's use
> of _called_ in his translation of the phrase. As you noted in your
> discussion with David Salo, the translation may not be so literal as
> to gloss each word exactly.
>
>    There is a gloss "name" given for Q _esta-_ (VT45:12), but I do
> not think there is an authorial gloss for its S cognate.
>
>    If _est(a)-_ has the name as its direct object, it would be
> comparable (not quite similar) to the verb _nominalize_.

Well, Q _esta_ 'name' should be the correponding word. I quite agree
it's not to be understood as 'to call' but related to _esse_ name. This
makes it pretty parallel to e.g. Goth. _namnjan_. What I meant
referring to 'paraphrasing' is that the syntactical construction only
works in paraphrasing, not with an actual verb _esta, namnjan_ etc.
It's okay to paraphrase the word to make the semantics clear but it
doesn't mean that the syntax has to follow suite the same way.
Again, I don't say an indirect object is impossible but a direct object
(as in 'to name') seems more straightforward.

-David Kiltz

Lambengolmor members with an eye for detail will note
that message #687 has been deleted -- nothing sinister
going on, David Kiltz just sent two versions of the same
post, the second being a corrected version of the first. I
accidently approved the first, uncorrected version before
realizing that David had sent a corrected version as well.
So, I have deleted the uncorrected version (#687) from
the archives; message #688 is the corrected text.

Those of you who get Lambengolmor posts sent as emails
will have received both versions. My sincere apologies to
David and the Lambengolmor members for this mixup!

-- Patrick H. Wynne

David Kiltz (>) answered me (>>):

> >  I did not suggest that 'call, name' can be paraphrased as 'use as
> > a name', but that the S verb _est(a)-_ might, for all we know,
> > actually mean 'use as a name' and not 'call',
>
> Well, Q _esta_ 'name' should be the correponding word. I quite agree
> it's not to be understood as 'to call' but related to _esse_ name.

    That was not my point: what I tried to say was that S _est(a)-_
might actually mean 'use as a name' and not 'name'. No doubt it
is the direct cognate to Q _esta_, but its meaning need not be
identical.

> Again, I don't say an indirect object is impossible but a direct
> object (as in 'to name') seems more straightforward.

    I can see that interpreting S _est(a)-_ as 'to name' is more
straightforward, in the light of what denominative verbs from
'name' mean in other languages, and especially in the light of
Q _esta_. But I can not see that [verb]+[accusative: the named]+
+[predicative: the name] is per se more straightforward than
[verb]+[accusative: name]+[dative: the named].

     Suilaid,

         Beregond

As a latinist I cannot help bumping in when it comes to the
valence of a verb meaning "name".

Latin has double valence system for nuncupare:

1) nuncupare huiusmodi hominem regem
(two different accusatives);

2) nuncupare huiusmodi hominem nomine regis
(instrumental for the name):

For "I am called" Latin has "to me is the name", "to me"
being obviously a dative, but the name can be either
nominative (corresponding to acc. if mihi est had been
replaced by habeo) or dative - as a qualification of mihi,
standing in the dative:

1) nomen mihi est Gaius;
2) nomen mihi est Gaio.

The question is, Sindarin not being a case language, and
fossilised pronominal instrumentals tending to become
used as adverbs of reason, it would not be most secure to
assume that the name itself is the usual non-case-marked form
of it, whereas the pronoun, if fossilising anything except a
non-case-marked form, would fossilise the accusative,
irrespective of what syntactical case -- except nominative/subject
-- it was used for. Of course, some northern languages -- North
German "mir", "dir", English "him", "her", Danish "ham", "henne",
Swedish "honom", "henne" -- actually use some fossilised datives
as oblique pronominal forms.

Could this be of some help?

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

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

"Beregond. Anders Stenström" <beregond@...> wrote:

>I can not see that [verb]+[accusative: the named]+
>+[predicative: the name] is per se more straightforward than
>[verb]+[accusative: name]+[dative: the named].

I can. The name is an attribute of the named. Therefore it is rather a
predicative attribute (or predicative, in this terminology) than a gift to him.

[But then one could come back and note, correctly, that a name is a _given_
attribute, not an inherent one -- the more so in the example from the "King's
Letter" -- and we are back to the other perspective. Which really is what we're
talking about: different languages have different idioms for names and naming
based on differing perspective; and sometimes even have more than one idiom
within a single language. CFH]

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

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

On 16.06.2004, at 13:24, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

> Which really is what we're talking about: different languages have
> different idioms for names and naming based on differing perspective;
> and sometimes even have more than one idiom within a single language.

Certainly. Yet the ample evidence afforded to us by real world
languages clearly indicates that, whenever a verb is used that means
not just 'call' aut sim. (and even then) we have a construction with
direct object. It is the 'named' that is coded as direct object. One
could argue that this is due to the greater salience of the human agent
in marking hierarchy. But I think the coding is due to the fact that the
'named' is here the first and necessary complement to the verb. That
is, you can say 'they named their child' but 'they used Peter as a
name' is not a complete sentence (unless, of course it refers to some
prior statement like 'the child was born'. Then, however, it isn't a
complete sentence either but rather a disconnected complement).

This, IMHO, is why  "[verb]+[accusative: the named]+
+[predicative: the name] is per se more straightforward than
[verb]+[accusative: name]+[dative: the named]".

I'd venture to say that in accusative languages this is a syntactical
universal, necessitated by the coding strategy of this kind of
language. I'm always referring to a verb that I view as derivative of
'name', not just any verb. So, 'to say' would work clearly differently.
But my whole point is that 'to name' (and that is what I think we have
in The King's Letter) works this way.

[Here's a thought: if _esta-_ does take the thing or person named as an
object, (direct or indirect) then presumably the named would be marked
with an objective form; why then do we have an apparenly unmarked form
of the relative pronoun, _i_ 'who' (according to the English gloss), as
opposed to some objective form meaning 'whom'/ 'to/for whom' (which
appears to have existed for at least some kind of Sindarin, cf. _ai_ *'for
those who' in _Ae Adar Nín_)? Since its referent is the object in question,
the named person, ought it not by the same typological argument likewise
show object inflection? (A similar observation about the form and apparent
function of the relative in this phrase was made, if I recall correctly, in
Ivan Derzhanski's discussion of _i Panthael estathar aen_ in his article
"_Peth i dirathar aen_: Some Notes on Eldarin Relative Constructions" in
VT 38.) CFH]

The example adduced by Pavel Iosad:

>  Russian _kormitj_ 'to feed' normally codes the one who is fed in
> the accusative and the food with the instrumental.
> However, its derivative _skarmlivatj_ (which means the
> same, but also carries stylistic overtones) takes the food
> as direct object and the one being fed as indirect object
> in the dative.

is interesting. Clearly, we have a stylistically marked construction
here. A question: Can you say in English 'I fed the cat its milk' ?

[Yes, and without much markedness, except that we generally don't
speak of "feeding" liquids, but rather typically associate the verb
"feed" with solid food. I would more naturally say, "I gave the cat (its)
milk"; similarly, I wouldn't say "The cat ate its milk", but rather "The
cat drank its milk". CFH]

If so, how does it contrast with 'I fed the cat with milk' ?

[This would be a marekdly unusual thing to say in English, execpt e.g. as
a full and formal response to the question "What did you feed the cat with?".
CFH]

(I'm aware that this is not an English language list but I would use
the answer in illucidating, or trying to, the Sindarin construction
further).

[No problem. CFH]

-David Kiltz

In version 'III' of the Sindarin "King's Letter" (IX:129, 131), we find
the following phrase:

"_nelchaenen ned Echuir_"

which apparently translates the English phrase (taken from Tolkien's
English text of version 'I'):

"the thirty-first day of the Stirring".

(The English gloss is provided from version 'I', in which the Sindarin
phrase is: "_nechaenen uin Echuir_"; and thus it is possible that 'of
the' of version 'I' does not in fact translate _ned_ of version 'III'.)

In my initial analysis of the form _ned_ in the "King's Letter", way
back in 1993 (VT31:30-31), I wrote:

"_ned_ ... is very likely related to the verb-stem _nedia-_ *'count,
reckon' (q.v.) derived from the base NOT- 'count, reckon' (LR:378). A
version of "Galadriel's Lament" read by Tolkien in a 1952 recording*
contains the phrase _inyar únóti nar_ *'years numberless are'
corresponding to the published _Yéni únótimë_ 'years numberless'
(I:394). The element *_nóti_ 'number(ing)' of _únóti_ *'numberless,
without number(ing)' implies a primitive form *_notî_ 'number(ing)'
which, with final _î-affection_ of *_o_ > _e_ (cf. _orod_ 'mountain',
pl. _ered_ (S:362) < *_orotî_) would yield S _ned_ *'number(ing)'. If
this derivation of _ned_ is accurate, then the phrase cited above could
be rendered more literally as *'the thirtieth (of the) number(ing) of
the Stirring'.

*_J.R.R. Tolkien Reads and Sings his The Hobbit and The Fellowship of
the Ring_ (New York: Caedmon Records No. TC 1477). See Laurence Krieg's
article "Tolkien's Pronunciation: Some Observations" in _An
Introduction to Elvish_ (pp. 152-59) for a discussion and phonetic
transcription of this reading."

Now, I would be the first to say to my self of 11 years ago that it was
overbold to assert that _ned_ is "very likely related to _nedia-_"; but
this proposal is no more _unlikely_ than the current, seemingly
universal notion that _ned_ here in fact means 'in', and is to be
derived from a base *NED-: see for example the etymology of _ned_,
presumably provided by David Salo,* in Didier Willis' _Sindarin
Dictionary_ (<http://www.jrrvf.com/hisweloke/sindar/>):

"_ned_ prep. in, of (time, e.g. giving a date) SD/129-31 MS *_ne?_, OS
*_ned_ (NED)"

     * According to the Foreword, the _Dictionary_ "includes David
      Salo's etymological reconstructions, which sometimes slightly
      differ from Tolkien's explanations, but present several advantages
      for the study of the 'ultimate' form of the language." The
      _Dictionary_ also states: "Etymological reconstructions ©
      David Salo".

For if my long-ago proposal that _ned_ *'number(ing)' is perhaps to be
related to NOT- 'count, reckon' is less than completely satisfying, it
at least has the advantage over Willis/Salo's of referring the Sindarin
form to a base of suitable meaning and of suitable phonetic shape.

Willis/Salo's etymology _ned_ < *NED fails, first, on phonological
grounds: for original final *_-d_ would yield S _-dh_, _not_ **_-d_
(cf. S _enedh_ 'middle' (UT:264) which apparently, like N _enedh_, <
ÉNED-).

(We do find the forms _en_, _ened_ 'middle, centre' at L:224; but
these appear to be root/base, not Sindarin, forms. It could also be
argued that Tolkien was avoiding _-dh_ in the "King's Letter" as
"uncouth" (cf. UT:267, VT42:20), and thus that _ned_ is actually for
*_nedh_; but Willis/Salo make no such claim and do not "correct" the
form to *_nedh_, and further, Tolkien had no such compunction against
_dh_ in the name _Edhelharn_ in the same text. Worse, Willis/Salo
derive S _nedh_ (<< N _nedh_) from _precisely the same supposed
base NED_, _without_ noting or accounting for the discrepant
phonological derivation. And worst of all, Willis/Salo assert that this
_nedh_ means "in, inside, mid-: Ety/376", implying that this gloss is
attested in the _Etymologies_, when in fact the _only_ gloss given there
is 'mid-'.)

Second, Willis/Salo's etymology fails to note that the base NÉD-
(V:376) does _not_ mean 'in', but rather 'middle, center'; and that the
sole Noldorin reflex of this base, the prefix _nedh-_, does _not_ have
the meaning 'in', but rather 'mid-'.

(It is possible that Willis/Salo mean by "NED" to indicate a reconstructed,
and otherwise unattested, base *NED 'in', rather than to associate _ned_
with NÉD-; but if so, then a) their reference to "Ety/376", where only
NÉD- 'middle, centre' occurs, is misleading; and b) this just introduces
yet another layer of unsupported assertion. Note too that NED does occur,
as a cross-reference in a deleted entry to what would become NÉD- and
ÉNED-, but, significantly, where both bases in _-D-_ refer to 'middle,
centre' _in distinction_ to the base form without _-D-_; cf. VT45:38 s.v.
NE-/NÊ-.)

(Nonetheless, apparently on the authority of Willis/Salo's dictionary
entry, a supposed S _ned_ *'in' proliferates in "Neo-Sindarin", having
become the preferred translation of 'in' in all of its English senses,
i.e., not constrained even to the more restricted sense assigned to the
form in the dictionary. A further mutation of this assertion has
surfaced in more formal discussion of the matter, in Gabe Bloomfield's
article "The Sindarin Word for 'in'"
<http://maethor.weet.us/writings/sindin.rtf>, in which, having been
entirely cut loose from its moorings of sole attestation in _nelchaenen
ned Echuir_, Mr. Bloomfield declares that _ned_ is "more likely to mean
'into' rather than just a plain 'in'", without showing how such a
meaning could be at all appropriate to _ned_ within the sole actual
attestation of the form. He also takes the mention of the base NED at
VT45:38 s.v. NE-/NÊ- as unquestionably providing "the root of the [S]
word _ned_", without even noting the phonological difficulty.)

The only way that I can see to salvage anything of Willis/Salo's
assertion that S _ned_ is derived from a root meaning 'in', would be to
instead relate it to the newly-attested base NE-/NÊ- *'in, inside'
(VT45:38); but note that this base was deleted from the _Etymologies_
by Tolkien at least a decade before the composition of the "King's Letter",
and leaves the _-d_ of _ned_ utterly unaccounted for.

Thus, there is no evidence to support, and thus no particular reason to
accept, the notion that S _ned_ is related to either NE-/NÊ- *'in,
inside' or NÉD- 'middle, centre', or arises from an unattested base
*NED 'in' (this being in fact phonologically impossible); and thus no
reason even to think that it means 'in' at all.



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

The University of Utah Press announced in its fall catalogue that it
will publish _A Gateway to Sindarin: A Grammar of an Elvish Language
from J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings_ by David Salo.

Amazon.com lists it as coming out in October, priced at $49.95.

-- Marianne


[The table of contents for David's forthcoming book is listed at:

<http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0417/2004008124.html>

I note that, from this listing, it is quite clear that in fact the vast majority
of what David will discuss will derive from Noldorin of the _Etymologies_,
not from Sindarin of _The Lord of the Rings_, so the title of his book is in
fact a misnomer on several counts (though the publisher, and not David,
may be primarily responsible for the title, as is often the case).

I have ordered the book and hope to offer a complete review once I have
received and read it. I encourage others to do the same. CFH]

Pent Carl F. Hostetter:

> It could also be argued that Tolkien was avoiding _-dh_ in the "King's
> Letter" as "uncouth" (cf. UT:267, VT42:20), and thus that _ned_ is actually
> for *_nedh_; but Willis/Salo make no such claim and do not "correct" the
> form to *_nedh_, and further, Tolkien had no such compunction against
> _dh_ in the name _Edhelharn_ in the same text.

Besides, I find it quite unlikely that Tolkien would write _ned_, if for
*_nedh_,
with _ando_ /d/ in the _Tengwar_ version (as he did), even if he did wish to
avoid /dh/ in the Roman version. Note that at another point where his Roman
transcription differs from pronunciation does indeed show a _tengwa_
corresponding to the pronunciation (i.e. _Cordof_ with final _ampa_ for /v/).

> And worst of all, Willis/Salo assert that this _nedh_ means "in, inside,
> mid-: Ety/376", implying that this gloss is attested in the _Etymologies_,
> when in fact the _only_ gloss given there is 'mid-'.)

Nor is the form in _Etymologies_ given as *_nedh_, as it is in Willis'
dictionary
(implying that it's a preposition), but rather as _nedh-_, clearly making it a
prefix (which is in fact is precisely what Tolkien calls it).

> The only way that I can see to salvage anything of Willis/Salo's
> assertion that S _ned_ is derived from a root meaning 'in', would
> be to instead relate it to the newly-attested base NE-/NÊ- *'in, inside'
> (VT45:38); but note that this base was deleted from the _Etymologies_
> by Tolkien at least a decade before the composition of the "King's
> Letter", and leaves the _-d_ of _ned_ utterly unaccounted for.

Well, that need not mean all too much. Just look at the clearly
mentioned absence of _*Finw_ in Noldorin, which in later Sindarin
does appear (as _Finu_ and _Fim_) in Sindarin. Ok, that is not quite
the same case, since _Finw_ didn't first exist and then was deleted,
but it shows Tolkien's tendency to sometimes return to older ideas
good enough I believe.

[Absolutely. Still, I believe that the status of bases -- attested, deleted,
deduced, etc. -- should nonetheless be borne in mind as a _potential_
factor in weighing possibilities and likelihoods, even if not always
determinative. CFH]

But I find your own idea quite interesting, although we would, as you
wrote, have to assume *_notî_ > S *_noed_ > _ned_ (as opposed to
*_nôtî_, which would seem to underlie Q _únóti_ and which would >
S *_nûd_ or *_nýd_ instead).

[Quite right. First, though, let me note that I did and do not intend to offer
my own analysis of 11 years ago (made at a time when my own understanding
of Sindarin phonology was much less) _in place of_ the current thinking, and
in fact think my suggestion only to be _more_ plausible, not really likely to be
what Tolkien had in mind; and so defending it is not really my point, nor
something I would like to spend much more time on, beyond what I already
wrote. However, I would note several factors: first, Q *_únóti_ in Tolkien's
earlier, oral version of "Galadriel's Lament" was (so far as I know) deduced by
the transcriber from Tolkien's recording, not from a written text; so it seems
_possible_ that the form is in fact *_únoti_. Second, we don't really know the
part of speech of Q *_únóti_: it looks most like a plural noun, but apparently
plays a predicative role (_inyar únóti nar_ *'year numberless are') and so is
seemingly adjectival; it could well be a noun used as an adjective. But in any
event, it's not clear to me what interplay of lengthening with grammatical
function is to be expected for this form. CFH]


Ofr suil,
Florian "Lothenon" Dombach

==========================
We speak as is right, and as King Finwe himself did before he was led
astray. Let them sa-si, if they can speak no better.
==========================

Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

> see for example the etymology of _ned_, presumably provided by
> David Salo,* in Didier Willis' _Sindarin Dictionary_
> (<http://www.jrrvf.com/hisweloke/sindar/>)

This is exact, for 99% of these etymological notes, as implied by the
Foreword you quoted.

In recent versions, however, I took the liberty to add additional a
few notes (especially for compounds and new words) and to change some
notes that clearly required to be updated with new information. The
etymological text hasn't much changed otherwise since the first
version of the dictionary -- and that's actually the main reason why
these etymological reconstructions are planned to be removed in some
future.

By the way, the dictionary is better referred as "Hisweloke's Sindarin
dictionary", preferably with an indication of version, for the reasons
given on the above-mentioned web page - for additional reference, see
also elfling-d mailing-list message #454. (1)

> this proposal is no more _unlikely_ than the current, seemingly
> universal notion that _ned_ here in fact means 'in', and is to be
> derived from a base *NED-. [...] Willis/Salo's etymology _ned_
> < *NED fails, first, on phonological grounds: for original final
> *_-d_ would yield S _-dh_, _not_ **_-d_ (cf. S _enedh_ 'middle'
> (UT:264) which apparently, like N _enedh_, < ÉNED-).

Correct. Regarding this point, and indeed very possibly the related
issue of _enedh_ and _ened_, the discussion between Bertrand Bellet
and Carl Hostetter himself on the sindict mailing-list is
enlightening, cf. messages #196, #197. (2)

> Worse, Willis/Salo derive S _nedh_ (<< N _nedh_) from _precisely
> the same supposed base NED_, _without_ noting or accounting for
> the discrepant phonological derivation. And worst of all,
> Willis/Salo assert that this _nedh_ means "in, inside, mid-:
> Ety/376", implying that this gloss is attested in the
> _Etymologies_, when in fact the _only_ gloss given there is
> 'mid-'.)

As for the first, "worse" item, I make no claim that the dictionary
project is accurate on all points. As the above-mentioned discussion
on sindict attests, the issue is not that simple. There is indeed a
clear failure to correctly interpret it, in current versions of the
dictionary. (But let's also say that I am not unhappy if such an error
has incidentaly made Bertrand and your own remarks possible --
discussion and criticism is a good way to improve our knowledge.)

As for the second, "worst" item, I will object that this is certainly
not the way references should be used. It is nowhere stated (and for
many long entries it is even not true) that the glosses or definitions
are exactly taken, _verbatim_, from Tolkien's books. There is actually
a permanent effort (and of course it implies a risk of error -
comments such as Carl's one are of course welcome to point these
errors) to refine and classify the definitions, basing them on other
sources and/or theories. It is by no mean a mere "reversed" version of
the _Etymologies_ (and other sources), but it tries to build upon the
bricks we know, while trying to be as accurate as possible at the same
time. Most real dictionaries have the same fallbacks when indirect
definitions are involved. And if references are indeed provided, it is
certainly not to misrepresent the source, BUT that's all the other way
round: it is intended to direct readers to the original source(s) so
that, notably, they can check it _in context_. If readers want the
genuine defintions, they ought to refer to the primary material.

> b) this just introduces yet another layer of unsupported
> assertion.

If the work was finished, to my taste and as I envisioned it so long
ago, all entries would have encyclopaedic discussions (of the sort
provided in recent versions for _arnen_ "(?) royal", *_gwin_ "wine",
_mass_ "bread" vs _mast_, *_bassoneth_, etc. -- to quote but a few
entries).

But as an unfinished project (as clearly noted on the web site) and
actually a very lone project currently (with lots of users but very
little contributive feedback), it suffers from the lack of
completeness. I accept therefore the above criticism, though its
wording is perhaps a bit too rude (Pesch "Elbish" book in German,
on-line wordlists on wwww.sindarin.de or council of Elrond, etc. are
not that cautious with sources, references and marking of
deduced/reconstructured entries... I tried to do better, and still
hope to improve, but that's certainly not perfect. Errare humanum est).

> (Nonetheless, apparently on the authority of Willis/Salo's
> dictionary entry, a supposed S _ned_ *'in' proliferates in
> "Neo-Sindarin", having become the preferred translation of 'in'
> in all of its English senses, i.e., not constrained even to the
> more restricted sense assigned to the form in the dictionary. [...]

It is certainly not my fault if people misuse the material offered to
them... And I wouldn't care much about what proliferates or not in
Neo-Sindarin (whose users are most of the time known to reject some
newer conceptions or evidences that do not fit their needs for a
"usable" languages)... "Liquid mutations", "infinitive vs. gerund",
"hennaid - thanks", "-ech for thou" and all well known Neo-Sindarin
theories, while often criticized, _do_ proliferate also, despite of
us. Even if/when I correct the _ned_ and _nedh_ entries in the
dictionary, that will not change the face of Neo-Sindarin, because
they will need this word (beside the fact that it was already used for
"in" long before this dictionary). So what? Scholarship will progress
anyway, thanks to criticisms such as this one, and Neo-Elvish has not
part to play in this, as fan-fiction has no part either to play in
studies of Tolkien's mythos.

Regards,

Didier.

[I largely agree with what Didier says, and so won't bother to respond
point by point. I _would_ however like to say that while it is indeed
true that Didier is not responsible for how others use his work, there
is still incumbent upon any _serious_ work of scholarship to maintain
a distinction between what is known and what is conjecture --
linguistics even developed a convention for succinctly conveying
precisely this distinction. Now, my own impression of the dictionary
was that it was intended to be scholarly and accurate; and as such, if I
see a form and some glosses given, without qualification, and a cross-
reference to a source, I expect that if I look up that source I will find
there precisely that form and those glosses. If I don't, I consider that an
error and, if intentional, misleading to boot. I'm sure that Didier will
appreciate how normal such an expectation is in linguistics, and how
easy it will be for a user of his dictionary not to understand that such
cross-references are not provided as citation of _support_, but merely
as an index to a place in the corpus that has some at least tangential
bearing on the form in question. Now, this may all be made clear
somewhere in the front-matter of the dictionary, but even if so it is so
contrary to convention and expectation in linguistic glossaries, which
Didier's work certainly has the form of, that I consider it insufficient,
and I urge you to minimize reliance on such contra-conventional
presentation in later version of the work. I will also note that
incompleteness has, in itself, no necessary bearing on correctness. CFH]

Since the following assertion cannot be yet proved (at least, by
myself) using linguistic epicheirema as it is solely based on
"The History of Middle-earth", it shall be posed as a question.

Having dealt with the Sindarin article in the forms _i_ and _in_
describing the singular and the plural accordingly, one might
stumble upon the justifiable question: “Why, when the article in
the suffixed forms _-n_ and _-in_ can represent both numbers,
does the independent article have a clearly different form? And if
it does stand for both numbers, why bother with a different form
in the first place?”

The only published example in which we are presented with such
a case, is of course the 3rd version of the “King’s Letter” (IX:129, 131)
in the phrases _erin dolothen Ethuil_ and _uin Echuir_ in particular,
in which _-in_ clearly denotes the singular. Though in another attested
case, in the phrase _Dagor-nuin-Giliath_ (Sil, ch 13), we have the
preposition _nu_ (or _no_) becoming _nuin_. In this occasion of the
use of the suffixed article, _-in_ functions as analogue to the
independent article _in_.

Could what we are dealing with in the ‘King’s Letter’ be another
idiom of the Gondorian dialect of Sindarin? A loose (Historical)
epicheirema could be that Aragorn might well consort with the
pure elvish dialect in his everyday life, but since his crowning,
he would more likely use Gondorian Sindarin, especially in an
official document as the above. There would be no reason to use
formal Sindarin, since if he wanted to further formalize the document,
he would use Quenya. Furthermore, the King’s Letter seems to be written
in Gondorian Sindarin, since the author uses the Sindarin names for
seasons, used only by the Dúnedain and thus in their own dialect of
Sindarin, ergo the official language of Gondor.

Are there any real points (besides "The History of Middle-earth") to
make the above stand as a possibility?

Thank you,

Minas Tsulis

_________________________________________________________________