If you subscribe to VT and live in Canada or (from the US
perspective) overseas in a country whose name in English is Norway or
alphabetically later, then you've been asking yourself this question.

The printer I use shorted me by about 70 copies of the new issue
(#48), a fact not discovered until I got to Norway in the mailing
process, and they couldn't print me up the missing copies until
earlier this week. Happily, they've now all gone in the mail, so you
should have it in a week or so.

Carl

With the announcement of Måns Björkman's "Valmaric Eldamar" font:

<http://at.mansbjorkman.net/valmariceldamar.htm>

I have made the following changes in the fonts used for _Tengwestië_
articles:

1) Addition of the "valmaricText" CSS tag to support text written in
the Valmaric alphabet.

2) Replacement of the use of Måns's earlier, unitary "Tirion Sarati"
with his newer "Sarati Eldamar" font family:

<http://at.mansbjorkman.net/saratieldamar.htm>

with a corresponding expanded set of CSS tags (e.g.,
"saratiLtrBarText", "saratiRtlBarText", "saratiVertBarText") to allow
for the different writing conventions and orientations. (Note however
that current browsers will most likely not fully support anything
other than the left-to-write without bar tag, "saratiLtrText").

For full details and examples, see:

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

and

<http://www.elvish.org/Tengwestie/submissions.phtml>

I would also like to thank Måns for his continuing efforts in
producing such fonts, both rigorous and attractive, in support of
Tolkienian linguistics.

Carl

In recent messages the verb form _karin_ 'I make, build' from the
_Etymologies_ s.v. the verbal root KAR- 'make, do' (V:362), was
incidentally cited, classifying it as 1st person singular aorist.

The label of _karin_ as an aorist form is supported by the note c.
1969 cited at VT41:17, where Tolkien tells that verb forms with _-i_
are "the stem of the aorist tense". According to this, _kari-_ whould
be the aorist stem of the root KAR-. Complementarily, the form _kare_
(seemingly < *_kari_ with regular opening of final _-i_) acts as
infinitive in the sentence _alasaila ná la kare tai mo nave mára_ 'it
is unwise not to do what one judges good' at VT42:34, which is
explicitly told by Tolkien to be "in general 'aorist' terms", in a
text from the last years of his life (cf. VT42:33 for the dating).

However, it is possible that _karin_ at _Etym._ is not an aorist form,
but present. Verb forms in _-i-_ (_-e_ in the absence of suffixes)
belong to the present tense of "regular" basic verbs in earlier
conceptual stages: see "_Matar_ and _Tulir_" (MT), "The Qenya Verb
Forms" (QVF) and various examples at the verbs section of the "Early
Qenya Grammar" (EQG), PE14:23-34, 57-58. Actually, the aorist tense
occurs in a very distinct form (ended in _-ya_, -_mo_, _-le_...) at
QVF (cf. PE14:28, 34).

I think it probable that _karin_, and the many other verbs ending in
_-in_ from _The Etymologies_, were conceived in that context as
present forms, as in the earlier paradigms. Their glosses are not
helpful, as English present tense may be used for both the present and
aorist functions. However, present is to me a more natural tense to be
given as the first reference in a dictionary than the aorist.

In fact, MT apparently represents only present tenses, and both QVF
and EQG give the conjugation of the present tense first; furthermore,
at QVF, where both present and aorist are represented, aorist in fact
is given last, and when there is a relation between their forms aorist
is told to be "as present" (PE14:28, 34), and not the reverse(*). So,
if _Etym._ ever used aorist as the "reference" tense, that singularity
could be expected to be noted somewhere throughout the text.

Related to this, the difference between the well-known greeting _elen
síla lúmenn' omentielvo_ 'a star shines upon the hour of hour meeting'
and its draft forms _eleni silir..._ 'the stars shine...' and _elen
silë..._ 'a star shines' (VI:324-325), has been elsewhere considered a
change in the tense (aorist > present, cf. VT41:15, for instance), but
instead they could be a reflection of a change in the conception of
how the present tense was formed.

A limitation of this argument is that in _The Lost Road_, more or less
contemporary to the _Etymologies_ and written before any draft of _The
Lord of the Rings_, the form _tye-méla_ '[I] love thee' (not directly
glossed) occurs, seemingly a present like that of _elen síla..._ , and
like present _quéta_ in contrast to aorist _quete_ (VT41:15, 18). So,
it seems that the present formation of _The Lord of the Rings_ and
later texts was already conceived when the _Etymologies_ was being
composed. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that _-i_ was
already conceived as the aorist stem characteristic, as it was in the
last years of Tolkien's life. The Q. verb _mel-_ 'love' is given at
_Etym._ just as the stem (and not *_melin_), leaving room to think
that it might not be the same kind of basic verb as _kar-_, and that
its present form could be different (thus enabling _tye-méla_ and
_tye-meláne_). And even if this was not implied, as Patrick Wynne and
Rich Alderson recently noted, there is no reason to think that a verb
need have one and only one form for a given tense.


(*) Against this, it could be argued that the conception of time is
different for Elves and Men, and that the first ones could find
completely natural to refer a verb by the tense which expresses an
habitual or time-indefinite action... if it is that the _Etymologies_
were conceived to be composed by some Elven sage, and that fact was
considered in this kind of details.

Helios


[Helios raises a important point of caution: given the shifting nature of
Tolkien's languages, even in fundamental categories, it is important
to distinguish between what Tolkien actually _states_ about any
particular class or formation at a particular stage in the conceptual
development of his languages, from what is _assumed_ to be the
case based on the evidence from other conceptual stages.

That being said, I don't agree that there would necessarily be
anything odd in citing the aorist form of a verb as opposed to the
present tense form, _per se_. The actual practice seems to be rather
to cite the _least marked_ formation first, followed by whatever forms
are necessary to illustrate the other formation classes. It happens that
for Latin as for most Western European languages this least marked
form of the verb is its present tense; but this neeed not be true of
languages generally. So in those stages of Tolkien's languages where the
aorist is the least marked form, it would be quite expected for the
aorist form to be the first cited. CFH]

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

> That being said, I don't agree that there would necessarily be
> anything odd in citing the aorist form of a verb as opposed to the
> present tense form, _per se_. The actual practice seems to be rather
> to cite the _least marked_ formation first, followed by whatever forms
> are necessary to illustrate the other formation classes. It happens that
> for Latin as for most Western European languages this least marked
> form of the verb is its present tense; but this neeed not be true of
> languages generally. So in those stages of Tolkien's languages where the
> aorist is the least marked form, it would be quite expected for the
> aorist form to be the first cited. CFH

The most common form for citation, as far as Western European languages are
concerned, is surely the infinitive, regardless of how marked it is compared to
other forms.

I however quite agree with Carl's larger point - that a form being the citation
form is no ground for assuming it to be a present tense form. Indeed, the many
European languages that use the infinitive as the citation form is a powerful
counter-example.

Andreas

[Every Latin dictionary I am familiar with cites verbs by 1st. sg. pres. act.
ind.,
(and then by infinitive). Standard Greek dictionaries follow the same
convention,
as do those of Welsh (e.g. the _Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru_). English
dictionaries
universally cite the 1st sg. pres. So in fact many dictionaries of Western IE
languages do not cite the infinitive form of the verb first. It is true that
many
do, e.g. for most (all?) Romance languages, and for those Germanic languages
that
have a distinct infinitive inflectional form (though even here the practice
seems
aimed at citing an actual speech form from which the least-marked tense stem
can readily and mechanically be extracted, which in these IE languages happens
to be the present tense). CFH]

On 12.02.2006, at 01:35, Carl Hostetter wrote:

> The actual practice seems to be rather
> to cite the _least marked_ formation first, followed by whatever forms
> are necessary to illustrate the other formation classes

One might add that a formation is used that (generally) conveys the
best idea of the basic nature of the verb, the most transparent.
That's not necessarily the present tense. A good example to underline
Carl's point are Semitic languages which cite the 3rd sg. perfect
because it's structurally the most transparent. Another example is
Korean which uses a present form but -lacking person markers- can
choose between various reverential levels. It uses the one whose
suffix least modifies the basic verbal stem. Lastly consider
Sanskrit, which cites roots.

For most (modern) european languages (germanic, romance, slavic,
baltic, finnish...) though, it's indeed the (or one) infinitive.

David Kiltz

[Harm J. Schelhaas also wrote, to make the same point about Semitic
citation standards: "As an example of a non IE language with a different
convention, in Hebrew verbs are cited by 3rd (male) sg. perf. act." CFH]

Hello,

It seems to me that in VT48 p. 18, there's an error in the editorial
note n. 15 :

"adj. _exa_ 'other' and noun _exe_ 'the other' (VT42:40 n. 65)"

The VT42 has only 38 pages and no editorial note n. 65.

I think we must read "(VT47:40 n. 65)" instead.

Cordially,

David Giraudeau

[You are absolutely right. Many thanks for correcting my error!
-- PHW]

There are a couple of points which I find interesting to add to
Thorsten Renk's "The Q(u)enya Past Tense" at:

<http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/elvish/quenya_past_tense.html>

About the _-ie_ past tense:

Its presence in suffixed pa.t. forms of "The Lost Road" (e.g.
_kárielto_ 'they made' vs. _káre_ '[he] made'), is comparable to the
development of the pa.t. explained at "The Qenya Verb Forms". There, pa.t.
of "regular verbs" is normally marked by _-ie_ plus the suffixes which
denote gender, number and voice; but impersonal singular active past
tense has _-e_ < _-ie_ (PE14:31, _i_ glide and breve over the _e_ in
the primitive form). Thus, _tul-_ 'to bring, come' is _tûle_ 'came'
(imp. sing.), but _tûlien_ or _tûliendo_ 'he came', etc. (PE14:28,
macron over the _u_ in all cases).

Additionally, though it is not a great finding at all, it may be worth
noting that the _-ie_ past tense did not really disappear, but became
a perfect tense (cp. _tûlien_ 'he came' cited above vs. _utúlien_ 'I
am come' in _Eärello Endorenna utúlien..._, LR:967).


On the other hand, in the last paragraph just before the
acknowledgements, Thorsten says:

"In the QL, all such verbs [with stem in _-r-_] form past tense by
vowel lengthening, best examplified by #_kar-_ 'to make, do' pa.t.
_káre_ (PE12:45). But already in the EQG, this has been changed to a
suffix _-ne_, cf. _kar-_ 'to make' pa.t. _karne_ pr.t. _kare_
(PE14:58). In the Qenya of 'The Lost Road', the past tense form
_ohtakáre_ (LR:47) appears, suggesting a change of mind back to vowel
lengthening"

I think, however, that the scenario of these facts may not be Tolkien
trying to settle whether pa.t. of _kar-_ should be _káre_ or _karne_,
but something closer to what Thorsten said previously, in the
introduction about cases from _Etym._:

"verbs are not limited to one past tense, we find an example in which
alternative past tenses exist without apparent differences in meaning,
cf. _onta-_ 'to beget, create', pa.t. _óne_, _ontane_ (LR:379)..."

In relation to this, it may be interesting to look at the
"English-Qenya Dictionary", where there is a handful of verbs
conjugated in present and pa.t. (there labelled "preterite"), and
among them:

"Do. '_kara_': _kare_, pret. _kârie_, but pret. is also frequently
_karne_" (PE15:71).
[All Qenya forms are in Valmaric script and then transliterated, with
the exception of the base _kara_, which is untransliterated by
Tolkien; _kârie_ with macron over the _a_.]

There we see the pa.t. form _karne_ already found in EQG, PE14:58 (EQG
being closely related to that dictionary, cf. PE15:65-66), as an
alternative to _kârie_, which conforms the conjugation of "regular
verbs" like _tul-_ (pa.t. _túlie_) in EQG (PE14:57). This proves that
distinct pa.t. forms were possible, though the text of EQG only showed
_karne_. In addition, though the pa.t. _kârie_ of the English-Qenya
Dictionarly does not occur in 'The Lost Road' as such, it does occur
in the suffixed form _kárielto_, which is apparently in complement to
unsuffixed _káre_, _ohtakáre_, etc. (see above).

Helios

On 08.02.2006, at 11:23, Patrick Wynne wrote (off-list):

> What we do NOT ever see is a pa.t. formed by insertion of a nasal
> infix between a verb stem and a pronominal ending, as you propose
> in **_ub + n + ni_.

That's certainly a strong point. Just to clarify, there are two
assumptions that led me to this reconstruction:

1) The infixed past tense forms derive from original suffixed forms
by regular sound change, as in Q. _lemba_ < _*lebnâ_ (Etym s.v.LEB-).

2) that the apparent past tense marker  *_-ê_ was originally a marker
of the 3. sg.

Ad 1) It's true that Tolkien's own wording suggests that there was an
original distinction between nasal infixion and suffixation of _-ne_
with subsequent metathesis.

[One such passage making this distinction occurs in the Early Qenya
Grammar (ms.), where Tolkien writes that the past stem was formed
by addition of the suffixes _-ye_, _-ie_, or _-ne_, but that the most
common of these, _-ie_, "is normally accompanied by stem strengthening
consisting of (1) a-infixion, (2) n-infixion, (3) vowel lengthening"
(PE14:56). -- PHW]

I could, and probably should have written **_umb-ni_. Which brings
us to:

Ad 2) That, I'll admit is a very weak point, as Tolkien's writings
suggest otherwise. It was an entirely ad hoc assumption, in order to
explain one particular form. It seemed to me (somewhat) admissable
because Tolkien's languages (unlike 'real-world' ones) are subject to
re-formation/ interpretation without further notice. Also, re-
formation of case endings (especially in past tense) based on the 3.
sg. are frequent in the world's languages.

Yet *_ê_ or (or, at some stage *_ie_, cf. Helios' post) is indeed
indicative of past tense in particular and so throughout the corpus.

David Kiltz

Greetings,

I am slightly puzzled by the statement in VT48:32, note 19:

"In both of the Sindarin forms, _duinen_ and _dannen_, the original
C.E. suffix _-mê_ has presumably been replaced by S. _nen_ 'water'
(e.g. as in _Bruinen_ 'Loudwater', LR:200)."

I wonder whether the parenthetical comment about _Bruinen_ applies to
the second part of the sentence only (i.e. that _Bruinen_ 'Loudwater'
just occurs to end with _nen_ 'water') or rather to the whole sentence
(i.e. that _Bruinen_ would also possibly be a S. word where an
original _-mê_ in C.E. was replaced by _nen_ -- thus implying some
derivation such as _bruinen_ < _nen_ repl. _-me_ < _*bruime_ < *BRUY +
_-mê_).

I haven't found any evidence for the latter case, but as the former is
quite obvious(*) and not really necessary to understand _duinen_ and
_dannen_ ... So I just asked myself what the editor exactly had in
mind when he wrote this note. Could he clarify how the note should
be read?

Actually, this question interests me as I have never found across my
readings any satisfying explanation for _bruinen_ (except, perhaps, to
deduce _*brui_ as a possible adjective 'loud', possibly including S.
_-ui_ as adjectival ending, from former -*(V)ya_ -- but this would
still be very hypothetical and inconclusive).

(*) If the first reading of the note was implied, we know other river
names ending with _-nen_, which would perhaps have made better examples
as the first element is less obscure (or is at least interpretable):
_Carnen_ 'redwater' and _Harnen_ *'south-water', both attested in the
LR appendices.

Didier.

[I cited the form _Bruinen_ 'Loudwater' in note 19 in VT48:32 merely
to provide an example of S. _nen_ 'water' used as the second element
in a compound; I did NOT intend to suggest that _nen_ in _Bruinen_
replaced earlier _-mê_. Evidently my wording of this note was less clear
than it might have been, and I regret any potential confusion this may
have caused.

As Didier notes, the first element in _Bruinen_ might be an adjective
*_brui_ 'loud', ending in the common Sindarin adj. suffix _-ui_ (see
VT42:10 for the etymology of this suffix). It seems to me that S.
*_brui_ is probably related to the second element of Q. _Ulumúri_,
name of the great horns of Ulmo (S:27, X:202), in which *_múri_ is
probably 'horns'. The root could be reconstructed as *MUR- (referring
to loud or low sounds), with CE *_murûya_ (stressed on the _û_) >
*_m'rûya_ > S. *_brui_ 'loud'. For S. _br-_ < *_mr-_, compare *_morókô_
'bear' > Q. _morko_, N. _brôg_ (V:374).

The Goldogrin verb _mul-, mum_ 'low, bellow' (PE11:58), along with
the related noun _mû_'ox' and its feminine forms _mûs_ 'cow' and _muir_
'heifer', may be the conceptual antecedents of the root *MUR- proposed
above. -- PHW]

I have a question concerning the form _hlonite_:

In VT48:29, Patrick Wynne cites the form _hlonite_ "phonetic" from
a Tolkien manuscript. He notes that this provides "the singular of
_hloníti_", a plural adjective cited in XI:394-5.

Would not the singular of _hloníti_ simply be *_hloníte_ with
a long vowel in the singular form as well? Obviously _hlonite_
and *_hloníte_ are close variants of the same word, as Pat
observes. But is there any reason to believe that the _i_
in the penultimate would be lengthened in the plural form
of the adjective?

In some attested examples, lengthening of vowels in inflected
forms is indeed observed in the corpus. For instance, the
Etymologies s.v. PHUY gives _huine_ as the word for "deep
shadow", but there we also learn that its possessive-adjectival
form is _huinéva_ rather than **_huineva_ (as in the name
_Taure Huinéva_).

However, the adjective _hlonite_ "phonetic" could be expected
to form its plural in _-i_, with exactly the same number of
syllables and the same distribution of long and short vowels.
Do we, then, have any reason to believe that the vowel in
the penultimate syllable would be lengthened in the plural?


Ales Bican

It is perhaps worth noting that S. *_brui_ 'loud' (as in _Bruinen_ 'Loudwater')
bears a striking resemblance to the Esperanto verb _brui_ 'make a noise' (in
which _-i_ is the infinitive ending; the adj. form is _brua_ 'noisy, boisterous,
loud').

Tolkien, of course, was well acquainted with Esperanto, writing to _The British
Esperantist_ in 1932 that "I know [Esperanto], as a philologist would say, in
that
25 years ago I learned and have not forgotten its grammar and structure, and at
one time read a fair amount written in it"
(see <http://donh.best.vwh.net/Languages/tolkien1.html#fn1>).

The Esperanto verb was taken from Fr. _bruire_ 'to make a noise, roar', whence
also _bruit_ 'noise, din, clamour, sound', a word that has also been borrowed
by English. According to the OED, _bruit_ is thought to derive from L. _rugîre_
'to roar', and "the prefixed _b_ may be due to some onomatopoeic alteration".
An alternative theory is that the prefixed _b_ is due to the influence of LL.
_bragire_ 'to cry out'. Whatever the case may be, Esp. _brui_ and Fr. _bruire,
bruit_
were perhaps influential in the creation of S. *_brui_.

The association of _bru-_ with 'noise' in Tolkien's mind seems also to occur in
the Gnomish Lexicon, in which we find Gn. _brum_ 'noise' and _brumla-_
'make a noise', cited as variant forms under the entries for _rum, rumla-_. The
addition of _b_ in the variant forms may be an onomatopoeic addition (as the
OED suggests with _bruit_), perhaps suggested by German _brummen_ 'mumble,
grumble, growl' (whence the rare English verb _brum_ 'to murmur, hum'). The
unprefixed forms _rum, rumla-_ are perhaps the conceptual antecedents of
Q. _rúma-_ 'shift, move, heave (of large and heavy things)' seen in the late
version of "The Last Ark" (MC:223).

-- Patrick H. Wynne

[Note too the play-words "brum" and "vroom" used onomapoetically of the rumbling
sound of engines. CFH]

I am very pleased to announce the publication of a new article in
_Tengwestië_, the online journal of the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship:

"Intensifying Prefixes in the _Etymologies_"

by Thorsten Renk

Abstract:

"Two different types of intenisfying prefixes can be found for
Noldorin forms in the Etymologies. One of them is the prefixed stem
vowel, the other is an intensive prefix _a-(n-)_. The article
discusses examples for both of these mechanisms and concludes with
examples of the use of intensifying prefixes in post-Noldorin sources."

The article can be reached from the _Tengwestië_ homepage at:

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

or directly at:

<http://www.elvish.org/Tengwestie/articles/Renk/noldintenspref.phtml>

A PDF version of the article is available at:

<http://www.elvish.org/Tengwestie/articles/Renk/noldintenspref.pdf>


(I'd like to thank Helios Rosario de Martinez for his generous
assistance in tagging Thorsten's article for XHTML and the
_Tengwestië_ CSS.)

On Mar 6, 2006, at 6:48 PM, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

> (I'd like to thank Helios Rosario de Martinez for his generous
> assistance in tagging Thorsten's article for XHTML and the
> _Tengwestië_ CSS.)

That should be Helios De Rosario Martinez, of course. (Sorry, Helios!)

Marquette University Press have announced the publication of _The
Lord of the Rings 1954–2004: Scholarship in Honor of Richard E.
Blackwelder_, sc., the proceedings of a conference held at Marquette
in Oct. 2004, organized by Matt Blessing of the Marquette Libraries'
Department of Special Collections and University Archives, which
house the manuscripts of _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of Rings_. The
announcement, and ordering information, is given at:

<http://www.marquette.edu/library/information/news/2006/jrrt_proceedings.html>

(I also highly recommend the exhibit catalog, "The Invented Worlds of
J.R.R. Tolkien: Drawings and Original Manuscripts from the Marquette
University Collection", also available on the same page.)

Of particular interest to list-members are four papers:

"The AB Language Lives" by Arne Zettersten

The AB language was identified by J.R.R. Tolkien in a famous essay
published in Essays and Studies, 14, in 1929. Tolkien was able to show
that the scribes of MS Corpus Christi College Cambridge of the Ancrene
Riwle, also called the Ancrene Wisse  (=A) and MS Bodley 34 of the
Katherine Group (=B) used a language and spelling nearly "as
indistinguishable as that of two modern printed books." Tolkien had
hereby proposed the existence of a 'new' Middle English literary standard.

In 1962 Tolkien continued his AB language research by completing his
edition of the Ancrene Wisse for the Early English Text Society, Oxford. The
aim of this Oxford project was to edit all the 17 MSS, starting with the Latin
and French editions in 1944. The project was completed in the year 2000
by Zettersten's edition of MS Vernon, Bodleian Library, Oxford. In this paper,
Zettersten gives an account of his acquaintance and collaboration with Tolkien
and the continued interest in the AB language towards the end of the past
century and at the beginning of the new millennium. The AB language lives
and, as Tolkien predicted, it has already created an important 'literature' of
its
own.

Arne Zettersten has been a professor of English language and
literature at the University of Copenhagen since 1975. From 1959 to 1973 he
collaborated with J.R.R. Tolkien on the editing of the manuscripts of the
Ancrene
Riwle, subsequently preparing three important editions of the manuscript. The
author of many books and articles, he has been a visiting professor at Zurich
University, Siege, Vienna, and UCLA.  In 1991 he was a Fulbright Scholar at the
University of California at Berkeley. He is currently working on
a book based on his collaboration and friendship with J.R.R. Tolkien.

----

"History in Words: Tolkien's Ruling Passion" by Thomas A. Shippey

Two remarkable features of Tolkien's style are, first, his
extraordinarily large vocabulary, and second, his constant invention of names
for people, objects, and places. Motivating both of these were the many
discoveries of Tolkien's professional predecessors, the philologists of the 19th
century, and their demonstration that words and names could carry far more
"information," in a technical sense, than their users realized. Shippey will
consider and exemplify Tolkien's lifelong fascination with the history of words
and the history in words, making use of Richard E. Blackwelder's invaluable
Tolkien Thesaurus.

----

"Tolkienian Gothic" by Arden R. Smith

Tolkien's introduction to the Gothic language coincided with his
introduction to the principles of historical philology, and both interests would
continue to have an impact on his writings for the rest of his life. Smith
investigates the instances in which these two related interests merged,
examining
Tolkien's varied applications, modifications, and reconstructions of Gothic
vocabulary.
These range from individual names and brief captions, to longer inscriptions and
poetry, frequently incorporating words not attested in the historical Gothic
corpus.

----

"Elvish As She Is Spoke" by Carl F. Hostetter

The invented languages of J.R.R. Tolkien have garnered the
appreciation and attention of linguists and enthusiasts since the publication of
The Lord of the Rings in 1954-1955. Although Tolkien described his languages
as "a private enterprise undertaken to give pleasure to myself by giving
expression
to my personal linguistic 'aesthetic' or taste", the exemplars Tolkien provided
in
his novel naturally invited others to explore and discuss them. The recent
release
of an immensely popular film adaptation of Tolkien's novel has further fueled
interest in Tolkien's languages, both as linguistic and artistic systems worthy
of
study, and more dramatically in seeking to "complete" and "standardize" them
for use as spoken tongues. Hostetter examines the suitability of Tolkien's
Elvish
languages to such efforts, contrasting Tolkien's own artistic methods and
purposes
with the utilitarian means and goals of those who would "speak Elvish".

Some thoughts on the Quenya pronominal endings for "they", 3rd person
plural:

Commenting on the form _tiruvantes_ "they will guard it", Tolkien
indicates that _-nte_ is "inflexion of 3 plural where no subject
is previously mentioned" (UT:305, 317).

There are (at least) two possible interpretations of this, which may
be termed the Wide Interpretation and the Narrow Interpretation.

By the Wide Interpretation, _-nte_ is simply the regular ending for
"they", 3rd person plural. It is used "where no subject is previously
mentioned" _in the same sentence_. Since normal Quenya word order
seems to be SOV (examples can be found in the Prose Namárie in
RGEO:66-67), the subject will normally be mentioned "previously",
that is, before the verb. If a plural subject is thus "previously
mentioned", the verb will not receive the ending _-nte_, but
simply the plural marker _-r_ (as in _lassi lantar_, "leaves fall",
in the Prose Namárie). This would not preclude that the "they"
referred to could be identified earlier in the text/conversation,
just not in the same sentence.

[As I noted in my article "The Quenya Case System in the Later
Writings of J.R.R. Tolkien" in _Parma Eldalamberon_ 10 (p. 35),
the normal word order of a declarative sentence in the "prose
Namárie" is in fact SVO, e.g., _Elen-târi ortane mâ-rya-t_ *'Elentári
uplifted her hands'. Also cp. the Early Qenya Grammar, which states:
"The natural order in Qenya is (1) subject, (2) verb, (3) object of
verb" (PE14:56). This does not, however, affect Ales's point in
the above paragraph. -- PHW]

By the Narrow Interpretation, the words "where no subject is
previously mentioned" are rather interpreted in the absolute sense.
The ending _-nte_ is used for "they" where this pronoun does
not refer back to some party previously mentioned in the text
(or conversation); it rather introduces a party that is to be
identified _following_ the verb to which _-nte_ is suffixed.
Thus Cirion's Oath: _Nai tiruvantes i hárar mahalmassen mí Númen_
*"be it that _they_ [certain people so far unidentified] will keep
it, [namely:] the ones who sit on thrones in the West" (UT:305).

Material recently published may suggest that the Narrow
Interpretation should be favored: The ending _-nte_ is not the
general pronominal ending for "they", but rather a specialized
ending indicating a group that has yet to be identified. It is
now possible to argue that the general ending for "they" should
rather be *_-lte_.

VT48:10-11 indicates that the endings for "we", exclusive _-lme_
and inclusive _-lwe_, are to be analyzed as a plural marker _l_
+ the original pronominal stems ME, (Ñ)WE. Tolkien refers to
"the plural _l_-infix that in Q. preceded the pronominal subject
elements".

At an earlier conceptual stage, the ending for exclusive "we"
was _-mme_, e.g. _firuvamme_ "we will die" in the Quenya Hail
Mary (VT43:34), but according to VT46:6, this ending was later
given a dual rather than a plural significance. Could Tolkien's
eventual dissatisfaction with this form as a plural (not dual)
ending be due to the emerging idea that plural pronominal endings
were to include the plural marker L?

[The idea that plural pronominal endings included the plural
marker L was not "emerging" at this time, but had in fact been
in existence virtually since the beginning: cp. _Tulielto!_ 'They
have come!' in "The Book of Lost Tales" (I:114). -- PHW]

What, then, about the ending for "they"? _Te_ appears as the object
"them" in the LR itself (translated in Letters:308), and according
to VT43:20, TE elsewhere appears as the "personal" Common Eldarin
stem for 3rd person plural. If we combine this with the plural infix
L, then the ending for "they" (at least with reference to persons)
may be reconstructed as *_-lte_, distinct from _-nte_. The latter
ending may then be interpreted according to the Narrow rather than
the Wide interpretation of Tolkien's comments in UT:317.

In Fíriel's Song (V:72), the ending _-lto_ is used for "they" (as
in _antalto_ "they gave"). An ending *_-lte_ could (externally
speaking) be seen as a later incarnation of this, since (as far as
can be told) subject pronominal endings cannot end in _-o_ in
Tolkien's later forms of Quenya.

Any thoughts? Is there any further evidence for (or against)
*_-lte_ as an ending for "they", and the Narrow Interpretation
of _-nte_?


Ales Bican

On 11.03.2006, at 13:15, Ales Bican wrote:

> Is there any further evidence for (or against)
> *_-lte_ as an ending for "they", and the Narrow Interpretation
> of _-nte_?

_-nte_ could be analysed similarly to _*lte_, namely as containing a
plural marker _n_ (as seen in case endings: loc. pl.  _-sse-n_, gen.
pl. _o-n_) and _te_, pronoun of 3rd pl.

So, if the narrow interpretation was applicable, we'd have the
following scenario (if I understand correctly):
1) Valar (i hárar...) tiruvar vanda sina
2) Valar hárar mahalmassen mi Númen. *Tiruvalte vanda sina
3) Nai tiruvantes i hárar...

1 exhibits a regular declarative sentence in SVO order. If the
analysis of both *_tiruvalte_ and _tiruvante_ is correct, both 2+3
would show inverted word order for S and V (VSO). That is, e.g.
_tiruvan-_ 'guard will (pl.)' + _-te_ 'they' (S). In syntactic terms,
the _-te_ in *_tiruval-te_ could be described as an anaphoric
pronoun, it points back to the subject in the previous sentence.
(Similarly, _-te_ in _tiruvante_ can be called cataphoric, i.e.
pointing to information yet to come).

3, we know, is motivated by the lack of a preceding subject.
As for 2, the question really is, meseems, whether in an anaphoric
context, a special form of the verb is used, which incorporates the
anaphoric pronoun or, indeed, whether this form is used in
conjunction with an anaphoric pronoun.

One example of anaphora, which is, arguably, from an earlier period
than the passage in UT, can be found in V:72. _Ilu.... mannar Valion:
númessier. Toi aina, mána, meldielto. "The Father.... (gave it) into
the hands of the Lords. They are in the West. They are holy, blessed
and beloved". In this sentence, we have an anaphoric pronoun, vic.
_toi_ plus the ending _-lto_ (added to the copula). It's apparently
also possible for a noun phrase to lack the copula, cf. _toi írimar_
in line 6 of the poem. The adjective is, then, marked with _-r_,
which might have been the usual pluraliser for adjectives at that time.
In PE14:28 both _tulyar_ and _tulinta_ are given as 3rd pl. N of the
present tense but without any further reference to a possible
difference in function, as far as I know.

_-lto_ seems indeed to be used in a -largely- anaphoric context.
_Tulielto_ as cited by Patrick (I:114) seems to corroborate this, as
it contrasts with _i Eldar tulier_ on the same page. _Tulielto_ "they
have come"  refers to the coming of the Elves and would seem to
presuppose a previous mentioning of that matter. Whatever, the
reality of a posited form *_-lte_, _-lto_ at least, seems to concord
with your analysis. That is, if there aren't any clear examples of
_-lto_ with the subject (other than anaphoric) preceding it.

If a distinction *_-lte_ vs. _-nte_ is to stand, it is curious that
it would be carried by just the pluralising element. Maybe, however,
the system had been revised by Tolkien at the time of UT:305, 317.

David Kiltz

Diego Segui has very kindly provided his index of _Vinyar Tengwar_
for publication on the ELF website, in both English
(<http://www.elvish.org/VT/VT-index-en.pdf>) and (the original) Spanish
(<http://www.elvish.org/VT/VT-index-sp.pdf>) versions. Diego writes:
"This index lists in alphabetical order all words, roots, affixes,
etc. belonging to languages invented by J.R.R. Tolkien which appear
attested, discussed or mentioned in the journal Vinyar Tengwar (VT).
Its purpose is to provide the researcher with quick access to a
reference, or to allow focusing on a particular form by checking it
against other locations where information can be found."

Hello,

According to Ake Bertenstam's 'Chronological Bibliography of the
Writings of J.R.R. Tolkien':

http://www.forodrim.org/arda/tbchron.html

an earlier version of the poem 'Princess Mee', included in 'The
Adventures of Tom Bombadil' (1962), had been published as 'The
Princess Ni' in 'Leeds University Verse 1914-1924'.

I do not have access to the 1924 version, but the later text as
published in ATB relies on a pun upon the names 'Mee' and 'Shee'
and the personal pronouns 'me' and 'she': the protagonist,
Princess Mee, sees her own reflection on the water, and calls it
'Princess Shee'.

Now, this pun is absent if the name is the obscure 'Ni' instead
of 'Mee', and the whole structure of the piece may be affected,
if it matches the latter text's. But it is striking that 'Ni' so
much resembles the various forms of the 1st sg. personal pronoun
in Tolkien's invented languages, examples of which can be found
everywhere, from _nin·insta mai_ 'I am well aware' in the GL
(PE11:52) to _nin_ 'for me' in the Namárië, and so on.
Especially, the Early Qenya Grammar, dating from the same period
as the poem, includes _ni-_, _nîmo_ (nom.), _ni_ / _nit_ (acc.),
_nin_ / _nímon_ (gen.), etc. (PE14:52-3, 85-6).

Is it possible that Tolkien was making a private pun in his
poem? Note that 'Leeds University Verse' included two other
works by Tolkien, namely 'An Evening in Tavrobel' and 'The
Lonely Isle'; both have obvious relations with his mythos, so
perhaps this conjecture is not too far-fetched.

Maybe the full text of the earlier version would shed light on
this. Any thoughts?

Regards,

Diego Seguí
Córdoba, Argentina

[I can shed no further light on this, other than to note that
Hammond and Anderson's _Bibliography_ also mentions that
"Leeds University Verse 1914-24" (B5, pp. 283-4) contains
'The Princess Ni' ("a precursor of 'Princess Mee' ") and states
that "None of these poems has been reprinted".

Perhaps one of our collection-oriented list members has a
copy of "Leeds University Verse" and can shed some light on
the issues Diego raises? -- PHW]

Diego Seguí wrote about "Princess Mee" and "The Princess Ni":

> I do not have access to the 1924 version, but the later text as
> published in ATB relies on a pun upon the names 'Mee' and 'Shee'
> and the personal pronouns 'me' and 'she': the protagonist,
> Princess Mee, sees her own reflection on the water, and calls it
> 'Princess Shee'.
>
> Now, this pun is absent if the name is the obscure 'Ni' instead
> of 'Mee', and the whole structure of the piece may be affected,
> if it matches the latter text's.

     It does not match closely. The old version is much shorter, six
four-line stanzas. What is similar is the described finery: "gossamer
shot with gold", and slippers of "fishes' mail" occur in both poems.
     Like the later version, the earlier one also has an intricate
rhyme-scheme (each group of three stanzas goes: aabc cbdd effe).

> But it is striking that 'Ni' so
> much resembles the various forms of the 1st sg. personal pronoun
> in Tolkien's invented languages, examples of which can be found
> everywhere, from _nin·insta mai_ 'I am well aware' in the GL
> (PE11:52) to _nin_ 'for me' in the Namárië, and so on.
> Especially, the Early Qenya Grammar, dating from the same period
> as the poem, includes _ni-_, _nîmo_ (nom.), _ni_ / _nit_ (acc.),
> _nin_ / _nímon_ (gen.), etc. (PE14:52-3, 85-6).

     The title above the poem is printed "THE PRINCESS NI", and
in the contents table it is the same, but with small capitals
following the initals. In the text, however, the name of the
princess (occurring twice, both times as a rhyme on "she") is
not _Ni_ but _Ní_.

> Is it possible that Tolkien was making a private pun in his
> poem? Note that 'Leeds University Verse' included two other
> works by Tolkien, namely 'An Evening in Tavrobel' and 'The
> Lonely Isle'; both have obvious relations with his mythos, so
> perhaps this conjecture is not too far-fetched.

     In the older poem there is no mirror-motif, and the potential
pun would thus not have much point.
     It is perhaps more likely that _Ní_ had originally no
intended interpretation, and that Tolkien's recognition that
it could be taken as a 1st singular gave rise to an elaboration
of the poem, eventually resulting in the substitution of _Mee_
for _Ní_.

	 Meneg suilaid,

		 Beregond

[The fact that the name of the princess in the poem is _Ní_
(with acute accent) makes me wonder -- perhaps Tolkien
_was_ making a private Elvish pun, but not the one Diego
proposed. The Gnomish Lexicon s.v. _nîr_ (2) 'woman' com-
pares the Qenya cognate _nî_, and perhaps Tolkien used
this as a convenient monosyllabic name of appropriate
meaning (if only to him!). Q _nî_ does not appear in QL as
a separate entry, though in the form _-ni_ it is well attested
there as a feminine ending: _ettani_ 'female cousin', _haruni_
'grandmother', _heruni_ 'lady', _hestani_ 'sister', _kuruni_
'witch', _veruni_ 'wife', etc. -- PHW]

In _The Hobbit_ (p. 236 and footnote) we find mentioning of an Orc
chieftain by the name of _Bolg_ son of _Azog_. He is an Orc of the
Misty Mountains, about which Tolkien says that they "had long used
the Westron as their native language" (LR:1131).

As for the name _Bolg_, that could be, in theory, of orkish "proper"
origin (Black Speech) or taken from some Mannish tongue. Given the
geographical position of Bolg's chiefdom, his name might be of
(North-)Germanic origin. That is, Tolkien would use such a word to
represent a Westron word.

If so, Old Icelandic _bolginn_ 'swollen' could be a good starting point.
The shortened form would roughly parallel Orkish _tark_ 'man of
Gondor' < Q. _tarkil_ (ibid.). The meaning may have appealed to
Tolkien, possibly with the by-sense of 'swollen-headed' (cf. French
_gonflé_, German _aufgeblasen_) for the Great Goblin. [The Great
Goblin is described as "a tremendous goblin with a huge head", _The
Hobbit_, p. 60 -- PHW.] Better still, perhaps, we know that Bolg gets
exceedingly angry at Thorin's company and, in his rage, attacks the
Dwarves at the Lonely Mountain. Here fits well the meaning of the
corresponding verb in OE, OS, OHG _belgan_ 'to be angry, rage'.
So maybe Bolg's name is a sort of pun, with Tolkien having something
like 'swollen with rage' in mind.

David Kiltz

It is said that _orthanc_ has two major meanings (in two different
tounges): in "elvish" (Sindarin) "stony heart, [?tormented] Hills"
(VIII:35), "Stone Fangs" (VIII:35) and lastly "forked-Height" (RC:
234); in Rohirric it is "cunning craft, invention" (VIII:35).

The underlying etymology of the compound _or-thanc_ with translation
"forked-Height" may be as follows:

_or_: derived from base ORO- (V:379) giving N. _or_ prep. above;
prefix _or-_ as in _orchall, orchel_ "superior, eminent"
_thanc_: derived from Stem STAK- (V:388) giving N. _thanc_ and Q.
_sanka_ meaning "cleft, split" here in adjectival form _thanc_ "forked".

But in light of the different translations (mentioned above)
thought of Tolkien by the time of writing _The Lord of the Rings_, we
can easily observe many other hints how Tolkien first constructed
_orthanc_.

One could argue that Tolkien sometimes translated his own creations
inexactly and non-literally, but in this instance I think that Tolkien toyed
with various etymological explanations for his word – interesting enough
to pull out a little analysis of _orthanc_ for each translation:

"stony heart":

_or_: possibly the Sindarin cognate of Q. _óre_ (XII:337) meaning "heart"
_thanc_: certainly not derived from STAK-, but from base TAK-
(V:389) giving N. _tanc_ "firm", which we could take (with enough
imagination) as "stony". _tanc_ would undergo a liquid mutation when
combined with _or_.

"[?tormented] hills":

_or_: may be derived from base ORO-(V:389) but unattested with the
meaning of hill, although we can find _orod_ (under base ÒROT-
(V:389)) "mountain", which could well be connected to *_or_ "hill".
_thanc_: with the meaning of "torment" is nowhere else mentioned or
reconstructable from bases. It's very possible that "tormented" is a
misreading due to illegibility (as hinted by Chistopher Tolkien).

"Stone Fang":

_or_: can only mean "stone" in the context of the translation, but can
hardly be derived from ORO-. I can not shed any further light on
this matter.
_thanc_: derived from abse STAK-, could fit in this context of the
meaning  _thanc_ "split, cleft".

As we can see, Tolkien experimented with the many possibilities of
translating _orthanc_. Whether we could add the new word meanings (e. g.
*_or_ "heart") to our Sindarin vocabulary is questionable.

Philipp Marquart

Erratum for PE15 (p. 42):

"The implication is that the forms _sit_ and _sinte_ in Table D, ..."

The forms _sit_ and _sinte_ are actually found in Table A.

Philipp Marquart

On 22.04.2006, at 20:48, varavilindo wrote:

> Whether we could add the new word meanings (e. g.
> *_or_ "heart") to our Sindarin vocabulary is questionable.

More so, perhaps, because there is _gûr_ (VT41;11) 'heart, inner
mind', said (loc. cit.) to derive from  CE _3ôrê_. Of course,
Tolkien's idea about the derivation of Q _óre_ and the respective
Sindarin form may have changed over time. In the times of _The
Etymologies_, CE _3_ (i.e. a voiced velar fricative) is lost in later
Noldorin. 'Stony heart' could also be a deliberate folk etymology by
those well acquainted with Elvish, I think. Especially, maybe, because
S _gûr_, Q _óre_ seem to refer not so much to the physical organ but
to mental/emotional phenomena. Hence a 'rigid' or 'stony' heart could
be seen as an allusion to the state of Saruman's _óre_ in the later days
of his residence in Orthanc.

David Kiltz

Philipp Marquart wrote:

> It is said that _orthanc_ has two major meanings (in two different
> tounges): in "elvish" (Sindarin) "stony heart, [?tormented] Hills"
> (VIII:35), "Stone Fangs" (VIII:35) and lastly "forked-Height" (RC:
> 234)

     For 234 read 243. The gloss "forked-height" in the unfinished index
would (if that index had been completed and appeared in the book) have
been a complement to the main text's "Mount Fang".

> The underlying etymology of the compound _or-thanc_ with translation
> "forked-Height" may be as follows:
>
> _or_: derived from base ORO- (V:379) giving N. _or_ prep. above;
> prefix _or-_ as in _orchall, orchel_ "superior, eminent"

     The element _or_ occurs in Sindarin with the sense 'height,
mountain' also in (at least) _Erebor_.

	 Suilad,

		 Beregond

VT 46:16, entry SUD- lists the N. words _thund, thonn; thonnas_ (first
written _sunn, sonnas_).

The -nd/-nn variation often occurs in the _Etymologies_ (e.g. _thand,
thann_, VT 46:16) and primitive *u generally yields /o/ in Noldorin.

Therefore, are the -u- read in _thund_ and _sunn_ really certain in
the manuscript, or could they possibly be malformed -o-?

From the few facsimile pages of Tolkien's texts we have, I have the
impression that Tolkien's -o-, when written quickly (esp. before -n),
are sometimes not always fully closed on top (for instance, this seems
to be the case for the final -o- in _Angalagon_ and _ono- on the VT
46:5 facsimile -- unless this is to be ascribed to an artefact of the
printed reproduction or even to my poor sight. I certainly don't claim
to have any experience deciphering Tolkien's hand-writing!)

Of course, S. _thond_ "root" is later attested in _Morthond_
"Blackroot" (e.g. LR app. E).

Regards,

Didier.

[Yes, the form is very clearly written as _thund_; likewise, the parallel
deleted form _sunn_ is very clearly written as such. A fact not noted in the A&C
is that this _sunn_ itself overwrites earlier _sonn_, which reinforces the
deliberateness of the _u_ in both forms. CFH]

I'd like to draw your attention to some fragments published in VT27:

(1) _dakar {dakaro} no giliar_ (VT27:17)
(2) _vári to vanimar_ (VT27:35)

Of course they have been analysed in the issue itself, but since our
amount of material has vastly increased since 1993, we may (or must)
see some things in another light:

(1)
Here, one has first of all to identify the language. In VT27:18 Old
Noldorin is proposed, an intermediate form between ON _ndakro_ and N.
_dagr_, _dagor_ 'battle' with the shift _nd_ > _d_ already carried
out, but not yet the lenition of _k_ > _g_. For the meaning *'battle
under stars' is proposed with possible relations to
_Dagor-nui-Ngiliath_ and other forms (V:249,378).

Such an interpretation is problematic in several ways, however:

Firstly, it would be a unique example of a whole phrase in a ancient
form of a Tolkienian language - usually we only see 'reconstructed'
and asterisked words in etymological outlines.

Furthermore, the plural noun suffix _-r_ is characteristic of
Quenya, but not really for Tolkien's Welsh branch. Although Early
Noldorin had the plural ending _-ir_ (apart from other suffixes like
_-ath_, _-in_, _-iant_), it was applied to monosyllabic words ending
in a consonant, as _Im_ 'royal-elf' pl. _Inwir_ (PE13:148).
[http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/elvish/noldorin/early_noldorin_plurals.html]
And we do not meet such a suffix in the Noldorin of the Etymologies
anymore, although _-in_ and _-ath_ occur.

Giving this phrase a different interpretation, I would look for
internal explanations of this suffix. It looks like a Quenya suffix,
though the sentence apparently cannot be Quenya , having initial _d-_
and _g-_. In XII:402 we learn that the plural device _-r_ was
introduced into Quenya by the Noldor - this is, however, a much later
source (from 1968).

Still, the only language being close enough to Quenya to share pl.
_-r_ and allowing initial _d-_, _g-_ is Telerin. In the Etymologies we
can find ÑGOLOD- > _golodo_ 'Gnome' and more or less contemporary with
this NDAN- > _Daintáro_ 'Saviour of the Dani' (V:188) reflecting the
shifts _nd, ng_ > _d, g_; also earlier _gr:go_ > T. _gargo_ 'throat'
(PE13:144) with retention of _g-_.

If _gilia_ comes from older _*ngilya_ or _gilya_ (< GIL- in Etym.), we
can also observe the change of non-syllabic _y_ to _i_. The same
change occurs in earliest examples of Telerin, as _mburyá:_ > __muria_
'close, muggy' (PE13:139), as well as in later ones, e.g. _Vaniai_
from _wanjâ_ (XI:383).

There is no known Telerin grammar until 'Quendi & Eldar' and there
is no explicit mention of a plural marker _-r_ as in Quenya. But
judging from the internal position of the Teleri, there are certain
relations between the two languages already at the time of the
Etymologies (e.g. Q. _telpe_ as a probable Telerin loan (V:367)), so
that grammatical features may have been borrowed and shared.

But then a question occurs - why would there be a Telerin word for a
battle in Middle-earth fought by the Noldor?
But can we be really sure about such an interpretation? The form
struck out is _dakaro_ and even though there is N. _ndakro_
'slaughter, battle' (V:375), as also pointed out in the issue, the
ending _-ro_ may also denote a _person_, cf. TUR: 'in c[om]p[oun]ds
_turo_, _tur_ 'master, victor, lord'', as Q. _Fantur_, _Spanturo_
'lord of cloud' (V:387) or T. _avar_ < _avaro_ (VT47:13,24), ABAR- in
Etym. (lots of other examples brought in VT27:17).
The primitive endings _-ro_ and _-rô_ are said to have an agental
meaning in XI:371. Certainly, not all agental formations denote
persons (just compare Q. _tolbo_ in VT47:10-11). But overall, it
seems that persons and animals in _-ro_ form the majority, although
this is still no strict evidence in this particular case, of course
(and there are a lot of inanimate nouns in _-r_).
So I believe that the interpretation of _dakar(o)_ as *'fighter,
warrior' rather than *'battle' cannot be wholly excluded.

The epithet 'warrior under stars' could be applied to one of the Valar
- perhaps Tulkas or Orome. At least we know that the rest of the sheet
is filled by forms of two Quenya sentences - one about Orome coming to
awaken the sleeping Elves at Koivienéni and another one (probably)
about the Valar planting the Two Trees of Valinor. Orome could have
very well appeared as a 'warrior under the stars' to the Eldar (while
the 'battle under stars' is somehow out of context on this sheet).
There could be a relation to Q. _Telimektar_ 'Orion, lit. Swordsman of
Heaven' (QL:90), but this warrior is rather _consisting_ of stars.


(2)
There should be little doubt in the fact that _vanimar_ means
'beautiful ones' - this form is identical to the one occuring in
Treebeard's greeting in the 'Lord of the Rings'.
For _vári_ the translation 'pools' is proposed, with _*var_ isolated
from _nénuvar_ 'pool of lilies' (I:248). For _to_ a relation to _toi_
'they' (V:72) is proposed, here as a relative pronoun, thus the whole
phrase: *'pools which [are] fair' in reference to the Two Trees.

However, after the publishing of the Qenya Lexicon the ending _-var_
can be be seen in quite different word formations:
_kuru_ 'magic, wizardry', _kuruvar_ 'wizard' (QL:49)
_Autar, Auvar_ *'wealth' < AWA- (QL:33)
(the latter perhaps <  _*aw-var_, as _aw_ > _au_ before the 't' in
_Autar_)
There is no gloss of _*var_ meaning 'pool'. Instead it seems to be a
word-creating suffix. Perhaps it's even the 'general adjectival
suffix' _-va_ we meet in EQG (PE14:47) combined with other endings -
_#nénuva_ could be the adjective of 'lily', made a noun by the ending
_-r_.

Instead, QL gives us the following forms:
_vard-_ 'rule, govern'
_varni_ 'queen'
_vardar_ 'king'
and also _Varda_
(stem VRDR, QL:102)

The stem BARÁD in Etym. has a very similar meaning, having to do with
loftiness, highness; and there is also the related stem BAR- with the
original significance 'raise'. And the two are perhaps also related to
BAL-, which serves as a stem of the word _Valar_ and has to do with
the divine power and authority given to them.
Among the derived forms there is also a plural 'formed directly from
the stem' - _Vali_ (already present in Early Qenya - QL:99).
Assuming that BAR- can refer to the Valar as well, _vári_ could mean
exactly this - *'Valar, the high/risen/lofty ones'. And compare also
Adunaic _bâr_ 'lord' (IX:437-38) (with macron).

So the whole phrase perhaps means 'Valar (=Lords) who are beautiful
[ones]'. A similar alliterative formation occurs in XI:404 - _Valar
valuvar_ 'the will of the Valar will be done'.


All these new interpretations are just my suggestions. I thought I
could share my ideas here to get to know other people's opinions.
Perhaps there are even better possibilities.


Roman Rausch

In the _War of the Ring_ on page 50 we find various forms for the
treeish beings later known as _Huorns_ (s. a. RC:425). The first form
reads _Galbedirs_, which was changed at the time of writing to
_Lamorni_ and finally to _Ornómar_.  In the same line in which these
appear it is said that _Ornómar_ (here said to be "an oldfashioned
elvish", i.e. Quenya) means "Talking Trees, that is, that they have trained
and made half-entish".

Two pages later Merry informs us that Treebard "...sent off a whole
wood of the _Ornómi_ down the valley..." and on page 54 Aragorn
talks about "the _Ornómi_ , the moving woods..." supporting us with
just another and most likely final form of the half-tree entities in
Quenya.

_Galbedir_: consists of two elements: *_gal_ 'tree' + *_pedir_
'speaker'. *_gal_ is derieved from stem GÁLAD- (V:357); yet no
Noldorin example is listed that would support a reconstruction like
*_gal_ + noun, instead we see a Doriathrin form _galbreth_ 'beech'
showing the only similiar construction to _galbedir_ available.
_*pedir_ (which undergoes lenition when combined with a noun; cp.
_cirban_ 'haven', V:380) originates from KWET- (and PET-) 'say'
(V:366) and a substantive suffix *_-dir_ seen also in N. _rhandir_
'wanderer' (RAN-, V:383) or _Thorondir_ (XII:206). We might assume a
Primitive elvish form like *_pet-dir_ > N. *_pedir_ 'speaker', but
that's very speculative.

_Lamorni_: consists of the elements *_lam_ 'sound, speak' (LAM-,
V:367) and *_orni_ plural of _orne_ 'tree' (ÔR-NI, V:379). The
literal translation  might be *'Sound-trees'.

_Ornómar_: consists of above mentioned _orne_ and plural *_ómar_
'voices' (OM-, V:379). Note that this compound is formed by
assimilating the last vowel of _orne_(exhibited also in _Minnónar_
'Firstborn', XI:403). The literal translation of _Ornómar_ might
be *'Tree-voices' (though translated in the text as "Talking trees").

_Ornómi_*: consists of _orne_ 'tree' (see above) and *_ómi_
'?speaking'. The second element seems not to be connected with *_ómar_
'voices' and is not an adjectival element, but a derivation from stem
OM-. I suggest that Tolkien constructed _Ornómi_ in a very different
fashion from that seen in the above given examples. Sometimes the
plural for a Q(u)enya noun is based upon the stem, just like in
_talami_ pl. of _talan_ 'floor, ground' (TALAM-, V:390). In the
particular case of _Ornómi_ we may fathom here the same:  Lengthened
*_óm_ combined with _orne_, while *_óm_ showing nasalisation of *_-m_
to *_-n_ and _orne_ assimilation of _-e_, producing singular *_Ornón_
*'talking, speaking tree' (though the text translates _Ornómi_ as
"trees with voices", VIII:55). Yet, this is very discussable, moreover
when we consider that plural derivation for a noun might hardly be
applicable to that of a compound.

*on page 54 Tolkien also translated it as "moving trees", but there is
no trace anywhere that _ómi_ could also mean "moving", so I shall
"ignore" this translation here.

Philipp Marquart

P. S.: Edouard Kloczko states in his book "Le dictionnaire des langues
des Hobbits, des Nains, des Orques" (see Lambengolmor Message 471)
that : "Lamorni and Ornómar, with a variant plural form Ornómi (see
WR, p. 50), but all were rejected". Actually only the preceeding forms
_Galbedir_ and _Lamorni_ were rejected, while the form _Ornómar_ is
allowed to stand, yet being replaced later by _Ornómi_ which appears
unaltered also on page 52 and 54.

[Philipp's interpretation of _Ornómi_ strikes me as needlessly complicated
and speculative. It is far more probable that _Ornómi_ is simply
the same sort of compound as _Ornómar_, save that the final element
has an alternative pl. *_ómi_ 'voices' formed directly from the stem OM-
(hence the translation of this name in the text itself as 'trees with voices').
For the variation of pl. _ómar, ómi_, cp. the statement in the _Etym._:
"Q _Vala_ Power, God (pl. _Valar_ or _Vali_ = PQ *_bal-î_ formed direct
from stem, cf. _Valinor_)", V:350 s.v. BAL-. -- PHW]

Hello!

In the second part of _The Book of Lost Tales_ (p. 288) it is said that
Tavrobel, the city of elves, is situated near the conjunction of two
rivers, _Gruir_ and _Afros_. I'm very interested in any
suggestions about a possible etymology of these names!

Thanks in advance!

--

Sincerely yours,
  Alexandra


[Christopher Tolkien notes (I:196, V:413) the apparent correspondence of the
rivers _Gruir_ and _Afros_ with the Trent and the Sow, in conjunction with the
identification of _Tavrobel_ with the village of Great Haywood in Staffordshire.
Ekwall tells us (_Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names_) that "Trent"
derives utlimately from British (Celtic) _Trisantôn_ < _tri-_ 'through, across'
+ _santôn_ *'road': i.e., cross-roads, ford. "Sow", meanwhile, is cognate with
Gaulish (Celtic) _Savus_ < *_seu-_ 'to flow, liquid', whence Old English _sêaw_
and Welsh _sug_ 'juice', Old Irish _suth_ 'milk'.

With Trent 'ford, cross-roads' in mind, it is interesting to compare Gnomish
_Afros_ with the "Gnomish Lexicon" entry _adros_ 'a crossing, ford' (which
replaced earlier _athrod_ of the same meaning). On the other hand, GL also has
_av(r)os_ 'fortune, wealth, prosperity' (an alteration from earlier _avos_),
which is closer in form to _Afros_.

If _Afros_ is indeed to be identified with the Trent, this leaves _Gruir_ as the
Sow. The closest forms in GL are _grum_, _gruim_ 'fierce', _grui_ 'ferocity,
horror'.  However, from what I can glean from various web-sites, the Sow is in
fact a narrow (max. width of 3 meters) and often shallow river: not exactly
fierce-sounding. On the other hand, the Trent is one of only two bore rivers in
England: that is, it has tidal bore waves that flow up-river. CFH]

In _The Return of the Shadow_ (HoME Vol. VI) we are introduced to Trotter,
Tolkien's
original conception of the character who would eventually become Aragorn.
Trotter is a
Hobbit, moreover one with a rather unusual sartorial style: "He was dressed in
dark rough
brown cloth, and had a hood on, in spite of the warmth, -- and, very remarkably,
he had
wooden shoes!" (VI:137) Trotter's wooden shoes were apparently the source of his
name,
for as the innkeeper Barnabas Butterbur notes, "What his right name is I never
heard, but
he's known round here as Trotter. You can hear him coming along the road in
those shoes:
clitter-clap -- when he walks on a path, which isn't often. Why does he wear
'em? Well,
that I can't say." (VI:138).

What is also remarkable about Trotter is that while Tolkien provided him with no
less than
four names in Noldorin, theses names have apparently remained unanalyzed and
undiscussed by scholars. It's time to take a step or two to remedy that
oversight.

The earliest Noldorin name for Trotter is _Rimbedir_, which was replaced by the
form
_Padathir_, as in Glorfindel's phrase _Ai Padathir, Padathir! Mai govannen!_
'Hail Trotter,
Trotter, well met' (see VI:194,198, 207, 217). Both of these forms appear to
contain the
stem _pata-_ 'walk', later seen in S. _aphad-_ 'follow' < *_ap-pata_ 'walk
behind, on a
track or path' (XI:387). This stem dates back to QL, which gives the root
PATA(1) with
derivatives _pata-_ 'rap, tap (of feet)', _patakta-_ 'to clatter', _patinka _
'shoe, slipper', etc.
Obviously imitative, this root seems ideally suited for the name of a Hobbit
noted for the
"clitter-clap" of his wooden shoes. The cognates in GL are a bit more generic:
Gn.
_padra-_ 'walk', derived with _pad_ (unglossed) from a root _pat-_ (also
unglossed). These
forms were probably meant to replace several rejected entries found in the
B-section:
_bad_ 'way, path', _badweg_ 'traveller, pedlar', etc. The verb stem _bad-_
'travel'
underlying these rejected words is cited in the entry for _bag-_ 'sell, trade',
but was not
itself struck out.

Retention of medial -MB- in _Rimbedir_ indicates that this word is a compound
consisting
of _rim_ + _bedir_, the latter being the lenited form of *_pedir_, an agentive
form of
*_pad-_ 'walk'. The agentive ending is perhaps the same element *_-ir_ seen in
N.
_bauglir_ 'tyrant, oppressor' < _bauglo-_ 'to oppress' (V:372, VT45:33).
Alternatively,
*_pedir_ might end in N. †_dîr_ 'adult male, man', also used as an agental
ending, as in
_ceredir_ 'doer, maker' < KAR- 'make, do' and _feredir_ 'hunter' < _faro_ 'to
hunt' (V:354,
362, 387) -- in both of these agental forms from the _Etymologies_ the ending
_-dir_
causes i-affection in the preceding element, a process also evident in *_pedir_
< *_pad-_.
Perhaps the original form meaning 'walker' was *_pededir_, haplologically
reduced to
*_pedir_, unless we are to suppose that _-dir_ was added directly to the stem,
i.e., *pad-
dir_ > *_pedir_. It is interesting to note, by the way, that *_pedir_ 'walker'
in _Rimbedir_ is
homophonous with the etymologically distinct N. form *_pedir_ 'speaker' (< KWET-
'say')
seen in N. _Galbedir_ 'Talking Tree', an early name for the Huorns; see Philipp
Marquart's
discussion of the latter name in Lambengolmor message #913.

The initial element in _Rimbedir_ is most likely N. _rhimp_ (= Q. _rimpa_
'rushing, flying' <
RIP- 'rush, fly, fling', V:384), which appears in the form _rhim-_ in the
river-name
_Rhimdath_ 'Rushdown' (ibid.). _Rimbedir_ thus apparently means lit.
*'rush-walker',
entirely appropriate given that Eng. _trot_ means 'to walk briskly, to run at a
moderate
pace (typically with short steps)'. The use of _Rim-_ rather than _Rhim-_ is
probably not
significant, as Tolkien was inconsistent about indicating voiceless initial RH-
in the
_Etymologies_.

The ending _-thir_ in _Padathir_ is difficult to account for with certainty. It
might be a
variant of agental _-dir_, with _*Padadir_ dissimilating to _Padathir_ -- the
agental suffix
_-dir_ does not universally cause i-affection, e.g., N. _rhandir_ 'wanderer,
pilgrim' <
_rhenio_ 'to stray' -- but I cannot think of an attested example of this sort of
dissimilation,
so this is perhaps unlikely. N. _thîr_ 'look, face, expression, countenance' (as
in _Cranthir_
'Ruddy-face' and _Gorthir_ 'dread-glance', V:392) has the proper form but lacks
any
plausibly applicable meaning. Perhaps in _Padathir_ we are dealing with an
extended
verbal stem *_padath-_ 'to trot' (< *_patatt-_), analogous to the extended Qenya
verb
_patakta-_ 'to clatter' in QL, to which the agental suffix _-ir_ (as in N.
_bauglir_
'oppressor') was added. Another possibility is that *padath_ is a verbal noun,
'walking,
trotting' (cp. N. _gwanath_ 'the act of dying' < WAN- 'depart, go away,
disappear, vanish',
V:397) -- David Salo in "A Gateway to Sindarin" plausibly interprets the initial
elements in
_ceredir_ 'maker' and _feredir_ 'hunter' as the gerunds *_cared_ and *_farad_
(and the
plural of _feredir_ is, notably, _faradrim_).

I will comment on the remaining two Noldorin names of Trotter in Part 2.

-- Patrick H. Wynne

>theses names have apparently remained unanalyzed and
>undiscussed by scholars. It's time to take a step or
>two to remedy that oversight.

Actually, some steps were already taken half a year ago, here:

http://middangeard.org.uk/aglardh/?q=node/49&from=0&comments_per_page=70

And here:

http://wwweb-library.net/wbb2/thread.php?threadid=4531

Both discussions can be easily found via Google.
The latter is in German, but in both the proposal is made to relate
_Rimbedir_ to RIM- (V:383) (whence N. _rhemb_, _rhem_ 'frequent,
numerous' -- in this case the compound may prevent a-affection
_i_ > _e_), i.e. it could mean *'he who walks often', *'he who walks
a lot'. That may be not a literal translation of 'Trotter', but such a
nickname would certainly fit the personage.

There are also other suggestions for _Padathir_.

Roman R.

[Many thanks for pointing out these discussions -- my apologies to
the authors involved for overlooking their contributions!

The possibility of RIM- *'frequent, numerous' being the source of
the first element in _Rimbedir_ had occurred to me as well, but
N. _rhim-_ 'rushing' struck me as more probable, given that 'Rush-walker'
would be a very close approximation of the meaning of English _Trotter_.

I see that in the first of the two links provided above, "Atwe" notes
that his first impression of _Padathir_ was that it might be "*_pada-dir_ >
_padadhir_, and maybe Tolkien found _dh_ 'uncouth' so changed it to
_th_" -- so a tip of the hat to Atwe for first coming up with the dissimilative
interpretation of the ending _-thir_. He also notes that the ending might
be _hîr_ 'lord', "but then I cannot explain the 't'."

I will be happy indeed if my kvetching about "Forgotten Words of Elvish"
has helped in some small way to stimulate such discussions. Let's keep
up the good work! -- PHW]