Council of Elrond

Welcome Guest
Username: Password: Register

Forum Home » Languages » Sindarin Discussion » "Le" vs. "-ch"

Author	Topic:

Celebrian_Kementari

Council Member
Posts: 34
Send Message

"Le" vs. "-ch"
on: August 17, 2004 07:12

Suilad,

I've noticed in both the movies and the "Sindarin phrases" page that they use "le" and "-ch" for you--le for a subject and -ch for a verb suffix. The Sindarin course said le and -l were "formal" and chen and -ch were "familiar." So they wouldn't be used interchangeably.

I think this is the way it happened, but I'd like clarification if I'm wrong. I bet le and -ch are both attested, and -l and chen are only derived. The people who wrote using le and -ch interchangeably just wanted to stick with what was actually attested, knowing that pronouns are often irregular so that our derivations might well be wrong.

Comments? Am I right?

[Edited on 17/8/2004 by Celebrian_Kementari]

Gildor-Inglorion

Elvellon ar Pethdan
Posts: 296
Send Message

RE: "Le" vs. "-ch"
on: August 17, 2004 07:25

Yes, that was David Salos intent I believe. Technically speaking the ending -ch isn't actually attested in published material either.

EDIT:

Gwendeth was kind enough to point out that I made a mistake and wasn't very clear in the above. The ending -ch _is_ attested as a _form_ but the meaning is controversial. The "Turin Wrapper" where this appears is also technically not published as it was taken from David Salo's memory of a meeting with Carl Hostetter. So what's the verdict then? The form -ch is attested but not officially and the meaning is unclear.

[Edited on 8/17/2004 by Gildor-Inglorion]

thorsten

Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message

RE: "Le" vs. "-ch"
on: August 17, 2004 07:55

There's some indication that Tolkien at one point toyed with the idea of using a consonant _k_ to mark 1st person sg. and _l_ to mark 1st person plural - this is so in the Early Qenya pronomial system outlined in PE14:52.
In the same source, we also find
"These relationships are equally important in the formative elements: for example
(...)
pronomial element ke as (...) kke"

Such a 2nd person element _kke_ would, if still relevant in Sindarin, come out as _-ch_. This is the best evidence for such an ending in Elvish I am aware of (as you can see, it is not much in terms of direct evidence) and may not be relevant for the interpretation of _agorech_.

I am unsure about a form _?chen_. No unmutated word in Sindarin known to me starts with _ch-_ (a few Noldorin ones start with _chw-_, but this doesn't seem to be relevant here). This suggests to me that unmutated _chen_ is phonologically not an option. It could be derived as mutated _hen_, but this would not have a 2nd person consonant _c(k)_. My impression is that a speculative 2nd person pronoun would rather come out as _ce_, if _ch_ in the ending is indeed 2nd person, then it probably simply represents a doubling of the original consonant as in the Early Qenya quote given above.

Celebrian_Kementari

Council Member
Posts: 34
Send Message

RE: "Le" vs. "-ch"
on: August 18, 2004 09:07

I got "chen" from the Sindarin course on this site.

I guess I should have mentioned I am very much a beginner. What I really wanted to know was, which forms should I use for the second person?

thorsten

Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message

RE: "Le" vs. "-ch"
on: August 18, 2004 10:55

This, unfortunately, boils down to a matter of personal preference because no one can tell you exactly.

It is certain that _le_ can be used as 'to thee, for thee' and _lîn_ as 'thy'. Apart from that, things start to get apart.

Here's what I believe is most probable:

Sindarin, like Quenya, may have a formal (consonant _l_) and an informal (consonant _k_) 2nd person. The formal one developed from an older plural form, so in an old concept of the language, the 2nd person sg. would have the ending _*-g_ and the 2nd plural _*-l_ with no distinction between formal and informal. But - in a later version, the plural form developed into a formal mode - so plural needed to be marked differently. Quenya apparently does this by doubling the consonant, leading to the speculative Sindarin endings _-g_ informal sg, _-ch_ informal plural, _-l_ formal sg. and plural.

This, however, is not what I usually use - because people recognize the set of _*-ch_ for sg. and plural and pronouns _*ce, *cen, *cîn_ much more readily than an ending _*-g_. So I use those, and the speculative ending _*-l_ for formal address.

However, I can understand the rational of using _-ch_ as semi-attested 2nd person ending and the attested pronouns in _le, lîn_ along - I believe it's not what Tolkien had in mind, but it's safe in the sense that it is closest to what is attested.

No one can give a definite answer at this point - you have to make up your own mind and make a choice. I do believe, however, that a form _chen_ can not exist in Sindarin because it doesn't fit the Sindarin phonology and I would not recommend using it.

Uialdil_i_degilbor

Elvish Scribe
Posts: 380
Send Message

RE: "Le" vs. "-ch"
on: August 22, 2004 09:15

Sindarin, like Quenya, may have a formal (consonant _l_) and an informal (consonant _k_) 2nd person. The formal one developed from an older plural form

In fact, Tolkien tells us in RGEO that the form le is indicative of a Quenya influence on the Sindarin spoken in Imladris. It's possible that second person pronominal forms with '[b][/b]' are not 'pure' Sindarin at all, but rather Sindarinised Quenya pronouns.

estel_duron

Council Member
Posts: 2
Send Message

RE: "Le" vs. "-ch"
on: December 01, 2004 06:09

There's some indication that Tolkien at one point toyed with the idea of using a consonant _k_ to mark 1st person sg. and _l_ to mark 1st person plural - this is so in the Early Qenya pronomial system outlined in PE14:52.

Do you actually mean 2nd person? Or does Parma Eldalamberon really list these as 1st pers pronouns? I admit that I am a bit ignorant here.

Here's what I believe is most probable:

Sindarin, like Quenya, may have a formal (consonant _l_) and an informal (consonant _k_) 2nd person. The formal one developed from an older plural form, so in an old concept of the language, the 2nd person sg. would have the ending _*-g_ and the 2nd plural _*-l_ with no distinction between formal and informal. But - in a later version, the plural form developed into a formal mode - so plural needed to be marked differently. Quenya apparently does this by doubling the consonant, leading to the speculative Sindarin endings _-g_ informal sg, _-ch_ informal plural, _-l_ formal sg. and plural.

I thought about this as well, although I used to suspect that -ch was pure Sindarin, i.e. free from the influence of Quenya. However, it does seem more plausible that Rían would have been more influenced by the Sindarin of the Noldor rather than the purer dialect in Doriath. -ch would have then been characteristic of the Sindarin of the Noldor. Thanks for that!

I did think that the use of both le and -ch was inconsistent because I used to think that the former was plural while the latter was singular. But if both le and -ch are plural forms, I guess they may be used interchangeably, though I still think that to be consistent it is better to use le, i.e. the Imladris dialect 2nd pers pronoun.

However, if le is due to Quenya influence, what is it doing in Lúthien’s song in LB (Doriathrin dialect)? Unless the song represents a pronominal conception made obsolete by the publication of the RGEO.

Gildor-Inglorion

Elvellon ar Pethdan
Posts: 296
Send Message

RE: "Le" vs. "-ch"
on: December 01, 2004 06:59

See the following link for more:

http://www.weet.us/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60

Ailinel

Council Member
Posts: 811
Send Message

RE: "Le" vs. "-ch"
on: December 02, 2004 04:28

There's some indication that Tolkien at one point toyed with the idea of using a consonant _k_ to mark 1st person sg. and _l_ to mark 1st person plural - this is so in the Early Qenya pronomial system outlined in PE14:52.

Do you actually mean 2nd person? Or does Parma Eldalamberon really list these as 1st pers pronouns? I admit that I am a bit ignorant here.

This is a typo. PE 14:52 gives "Sg. 1 _ni-_ , Sg.2 _ke-_ (...) Pl. 2 _le-_".

Naneth

Elvish 101 Moderator
Posts: 568
Send Message

RE: "Le" vs. "-ch"
on: December 02, 2004 12:00

Here's some exerpts from Carl Hostetter's posts on the subject of pronouns in general, and about the singular and plural endings for "you" on verbs:

As for publishing "Tolkien's pronoun charts", some already have been published, in VT and in Parma Eldalamberon. I unfortunately suspect that your phrasing betrays an implicit assumption that there is somewhere in Tolkien's papers a single, definitive paradigm of pronominal endings for Quenya and Sindarin. But as I have stated any number of times now, this is simply not the case. What exists is very many variant paradigms, some clearly done within a very short time of each other yet disagreeing with each other in fundamental ways. The fact is that Tolkien never arrived at a fixed, definitive set of endings, even for Quenya and Sindarin, and not even during or after the publication of The Lord of the Rings. (Tolkien even altered the system in a fundamental way, affecting the 1st pl. endings and necessitating a revision to the published text of LotR! So even publication was not an insurmountable obstacle to further change.) In the end, Tolkien's shifting aesthetic won out against any apparent fixing of systems .....

-l
"But we do have evidence for the 2nd pl. ending, at least for Quenya of the 1950s, in the small charts of pronominal forms published in Vinyar Tengwar 43, pp 29, 36 n.2 (you can download this issue of VT in PDF form at http://www.elvish.org/VT/VT43sample.pdf). These show that there were contrasting long forms of the 2nd sg. and pl. endings, sc. -lye and -lle, respectively, but that they shared an identical short form, -l."

-ch
"So the fact that David claims to have seen a chart in which _-ch_ is a 2nd person ending is neither surprising nor particularly relevant to the interpretation of _-ch_ in the sentence under discussion; indeed, since charts can be found showing _-ch_ as 2nd sg. ......"

He does go on to say that there are also other charts with other meanings for "-ch" which is in keeping with what he says in the first paragraph about ... "variant paradigms, some clearly done within a very short time of each other yet disagreeing with each other in fundamental ways."

So at least "-ch" (singular) and "-l" (plural) are attested at "some point" in time in Tolkien's works for "you".

[Edited on 2/12/2004 by Naneth]

Members Online

UserOnline

Messages

Forum

Welcome Guest