Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Languages » Sindarin Discussion » Ideas on the pluralization of a in final syllables
Author Topic:
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post Ideas on the pluralization of a in final syllables
on: February 25, 2005 08:45
Studying the list of Attested Sindarin plurals the problem of how to i-affect an _a_ in the final syllable becomes readily apparent. We find three different possibilities: a) _a > ai_ cf. _bar > bair_ b) _a > ei_ cf. _alph > eilph_ and _a > e_, cf. _narn > nern_. The question is: Can we find the general systematics behind these three mechanisms?

Often Noldorin forms can be investigated alongside Sindarin forms to increase the sample of relevant examples. However, this can only be done if we have reason to assume that there were no conceptual changes going from Noldorin to Sindarin. In this particular case it turns out we have ample reason to suspect such changes, cf. the attested Noldorin plurals where we find for example _tâl > teil_ (LR:390) whereas later Sindarin has _#tâl > #tail_ (WJ:38. We therefore have to dismiss the Noldorin examples as a guideline how to pluralize _a_ since they are markedly different from the known Sindarin pattern.

As Helge Fauskanger pointed out in Sindarin - the Noble Tongue, the new Sindarin plural in _ai_ seems to be derived from an archaic plural pattern _ei_ which changed to _ai_ only when in the last syllable, as apparent from e.g. the preservation of _erein_ in the name Ereinion 'Scion of Kings' (a name of Gil-galad, PM:347/UT:436).

The majority of relevant Sindarin words forms a plural in _a > ai_ in the final syllable. In particular, we see that all examples where the final _a_ is followed only by a single consonant pluralize to _ai_. We find here:

bar > bair
ras > rais
#tâl > #tail
#tan > #tain
eglan > eglain
barad > beraid
adan > edain
adar > eadir
aran > erain
athrad > ethraid
lavan > levain
talan > telain
rhovan > rhevain

Some people have conjectured that all words in which the final _a_ is followed by two consonants form plurals in _a > e_. This, however, is too simplistic. It is not only contradicted by _cant > #caint_, but also by a more subtle argument. Consider the pattern _ras > #rais_ - since a single final _-s_ in Sindarin would be lost, what we observe here is a shortened form of former _rass_. Many forms still appear in two different versions, a long and a shortened one, cf. the two forms _las(s)_ quoted in Letters:282. There are other attested such shortenings as well, such as _-nd > -n_(cf. _Rochand > Rohan_; Letters:382) or _mb > m_ (cf. _thamb, tham_; LR:387). We may tentatively assume that in all these cases the shortened form would determine the plural pattern rather than the original one, otherwise the form _#rais_ is difficult to explain. At least this is not contradicted by the data. Of all possible two consonant endings of Sindarin words, this particular conjecture would cover _-nn, -nd, -ss, -ll, -mm_ and _-mb_.

Among the attested a-plurals of two-consonant ending words, we are left with

cant > #caint
alph > eilph
narn > nern
#fang > #feng
carth > #certh

As the example _cant > caint_ indicates, having two final consonants is still not enough to imply a deviation from the dominant _a > ai_ pattern. Nevertheless, the intuitive notion in the interpretation of the examples would be that _e_ occurs wherever a consonat combination is particularly awkward to pronounce.

Let us try to make this more precise. It seems as if a liquid followed by any other consonant always leads to _a > e(i)_. My personal imperssion is that the usual pattern would be _a > e_ in this case (otherwise not much is gained in terms of euphony) and that _a > ei_ is somehow a special case, since otherwise the plural _elph (elf)_ would be created, and one may suspect that Tolkien wished to avoid that.

Helge Fauskanger argues that "According to UT:265, the plural form of alph "swan" is eilph; it would seem that ei is unchanged before a consonant cluster beginning in l. (...) In accordance with the example eilph, the Sindarin plural of lalf "elm-tree" should probably be leilf." (Sindarin, the Noble Tongue). I disagree here, mainly based on the notion that the liquids _l,r_ should behave in a similar way and on the basis of the example _carth > #certh_.

Assuming that this is the case, then we could expect that for reasons of euphony the following two-consonant endings would lead to _a > e_ plurals: _-rn, -lph, -rth, -rdh, -lch, -rch, -lt, -rf, -lf_.

Furthermore we see that _-ng_ seems to lead to an _a > e_ plural, so the most reasonable assumption is to generalize that rule as well.

Finally, we may exploit the example _cant > caint_ which seems to suggest that the combination of nasal and stop leads to the pattern _a > ai_. If so, this would be a guideline for the endings _-nt, -nc_ and _-mp_. (Helge Fauskanger makes a similar conjecture proposing the plural pattern _ranc > rainc_).

The remaining endings _-st_ (cf. _ast_ 'dust') _-fn_ (cf. Noldorin _rhafn_ 'wing') and _-sg_ (cf. Noldorin _rhasg_ 'horn') are up to anyones guess, and we can't answer them based on the attested Sindarin patterns (of course this would only be relevant when one tries to update the Noldorin forms to Sindarin).

My personal idea would be to assume that a word like _rafn_ hides a vocalized consonant, cf. the pair _cabr, cabor_ 'frog' (LR:362), so we could realize that as _*raven, *ravon_ (examples for pronounciation only) and in that case I'd assume the plural pattern _*rheivon_.

The pattern _ast > ?aist_ seems to go rather well, so there is no actual reason to dismiss it for lack of euphony. This is not the case for _rasg_, however, here _resg_ seems to be the better choice. However, it must be emphasized that the last three forms are basically guesswork.
WhiteCat
Council Member
Posts: 4
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Ideas on the pluralization of a in final syllables
on: February 25, 2005 10:11
I don't really want to get too much into this, but you recalled a thought I had regarding the pl. of S. *tâl. In WJ the Sindarin phrase for the Petty-dwarves is cited as (levain) tad-dail; I once held that this indeed was the plural of *tad-dal. Now, after studying more carefully, the Quenya phrase is Attalyar, apparently consisting of atta and an _adjective_ *talya, with a nominal pl. *talyar (cf. Minyar, Tatyar, Nelyar), with a meaning something like '*legged, pedded' (< *taljâ). This construction would seem to yield S. *tail (cf. Q. tatya 'second' with S. taid, VT42).
So, tad-dail could have the meaning of 'two-legged, bi-pedal' perhaps?
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Ideas on the pluralization of a in final syllables
on: February 25, 2005 10:23
I suppose that could well be true - but wouldn't change the relevance for the pluralization since in Sindarin (unlike Quenya) adjectives don't seem to form plurals different from nouns. And since they agree in number and _levain_ is plural - _tad-dail_ ought to be as well - or would you imply that the singular would also be _tail_?

That, I suppose, could also be true, in which case a different example for the deviation in pattern from Sindarin to Noldorin has to be chosen - several others available But an interesting thought indeed!
WhiteCat
Council Member
Posts: 4
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Ideas on the pluralization of a in final syllables
on: February 25, 2005 10:38
I do think it is a singular. The number is expressed by the numeral tâd, tad-: '(a) two-legged (animal)'; maybe we can use *canad-dail for animals as well?
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Ideas on the pluralization of a in final syllables
on: February 25, 2005 10:53
_levain_ is plural though - so I have little doubt that in the context the word is plural (so is the Quenya _attalyar_ quoted by you...) - my remark was rather if its singular would be _tad-dal_ or _tad-dail_ as well - if we would need to say _lavan tad-da(i)l_
Gildor-Inglorion
Elvellon ar Pethdan
Posts: 296
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Ideas on the pluralization of a in final syllables
on: February 25, 2005 10:54
Thorsten, if you wite this up as an article at some point let me know. I'd love to host it on my site.

I think you have some very interesting observations here. I think we can clearly assume that pluralization, like mutation, is a static and frozen process based on earlier forms. I'm not entirely sure how this may affect what you have presented here as I haven't had time to look at this in enough detail.

Regarding vocalized consonants:

My personal idea would be to assume that a word like _rafn_ hides a vocalized consonant, cf. the pair _cabr, cabor_ 'frog' (LR:362), so we could realize that as _*raven, *ravon_ (examples for pronounciation only) and in that case I'd assume the plural pattern _*rheivon_.


I absolutely agree. In this case we have a vocalic N which most likely evolved in the manner (or similar) to which you have depicted. I think it is important to separate the historical stages though. Technically speaking there is no vowel between the v and the n - such would only be a later development. No vowel is specificially articulated in this case. We go straight from a fricative to a nasal. The development of an intermediate vowel would have been a secondary evolutionary step.
WhiteCat
Council Member
Posts: 4
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Ideas on the pluralization of a in final syllables
on: February 25, 2005 11:00
_levain_ is plural though - so I have little doubt that in the context the word is plural (so is the Quenya _attalyar_ quoted by you...) - my remark was rather if its singular would be _tad-dal_ or _tad-dail_ as well - if we would need to say _lavan tad-da(i)l_


I think that the phrase is a genitive one, rather than adjectival, taking the meaning 'animals (of) bi-pedals' and not 'two-legged animals' (tad-dail would then be *dad-dail).
Naneth
Elvish 101 Moderator
Posts: 568
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Ideas on the pluralization of a in final syllables
on: February 25, 2005 02:26
I think you have some very interesting observations here. I think we can clearly assume that pluralization, like mutation, is a static and frozen process based on earlier forms. I'm not entirely sure how this may affect what you have presented here as I haven't had time to look at this in enough detail.


I don't think this is the correct assumption to take. For one thing, there are no attested plurals in this form.

Let me refer you to an article by Helge Fauskanger, who uses the attested plural "cyry" from older form "curw", to make the point that this form would probably not occur, contrary to his earlier article on the subject .....

Helge's comments at Elfling on the subject:

"Funny that this question came up just now. I got this letter just as I was uploading a revised version of the relevant section of my Sindarin article.

To briefly summarize the "problem": The Etymologies, entry SKAR, gives a Noldorin noun _harw_ "wound". Its plural would presumably be *_heirw_, following the pattern of (say) _alph_ "swan", the pl. of which is attested as _eilph_. (Another possibility would be _herw_, following the pattern of
_narn_ "tale", pl. _nern_.)

But in its treatment of final _-w_ following a consonant, the Noldorin of the Etymologies mostly corresponds to what Tolkien would later have called archaic Sindarin (David Salo also uses the term "Middle Sindarin", between Old and Classical). In "Classical" or Third Age Sindarin, such a final _-w_ had turned into an independent vowel _-u_. Consider a name like _Elu_; comparison with Quenya _Elwe_ gives away that the older Sindarin form was _Elw_ (which is perhaps the only form Thingol himself ever knew and used way back in the First Age!)

So _harw_ "wound" would have become _haru_ in Sindarin as spoken in Frodo's day. But what about its plural form? If we have correctly reconstructed the older plural as _heirw_, would it turn into _heiru_? Or would analogy prevail, so that the new singular _haru_ would be pluralized according to the commonest pattern employed in the language (i.e. "U in a final syllable becomes Y", e.g. _tulus_ "poplar" pl. _tylys_, and "A in a non-final syllable becomes E", e.g. _Adan_ "Man", pl. _Edain_)? If so, _hery_ could be used as a new, analogical plural "wounds".

So what is it, _heiru_ or _hery_? We cannot know with absolute certainty, but it turns out that an important clue was omitted from the Etymologies as printed in LR. It was published only this year, in VT45:24: It turns out that the entry KUR does not only list the singular noun _curw_ > _curu_ "skill", but also its plural form _cyry_. Incidentally, in this case the Etymologies lists both the older form _curw_ and the later form _curu_; normally only the older form is given. The old form _curw_ would have the plural form _cyrw_, which could have developed into _cyru_ later. But Tolkien, it now turns out, indicated that the actual plural form used is
_cyry_. This is an important example, for it shows that the analogical plural form has replaced the historically justified one. _Curu_ is now inflected like, say, _tulus_ pl. _tylys_ "poplar" (see entry TYUL).

In the older version of my Sindarin article, I did mention the possibility of analogical forms replacing the historical ones, but I took the trouble of listing a string of reconstructed "historical plurals" and was inclined to think that these were the most likely forms. The lone example _curu_ pl. _cyry_ may not definitely disprove this assumption, but it is the sole
attested plural form of a noun of this class and must be given due consideration. I therefore expanded the list of plural forms, adding to the historical plurals reconstructions of the analogical plurals as well, and noting that the example _cyry_ suggests that Tolkien would actually go for the analogical forms."
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Ideas on the pluralization of a in final syllables
on: February 25, 2005 04:00
WhiteCat, after some reading up - I find your derivation pretty convincing and I agree that most likely it ought to be read as adjective.

The lack of lenition isn't a problem - that's actually quite common in adjectives following nouns, cf. _côf gwaeren Bêl_ 'the windy bay of Bêl' (VT42:15) or _Imloth Melui_ 'lovely flower-vale' (LOTR) or _Ered Mithren_ 'grey mountains' (LOTR) or _Nan Tathren 'willowy vale' (SIL) - (five more to be had...) so it wouldn't be exceedingly unusual being unlenited.

Aaron, it has triggered a heavy discussion on sindarin.de if _-nc_ should be more similar to _-nt_ as Helge and myself suggest or rather be closer to _-ng_ - which would be the other option - so I'd like to wait for some more opinions being thrown in to see if something interesting comes up in the discussions.

Naneth, I actually agree with you (!) - the analysis of the verbal past tenses seem to indicate that many forms are kind of frozen in their historical pattern but then become progressively broken up by 'modern' analogies, so the past can be 'forgotten' even for immortal speakers (or would it be Mannish use of Sindarin in the 3rd and 4th age?) - I see no actual way how we could predict what forms are analoguous and which ones are still historical - so this is all very tantalizing but lots of guesswork.

So in a kind of early Sindarin (probably after middle-Sindarin) all the historical forms could still hold true, but Aragorn's son may well have formed _?megyr_ as plural of _magor_. At least that's my impression.
Gildor-Inglorion
Elvellon ar Pethdan
Posts: 296
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Ideas on the pluralization of a in final syllables
on: February 26, 2005 10:39
thorsten, I never meant to imply that a further change based on analogy could not be implemented! That seems very likely actually. I'm just saying that overall, the mutations are relics of a frozen sound changes which became grammatical. Whether these frozen items were then further modified would have to be taken on an individual basis of course.
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email