Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Languages » Sindarin Discussion » Scholarly Discussion
Author Topic:
Fíriel
Enethdan Edhellen
Posts: 1369
Send Message
Avatar
Post Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 02:24
Most posts have been moved from the thread 'Can Someone Help?' -- to see the discussion in context, please refer to that thread for earlier posts. Feel free to continue your discussion here, if you wish.

(Also, there might be one or two posts in the wrong chronological order. Sorry. The majority should be fine. )

[Edited on 26/2/2005 by Fíriel]

[Edited on 26/2/2005 by Fíriel]
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 02:25
It doesn't seem to be necessary to contruct adverbs from adjectives with _na_ - granted, we don't have too many adjective examples. but there are several constructions involving participles as adverbs in the corpus:

_silivren penna míriel_ has _penna_ qualified by the adverbs 'silivren' and 'míriel' - the former being an adjective and the latter a participle - the rather free translation 'white-glittering, sparkling like jewels,... slants' somehow obscures the adverb nature of the two, but they describe the matter in which it slants, i.e. 'white glittering' and 'sparkling like jewels'

_menel-vîr síla díriel_ seems to have a lenited _tíriel_ describing how the shining is ' watchful'. Alas - untranslated, so there may be other explanations.

_Cuio i Pheriain anann_ can be interpreted in two ways - either it's the dative _an_ saying 'for a long time' - or it's the intensifying _an_ seen in _einior_ or _parch > afarch_ (A&C, entry A-) which would make it _an-and_ 'a very long time' - so it may not involve a preposition at all.

So - while adverbs clearly may involve prepositions, it doesn't really seem to be mandatory. _dago lint!_ seems to me an entirely plausible way of saying 'slay swiftly!'

> I don't know whether Gildor still holds *em to be valid. How about *men, suggested by David Salo?

There's an attested _mín_ in the _Ae Adar_ - I'd be interested on what basis this is rejected.

> would love to see ANY pronoun chart of JRRT's!!]

Get yourself Parma Eldalamberon 11 or 14 - pronomial charts for Qenya and Goldogrin included. I assume there would be one for early Noldorin as well. For a we know, there is no definite chart for Sindarin or Quenya - because JRRT's ideas kept changing and we can track part of the changes, but of course not all. Any Neo-Sindarin attempt at pronomials must involve an editorial decision, throwing out some material and leaving in some other, without a compelling reason for doing so.

[Edited on 24/2/2005 by thorsten]
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 02:26
Small correction - while knowing both Quenya and Sindarin usually is pretty neat, it sometimes messes with the mind. My example _dago lint_ of course uses an unattested _lint_ based on Quenya _linta_ - but in Sindarin we should rather e.g. attested _lagor_ instead of Quenya-based vocabulary. I just can't get it out of my head
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 02:27
Well - based on... what?

I'm not prepared to reject a form just because David says so.

[Edited on 26/2/2005 by Fíriel]
Naneth
Elvish 101 Moderator
Posts: 568
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 02:27
Cuio i Pheriain anann_ can be interpreted in two ways - either it's the dative _an_ saying 'for a long time' - or it's the intensifying _an_ seen in _einior_ or _parch > afarch_ (A&C, entry A-) which would make it _an-and_ 'a very long time' - so it may not involve a preposition at all.


Thorsten, is there a reason why you use "an" as an intensifier, when the addendas state that "an" is a Quenya intensifier ??
Ailinel
Council Member
Posts: 811
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 02:27
[quote
There's an attested _mín_ in the _Ae Adar_ - I'd be interested on what basis this is rejected.


It seems that D. Salo thinks that mín means "us" in the "Ae Adar", cf. "Gateway".
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 02:27
Um... in A&C there is the Noldorin example _parch_ 'dry' _afarch_ 'arid' . But I wasn't precise enough, my apologies - actually _a_ is described as intensifyer which leads to a 'dynamic lengthening' of the following consonant - what for all practical purposes is identical with prefixing _an-_ and doing nasal mutation. In Quenya the intensifyer is said to be _an_ by analogy, Carl Hostetter quotes the example _ancalima_ there.

But we happen to know the example _einior_ 'elder' where we see an i-affected intensifyer - and that can't be a mere _a_, it must be _an_, because the underlying unintensified element is _iaur_ - so the _n_ must be part of the prefix. In fact, i-affected _an_ in a non-final syllable can come out as _ein_, cf. the name Ereinion 'Scion of Kings' (a name of Gil-galad, PM:347/UT:436) which has a pluralized _aran_ as first element.

So - both the Quenya form and the Sindarin form suggest that there can be an intensifying prefix _an-_ in Elvish - one should keep in mind that the Etymologies are Noldorin, and Tolkien may well have decided to allow an analoguous _an_ paralleling Quenya later on - otherwise I would be hard pressed to explain _einior_.

Sorry for my lack of precision - though I was under the impression that you wished to keep highly technical discussion out of such topics

[Edited on 25/2/2005 by thorsten]
Ailinel
Council Member
Posts: 811
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 02:27
Well - based on... what?

I'm not prepared to reject a form just because David says so.


I didn't suggest to reject *em!

I'm aware that you are suggesting mín (we) and men (us) in Pedin Edhellen 2.0.
In your essay "Common Eldarin views on the Sindarin pronoun System" you give *em and *me respectively (we), and men (us).

In VT44 mín in the "Ae Adar" is interpreted as "us", cf. p.28.

D.Salo gives the same translation, though what he wrote regarding the first person plural pronoun (§ 8.2 of his book) is rather brief.

I'm not able to decide who is right, and perhaps no-one is.

Now, would you have me quote each reasoning (and there is more) ?

When I wrote my first post in this thread, I wanted to provide a (maybe) intelligible Neosindarin translation of a short sentence, and I marked the reconstructed pronoun with *.

As I'm not able to decide whether "we" is *men or mín or *em I could have quoted mín just as well (and perhaps I should have). I'm actually using it in my own Neosindarin texts! But as almost every reference to your theories seems to cause criticism in this forum, I mentioned D.Salo.

I think that those who take an interest in the matter will make their own opinion.
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 02:27
Im puzzled) probably as anyone else by the occurance of _mín_.

However, one has to face that the pronoun in the relevant line is a nominative 1st person pl. in:

Greek: 'hos kai hemes' (can't type in a greek font)
German 'wie auch wir vergeben'
English 'as we forgive'

and there's nothing to contradict the notion that it would be nominative in either

Latin: 'sicut et nos dimittimus'
Quenya '_siv' emme apsenet_

So - I am plainly puzzled as to why it is not taken to be a nominative by David (or anyone else) and I was hoping for an explanation as to why this is so.

> Now, would you have me quote each reasoning (and there is more) ?

Yes - I didn't understand Carl's reasoning, and I don't have David's book, so I certainly would benefit from knowing what he thinks

> But as almost every reference to your theories seems to cause criticism in this forum, I mentioned D.Salo.

Now - that's interesting indeed

As for my two cents - I would go for _*em_ being an emphatic pronoun and _*me_ the non-emphatic version - _#men_ when inflected for case. I can't find a scheme into which _mín_ would really fit, but since I cannot find a reason to outright reject it, I happen to use it most of the time.

But I think you should indeed have quoted a genuine Tolkien form along with reconstructions - unless you know a compelling reason why it can't mean 'we' - which I admittedly don't.
Ailinel
Council Member
Posts: 811
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 02:29
>and there's nothing to contradict the notion that it would be a nominative in either

The wording in the "Ae Adar" is: ...sui mín i gohenam...

Carl Hostetter and David Salo seem to interpret it as: "like us, who forgive".

If you translate sui by "as", how would you translate the following i ?

Perhaps sui mín "like us" could be interpreted as a kind of anglicism here?

I'm not saying that this is the sense intended by Tolkien! I'm not performing an "advocatus diaboli" defending D.Salo's theory! It is just what in my opinion could maybe be a possible consideration.
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 02:29
> If you translate sui by "as", how would you translate the following i ?

'As we who forgive...'

The interesting thing is that Tolkien had a first draft reading _mí ni_ instead - so one wonders if that was always meant as a reltive pronoun. But I'm leading us astray - I would tend to think of 'like us' as an anglicism, yes.
Ailinel
Council Member
Posts: 811
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 02:32

'As we who forgive...'

Well, yes

I don't know the exact wording of the Lord's Prayer in English, but if your quotation "English 'as we forgive'" is authentic, I wonder, why Tolkien introduced that i.

And yes, that mí ni is puzzling!
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 02:32
The English is from the 'King James' version - there are probably more translations around, but it is authentic as far as it goes. More puzzling is indeed that neither the Latin nor the Greek version have a relative pronoun - I don't actually know what the original language of the Paternoster is - but I would assume Greek is pretty close...

[Edited on 25/2/2005 by thorsten]
Gildor-Inglorion
Elvellon ar Pethdan
Posts: 296
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 02:32
Thorsten, where's the reference to the older _mi ni_? Very interesting. Is it in the VT analysis? I haven't looked at my copy for a while. In fact, I haven't done much with Sindarin lately . There are always so many interesting fascets to explore!

Feel free to also take these sorts of discussions over to my site if you wish. I'm not entirely sure, but I think Naneth has been trying to keep most technical discussion elsewhere.
Aelfwine
Council Member
Posts: 67
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 03:24
In the credit where due department, the presentation and analysis of _Ae Adar Nín_ in _Vinyar Tengwar_ 44 is by Bill Welden, not me.

Carl
Naneth
Elvish 101 Moderator
Posts: 568
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 03:56
otherwise I would be hard pressed to explain _einior_.


The N might have been added to avoid an illegal run of vowels, either aior or i-affected eior.
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 04:10
Carl, I am sorry! I noticed my mistake on the way home and was prepared to clear it up - but you were quicker in pointing it out - thanks!

> The N might have been added to avoid an illegal run of vowels, either aior or i-affected eior.

Yes, that is what I mean when I say that it became _an_ by analogy - in principle, you could think of slipping in any consonant (well, any compatible with Sindarin phonology of course) - but _an_ is just so tempting, because the mutation pattern caused by _a_ plus consonant doubling is usually just what you would get if the prefix were _an_ for real. Even if the origin is different - for all practical purposes it would behave as _an_ You see - you would have a similar problem with _a-and_ - tempting to make that _an-and > anann_ as well - I'm not claiming that it's true, but I think it's a fair possibility.

> Thorsten, where's the reference to the older _mi ni_?
VT44:28.
Naneth
Elvish 101 Moderator
Posts: 568
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 25, 2005 06:59
Yes, that is what I mean when I say that it became _an_ by analogy -

I don't believe that is what you were saying, at least at first ...until I pointed out the reason for the N. The reason I bring this up again is to make clear to the beginning students that "an" is not a Sindarin intensifier as you stated above:

So - both the Quenya form and the Sindarin form suggest that there can be an intensifying prefix _an-_


And while "dynamic lengthening" might in "some" cases produce the same result as if you were adding "an + nasal mutation", there is no N involved in the initial union of intensifier and adjective. If at all, the N would be added after the union of A + dynamic lengthening of roots having the vowel A, where an illegal vowel cluster resulted.

Here is the actual adding of A- (intensifier) plus dynamic lengthening for "parch" for ON and N forms:
ON parkha > ON appharkha
N parch > N afarch
Aelfwine
Council Member
Posts: 67
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 26, 2005 02:50
Let's recall that there were two sources of this intensive prefix a-, "usually" + dynamic lengthening: A- (VT45:5) and N- (VT45:36). It seems perfectly reasonable to suspect that the -n- of einior is due to N-.
Naneth
Elvish 101 Moderator
Posts: 568
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 26, 2005 05:31
You explain N- as part of the Quenya prefix though.
My point is to reiterate to the new students that an "an" prefix, as an intensifier, is not part of Sindarin.
Aelfwine
Council Member
Posts: 67
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 26, 2005 06:02
No, both A- and N- were productive in Noldorin as well as Qenya, as the entries state.
Naneth
Elvish 101 Moderator
Posts: 568
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 26, 2005 08:34
Yes, I reallize that, but in each entry it states that in Noldorin, both A- and N- took the form a with dynamic lengthening.

So if you're saying that N- took the form "an-" before a vowel, reappearing in its older form, I can see that. Otherwise, could you direct me to the sentence(s) where "an-" is valid in Noldorin ??
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 26, 2005 10:22
> I don't believe that is what you were saying, at least at first ...

I apologized for my lack of precision in my first post already - so I see no further need to dwell on that matter.

But of course Carl has a very valid point (which I had overlooked) - we have the listing of _A-_, of _N-_ and the form _einior_ - there's the saying 'If it barks like a dog, smells like a dog and looks like a dog - then it probably IS a dog.'

> If at all, the N would be added after the union of A + dynamic lengthening of roots having the vowel A, where an illegal vowel cluster resulted.

As the example _angol_ under N suggests (VT45:36) the intensifyer is not confined to words with _a_ as root vowel.

You can play the game for yourself - _a_ + dynamic lengthening of _mell_ leads to _ammell_ - _an + mell_ leads to _ammell_. _a_ plus dynamic lengthening of _tanc_ leads to _attanc > athanc_ _an + tanc > athanc_ as well - so it's in fact not just 'some cases' - it's the majority! Just give it a try!
Aelfwine
Council Member
Posts: 67
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 26, 2005 01:26
Indeed, it looks to me like the very reason for the patterning on a- + (usually) dynamic lengthening arose is because of those primitive intensive forms with original syllablic *n- + consonant ultimately yielding aCC- due to sonant resolution and nasal-conditioned gemination (e.g. *np- > *pp- > *phph- > f-). Nor does it seem at all unreasonable to expect a prevocalic development from original syllabic *n-V- > an-V- by sonant resolution. It would be phonologically regular, and thus the expected development.
Naneth
Elvish 101 Moderator
Posts: 568
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 26, 2005 01:30
As the example _angol_ under N suggests (VT45:36) the intensifyer is not confined to words with _a_ as root vowel.

In the Addendas, CHostetter writes (under entry ÑOL) that "N angol and its intensive antecedent (predecessor) annol appear to have had their initial vowel subsequently altered, possibly to ongol and onnol respectively.

This would be in keeping with an intensifier of O for roots with a vowel of O.
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 26, 2005 01:39
Possibly - one more of Tolkien's revisions. I wouldn't want to make a very solid point out of it, though. In any case - it hasn't any relevance for the original question of the interpretation of _anann_
Aelfwine
Council Member
Posts: 67
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 26, 2005 01:47
Or to a change in the system of sononant resolution in primitive Noldorin (i.e., making it conditioned and/or variable depending on phonological environment and/or euphony, as was the case in Qenya).

Either way, it certainly appears that at one time in Tolkien's long development of Etymologies Noldorin had (unlike Qenya) settled on a levelled pattern for instensive prefixes in which the characteristic vowel was a. And, I would venture to guess, dynamic lengthening before consonants, but + n- before vowels.

P.S. Again in the credit where due department, it's not "CHostetter" but "CHostetter and PWynne", the "Addenda and Corrigenda" being a joint effort by Pat and me.


[Edited on 26/2/2005 by Aelfwine]
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: February 27, 2005 03:05
Naneth, your scenario as outlined in the workbook is not without merit, but as often in Tolkien linguistics, things are not black and white.

The prefix _a-_ is said to be 'distinct in oriigin, though similar in function, to the prefixed basic vowel' and it 'could be applied to fully formed words'. (VT45:5)

Thus, it is described as something with distinct properties from prefixing the stem vowel.

The entry I in LR:361 doesn't refer to intensified 'fully formed words' but to intensification of CE roots, it quotes THIL > ITHIL and NDIS > INDIS and the development from that point in Sindarin and Quenya.

The entry E (VT45:11) is admittedly not quite clear, but it does NOT quote Noldorin forms, _ndere_ for sure isn't.

So what is described here are (as Tolkien says) two different things which appear at times similar - intensification of CE roots and of fully formed words later.

Therefore, I think _estent_ cannot be an intensified form with an _e_ prefix as you seem to indicate - because the root is _STINTA_, and intensification would yield _*ISTINTA_ - which couldn't easily develop into _estent_ - whereas a form _*astinta_ would be subject to internal i-affection at some point and could well come out as _estent_ if I'm not much mistaken.

Though you have a point that there may have been a revision - but it's not a simple 'this is right and everything else is wrong' question.
Naneth
Elvish 101 Moderator
Posts: 568
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Scholarly Discussion
on: March 02, 2005 05:33
P.S. Again in the credit where due department, it's not "CHostetter" but "CHostetter and PWynne", the "Addenda and Corrigenda" being a joint effort by Pat and me.

Your work is much appreciated.
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email