G+ LoME Archive
May 31, 2017 (12:02)
Problem of Ā/AU in Sindarin
I believe we have a consensus concerning the ineffectiveness of the I-affection on non-final
[<Ā/AU], judging by
. Yet there are two other examples which rather offer the same as
, pl. of
, pl. of
[HoME-XI/388, PE17/45, ]
is also given as
in PE17/18, suggesting perhaps that both forms are acceptable. However,
is "probably from some such form as
", meaning its
, which does later develop to
when plural. Yet PE17/45 gives the same as "
+ augmentative suffix
], of which plural was
". This could mean that the phonetic developments
took place before I-affection, at least in some cases or dialects.
Unless I am missing some other non-final
[<Ā/AU] word with an attested plural, the times that the plural of
is given as
(never "nogyth") outweighs
, with the latter having the alternative
. Thus, I believe it would be (at least a bit) safer to say that non-final
, be it from the ancient
, usually becomes
when plural. Any objections?
Jun 01, 2017 (00:12)
For the variation
, cf. the corresponding
Jun 05, 2017 (10:59)
Well, the underlying vowel in
is not given as ā or ō at all, but rather a short vowel, while
has explicit A-RĀT. Hence, I cannot retrieve anything from those but the well-known ablaut difference from length.
Jun 05, 2017 (12:09)
I already stated that (nukotto, u>o>e-i). Yet PE17 gives NUK>naug (cp. UR>aur), definitely not a short vowel, but a diphthong, which develops as "au>o" in polysyllable (with the addition of -oth) and the plural is given as negyth (elsewhere nœgyth).
This may suggest that, while the diphthong AU became OE when plural, the monophthong O from Ā/AU became Œ(>E).