Post KDjhhYZ8T5g

Hjalmar Holm Mar 08, 2015 (17:36)

mawedh, "glove", inspired after the English etymology of "glove" Proto-Germanic *ga- “collective and associative prefix” + Proto-Germanic *lōfô “flat of the hand, palm”) and the Scandinavian languages for the words "handske" and "vante" (etymologically "hand" + "shoe" and "wind, wrap" respectively).

S maw "hand", gwedh "bind, bond".

Paul Strack Mar 08, 2015 (17:57)

I like it. S maw is supposed to be an archaic word (VT47:6), so a likely origin would be an OS compound maw + weda (Etym:WED) or some earlier construction. This obscures the link between this word and "hand" (usually S cam or mâb), which adds a nice bit of realism.

However, I think that the diphthong [au] in maw would have been preserved in the OS compound, and thereafter would have developed into [o] as was usual in polysyllables. Compare with molif "wrist = hand-link" of similar origin (VT47:6). So maybe instead S mowedh.

Hjalmar Holm Mar 08, 2015 (18:44)

Yes, it's probably better. My thought was maw + gwedh ==> maw-wedh and then that the "w-w" assimilated into a single "w".

Paul Strack Mar 08, 2015 (19:14)

+Hjalmar Holm
 I can't rule out the "w-w" assimilation either. Semi-vowels like w and y tended to slip back and forth between vowels and consonants in Tolkien's languages. I was just analyzing an example where [u] became [w]: N Bedhwen "of the Spouses" from primitive Bedū+ina (Etym:LEP).

I couldn't find any examples of the combination [au+w] for Sindarin or Noldorin in my notes. I don't think this combination is even possible in Primitive Quenderin, so it could only have arisen in later compounds like in your example.

Fiona Jallings Mar 08, 2015 (19:27)

The OW would become O, making it Moedh.
Let's run this through the phonological history of Sindarin (using Salo's A Gateway to Sindarin), just to see if this would happen.
(Long /a/ becomes Long /ɔ/) mɔɔweda
(Long /ɔ/ becomes /au/. /au/ is retained before /w/) mauweð
(/u/ and /w/ merge when adjacent) maweð
So, I think that Hjalmar's reconstruction is right.

Hjalmar Holm Mar 08, 2015 (21:17)

Do we want to make a Q cognate while we're at it?

Paul Strack Mar 08, 2015 (22:17)

+Fiona Jallings
 I stand corrected. I double-checked GS and Salo did say that [au+w] reduced to [au] (GS:62, §4.177). Following that rule, mawedh ([maueð] or [maweð]) would be correct. I am not 100% convinced that would happen in a later compound, but since we are positing it is an early compound, it seems the evidence is against mowedh.

As for a Quenya cognate ... if the primitive form were maha-wedā, I think we would end up with Q mávera.

Tamas Ferencz Mar 08, 2015 (23:11)

I just feel that (at least in Quenya) the meaning of the derivates of BED/BES/BER moved away from the literal sense of "bond".

Paul Strack Mar 09, 2015 (00:07)

+Tamas Ferencz
 We do have EQ mantl "glove", from the same root MAHA that was the later basis for "hand". If we modernized this word to later Quenya, a vowel would be needed before the l, perhaps mantal.

Tamas Ferencz Mar 09, 2015 (00:19)

+Paul Strack that's a much better alternative in my opinion

Tamas Ferencz Mar 09, 2015 (14:35)

BTW the roots WAY and VAÝA ( could provide an alternative for the second part of the compound.