Fiona Jallings Jul 08, 2014 (22:19)

A long, long time ago I made the Neo-Sindarin word *maega- 'to kneed, soften' based off of the root MASAG. I now see that it was a big mistake.How would you go about making a verb from MASAG?

I'm thinking that I'd make it MASAG+TAA, but I'm unsure what that would end up being like. masgata>maiata>maeda?

Matt Dinse Jul 09, 2014 (02:23)

PE19:101 helps; "Of zg: √MASAG: mazgō/ŭ 'sticky substance', Q makso 'mire'; Tel mascu. In Sindarin zd > 'd, đ, but zg, zb > đᵹ, đb > đa, đu as in nadha 'fetter' [Q naxa from √NASAG > nazg-], maða 'mud', buðu 'large fly.'

ܤܡܝ ܦܠܕܢܝܘܤ Jul 09, 2014 (11:26)

The PE19 fragment may remind one of John-Morris Jones' "A Welsh Grammar" § 97.iii., with W twddf ('a swelling') < *tuδʒ- < *tuzg-. ;-) (Said opus book being Tolkien's well-known recourse for Welsh.)

I think it's also conceivable the N/S verb(s) meaning "knead" might contain a prefix (like Italian impastare, Sp. amasar, & the various N/S verb formations we know).

Roman Rausch Jul 09, 2014 (21:20)

I'd guess that ʒ vocalizes to a only word-finally, word-medially it should give i. Compare tara < *tarʒ, but tarias < *tarʒas (TARAG-) and similarly thala/thalion (STALAG-).
In fact, the original entry of MASAG- had madhias 'dough >> sofness, pliancy' (VT45:32).
So all in all I'd reconstruct *madhia- or *me(i)dhia-.

Matt Dinse Jul 10, 2014 (01:19)

Thanks, Roman.
I've seen some  maða, buðu etc. "updated" in neo-Sindarin usage to mað, buð because Sindarin doesn't retain final vowels; given the comparisons to tara, thala etc. do you think that is incorrect? I'm admittedly quite rusty at Sindarin.

Roman Rausch Jul 10, 2014 (02:06)

That makes no sense to me.. Tara & thala are strictly Noldorin, of course, but PE17:118 reiterates previously Noldorin fela with vocalized ʒ, PE17:148 has madu with syllabified w; and I cannot think of any example where the resulting vowel would be dropped in such a case...

Matt Dinse Jul 11, 2014 (00:25)

Good to know! What do you think the plurals of nadha, budhu would be? nedh(a)i and bydhy? Would fela have feli?

Roman Rausch Jul 11, 2014 (10:43)

Uff, good question.. Since the only thing attested is fela > fili with final-syllable umlaut (apparently it happens before vocalization), I would assume *naidhi and ?bydhi from *naðʒi and *buðƀi.
It looks like ʒ vocalizes to -i finally under influence of pl. -i (perhaps it became palatalized). This may be different for ƀ, it might become *y or *ui instead, hence ?bydhy or ?bydhui.
In any case, at later times by analogy we should have *nedhai and *bydhy.