Post RWGmbVu6BNe

Matt Dinse Mar 05, 2013 (20:08)

Yé! Sí camnenyes! Hentëan (?hénetan?) alassië.

Tamas Ferencz Mar 06, 2013 (08:52)

Ninya tuluva síra...

Tamas Ferencz Mar 06, 2013 (15:12)


Tamas Ferencz Mar 06, 2013 (16:02)

So do we have the first glimpse of an attested Sindarin present tense copula here?

Olga García Mar 06, 2013 (22:49)

What are you talking about? VT50?

Tamas Ferencz Mar 06, 2013 (22:49)


Olga García Mar 06, 2013 (22:50)

Okay, I'd love to see something from that issue...

Matt Dinse Mar 07, 2013 (03:45)

How about pronominal paradigms? I haven't figured out how to italicize on here yet, and for some reason it's striking through (which isn't in VT50) portions of the text and removing hyphens. Therefore the format isn't mirrored; see my post on Mellyn Lammath for a better version.

p.10 "Finally, if the surmise below concerning the meaning of the pronominal ending -ch of agorech in Area IV – sc., that it is first-person plural inclusive 'we' – is correct, then the text most likely dates from before c. 1955, since it appears that by and after that time -ch is confined to the second-person plural and/or dual."

p.13-4 #16 "It should be noted that given 3rd sg. ed *'it' below, it is possible to interpret en here as instead a 3rd pl. pronoun 'they', in which case -r of estar is simply a third-person (or possibly impersonal) plural ending, with en estar then literally translated as *'they call.' However, where en appears in papers from the 1950s as an independent pronoun it is 1st sg., while the 3rd pl. is variously est, ent, ith (sg. eth), or idi/idir (sg. is), and the (specifically) impersonal plural is î/îr. Moreover [...]"

p.15 "If [...], then ed is most readily interpreted as a third-person singular pronoun *'it' [...] If this surmise is correct, then ed *'it' can be compared with the d of third-person singular possessive lammed 'his/her/its tongue' (PE17:46), which with ed may ultimately be cognate with Q. ta 'that, it' (V:389 s.v TA)."

p.21-2 "A survey of pronominal endings in Tolkien's unpublished linguistic writings from the 1950s shows that in this period he alternated among using ch as first-person plural and/or dual inclusive, and as second-person plural and/or dual familiar.31 Of these possible meanings of -ch, the most suitable here is 1st pl. incl. 'we,' with man agorech *'what did we do? (or perhaps less literally *'what have we done?')32 representing a rhetorical question, since as noted Tuor was still an infant when Rían gave him into the care of the Elves shortly before her death. This usage of -ch is exemplified in a conjugation of the verb car [...] dating from the early 1950s, in which we find: S[g].1a cerin, 2a cerig, 2b cerith, 3 câr; P[l.]1a cerim(ir), [1b] cerich(ir), 2a cerinc/t 2b †_cerint_, cerithir, 3 cerir; D[u.]1a cerim, [1b] cerich, 2a [?cerith], 2b cerist, 3 cerid (where apparently 1a and 1b are exclusive and inclusive, and 2a and 2b are polite and familiar, respectively).33"

31 "Cf. the previously attested 2nd dual familiar cerich (PE17:132). Nowhere is -ch employed as 2nd sg. 'you' (of any variety), and in any event Rían can hardly be asking the infant Tuor to account for deeds with (judging from the rest of this text) momentous consequence, in which he can have had no part."

#33 "The same usage is found in a similar conjugation that apparently dates to around 1949 (and thus possibly Noldorin, strictly speaking), which has: [Sg.1] cerin, [2a] cerith, [2b] ceris, 3 câr; [Pl.1a] cerim, [1b] cerich, [2a] cerith(ir) [2b] cerint, [3] cerir; [Du.1a] cerim, [1b] cerich, [2a] cerith(ir), [2b] cerist, 3 cerid."

Tamas Ferencz Mar 07, 2013 (09:32)

On a technical note: underscores around text (without spaces) italicizes the text; asterisks around text boldens it; hyphens around it makes it strikethrough (that's why it has come out like that above).

Matt Dinse Mar 08, 2013 (01:04)

Thanks Tamas! I put in the italics, and managed (in doing so) to somehow clear out most of the strikethrough.