Post eUonKXBgDgJ

Tamas Ferencz Mar 07, 2013 (10:22)

This will probably be complete bollox, but.

We have the following sentence in the +#TúrinWrapper Area IV in +#VT50 :

?a?l il cem il chem na en i naugrim en ir Ellath natho thor a den ammen.

(Tolkien's emendations shown as strikethrough.)

Carl theorizes that thor (following the deleted, transparently future copula natho) replaces natho and is an independent future particle with a passive impersonal ending, and den is an adjective related to dínen.
What if thor is not a replacement for natho, but actually this is the adjective/predicate? It could be a variant related to the root TOR-, seen in torech and meaning something like 'hidden, secret, closed'? I cannot readily explain the initial th-, but Tolkien seemed to have a penchant for the liquid mutation in the texts on the Wrapper, perhaps at this time he thought adjectives as predicates underwent a liquid mutation?
That leaves us with den. Elsewhere on the Wrapper we have en as possibly our first attested form of the S present tense copula, which Carl links (probably correctly) to aen from KL, so en: present indicative, aen: subjunctive. What if den is another element in this series, possibly a future one?

As I said, probably incorrect, but food for thought anyway.

Jenna Carpenter Mar 07, 2013 (12:58)

Feeling rather jealous, my copy hasn't arrived yet :-(

Tamas Ferencz Mar 07, 2013 (13:42)

Well Carl has posted on FB that he has mailed a copy to all subscribers, so if you are one of them you should get your copy soon.

Jenna Carpenter Mar 07, 2013 (14:28)

No I'm not, paid separately. Is the US to Scotland though, guess it might take a while

Tamas Ferencz Mar 07, 2013 (14:31)

I'm in England, and I ordered the 41-50 anthology through Lulu (so I'm not a subscriber either) and my copy arrived in ~5 days.

Tamas Ferencz Mar 07, 2013 (16:04)

Of course my idea about den being a copula poses the question whether this is the same den as in Ae Adar Nín (as Carl seems to think as well) and if yes, can that den have a similar role as well.

Lőrinczi Gábor Mar 08, 2013 (01:12)

Hmmm... en as a present tense copula? But in this case don't you think there's too much of them in this single sentence? I mean, why does en precede both i naugrim ("the Dwarves") and ir Ellath ("the Elves"?)?

Matt Dinse Mar 08, 2013 (01:20)

Those en seem clearly to be "of" (attested elsewhere in abundance), and therefore homonymous with en in i en estar.

Tamas Ferencz Mar 08, 2013 (08:52)

Roman commented on Aglardh that if thor is sg like 'hidden' then it comes from THUR-, and cites some attested forms like Thuringwethil, Garthurian. So the possibility is there...

Lőrinczi Gábor Mar 08, 2013 (11:47)

+Matthew Dinse Ma, that was my impression, too, when I first looked at the sentence. On the other hand, if en is a genitive article, how would you translate this part? I mean,  do we have to consider it as a triple possessive? "...the ? (I have no idea what cem is supposed to mean) of the Dwarves of the Elves"? Or should we imagine a conjunctive between naugrim and the second en? "of the Dwarves (and) the Elves"? 

Maybe it's rubbish (I don't have VT/50 yet), but what if en actually means "also", "likewise" or something like that (i.e., en i naugrim en ir Ellath = "both the Dwarves and the Elves" or "likewise the Dwarves, likewise the Elves")?

Tamas Ferencz Mar 08, 2013 (11:55)

+Lőrinczi Gábor
Carl translates the sentence as something like "Now all the lands/hearts of the Dwarves and Elves will be silent to us." So en is the genitive particle.

Lőrinczi Gábor Mar 08, 2013 (13:49)

I see.

Another thing is that it seems on the basis of this sentence that ir in Lúthien's Song is actually an article, not an adverb ("when"). I can imagine, however, that ir Ellath and *in Ellath (which is the expected form) would be quite similar in Tolkien's handwriting. :)

Tamas Ferencz Mar 08, 2013 (13:53)

Yes but in LS ir is in front of a proper noun, it's not likely one would see a definite article in that position.

Matt Dinse Mar 08, 2013 (14:06)

Re: THUR-, that was my impression as well, cp. Thurin "the Secret" in UT.

Lőrinczi, we find a different form in VT50 which Carl translates as "also." An alternate derivation for den he suggests is from NDAN/DAN with i-affection, cp. dan i ngaurhoth, i.e. "opposed to" rather than "silent."

Lőrinczi Gábor Mar 08, 2013 (14:06)

Well, there is at least one counterexample, namely i Estel in Gilraen's linnod. ;)

Tamas Ferencz Mar 08, 2013 (14:09)

Well I regard that rather as either included for metre to get the pentameter right, or because Estel is here a personified abstract noun.

Matt Dinse Mar 08, 2013 (16:23)

Also of note: Area II and III have in Ellath for "*the Elves," not ir.

One thing I do wonder about is the use of ed where I might have expected *han; even the earlier version of the Moria Gate inscription which have thin for "these" instead of hin (as Carl compares with then in Area II) has hain echant, not something like ed. And the derivation of some of the new pronouns are a total mystery to me. I'm still grappling / looking around to see if anything I can come up with might help with epholar, but no luck.

Björn Fromén Mar 08, 2013 (17:02)

As a plural form ir would hardly agree with Ithil anyway.

Lőrinczi Gábor Mar 08, 2013 (18:01)

+Björn Fromén
True, but in the case of Lúthien's Song, ir is supposed to be a form of the singular article i before a noun beginning with "i" to avoid the consonance.

So, I don't say that these articles are the same, I'm just saying there might be a connection between them. To tell the truth, I do hope there is no such connection, because it would mean that we lose the Sindarin equivalent of "when". :)

Roman Rausch Mar 08, 2013 (20:47)

- Noun phrases joined without a conjunction 'and' did appear before, cf. Q. ve laure ve misil *'like gold and silver' (VT27:27) (lit. 'like gold, like silver'), and perhaps also G. u laud u laith *'neither flood nor time' (lit. 'not flood not time').
But my first idea when looking at the sentence was also that en could mean 'likewise, as well', especially regarding Q. en, ena 'still' and S. eno *'still' in the Area II sentence. The semantic range 'again, once more, do repeatedly' ~ 'enduring state' ~ 'same or similar state' looks very plausible to me.

- It seems to me that specifically the words 'sun, moon, heaven', and 'earth' go without articles in both Sindarin and Quenya, as far as it can be made out: bo Ceven, vi Menel, Anar kaluva, Menel Kemenye, Ráno tie etc.
However, in the context of the Tinúviel poem, ir as a definite article makes more sense to me because of the following si: *'The moon shines [...] Now listen [...]' rather than *'When the moon shines [...] now listen'. Why do would you start with a temporal clause and then say 'now' in the main clause?
In any case, we also have i úgerth with a singular article before a plural noun, so I'd say there is still the possibility that ir Ellath has the singular article i before a plural noun, but it becomes ir before the vowel; and the same happens in ir Ithil.

- Speaking of which, perhaps il in il chem might also be a form of the article rather than the suggested 'all' from IL-?
Interestingly, the mentioned îr < eryā (VT50:18) actually runs again a lot of other attested diphthongizations like eir, air < eryā (PE17:28), teleir < teleryā (PE17:139) etc (unless it's one of the semi-regular unstressed reductions). Therefore, I would have expected ilyā 'all' to become *eil, *ail.
Of course, S. il might just be the cognate of Q. illi 'all' rather than ilya, but it's still odd to see it preceding the noun, where the article would normally be.

Björn Fromén Mar 09, 2013 (00:00)

"However, in the context of the Tinúviel poem, ir as a definite article makes more sense to me because of the following si: *'The moon shines [...] Now listen [...]' rather than *'When the moon shines [...] now listen'. Why do would you start with a temporal clause and then say 'now' in the main clause?"

I don´t think Tinúviel says 'now'. In Sindarin, si normally means 'here', not 'now' (PE 17:27, 67). 

Carl Hostetter Mar 11, 2013 (04:01)

Roman, note that if the (uncertain) letters preceding "il chem" do in fact read "a?l", they might have been *ail < *ilyā, which of course would lend even more support to construing il as meaning 'all' (direct from IL-). This possibility occurred to me while writing the analysis, but since the deleted word is so uncertain, and since il as 'all' seems unproblematic, I didn't make mention of it. 

Carl Hostetter Mar 11, 2013 (04:04)

Tamas, note that I don't in fact think that the den in thor den ammen is "the same den as in Ae Adar Nín": in fact, I specifically point out that this is unlikely.

Carl Hostetter Mar 11, 2013 (04:12)

Matthew writes: "I'm still grappling / looking around to see if anything I can come up with might help with epholar, but no luck." I wish you luck! I'd love to see someone come up with a "sure" meaning and etymology of this verb, as I thought about it for years, and searched all of Tolkien's papers repeatedly for a certain derivation, with no more success than what is in my analysis (such as it may be)!

Carl Hostetter Mar 11, 2013 (04:19)

Matthew, I don't think ed *'it', as a personal pronoun, is in any sort of conflict with the deictic pronouns hen etc., any more than English 'it' is in conflict with 'this, that'. They are distinct forms and categories of pronoun.

Carl Hostetter Mar 11, 2013 (04:31)

Roman writes: "it's still odd to see [S. il] preceding the noun, where the article would normally be." Statements like this portray a certainty about "Sindarin" that the actual evidence cannot support. The syntax of "Sindarin" is so sparsely attested — and is moreover chiefly poetic — that what is "usual" for it cannot reasonably be assumed or asserted for most categories. And that is true even if we think of all the attested "Sindarin" texts as in fact reflecting a single, mutually-consistent conceptual system — which of course is not the case.

Tamas Ferencz Mar 11, 2013 (11:38)

+Carl Hostetter
Perhaps I was unclear in my post - all I stated was that in the article you connect en to aen (bottom of page 13). Linking den to these was my addition. You indeed find this unlikely in the article.

Carl Hostetter Mar 11, 2013 (14:52)

If I may make a little plug here: please consider sharing your thoughts on VT 50, and/or the fruits of your discussions here or elsewhere, on the Lambengolmor list: <>  (which of course is where I at least am most likely to see and respond to them!)

Roman Rausch Mar 11, 2013 (22:12)

Re: the position of il:
There is a large body of non-poetic evidence from place names showing postposed adjectives at various external stages of Noldorin/Sindarin...
However, having a peek into Welsh I see that quantifiers like pob 'every', holl 'all', cwbl 'complete', llawer 'many a', ychydig 'few' are actually placed in front of the noun (just as the numerals), e.g. pob party 'every part',  _holl Gymry_ 'whole Wales', llawer merch 'many a woman' and so on.
Sindarin and Noldorin show themselves as consistently head-initial languages, just as Welsh is; so the difference between il and +#pân (SD:129) could be one of head: *mellyn în phain 'all his friends' has mellyn as head and pain as dependent, while *il vellyn în would have il *'all' as head, and hence rather *'all of his friends'. (Similarly in lheben teil the numeral would be the head, lit. *'five of feet'.)
In any case it would seem that there is nothing odd in having preceding il *'all' after all.

Carl Hostetter Mar 11, 2013 (22:24)

"There is a large body of non-poetic evidence from place names showing postposed adjectives at various external stages of Noldorin/Sindarin" — And there are numerous counterexamples (Eriador, Anfalas, Thenfalas, Calenhad, etc., etc., etc.) In any event, I wasn't speaking in terms of place-names, but rather of the syntax of articles, adjectives, and nouns generally, since whatever chem means in the TW (even if it does mean 'earth') it doesn't appear to be a proper name.

That's a good observation about Welsh, though, as was your citing Q. ve laure ve misil. And of course I agree with your last sentence.

Roman Rausch Mar 11, 2013 (23:16)

In compounds the older order adjective+noun (or modifier+head) prevails, but the newer order noun+adjective seems to slowly gain ground (cf. WJ:370). But what I had in mind were names like Eryn Vorn or Talath Dirnen - I hope there is no reason to assume that a 'black forest' in a sentence would show a different placement of the adjective.. Anyway, this is getting too far off topic...

ܤܡܝ ܦܠܕܢܝܘܤ Mar 17, 2013 (22:54)

No doubt eithro makes for an intriguing gem of the earth -- one of those things that gives one a convenient excuse to dive into Morris-Jones' (old-school, Prussian and yet content-wise oddly captivating) Welsh Grammar yet again for spirited comparative etymological wine tasting and pondering... to perhaps find some arwyddbyst as to what could be included in the Eldarin history of such an item/adverb. (HEK? TIR?) B->

I was also wondering if the ed could alternatively stand for "anymore, henceforward" (< ET) = Finnish enää -- which would naturally require the 3 sg. object "it" to be automatically understood, as is possible in Q (WJ:404 á vala Manwë; LotR nai elyë hiruva for "may you find IT").

Thor reminded me of N thôr "swooping, leaping down" -- maybe accidentally, although that gloss in Etym:393 still certainly clicks with the expected behaviour of the great powers turned against the speakers. ;)

Tamas Ferencz Mar 18, 2013 (00:15)

Oh, dear. And I've been wondering for days who you are. Of course. Welcome, Elhath?

Fiona Jallings Mar 28, 2013 (20:16)

Another possibility for "den" - "sad, gloomy". It's quite close to "dem" and would make sense in this context.

Matt Dinse Mar 31, 2013 (18:08)

Carl, indeed I figured you had done so! I assumed that if there were an explanation somewhere, it would lie in unpublished material, or some link to another language (cp. the analyses of ach and eithro in VT50), not the already-published material. That said, I am already about to reread all the material as I jump back in for the first time in years, so it wouldn't hurt to keep an eye out for anything remotely relevant to VT50.

As for ed and han, I think my confusion stemmed from the prevalent usage of han in neo-Sindarin as a 3rd sg. impersonal object (cp. Salo's Han mathon, etc.), from before PE17's publication. This was so rooted in my mind that I didn't recall PE17:42's more specific explanation of hain echant that han is 'that' and hain 'those, them, the things previously mentioned' rather than 3rd sg. impersonal. Given this notion of han, I was puzzled when Tolkien used ed; my mentions of then / hen were meant to tie into the same discussion of those in VT50 and link usage of han/hain to the same chronology as the Wrapper. However, as you point out, han/hain do not have the meaning I thought they did. This is what happens when I rely on memory and don't consult the proper sources; I shall be more careful in the future. :)

Matt Dinse Mar 31, 2013 (18:10)

I've been wondering who you were as well, ?Elhath? - welcome! It's good to see you're still around.

Remy Corbin Aug 04, 2016 (17:17)

What do you think about "Here all (the) hands of the dwarves (and) of the elves (will) guard that/them for us."?