G+ LoME Archive
Mar 07, 2013 (10:22)
This will probably be complete bollox, but.
We have the following sentence in the +
Area IV in +
?a?l il cem
en i naugrim en ir Ellath
(Tolkien's emendations shown as strikethrough.)
Carl theorizes that
(following the deleted, transparently future copula
and is an independent future particle with a passive impersonal ending, and
is an adjective related to
is not a replacement for
, but actually this is the adjective/predicate? It could be a variant related to the root
, seen in
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
. Elsewhere on the Wrapper we have
as possibly our first attested form of the S present tense copula, which Carl links (probably correctly) to
from KL, so
: present indicative,
: subjunctive. What if
is another element in this series, possibly a future one?
As I said, probably incorrect, but food for thought anyway.
Mar 07, 2013 (12:58)
Feeling rather jealous, my copy hasn't arrived yet :-(
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.
Mar 07, 2013 (14:28)
No I'm not, paid separately. Is the US to Scotland though, guess it might take a while
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.
Mar 07, 2013 (16:04)
Of course my idea about
being a copula poses the question whether this is the same
as in Ae Adar Nín (as Carl seems to think as well) and if yes, can that
have a similar role as well.
Mar 08, 2013 (01:12)
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
("the Dwarves") and
Mar 08, 2013 (01:20)
seem clearly to be "of" (attested elsewhere in abundance), and therefore homonymous with
i en estar
Mar 08, 2013 (08:52)
Roman commented on Aglardh that if
is sg like 'hidden' then it comes from THUR-, and cites some attested forms like
. So the possibility is there...
Mar 08, 2013 (11:47)
Ma, that was my impression, too, when I first looked at the sentence. On the other hand, if
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
is supposed to mean) of the Dwarves of the Elves"? Or should we imagine a conjunctive between
and the second
? "of the Dwarves (and) the Elves"?
Maybe it's rubbish (I don't have VT/50 yet), but what if
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")?
Mar 08, 2013 (11:55)
Carl translates the sentence as something like "Now all the lands/hearts of the Dwarves and Elves will be silent to us." So
is the genitive particle.
Mar 08, 2013 (13:49)
Another thing is that it seems on the basis of this sentence that
in Lúthien's Song is actually an article, not an adverb ("when"). I can imagine, however, that
(which is the expected form) would be quite similar in Tolkien's handwriting. :)
Mar 08, 2013 (13:53)
Yes but in LS
is in front of a proper noun, it's not likely one would see a definite article in that position.
Mar 08, 2013 (14:06)
Re: THUR-, that was my impression as well, cp.
"the Secret" in UT.
Lőrinczi, we find a different form in VT50 which Carl translates as "also." An alternate derivation for
he suggests is from NDAN/DAN with i-affection, cp.
dan i ngaurhoth
, i.e. "opposed to" rather than "silent."
Mar 08, 2013 (14:06)
Well, there is at least one counterexample, namely
in Gilraen's linnod. ;)
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.
Mar 08, 2013 (16:23)
Also of note: Area II and III have
for "*the Elves," not
One thing I do wonder about is the use of
where I might have expected
; even the earlier version of the Moria Gate inscription which have
for "these" instead of
(as Carl compares with
in Area II) has
, not something like
. 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
, but no luck.
Mar 08, 2013 (17:02)
As a plural form
would hardly agree with
Mar 08, 2013 (18:01)
True, but in the case of Lúthien's Song,
is supposed to be a form of the singular article
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
hope there is no such connection, because it would mean that we lose the Sindarin equivalent of "when". :)
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
could mean 'likewise, as well', especially regarding Q.
'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
However, in the context of the Tinúviel poem,
as a definite article makes more sense to me because of the following
: *'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
with a singular article before a plural noun, so I'd say there is still the possibility that
has the singular article
before a plural noun, but it becomes
before the vowel; and the same happens in
- Speaking of which, perhaps
might also be a form of the article rather than the suggested 'all' from IL-?
Interestingly, the mentioned
(VT50:18) actually runs again a lot of other attested diphthongizations like
(PE17:139) etc (unless it's one of the semi-regular unstressed reductions). Therefore, I would have expected
'all' to become
Of course, S.
might just be the cognate of Q.
'all' rather than
, but it's still odd to see it preceding the noun, where the article would normally be.
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,
normally means 'here', not 'now' (PE 17:27, 67).
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 *
, which of course would lend even more support to construing
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
as 'all' seems unproblematic, I didn't make mention of it.
Mar 11, 2013 (04:04)
Tamas, note that I don't in fact think that the
thor den ammen
is "the same den as in Ae Adar Nín": in fact, I specifically point out that this is unlikely.
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
, 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)!
Mar 11, 2013 (04:19)
Matthew, I don't think
*'it', as a personal pronoun, is in any sort of conflict with the deictic pronouns
etc., any more than English 'it' is in conflict with 'this, that'. They are distinct forms and categories of pronoun.
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
Mar 11, 2013 (11:38)
Perhaps I was unclear in my post - all I stated was that in the article you connect
(bottom of page 13). Linking
to these was my addition. You indeed find this unlikely in the article.
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!)
Mar 11, 2013 (22:12)
Re: the position of
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
'few' are actually placed in front of the noun (just as the numerals), e.g.
'every part', _holl Gymry_ 'whole Wales',
'many a woman' and so on.
Sindarin and Noldorin show themselves as consistently head-initial languages, just as Welsh is; so the difference between
(SD:129) could be one of head:
*mellyn în phain
'all his friends' has
as head and
as dependent, while
*il vellyn în
*'all' as head, and hence rather *'all of his friends'. (Similarly in
the numeral would be the head, lit. *'five of feet'.)
In any case it would seem that there is nothing odd in having preceding
*'all' after all.
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
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.
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
- 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...
Mar 17, 2013 (22:54)
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
as to what could be included in the Eldarin history of such an item/adverb. (HEK? TIR?) B->
I was also wondering if the
could alternatively stand for "anymore, henceforward" (< ET) = Finnish
-- which would naturally require the 3 sg. object "it" to be automatically understood, as is possible in Q (WJ:404
á vala Manwë
nai elyë hiruva
for "may you find IT").
reminded me of N
"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. ;)
Mar 18, 2013 (00:15)
Oh, dear. And I've been wondering for days who you are. Of course. Welcome, Elhath?
Mar 28, 2013 (20:16)
Another possibility for "den" - "sad, gloomy". It's quite close to "dem" and would make sense in this context.
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
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.
, I think my confusion stemmed from the prevalent usage of
in neo-Sindarin as a 3rd sg. impersonal object (cp. Salo's
, 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
is 'that' and
'those, them, the things previously mentioned' rather than 3rd sg. impersonal. Given this notion of
, I was puzzled when Tolkien used
; my mentions of
were meant to tie into the same discussion of those in VT50 and link usage of
to the same chronology as the Wrapper. However, as you point out,
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. :)
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.
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."?