We have the following sentence in the +#TúrinWrapper Area IV in +#VT50 :
Sí
(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)
Tamas Ferencz Mar 07, 2013 (13:42)
Jenna Carpenter Mar 07, 2013 (14:28)
Tamas Ferencz Mar 07, 2013 (14:31)
Tamas Ferencz Mar 07, 2013 (16:04)
Lőrinczi Gábor Mar 08, 2013 (01:12)
Matt Dinse Mar 08, 2013 (01:20)
Tamas Ferencz Mar 08, 2013 (08:52)
http://middangeard.org.uk/aglardh/?q=node/129#comments
Lőrinczi Gábor Mar 08, 2013 (11:47)
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)
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)
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)
Matt Dinse Mar 08, 2013 (14:06)
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)
Tamas Ferencz Mar 08, 2013 (14:09)
Matt Dinse Mar 08, 2013 (16:23)
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)
Lőrinczi Gábor Mar 08, 2013 (18:01)
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)
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)
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)
Carl Hostetter Mar 11, 2013 (04:04)
Carl Hostetter Mar 11, 2013 (04:12)
Carl Hostetter Mar 11, 2013 (04:19)
Carl Hostetter Mar 11, 2013 (04:31)
Tamas Ferencz Mar 11, 2013 (11:38)
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)
Roman Rausch Mar 11, 2013 (22:12)
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)
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)
ܤܡܝ ܦܠܕܢܝܘܤ Mar 17, 2013 (22:54)
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)
Fiona Jallings Mar 28, 2013 (20:16)
Matt Dinse Mar 31, 2013 (18:08)
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)
Remy Corbin Aug 04, 2016 (17:17)