Navigator
Search

Questions About the Exercises

Re: EXERCISE 4: SOFT MUTATION (LENITION) - (§3.2)

PostAuthor: findegil » Tue Feb 15, 2011 10:06 pm

The answers section for this exercise includes each noun in its original, unmutated form: e.g. i var (< bar) means var is the lenited or soft mutation form of bar ~ 'house, dwelling'.


The b- in bar derives from Common Eldarin mb-, a so-called nasalized stop. As Tolkien has it in PE 17:104, "in Sindarin ... if a proclitic word, such as the article i 'the', preceded, [initial] mb ... developed, as medially, > mm >m". This points to i·mar as the lenited form. However, in Ae Adar nín (VT 44) the corresponding form of bas 'bread' (< *mbass-) is i·mbas (imbas ilaurui vín lit.'the bread daily ours'), so I suppose a case can also be made for i·mbar.
findegil
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:25 am
Location: Stockholm
Gender: Male

Re: Questions About the Exercises

PostAuthor: Huanarmo » Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:08 am

Thanks, Findegil.

I had not intended to stray into the territory of special mutations such as nasalized stops. In fact I know of that form only from a helpful extra table that Lúthien and Eryniel shared with me: 'Nazalized stops by archaic consonant groups'. Sure enough, it shows mb- words leniting to 'm…', not 'v…'.

For the purpose of this introductory exercise I will amend that example to a more straightforward 'b' word that lenites to 'v…'.

Meneg hennaid,
User avatar
Huanarmo
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:27 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Gender: Male

Re: EXERCISE 4: SOFT MUTATION (LENITION) - (§3.2)

PostAuthor: findegil » Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:20 pm

For the purpose of this introductory exercise I will amend that example to a more straightforward 'b' word that lenites to 'v…'.


May I then recommend barad 'tower'? (bauglir is no more suitable than bar, unfortunately, since it derives from MBAW- 'compel' according to The Etymologies.)
findegil
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:25 am
Location: Stockholm
Gender: Male

Re: Questions About the Exercises

PostAuthor: Huanarmo » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:10 am

Oops, thanks again, Findegil.

The third time pays for all, as the saying goes. Barad it is!

I really must familiarise myself more with the Etymologies. :yes:

Meneg hennaid,
User avatar
Huanarmo
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:27 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Gender: Male

Re: Questions About the Exercises

PostAuthor: Eryniel » Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:14 pm

You weren't the only one who read over the special cases, Huanarmo... :blush2:
User avatar
Eryniel
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:08 pm
Location: Nenhad - Tol Harndor
Gender: Female

Re: Questions About the Exercises

PostAuthor: Huanarmo » Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:55 am

Never mind, it is all worth another linnod:

I ben vaen nartha galad; boe ú-vaecheneb vellyn dîn!

~ 'The clever one spreads light; the dull-witted needs his friends!'

Aur vae,
User avatar
Huanarmo
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 7:27 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Gender: Male

Exercise 5: A-Verbs - (§2)

PostAuthor: findegil » Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:39 pm

Eryniel wrote:All verbs in Sindarin will take endings for both number and person appended to the stem to conjugate them. These endings are:
verbexample.jpg

The two tables should change places, I think.

3. We wander. (exclusive)..........Reviam.

Should be Reniam (the assumption that Noldorin rhenio from RAM- was a typo for **rhevio has proved unfounded. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sindict/message/387 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sindict/message/237).

4. Maetham dagor aglareb. .....We fight a famous battle. (exclusive)

As dagor is here a direct object following its verb, it should probably be mutated to dhagor. Cf. penim vast 'we lack bread' (PE 17:144).

Little memory tricks:
- The ending for the courteous / formal form also ends with an 'l'

I very much wonder why Pedin Edhellen prescribes these hypothetical l-endings. Actually, the attested courteous forms have -dh-: sg. galodh, pl. galadhir (PE 17:132, which is also the source for the 1 pl. inclusive -nc.)
Last edited by findegil on Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
findegil
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:25 am
Location: Stockholm
Gender: Male

Re: Questions About the Exercises

PostAuthor: Eryniel » Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:36 am

Thank you findegil for your comments.

findegil wrote:
Eryniel wrote:All verbs in Sindarin will take endings for both number and person appended to the stem to conjugate them. These endings are:
verbexample.jpg

The two tables should change places, I think.

That must have happened while placing them, sorry. I corrected the mistake.

findegil wrote:
Eryniel wrote:3. We wander. (exclusive)..........Reviam.

Should be Reniam[...]

I changed it.

findegil wrote:
Eryniel wrote:4. Maetham dagor aglareb. .....We fight a famous battle. (exclusive)

As dagor is here a direct object following its verb, it should probably be mutated to dhagor. Cf. penim vast 'we lack bread' (PE 17:144).

Mutations are mostly can, not must, but to avoid confusion later on I rephrased to avoid the mutation.

findegil wrote:
Eryniel wrote:Little memory tricks:
- The ending for the courteous / formal form also ends with an 'l'

I very much wonder why Pedin Edhellin prescribes these hypothetical l-endings. Actually, the attested courteous forms have -dh-: sg. galodh, pl. galadhir (PE 17:132, which is also the source for the 1 pl. inclusive -nc.)

Hmm. I see what you mean, but that puts me in a tight spot since these excercises are supposed to follow Pedin Edhellen... I will write an email to Thorsten and see what he says.

EDIT:
I got an answer that explains why he uses _l_. In translation he says that yes he used a not attested form in the 2nd person formal format to favour putting together forms that make a logical pattern. He continues that he thinks that the Quenya influence - with _le_ as Quenya loanword as called by Tolkien himself - has replaced a primary 2nd person formal format and that the use of the 2nd person form in the attested texts suggest that _l_ was used widely for the 2nd person. He gives an example from LOTR where Sam uses _le nallon_ 'to thee I cry, which he states looks like a 2nd person formal format. He goes on stating thatthe table he used represents what Prof. Tolkien thought at one point in time.

Now everyone can agree or disagree and I am certainly not one of those, but as said before, these excercises are supposed to follow the Pedin Edhellen course and it wouldnt be the first time where Prof. Tolkien changes his mind about something.
I would also say that while I feel confident enough to make excercises from what is presented in Thorstens course and look up attestations, I feel nowhere near ready to enter into a scholarly discussion of this magnitude.

Please find here his original answer in German:
Thorsten wrote:Man kann nicht an LOTR vorbei wo Sam etwa ein _le nallon_ 'to thee I cry' verwendet, was eben nach einer formellen 2Sg aussieht. Soll man das jetzt wirklich zusammen mit _-dh_ verwenden, also sowohl _galodh_ als auch _le gala_ 'thou growst' als beides gueltige Alternativen sehen?

Kann man schon machen wenn man will - mein Punkt ist mehr dass eine Tabelle halt sagt wie Tolkien sich das System zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt mal gedacht hat. Meine Position in Pedin Edhellen und Quetin i Lambe Eldaiva ist dass ich eine Zuammenstellung von Formen praesentiere aus der das Ordnungsschema einigermassen hervorgeht. In diesem Fall gehe ich davon aus dass der Einfluss von Quenya als Hochsprache eine urspruengliche Form in der formellen 2. Person im Sindarin verdraengt hat (Tolkien bezeichnet irgendwo _le_ als 'of Quenya Origin', und der Gebrauch der 2. Person in den attestierten Texten legt nahe dass _l_ fuer die 2. Person recht verbreitet ist. Das passt dann auch einigermassen mit der Darstellung im Quenya-Kurs zusammen, aber es bedeutet zugegebenermassen hier dass ich eine attestierte Form gegen eine nicht belegte ersetze.
User avatar
Eryniel
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:08 pm
Location: Nenhad - Tol Harndor
Gender: Female

Re: Questions About the Exercises

PostAuthor: findegil » Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:47 pm

Many thanks, Eryniel, for providing this clarification. It thoroughly answers my question about the reconstructed l-forms and also explains another puzzling thing in Pedin Edhellen: the use of le as a plural pronoun.

However, I am generally reluctant to accept a solution that disregards fully compatible data. If Tolkien really ever thought that -l- should be the general marker for all the courteous 2nd person forms in Sindarin, it has left remarkably few traces in the sources. On the contrary, he consistently defined the Sindarin le as a singular pronoun only*. Pure Sindarin had de, dhe as the courteous pronoun with the same form for singular and plural. But in Quenya singular and plural differed, and as the Noldor wanted to introduce this distinction in Sindarin too, they borrowed le from Quenya to serve as the courteous singular. No change was made to the plural; it continued to be d(h)e in Quenya-influenced Sindarin as well as in pure Sindarin.Thus the connexion of -d(h)- with the 2nd person was retained, and consequently I can't see any logical need to exchange the attested -dh- for a hypothetical -l-.
So: "Kann man schon machen wenn man will" -- ich wage froh den kühnen Lauf :-) .

* cf. PE 17:26, VT 49:50-51 and the (canonical) commentary on A Elbereth and Sam's invocation in The Road Goes Ever On.
findegil
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:25 am
Location: Stockholm
Gender: Male

Re: Questions About the Exercises

PostAuthor: Eryniel » Sun Mar 13, 2011 3:57 am

As stated before I do not feel qualified to judge how to proceed here. Maybe we should just vote on wheather we want to leave Pedin Edhellen or follow it?
I just do not know.... :o
User avatar
Eryniel
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:08 pm
Location: Nenhad - Tol Harndor
Gender: Female

PreviousNext

Return to Sindarin linguistics

Who is online

Registered users: No registered users

cron