Re: aspirated m?

On Wednesday, November 24, 2004, at 01:17 , Carsten Becker wrote:

> Manayang váris! *)
>
> On Wednesday 24 November 2004 05:41, Kris Kowal wrote:
[snip]
>> Huh?  Either you know something about Telerin or Ilkorin
>> that I don't, but I don't believe that any of Tolkien's
>> conlangs have voicles nasals.
>
> AFAIK, in Sindarin, one of the mutations of [m] is [m_0],
> which later became [v].
Are you sure? Does JRRT actually say that? It would be a very perverse
change surely:
_voiced_ nasal ---> _voicedless_ nasal ---> _voiced_ fricative.

Why go from one voiced sound to another by way of a voicless sound?

In the Appendix to LotR we read: "For (archaic) Sindarin a sign for a
spirant _m_ (or nasal _v_) was required". This surely implies the JRRT saw
the lenition developing in exactly the same way as it Brittonic langs and
similar to the way it developed in Gaelic, namely: [m] --> [v~] --> [v]

In Gaelic in some environments it was [m] --> [w~] --> [w]

We know the intermediate stage was a fricativized _m_ (which is what
'spirant _m_ means)/ nasal _v_ {v~] (or, loosing friction [w~]) since the
preceding vowel is still nasalized in Breton and IIRC some Gaelic dialects
retained nasalization.

>  That's also why "vellon" can be
> written as "mhellon" when this mutation applies,
Are you sure you are not being mislead by your own reading of |mh|? The
information I have in my notes on the Tolklangs is that JRRT meant [v~]
when he wrote |mh|, following in fact the practice of Gaelic spelling.

> but is still pronounced ["vEl:On]. --
After it lost its nasalization.

> Though "mellon" is Quenya I
> thought, or did they keep it unchanged in Sindarin?
_mellon_ is also Sindarin, with plural _mellyn_

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason."      [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]