Message-ID: <003101bf5100$9877c860$<5a010164@q...> From: "Jay Lawson" To: elfling@egroups.com References: <991227130402CC.22737@w...> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 01:55:58 -0500 Organization: Quantum Consultants X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: Reply-To: elfling@egroups.com Subject: Re: Suggestions for a complete Khuzdul grammar MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit WOOHOOOO!!!! Another Khuzdul fan!!!! :) > 1) Considering the well-attested Dwarvish obsession with the number 7, wouldn't it be likely for their language to have a septal in addition to the singular and plural forms? I kinda like the idea. No evidence for it, of course, but it would be within the realm of possibility I would think. Perhaps Dwarves would have a number system based on 7 as well, rather than ten. > 2) Another thing about numeri: Albert Posch recently proposed inventing a distinct indefinite plural form to cover the problem of the plural forms that tend to show up with or without circumflex over the second vowel. (For example, we can conjecture that Khazâd is the plural form of the radicals [Kh-Z-D], the singular probably being *Khuzd, as Mr Fauskanger thankfully pointed out in his article on Khuzdul on the Eldalamberon page. But in Khazad-dûm, we find the (obviously plural) form without the circumflex. While this may explained by an obscure rule about the employment of the plural in compounds, the distinction of definite and indefinite plural works okay as well and helps solving a few more problems in addition. Could you refer me to wherever it is I can find Albert's ideas? I don't recall seeing a post about it, but it's likely I would have missed it if you're talking about an Elfling post. I usually only read a few posts here and there, like ones with "Khuzdul" in the title. :) Helge's page is Ardalambion. I think Eldalamberon is another page. I'm sure he would be happy to correct the error since it's his page, but I figured since I'm posting anyway.... :) I have always taken patterns like "khazad", where the same vowel is used twice, with no circumflex, to indicate adjective patterns. That is, "khazad" is describing "dûm" (mansions, delvings), saying that they are mansions/delvings made by and inhabited by Dwarves. Arabic has a form where a noun is used to describe another noun, called the attributive form. It's been a while since I looked, but I believe it also uses the same vowel twice. Hardly coincidence I would think. Personally, I think this solves the problem much better. What were the other problems that the indefinite plural solves that you alluded to? 3) While I agree with Mr Fauskangers Construct State theory (ibid., loc. cit.), I have decided while compiling the existing material to view the 'u' in Bundushathûr as an element of the Construct State singular (!) form for a three-consonantal root, thus inventing a pattern 1u23u (1,2,3 being the consonants; in this cas B,N,D) for the singular construct state while sticking to the attested 1a2u3 for the (definite) plural. In effect, if the name were to mean 'heads of clouds' (instead of 'head of clouds'), this would yield Khuzdul banud-shatûr instead of bundu-shatûr. While I too think it is tempting to have a1u23u singular genetive, I personally think this is not the case. I have argued before that "Felak-gundu" is an objective like in Adunaic. The objective would be formed by adding the -u to the root, thus gund --> gundu. A singular genetive pattern of 1u23u would confuse the issue. If you can think of why the 2 would co-exist, I'm all ears. I can talk more at length on why I think "Felak-gundu" is an objective elsewhere, as it has already been debated here quite a while back. (Basically, I'm lazy and don't feel like retyping all that. :) > 4) In addition, I decided to stick to three singular patterns of equal meaning, those being 1u23 (yielding such words as Rukhs), 1i2a3 (as in Zirak), and 1a2o3 (as in Gathol) for nouns. One- or two-consonantal roots each have their own singular, septal (?), def. pl., ind. pl. and Construct State forms. I could argue 1a23 as well, from "mazarbul", 1â2a3 from "zâram", and several others. > 5) The problematic noun uzbad, 'lord' I have rendered as a compound made up of the ind. plural noun uz (def.pl. being ûz, as attested in ûl, streams; with loss of circumflex as in Khazâd/Khazad) meaning 'people' (not, as Khazad, restricted to Dwarves) and an adjectiv bad, denoting 'well-meaning', 'beneficial', thus describing the ruler as 'he who means his people well'. I don't see "uzbad" as being at all problemeatic. Arabic has words of the same pattern. Tolkien translated this as "lord", and I don't see reason to assume otherwise, especially as a plural. I see it as perhaps a singular subjective, and described by "Khazad-dûmu" which is in the objective form. > Of course this is all incompetent invention and pure hypothesis, but nonetheless I would like to hear your opinions on it. Of course it's invention and pure hypothesis, but with Khuzdul, that's all we CAN do, for the most part. Personally, I think it's a fun exercise anyway. > By the way, I'm new here. My name's Roland Mückstein, but I'm commonly called Carneldó. Nice to meet you. :) Jay Lawson