tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post1508210234702451565..comments2024-03-11T16:29:13.619-05:00Comments on Lingwë - Musings of a Fish: Tolkien’s translation conceit — new evidence?Jason Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-75433700453450464192012-01-18T13:15:53.571-06:002012-01-18T13:15:53.571-06:00In the Germanic languages there is an irregular al...In the Germanic languages there is an irregular alternation between nasal and non-nasal forms for 'go' and 'stand/stay', so we have NHG <i>gehen, ging, gegangen</i>, for example, or ModE <i>stand, stood, stood < stonden</i>. In Scots, both <i>gae</i> and <i>gang</i> 'go, walk' are still in use in the present tense, though only <i>gaed</i> and <i>gane</i> in the preterite and participle. (Note that although <i>stay</i> is a Romance borrowing in English, it goes back to the same PIE <i>*sta-</i> as <i>stand</i>.)John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-45088216379523741672011-12-16T05:25:06.030-06:002011-12-16T05:25:06.030-06:00My intuitions about this are founded on far too sk...My intuitions about this are founded on far too skimpy a knowledge of ON texts. Steininum þeim hinum grá actually surprised me, because all the examples that came to mind readily lacked definiteness on the noun, e.g. hafa vil ek … steinn þann inn mæra … grǫf þá ina helgu ('Battle of Goths and Huns'), hendi inni hœgri (Vǫluspá). Yet hinum grá steini also sounds uncommon. So yes: why the emendation to this, rather than say steini þeim hinum grá – if reading it as an emendation is right.<br /><br />I had a quick look this morning through the grammars at hand. Traditional ones (Gordon, Noreen) are short on the syntax of the noun phrase, but there is a New Introduction to Old Icelandic by Michael Barnes. The orders are treated in section 3.3.5, which says that the type hinum grá steini is not particularly common in ON prose except when in contrastive use (as opposed to 'that blue stone', say), and that much more common is þeim hinum grá steini, and that in Norwegian sources particularly (as opposed to Icelandic ones) doubling occurs, steininum (þeim) hinum grá – (þeim) hinum grá steininum. (The doubling options is, I believe, lost in Modern Icelandic, although not in all other Scandinavian languages, albeit not with descendants of hinn). <br /><br />The functions of the different orders are not discussed there, although section 3.9.2 briefly mentions the different functions of pre and post-modification, but only to say that both steini grá and grá steini were legitimate, while with possessives postmodification was normal and premodification emphatic, and epithets and appositives followed, while comparatives and superlatives preceded. <br /><br />Terje Faarlund in The syntax of Old Norse, 4.3.1 likewise talks about the emphatic character of premodifying adjectives in general as opposed to the more neutral use of postmodifying ones, unless the adjective and noun constitute a conceptual unit of some kind, such as 'pure corn', 'English silver'. But he is talking there about adjectives in noun phrases without the definite article. In definite ones adjectives normally precede the noun while the article appears in its full form, hinum grá steini, and follow more rarely unless with proper names, steini hinum grá, and still more rarely with suffixed form of the definite article, steininum grá; none of these involve doubling of the sort hinum grá steininum which he says is rare in 4.1.2 (and does not mention steininum (þeim) hinum grá at all, as far as I can tell).<br /><br />So one gets the impression, perhaps, that steininum þeim hinum grá is unusual for Old Icelandic sources of Old Norse, and perhaps has an appositive flavour, the stone, the grey one; while þeim hinum grá steini or perhaps more markedly steini þeim hinum grá would be the normal way of expressing the intended purely descriptive meaning; but hinum grá steini is rare. All this only advances us moderately, if at all. But the description and documentation in these works is not (and is not intended to be) particularly full, and better ones might help.<br /><br />Finally, why not simply steini grám, as noun phrases without the definite article are regularly used in ON where NE uses definites (so þrǫstr or þrǫstrinn both make good grammar in the translation): what does the choice of these heavily definite phrases say how Tolkien intended the map-maker to refer to the 'the grey stone'.<br /><br />kenavo, MilanMilan Rezacnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-74305793136730541962011-12-14T14:43:12.850-06:002011-12-14T14:43:12.850-06:00right, so why rewrite the whole phrase? and why ar...right, so why rewrite the whole phrase? and why are we reading the first phrase as the intended one ("steininum þeim hinum grá"), when he rewrote the phrase to "hinum gráa steini" later. Shouldn't that one be the preferred one? I agree that the first choice was better (I just like those double determiner phrases in Old Norse), but it doesn't seem Tolkien did.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039398505893939988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-65778339419910525212011-12-13T01:58:24.139-06:002011-12-13T01:58:24.139-06:00It seems to me that he first wrote _hjá steininum ...It seems to me that he first wrote _hjá steininum þeim (h)inum grám_, an error since _grá(a)_ is the weak declension form of the adjective required in definite noun phrases, and then (i) crossed out the _m_ and added _a_, (ii) inserted the text _hinum graa steini_ above the line and the insertion mark after hja.<br /><br />Both _hinum gráa steini_ and _hjá steininum þeim (h)inum grám_ are idiomatic ways to express 'by the grey stone', though the latter may seem a bit overloaded. Compare: _á karfanum þeim inum steinda_ '(on) the painted ship' (Saga of Egils Skalla-Grímssonar).<br /><br />(The insistence on uncontracted _gráa_ in both versions if have got the changes right, is curious, but perhaps it is used in ON mss? I don't know.)<br /><br />MilanMilannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-42744151337925232052011-12-12T11:39:53.434-06:002011-12-12T11:39:53.434-06:00Nice work guys! I started making some of the same...Nice work guys! I started making some of the same changes, and then realized they had already been made. But are there any suggestions for why he might have been rewriting "steininum þeim hinum grá"? Because it looks like he meant to have it say "Stattu hja hinum graa steini", given the marker that he put after "hja".Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039398505893939988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-6577290988761690152011-12-05T01:48:53.213-06:002011-12-05T01:48:53.213-06:00What a great discussion!
I read Jason's orig...What a great discussion! <br /><br />I read Jason's original post and worked on it further, to find that you have come almost exactly the same result. The only difference concerns 'with the last light':<br /><br />As there is no appropriate form of lýsa, lýsi, we might consider ljós 'light', neuter, here in acc.sg. The o would have to be very hastily written, but I think I've seen examples of Tolkien writing a/o like this elsewhere (would have to check). It has the advantages of introducing a grammatical form and removing the repetitive character lýs- … lýsa (and incidentally echoes Ljós-álfar...).<br /><br />ON með and við overlap to some extent, more so than say in OE wið and mid. To judge from Cleasby-Vigfusson, in the temporal adverbial usage required here, með would use a dative, e.g. vera úti með sólsetrum 'to be out with (= at) sunset', while við would use an accusative, við solar-setr 'at sunset. As 16, whatever it is, is clearly ending-less, we likely have acc. við síðast(a) ljós, rather than dat. með síðasta ljósi or such.<br /><br />In phrases of this sort, corresponding to definites in English 'the last light', ON seems to often use the weak declension form of síðastr despite the absence of the definite article – hence við síðasta ljós; but the strong declension is also a possibility, við síðast ljós. The squiggle ending of síðast seems readable as either a vowel or the cross-bar of the t.<br /><br />lýsa for ljóma seems clearly right for the verb, as ljóma is impersonal. mun ... lysa also seems the right approach, although it very much looks like mumm or munn (the latter would be an error, but not so egregious).<br /> <br />A couple of interesting points beyond the decipherment:<br /><br />Tolkien must have first written the ungrammatical hjá steini þeim (h)inum grám – and that he apparently emended it to gráa, matching the superposed text's graa, so the uncontracted form is clearly intentional despite regular practice in printing ON texts. The grammatical error is in contrast with the nicely idiomatic features of the translation as first written - lykils-gat rather than lykil-gat, and hjá steininum þeim (h)inum gráa (cf. (á) karfanum þeim inum steinda '(on) the painted ship', Egilssaga Skalagrímssonar). More reason to think Tolkien would have used and left without emendation ungrammatical/nonexistent lýs.<br /><br />Tolkien keeps to early ON by differentiating þrostr[?inn] with the u-umlaut of a from søkkvandi with the w-umlaut of e. This also removes the possibility of reading þrostur, a later development than the end-13C collapse of these sounds in ö.<br /><br />Milan RezacMilan Rezacnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-50973592046990422822011-11-30T06:19:27.977-06:002011-11-30T06:19:27.977-06:00Drat! I definitely ought to reread the Hobbit!
Re...Drat! I definitely ought to reread the Hobbit!<br /><br />RenéeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-83064916646932218772011-11-29T21:06:50.804-06:002011-11-29T21:06:50.804-06:00My last comments too:
[5] The h actually appears ...My last comments too:<br /><br />[5] The <i>h</i> actually appears to have been added later (and that's what makes it look like a deletion). Remove it and you'll read <i>inum</i>, which as far as I can see is the more common spelling (see C.-V. s.v. <i>hinn</i>, first paragraph.) I'd say Tolkien wrote <i>inum</i> first, and then for whatever reason changed it to <i>hinum</i>.<br /><br />[21] As to why Tolkien chose <i>lykils gat</i> instead of <i>skrár-gat</i>, maybe he wanted to include the word for "key" in order to make the relationship with Thrórs key clearer, since <i>skrár</i> is properly "lock".* But he did hesitate. I think he wrote <i>lukil</i> first [20], deleted it, then <i>lukil(s)</i> again [21] and then changed it to <i>lykils</i>. <i>Lukils-gat</i> may also have been suggested by <i>lúku-gat</i> "trap-door".<br /><br />[And to Renée's last comment: In this case the keyhole was definitely of the one-side type. "Slowly Thorin shook off his dreams and getting up he kicked away the stone that wedged the door. Then they thrust upon it, and it closed with a snap and a clang. No trace of a keyhole was there left on the inside." (end of ch. XII)]<br /><br />But don't rule out the possibility that he chose it for the alliteration with [19]. The alliterations in the English version are clearly intentional ("stand / stone", "setting sun", "last light", "Durin's Day") and the Old Norse version keeps most of them. Maybe the reason why he left the blank after [9] until a suitable candidate appeared (as Nelson suggested) was that he couldn't find a verb for "knock" which satisfied him (e.g., one that alliterated with <i>þrǫstrinn</i>).<br /><br />---<br /><br />* And the dwarves in the story sorely need this kind of reminder, something like "...will shine upon the key-hole, see, the <i>key</i>-hole, and kindly notice that I'm not using the usual word for this but stressing the <i>key</i> element by means of an unattested compound, and what is it that I'm giving you together with the map? Yep, a key." Supporting evidence: when the last light of Durin's Day finally shines upon the <i>key-hole</i>, "the dwarves rushed to the rock and pushed - in vain", and they would still be there if Bilbo hadn't come up with "The key! The key that went with the map!" (XI:33-6) But this is just me trying to be funny.Hlafordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01570318115206193131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-72712292992064449872011-11-29T17:25:47.304-06:002011-11-29T17:25:47.304-06:00Last comment (bedtime where I am): the difference ...Last comment (bedtime where I am): the difference is probably that grǫf is open on one side and gat on both sides. A keyhole belongs to the latter category. At least an old-fashioned one.<br /><br />RenéeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-40773535548656179482011-11-29T16:41:58.480-06:002011-11-29T16:41:58.480-06:00Garn, too slow again! I’m going to let you guys ha...Garn, too slow again! I’m going to let you guys have at it for a while so that we aren’t all cross-commenting. ;)Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-34989235572606869682011-11-29T16:41:11.591-06:002011-11-29T16:41:11.591-06:00Nelson, you’re probably right about gat. I didn’t ...Nelson, you’re probably right about <i>gat</i>. I didn’t feel sure at first, since the modern reflex (and a contemporary gloss) of <i>gat</i> is “gate”. But since I see <i>skrár-gat</i> “key-hole” in Cleasby-Vigfusson, I am inclined to think you’re right. But why didn’t Tolkien use this ready-made compound? :)<br /><br />It’s probably not <i>gröf</i>, though I felt there was a little more “turbulence” after the initial consonant. It looked a bit more like an <i>r</i> than an <i>a</i> (yet the final consonant does look more like a <i>t</i> than an <i>f</i>). You’re right that is usually means “pit” (the modern reflex is “grave”), but I have seen it used in senses other than a dug hole (e.g., <i>hnakka-gröf</i> “the hollow in the nape of the neck”).Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-81967504178618986552011-11-29T16:33:36.251-06:002011-11-29T16:33:36.251-06:00Grǫf is from grafa, to dig, and means pit or grave...Grǫf is from grafa, to dig, and means pit or grave. I don't think it means hole in the sense of opening, passage, as Icelandic (and, incidentally, also Dutch) gat. <br /><br />RenéeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-89917417509771089472011-11-29T16:22:35.413-06:002011-11-29T16:22:35.413-06:00It’s funny that when I began typing my last commen...It’s funny that when I began typing my last comment, there were only a couple of yours, but by the time it appeared, you had all added several more! I’m taking this as a sign of great interest! :)Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-34471381986685940092011-11-29T16:17:58.906-06:002011-11-29T16:17:58.906-06:00OK, one more go at a proper transcription, with su...OK, one more go at a proper transcription, with supplied marks in bold, supplied letters in parentheses, dash marks for crossed out words, and underscores at the possibly significant space.<br /><br />hinum graa - steini<br />Stattu hj<b>á</b> steininum þeim hinum grá ---<br />þar sem þr<b>ǫ</b>strinn ____ Þ<b>á</b> mun sól<br />søkkvandi með s<b>í</b>ðasti l<b>ý</b>s(u) Durins dags<br />l<b>ý</b>sa ------ lykils gat.<br /><br /><b>Jason</b>, does <i>grǫf</i> ever have that sort of sense? I thought it usually referred to a dug hole or a pit - I'd be interested to learn if it could have this sort of sense as well.Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08765254563756137957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-14048677763825701632011-11-29T16:08:39.668-06:002011-11-29T16:08:39.668-06:00Hlaford, good call with síðastr, though it’s only ...Hlaford, good call with <i>síðastr</i>, though it’s only barely legible. One of those things where, once you see it, it suddenly becomes clear. Or, well, clear<i>er</i>.<br /><br />Nelson: For #22, you might be right, though now that I’m looking at it more closely, maybe <i>gröf</i> is a possibility as well.<br /><br />I had a feeling that crowd-sourcing would help bang this into shape. Tolkien’s handwriting is notoriously difficult, and this passage is more illegible than usual. No doubt Christopher Tolkien could read it easily, but for us, some of these words are not easy chestnuts. :)Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-91997718747423852362011-11-29T15:59:51.197-06:002011-11-29T15:59:51.197-06:00Make Stattu hjá steininum þeim grá into Stattu hjá...Make <i>Stattu hjá steininum þeim grá</i> into <i>Stattu hjá steininum þeim <b>hinum</b> grá</i>. What I get for copy-pasting too quickly.Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08765254563756137957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-52793403149416951252011-11-29T15:58:30.249-06:002011-11-29T15:58:30.249-06:00Another cross-comment with you, Hláford!
To me st...Another cross-comment with you, <b>Hláford</b>!<br /><br />To me <i>steininum þeim hinum grá</i> does actually read better as idiomatic Norse (not that my judgements are that good!!!). And taking another look, what I had taken to be a crossing out line might actually be better taken as Tolkien writing over the word to make the initial h clearer. So I think you've got another good reading there.<br /><br />Taking into account Renée's newest comments, maybe we have:<br /><br />Stattu hjá steininum þeim grá<br />þar sem þrǫstrinn ______ . Þa mun sól<br />søkkvandi með síðasti lýsu Durins dags<br />lýsa lykils gat.<br /><br />This improves the reading for (19) I think. But I'm not sure we gain much with <i>ljós</i>, since it still needs to be dative with a final <i>-i</i>: <i>ljósi</i>. So <i>lýsu</i> seems closer to the text, given that we have to supply something either way. (Though maybe an -i would be easier to get lost in the scribbles than a -u?)Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08765254563756137957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-40540004119198811112011-11-29T15:53:53.686-06:002011-11-29T15:53:53.686-06:00Oh yes, hinum! That's it!
Renée again.Oh yes, hinum! That's it!<br /><br />Renée again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-31433978280582157762011-11-29T15:49:44.736-06:002011-11-29T15:49:44.736-06:00corect = correct, of coursecorect = correct, of courseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-67201505290892896602011-11-29T15:48:30.391-06:002011-11-29T15:48:30.391-06:00Hello Jason, here I am again!
Yes, stattu is irre...Hello Jason, here I am again!<br /><br />Yes, stattu is irregular, as far as I know. <br /><br />As for #5, you´re right, it doesn´t really look crossed out. But assuming the translation is literal, you wouldn´t expect an additional word here. In any case, it doesn´t look like ´hvenar´ to me, as there is nothing resembling an a in the word. Also, I´m quite positive about #8 being 'sem': the last letter is identical with the last letter of 'steininum'. Which would mean 'þar sem' is the conjunction, making 'hvenar' superfluous.<br /><br />Plodding on, I'd say that #10 is simply Ole Norse 'þá' - Tolkien being a bit sloppy again, as with 'hjá. For #11 I'd suggest 'mun' and for #15 'siðasti'. #16 looks like 'lys' [or lýs], but that means lice, so I suppose it was meant to be 'ljós' <br /><br />Which would make the second half of the sentence something like: 'þá mun sól søkkrendi með siðasti ljós Durnis dags lýsa [or ljóma] lykil [acc., with one l] ...': then will the sinking sun with the last light of Durin's Day illuminate the key ...'<br /><br />And then what? A word meaning hole, but all I see is 'jul', which is the Scandinavian word for Christmas...<br /><br />Anyway, if this reading is corect, #5 could be a verb form meaning 'knocks', but in a peculiar position in the sentence. Or Tolkien forgot to translate knocks and #5 remains an enigma. <br /><br />This is fun, but Tolkien's handwriting was really terrible!<br /><br />RenéeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-23058426697883971082011-11-29T15:37:14.229-06:002011-11-29T15:37:14.229-06:00Hlaford, it's reassuring that you also read (1...<b>Hlaford</b>, it's reassuring that you also read (15) as <i>síðast-</i> (though I took it as a strong feminine dative adjective rather than an adverb). It's hard to tell when a word emerges from the squiggles whether you're actually seeing what's there, or just going a tiny bit mad!<br /><br />And I like your suggestion about the words above. I might take them as <i>hinum graa steini</i>. Tolkien's writing of <i>graa</i> may represent <i>grá-a</i>, that is the stem (which already has a long vowel) plus the dative ending <i>-a</i> before contraction. Or maybe it's just a funny way of writing a long vowel, or maybe it's hesitation about what to write next (is that another <i>a</i> that's crossed out just after?).Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08765254563756137957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-60185421746201508432011-11-29T15:26:21.757-06:002011-11-29T15:26:21.757-06:00Add to my previous comment: 5 could be a form of t...Add to my previous comment: 5 could be a form of the definite article <i>hinn</i>, which can be placed between the demonstrative and the adjective (according to Cleasby-Vigfusson s.v. A.II).Hlafordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01570318115206193131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-18956262135056304452011-11-29T15:14:04.108-06:002011-11-29T15:14:04.108-06:00I fully agree with Renée's points, including a...I fully agree with Renée's points, including about -5- being crossed out and reading <i>þar sem</i> (fits too perfectly for the expected sense and the actual writing). The missing word for 'knocks' <i>may</i> just be the blank space between <i>þrost...</i> and <i>þa</i>: Tolkien leaving himself a gap to fill in once he'd made up his mind about exactly which word to use.<br /><br />15) This is a really hard word to read, but my overactive imagination wants to see <i>sið(a)st...</i> for <i>síðasti lýsu</i> or similar. I'm taking what looks like a single initial character and reading it as a narrow <i>s</i> written together with the following <i>i</i>.<br /><br /><br />19) For 'shines', I would prefer to read <i>lysir</i> (<i>lýsir</i>), with the curl being part of a fancy <i>s</i>. This might work a bit better with what's written, and certainly works better grammatically, as what we want is a transitive verb 'illuminates'.<br /><br />22) I think this is <i>gat</i>, 'opening, hole'.<br /><br />So with a few holes left, we might now have (characters with restored accents in bold, supplied--that is, without even a tentative basis in the script--characters in parentheses):<br /><br />Stattu hj<b>á</b> steininum þeim grá<br />þar sem þr<b>ǫ</b>strinn ______ . Þa ????? sól<br />søkkvandi með s<b>í</b>ð(a)sti l<b>ý</b>s(u) Durins dags<br />l<b>ý</b>sir lykils gat.<br /><br />Word 11 is still completely enigmatic to me, and I don't really like 10 (though I admit interference from OE would explain it neatly). And I'll be interested to see if I still find my readings convincing tomorrow!Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08765254563756137957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-44920243171647439402011-11-29T15:13:52.113-06:002011-11-29T15:13:52.113-06:00I don't know any Old Norse, but I think 15 is ...I don't know any Old Norse, but I think 15 is clearly the superlative <i>síðastr</i> "last" (comp. <i>síðari</i> "later"). Tolkien's ð's are quite distinguishable.<br /><br />As regards 5, what about the three (unnumbered) words above? They look to me very much like "[5] [6] = steinn" - an explanation related to Renée's comment above about this kind of apposition in Old Norse.Hlafordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01570318115206193131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9050528436539921312.post-55520544614820404302011-11-29T12:48:45.429-06:002011-11-29T12:48:45.429-06:00Hi, Renée, and well done! I think you’ve solved se...Hi, Renée, and well done! I think you’ve solved several of the remaining issues.<br /><br />I see that <i>stattu</i> is a slightly irregular form, yes? I wasn’t aware of that until now. I think I expected *<i>standu</i>. But yes, I think you’re right that this is what Tolkien wrote. <br /><br />I think you’re right about <i>hjá</i> as the preposition “beside” as well. Tolkien marked some long vowels, but not others, and this makes reasonable sense. It leaves unexplained the extra scribble, but I can live with that.<br /><br />I don’t think #5 looks crossed out to me. Not when you consider how definitely #6 and #20 are struck through. So this word is still at issue.<br /><br />As for #8, you might be right that it is the comparative/relative particle <i>sem</i>, but where do you think we’ve lost the verb for “knocks”? I have thought we were looking for “where/there + <i>knocks</i> + the thrush”, a standard Germanic syntactic construction. If you’re correct, and we have <i>þar sem</i>, then where is the verb? It could possibly be in #10 or #11, I suppose — that part is difficult to read — but I don’t see it. Or perhaps Tolkien accidentally omitted it. Any other thoughts?Jason Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05809154870762268253noreply@blogger.com