Array ( [0] => https://eldamo.org/index.html [1] => /index.html [2] => Array ( ) ) Contribution “melaitha-” by Sámo Collarwa - Discussion - Parf Edhellen: an elvish dictionary

Contribution “melaitha-” by Sámo Collarwa

Approved

These are the comments on Sámo Collarwa's contribution “militha-”.

militha-

 verb. "to lust (after)"

Derivations

  • √MILIK “*greed, lust”

Phonetic Development

DevelopmentStages
√MILIK > militha[milikta-] > [miliktʰa-] > [milixθa-] > [milīθa] > [miliθa]
Sindarin lust militha- to lust to lust (after)
Thank you! Your contribution was approved by Gilruin.
Gilruin #2371

First of all, again, thanks for contributing to Parf Edhellen and also thanks for all the well-formatted entries. (A minor technical detail, the Group should be “Neologisms”, not “Eldamo — fan inventions”, since your submissions do not appear on Eldamo).

Regarding the development of this word, I don’t think that ei > ai would apply here, since it only happens in final syllables. Also, I’d advise that you change the original form form miliktā- to milikta-: there are two very similar suffixes: -tā/-yā causatives (~ “make X”, e. g. tultā- “make come, cause to come → send for”) and -ta/-ya formatives (~ “do X”, e. g. KAY → caita- “to lie [down]” with no significant change in meaning). Here I believe you want a formative.

Sámo Collarwa #2379

I'll be sure to change the forms as appropriate. Though I changed ei to ai due to that mirroring the development of the verb raitha- ("to try, strive"). Unless, of course raitha- is merely an outlier, in which case I'll revert my entry to meleitha- instead.

Gilruin #2404

Yes, reitha- is a bit of a mess:

A further complication is added by the derivatives of √RIK- *’try’ (PE17:167). At first Tolkien wrote reitha *’strive’ with the apparent past tenses rithantem *’we strived’, rithantin *’I strived’. These forms can be well understood phonologically: CE *riktā > *reχþa (a-mutation and spirantization) > reitha (vocalization of χ). The past tense stem would be *riktant- > *riχþant- > rithant-, now without a-mutation because it only operates with final -ā (PE17:152). But Tolkien then wrote raitha which would be a rare example of ei > ai also in a non-ultimate syllable (another one is deleted bainia- (PE17:149)). Still, an e written over the word seems to indicate that the alternative reitha is also possible. Since these notes were written hastily and the readings are not entirely certain (according to the editors), raitha is likely to be an experimental form.
— On the diphthongs ei, ai in Noldorin and Sindarin, Roman Rausch

I would rather look at ek-tā > eitha-, *LEK-tya > leithia-, *NEK-ta > neitha-, tekta > teitha-

Also, I didn’t pay attention last time, it seems, because it is also rather unusual for verbs to undergo a-mutation, cf. ista- (not ??esta-), linna- (not ??lenna-), tiria- (not ??teria-)... (probably because the real forms that undergo the development are ista-ni, ista-ke..., so most verbs don’t show it by analogy to suffixed forms), so I wouldn’t use that either. All in all I would expect:

  1. MILIK → milikta-
  2. milikta-: voiceless stops aspirated after consonants except [s]
  3. milixþa-: aspirates became voiceless spirants
  4. milīþa-, milítha-: [x], [ɸ] vocalized between a vowel and [θ]
  5. optionally: militha-: [ī], [ū] often shortened in polysyllables
Sámo Collarwa #2406

Yes, that makes sense. I'll edit the development, then. Thank you for the clarification.