Tolkien Gateway

User talk:Vardelm

Vardelm, welcome!

Hello and welcome to Tolkien Gateway. I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and we look forward to your future edits. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Council forums or ask me on my talk page. Keep up the great work! — Hyarion

[edit] Baruk

The reference given was written by Tolkien in the late fifties; the full entry, Parma Eldalamberon 17, page 85 reads:

"The language of the Dwarves is only seen in some geographical names and in the battlecries at Helm's Deep. It is Semitic in cast, leaning phonetically to Hebrew (as suits the Dwarvish character), but it evidently has some 'broken' plurals, more in Arabic style: baruk being the plural of bark 'axe', and Khazâd of Khuzd."

So while I agree with your first edit, I disagree with your second. -- Ederchil 12:28, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Re: Baruk

Could you please clarify which edits you agree or disagree with? Is it that you agree with baruk possibly being a genitive case and disagree with the idea that there are more than a "few" broken plurals in Khuzdul?

If so, I think we read Tolkien's statement that Khuzdul "evidently has some 'broken plurals" a bit differently. That difference is how much weight we place on "some". To me, I read into that "at least some, if not many" broken plurals. At the very least, it seems to be much more than what Hebrew has, otherwise why would he compare Khuzdul as being more like Arabic in that regard?

Also, all the examples of singular & plural nouns in the attested corpus are either broken plurals or lend themselves to being so. We have khuzd/khazâd, rukhs/rakhâs, and bark/baruk (or perhaps barûk if Khuzdul has Hebrew style construct states and it uses the same pattern as shathûr). The only other plurals we seem to have are tarâg and possibly bizâr, depending on which analysis of Azanulbizar you believe. Is it not significant that, of the very few examples we have of Khuzdul, pretty much all of the nouns show up as broken plurals? The only possible plural that doesn't follow this would be khizdîn, for which we have no translation and thus no evidence that it is a plural at all.

I look forward to your reponse and possibly an interesting discussion regarding Khuzdul's structure.

--Vardelm 14:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

I disagreed with the genitive case. If you look at how Tolkien translated mênu (as "accusative 2nd plural"), he would have mentioned if baruk was a possessive. I'm as puzzled as you are over why Tolkien mentioned "some" while (just about) every one we know is broken. As for Khizdîn, it's possibly Petty-Dwarvish: the Angerthas Moria/Erebor don't have the /î/, and only the Petty-Dwarvish names have it: Mîm, Khîm. Also in Parma Eldalamberon 17 (sorry no page number), Tolkien ditched Nulukkhizdîn, and favoured Narukâthan instead. -- Ederchil 14:13, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for the clarification. The only thing I can say regarding baruk vs. mênu is that Tolkien's notes & translations of Khuzdul seem to be just quick notes here and there. I don't think we can read too much into him not stating explicitly what form/case baruk is in. In my opinion, he would have surely been familiar with the Hebrew construct state. That we see baruk in a phrase meaning "axes of the Dwarves" indicates that it could be a genitive. Having shathûr, with its vowel pattern that would match barûk if Khuzdul has a Hebrew style construct state makes it a pretty strong argument. For khizdîn, I could see it being Petty-Dwarvish, and possibly their own name for themselves. Perhaps the -în is a plural suffix, similar to Hebrew -îm? As far as Narukâthan, that's the first I've heard of it! Very interesting! I have PE17 and will look it up when I get a chance. It seems odd that Nulukkhizdîn is the form that makes it into Silm.
EDIT: I can see now why you disagreed, since he explicitly said "baruk being the plural of bark 'axe'". It's hard to know how to interpret this. It could be taken literally, or taken with the understanding that baruk is the plural of bark, but just happens to be in the construct/genitive state. The basic issue I have is that if there is no special construct/genitive form, then the "X of Y" meaning is implied by simply having 2 nouns next to each other. If that's true, then how is a "X is Y" statement formed? I see nothing to indicate definite articles (used to express "X is Y" in Hebrew & Arabic), and I don't see anything that could be a verb meaning "to be" in Khazâd ai-mênu, since that's our only true sentence example.
--Vardelm 14:34, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
It's important to realise there are many "types" of genitive: I'm checking an old reader from a class I took four years ago. Genitivus possessivus, genitivus subjectivus, genitivus objectivus, genitivus partitivus, and probably some more I've missed in the quick scan. Baruk Khazâd would fall in the genitivus possessivus-category, whilst Uzbad Khazaddûmu is genitivus subjectivus. My knowledge of Semitic languages is virtually nihil, so I don't know if they have this difference.
As for the plural -im: it's not impossible: Adûnaic has a class plural -im, which probably is the ancestor of Westron plural -in. But this could have been a possessive too: *nuluk **"fortress (or the like)" + *khizdîn **"of the (Petty-)dwarves". -- Ederchil 17:44, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
I agree with the types of genitives, and I do think Khuzdul shows a couple. I'm not aware of the exact categories you mention, or at least not their formal names. IMO, uzbad Khazad-dûmu is an example of what I call an "objective genitive". That is, the root ZBD would be a verbal root meaning "to rule", and uzbad would thus be a noun meaning "ruler/lord". Khazad-dûmu is in an objective form from the -u ending. I base this idea on the objective genitive/compound in Adunaic. Basically, Khazad-dûm is the recipient of the action of the root, "to rule". So, uzbad Khazad-dûm (no -u suffix, so no objective case) would be just any lord who happens to be from or associated with Khazad-dûm, while uzbad Khazad-dûmu would be a lord who rules Khazad-dûm. Whether this qualifies as your "genetivus subjectivus" or "genetivus objectivus", I'm not sure. I lean towards objectivus since it seems to fit my interpretation.
--Vardelm 18:05, 26 March 2008 (EDT)