Tolkien Gateway - User contributions [en]

User talk:Vardelm

2008-03-26T22:05:02Z

Vardelm: /* Re: Baruk */

{{w|Hyarion|[[User:Hyarion|Hyarion]]}}

==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. -- [[User:Ederchil|Ederchil]] 12:28, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== 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.

--[[User:Vardelm|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. -- [[User:Ederchil|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.
::--[[User:Vardelm|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 Khazaddûm'''u''''' 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". -- [[User:Ederchil|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.
::::--[[User:Vardelm|Vardelm]] 18:05, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Gabilgathol

2008-03-26T20:06:50Z

Vardelm: fixed spelling of Gabilgathol in final sentence

'''Gabilgathol''' was the Dwarf-citadel that lay near in the southern part of the [[Blue Mountains]]. More commonly known by its [[Elvish]] name, [[Belegost]] meaning ''great fortress'' in Sindarin. '''Gabilgathol''' probably means the same thing as Belegost.

[[Category:Cities]]
[[Category:Khuzdul words]]
[[Category:Dwarven Kingdoms]]
[[de:Belegost]]
[[fi:Gabilgathol]]

Talk:Firebeards

2008-03-26T20:03:55Z

Vardelm: /* Nogrod */

==Nogrod==
Is there a clear reference anywhere that said the Firebeards settles in [[Nogrod]], and the [[Broadbeams]] in [[Belegost]]? -- [[User:Ederchil|Ederchil]] 08:06, 20 January 2008 (EST)

:I'm guessing this is the quote which the statement comes from: --[[User:Hyarion|Hyarion]] 19:38, 21 January 2008 (EST)
{{quote|Since the ancestors of the Firebeards and the Broadbeams awoke in the Ered Lindon, these kindreds must be presumed to be the Dwarves of Nogrod and Belegost.|''[[The Peoples of Middle-earth]], "[[Of Dwarves and Men]]"}}

::From what I've seen, there's a general consensus around the internet that the Firebeards were from Nogrod and the Broadbeams from Belegost. The quote above hints at that, given the order the names are given. I think also that, since the Nogrod dwarves were great smiths, the name "Firebeards" just seems to fit a little better, given the idea that smithing & forges use fire. Also, Belegost/Gabil-gathol translates as "Great Fortress", so the name "Broadbeams" fit the theme of broad/great(size). I would guess these associations have more to do with common perception than a quote from one of the HoME series.
::--[[User:Vardelm|Vardelm]] 16:03, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Bark

2008-03-26T19:37:51Z

Vardelm:

'''Baruk''' is a [[Khuzdul]] word which means "axes". The corresponding singular is '''bark'''. It's another example "broken plurals" in Khuzdul, similar to "khuzd" and "khazâd".

It's possible that "baruk" is actually a genitive case, meaning "axes of <something>" rather than just "axes". The phrase "baruk Khazâd" can be compared to a "construct pair" in Semitic languages, such as Hebrew and Arabic.

==References==
*[[Parma Eldalamberon]] 17, page 85.

[[Category:Khuzdul words]]

User talk:Vardelm

2008-03-26T19:06:33Z

Vardelm: /* Re: Baruk */

User talk:Vardelm

2008-03-26T18:34:22Z

Vardelm: /* Re: Baruk */

User talk:Vardelm

2008-03-26T18:10:00Z

Vardelm: /* Re: Baruk */

==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. -- [[User:Ederchil|Ederchil]] 12:28, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== 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.

--[[User:Vardelm|Vardelm]] 14:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Vardelm

2008-03-26T18:09:39Z

Vardelm: /* Re: Baruk */

User talk:Vardelm

2008-03-26T17:57:58Z

Vardelm: Re: Baruk

==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. -- [[User:Ederchil|Ederchil]] 12:28, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== 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.

Tumunzahar

2008-03-26T15:07:47Z

Vardelm: removed text that tumun=hollow and zahar=bold since we don't know that for a fact

'''Tumunzahar''' is the [[Dwarvish]] name for [[Nogrod]], the citadel of the [[Dwarves]] that lay in the central part of the [[Blue Mountains]], near [[Mount Dolmed]].

Tumunzahar is Khuzdul for '''Hollowbold'''.
[[Category:Cities]]
[[Category:Khuzdul words]]
[[Category:Dwarven Kingdoms]]

Bark

2008-03-26T15:04:27Z

Vardelm: added mention that baruk may be a genitive case

'''Baruk''' is a [[Khuzdul]] word which means "axes". The corresponding singular is '''bark'''. It's another example "broken plurals" in Khuzdul, similar to "khuzd" and "khazâd".

It's likely that "baruk" is actually a genitive case, meaning "axes of <something>" rather than just "axes". The phrase "baruk Khazâd" can be compared to a "construct pair" in Semitic languages, such as Hebrew and Arabic.

==References==
*[[Parma Eldalamberon]] 17, page 85.

[[Category:Khuzdul words]]

Bark

2008-03-26T15:01:52Z

Vardelm: changed comment about bark/baruk being one of "few" broken plurals in Khuzdul, because they seem to actually be common