Sindarin Essays This section is for posting uncategorized essays on the Sindarin languages. Essays in this section may eventually be moved into more specific location (Phonology, Morphology, Syntax) depending on their topic. Vocalization of Spirants in Sindarin and Noldorin [Originally authored by Paul Strack in 2019 and presented at Omentielva Toltea . ] Abstract: It is well known that voiced and voiceless spirants frequently developed into vowels in both Sindarin and Noldorin to produce various diphthongs. This paper examines the conditions under which these vocalizations took place and how the resulting diphthongs developed. It does so by analyzing Tolkien’s statements describing spirantal developments in these languages and comparing them to the known etymologies of words from his other writings. In this paper I propose two major theses: 1) That spirantal vocalizations took place in two “waves”: an early (Old Sindarin/Old Noldorin) wave where the resulting diphthongs shared the same phonetic development as ancient diphthongs, and a second wave where the diphthongal developments could be distinct from ancient developments. 2) That spirantal vocalizations had distinct developments in Sindarin and Noldorin, with Sindarin sound changes depending largely on the quality of the consonant but Noldorin sound changes depending on the quality of the preceding vowel. This first thesis was original proposed by David Salo (GS, 2004) though there are some refinements I propose for his original theories as needed to address distinctions in Sindarin vs. Noldorin developments. For completeness, this paper also summarizes Roman Rausch's analysis of similar Gnomish and Early Noldorin phonetic developments in the 1910s and 1920s, from his two papers: Historical Phonology of Goldogrin (HPG, 2007) and Historical Phonologies of Ilkorin, Telerin and Noldorin around 1923 (HPITN, 2008). Previous Research The notion that Sindarin spirants could vocalize to form diphthongs is an old one in Tolkien linguistic studies. It appears as far back Jim Allen’s An Introduction to Elvish published in 1978, in articles written by Jim Allen, Chris Gilson and Bill Welden, based on the comparison of Q. tehta vs. S. taith “letter” (ItE, 1978, p. 127, 134). Roman Rausch examined this question (among others) for Tolkien’s earliest conceptions of the language from the 1910s and 1920s in his papers: Historical Phonology of Goldogrin (HPG, 2007) and Historical Phonologies of Ilkorin, Telerin and Noldorin around 1923 (HPITN, 2008). To provide a complete picture of the conceptual development of these vocalizations, I will cite Rausch’s research on the earliest iterations of the language at the appropriate places in this paper. To the best of my knowledge, the only recent attempt to examine the vocalization of spirants for the Noldorin and Sindarin conceptual stages of the language (1930s to 1960s) appears in David Salo’s A Gateway to Sindarin (GS, 2005). There are many details of Salo’s research with which I agree. In particular, Salo noted that these vocalizations took place in two waves: an early wave where the resulting diphthongs shared the same development as primitive diphthongs (GS/§4.24 - §4.26) and a later wave where the diphthongal developments from vocalized spirant could follow a different path (GS/§4.82, §4.87, §4.89, §4.90, §4.91). Unfortunately, I find some details of Salo’s research to be flawed, for two reasons. First, in his analysis Salo conflates the Noldorin and Sindarin conceptual stages, but as I intend to demonstrate, Tolkien’s conception of the vocalization process for spirants was not the same in both time periods. Second, there has been a great deal of additional material published in the years since Salo did his original research, including some explicit descriptions by Tolkien of the vocalization process for the Noldorin (PE22/39-40). Salo’s analysis of the process most closely aligns with the Noldorin phonetic developments. I will cite his conclusions and compare them to mine as part of the discussion of Noldorin developments. Notations Used For the most part I use Tolkien’s own notation for spirants rather than IPA notation, to make it easier to compare my analysis to Tolkien’s own writing. In particular, I represent spirantal sounds with the following glyphs: voiced velar spirant [ɣ]: ʒ , Tolkien’s preferred rendition of “yogh”, commonly represented by Unicode U+0292 (normally representing “Ezh”). voiceless velar spirant [x]: χ , Greek “chi”. voiced dental spirant [ð]: ð , Old English “edh”, but sometimes đ “d with stroke” or the digraph dh . voiceless dental spirant [θ]: þ , Old English “thorn”, but sometimes the digraph th . voiced bilabial spirant [β]: ƀ , “b with stroke”. voiceless bilabial spirant [ɸ]: ꝑ , “p with stroke”. Where I use IPA notation, mostly for individual phonemes, I put it in brackets [] as above. Furthermore, when quoting Tolkien, I sometimes clean up his punctuation for clarity. In particular, where Tolkien uses brackets [] as a parenthetical marking, I replace them with parentheses (), to make it easier to distinguish Tolkien’s own words from editorial additions. These I consistently put in brackets [], both my own and those of other editors. Extrapolated forms not appearing in Tolkien’s writing I mark with an asterisk *, but primitive forms that explicitly appear in Tolkien’s writings (which Tolkien himself frequently marked with an asterisk) I mark with a six-point star: ✶. Bilabial vs. labio-dental spirants: It is unclear what the exact character of labial spirants were at the time of vocalizations, whether they were bilabial [β], [ɸ] or labio-dental [v], [f]. I suspect it is mostly the former, and this paper discusses the sound changes as if this was the case, but bear in mind that the actual evidence of this is inconclusive. Sindarin and Noldorin Diphthongal Developments Before we can examine the vocalization of spirants, we must first discuss the phonetic development of diphthongs. This is because the vocalized spirants usually produced a diphthong, which then underwent various later sound changes. These diphthongal developments sometimes obscured the spirantal developments, and we cannot understand the latter without discussing the former. Primitive Diphthongs: For Sindarin, the best available description of diphthongal developments appears in notes associated with Eldarin Hands, Fingers & Numerals from the late 1960s, where Tolkien gave a chart of the phonetic developments of primitive dipthongs in Quenya, Telerin and Sindarin (VT48/7). I reproduce the Sindarin portion of this chart below: CE. ei, ai, oi, ui ou, au, eu, iu [S.] ē > ī, ae, ui, ui ō > ū, aw, iu, iu > ȳ For Noldorin, the most complete description of diphthongal developments appears in the Comparative Tables of phonetic developments from the mid 1930s, where Tolkien gave a chart with the developments of long vowels and diphthongs in all the Elvish languages (PE19/25). I reproduce the Noldorin and Old Noldorin diphthongal portion of this chart below: Val. ei ai oi ui ou au eu iu ON. oi, ui ę̄ > ei oi, ui ui ū ǭ > ǫu ou > ū ū ( ī ) N. ui ae ui ui ū au ū ū ( ī ) In the 1930s, Tolkien conceived of the Elvish languages as being derived from the Valarin tongue (PE19/18), and so he labeled Primitive Quendian as “Val.” in this chart. Unfortunately, the Noldorin entries in this chart do not entirely align with the diphthongal developments presented in The Etymologies . For examples, there is evidence of ei > ui in a set of deleted entries in first layer of The Etymologies , but later entries show ei > ī as in Sindarin: [deleted] √ GEY > N. guir “eternity” (Ety/GEY). [deleted] √ EY > N. uir “eternity” (Ety/EY). [deleted] ✶ Eigolosse > N. Uiloss “ever-snow” (Ety/EY). ✶ neinē > N. nîn “tear” (Ety/NEI). ✶ weı̯rē > N. Gwîr “Weaver” (Ety/WEY). ✶ ezdē > Ezde > Eide > ON. Īde > N. Îdh “rest” (Ety/EZDĒ). Similarly, the clearest examples of primitive ou in The Etymologies seem to show ou > au : √ NOWO > N. naw “idea”, N. nauth “thought” (Ety/NOWO). √ TOW > N. taw “of wool, woollen” (Ety/TOW). Note that there is a deleted marginal entry for a root √ ÑGOW ( ngō̆w ), but it shows a completely aberrant development ngō̆w > [ON.] ñgoe > [N.] nô (VT46/4) rather than the development described in the Comparative Tables . It seems likely that ei > ui and ou > ū in the Comparative Tables are holdovers of Early Noldorin developments from the 1920s, where these changes were the norm, as noted by Roman Rausch (HPITN/§4.2.4). Roman Rausch examined the development of diphthongs in the Gnomish of the 1910s (HPG/§1.2) and Early Noldorin of the 1920s (HPITN/§4.2.4). There was considerable variation at these early conceptual stages, but I summarize the more common results in the chart below, along with the common Noldorin and Sindarin developments: Primitive Diphthongs ei ai oi ui ou au eu iu Gnomish (1910s) ai, ē ai, ē ui ui ō au io, iw io, iw Early Noldorin (1920s) ui ai ui * ui ū au ū i Noldorin (1930s) ī ae ui ui au au ū ū Sindarin (1950s-60s) ī ae ui ui ū au iu > ȳ ȳ * Rausch noted that in Early Noldorin oiw > aiw (HPITN/§4.2.4), but this alternate phonetic development is not relevant for spirantal vocalizations. Later Diphthongs: In both Sindarin and Noldorin, late diphthongs produced by various means did not always have the same phonetic development as primitive diphthongs. Tolkien mentioned these later diphthongal developments in several places: Q Orome gives S Araw , from Oromē . > Orom̆ > Orow̯ (so finally) > Araw . ow new > aw , but old ow- > ū [PE17/99, from notes associated with of Galadriel’s Song from the 1st edition of The Lord of the Rings : NGS, PE17/61]. [ĕı̯] e or affected a + epenthetic ı̯ ... later became either [e] or becoming long was identified with [e͡i] ... [e͡i] e + ʒ, χ or affected a + ʒ, χ ; the same + i in contraction. Later length[ening] of ĕi [PE22/39, from notes on the Noldorin use of the Feanorian Alphabet written in the late 1930s; compare with primitive ei > ī above]. Of these, the late diphthong ei is most relevant to this discussion spirantal vocalization. As noted above, primitive ei became ī in both Sindarin and Noldorin, but the later diphthong ei often survived, sometimes reducing to e in Noldorin if short and unstressed and generally becoming ai in Sindarin final syllables, as discussed by Roman Rausch in his article On the Diphthongs ei, ai in Noldorin and Sindarin (DEANS, 2008). For example: ✶ eryā > eir > S. air “lonely” (PE17/28). ✶ pheryā > feir > S. fair “quick, ready, prompt” (PE17/181). √ NÁWAK > neweig > N. neweg , plural of nawag “dwarf” (Ety/NÁWAK). ✶ kalaryā > N. celeir “brilliant” (Ety/KAL). In this set of examples, the diphthong ei is the result of other vocalic changes such as a -affection and i -epenthesis (the same phenomenon that produced Sindarin/Noldorin plurals), but a similar set of phonetic developments apply to diphthongs produced by spirantal vocalizations as we will see below. Likewise, in Sindarin the later diphthongs oi (including ǭi > oi ) became oe in Sindarin as opposed to primitive oi > ui . Finding examples that don’t involve vocalized spirants is a challenge, but there are at least a few: ✶ gāyā [> * gǭia ] > S. goe “terror, great fear” (PM/363). ✶ thānĭ- [> * thǭni > * thoin ] > S. thoen , plural of thaun “pine-tree” (PE17/81; deleted forms). Although the second example was deleted, compare it to S. noeg plural of naug “dwarf” (UT/100) which probably had a similar phonetic development. Here is a summary of late diphthongal developments which differ from those of primitive diphthongs: Late Diphthongs ou oi ei Noldorin (1930s) au * ui * ei Sindarin (1950s-60s) au oe ei ( ai in final syllables) In Noldorin, items marked with a “*” are actually the same developments as those of primitive diphthongs. In the case of Noldorin, only the development of later diphthong ei is different from its ancient equivalent. In Sindarin, however, later diphthongs ou, oi, ei all have distinct developments from ancient diphthongs. First Wave Vocalizations in Old Sindarin/Noldorin The velar spirant ʒ [ɣ] was part of the phonetic inventory of the Common Eldarin, and disappeared at an early stage with various vocalic effects. However, these sound changes predate Sindarin/Noldorin and thus are not part of the discussion at hand. The first genuine Sindarin/Noldorin spirantal vocalizations were the result of combinations of voiced stops. Sindarin Combinations of Voiced Stops: Tolkien explicitly described the Sindarin phonetic developments for combinations of voiced stops in the Outline of Phonology [OP2] from the early 1950s. Focusing on the parts pertaining to Sindarin: The groups bd, gd, d + d survived only in a few old formations with the suffixal addition of -d , already obsolete in C. Eldarin; and one or two old words derived from the kalta-forms of extended KALAT-bases or stems with consonantal sequences x-g-d or x-b-d ... d + d could only occur by suffixion (the medials of KALAT-stems were never identical to the final consonant). As was the case with t+t in C. Eldarin, d+d > dᶻd > zd ... In Sindarin on the other hand [vs. Quenya developments] zd > d with lengthening of preceding vowel so early that these newer long vowels followed the same development as the original long vowels ( ā > ǭ/au ; ē, ī > ī ; ō, ū > ū ). The intervocalic d then > đ ( dh ) as usual. bd > u̯d > u̯ð and gd > ʒd > ı̯d > ı̯ð : the diphthongs so formed also followed the development of original diphthongs ( aı̯ > ae ; iı̯ > ī ; eı̯ > ī ; oı̯, uı̯ > ui ) [PE19/90-91]. This quote only describes the sound changes of voiced stops before dental stop d ; see below for other combinations. Although Tolkien does not explicitly say when these vocalizations took place, it seems likely they occurred in the “Old Sindarin” stage of the language’s development because of the mirroring of ancient diphthongal developments. There are also explicit statements on Tolkien’s part indicating the corresponding Noldorin changes took in Old Noldorin (see below). As this quote indicates, g became the spirant ʒ [ɣ] before other voiced stops. Tolkien is not explicit in his description of the spirantalization of b , but likely bd > * ƀd [βd] > u̯d > u̯ð analogous to the phonetic development of ʒ . These changes were early enough that the resulting diphthongs followed the same developments as primitive diphthongs. Of these, ei > ī was fairly early in Sindarin’s phonetic history, since any diphthong ei that developed later had distinct phonetic developments, as discussed in the previous section. This places these “first wave” spirantal vocalizations fairly early. Although not strictly speaking a spirant, it’s also worth mentioning the phonetic development of the voiced sibilant z before d . This voiced sibilant could arise in the Common Eldarin period (a) from the suffixal combination of d + d , as noted above, or (b) from the voicing of s before voiced stops (PE18/82). As described above, this z vanished with lengthening of the preceding vowel, also at a stage early enough that the resulting long vowels followed the same developments as primitive long vowels, for example: ē > ī . The only obvious Sindarin examples of these sound changes appear on the same page as this quote (PE19/91). With some intermediate changes added to clarify the likely phonetic developments, they are: ✶ khabdā [> * χaudā ] > S. haudh “funeral mound”. ✶ negdē [> * neɣdē > * neidē > * nīde ] > S. nîdh “juice”. ✶ snagdē [> * snaɣdē > * hnaiðe > * hnaeð ] > S. naeð “wound”. There are also examples of the development of d+d or sd > zd that demonstrate its phonetic development (disappearance with vowel lengthening), both on this page and elsewhere in the same document: ✶ reddā > rezdā [> * rēdā ] > S. rîdh “sown field” (PE19/91). ✶ ezdē [> * ēdē > * īdē ] > S. îdh “peace, tranquility” (PE19/91). ✶ mizdē [> * mīdē ] > S. mîdh “dew” (PE19/101). These all match the phonetic developments described above for zd . Noldorin Combinations of Voiced Stops: There are some analogous sound changes for Noldorin in the 1930s, but the details of the phonetic developments seem to be different: ✶ labdā > N. laudh “gluttonous eating” (PE19/45). ✶ libda > N. glúð “soap” (Ety/LIB²). ✶ negdē > N. nīdh “honeycomb” (VT45/38). ✶ khagda > N. hauð “mound, grave, tomb” (Ety/KHAG). The vocalization of b seems to mirror the (Old) Sindarin sound changes described above: bd > * ƀd > u̯d . Recall from the previous section that the ancient diphthong iu > ū in the Noldorin conceptual stage (vs. ȳ for Sindarin), so that the second example probably developed as: ✶ libda [> * (g)liuda ] > N. glúð . The third example might mirror the (Old) Sindarin developments with ei > ī , but the fourth example is problematic: there is no obvious way that ai > au . I think it is likelier that the early vocalization of ʒ [ɣ] in (Old) Noldorin resulted in vowel lengthening, with phonetic developments as follows: agd > ād : khagdā [> * khādā > * χǭda ] > hauð ; where later ā > ǭ > au egd > ēd : negdē [> * nēdē > * nīdē ] > nīdh ; where later ē > ī Likewise, the Old Noldorin vocalizations of z also seem to differ from (Old) Sindarin: ✶ ezdē > Eide > ON. Īde > N. Îdh “rest” (Ety/EZDĒ). ✶ mizdē > N. mídh “dew” (Ety/MIZD). ✶ mazgā > ON. maiga > N. moe “soft, pliant” (Ety/MASAG). Rather than disappearing with vowel lengthening as in (Old) Sindarin, it seems zd, zg > ı̯d, ı̯g , not unlike the (Old) Sindarin early vocalizations of ʒ . Tolkien in fact explicitly described these changes in his notes on the Old Noldorin use of the Feanorian Alphabet from the late 1930s: The sound [z] only occurred in zd, zg and rare zb . For each of these ON used a single letter @ S and W . The phonetic changes that overtook these groups do not therefore normally find expression in ON. The exhilic development suggests that @ W S became during ON [ı̯d, u̯b, ı̯g] but these letters continued in use [PE22/26 with the revisions described in note #78]. This quote, and the examples above, establishes the timing of these changes as occurring in Old Noldorin. There are no attested examples of zb > u̯b in The Etymologies which is not surprising given its supposed rarity. Based on these examples and notes, it seems the (Old) Sindarin and Old Noldorin vocalizations of ʒ and z are (almost) reversed: Primitive Elvish bd d+d gd Spirantalized ƀd zd ʒd Vocalized (Old Noldorin) u̯d ı̯d * V̄d Vocalized (Old Sindarin) u̯d V̄d ı̯d * Likewise zg > ı̯g in Old Noldorin, but zb > u̯b . David Salo also noted these phonetic developments, but his work was based only on the Noldorin examples, since the Sindarin information from OP1 was not yet available. His theories align with mine for the vocalization of bd (GS/§4.24) and zd (GS/§4.27), but for the vocalization of gd he proposed that it became ı̯d after front vowels like e (GS/§4.26) and u̯d after back vowels like a (GS/§4.25). His theory is consistent with the two examples we have ( khagdā > hauð and negdē > nīdh ) since ancient ei > ī . However, I prefer my theory because later Noldorin vocalizations of ʒ show i after a instead of u (see below). Without more examples, however, there is no way to know for sure which theory is correct. Other combinations of voiced stops: There are some notes appearing in the Outline of Phonology [OP2] from the early 1950s that discusses the vocalization of voiced spirants after z . These notes hint at what the phonetic developments might be for other combinations of stops: In Sindarin zd > ´d, đ but zg, zb > đʒ, đƀ > đa, đu , as in nadha “fetter” [< ✶ nazg- ], maða “mud” [< ✶ mazgō/ŭ ], buðu “large fly” [< ✶ buzbō ]. [PE19/101; the primitive forms appear earlier on the same page with Quenya derivations.] In this quote, the phonetic development of zd is exactly as described above, but the phonetic developments for zg, zb were distinct: the sound z became ð and the following stop becoming spirantal: đʒ, đƀ . The likely phonetic developments for the examples given above are: ✶ nazg- [> * nađʒ(a) ] > S. nadha . ✶ mazgō/ŭ [> * mađʒ(o) ] > S. maða . ✶ buzbō [> * buđƀ(o) ] > S. buðu . This likewise hints that dg, db might have become đʒ, đƀ , though these primitive combinations would be very rare (if not impossible). In these examples, the intermediate phonetic developments were a pair of voiced spirants, but it seems likely that the vocalizations of post-consonantal ʒ/ƀ did not occur until later, after final vowel losses. The vocalization of ʒ , in particular, mirrors similar late vocalizations where post-consonantal ʒ became final. These post-consonantal vocalizations of voiced spirants will be covered in another section of this paper. Note that the 1930s quotes discussed in the previous sub-section (with zd, zg, zb > ı̯d, ı̯g, u̯b ) had an early version that read as follows, with the original unrevised material in braces {}: The sound [z] only occurred in zd, zg and rare zb . For each of these ON used a single letter @ S and W . The phonetic changes that overtook these groups do not therefore normally find expression in ON. {The exhilic development (to ðw, ðı̯ ) suggests that W S became during ON [ðb, ðg], but these letters continued to be used. zd , however, became d , with lengthening of preceding vowel, and in consequence in late ON 2 was often substituted for @ } [PE22/26, before the editing described in note #78]. This deleted version of the quote mirrors the Sindarin developments described above: zb, zg > ðg, ðb > ði, ðw (> ðu ). It seems that Tolkien was considering these Sindarin developments as far back as the 1930s, though at this conceptual stage he rejected them; the replacement rules ( zd, zb, zg > ı̯d, u̯b, ı̯g ) match most of the examples in The Etymologies . There are, however, some deleted examples from the root MÁSAG that reflect Sindarin-style post-consonantal vocalizations: √ MÁSAG [> * maðʒas ] > N. maðias “softness, pliancy” (VT45/32). √ MÁSAG > madhgh [ maðʒ ] > N. mada “soft, pliant, yielding” (VT45/32; the expected form would be * maða ). Summary of Old Sindarin/Old Noldorin vocalizations: Here is an expanded table of probable spirantalizations and vocalizations in Old Sindarin and Old Noldorin: Primitive Elvish bd d+d gd zb zg Spirantalized ƀd zd ʒd varies varies Vocalized (Old Noldorin) u̯d ı̯d V̄d u̯b ı̯g Vocalized (Old Sindarin) u̯d V̄d ı̯d ðƀ † ðʒ † Based on these phonetic developments, I think it very likely that pairs of voiced stops generally became pairs of voiced spirants in both Sindarin and Noldorin, as was also the case for pairs of voiceless stops which ultimately developed into voiceless spirants (PE19/86; PE22/28). Pre-consonantal ƀ/ʒ vocalized in Old Sindarin and Old Noldorin as shown above, but post-consonantal ƀ/ʒ survived for a time in Sindarin, only to vocalize later (those marked with a “†” in the chart). Based on the Sindarin phonetic developments, it seems the first of a pair of voiced stops spirantalized a bit earlier than the second, so that pre-consonantal vocalizations took priority. This would only be relevant for bg, gb (perhaps > OS. u̯ʒ, ı̯ƀ , ON. u̯ʒ, V̄ƀ ), and these combinations must have been extremely rare, assuming they could occur at all. Second Wave Vocalizations in Sindarin/Noldorin The second wave of spirantal vocalizations occurred later, probably after Old Sindarin/Old Noldorin. A key indicator of the comparative lateness of these sound changes is again the development of the diphthong ei , which did not become ī as it did with earlier vocalizations. In this later stage, both voiced and voiceless spirants vocalized. In both Sindarin and Noldorin the later vocalizations of ʒ and χ occurred in the same contexts, but the ultimate results of these vocalizations differed in the 1930s versus the 1950s and 60s, as I will demonstrate below. Sindarin vocalizations of ʒ [ɣ]: Tolkien described this sound change for Sindarin in notes associated with Elvish numerals from the late 1960s: In Sindarin voiceless stops (i.e. p, t, k ) before nasals became voiced > b, d, g , and then together with the original voiced stops in this position became nasals before homorganic nasals ( tn, dn > nn ; pm, bm > mm ), but before other nasals became spirants as generally medially ( pn, bn > vn ; tm, dm > ðm , later ðv, ðw ; kn, gn > gn > in ; km, gm > gm > im > iv, iw ) [VT42/26]. Unlike the Old Sindarin vocalizations before voiced stops, v did not vocalize before nasals, but gn, gm > (probably) * ʒn, ʒm > ı̯n, ı̯m . Somewhat later, ı̯m > ı̯v and later still (if final) > ı̯w . Although not discussed in this quote, there are attested Sindarin examples that showing similar vocalizations before liquids r, l . Here is a list of obvious Sindarin examples, with likely intermediate changes added for clarity: √ MAGA [> * maglā > * mail(a) ] > S. mael (PE17/162). ✶ wagme [> * gwaim(e) ] > S. gwaew (PE17/034). √ MAG [> * magrā > * mair(a) ] > S. maer (PE17/172). ✶ tagra [> * tair(a) ] > S. taer (PE17/186). ✶ okma [> * oim(a) ] > S. oew (PE17/170). ✶ logna [> * loin(a) ] > S. loen (VT42/10). ✶ ugrā > ogra [> * oir(a) ] > S. oer (PE22/160). ✶ keglē [> * keil(e) ] > S. cail (UT/282). In all these examples, the vocalization of ʒ was obscured by later diphthongal developments: ai > ae ; oi > oe ; ei > ai , the last of these in final syllables only. The first of these diphthongal developments also applied to the ancient diphthong ai , but the two other diphthongal changes are distinct from ancient developments, where oi > ui and ei > ī instead. Thus there is a strong evidence that the second wave of vocalizations took place well after the first. This helps establish the timing of diphthongal developments as well, in particular showing that ai > ae took place later than other phonetic developments of ancient diphthongs. As noted above, it seems that any b > ƀ > v (or m > ṽ > v ) produced by later spirantalizations did not vocalized before nasals and liquids in either Sindarin or Noldorin. Examples where such v + nasal and v + liquid combinations survive include: S. levnui “fifth” (VT42/25-26) N. lhevnar “week” (Ety/LEP; VT45/27) N. cevn “earthen” (Ety/KEM) S. avras “precipice” (PE17/23) N. ovras “crowd, heap” (Ety/UB) N. glavrol “babbling” (Ety/GLAM). Sindarin vocalizations of χ [x]: Unlike ʒ , no explicit description of the vocalization of χ has been published for the Sindarin period, but there are numerous examples of it: ✶ maʒtā > maχtā > S. maetha- “to handle, wield” (VT47/6). √ PAKAT [> * paχþā ] > S. paeth “speech” (PE17/126). ✶ ek-tā [> * eχþā ] > S. eitha- “to prick” (WJ/365). √ NEK [> * neχþano ] > S. neithan “one deprived” (PE17/167). √ RUKU [> * gruχþa ] > S. gruitha- “to terrify” (WJ/415). ✶ nuktā- [> * nuχþa ] > S. nuitha- “to stunt” (WJ/413). Once we account for ai > ae , it seems the vocalizations of χ were exactly parallel of those of ʒ , with χþ > ı̯þ . All the published Sindarin vocalizations of χ occur before þ , but there may have been other conditions where this voiceless spirant vocalized; see the Noldorin discussion below. There is one extremely irregular example of the Sindarin vocalization of χ : √ RIK > S. raitha “strive” vs. Q. rihta (PE17/167). This example was first written reitha , then Tolkien revised it to raitha , and finally Tolkien wrote an e above it, possibly indicating the restoration of reitha . Furthermore, there are a number of inflected forms appearing immediately after it that all show rith- , including rithant (past) and rithanen (1st-sg past?). The form rith- (or * ríth- ) would be expected if χ vocalized to ı̯ ; reitha might be explained by a -affection in the uninflected form of i > e ; raitha might be explained by a (very abnormal) change of ei > ai in a non-final syllable. This entire note was hastily written. Since Tolkien considered having iχþa become variously iþa, eiþa or aiþa in the span of a single example, it seems he was rather uncertain of the appropriate result. Sindarin vocalizations of ꝑ [ɸ]: We only have one published example of the vocalizations of ꝑ in Sindarin, but its phonetic development seems distinct from the vocalizations of χ : √ LEP [> * leptā > * leꝑþa ] > S. leutha- “to pick (up/out)” vs. Q. lepta- (VT47/10). It is dangerous to extrapolate patterns from a single example, but it seems that ꝑþ > u̯þ versus χþ > ı̯þ . This would parallel the Old Sindarin vocalizations of ƀ vs. ʒ : ƀd > u̯d versus ʒd > ı̯d . One possible objection to this theory is that eu is not listed among the Sindarin diphthongs in The Lord of the Rings Appendix E. However, perhaps Tolkien omitted it because it was not a natural development of any primitive diphthongs, and was fairly rare. The word leutha- is not the only place the diphthong eu appears in Sindarin: it can also be seen in têw or tew “letter” (PE17/43-44). Other late u -diphthongs would have straightforward phonetic developments: ou > au , iu > ȳ , and au surviving unchanged. Noldorin vocalizations of ʒ [ɣ]: Tolkien described the Noldorin vocalizations of ʒ and χ in notes on the usage of the Feanorian Alphabet from the 1930s (PE22/39-40). They resemble the Sindarin pattern, but there are some differences: The long diphthongs — ON diphthongs, diphthongization of ON ō , or new diphthongs from short vowel + vowel (in contractions or in contact with vocalized ʒ, χ ), or from long vowels + epenthetic ı̯ ... [o͡u] ON au, ō or ŏ + ʒ, χ . archaic h. later > [au] q.v. ... [a͡e] older ai , as above; or ă + ʒ, χ . ]l later G[ondolic] ]Þ — usually ]Þ (beside ]l )... [e͡i] e + ʒ, χ or affected a + ʒ, χ ; ... l`B l~B later G[ondolic] lÖ — usually lÖ (beside l~B )... [ui] ON ui ; affect[ed] o, u + ʒ, χ ... .`B .~B later G[ondolic] .Ö — usually .Ö (beside .~B )... Based on this quote it seems that the Noldorin vocalizations of ʒ are: oʒ > ou > au aʒ > ai > ae eʒ > ei uʒ > ui Tolkien did not explicitly describe the conditions under which ʒ vocalized, but based on examples in The Etymologies , they are the same as in Sindarin: before nasals and liquids. Here is a representative sample: aʒ > ai : ✶ magrā [> * maʒra > * maira ] > N. maer “useful” (Ety/MAƷ|MAG). eʒ > ei : √ REG [> * regne > * reʒne > reine ] > rhein > N. rhain “border” (Ety/REG). iʒ > ī : √ RIG > [> * rigna > * riʒna > rīna ] > N. rhîn “crowned” vs. Q. rína (Ety/RIG). oʒ > ou : √ DOƷ/DÔ > dogme > dongme > ON. doume > N. daw “night-time, gloom” (Ety/DOƷ). As with Sindarin, the Noldorin vocalizations of ʒ are partly obscured by diphthongal developments like ai > ae and ou > au . The last example indicates the phonetics development of g and ʒ before nasals was more complex than it was in Sindarin, in that it seems first ʒ > g and then g became a velar nasal ng ( ñ or [ŋ]). It is unclear whether this velar nasal ñ vocalized directly or first developed to ʒ , but since Feanorian Alphabet quote above only mentions ʒ , I suspect first ñ > ʒ . Thus it seems that in Noldorin: oʒn > ogn > oñn > oʒn > oun Compare this to the much simpler Sindarin development of ogn > oʒn > oin . This Noldorin-style nasalization of voiced stops before nasals is explicitly discussed by Tolkien elsewhere in the same Feanorian Alphabet document, which describes the first half of this process (up to the nasalization of g to ñ ) in Old Noldorin (PE22/26): The PQ combinations ȵm, ȵn (from ȵ, ʒ + m, n ) appear to have given gm, gn , falling together with gm, gn from PQ k, g + m, n . Hence ON standard spelling xy x6 . Later here x g became [ŋ], as bm, bn > mm, mn , dm, dn > nm, nn ; but ON having no special sign for [ŋ] retained the gm, gn spelling. The nasality is indicated by the occasional spelling by b6 = ngm, ngn [in other words: ʒm, ʒn > ñm, ñn > gm, gn > ñm, ñn ]. Despite the sound changes described in Tolkien’s Feanorian Alphabet document, there are no clear examples of uʒ > ui in The Etymologies . Instead, we consistently see uʒ > ū : ✶ lugni > N. lhûn “blue” (Ety/LUG²). ✶ kuʒnā > N. cûn “bowed, bow-shaped, bent” (Ety/KUƷ). ✶ suglu > N. sûl “goblet” (Ety/SUK). There are similar vacillations in the vocalizations of χ , where the rules state uχ > ui but most of the examples show uχ > ū (see below). It may be that Tolkien changed his mind about the development of this combination. If so, it seems that in Noldorin ʒ vocalized to ı̯ after front vowels i, e, a , but to u̯ after back vowels o, u . This is the theory proposed by David Salo (GS/§4.87, §4.91), except that he intermingled it with Sindarin developments and said that sometimes oʒ > oi > oe (GS/§4.91). Noldorin vocalizations of χ [x]: The first quote above from the Feanorian Alphabet describing the vocalization of ʒ also state that χ vocalized with the same results (PE22/39-40): aχ > ai > ae eχ > ei oχ > ou > au uχ > ui This is (mostly) consistent with examples in The Etymologies : aχ > ai : ✶ taksē [> * taχsa > * taisa ] > N. taes “nail” (Ety/TAK). aχ > ai : ✶ yakta [> * yaχþe > * yaiþe ] > N. iaeth “neck” (Ety/YAK). eχ > ei : ✶ b’rekta [> * breχþa > * breiþa ] > N. breitho “break out suddenly” (Ety/BERÉK). iχ > ī : ✶ k’rikta [> * kriχþa > * krīþa ] > N. critho “reap” (Ety/KIRIK). oχ > ou : √ LOKH [> * loχsa > * lousa ] > N. lhaws [laus] “hair” (Ety/LOKH). oχ > ou : ✶ oktā [> * oχþa > * ouþa ] > N. auth “war” (Ety/KOT). uχ > ui : √ YUK [> * yukte > * yuχþe ] > N. iuith “use” (Ety/YUK). However, as with uʒ , most of the examples in the Etymologies actually show uχ > ū : √ SUK [> * suktu > * suχþo ] > N. sûth “draught” (Ety/SUK). √ LUK [> * lukte > * luχþe ] > N. lhûth “spell, charm” (Ety/LUK). √ LUK > N. lhûtha- “to enchant” vs. Q. luhta- (Ety/LUK). As noted above, perhaps Tolkien changed his mind on uχ > ui versus uχ > ū , or perhaps he decided that uχ > ui was conditional, only occurring after a “y”-sound [j] as in iuith . In any case, it seems the vocalizations of χ mirrored those of ʒ : vocalizing to ı̯ after front vowels i, e, a , but to u̯ after back vowels o, u . Also note that the examples N. taes and N. lhaws indicate the vocalizations took place before s as well as þ . This is the theory proposed by David Salo (GS/§4.90, §4.91), except that he intermingled it with Sindarin developments and said that generally uχ > ui (GS/§4.89, GS/§4.91). Noldorin vocalizations of ꝑ [ɸ]: There are a smaller number of Noldorin examples for the vocalization of ꝑ . These examples are not numerous enough to precisely establish a pattern, but the few clear examples seem to match the vocalizations of ʒ and χ : ꝑ > ı̯ after front vowels i, e, a , but > u̯ after back vowels o, u . Here is a complete list of examples with probable intermediate changes added: √ AP [> * apsa > * aꝑsa > * aisa ] > N. aes “cooked food, meat” (Ety/AP). √ LAP [> * lapsa > * laꝑsa > * laisa ] > N. lhaes “babe” (Ety/LAP). ✶ tupsē [> * tupsa > * tuꝑsa > * toꝑsa > * tousa ] > N. taus “thatch” (Ety/TUP). The last example taus is exceptionally obscure unless you recognize that final -se become -sa in Noldorin, as seen in ✶ khyelesē > khelesa > ON. kheleha “glass” (Ety/KHYEL(ES)) and ✶ peltakse > ON. pelthaksa “pivot” (Ety/PEL). Thus a -affection likely plays a role in the phonetic development of this word. It seems the base vowel u was lowered to o before the vocalization ꝑ , and the resulting diphthong ou developed to au as usual. David Salo proposed that ꝑ merged with χ before vocalizations: ꝑs > χs (GS/§4.82), and thus ꝑ and χ shared the same phonetic development. There is nothing to say that this didn’t happen, but also nothing to say that it did. I omit this sound change from my model simply because there is no direct evidence for it, but the sound change is certainly plausible. Roman Rausch suggests a similar possible sound change in Early Noldorin (see below for details). Salo did not address * leptā- > S. leutha- (VT47/10) since that example was published after he did his research. Salo did not acknowledge the possible role of a -affection in the phonetic development of N. taus , instead proposing an irregular and sporadic sound change of uχs/uχþ > oχs/oχþ , both for this word and the word N. sautha- (GS/§4.89): ✶ tupsē [> * tuꝑse > * tuχse > * toχse > * touse ] > N. taus “thatch” (Ety/TUP). √ SUK [> * suχþa > * soχþa > * souþa ] > N. sautha- “to drain” (Ety/SUK). Salo only specified the transitions * tuχse > * toχse and * suχþa > * soχþa ; I added the others to show the full phonetic history in his model. I think both these words are better explained by a -affection. However, since a -affection does not normally occur in a -stem verbs (being inhibited by various pronominal suffixes), I likewise must assume an irregular case of a -affection in the phonetic history of N. sautha- . At least there are other examples of this occurring, however: see the discussion of S. raitha above. Summary of second wave Sindarin/Noldorin vocalizations: Based on the evidence above, it seems that the vocalization of pre-consonantal spirants in Sindarin depends on the character of the spirant: ʒ , χ > ı̯ but ꝑ > u̯ . In Noldorin, however, it seems the vocalizations depend on the character of the preceding vowel: spirants > ı̯ after i, e, a but > u̯ after o, u . Here is a table of probable vocalizations in Sindarin and Noldorin based on the discussion above: Preceding Vowels i, e, a o, u i, e, a o, u i, e, a o, u Spirants ʒ + r, l, m, n ʒ + r, l, m, n χ + þ, s χ + þ, s ꝑ + þ, s ꝑ + þ, s Vocalized (Noldorin) ı̯ + r, l, m, n u̯ + r, l, m, n ı̯ + þ, s u̯ + þ, s ı̯ + þ, s u̯ + þ, s Vocalized (Sindarin) ı̯ + r, l, m, n ı̯ + r, l, m, n ı̯ + þ ı̯ + þ u̯ + þ u̯ + þ In both Sindarin and Noldorin, the vocalizations of both ʒ and χ are well attested, with examples of every vowel/spirant combination. Examples of χ -vocalization before s are rarer and appear only in Noldorin. Most likely this is because the primary source of [xs] in Noldorin was primitive [ks], but it seems that [ks] > [xx] > [x] in Sindarin, for example: S. ach “neck” < aks[ē] < √ AKAS (PE17/92); this fact was pointed out to me by Bertrand Bellet at Omentielva Toldea in August 2019. The Sindarin vocalizations of ꝑ > u̯ are based on a single example, * leptā- > S. leutha- , making that pattern of vocalization especially tentative. Noldorin ꝑ -vocalizations are a bit more numerous (3 examples) and match χ -vocalizations in all cases, once you account for the role of a -affection in ✶ tupsē > N. taus . Tolkien explicitly described the Sindarin vocalization of ʒ before nasals (VT42/26), and his description matches the patterns in the table. Tolkien also explicitly described the Noldorin vocalization of ʒ and χ in his notes on the Feanorian Alphabet (PE22/39-40). His stated rules match most of the attested examples in The Etymologies , except that he stated that uʒ, uχ > ui whereas almost all the examples show uʒ, uχ > ū . The examples in The Etymologies were likely written before Tolkien’s notes on the Feanorian Alphabet , so perhaps this represents a preliminary shift towards the Sindarin pattern of universal vocalization to ʒ, χ > ı̯ . There are a couple of Noldorin examples that don’t fit the patterns described above: N. iuith and iuitha- from √ YUK and sautha- from √SUK. I think the former is a conditioned change of uχ > ui after a “y”-sound [j], but it could instead represent some conceptual vacillation on Tolkien’s part. I think the latter is an example aberrant a -affection in an a -stem verb, and that it’s phonetic development therefore mirrored N. taus , but Salo proposed an alternate theory of irregular development for both these words (GS/§4.89) as discussed above. Post-Consonantal Vocalizations Post-consonantal vocalizations occurred for voiced spirants ʒ and ƀ (or more likely v ). These vocalizations differ from the pre-consonantal vocalizations, and the exact sound changes depended on whether the spirant was medial or had become final after vowel losses. Medial post-consonantal vocalizations: There are no published examples of medial post-consonantal vocalizations of ʒ in Sindarin. The Noldorin examples generally show ʒ > i . Since Sindarin (and presumably also Noldorin) had falling rather than rising diphthongs ( The Lord of the Rings Appendix E), presumably the resulting i was syllabic and did not form a diphthong with the following vowel: ON. Dirghel > N. Diriel (Ety/DER). ✶ stalgondō [> * thalʒon(d) ] > N. thalion “hero, dauntless man” (Ety/STÁLAG). √ TÁRAG [> * tarʒass(e) ] > N. tarias “stiffness, toughness, difficulty” (Ety/TÁRAG). √ MÁSAG [> * mazgasse > * maðʒass(e) ] > N. maðias “softness, pliancy” (VT45/32). The last example was deleted, since it shows a sound change of zg > ðʒ that Tolkien was unsure of during the Noldorin period of the 1930s. He ultimately adopted this sound change for Sindarin in the 1960s: see the section on First Wave Vocalizations in Old Sindarin/Noldorin above. In terms of the development of ʒ > i , however, it is consistent with the other examples, and it indicates that this sound change could occur after voiced consonants other than the liquids l, r . There are a few cases where ʒ > i did not occur: ✶ ulgundō > ulund > N. ulun “monster” (Ety/ÚLUG). N. thelyn plural of N. thalion “hero, dauntless man” (Ety/STÁLAG). del + gos/goth > EN. [Exhilic Noldorin] delos/deloth “abhorrence, detestation, loathing” (Ety/DYEL). The first two examples indicate that before high vowels like u, y (and probably also i ) the ʒ simply vanished instead of becoming i . Salo also noted that ʒ > i did not occur in N. delos (GS/§4.152), but without suggesting any explanation for this exception. My best guess is that it was a late compound coined (or reformed) after the sound change ʒ > i . The change of ʒ > i is the pattern David Salo proposed for medial post-consonantal vocalizations (GS/§4.152). He did not acknowledge any special development after high vowels except to note that probably iy > y (GS/§4.153), which more or less produces the same result. Final post-consonantal vocalizations: In cases where the spirant became final, the vocalizations were different. Tolkien discussed the Sindarin developments in notes from the Outline of Phonology [OP2] from the early 1950s: In Sindarin zd > ´d, đ but zg, zb > đʒ, đƀ > đa, đu , as in nadha “fetter” [< ✶ nazg- ], maða “mud” [< ✶ mazgō/ŭ ], buðu “large fly” [< ✶ buzbō ]. [PE19/101; the primitive forms appear earlier on the same page with Quenya derivations.] The sound change -ʒ > -a is well attested in both Sindarin and Noldorin, and there are examples of this change after liquids l, r as well as after ð . In addition to the examples above we have: ✶ phelgā [> * felʒ(a) ] > S. fela “mine, tunnel” (PE17/118). ON. phelga [> * felʒ(a) ] > N. fela “cave” (Ety/PHÉLEG). ON. sthalga [> * thalʒ(a) ] > N. thala “stalwart, steady, firm” (Ety/STÁLAG). ON. targa > targh > N. tara “tough” (Ety/TÁRAG; PE22/034). √ MÁSAG > madhgh [ maðʒ ] > N. mada “soft, pliant, yielding” (VT45/32; the expected form would be * maða ). The last example was a deleted in The Etymologies for the reasons outlined for maðias above, but it otherwise fits the pattern. Post-consonantal vocalizations of ƀ/v : The only example we have for a post-consonantal vocalization of b > ƀ is ✶ buzbō [> * buđƀ(o) ] > S. buðu “large fly” given above for Sindarin, where Tolkien states đƀ > đu . There are, however, similar vocalizations of v from primitive m in some rough etymological notes discussing Quenya and Sindarin words for “throne” from the late 1960s (PE22/148). These notes describe many possible developments, but the ones relevant to this discussion are: khadmā . χanmā > χanw̃ā > hanw̃a . [Q.] tarhanwa “throne”, high seat. ara . ... [S.] arahaðm . arahaðw , archaf . chaðw . haðw . ... [S.] haðma . haðwa , to seat. haðwad . arahaðwad . These notes are somewhat difficult to parse, but it seems that the primitive form of “seat” was khadmā . Its Quenya derivative was hanwa and its Sindarin derivative was: khadmā [> * chaðv(a) ] > chaðw > haðw [probably pronounced haðu ]. Note that one of the above forms, archaf , shows an inconsistent set of phonetic developments, and elsewhere on the same page Tolkien wrote “ dm > v . gm > u̯w . dagma , dau(v) .” It seems Tolkien was considering alternate developments whereby dm, gm > v, uw , which explains the alternate form archaf . An unrelated note from the late 1960s appearing along with the Shibboleth of Fëanor indicates that this alternate development might be North Sindarin: In the North Sindarin dialect, however, in final position only, CE tw, dw, thw, nw > dw, ðw, þw > b, v, f, m (VT41/8). Thus it appears the normal development of dm was dm > ðv > ðw , an obvious parallel of đƀ > đu above. The verb form haðwa- “to seat” indicates this development occurred medially as well. This same development was described on VT42/26: “ dm > ðm , later ðv, ðw ”. I think the most likely set of developments are zb, db > ðƀ > ðv , which blends with dm > ðv , all of which later becomes ðw . This combination survives medially, but becomes -ðu finally. Unlike ʒ , it seems ƀ was not vocalized after the liquids but instead survived to become [v], denoted by “f” when final in Tolkien’s orthography. For example: √ GALAB > S. alf “flower” (PE17/153, a deleted form). ✶ golbā > N. golf “branch” (Ety/GÓLOB). There are no obvious examples of -rf [-rv] derived from primitive rb , but there are plenty of examples of -rf derived from primitive rm , so it seems likely this spirantal combination survived as well. There are plenty of examples of rv, lv medially as well. Developments in plurals: The phonetic development of final -ʒ is a bit different in case of plural forms. The plural of N. fela “cave” is fili (Ety/PHÉLEG), probably from primitive * phelgi . Bertrand Bellet discussed the phonetic history of Sindarin plurals in his Vowel Affection in Sindarin and Noldorin (VASN), where he proposed that when final i vanished in plural forms it palatalized final consonants which then cause vowel-breaking and i -epenthesis in plural forms: * adani > * edeni > * edenʲ > * edein > edain plural of adan “man”. If a similar phenomenon applied to final -ʒ , it seems likely that the palatalized -ʒʲ > -i : * phelgi > * filʒi > * filʒʲ > fili . Salo proposed an alternate theory, with -ʒ > -a after low vowels like a, e (GS/§4.155) but -ʒ > -i after high vowels like i , based on the example * phelgi > * filʒ > fili (GS/§4.156). Salo’s model of i -epenthesis (GS/§4.99) did not incorporate Bellet’s proposed mechanism of palatalized final consonants, so Salo may not have considered the possibility of -ʒʲ > -i . I consider Salo’s alternate theory for the development of final -ʒ unlikely given the quote above where Tolkien explicitly stated zg > đʒ > đa as a general rule (PE19/101), but in fairness to Salo this quote was published after he did his research. It’s not clear what would have happened in the case of -ðƀi, -ðvi > -ðwi after consonants in plural forms, but given the example of ON. orkui > yrchy (Ety/ÓROK, VT46/7) and malui > mely (Ety/SMAL), my guess is -ðwi > -ðwʲ > -ðy . If so, the plural of S. budhu “large fly” would be * bydhy , but this is purely speculative. Summary of post-consonantal vocalizations: Summarizing the above phonetic developments in a single table: Spirants r, l, ð + ʒ r, l, ð + ʒ final r, l, ð + ʒ final r, l, ð + ʒ ðƀ Following Vowels e, a, o i, y, u a, e, o, u i - Vocalized (Noldorin) ri, li, ði r, l, ð -ra, -la, -ða -ri, -li, -ði * ðw Vocalized (Sindarin) * ri, li, ði * r, l, ð -ra, -la, -ða * -ri, -li, -ði ðw Developments marked with a “*” are not attested at that conceptual stage of the language. The medial vocalizations are only attested for Noldorin, and the vocalizations of ƀ/v are attested only in Sindarin. The vocalization of final -ʒi is based on a single Noldorin example (plural form fili ). It seems ðƀ, ðv > ðw medially, based on the developments of dm in haðwa- “to seat”, but > ðu only when final. However, ƀ/v did not vocalize after liquids r, l either medially or finally, remaining v instead which was written “f” finally in Tolkien’s orthography. Gnomish and Early Noldorin Development Roman Rausch explored the vocalization of spirants (among other topics) in Gnomish and Early Noldorin from the 1910s and 1920s, in his two papers: Historical Phonology of Goldogrin (HPG, 2007) and Historical Phonologies of Ilkorin, Telerin and Noldorin around 1923 (HPITN, 2008). I have little to add to his analysis. For completeness, I reiterate the results of his research here along with some representative examples. In this section ᴱN. is used to designate the Early Noldorin of the 1920s to distinguish it from the Noldorin (N.) of the 1930s. Likewise ᴱQ. is used to denote Early Qenya from the 1910s and 1920s. Combinations of voiced stops and sibilants: Rausch did not explore combinations of voiced stops because there are no clear examples to work from. Likewise there are no clear examples zb, zd, zg in Gnomish or Early Noldorin, but there is one example of a sibilant vocalization before a consonant in Early Noldorin, as noted by Rausch (HPITN/§4.1.3): ✶ kasla > ᴱN. caul “helmet” (PE13/140). It seems likely that this s voiced to z before l and then vocalized, but the exact process isn’t clear. Rausch pointed out that both asl > aul and asl > āl > aul are possibilities. Without further examples to draw on, I hesitate to make any conclusions. Vocalizations of ʒ : Rausch proposed that ʒ > ı̯ before n, l, ð in both Gnomish (HPG/§2.6) and Early Noldorin (HPITN/§4.1.3). Some obvious Gnomish examples are: ✶ sek’·ðana [> * seχðana > * seʒðana ] > G. saidhon “noon” (GL/66). ✶ foχo [> * foʒna ] > G. fuin “secret, dark” (GL/36). ✶ megđana > G. maidhon “midday” [deleted entry] (GL/56). ✶ Baʒ̔- > G. bain “clad” (GL/21). ✶ Baʒ̔- > G. bail “sheath” (GL/21). Some of these vocalizations are obscured by ei > ai and oi > ui . The first couple of examples are predicated on the assumption that χ became voiced ʒ before other voiced consonants, but this seems to be a reasonable assumption. The last two examples are a bit dubious, since the quote mark above ʒ̔ likely indicates that the primitive forms actually contained voiced palatal or palatalized spirants [ʝ] instead of velar [ɣ]; the analogous root in the Qenya Lexicon for Baʒ̔- seems to be VAẎA “enfold, wind about” (QL/100), and Tolkien often used the symbol Ẏ in this document to indicate “y”-sounds that originated from palatal spirants. There are also a number of Early Noldorin examples that show aʒ, eʒ > ai , with eʒ presumably passing through ei before becoming ai : ✶ dagnā́ > ᴱN. dain¹ “high, noble” (PE13/141, 161). ✶ dágniya > ᴱN. dain² “height, summit” (PE13/141, 161). ✶ dagla > ᴱN. dail “axe (blade)” (PE13/141; PE14/66). ✶ tegna [> * tein ] > ᴱN. tain “straight” (PE13/153, 165). Once we account for the obscuring changes whereby ei > ai and oi > ui , all these Gnomish and Early Noldorin examples are consistent with Rausch’s theories. Vocalizations of χ : Rausch likewise proposed that χ > ı̯ before þ, s in both Gnomish (HPG/§2.6) and Early Noldorin (HPITN/§4.1.3). Some obvious Gnomish examples are: ✶ kahta > G. caith “cause, reason, motive” (GL/24) vs. ᴱQ. ká “deed, act, fact” < √ KAHA (QL/43). ✶ ektī [> * eith ] > G. aith(i) “sword” vs. ᴱQ. ekte (GL/18). ✶ ektḷ [> * eithl ] > G. aithl “spring” (GL/18) vs. ᴱQ. ektele “fountain” (QL/35). ✶ leχ-sa [> * leis ] > G. lais “green sward, glade” vs. ᴱQ. lé “sward, glade” (GL/53). ✶ foχo [> * foχtha- > * foitha- ] > G. fuitha- “to hide” (GL/36). ✶ foχo [> * foχsa > * fois ] > G. fuis “hoard” (GL/36). One of the challenges of examining vocalizations in Gnomish is that in the 1910s both k and χ were part of the phonetic inventory of Primitive Elvish, and these could have distinct phonetic developments. In particular, it seems primitive χ vocalized consistently, but primitive k only vocalized in final clusters; kt > cth could survive medially: G. tectha- “to write” (GL/69) vs. ᴱQ. tekta- < √ TEKE (QL/90). G. mectha- “to aim at” (GL/57) vs. ᴱQ. mekte- < √ MEKE (QL/60). G. ectha “sword” (GL/31) vs. ᴱQ. ekte < √ EKE (GL/18); compare to G. aith(i) above. It is unclear whether c [k] remained a stop in cth or if the cluster fully spirantalized to (as χþ ). However, cth could vocalize medially in triconsonantal clusters, as noted by Rausch (HPG/§2.6): G. pactha- “utter, speak, talk” vs. G. paithri “speech”, G. paithron “orator” (GL/63). Medial survivals of cth do not occur in Early Noldorin of the 1920s. The some obvious Early Noldorin examples of χ > ı̯ are: ✶ kṛkta [> * kraχta ] > ᴱN. craith “circle” (PE13/140). ✶ surı̯akta > ᴱN. huiriaith “gale” (PE13/163). ✶ ekta > ᴱN. aith “thorn” (PE13/136). ✶ g’lamektá or ✶ k’lamektā > ᴱN. glavaith “blaze” (PE13/144, 162). ✶ loktu > ᴱN. luith “magic, spell” (PE13/149). ✶ siktā [> * seχta ] > heith > ᴱN. haith “moist” (PE13/147, 163). In the last example, the sound changes are obscured by a -affection, a new feature of Early Noldorin. Other vocalizations are obscured by ei > ai and oi > ui . These diphthongal changes seem to be less universal in the Early Noldorin period, however. For example, we see ᴱN. eitheb “thorny” vs. ᴱN. aith “thorn” (PE13/136, 158) and ᴱN. eithlos “fountain” vs. ᴱN. aithl “spring, fount” (PE13/158), which seems to indicate that ei > ai mostly in final syllables in the 1920s (as was the case in Sindarin in the 1950s and 60s). Similarly, there are a fair number of examples where oi remains unchanged, as noted by Rausch (HPITN/§4.1.3): ᴱN. oith “feud” vs. ᴱQ. ohta “war” (PE13/151, 164), likely from primitive * oktā ; compare with later ✶ oktā > N. auth (Ety/KOT). ᴱN. hoith “coitus” vs. ᴱQ. pukta or puhta (PE13/147, 163), likely from primitive * puktā ; here a -affection plays a role. ᴱN. oif “terror, phantom” vs. ᴱQ. oswe , both from ✶ okswē (PE13/151, 164). Since both ui and oi seem to derive from oχ in Early Noldorin, it’s not clear if there was a consistent phonetic rule here, or if Tolkien was gradually abandoning oi > ui in Early Noldorin as a step in the direction of the Sindarin sound change whereby the late-stage diphthongs oi became oe . Note that primitive diphthong oi > ui in Early Noldorin as noted by Rausch (HPITN/§4.2.4), so this could be an example of distinct early/late diphthongal developments in the 1920s. Vocalizations of ꝑ , ƀ : As with χ , one of the challenges of examining vocalizations of labial spirants ꝑ , ƀ in Gnomish is that they coexisted with stops p, b in the phonetic inventory of Primitive Elvish in the 1910s. It seems that like χ , primitive ꝑ consistently vocalized both medially and finally. On the other hand, while p, b, ƀ vocalized in final clusters, medial pth survived and b, ƀ > v in medial clusters. It is likely that ƀ > ꝑ before voiceless consonants and ꝑ > ƀ before voiced consonants, so there was some intermixing in these phonetic developments. As described by Roman Rausch (HPG/§2.7), in cases where these labials did vocalize, the results were consistently ꝑ, ƀ > u̯ in Gnomish. A representative sample: √ naf- [ naꝑ ]: [* naꝑsǝ >] G. naus “keen-witted”, [* naꝑta- >] G. nautha- “to hint at” vs. G. nafa “suspicion, inkling”, nafra- “to nose about” (GL/59). √ sap : [* sapthǝ >] G. sauth “hole, tunnel” vs. G. saptha- “to dig” (GL/67); compare also ᴱQ. sat ( sapt- ) “hole” from the root √ SAPA (QL/82). √ maƀ : [* maƀsǝ >] G. maus “pleasure” vs. G. mav- “to like”, G. mavri “appetite” (GL/57). √ kava- [ kaƀa ]: [* kaƀko >] G. caug “hunchback” and [* kaƀmǝ >] G. caum “knob” vs. G. cavra- “to stoop” (GL/25). As noted by Roman Rausch in his later paper discussing Early Noldorin (HPITN/§4.1.3), the few examples of the vocalization of ꝑ appearing in the word lists of the 1920s seem to show ꝑ > ı̯ : ✶ kapse > ᴱN. cais “leap” (PE13/140). ᴱN. maith “ravishment; seizure” vs. ᴱQ. mapta (PE13/163). Rausch suggested that perhaps first ps, pt > ks, kt in Early Noldorin, analogous to Salo’s suggestion that ꝑs > χs (GS/§4.82). In any case, it seems that in the 1920s both χ, ꝑ > ı̯ . However, the following pair of (unglossed) examples from a table of Early Noldorin diphthongs show a different set of developments (PE15/64): ✶ lopse > ᴱN. laus ✶ lepse > ᴱN. leus These two examples were not discussed in Rausch’s paper. If we account for the sound change ou > au , these two examples indicate the vocalization of ꝑ > u̯ , as was the case in Gnomish. These two examples may represent lingering Gnomish ideas, a bridge between the Gnomish pattern of the 1910s (where the vocalizations of ꝑ were distinct from those of χ ) and the Noldorin pattern of the 1930s (where the vocalizations of ꝑ and χ were the same). Post-consonantal developments: As discussed by Roman Rausch (HPG/§2.6; HPITN/§4.1.3), there are a few examples of medial post-consonantal vocalizations of ʒ in Gnomish and Early Noldorin of the 1910s and 1920s which follow the same patterns as the Noldorin of the 1930s, namely ʒ > ı̯ : G. Losiar variant form of Losgar = lôs + gar (GL/54). G. nosied “kinsman” = nos + ged , which was revised from earlier nosged (GL/38). ᴱN. thalion “warrior, hero” < ᴱ✶ stalgond- (PE13/153), an etymology that reappeared in the 1930s. As shown by the alternate unvocalized forms Losgar and nosged , it seems Tolkien wasn’t entirely committed to this sound change at the earliest conceptual stages. There don’t seem to be any clear examples final vocalizations of ʒ in Gnomish, but the Early Noldorin phonetic developments resemble later Noldorin/Sindarin: -ʒ > -a , as noted by Rausch (HPITN/§4.1.4): ᴱ✶ balga > ᴱN. bala “hump”, plural bely (PE13/138). ᴱ✶ gr:go [gṝgo] > garg > ᴱN. gara “throat”, plural gery (PE13/144). ᴱ✶ stalga > ᴱN. thala “valiant; hardy, bold”, plural thely (PE13/153). The plural forms in these examples seem to show that -ʒi > -y rather than to -i , as seen in the Noldorin plural fili of N. fela from the 1930s. Summary of Gnomish/Early Noldorin vocalizations: The following table summarizes the vocalizations discussed in this section: Spirants ʒ + ð, l, n χ + þ, s ꝑ + þ, s s, l + ʒ final l, r + ʒ final l, r + ʒi Vocalized (Gnomish) ı̯ + ð, l, n ı̯ + þ, s u̯ + þ, s si, li ? ? Vocalized (Early Noldorin) ı̯ + ð, l, n ı̯ + þ, s ı̯ + þ, s si, li -la, -ra -ly, -ry General Conclusions At all conceptual stages, the consonants ʒ , χ and ꝑ of various origins became vowels before other consonants, generally becoming ı̯ or u̯ and forming diphthongs with preceding vowels, but occasionally vanishing with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel. The voiced bilabial spirant ƀ likewise vocalized sometimes to u̯ , but often remained as labio-dental v . In Gnomish of the 1910s, these pre-consonantal vocalizations depended on the character of the lost consonant: ʒ , χ > ı̯ and ꝑ > u̯ , but in Early Noldorin wordlists of the 1920s ꝑ > ı̯ as well. In the Noldorin of phonetic developments of the 1930s, the vocalizations depending on the character of the preceding vowel: ʒ , χ , ꝑ > ı̯ after the front vowels a, e, i but > u̯ after the back vowels o, u . In Sindarin of the 1950s-60s it seems the Gnomish paradigm was restored, with ʒ , χ > ı̯ and ꝑ > u̯ , but the phonetic development of ꝑ at this conceptual stage is based only on a single example ( leutha- ). In both Noldorin of the 1930s and Sindarin of the 1950s-60s, there were two waves of vocalizations. The first wave was in Old Sindarin/Old Noldorin where ʒ and ƀ (and z ) vocalized before voiced stops. The timing of this early wave can be detected by the development of the diphthong ei , which had the same development as primitive diphthong ei > ī in the first wave, as opposed to its later development in the second wave where it either survived or (in Sindarin) became ai in final syllables. The voiced velar spirant ʒ also vocalized after consonants, becoming ı̯ medially at all conceptual stages, except that it merely vanished before high vowels u, y (and probably also i ): the only clear examples before high vowels are from the Noldorin of the 1930s. When becoming final after other vowel losses, -ʒ instead became -a at all conceptual stages, except in plural forms where -ʒ > -y (in Early Noldorin) or -i (in Noldorin). We also see ðƀ, ðv > ðw > (if final) ðu , but the only clear examples of this are in Sindarin. A summary of the developments at all conceptual stages are given below: Old Sindarin/Old Noldorin Vocalizations Primitive Elvish bd d+d gd zb zg Spirantalized ƀd zd ʒd varies varies Vocalized (Old Noldorin) u̯d ı̯d V̄d u̯b ı̯g Vocalized (Old Sindarin) u̯d V̄d ı̯d ðƀ † ðʒ † The examples marked with a “†” vocalized later (see Post-consonantal Vocalizations below). There is not information to determine the analogous vocalizations in Gnomish and Early Noldorin (if any). Later Pre-consonantal Vocalizations Preceding Vowels i, e, a o, u i, e, a o, u i, e, a o, u Spirants ʒ + ð, r, l, m, n ʒ + ð, r, l, m, n χ + þ, s χ + þ, s ꝑ + þ, s ꝑ + þ, s Vocalized (Gnomish) ı̯ + ð, r, l, m, n ı̯ + ð, r, l, m, n ı̯ + þ, s ı̯ + þ, s u̯ + þ, s u̯ + þ, s Vocalized (Early Noldorin) ı̯ + ð, r, l, m, n ı̯ + ð, r, l, m, n ı̯ + þ, s ı̯ + þ, s ı̯ + þ, s ı̯ + þ, s Vocalized (Noldorin) ı̯ + ð, r, l, m, n u̯ + ð, r, l, m, n ı̯ + þ, s u̯ + þ, s ı̯ + þ, s u̯ + þ, s Vocalized (Sindarin) ı̯ + ð, r, l, m, n ı̯ + ð, r, l, m, n ı̯ + þ, s ı̯ + þ, s u̯ + þ, s u̯ + þ, s Not all combinations are attested for every conceptual stage of the languages, but the table above illustrates general trends. Post-consonantal Vocalizations Spirants r, l, ð + ʒ r, l, ð + ʒ final r, l, ð + ʒ final r, l, ð + ʒ ðƀ, ðv Following Vowels e, a, o i, y, u a, e, o, u i - Vocalized (Gnomish) si ? ? ? ? Vocalized (Early Noldorin) li ? -ra, -la -ry, -ly ? Vocalized (Noldorin) ri, li, ði r, l, ð -ra, -la, -ða -ri, -li ? Vocalized (Sindarin) ? ? -ra, -la, -ða ? ðw > ðu [if final] Medial post-consonantal vocalization of sg > si is seen only in Gnomish, and only sporadically. In the case of final post-consonantal vocalizations, the “following vowel” was an earlier vowel that disappeared as part of the normal process of final vowel loss. Phonetic developments with lost final -i differ, perhaps due to a palatalization of the preceding consonant: -ʒʲ > -y (Early Noldorin) or -i (Noldorin). Note that some of the proposed phonetic developments above are based on a very small number of examples. As with any analysis of Tolkien’s languages, the conclusions of this paper must be consider preliminary pending the publication of further material. One of the complaints I’ve made about David Salo’s analysis of these phonetic developments is that he oversimplified things by treating the Noldorin of the 1930s and the Sindarin of the 1950s and 60s as a parts of a single conceptual paradigm, and some of his conclusions are incorrect as a result. However, this paper likewise simplifies its analysis by treating the 1930s and 1950s/60s as only two distinct paradigms. There are probably conceptual shifts within those time periods that are not obvious based only on currently published information. Just as some of Salo’s conclusions remain relevant but others are now dubious, it is likely that future publications will necessitate further refinements of the theories presented here. Works Cited Allen, Jim. An Introduction to Elvish (ItE). Bran's Head Books Ltd, 1978. Bellet, Bertrand. “Vowel Affection in Sindarin and Noldorin” (VASN). Arda Philology 1 . Stockholm: Arda Society, 2007. First presented at Omentielva Minya , 2005. http://www.tolkiendil.com/langues/english/i-lam_arth/vowel_affection_sindarin_noldorin . Rausch, Roman. Historical Phonology of Goldogrin (HPG). 8 October 2007. http://sindanoorie.net/art/Gold_phon.html . Rausch, Roman. On the Diphthongs ei, ai in Noldorin and Sindarin (DEANS). 5 January 2008. http://sindanoorie.net/art/ei_ai.html . Rausch, Roman. Historical Phonologies of Ilkorin, Telerin and Noldorin around 1923 (HPITN). 4 April 2008. http://www.sindanoorie.net/art/1923_phon.pdf . Salo, David. A Gateway to Sindarin (GS). The University of Utah Press, 2004. Sindarin Genitive Constructs [ Originally posted by Ellanto 2025-09-16 on VLDS] What I refer to as a "genitive construct" is the kind of genitive formation characteristic of Semitic (or perhaps Afro-Asiatic) languages on the one hand, and Insular-Celtic languages on the other hand; I am not aware of any languages outside these two families that have this type of construction, but please correct me if I'm wrong. What sets these genitive constructs apart from other types of genitive formations is that only the final noun in the sequence of nouns in a genitive relation can take on the definite article, and if the final noun is definite, then the entire phrase is treated as definite for all intents and purposes. In other words, we have the following pattern in Celtic and Semitic languages: X Y the-Z = "the X of the Y of the Z" X Y Z = "an X of a Y of a Z" Putting an article in any other place is entirely ungrammatical. The evidence we have in Sindarin fits with this pattern, with the exception of 5 examples, which is why this pattern is relevant. As far as I am aware, the majority of syntactical analyses of genitive constructs in Hebrew agree on the general principle of how these formations are derived in such a way that the definite article is blocked everywhere except on the last noun: movement of the head noun (the possessed item) from its base position upwards to where the definite article would be (the last element does not move, because it is not itself the head of a construct, and so it can have an article). I have seen some non-movement analyses, for both Semitic constructs and Welsh, but they are riddled with theoretical and empirical problems, often to the point of not providing any explanation for the lack of articles to begin with, and as such it seems reasonable to assume that the movement is necessary. Now, what happens to adjectives? Attributing adjectives are adjoined (or merged, to use modern terms) at a level below the definite article, but above the level at which a genitive phrase is adjoined (because a genitive phrase is essentially a complement). This results in different behaviours depending on whether the adjective is adjoined to the left or to the right.  I'll add a picture with schematic illustrations of the structures, to make the explanation clearer. In the picture, X and Y are nouns and Adj is an adjective; where X and Y both appear, X is the head of a genitive construct (the possessed noun), and Y is the genitive noun (the possessor). In (1a) we have the adjective adjoined to the right of a non-construct noun (with a definite article), i.e. following it; in (1b) it is adjoined to the left, i.e. preceding it (as it does in English). In (2) we have a genitive construct: the line denotes the base position of X, which moves upwards to where its article would've been, and the Y is the genitive phrase, which is a complement to the base position of X. As I mentioned above, the adjective adjoins above the genitive phrase, as we can see in (3), where Adj is attributed to X. If adjectives adjoin to the right, as in (1a), then we end up with the situation in (3a), with the adjective ending up at the very end of the construct (no matter how many elements are in the constructed and to which element it is attributed). This is the situation in Hebrew. If, however, adjectives adjoin to the left, as in (1b), then we end up with the situation in (3b), with the adjective immediately following after the noun it is attributed to inside the construct, even though when there is no construct the adjective would precede the noun. This is not quite the situation in Welsh, which is more complicated - I'll address that below. First let's circle back to the original question. As I said yesterday, côf 'waeren (= 1a) is equivalent to côf Bel 'waeren (= 3a). However, Sindarin in principle also allows the adjective-first form gwaeren gôf, though it is not the standard/unmarked form. IMO the best way to account for this syntactically is by allowing Sindarin to optionally switch from its default (1a) to the (1b) format, which is more marked. Thus, gwaeren gôf (= 1b) is therefore equivalent to côf 'waeren Bel (= 3b). This alternation between (1a) and (1b) is where Sindarin differs from Hebrew, which can only ever do (1a), and ostensibly also from Welsh, which also doesn't show variable word order with adjectives as far as I know. So what happens in Welsh? In Welsh the genitive constructs behave as in (3b), but non-construct nouns precede adjectives, unlike (1b). The noteworthy analyses I've seen account for this by assuming Welsh underlyingly has (1b), but it has an additional mandatory movement even in non-construct nouns. So in non-constructs the noun moves once, without blocking the article, and thus appears to the left of the adjective after all; and in constructs it moves again, this time blocking the article. This analysis depends on how quantifiers behave in Welsh, which, as far as I can tell, is different from how they behave in Hebrew, and, IMO, Sindarin's quantifiers behave more like in Hebrew than in Welsh. So IMO it is quite possible that whatever Welsh does is simply impossible for Sindarin, at least naturalistically, which is what led me to my conclusions above. But I've already written two walls of text, so I'm inclined to leave this part of the discussion for another day Adjectival Mutations in Sindarin [Originally authored by Paul Strack in 2026] Introduction The mutation of adjectives in Sindarin and its conceptual precursors is a fairly well established feature of the language. For example, in the Gnomish Grammar of the 1910s, Tolkien said “For the rules of adjectival initial mutation see page 1a” (PE11/15), where adjectives following nouns underwent the same mutations seen after the definite article i . Likewise, adjective mutations after nouns was a feature of the Early Noldorin Grammar of the 1920s (PE13/124). However, the notion of adjective mutation is not obvious from The Lord of the Rings itself. This is because many of the adjectives in The Lord of the Rings do not mutate, and the few adjectives that do mutate such as Parth Galen “Green Sward” (LotR/417) are not obviously mutated forms. In Jim Allan’s 1978 book An Introduction to Elvish , there is no mention of mutation of adjectives mutating after nouns (p. 70). In Allan’s book the words galen “green” was considered distinct from calen seen in words like Calembel , Calenhad , Calenardhon , since the meaning of those words (and their connection to “green”) was not stated in The Lord of the Rings . I have been unable to determine when the Elvish linguistics community became aware of adjective mutation, but it was a known feature of (Neo) Sindarin systems by the early 2000s. However, it was also known that adjective mutation was sometimes omitted. This fact was noted in both David Salo’s 2004 book A Gateway to Sindarin (p. 102) and Helge Fauskanger’s descriptions of Sindarin on his Ardalambion website. The publication of Parma Eldalamberon #23 in 2024 indicated that Tolkien himself was uncertain of the precise nature of adjective mutation. In a 1969 document on Sindarin Mutations (PE23/142-144), he wrote: In the case of nouns and adjectives where these were placed together, if they were in any close syntactic relation, the second had a mutated initial according to phonetic development; but this was not always observed in practice [my emphasis]. It was normal when an adjective preceded a noun; since this was the original normal order in CE, and such collocations thus descended from the period during which the mutations developed phonetically. But when either a) the adjective was placed second, or b) two nouns were juxtaposed, there was hesitation; and in the Exilic period the regular usage adopted was not always the phonetic one (PE23/143). It is not clear what Tolkien meant by “not always observed in practice”. However, in this other contemporaneous documents like the 1969 Common Eldarin Article (PE23/133-140) he seems to be reexamining The Lord of the Rings and trying to reconcile some inconsistencies, and inconsistent adjective mutation may have been one of the things he was trying to reconcile. It is my contention that in a period from the 1940s into the early 1950s, adjective mutation after nouns was not a regular feature of the Sindarin language, as evidenced by drafts of The Lord of the Rings as well as The Lord of the Rings itself. Mutation of Juxtapositional Genitives It is well-known that Tolkien made a similar reversal in mutational patterns for nouns in juxtaposition, which are used in Sindarin to form genitival relationships. This can be seen by comparing Tolkien’s writings of the 1930s and 40s to his writings in the 1950s and 60s, where Noldorin mutated nouns were frequently revised to Sindarin unmutated nouns: N. Ennyn Ðurin Aran Vória (TI/182) vs. S. Ennyn Durin Aran Moria “Doors of Durin Lord of Moria” (LotR/305). N. Dagor Vregedúr (LR/280) vs. S. Dagor Bragollach “Battle of Sudden Flame” (S/151). N. Dor Granthir (LR/265) vs. S. Dor Caranthir “Land of Caranthir” (S/124). N. Inias Veleriand (LR/202) vs. S. Inias Beleriand “Annals of Beleriand” (MR/200). N. Nan Gurunír (TI/420) vs. S. Nan Curunír “Valley of Saruman” (LotR/487). In the 1950s and 60s, there are very few examples of nouns mutating after other nouns other than in compounds. The only obvious example I can find is { Raith >} Fui ’Ngorthrim “Paths of the Dead” from Tolkien’s “Unfinished Index” of The Lord of the Rings (RC/526). There is also Sarn Gebir “Stone-spikes” which seems to be a hold over from the 1930s-40s conception (LotR/391; RC/327; TI/283; LR/363), and Gil-galad where Tolkien originally considered the second element to be a mutated form of calad “light” < KAL (LR/348; RS/179), but later conceived of it as unmutated galad “radiance” < ÑGAL (PM/347). This conceptual shift in the mutation of juxtaposed nouns indicates that one way that a mutation “was not always observed in practice”, since juxtaposed nouns was one of the two cases Tolkien mentioned on PE23/143. It is thus possible the same applied to adjectives following nouns, which might likewise (sometimes) not show mutation. Adjective Mutation in the Lord of the Rings Looking at The Lord of the Rings itself, very few adjective forms are obviously mutated. The only two clear examples are: S. Parth Galen “Green Sward” (LotR/417). S. Pinnath Gelin “Green Hills” (LotR/771). There are also a number of examples that are obviously not mutated: S. Barad-dûr “Dark Tower” (LotR/555). S. Emyn Muil “Drear Hills” (LotR/373; RC/334). S. Ered Mithrin “Grey Mountains” (LotR/1064). S. Fen Hollen “Closed Door” (LotR/826; RC/550). S. Imloth Melui “Lovely Flowery Vale” (LotR/866; RC/582). There are some ambiguous examples as well. Dol Baran (LotR/589) was probably intended to be unmutated “Brown Hill” when it was originally written, since Dolbaran was listed with baran “brown” in The Etymologies of the 1930s under the root BARÁN (LR/351). But in later notes Tolkien reconceived of it as “Bare Hill” where its second element was mutated paran “bare” < PAR “peel” (PE17/86). There was also Rath Dínen “Silent Street” (LotR/826) which was probably unmutated dínen when The Lord of the Rings was written given Amon Dîn “*Hill of Silence” (LotR/747). Compare also 1948 Q. lína- “be silent”, probably derived from DIN (PE23/76). However, in his Unfinished Index of The Lord of the Rings Tolkien said both of dínen and dîn were adjectives meaning “silent, quiet”, and mutated from tínen and tîn respectively (RC/551). In the same index he said that Fen Hollen should have been mutated as Fen Chollen (RC/550). This gives us three additional examples that were probably unmutated when originally written, but were redefined as mutated forms: Dol Baran “Brown Hill” from BARAN >> Dol Baran “Bare Hill” from PAR. Rath Dínen “Silent Street” from *DIN >> Rath Dínen “Silent Street” from *TIN. Fen Hollen “Closed Door” from KHOL or SKOL >> Fen Chollen “Closed Door”. A final example of interest is Iarwain Ben-adar “Oldest and Fatherless” (LotR/265), where Ben-adar “Fatherless” appears to be adjectival. In notes written after the 1st edition of The Lord of the Rings , Tolkien said ben- was mutated pen- “-less” from the root PEN “lack”, which he contrasted with PED “incline, slope” (PE17/171). But in The Etymologies of the 1930s, PEN meant “slope” (LR/380), so it seems possible that Tolkien did not introduce PEN “lack” until after the 1st edition of The Lord of the Rings , so that ben-adar could have had a different etymology when it was first introduced. As indicated by the above and with the major exception of calen → galen “green”, it seems the majority of adjectives after nouns were originally unmutated in the The Lord of the Rings as first published. However, its seems in notes written by Tolkien leading up to the 2nd edition, he felt that many of these adjectives should have been mutated, and modified the etymologies of some of them to support this. Thus it seems possible that while The Lord of the Rings was being written, adjective mutation after nouns was not the norm. Adjective Mutation in the Lord of the Rings Drafts To test whether the above hypothesis is correct, we should also examine noun-adjective juxtapositions in drafts of The Lord of the Rings , especially the combinations that did not appear in the published version. One example is Dûn Caron “Red Valley”, the initial name of Nanduhirion , also appearing as Doon-Caron , Carndoom , and Caron-dûn (RS/419; RS/433 note #13), comparable to Carn Dûm , the (untranslated) name of the chief settlement of Angmar from the published The Lord of the Rings (LotR/146). In these instances, it seems that dûn is “valley” and caron is “red” and neither are mutated, but compare tum “valley” from elsewhere in Tolkien’s writings which indicates dûn “valley” might originally have been a mutation (LR/394). There is also Cris-caron “Red Pass” appearing in the same context, again with an unmutated adjective caron (RS/419). Another example of non-mutation is Ered Myrn “Black Mountains”, the earliest name for Ered Nimrais (TI/124). This example is especially interesting since Tolkien revised this to the compound Eredvyrn , indicating that mutation in compounds was normal but mutation of independent adjectives was not. There is also Kerin-muil , a draft name for Nen Hithoel (TI/364). This muil might be an adjective as it was in later Emyn Muil , but it could also be a noun as in Ilk. muil “twilight” < MUY from The Etymologies (LR/374). There is Ennyn Dûr “*Dark Gates” [revised to Mornennyn ] as the name of the gates to Mordor, as well as Nelig Myrn and Naglath Morn “*Black Teeth” = “Teeth of Mordor” for the gate towers (WR/113, 122). An earlier name of Rammas Echor was Ramas Coren (WR/288), perhaps meaning “*Round Wall” given corn or coron “round, globed” < KOR from The Etymologies (LR/365). There are also various unmutated adjectives that appeared in both the drafts and the published version: Barad-dûr “Dark Tower” (TI/178). Dol Baran “*Brown Hill” (WR/120). Emyn Muil “*Drear Hills” (TI/424). Imloth Melui “Silent Street” (WR/396). Rath Dínen “Silent Street” (WR/288). For mutated adjectives, both Parth Galen and Pinnath Gelin also appeared in their mutated forms in the drafts (WR/280, 307, 437). In addition we have Tol Galen “*Green Isle” which had an alternate name Toll-ondren “*Rocky Island” = “Carrock”, also mutated (TI/268, 271). The second name seems to have a mutated adjective gondren “*rocky, of rock”, but it could instead be a compound rather than an adjective mutation. Finally there is mutated Tol Varad “Defended Isle” as the earliest name of Cair Andros (WR/326). However, this could be a loose translation of “*Tower Ilse” since barad is normally translated “tower”, so that it is a noun-noun juxtaposition rather than noun-adjective. This gives us a fairly long list of unmutated adjectives in Lord of the Rings drafts, the last five of which also appeared in the published version: Dûn Caron “Red Valley” (RS/419). Cris-caron “Red Pass” (RS/433). Ered Myrn “Black Mountains” (TI/124). Kerin-muil “?Hidden Enclosure” (TI/364). Ennyn Dûr “*Dark Gates” (WR/113). Nelig Myrn and Naglath Morn “*Black Teeth” (WR/113, 122). Ramas Coren “*Round Wall” (WR/288). Barad-dûr “Dark Tower” (TI/178). Dol Baran “*Brown Hill” (WR/120). Emyn Muil “*Drear Hills” (TI/424). Imloth Melui “Silent Street” (WR/396). Rath Dínen “Silent Street” (WR/288). For (possibly) mutated adjectives we have: Parth Galen “Green Sward” (WR/307). Pinnath Gelin “Green Hills” (WR/280, 437). Tol Galen “Green Isle” (TI/271). Tol Varad “Defended Isle” (WR/326). Toll-ondren “Carrock, *Rock Island” (TI/268). First two also appear in the published version, and the last two might not represent normal adjective mutation: Tol Varad might be a noun-noun and Toll-ondren might be a compound. Assuming this is true, the main examples of adjectives mutating after nouns in The Lord of the Rings and its drafts all involve the adjective calen “green”. Taken together, this gives us strong evidence of adjective non-mutation in Lord of the Rings drafts of the 1940s and early 1950s in the lead up to the publication of the 1st edition. Adjective Mutations in The Silmarillion and Other Texts Notes on The Feanorian Alphabet from the 1930s had the short phrase i vegli vorn “the black bear” (PE22/33) which is a clear example of adjective mutation, similar to the system described in the Early Noldorin Grammar of the 1920s (PE13/124). Silmarillion notes and drafts of the 1930s had a mixture of mutated and non-mutated adjectives: Unmutated: N. Amon Dengin “Hill of Slain” (LR/314). N. Nan-tathren “Land of Willows” (LR/261). N. Dagor Delothrin “Terrible Battle” (LR/405). Mutated: N. Dalath Dirnen “Guarded Plain” (LR/299). N. Tol Galen “Green Isle” (LR/305). The final version of The Silmarillion also had a mix. Since The Silmarillion is a collection of edited materials from various periods, assigning precise dates to each name is difficult. Unmutated: S. Nan-tathren “Land of Willows” (S/120). Mutated: S. Ard-galen “Green Region” (S/106). S. Ered Wethrin “Shadowy Mountains” (S/118). S. Talath Dirnen “Guarded Plain” (S/168). S. Tol Galen “Green Isle” (S/123). Ambiguous: S. Dor Dínen “Silent Land” (S/121). S. Talath Rhúnen “East Vale” (S/124). S. Laer Cú Beleg “Song of the Great Bow” (S/209). Dor Dínen “Silent Land” is ambiguous for the same reason as Rath Dínen from The Lord of the Rings : it is not certain what Tolkien imagined the unmutated form to be. However, in one note from 1970 Tolkien had the clearly-mutated Dor Dhínen (WJ/333). Talath Rhúnen could be considered ambiguous since it was long assumed that the mutated form of initial voiceless rh- (< sr- ) would be thr- , but in Common Eldarin Article written in 1969 and published in 2024, Tolkien made it clear that rh did not mutated in modern Sindarin (PE23/136). Going by its gloss, Laer Cú Beleg could end in an unmutated adjective beleg “strong”, but the actual meaning could instead be “*Song of the Bow of Beleg”, where Beleg is a proper name. Regardless, there seem to be more instances of mutated rather than unmutated adjectives in The Silmarillion , especially compared to The Lord of the Rings . This is generally true of Tolkien’s writings later in the 1950s and 60s. Tolkien’s Unfinished Index of The Lord of the Rings from between the 1st and 2nd edition had clearly-mutated Cûl Bîn “Little Load” and Cûl Veleg “Bigload” (RC/536). The Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60 had Bar-goll “Hollow [ coll ] Dwelling” (WJ/414). Notes on The Rivers and Beacon-hills of Gondor from the late 1960s had Lô Dhaer “Great Fen” (VT42/14), though it also had Côf gwaeren Bel “Windy Bay of Bel” without mutation (VT42/15). Pauline Bayne’s 1970 map of Middle-earth had Eryn Vorn “Dark Wood” as an addition by Tolkien (RC/lxv). Unmutated: S. Côf gwaeren Bel “Windy Bay of Bel” (VT42/15). Mutated: S. Cûl Bîn “Little Load” (RC/536). S. Cûl Veleg “Bigload” (RC/536). S. Bar-goll “Hollow Dwelling” (WJ/414). S. Lô Dhaer “Great Fen” (VT42/14). S. Eryn Vorn “Dark Wood” (RC/lxv). Silmarillion notes from around 1970 also a mixture of adjective mutations. Athrad Daer “Great Ford” was contradicted by Athrad Dhaer (WJ/335, 338). Duin Daer “Great River” (WJ/336) was contradicted with Duin Dhaer (WJ/191). In the tale of Aldarion and Erendis dated to around 1965, this adjective had the unmutated form daer in Lond Daer “Great Haven” (UT/263) and Lond Daer Enedh “Great Middle Haven” (UT/264). These examples (and Lô Dhaer ) indicate ongoing vacillation between mutation and non-mutation of adjectives late in Tolkien’s life, since the unmutated form was definitely daer as in the name Daeron (VT42/11). 1965: S. Lond Daer “Great Haven” (UT/263). 1965: S. Lond Daer Enedh “Great Middle Haven” (UT/264). 1967-9: S. Lô Dhaer “Great Fen” (VT42/14). 1970: S. Athrad Daer “Great Ford” (WJ/335) vs. Athrad Dhaer (WJ/338). 1970: S. Duin Daer “Great River” (WJ/336) vs. Duin Dhaer (WJ/191). There are a few more noun-adjective juxtapositions from the Unfinished Tales , all dating to around or after the publication of the 1st edition of The Lord of the Rings : Unmutated: S. Emyn Duir “Dark Mountains” (UT/280). Mutated: S. Curunír ’Lân “Saruman the White” (UT/390). S. Nan Laur “Valley of Gold(en Light)” (UT/253). All told, there are comparatively few unmutated adjectives in Tolkien’s writings after the 1st edition of The Lord of the Rings . If we exclude the vacillations between daer and dhaer “great” and dínen and dhínen “silent”, there is: S. Côf gwaeren Bel “Windy Bay of Bel” (VT42/15). S. Emyn Duir “Dark Mountains” (UT/280). S. Nan-tathren “Land of Willows” (S/120). S. Laer Cú Beleg “Song of the Great Bow” (S/209). As noted above, the last example is ambiguous because it might be Beleg as a name rather than an adjective. Nan-tathren may be holdover from earlier Nan-tathrin or Nan Tathrin which dates all the way back to the 1910s as the compound Nantathrin (PE11/67). Possible Explanations for Non-Mutation Before examining possible reasons for non-mutated adjectives, we should first return to the previously-mentioned 1969 notes on Sindarin Mutations: In the case of nouns and adjectives where these were placed together, if they were in any close syntactic relation, the second had a mutated initial according to phonetic development; but this was not always observed in practice [my emphasis] (PE23/143). In this document, Tolkien did not indicate why noun-adjectives did not always undergo mutation, so we must seek explanations from elsewhere in his writings. Non-Mutation of m : In notes associated with the contemporaneous Common Eldarin Article (CEA), Tolkien seems to have noticed the frequent non-mutation of m in The Lord of the Rings , and was perhaps looking for a solution for it: Great relief if mutation of m could be avoided. It actually occurs v[ery] rarely in LR. Only case I can find is Menelvagor , I 91; silivren [<] silmarin , I 250; but not used in Imloth Melui , III 142, 244! Vagor must then < bakār , bagor . But Menelmagar must be [from] magar [given Q. Menelmacar ]. Say m > ṽ , but m retained grammatically after article and in adj. concord to avoid confus[ion] with b (PE23/138 note #12). In the main text of CEA Tolkien went on to add a marginal note describing how mutation of m did not always occur for grammatically, but the mutation of m still applied as a medial phonetic development including in compounds: This mutation [of m to ṽ ] was preserved in early records (and is reported to have been maintained in Doriath, where however the ṽ remained nasal). But generally it was abandoned as a [grammatical] mutation (it occurred very frequently medially and also even at [the] beginning of second elements of compounds), because of the resulting confusion with mutation of b– (after denasalizing of ṽ ) as in morn , black, born , hot, malt , gold, balt , force. The mutation was earliest given up in adjectives, cf. Imloth Melui (PE23/136). The inclusion of “[grammatical]” is an editorial addition on my part, but I think this is clear from context since he is contrasting non-mutation after the definite article and adjectives following nouns versus mutation in the middle of words include compounds. It may not be a coincidence that three of the unmutated adjectives in The Lord of the Rings begin with m : Emyn Muil , Ered Mithrin , and Imloth Melui , the last of which was specifically cited in CEA. Tolkien decision that m did not mutate could have been motivated by a need to explain these non-mutations in The Lord of the Rings . As a counterexample, there is na vedui “at last [ medui ]” (LotR/209). It is possible Tolkien simply missed this in CEA, but it also possible that mutation here is conditioned by the preceding preposition na rather than because it was an adjective. It is unfortunately difficult to tell whether the above was a 1969 revision to mutational behavior of m or if something like it was a feature of the language while The Lord of the Rings was being written. For example, m did not undergo grammatical mutation in the Gnomish Grammar of the 1910s (PE11/7) or the Early Noldorin Grammar of the 1920s (PE13/121), but m -mutation did appear in phonological charts from the 1930s (PE19/19). If Tolkien reversed himself in the 1940s so that m did not undergo grammatical mutation, this would explain a fair number of adjective non-mutations in The Lord of the Rings . However, there is the draft inscription on the Gates of Moria where m -mutation did occur: Ennyn Ðurin Aran Vória (TI/182). There is also the mutated of mellon “friend” as mhellyn in the King’s Letter from the unused epilogue to The Lord of the Rings (SD/129), and the revision of unmutated mín to mutated vín “our” in Sindarin prayers from the 1950s (VT44/21-22). Non-Mutation of d and h : Several of the other adjective non-mutations in The Lord of the Rings involve an initial d : Barad-dûr and Rath Dínen , and in drafts Ennyn Dûr . It is known that Tolkien hesitated to use dh in Lord of the Rings drafts, as with 1940s N. Caradras (RS/433) and N. Fanuidol (TI/306) vs. later S. Caradhras and S. Fanuidhol (LotR/283). This omission was likely because English speakers wouldn’t know how to pronounce dh . Tolkien’s use of Fen Hollen rather than Fen Chollen might have been similarly motivated, to avoid readers mispronouncing it as English “ch” rather than German “ch”, comparable to Rohan vs. “proper Sindarin” Rochan . If true, then Tolkien might have been motivated by purely orthographic concerns in some cases of apparent non-mutation. Note, however, Tolkien did have ú-chebin “I have kept no” in Lord of the Rings appendices (LotR/1061). Non-Mutation of Other Initial Consonants: There are a number of other examples like Dol Baran , Cris-caron , and Ramas Coren that do not fit either of the above explanations. Given the preponderance of non-mutating adjectives in The Lord of the Rings , I think the simplest explanation was that, at the time The Lord of the Rings was being written, adjective mutation after nouns was not a feature of the language. This does beg the question why calen “green” in particular was consistently mutated: Parth Galen , Pinnath Gelin , and in drafts Tol Galen . Given the apparent non-mutation of c in Cris-caron and Ramas Coren from Lord of the Rings drafts, it seems unlikely this was purely a phonological consideration. Perhaps there was something about unmutated calen that Tolkien found aesthetically unpleasing, or perhaps in the 1940s this word was based on the variant root GAL rather than KAL; this last possibility was suggested to me by Vyacheslav Stepanov via private correspondence. Conclusion As discussed above, I think there is strong evidence that adjective mutation after nouns was not a normal feature of the Noldorin/Sindarin language as Tolkien imagined it in the 1940s while writing drafts of The Lord of the Rings , and this continued into the published form, at least for the 1st edition. He seems to have at least partially reversed himself in the period between the 1st and 2nd edition, contriving new explanations for existing forms to treat them as mutated, though other forms remained uncorrected. He may have made initial m non-mutating in notes from 1969 (CEA) to further explain some of these inconsistencies, though there is also 1970 Eryn Vorn from Pauline Bayne’s map of Middle-earth. There is a known but currently-unpublished Noldorin grammar and phonology from the 1940s that could shine further light on this matter. Bibliography Allan, Jim. An Introduction to Elvish . The Bath Press, Bath, 1978. Fauskanger, Helge. Ardalambion - Sindarin . https://www.ardalambion.org/sindarin.htm . Salo, David. A Gateway to Sindarin . The University of Utah Press, 2004. Primary Sources LotR: Lord of the Rings, 50th Anniversary One-Volume Edition ; J.R.R. Tolkien; 2004, original publication 1954-55 S: Silmarillion ; J.R.R. Tolkien, (editor) Christopher Tolkien; 1977 RC: The Lord of the Rings: a Reader’s Companion ; Wayne G. Hammond, Christina Scull; 2005 LR: Lost Road and Other Writings ; J.R.R. Tolkien, (editor) Christopher Tolkien; 1987 RS: Return of the Shadow ; J.R.R. Tolkien, (editor) Christopher Tolkien; 1988 TI: Treason of Isengard ; J.R.R. Tolkien, (editor) Christopher Tolkien; 1989 WR: War of the Ring ; J.R.R. Tolkien, (editor) Christopher Tolkien; 1990 SD: Sauron Defeated ; J.R.R. Tolkien, (editor) Christopher Tolkien; 1992 MR: Morgoth’s Ring ; J.R.R. Tolkien, (editor) Christopher Tolkien; 1993 WJ: War of the Jewels ; J.R.R. Tolkien, (editor) Christopher Tolkien; 1994 PM: Peoples of Middle-Earth ; J.R.R. Tolkien, (editor) Christopher Tolkien; 1996 PE11: Parma Eldalamberon #11 ; J.R.R. Tolkien, (editors) Christopher Gilson, Patrick Wynne, Arden Smith, Carl Hostetter; 1995 PE13: Parma Eldalamberon #13 ; J.R.R. Tolkien, (editors) Christopher Gilson, Carl Hostetter, Patrick Wynne, Arden Smith, Bill Welden; 2001 PE17: Parma Eldalamberon #17 ; J.R.R. Tolkien, (editor) Christopher Gilson; 2007 PE19: Parma Eldalamberon #19 ; J.R.R. Tolkien, (editor) Christopher Gilson; 2010 PE23: Parma Eldalamberon #23 ; J.R.R. Tolkien, (editors) Arden Smith, Christopher Gilson; 2024 VT42: Vinyar Tengwar #42 ; J.R.R. Tolkien, (editors) Carl Hostetter, Bill Welden; July 2001 VT44: Vinyar Tengwar #44 ; J.R.R. Tolkien, (editors) Patrick Wynne, Arden Smith, Carl Hostetter, Bill Welden; June 2002 Soft Mutation in Sindarin Grammar [Originally authored by Paul Strack in 2026 as a draft entry for Eldamo] Overview Soft mutations are a significant feature of Sindarin grammar. Tolkien described their grammatical function at some length in a document referred to as Sindarin Mutations written in 1969 (SM69), where he said: A feature of Sindarin grammar was the mutation of the initial consonants of words. This was due to two things: the divergence between the development of consonants medially and in absolute initial position; and the close phonetic association of words in groups that were closely connected syntactically. The initial consonants in such groups tended to develop as they would medially in an integral word (PE23/143). And also: ... only in S. were the consonantal developments medially and in absolute initial position markedly different ... In S. the initials were treated as if in compounds. But these originally purely phonetic developments became features of grammar, and were in many points modified and formalized (PE23/144). Thus consonantal mutations were originally a purely phonetic phenomenon, the result of different phonetic developments at the beginning versus in the interior of words. Certain closely associated words developed phonetically as if they were in a compound, so that the initial consonants of the second word developed differently then they would as an independent word. Over time, these sound changes were formalized and regularized, becoming features of Sindarin grammar. Tolkien gave an example of this phenomenon in a 1972 letter to Richard Jeffery: ... palan-tîriel should phonetically > -thíriel [a nasal mutation], past participle “having gazed afar”; but grammatically before actual forms of verbs, the soft mutation only was normally used in later S., to avoid the confusion with other verb stems (Let/427). [The result was palan-díriel as in The Lord of the Rings ]. In the aforementioned 1969 notes (SM69), Tolkien gave the following conditions as the main cases where mutations occurred: Nouns preceded by an adjectival or pronominal modifier. Adjectives following a noun or pronoun that they modified. Nouns following verbs as a direct object, or adjectives in similar position after a predicate verb like “appear, seem, become”. Verbs immediately following their subject. Proclitic words like prepositions or conjunctions. In the last case, the preposition/conjunction can mutate the following word, and can themselves be mutated by the preceding word. Two additional cases were not mentioned in SM69, but appear regularly in Sindarin phrases elsewhere in Tolkien writings. Nouns following a definite article. A verb or adjective following an adverb. Definite Articles The singular definite article i “the” induces soft mutation on a following word, but the plural definite article i(n) induces nasal mutation. See the entry on the definite article for further discussion. Nouns Following Adjectives According to SM69, nouns following adjectives or other modifiers are mutated. This mutation is largely hypothetical, because the usual position of adjectives in Sindarin is after the noun they modify, as noted by Tolkien in various place: “The adjectival element usually follows in Sindarin” (PE17/36) and “In S. the simple genitive was usually expressed by placing the genitival noun in adjectival position (in S. after the primary noun)” (RGEO/67). There are, however, a few specific examples of an adjective preceding a noun in word phrases. In SM69, Tolkien mentioned that er “one, sole, only” always preceded the noun (PE23/142). There is another example from the Túrin Wrapper written around 1950: sí il chem en i Naugrim en ir Ellath thor den ammen “*now all hands of the Dwarves and Elves will be against to us” (VT50/5). This phrase is untranslated, but Carl Hostetter suggested il chem could mean “all hands”, where chem is a mutated plural of cam “hand” (VT50/22, 24). Regardless of its meaning, this word was originally given as unmutated cem , so the mutation appears to be c → ch . This is not a soft mutation ( c → g ), so very likely it is a liquid mutation induced by the l of the preceding word. It is possible that er “one” also induces liquid mutation when preceding a noun: * er cham “one (single) hand”. If this is true, it seems that the mutations caused by adjectives preceding nouns are more conservative phonetically than adjectives following nouns, since adjectives following nouns pretty consistently undergo soft mutation regardless of the historical phonetic environment. It could be that these pre-noun adjectives function more like prepositional mutations where the exact mutation might depend on the particular word. Regardless, I would assume these specialized mutations are limited to adjectives that always preceded the noun, such as er “one” and [maybe] il “all”. Other adjectives likely induced soft mutation on the following noun, as they often did in compounds. Compare: pêl galen “a green field” (normal order) vs. calen bêl “a green field” (abnormal order, perhaps used in poetry) vs. Calembel “Greenham” (as a compound word). Nouns Following Nouns (Juxtapositional Genitives) In SM69, Tolkien did not list the mutation of nouns after other nouns as one of the main grammatical mutations of Sindarin. However, he did say: In the case of nouns and adjectives where these were placed together, if they were in any close syntactic relation, the second had a mutated initial according to phonetic development; but this was not always observed in practice ... when either a) the adjective was placed second, or b) two nouns were juxtaposed, there was hesitation; and in the Exilic period the regular usage adopted was not always the phonetic one (PE23/143). The most common reason for noun-noun juxtaposition is genitive construction, what I refer to as the juxtapositional genitive . It is well-known that, by the 1950s and 60s, such juxtapositional genitives did not involve mutations. Compare: aran cîr lim “king [of] swift ships” with no mutation vs. aran na chîr lim with mutation due to genitive proposition na(n) (PE17/147). However, this was not always the case. In the 1930s and 40s, it was normal for the second noun in a juxtapositional genitive to undergo soft mutation. Compare 1940s Ennyn Ðurin Aran Vória (TI/182) vs. 1950s Ennyn Durin Aran Moria (LotR/305). When Tolkien wrote in SM69 that if “two nouns were juxtaposed, there was hesitation” he may have meant either (a) that these nouns were mutated archaically or (b) that he was considering (partially) restoring the 1940s system were noun-noun combinations sometimes mutated. See the discussion of the juxtapositional genitive for more details. Adjectives Following Nouns The mutation of an adjective after the noun it modifies is well established in Sindarin and its conceptual precursors. This is more or less always a soft mutation (but see below for a possible exception). Examples include: i thiw hin “these [ sin ] signs” (LotR/305). i glinn hen “this [ sen ] song” (VT50/5). i úgerth vin “our [ mín ] trespasses” (VT44/21). genediad Drannail “Shire [* Trannail ] reckoning” (SD/129). [N.] i vegli vorn “the black [ morn ] bear” (PE22/33). There are also numerous examples in names, such as Cûl Veleg “Big [ beleg ] Load” (RC/536), Ered Wethrin “Shadowy [ gwathren ] Mountains” (S/106; VT42/9), or Parth Galen “Green [ calen ] Sward” (LotR/417). As the first few of examples illustrate, demonstratives like sen “this” and possessive pronouns mín “our” also mutate like adjectives. Unfortunately, there are quite a few examples where adjectives do not mutate, including many from The Lord of the Rings itself. For example Imloth Melui “Lovely [ melui ] Flowery Vale” (LotR/866; RC/582), Fen Hollen “Closed [ hollen ] Door” (LotR/826; PE17/98), and [N.] Nelig Myrn “*Black [ morn ] Teeth” (WR/113), the last of these from Lord of the Rings drafts from the 1940s. Tolkien seems to have noted this discrepancy in SM69, as mentioned above: In the case of nouns and adjectives where these were placed together, if they were in any close syntactic relation, the second had a mutated initial according to phonetic development; but this was not always observed in practice ... when ... the adjective was placed second ... there was hesitation; and in the Exilic period the regular usage adopted was not always the phonetic one (PE23/143). In Common Eldarin Article (CEA) also written in 1969, Tolkien seems to have decided the mutation of m was often omitted as a way of explaining such variations in The Lord of the Rings (PE23/136 and note #9; PE23/138 note #12). However, I am of the opinion that both these 1969 notes were rationalizations after the fact, and that the real reason for the variations is that there was a period in the 1940s when Tolkien was writing The Lord of the Rings that adjective mutation was not a feature of the language. See my essay on Adjectival Mutations in Sindarin for further discussion. Adjectives Following Other Adjectives In SM69, Tolkien said that where a list of words appears, only the first word in the list undergoes grammatical mutation: When full words [Tolkien’s footnote: that is all words other than unstressed pronominal and adverbial particles] were placed in a list, or in apposition, the initials of the second, third, and so on, were unchanged. This indicates that in a list of adjectives, only the first adjective undergoes grammatical mutation as a modifier of its noun. It is possible that adjectives later in the list might still be mutated for other reasons, such as by a preceding conjunction: coll varan, caran, a chalen “a brown [ baran ], red [ caran ], and green [ calen ] cloak”. Here the first adjective baran undergoes soft mutation after the noun, but later adjectives do not. In this example, calen undergoes sibilant mutation due to the influence of preceding a(h) “and”. However, Vyacheslav Stepanov has argued that “and” should be omitted in such lists based on examples in King’s Letter , so it may be equally valid to say coll varan, caran, calen “a brown, red, [and] green cloak” with no mutation at all other than the first adjective. As a possible counterexample, consider anno ammen sír i mbas ilaurui vín “give us this day our [ mín ] daily bread” from a 1950s Sindarin prayer (VT44/21), where the possessive adjective mín “our” is mutated after the regular adjective ilaurui “daily”. See the next section for discussion. Adjectives And Possessive Pronouns There is one phrase from the King’s Letter that is especially peculiar: ar e aníra ennas suilannad mhellyn în phain “and he desires to greet there all [ pân ] his friends ” (SD/129). Here the adjective pan “all” is mutated, but it seems to be a nasal mutation rather than the expected soft mutation. The most obvious explanation is that this mutation is induced by the preceding possessive pronoun în . This may be an exception to the previous rules, and that (a) an adjective following a possessive pronoun is still mutated even though it does not directly follow the noun that it modifies but (b) that mutation is a nasal mutation, perhaps resulting from the fact that all possessive pronouns end in n . Another example of peculiar behavior involving possessive pronouns is mbas ilaurui vín as mentioned above, where the possessive pronoun mín is still mutated despite not immediately following the noun it modifies (VT44/21). As originally written the phrase had unmutated mín , which was then revised to mutated vín (VT44/28). These two examples imply that possessive pronouns do not behave like general adjectives. It may be that (a) possessive pronouns still mutate even if they do not directly follow the noun they modify and (b) induce nasal mutation on any adjectives that happen to follow them. Note, however, that this hypothesis is based only on a couple of examples from the 1950s without any other supporting evidence, and must therefore be considered speculative. In particular, it may be that did Tolkien did not introduce this mutation rule for word lists until 1969. Furthermore plural adjectives underwent nasal mutations in the Early Noldorin Grammar of the 1920s (PE13/124), and mhellyn în phain could have been a transient restoration of this mutational rule instead of a specialized behavior after possessive pronouns. Direct Objects The mutation of direct objects following a verb was another example of grammatical mutation in SM69: For instance: the mutation of the initial consonant of a noun following a finite verb was originally phonetic and a result of position not of its syntactic function; but it became a sign of its being the object. Hence if a noun subject was placed after a verb (a position that in S. it often adopted) it was not mutated (PE23/143). As this statement indicates, nouns in other grammatical roles (subjects, vocatives, etc.) were not mutated when immediately following a verb. Despite Tolkien’s claim that direct objects only mutate after finite verbs, there is at least one example of direct object mutation after an infinitive/verbal noun: ar e aníra ennas suilannad mhellyn în phain “and he desires to greet there all his friends [ mellon ]” (SD/129). Tolkien’s statement that mutation “became a sign of its being the object” also hints that a direct object may still be mutated even if not following directly after a verb. There is some evidence of this as well, the best example being: im Narvi hain echant “I, Narvi, made them [ sain ]” (SD/129). In this example, the direct object hain precedes the verb, but is still mutated. Since it has no particular reason to be mutated in this position, being the direct object is the likeliest reason for this mutation. As with lists of adjectives, it is also likely that only the first in a list of objects following a verb was mutated: anno annin vegil, cú, [a] thand “give me a sword [ megil ], bow, and shield” (as noted above, a “and” might be omitted in longer lists). However this may not be the case where the direct objects are displaced elsewhere, as possibly demonstrated by Daur a Berhael , Conin en Annûn, eglerio “Frodo [ Taur ?] and Samwise [ Perhael ], Princes of the West, praise [them]” (LotR/953). For further discussion, see the entry on direct objects and for a “and”. Verbal Nouns as Objects In cases where the object of a verb is another non-finite verb (a verbal noun functioning as an infinitive), the verbal noun does not mutate. There are several clear examples: edregol e aníra tírad i Cherdir Perhael “in especial he desires to see [ tírad ] Master Samwise” (SD/129). nidhin mened “ I intend to go [ mened ]” (PE22/165). tolen cared “ I am going to do [ cared ]” (PE22/168). Thus verbal nouns used as infinitives are an exception to the rule that the object of a verb mutates. Verbs Directly After Subjects As mentioned in SM69, mutation occurs for “verbs following their subjects, nouns or emphatic pronouns” (PE23/142). There are a couple clear examples of a verb being mutated when immediately following its subject, both from the late 1960s: guren bêd enni “my heart tells [ ped- ] me” (VT41/11). inn dha v’im “an ‘inn’ is [ da- ] in me” (PE22/165). There are other examples, however, where a verb follows its subject and is not mutated: Celebrimbor o Eregion teithant i thiw hin “Celebrimbor of Hollin drew [ teitha- ] these signs” (LotR/305). menel-vîr síla díriel “*heaven-jewel shines [ síla- ] having watched” (LB/354). silivren penna míriel “from glittering crystal slanting falls [ penna- ] with light like jewels” (LotR/238; RGEO/63-64). In the first example, the prepositional phrase o Eregion intervenes between the subject and the verb teithant . In the second example, this phrase is preceded by ir Ithil ammen Eruchín “*when[?] the Moon, for us, the Children of God”, so it may be that the actual subject is Ithil “Moon” and menel-vîr is descriptive of Ithil rather than functioning as the subject of síla . In the last example, the more literal translation of silivren penna míriel is “glittering slants-down sparkling like jewels” (RGEO/64), where silivren is an adjective rather than a noun so that “glittering crystals” is a very loose translation. The actual subject appears in the next phrase: aglar elenath “glory of the starry host”. Based on the above, I would assume that a verb mutates only when it immediately follows its subject. Where other words intervene, the verb is not mutated. However, it is also possible that the notion of subjects mutating the following verb was itself not introduced until 1968-69, and these older examples predate this grammatical rule. Prepositions and Conjunctions As noted in SM69, mutation occurs with “various other proclitic words, such as prepositions and connective words (e.g. and, or), before the following word” (PE23/142). Many prepositions induce soft mutation, in particular those ending in vowels. However other preposition and conjunctions induce different mutations, depending on their phonological character. For example, the prepositions na “to” and mi “in” induce soft mutation, but na(n) “of, with” induces nasal mutation while a(h) “and” induces sibilant mutation. Furthermore, prepositions themselves may undergo mutation when they are part of a phrase modifying a preceding noun or verb. There are many specialized cases, discussed in more detail in the entry on preposition mutations . Adverbs and Mutations Although not directly mentioned by Tolkien in SM69, there is ample evidence that adverbs induce mutation on a following verb or adjective in Sindarin. Examples include: ú- chebin estel anim “I have kept [ heb- ] no hope for myself” (LotR/1061). avo garo “don’t do [ car- ] it” (WJ/371). palan- diriel “far gazing [ tiriel ]” (LotR/729; Let/279). mae govannen “well met [ covannen ]” (LotR/209; PE17/158). The first two examples are of an adverb inducing soft mutation on a following verb. The second two examples are of an adverb inducing soft mutation on a following adjective, tiriel “gazing” [from tir- “watch”] and covannen “met” [from covad(a)- “meet”]. Given palan-diriel , it seems adverbs always induce soft mutation, even in cases where this did not match the historical phonology. The example mae govannen is more complex, since Tolkien considered a large number of possible explanations for this phrase. The earliest instance of this phrase was [N.] mai govannen “well met” from the 1940s (RS/194), where the verb was likely based on govad- “meet” = “together-go” and thus did not involve mutation at all. There is little evidence, however, that adverbs themselves mutate after verbs. The likeliest example of adverb mutation is the phrase menel-vîr síla díriel “*heaven-jewel shines having watched [ tíriel ]”. Strictly speaking, tíriel is an adjective rather than an adverb, but it is known that adjectives can be function as adverbs within phrases (PE17/18), which appears to be the case here. However, there is a similar phrase silivren penna míriel “glittering slants-down sparkling like jewels” where the adverbial adjective did not mutate (LotR/238; RGEO/64). There are a couple more examples of clear adverbial non-mutation: anno ammen sír i mbas ilaurui vín “give us today our daily bread” (VT44/27). le nallon sí di’nguruthos “to thee I cry here beneath death-horror” (LotR/729; RGEO/64). In the first example, a word ( ammen ) intervenes between the verb and adverb, but in the second the adverb sí appears immediately after the verb, which is the position where it is most likely to mutate from a phonological perspective. Another ambiguous example is the following: annon edhellen, edro hi ammen “Elvish gate open now for us” (LotR/307). It is possible that, when Tolkien originally conceived of this phrase, hi was a mutated form of S. * si “now”, cognate to Q. sí of the same meaning. But in Tolkien’s later writings, he made it clear that the unmutated form of this adverb is actually hí “now” (PE17/27; VT49/34 note #21). It is possible that hí was unmutated even when it was first written in the late 1940s, given primitive ᴹ√ khi- in notes on Demonstrative, Relative, and Correlative Stems (DRC) from 1948, where in time-reference hi [along with si ] “refers only to the actual present of the time of speaking” (PE23/96-97). Taken together, I think it is safest to assume that adverbs do not mutate when following verbs, except possibly adjectives functioning as adverbs. An adverb might mutate if it directly follows a preposition or conjunction, however, or if it is precedes an adjective but follows a noun: ost vae-garnen “a well [ mae ] made [ carnen ] city” Conceptual Development There are some things in Tolkien’s earlier writings that differ from the Sindarin system of grammatical mutations described above. There are not enough examples from the 1910s-1940s to compare every detail, however. Gnomish (1910s) The only mutation clearly described in the Gnomish Grammar of the 1910s was soft mutation (GG/7). The definite article i “the” induced soft mutation, as did the genitive article na “of the” (GG/9). Juxtapositional genitives caused soft mutation: Fôs ’Almir “Bath of Flame [ Galmir ]” (GG/12). Singular adjectives mutated after nouns, but plural adjectives did not: mab ’loss “white [ gloss ] hand” vs. mabin glossi “white hands” (GG/15). Prepositions and other particles also seem to have induced various mutations. For example the negative particle u induced soft mutation: u ’wirn u ’wethrin “not unwelcome or welcome” (GL/47). The patronymic si(n)- “granddaughter of” induced nasal mutation: si·Pheleg “Granddaughter of Beleg” (GL/67). Early Noldorin (1920s) In the Early Noldorin Grammar of the 1920s, the singular article i induced soft mutation, while the plural article induced nasal mutation (PE13/120). Singular adjectives underwent soft mutation after a noun: i·mab buig “the clean hand [ puig ]” (PE13/124). But plural adjectives usually underwent nasal mutation: i·maib fuig(ir) “the clean hands”. Prepositions, particles, and conjunctions induced a variety of mutations. For example o “to” induced stop mutation (PE13/120, 151). Noldorin (1930s-1940s) Singular and plural articles continued to induce soft and nasal mutation, as they did in Sindarin of the 1950s and 60s. Juxtapositional genitives induced soft mutation in this period as was noted above, a process that was largely abandoned in Sindarin of the 1950s and 60s. There are examples of adjective mutation in the period, but as I have argued elsewhere I think there is a good chance that there was a period in the 1940s while Tolkien was writing The Lord of the Rings when adjective mutation was not a feature of the language. Neo-Sindarin The system I recommend for grammatical mutations in Sindarin closely follows the system Tolkien described in his document on Sindarin Mutations written in 1969 and published in 2024 (SM69: PE23/142-144). Summarizing the discussion above, I would make the following recommendations for grammatical mutations in Sindarin: The single definite article i induces soft mutation, and its plural i(n) nasal mutation. Adjectives undergo soft mutation when immediately following a noun, but only the first adjective in a list mutates. Demonstratives and possessive pronouns mutate after nouns like adjectives, but they also undergo soft mutation when following another adjective in a longer phrase: i-mbas ilaurui vín “ our [ mín ] daily bread”. Nouns that follow an adjective mutate, but quantitative adjectives that habitually precede their noun may induce mutations other than soft mutation, such as il “all” and er “one” inducing liquid mutation: il chem “all hands [ cam ]”. Nouns functioning as a direct object undergo soft mutation when immediately following a verb, as is also the case for adjectives following predicate verbs like “appear, seem, become”. Soft mutation functions as a grammatical marker of a direct object, so that the direct object of a verb is mutated even when it does not appear directly after its verb. In a list of direct objects after a verb, only the first object mutates. Where direct objects are displaced from behind the verb, all of the objects may undergo soft mutation even if the phonetic environment implies a different mutation: Daur a Berhael , Conin en Annûn, eglerio “Frodo [ Taur ?] and Samwise [ Perhael ], Princes of the West, praise [them]”. Nouns serving other grammatical functions (subjects, vocatives, etc.) do not mutate when appearing immediately after verbs. Verbal nouns functioning as the infinitival object of another verb do not mutate after the main verb. Prepositions and conjunctions induce various mutations depending on their phonetic character, as discussed in the entry on prepositional mutations . Adverbs induce soft mutation on an immediately following verb or adjective. Adverbs themselves do not generally mutate when immediately following a verb, except possibly adjectives functioning adverbially. Adverbs may mutate for other reasons, such as after a preposition. Verbs that immediately follow their subject undergo soft mutation, but do not mutate if other words intervene between the subject and the verb. Of these rules, the last one on the mutation of verbs after subjects has only recently been widely accepted, having been made clear in SM69 first published in 2024 in PE23. As such, this rule is rarely followed in (Neo) Sindarin examples from 2024 or earlier, including many of the examples in this Eldamo lexicon. I personally am a bit hesitant to fully accept this rule, since there is still a good chance it only appeared in 1969 and may not fit with Tolkien’s earlier conception of the language. However, this rule will probably be the standard in Neo-Sindarin going forward, unless new information is published that contradicts it. Phonology