Nûrlâm –
Black Speech
dialect wiki

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace:
hurrian_hypothesis

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
hurrian_hypothesis [2021/08/18 18:54] – morgothhurrian_hypothesis [2023/12/12 17:58] (current) – typo fixed morgoth
Line 1: Line 1:
-<WRAP center round important 60%> 
-<todo !!!>Complete the article</todo> 
-</WRAP> 
- 
 ====== Hurrian hypothesis ====== ====== Hurrian hypothesis ======
 Russian historian [[Alexandre Nemirovsky]] proposed a hypothesis that [[black_speech|Classical Black Speech]] was based on extinct Hurrian language. This idea is controversial but it became popular among Black Speech researchers. Nemirovsky's analysis of [[ring-verse|Ring Inscription]] was made prior to publication of Parma Eldalamberon issue 17 (in 2002 or earlier, while PE 17 was out in 2007) and based on Russian translation. Russian historian [[Alexandre Nemirovsky]] proposed a hypothesis that [[black_speech|Classical Black Speech]] was based on extinct Hurrian language. This idea is controversial but it became popular among Black Speech researchers. Nemirovsky's analysis of [[ring-verse|Ring Inscription]] was made prior to publication of Parma Eldalamberon issue 17 (in 2002 or earlier, while PE 17 was out in 2007) and based on Russian translation.
Line 9: Line 5:
 Nemirovsky provides following arguments (taken from his personal site, since 2007, translated and <wrap gray>commented</wrap> by Un4givenOrc): Nemirovsky provides following arguments (taken from his personal site, since 2007, translated and <wrap gray>commented</wrap> by Un4givenOrc):
   - There is a case system exists; cases are expressed with postpositions, i.e. not with regular morphemes but particles with case meaning (this is emphasized with hyphen in romanization). Example: "burzum-ishi" where //-ishi// is locative marker. Compare with "Saruman-glob" ("about Saruman"? <wrap gray>- it seems Nemirovsky was not familiar then with the History Of Middle-Earth vol. 12 which had one of translations of this phrase, nor with journal Vinyar Tengwar which had another one.</wrap>) said in conversation of orcs that captured Hobbits after Boromir's death.     - There is a case system exists; cases are expressed with postpositions, i.e. not with regular morphemes but particles with case meaning (this is emphasized with hyphen in romanization). Example: "burzum-ishi" where //-ishi// is locative marker. Compare with "Saruman-glob" ("about Saruman"? <wrap gray>- it seems Nemirovsky was not familiar then with the History Of Middle-Earth vol. 12 which had one of translations of this phrase, nor with journal Vinyar Tengwar which had another one.</wrap>) said in conversation of orcs that captured Hobbits after Boromir's death.  
-  - Comparison of Ring Inscription's lines 1 & 3 with lines 2 & 4 shows that format "-ûk" complies with "all". As normalized transliteration shows off that "-ûk" is not a separate word, and not even a clitic particle, but just a morpheme, then it should be counted as verb's perfective formant of completeness (meaning "to do completely"). <wrap gray>Surprisingly such rendition was confirmed in PE17: "ulûk, verbal ending <...> 3rd person pl. "them" (ul) in completive or total form "them-all".</wrap> +  - Comparison of Ring Inscription's lines 1 & 3 with lines 2 & 4 shows that formant "-ûk" complies with "all". As normalized transliteration shows off that "-ûk" is not a separate word, and not even a clitic particle, but just a morpheme, then it should be counted as verb's perfective formant of completeness (meaning "to do completely"). <wrap gray>Surprisingly such rendition was confirmed in PE17: "ulûk, verbal ending <...> 3rd person pl. "them" (ul) in completive or total form "them-all".</wrap> 
   - Correspondence of 4-times repeated formant "ul" to 4-time repeated pronoun "them" proves their identity. Therefore, -ul-, is a marker of transitive action, again used as formant adjusted into verb's form not as separate word. It means that Black Speech can be defined as a language with ergative alignment (i.e. language in which both subject and object are expressed with special markers inside verbal form). <wrap gray>1) "durbatulûk" and other verbs in RI do not have markers of subject. 2) it is not definition of ergative language. Ergativity means that subject of transitive verb is marked differently than subject of intransitive verb. Verbs must differ only with transitive marker while suffixal agreement with subject and object is optional, they may be expressed with separate words. 3) From PE17: "//ulûk//, verbal ending expressing objects **(particles indicating 'subject' were usually prefixed**)", this show very unusual structure and word order for ergative languages.</wrap>   - Correspondence of 4-times repeated formant "ul" to 4-time repeated pronoun "them" proves their identity. Therefore, -ul-, is a marker of transitive action, again used as formant adjusted into verb's form not as separate word. It means that Black Speech can be defined as a language with ergative alignment (i.e. language in which both subject and object are expressed with special markers inside verbal form). <wrap gray>1) "durbatulûk" and other verbs in RI do not have markers of subject. 2) it is not definition of ergative language. Ergativity means that subject of transitive verb is marked differently than subject of intransitive verb. Verbs must differ only with transitive marker while suffixal agreement with subject and object is optional, they may be expressed with separate words. 3) From PE17: "//ulûk//, verbal ending expressing objects **(particles indicating 'subject' were usually prefixed**)", this show very unusual structure and word order for ergative languages.</wrap>
-  - Rendering of verbal forms with infinitive seems reflect personless character of Mordor's form <wrap gray>(sic!)</wrap>, i.e. absence of verb's subject. One the other hand, some marker must express modality of verbs somehow. Considering that //-at-// is the only repeated marker left, it should be treated as a formant expressing modality (in wide sense). <wrap lo>Once again, while explanation is not very clear, Nemirovsky was closer to Tolkien's own definition which was unpublished then, while others treated //-at// as simple equivalent of English infinitive, subject marker, or just generous verb's derivational suffix. PE17: "//at//, verb ending (like a participle) (durbat = constraining, of a sort to constrain)" - thus //-at// is participle form absent in English that may express intention. See also remark to point 3 about markers of subject's grammatical person.</wrap>+  - Rendering of verbal forms with infinitive seems reflect personless character of Mordor's form <wrap gray>(sic!)</wrap>, i.e. absence of verb's subject. One the other hand, some marker must express modality of verbs somehow. Considering that //-at-// is the only repeated marker left, it should be treated as a formant expressing modality (in wide sense). <wrap gray>Once again, while explanation is not very clear, Nemirovsky was closer to Tolkien's own definition which was unpublished then, while others treated //-at// as simple equivalent of English infinitive, subject marker, or just generous verb's derivational suffix. PE17: "//at//, verb ending (like a participle) (durbat = constraining, of a sort to constrain)" - thus //-at// is participle form absent in English that may express intention. See also remark to point 3 about markers of subject's grammatical person.</wrap>
   - As we can see, verbal forms in Black Speech are built with agglutination, i.e. by joining a chain of markers to the root always in the same order, with each of them carrying defined grammatical meaning. In sampled forms, modal formant is first after the root, personal formant of verb's object is the second, formant of aspect is the 3rd. Absence of subject's marker doesn't show that 3rd person was zero-marked (otherwise it would be translated with 3rd person English verb), and means that probably, subject's grammatical person was not expressed at all at least in some modalities <wrap gray>- as you can see from Tolkien's definition of //-at//, person is not marked because it is modifier participle with modal meaning.</wrap>   - As we can see, verbal forms in Black Speech are built with agglutination, i.e. by joining a chain of markers to the root always in the same order, with each of them carrying defined grammatical meaning. In sampled forms, modal formant is first after the root, personal formant of verb's object is the second, formant of aspect is the 3rd. Absence of subject's marker doesn't show that 3rd person was zero-marked (otherwise it would be translated with 3rd person English verb), and means that probably, subject's grammatical person was not expressed at all at least in some modalities <wrap gray>- as you can see from Tolkien's definition of //-at//, person is not marked because it is modifier participle with modal meaning.</wrap>
   - Mordorish word "ring" do not have postpositions, in other words it has Absolutive (Nominative) case and is the subject of sentence, as in translation. As you can see in this example, absolutive case in Mordorish is used for logical subject of action. Logical object of action isn't expressed as stand-alone word in our example, but it may be explained by it's being a pronoun.   - Mordorish word "ring" do not have postpositions, in other words it has Absolutive (Nominative) case and is the subject of sentence, as in translation. As you can see in this example, absolutive case in Mordorish is used for logical subject of action. Logical object of action isn't expressed as stand-alone word in our example, but it may be explained by it's being a pronoun.
Line 34: Line 30:
 | burz- | dark | "wur" (to see) + "z" ("at the limit") \\ <wrap gray>also "fur" in other sources</wrap>\\ From Ardalambion: the root is present in "wurikk-" = "to be blind" and really would express something opposite to "see, seeable" with any negative particle | | burz- | dark | "wur" (to see) + "z" ("at the limit") \\ <wrap gray>also "fur" in other sources</wrap>\\ From Ardalambion: the root is present in "wurikk-" = "to be blind" and really would express something opposite to "see, seeable" with any negative particle |
 | krimp- | tie | "ker-imbu-" (to stretch, lengthen) | | krimp- | tie | "ker-imbu-" (to stretch, lengthen) |
 +
 +<wrap gray>There is another resemblance not found by Nemirovsky: compare Orcish "tark" (men of Numenorian descend) with Hurrian "turuhhi", "turohhe" (male, adj.), "taršuwani" (person)</wrap>
  
 ------------------------- -------------------------
 ===== Pros and Cons ===== ===== Pros and Cons =====
-Below are summarized remarks about Nemirovsky theory by Nûrlâm's author:+Below are summarized remarks about Nemirovsky's hypothesis by Nûrlâm's author:
  
 ==== Pros ==== ==== Pros ====
   - Percentage of similarities is surprisingly high for such small corpus   - Percentage of similarities is surprisingly high for such small corpus
-  - Unlike other theories concerning Black Speech, pointed out similarities look legal+  - Unlike other theories concerning Black Speech and various languages of Near East, pointed out similarities look more legal
   - Some of assumptions were closer to J.R.R. Tolkien's own view (published later in Parma Eldalamberon #17) than straightforward analyses of English translations of Ring Inscription.   - Some of assumptions were closer to J.R.R. Tolkien's own view (published later in Parma Eldalamberon #17) than straightforward analyses of English translations of Ring Inscription.
  
hurrian_hypothesis.1629302077.txt.gz · Last modified: 2023/09/07 14:48 (external edit)
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International
CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki