mith

root. grey

Tolkien introduced the root ᴹ√MITH in The Etymologies of the 1930s as a blending of ᴹ√MIS “✱wet” and ᴹ√KHITH “mist, fog”, with the derivative N. mith “white fog, wet mist” as in N. Mithrim “✱Mist Lake” (Ety/MITH, RINGI; EtyAC/MITH). As a later addition to this entry Tolkien wrote the adjective N. mith “grey”, and that was the more common use of this word in Tolkien’s later writings. In a 1955 letter to David Masson Tolkien specified that “usage suggests that MIÞ- is paler and whiter, a luminous grey” (PE17/72).

mītha

adjective. *grey

khith

root. mist, mist, [ᴹ√] fog

This root and its variants were the basis for “mist” words for much of Tolkien’s life. It first appeared as ᴱ√HISI with derivatives like ᴱQ. híse “dusk” and ᴱQ. hiswa “dim, fading” (QL/40), and as an element in ᴱQ. Hisilóme which was glossed “Shadowy Twilights” in the earliest Lost Tales (LT1/112). Thus the early root might have meant “✱dusk, dimness, shadow”. The root was probably also an element in the Gnomish equivalent Hithlum from this period (GL/20), perhaps the result of the sound change whereby [[g|[s] became [θ] before [l]]] in Gnomish.

The sense “haze” and “mist” for ᴱQ. híse first appeared in drafts of the Oilima Markirya poem (PE16/62, 75). In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien gave this root as ᴹ√KHITH with variant ᴹ√KHIS and the gloss “mist, fog”; ᴹ√KHIS was listed first but all the actual derivatives were from ᴹ√KHITH (Ety/KHIS). The root appeared again in Notes on Galadriel’s Song from the late 1950s or early 1960s as √KHIΘ “mist” (NGS, PE17/73).

Tolkien’s continued use of Q. Hísilómë and (Northern) S. Hithlum throughout his life testifies to the enduring nature of this root, though it seems to have shifted in sense from 1910s “✱shadow” to 1930s “mist”, and from s to th.

kyelep

root. silver

This root and ones like it were used for Elvish words for “silver” throughout Tolkien’s life. The earliest iteration of the root began with T-, however, appearing as unglossed ᴱ√TELEPE in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s with derivatives like ᴱQ. telpe “silver” (QL/91). Even at this early stage, however, the Gnomish equivalent was G. celeb (GL/25), but the reason for the t/c variation isn’t clear. The closest explanation is that palatal consonants like [c] became [tʲ] in Qenya vs. [k] in Gnomish (compare ᴱQ. tyava- vs. caf- “taste” from ᴱ√TYAVA) but this doesn’t explain why the Qenya form has initial t- rather than ty-.

Elsewhere in the Elvish languages of the 1910s there seem to be etymological variations of [k] vs. [t], such as ᴱQ. kitya- vs. G. tisca- “tickle” (QL/47; GL/70) and ᴱQ. talqe vs. G. celc “glass” (QL/88; GL/25), so perhaps ᴱQ. telpe vs. G. celeb “silver” is another example of this. Another explanation appeared in Early Noldorin word lists from the 1920s, where the primitive form was ᴱ✶kelekwé which produced ᴱN. celeb as usual but the Qenya form was ᴱQ. telqe with “k = t by dissimilation” (PE13/140), presumably away from q.

In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien had the root ᴹ√KYELEP with variant ᴹ√TELEP, producing N. celeb but ᴹQ. tyelpe or ᴹQ. telpe (Ety/KYELEP). But Tolkien revised this entry, marking ᴹ√TELEP as questionable and introducing the Telerin form ᴹT. telpe < ᴹ√KYELEP, concluding that ᴹQ. telpe must be a loan from Telerin. This finally put N. celeb vs. ᴹQ. telpe (borrowed from Telerin) on a solid phonological foundation. Tolkien seems to have stuck with this explanation, mentioning this borrowing from Telerin to Quenya several times in his later writings, with the proper but now archaic Quenya form being Q. †tyelpë (Let/426; PM/356; UT/266).

kyelepē

noun. silver

nik

root. small

One of various roots for “small” Tolkien used in his later writings. The root √NIK “small” first appeared in notes on Eldarin Hands, Fingers and Numerals from the late 1960s (VT47/26; VT48/18), but was connected to the diminutive suffix ✶-i(n)ki which had a much longer conceptual history. One of the earliest known diminutive suffix was ᴱQ. -íne(a) in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s from the root ᴱ√INI “small” (QL/42), which might be a precursor to √NIK; these suffixes reappeared in the Early Qenya Grammar of the 1920s (PE14/49, 81). In the Gnomish Grammar of the 1910s, the word G. inc “small” was used as the basis for the “diminutive superlative” -inci (PE11/16).

In the Qenya Lexicon, Tolkien connected ᴱ√INI “small” to the root ᴱ√MINI of similar meaning (QL/42, 61). There are no signs of ᴱ√MINI “small” in the contemporaneous Gnomish Lexicon, but the word G. migin “little” (GL/57) hints at a (hypothetical) variant root ✱ᴱ√MIKI. Further support for ✱ᴱ√MIKI can be found in other diminutive forms in the Early Qenya Grammar of the 1920s such as prefixal diminutive ᴱQ. mike- along adverbial ᴱQ. mike “little” (QL/48, 81), the latter appearing with the gloss “a bit” in the English-Qenya Dictionary from this period (PE15/70) along with other similar words in both the dictionary and the grammar. This ✱ᴱ√MIKI might be another precursor to √NIK. An early hint at √NIK itself might appear in the word ᴹQ. nikse “minnow, little fish” from the Declension of Nouns from the early 1930s (PE21/27).

In Noldorin and Sindarin, the primary diminutive suffix became -eg, which was connected to the Common Eldarin suffix -iki elsewhere in notes on hands and fingers (VT47/14 note #21). In the notes where √NIK “small” appeared in the late 1960s, Tolkien gave the primitive diminutive as -inkĭ along with variants ikki, -iksi, -si, -ensi, -ki.

One of the main competing roots for “small” was ᴹ√PIK [see the entry for √PI(N)], itself with a lengthy conceptual history. The shift of pitya >> nitya “little” in the father name of Amrod from the late 1960s may represent a replacement of √PIK by √NIK (PM/365), but I think it is likelier the two roots coexisted with slightly different meanings, as was the case for their earlier precursors. In the notes from the late 1960s, √NIK was also contrasted with √NIP “small (usually with connotation of weakness)” (VT48/18), from which the word S. niben “petty” was derived, as in S. Nogoth Niben (WJ/388).

Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume √NIK meant “small” in a neutral sense, √PIK “tiny” (along with variants √PĪ and √PIN) and √NIP “small and weak”. I would use these as the major Eldarin roots for “small” words, along with a number of other more specialized roots.

nimpĭ

adjective. small

ninkĭ

adjective. small

stin

root. grey

thin

root. *grey

Tolkien introduced the (unglossed) root ᴹ√THIN in The Etymologies of the 1930s with derivatives like ᴹQ. sinde/N. thinn “grey, pale” and ᴹQ. sinta-/N. †thinna- “fade” (Ety/THIN). In this document it was the basis for the name Ilk. Thingol; in earlier writings from the 1920s the name ᴱN. Thingol was based on the word ᴱN. thing “prince” (PE13/154). The root √THIN or √ΘIN was mentioned a couple times in Tolkien’s later writings as the basis for “grey” words (PE17/72; WJ/384). In a note from the mid-1960s Tolkien considered making the root √STIN the basis for “grey”, as a privative formation = √S-TIN = “without sparkling” (PE17/184), but I think this was a transient idea.

thindi

adjective. grey

thindā

adjective. grey

thini

adjective. grey