31dc8214   
   XPost: alt.usage.english, rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: mail@peterduncanson.net   
      
   On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 03:55:07 -0700 (PDT), Duggy    
   wrote:   
      
   >On Aug 27, 8:23 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"    
   >wrote:   
   >> On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:00:00 +1000, Peter Moylan   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>  wrote:   
   >> >Weland wrote:   
   >> >> On 8/25/2011 4:19 AM, Noel Q. von Schneiffel wrote:   
   >> >>> On Aug 24, 9:47 pm, "Clams Canino"  wrote:   
   >> >>>> "Jonathan de Boyne   
   >> >>>> Pollard"  wrote in   
   >> >>>> messagenews:IU.D20110824.T132720.P8276.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pol   
   ard.localhost...   
   >>   
   >> >>>>> T. A. Shippey's _The Road to Middle-Earth_ notes both the 1961   
   >> >>>>> complaint   
   >> >>>>> to Puffin and the earlier 1954 rejection of the first printing   
   >> >>>>> proofs of   
   >> >>>>> _The Lords of the Rings_ because of changes of "dwarvish" to   
   "dwarfish"   
   >> >>>>> and "elven" to "elfin" as well as "dwarves" to "dwarfs".  It also   
   >> >>>>> discusses the differences between words such as "tiffs" and "proofs"   
   >> >>>>> and   
   >> >>>>> words such as "loaves" and "hooves" in relation to Old English.   
   >>   
   >> >>>> Yes... it's positively Dwarves - in pleural Dwarrow. No doubt at all.   
   >>   
   >> >>> If the correct form is indeed sing. dwarf - pl. dwarrows, then we must   
   >> >>> reversely point out that the singular of "barrow-wights" is "barf-   
   >> >>> wight".   
   >>   
   >> >> No.  While there are similar phonological processes at work that make OE   
   >> >> beorg into modE barrow, it isn't cricket to take modE barrow and by   
   >> >> analogy decide that its singular form is barf.  Simply doesn't work. For   
   >> >> one thing, the plural of barrow is barrows; barrow is the singular   
   >> >> form.  The plural of barrow-wights is barrow-wightS not barrowS-wights,   
   >> >> so there's no basis for the back-formation barrow>barf.  The singular of   
   >> >> barrow-wight, a compound noun made up of two nouns, is barrow-wight.   
   >>   
   >> >>> This does explain why the barf-wight who trapped Frodo and the   
   >> >>> others looked so haggard and desiccated. A bad case of bulimia.   
   >>   
   >> >>> On a related note, the true singular of "arrows" is "arf", which is   
   >> >>> simply an onomatopoeic approximation of the sound people make when hit   
   >> >>> with one.   
   >>   
   >> >> Same here.   
   >>   
   >> >What was that whooshing sound?   
   >>   
   >> A flock of arrows going past.   
   >   
   >Is the collective noun of arrows in flight a flock?   
      
   I think it is usually a flight of arrows.   
      
   OED:   
      
       8. A collection or flock of beings or things flying in or passing   
          through the air together:   
      
       a. of birds or insects. Also the special term for a company of   
          doves, swallows, and various other birds.   
       b. A company of angels.   
       c. A volley of missiles, esp. arrows.   
      
      
   > I figured it was   
   >a "future hedgehog of arrows".   
   >   
   Nice! Unless you are on the receiving end.   
      
   >===   
   >= DUG.   
   >===   
      
   --   
   Peter Duncanson, UK   
   (in alt.usage.english)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)