Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

35Re[2]: [elfling-d] Helge's revised Quenya course

Expand Messages
  • Boris Shapiro
    Mar 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment

      Tuesday, March 4, 2003, 5:38:18 PM, Carl F . Hostetter wrote:

      >> Haven't you find the use of _harya-_ "to possess" for "to have" a bit
      >> strange, in the light of Tolkien's idea about expressing Elven, err,
      >> lexical attitude towards the question of having/possessing children in
      >> MR?
      CFH> No. What has avoiding a connotation of "possessing" sentient
      CFH> beings to do with the idea of possessing happiness?
      Unfortunately I do not know languages that do have the verb "to
      possess", but do not use it in case of sentient beings. But there are
      numerous languages that do not it in case of sentient beings because
      they do not have it altogether. The suggestion was that Quenya is the

      Apart from the external history of the letter in question (it came
      at third hand with neither its owner nor the original available), two
      more lexical points add a bit of doubtfulness:

      1) _noo_ as temporal "before". While nothing was fixed in Tolkien's
      mind, I tend to think that a second case of "yes/no" topsy-turvy (quite a
      phenomenon itself) is unlikely. We have _noo_ with the temporal
      "after" settled in "Quenya Lexicon" on the one hand and presumably a
      similar meaning in PM:135 _Nootuile_ etc on the other hand (at least
      there can be no "before" meaning in the latter). It seems to me
      unlikely that Tolkien turned its meaning upside down after being
      seemingly faithful to it. Though that is not a weighty argument _per
      se_, there is no 100% authentic example of him using _noo_ as
      "before" in the known corpus.

      2) _saa_ "that". You once said that you had seen no example of it in
      all the texts you prepare for publishing. That is surprising, because
      given such a (very much) useful and plain conjugation it is strange
      not to find it attested in authentic texts. That adds some more

      The only thing to advocate that Dorothy letter's authenticity is as
      follows: IMHO most forgers would have avoided that _noo_ irregularity.
      At that time the "yes"/"no" phenomenon was still unknown, and I doubt
      anybody could have come up with such a crazy idea.

      The spelling of "n"/"u" is widely known, it is not a proof.

      Namaarie! S.Y., Elenhil Laiquendo

      : ulco ume i mine eldassen ar i neuna firimassen :
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic