154Re: [Lambengolmor] -Vndo
- Jul 29, 2002On Montag, Juli 29, 2002, at 03:28 Uhr, Patrick Wynne [in mess. 153] wrote:
> The best evidence against interpretation of agentive _-ndo_ asExcuse me, but I fail to see your point here. The past (passive)
> "a 'personalized' form of a participle past active" is the fact that
> agentives in _-ndo_ seem instead to be clearly formed from the
> _aorist_ stem.
participle in _-ina_ (cf. _rákina_ in "A Secret Vice") also seems to be
build on the aorist. That may be a coincidence. Anyway, why do you think
that derivation from the aorist stem contradicts interpretation as a
participle past active ? The aorist can, after all, be used as a past
tense. Also, I think it is the _n_ that carries the notion of "past".
> Thus _úcarindor_ 'sinners, evil-doers' in _Aia María_ III, IVWhy ? Already for theological reasons I cannot agree but let's leave
> can be seen to contain the same aorist stem _kari-_ 'make, do' seen
> in _i karir quettar ómainen_ cited above; _úcarindor_ indicates people
> who habitually sin, as a general fact without specific reference to
> past or present.
The aorist does not only denote a general fact (which is not the same as
"habit" !) but a specific event (in the past). Cf. _ohtakáre valannar_
> In some instances TolkienHere again I can't help to think that an interpretation as "those that
> hesitated between giving a verb an i-stem aorist or an a-stem aorist;
> hence we see both _lucindor_ and _lucandor_ 'those who trespass,
> transgressors' in the earlier drafts of the Átaremma.
have trespassed, sinned against us" suggests itself rather than "those
that habitually sin against us".
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>