342Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments
- Mar 9, 2003On Samstag, März 8, 2003, at 12:48 Uhr, Petri Tikka wrote:
> Ales Bican tence:Nominal prefixes occur frequently in Quenya: E.g. _mirroanwi_,
>> Petri Tikka wrote:
>>> I would rather analyze _nahamna_ as
>>> _na-_ "to" nominal prefix
>> **What do you mean by "nominal prefix"?
> I mean it here as a preposition
> used as a mark of location regardless of grammatical context, being
> an independent word, like _under-_ in _under-world_.
[_Mirroanwi_ 'Incarnates, those (spirits) put into flesh' < _mi-
srawanwe_ (X:350); _essi tercenye_ 'names of insight' (X:216).
Give glosses and page references, please! -- PHW]
A discussion of euphony or dysphony follows.
I think it's quite clear from the attested corpus that Quenya could use
either a local preposition or a case ending in these cases: _mi Númen_
vs. _Númessier_, _mi oromardi_ vs. _mahalmassen_. This should be
possible with _na_ vs _-nna_ as well.
> Why not *_na hamna_, withBecause it's not a preposition here.
> _na_ as a simple unglued preposition. I would consider analysing _na-_
> in _nahamna_ as a grammatical preposition quite implausible, though not
I think to understand the meaning of _nahamna_ one has to see it in the
context of the evolving text. _Nahamna_ changed to _kamindon_ >
_akamna_ > _nukumna_ (IX:311). None of these forms seems to
correspond to the OE "translation" _to h´ythe_. Indeed, I think all
the above forms mean "humbled" as does the Adunaic
translation _zabathaan_(IX:247 et al.).
This leaves us with 3 roots, HAM-, KAM-, KUM-. Petri Tikka notes that
HAM can be interpreted as"ground" in the QL. KAM might mean the same
(cf. KEM- in The Etymologies or, perhaps, Adunaic _kamaat_.) I don't
know about KUM. Maybe it's a further derivative ? Do KU3- "bow" or
KUM- "void" come in ?
At any rate, if we assume that HAM/KAM here means "ground", we get:
"to-ground-ed", "ground-ed-like" (_kamin-ndon_), and "very-ground-ed"
(with sundóma as an intensifier). _Nukumna_ may be "down-bow-ed"
or "down-void-ed", if it doesn't also contain "ground".
Of course, this is just an assumption for heuristic reasons. It shows,
however, I think, that _-in_/_na_ here are indeed participle endings.
If anything, the semantic connection with Latin _humilis_, as already
noted by Ales, makes the case only stronger.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>