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

344Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments

Expand Messages
  • Petri Tikka
    Mar 9, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      David Kiltz tence:

      > 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.

      All nice and well, except that _mi_ "in, within" (V:373) and _-sse_
      aren't cognates, while _na_ and _-nna_ are. One can sit _mahalmassen_
      "upon thrones" (UT:305), but not *_mi mahalmar_ "in thrones". The root
      of this preposition _mi_ indeed means "inside" (V:373). The applicability
      of _-sse_ is presumably more general, since it is the general "locative"
      case (VT6:14), not specific "inessive" or "adessive" as there are in
      Finnish. So the possibility of _na_ and _-nna_ co-existing and being
      used equivalently can't really be inferred from these examples.

      But there are other examples, such as the prepositional cognate of
      _-sse_: _se_ "at, in" (VT43:30). Its known usage in the (admittedly
      sparce) corpus is limited, while examples of the cognate locative case
      are abundant. Their interchangability is indeed a possibility: "It is
      noteworthy that _mi kon-alkorin_, _(mi) SEkormen_, and
      _kokormeneSSE_ were all allowed to stand, even though they seem
      to mean the same thing." (VT27:25; emphasis mine). The same
      interchangability might be true also for the cognates _na_ and _-(n)na_,
      at least in the earlier (external and internal) stages, because _-nna_
      evolved from postpositional use of _na_. Cf. Quenya _lúmenna_
      "upon the hour"(WJ:367) vs. Telerin _lúmena_ (WJ:407).

      Later stages present a problem, because, as far as I know, there are no
      known direct correspondances between a pre-/ postpositional element being
      equivalent in usage to a cognate case ending in later (external) Quenya.
      This might (speculatively) be because Tolkien had decided that the original
      postposition _na_ had been glued into its nouns and become a case
      ending _-na_. Its postpositional usage would have been forgotten because
      of analogy with the common words glued to which it had become a case
      ending. Prepositional usage is another matter, which might have survived if
      it was common enough in CE beside the evidently very common
      postpositional use. Much can't be said firmly on this matter.

      > On Samstag, März 8, 2003, at 12:48 Uhr, Petri Tikka wrote:
      > > Why not *_na hamna_, with
      > > _na_ as a simple unglued preposition. I would consider analysing _na-_
      > > in _nahamna_ as a grammatical preposition quite implausible, though not
      > > impossible.
      > Because it's not a preposition here. [Basis for this]

      That is a possibility (though not convincing; see a recent post 343 by Carl
      Hostetter on this subject matter), but the context was around the
      possibilitythat there is a preposition or case ending in _nahamna_. I
      objected to thepossibility that _na-_ in _nahamna_ is a glued
      preposition, concidering it highly unlikely. For basis, see my previous
      posts on the subject .

      Petri Tikka Helsinki, Finland
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic