344Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments
- Mar 9, 2003David Kiltz tence:
> I think it's quite clear from the attested corpus that Quenya could useAll nice and well, except that _mi_ "in, within" (V:373) and _-sse_
> 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.
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:That is a possibility (though not convincing; see a recent post 343 by Carl
> > 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]
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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>