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

345Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments

Expand Messages
  • David Kiltz
    Mar 10, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sonntag, März 9, 2003, at 06:25 Uhr, Petri Tikka wrote:

      > 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).
      > So the possibility of _na_ and _-nna_ co-existing and being
      > used equivalently can't really be inferred from these examples.

      I didn't mean to say that.

      The Etymologies give Quenya _an, ana, na_ "to, towards", prefix _ana_.
      That is pretty close to the meaning of _-nna_. I do not say that _na_
      (as preposition) and _-nna_ were used in exactly the same way. Although
      the fact that _na_ and _-nna_ seem to be of identical origin makes it,
      if anything, more likely. But I think it is very likely that _na-_
      actually exists since it is attested in _nahamna_. Or, if you don't
      accept that example, it is listed in The Etymologies.

      >> 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

      I entirely agree. A "glued" preposition is not a preposition at all.
      It's a nominal prefix. While a preposition _na_ might mean the same as
      _-nna_ a nominal prefix creates a new word.

      Prepositions are written separately, normally. Or does Tolkien's habit
      differ ?

      David Kiltz
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic