345Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments
- Mar 10, 2003On Sonntag, März 9, 2003, at 06:25 Uhr, Petri Tikka wrote:
> David Kiltz tence:I didn't mean to say that.
>> I think it's quite clear from the attested corpus that Quenya could
>> 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.
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]I entirely agree. A "glued" preposition is not a preposition at all.
> That is a possibility (though not convincing; see a recent post 343 by
> 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
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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>