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

346Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments

Expand Messages
  • Petri Tikka
    Mar 10, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      David Kiltz tence:

      > 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.

      I said as much in the post you are replying to.

      > But I think it is very likely that _na-_
      > actually exists since it is attested in _nahamna_.

      Certainly it exists, no one is denying that, but its meaning is in dispute.

      > Or, if you don't
      > accept that example, it is listed in The Etymologies.

      Listed in the Etymologies? I can't find such a prefix, only independent
      preposition _na_ and prefix _ana-_ (VT:374).

      > 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.

      Not always; cf. below.

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

      Sometimes it does; e.g. the chart of pronouns suffixed with preposition
      _ó-_ "with" (VT43:29) and _sekormen_, possibly with _se-_ locative
      prefix (VT27:25). This is why Ales suspected (and beforme him also
      Patrick Wynne and Christopher Gilson in VT27), by the translation
      "to hýþe", that _na-_ in _nahamna_ is a grammatical preposition. I
      have been objecting this; see previous posts on this thread by me.

      [Not to mention _nuhuinenna_ 'under-shadow', showing _nu-_ 'under',
      right there in the very text in question (IX:246). CFH]

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