346Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments
- Mar 10, 2003David Kiltz tence:
> The Etymologies give Quenya _an, ana, na_ "to, towards", prefix _ana_.I said as much in the post you are replying to.
> 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-_Certainly it exists, no one is denying that, but its meaning is in dispute.
> actually exists since it is attested in _nahamna_.
> Or, if you don'tListed in the Etymologies? I can't find such a prefix, only independent
> accept that example, it is listed in The Etymologies.
preposition _na_ and prefix _ana-_ (VT:374).
> I entirely agree. A "glued" preposition is not a preposition at all.Not always; cf. below.
> 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 habitSometimes it does; e.g. the chart of pronouns suffixed with preposition
> differ ?
_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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>