384Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments
- Mar 28, 2003Petri Tikka asked:
> How would one express grammatical movement to the place called _Elenna_**Judging from _Elenna.nóreo_ in CO, I suppose it would be something
> in Quenya? One possibility is adding the allative case _-nna_ again to
> _Elenna_; it would produce a quite uneuphonic (*)*_Elennanna_, which
> would be subject to haplology. Thus simply _Elenna_ could be a possibility.
> Another is the preposition _na_ "to, towards" (V:374): *_na Elenna_, but
> this would induce tautology with two nearby allative elements of the same
like _Elenna.nórenna_, i.e. some additional word (here _nóre_ "land")
would be attached to it, because as you note it would look and sound
somewhat strange with the additional word.
Then Petri suggested:
> I would suggest that you could update your analysis of the**I will certainly update it. I will try to incorporate what has been
> _Atalante_ fragments on this matter.
said about the matter here. Helge Fauskanger was very kind to send me
his commentaries to the whole Analysis, so I am going to go through
the Analysis and revise some parts of it when I have time to.
As regards my opinions on what has been said about the topic since my
last responce to it, I agree with what Carl Hostetter wrote in messages
entitled 'Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments', one from March 9th
and one from March 10th, because it is more or less what I wanted to
say in the Analysis.
In another message Petri noted:
> Sometimes it does [i.e. prepositions are not written separately]; e.g. the**Ah! So this is the place where I got the idea from. I had a feeling
> 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.
that the idea of _nahamna_ being _na + hamna_ was not really my own
and that I saw it somewhere. However, since the majority of the
Analysis was written a year and half before the final revision, I could
not remember where I saw the idea. I tried to look it up, I also talked
about this with Patrick Wynne but we were not able to locate it. I am
glad it has emerged at length. : )
In another message David Kiltz wrote:
> This leaves us with 3 roots, HAM-, KAM-, KUM-. Petri Tikka notes that**KUM was my assumption, but it was not the only one. We can find these
> HAM can be interpreted as"ground" in the QL. KAM might mean the same
> (cf. KEM- in The Etymologies or, perhaps, Adunaic _kamaat_.) I don't
> know about KUM. Maybe it's a further derivative ? Do KU3- "bow" or
> KUM- "void" come in ?
bases: KUPU "hump", KUVU "bent bow" (both from QL, p. 49L, R), KU3
"bow" (from Etym; + _kúna_ "bent, curved", MC:222). Bases KUMU "heap
up" (QL:49L) and KUB (meaning not given, contains a derivative _kumbe_
"mound, heap"; from Etym) might also be related to these.
Given the variety of bases I therefore postulated the base KUp "bend,
bow, hump" where the 'p' stand for a labial as such, because it cannot
be inferred what base underlied the form _kumna_, as the _m_ might be
a reflex of practically any labial: it might be KUP, KUB as well as
KUM (and even KUW/KUV I believe). (Let me note that the mysterious
so-called CB Grammar contains several forms which point to the base
KUB, but since the status of the document is not known, my conclusions
were not based on it.)
> At any rate, if we assume that HAM/KAM here means "ground", we get:**This is what I suggested in the Analysis, yes.
> "to-ground-ed", "ground-ed-like" (_kamin-ndon_), and "very-ground-ed"
> (with sundóma as an intensifier). _Nukumna_ may be "down-bow-ed"
> or "down-void-ed", if it doesn't also contain "ground".
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>