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

385Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments

Expand Messages
  • David Kiltz
    Mar 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Freitag, März 28, 2003, at 03:34 Uhr, Ales Bican wrote:

      > It might be KUP

      Wouldn't that yield _kumpa_ rather than _kumna_ ?

      [Not necessarily. The _Etym._ gives instances of _*pn_ >
      _mn_ in Quenya, notably Q. _telemna_ 'silver' (adj.)
      < KYELEP- or TELEP (V:366) and Q. _lemnar_ 'week'
      < LEP- (V:368). However, the _Etym._ also has abundant
      examples of bases ending in P with Q. derivatives containing
      _-mp-_ rather than _-mn-_, e.g., _tompe_ pa.t. of _tope_
      'covers' < TOP, _ampa_ 'hook' < GAP-, and _lempe_ 'five'
      < LEP- (whence also _lemnar_ 'week'). A possible explanation
      for these varying developments, at least at the time that the
      _Etym._ was written, might be that P + N arising from
      suffixion > _mn_ (_*lep-nar_ > _lemnar_), while elsewhere
      Q. _-pm-_ is the result of nasal infixion, the nasal being
      "homorganic", i.e. suited in point of articulation to the
      consonant it precedes (_*le-m-pê_ > _lempe_). -- PHW]

      >> At any rate, if we assume that HAM/KAM here means "ground", we get:
      >> [...]

      > **This is what I suggested in the Analysis, yes.

      I know. I was basically recapping here.

      David Kiltz

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic