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

539Re: [Lambengolmor] Quenya pl. _-r_ (was "Historical explanation")

Expand Messages
  • Andreas Johansson
    Nov 19, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Quoting David Kiltz <dkiltz@...>:

      > On 14.11.2003, at 20:30, Andreas Johansson wrote:
      >
      > > I have repeatedly suggested that the Q nominal -r is not an innovation
      > > "out of thin air", but simply the verbal ending applied also to nouns.
      >
      > Typologically that would, AFAIK, be unique.
      [snip]
      > So, whatever its ultimate origin, the Q. plural marker _-r_ seems to be
      > entirely nominal in origin.

      I'm not about to question your superior expertise in these matters, but early
      Quenya was apparently happy to use verbs as nouns; "Quendi and Eldar" informs
      us that _Vala_ was originally a verb _vala-_ "has power", and offers the
      translation "they have power" for _valar_ (XI:403). Could this not represent a
      way in which a verbal ending might have sneaked into nominal inflection?

      Andreas

      [Perceived "superior expertise" should never be an issue on this list. The
      only one with superior expertise is J.R.R. Tolkien, and arguments should
      stand or fall based on the evidence in Tolkien's writings, not on the
      authority of the scholar proposing a particular theory.

      The passage Andreas refers to above also cites _eques_ as a Q. verb
      form that also came to be used as a noun. Earlier in Q&E Tolkien writes:
      "In Quenya the form _eques_ originally meaning 'said he, said someone'
      (see Note 29) was also used as a noun _eques_, with the analogical
      plural _equessi_, 'a saying, dictum, a quotation from someone's
      uttered words', hence also 'a saying, a current or proverbial dictum'."
      (XI:392) -- PHW]
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic