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

649Re: porennin/suffixed _nin_

Expand Messages
  • cgilson75
    Apr 3, 2004
      --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, David Kiltz wrote:

      > [...] _anim_ vs _enni_ is 'benefactive/beneficiary' vs 'indirect
      object proper' and that the presence/absence of i-umlaut (affection)
      is most likely due to historical reasons (that is, _enni_ represents
      an older formation in the internal history of Sindarin than _anim_).

      > In fact, it is precisely because we have _anim_, _enni_, and _nin_
      but *not* X-nin that I'm doubtful. Such a form is not, of course, a
      priori to be declared impossible but _enni_ apparently <_*an-ni_ (?)
      and _nin_ == _*n-in_ or _ni-n_ don't show double markers (i.e. en (an)
      + n-/-n). A form like _ammen_ doesn't really seem to help much in this
      context as the status of the _-n_ in _men_ cannot, I think, be
      determined with a reasonable degree of certainty. Especially as
      _ammen_ cf. LR:291, 299] and [III:354] seems to correspond to _anim_
      [LR:1036] and not +_annin/ennin_.

      Though we may not be certain of the status of the _-n_ in _ammen_, we
      can at least conclude that it is somehow redundant, since the
      translated meaning 'for us' is conveyed by the components _am-_
      ('for', if indeed this is parallel to _anim_ 'for myself' as David
      suggests) and _-me-_ (1st person plural root 'we, us').

      Probably the _-n_ marks plural number or dative case. But either way
      it undermines the rejection of *_an-ni-n_ solely on the grounds of a
      presumed avoidance of double markers. And even if the etymological
      form of 'for me' were *_anni_, the existence of forms _nin_ '(towards)
      me' and _ammen_ 'for us' would be ample basis for an analogical
      reshaped *_annin_ (especially if the historically occurring form had
      become _enni_ by lenition, and thereby separated from the paradigm as
      David suggests).

      Not that I actually believe that _-nin_ is a 1st person singular
      pronoun in _porennin_ and _porannin_, only that we cannot rule this
      out because of what else we know about Sindarin pronouns. David gives
      an interesting alternative explanation in the previous message:

      > The first element of _porennin_ may contain S. _paur, -bor_
      [LR:366], [...]

      > Thus, as in the name _Celebrimbor_, _quár_ and S. _paur_
      respectively can apparently have the meaning 'skilled hand'. Perhaps
      then, "Annon porennin" is to read 'Gate of those with skilled hands"
      sc. Celebrimbor and Narvi.

      > If _porannin_ is to be taken as a variant (developed in the process
      of writing) of _porennin_ and, furthermore, _nithrad_ means 'entry',
      we have a sort of chiasm here:

      > _Annon porennin ... porannin nithrad._

      I would note that, whatever the external history of the development of
      _porennin_ and _porannin_, the fact that Tolkien allowed the
      distinction between them to stand here suggests that the difference
      must stand for something. If we could argue that one is plural and
      the other is singular, it might be convenient for my theory that
      _nithrad_ == _ni_ + _(a)thrad_. Thus _Annon porennin_ == 'Gate (of)
      those skilled at hand' and _porannin nithrad_ == something like '(I)
      skilled at hand let me pass' or 'skilled at hand I (will) pass'.

      Another possibility is that one (or both) of these words is the 1st
      person singular verb, since they end in _-in_. The beginning _po-_
      might be an adverbial prefix like those in Noldorin _tre-vedi_
      'traverse' (Etym. BAT- 'tread') or _ath-rado_ 'to cross, traverse'
      (Etym. RAT- 'walk'). It could be related to the preposition _bo_ 'on'
      in the Sindarin Lord's Prayer. A verb *_po-rado_ or *_po-redi_ could
      conceivably have a meaning either 'approach' or 'advance' developed
      from an original sense 'walk on, go on'.

      -- Christopher Gilson
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic