649Re: porennin/suffixed _nin_
- Apr 3, 2004--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, David Kiltz wrote:
> [...] _anim_ vs _enni_ is 'benefactive/beneficiary' vs 'indirectobject 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
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 processof 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
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>