650Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: porennin/suffixed _nin_
- Apr 4, 2004On 04.04.2004, at 00:17, cgilson75 wrote:
>> --- In email@example.com, David Kiltz wrote:I'm not sure. Redundancy can, I think, only be claimed if you assume
>> 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').
the root to be 'sufficient'. If not, only determining the status of
_-n_ would allow us to speak of redundancy. In _an-im_, we seem to have
_an_ construed with a nominative or casus rectus _im_. Whereas in
_enni_ (if < _an-ni_) we seem to have an oblique form combining with
Alternatively, both _im_ and _ni_ may mean 'I' (nominative), the first
being an emphatic form. (For _im_ cf. [LR1:402 and III:354]). _Nin_ on
the other hand seems to be the 1st sg. accusative pronoun in Sindarin.
At least, in my view, Tolkien's translation of Sam's invocation
[LR2:425/399] in [R:72/64] seems to favour such an interpretation.
Hence I would tend to view _ammen_ as having no redundant markings as
_men_ is most likely: 1) Casus rectus (nominative) or 2) Casus obliquus
(accusative), i.e. has no beneficiary connotation. In that, _nin_ seems
to contrast Quenya where _nin_ is clearly 'for me' [R:67].
To recap: S. _nin_ contrasts with _anim_ 'for me' (beneficiary) and
_enni_ 'me/to me' (indirect object). It is thus most likely a direct
object, i.e. accusative of the 1st sg. pronoun.
By contrast, an abstracted _men_, while apparently exhibiting an ending
_-n_, combines with _an-_ and thus parallels _im_ (and probably _-ni_).
Hence, it is not implausible to see in _men_ the 1st plural nominative.
Alternatively, it may stand for the accusative. In both cases, when
combined with _an-_, there is no redundancy as _an-_ adds the
beneficiary notion which _men_ alone, probably doesn't convey.
> Probably the _-n_ marks plural number or dative case. But either waySee above why I think there is no evidence for a dative case scenario
> it undermines the rejection of *_an-ni-n_ solely on the grounds of a
> presumed avoidance of double markers.
The idea that _-n_ denotes plurality looks very good (to me). That
would not, however, undermine the conclusion that _ammen_ doesn't
contain double markers, *as referring to case/or rather the notion of
'beneficiary'. Number marking is something totally different.
Indeed, I wrote:
>> In fact, it is precisely because we have _anim_, _enni_, and _nin_Granted, this statement might not have been totally clear. What I meant
> 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).
was 'double marking of case'. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, it
just doesn't seem to be attested as such.
> And even if the etymologicalI don't think *_anni_ means 'for me' but 'to me'. The meaning of _nIn_
> 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_.
is crucial here. I think it may be interpreted as accusative sg. or
(towards) me. Note, however, that Tolkien glosses "...tiro nin..."
[loc. cit.] as '_tiro_ == 'look towards (watch over), _nin_ == 'me'. It
seems hard to drag over the 'towards' to _nin_. The only semantic
parallel construction to _ammen_ is _anim_.
> Not that I actually believe that _-nin_ is a 1st person singularI agree. Although I differ in my assessment of the attested forms. It
> pronoun in _porennin_ and _porannin_, only that we cannot rule this
> out because of what else we know about Sindarin pronouns.
remains that preposition X + _nin_ would be a hapax legomenon, in an
>> If _porannin_ is to be taken as a variant (developed in the processTo which Christopher responded:
> 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 ofThat's a very interesting thought. Clearly, assuming a misspelling
> _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'.
isn't very elegant.
However, as this version was discarded, how likely do you think would
such a 'variant' spelling be ?
> Another possibility is that one (or both) of these words is the 1stAgain, I think that is a very interesting idea. What would the 3rd sg.
> 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'.
be? *_porant_ as paralleling _echant_ (<ET-KAT)? That would nicely fit
the assimilation described by Tolkien in [VT42:27] "In the Southern
dialects _nt, ñk, mp_ remained when standing finally - or more probably
the spirant was re-stopped in this position; (...). Medially however,
_nth_ (...) became long voiceless _n_ (...)." The interpretation as
both _pora/ennin_ and _nithrad_ as 1st pers. sg. would be mutually
exclusive however, don't you think ?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>