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

730Re: [Lambengolmor] Is _enge_ "irregular"?

Expand Messages
  • Atwe
    Sep 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- "Patrick H. Wynne" <pwynne@...> wrote,
      re statements by me and by S�bastien Bertho in Elfling
      messages #30283 and #30284, respectively, that _enge_,
      pa.t. of _ea_ 'exists', is "irregular":

      > I disagree with Thomas's and S�bastien's
      > characterization of _enge_ as an "irregular"
      > past tense.

      I stand corrected in my opinion, the past tense of
      _ea-_ is regular to its kind. To support our
      characterisation a little bit, although the pa.t. of
      this verb is regular, it may be that the verb itself
      is irregular in the sense that its paradigm is not
      whole, for instance it might lack a perfect form (on a
      sidenote: what would be the perfect of _tea-_?)

      Greetings,

      =====
      Thomas Ferencz

      -- love is the shadow that ripens the wine --

      [I am puzzled by your final statement -- on what
      evidence do you assume that the paradigm of _ea_
      'exists' might not be whole or lack a perfect form?
      There are very few Quenya verbs indeed for which
      all tenses -- aorist, present, past, perfect, future --
      are attested, and yet it is generally supposed (correctly,
      I think) by Tolkienian linguists that this is simply
      due to our fragmentary evidence, not to rampant
      irregularity in the Quenya verbal system.

      As for the perfect tense of _tea_ 'indicates', is there
      any reason to suppose it might not have been
      *_etengie_, after pa.t. _tenge_? In "Quendi and
      Eldar" Tolkien notes that _av�nie_, perfect tense
      of _auta-_ 'go away, leave', had "intrusion of _n_
      from the past [_v�ne_] (the forms of past and perfect
      became progressively more closely associated in
      Quenya)" (XI:366). -- Patrick H. Wynne]
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic