737A few questions about _Etymologies_
- Sep 14, 2004Is the NENG- entry (VT46:3 s.v. NENG-WI-) composed of the root only or has
it all the Q. and N. words as well?
[It is essentially the same, lacking only the Dor. reflex. It can be noted here
that the entry for NENG- supplied the Quenya form _nengwea_ 'nasal' in the
published entry, which is lacking in NENG-WI-. CFH]
_Indyalme_ (VT46:3 s.v. ÑGAL-/ÑGÁLAM-) has no gloss. Could it be an
intensive form: *_ingyalmê_ > _indyalme_?
So _ninquitá-_ 'whiten' (V:378 s.v. NIK-W-) is not a typo after all?
[It is very clearly written as such in the manuscript. CFH]
But then what might be the meaning of the long _á_ as compared
to "ninquita- shine white"?
Could _sorne_ (V:392 s.v. THOR-, THORON-) be _sorno_ with a badly
[No. The T-section of _Etymologies_ is among the most clearly written,
and the form as written is very clearly _sorne_. CFH]
Do the few additions and changes made in ballpoint ink (cf. VT46:22
s.v. YAR-; or VT46:23 s.v. YER-) belong to the same period as the inserted
sheets (fols. 17-18, 30-31, 42-85 and 117-122)?
[I would say not, since in the ballpoint emendations you cite, Tolkien is
still using the language-name "Noldorin", whereas in the inserted sheets
you list Tolkien instead describes "Beleriandic". CFH]
- Next post in topic >>