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

737A few questions about _Etymologies_

Expand Messages
  • laurifindil
    Sep 14, 2004
      Is 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
      written _o_?

      [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]


      E. Kloczko
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic