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

883Re: [Lambengolmor] Meaning of _umne_

Expand Messages
  • David Kiltz
    Feb 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On 05.02.2006, at 23:58, Patrick Wynne wrote:

      > Interpretation of OQ _umne_ as strong
      > pa.t. *_ûb-_ + 1 sg. *_ni_ seems quite plausible

      Patrick, any particular reason why you wouldn't consider _**ub + n +
      ni_ > _*umbne_ >_umne_ a possibility as well ? It would *seem* to me,
      such a development is in the phonetic ball park. To be sure, I know of
      no example of 1st sg. _-ne_ suffixed to _-n-_ infix past tenses.
      (Actually I had overlooked _karne_ vs _karin_, which you thankfully
      noted). However, as Tolkien calls _-n-_ infix pa.t. 'strong' (cf. XI:
      366 about _anwe_ ), the above analysis seems possible as well, don't
      you think ?

      David Kiltz

      [I don't find the **_ub + n + ni_ theory plausible because this is not
      how nasal infixion was applied in Quenya. In forming a strong pa.t.
      of a basic verb, the nasal infix was inserted before the final consonant
      of the stem -- thus AWA > _anwe_, archaic str. pa.t. of _auta-_ 'go away,
      leave' (XI:366); TOP- 'cover, roof' > pa.t. _tompe_ (V:394); TALÁT- 'to
      slope, lean, tip' > _atalante_ 'down-fell' (V:390, 56). In derived verbs,
      the nasal infix was inserted before the derivative suffix (usually _-ta,
      -ya_), if this suffix was retained in the pa.t. -- thus _auta-_ > pa.t.
      _oante_ (< _áwa-n-tê_) (XI:366), and _farya-_ 'suffice' > pa.t. _farinye_
      (beside weak _farne_) (VT46:9 s.v. PHAR-).

      What we do NOT ever see is a pa.t. formed by insertion of a nasal infix
      between a verb stem and a pronominal ending, as you propose in
      **_ub + n + ni_. Indeed, this form would not even qualify as strong,
      since the _n_ is SUFFIXED to the basic verb *_ub-_, which means such
      a verb would be classified as weak. -- PHW]
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic