883Re: [Lambengolmor] Meaning of _umne_
- Feb 8, 2006On 05.02.2006, at 23:58, Patrick Wynne wrote:
> Interpretation of OQ _umne_ as strongPatrick, any particular reason why you wouldn't consider _**ub + n +
> pa.t. *_ûb-_ + 1 sg. *_ni_ seems quite plausible
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 ?
[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]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>