Re: Some notes on PE17
- Ugo Truffelli wrote, in reply to me:
> The statement cited previously in PE17:161 is preceded by "_QuenyaI agree with much of what you say. But of course I did not mean to
> idiom in describing the parts of body of several persons the _number_
> proper to each individual is used, the _plural_ of parts existing in
> _pairs_ (as hands, eyes, ears, feet) is seldom required." Well, in the
> light of these words I find it too difficult to see _ómainen_ as a
> usage of such an idiom, because _óma_ is neither a part of the body
> that can have more than one number in a person, nor falls into the
> category of "part existing in a pair".
suggest that _voice_ (the concept) might somehow fall into the category
of "parts [of the body] existing in pairs".
My question was, is the idiom an isolated example? Why did Tolkien find
it proper to Quenya grammar? Perhaps it was not suggested to him by
anything in particular in Elvish; it might be an anomaly, a whim even.
"[Body] parts existing in pairs", and that's it! Perhaps.
However, if we do not look just to the literal words on the page, we may
ask ourselves whether the idiom presented itself because it follows from
some larger pattern in the language? I don't know; that's why I put it
as a question.
You are probably right about my suggested "similar case", if I was
mistaken as to when (in the external history of Quenya) forms such as
_ómainen_ ceased to be plurals.
> And if the idiomatic usage wantsSeems reasonable enough, if "idiomatic" here means something like
> the sg or dual for the (normal) pl (in order to specify the "number
> proper to each individual"), we may easily suppose that the non-
> idiomatic usage should require the plural.
"irregular". Or perhaps Tolkien just wanted to point to the Quenya idiom
as contrasted with a literal translation from English. In which case the
word does not really tell us much about "non-idiomatic" usage (which to
me suggests Elvish as spoken by a foreigner).
- --- In email@example.com, "cgilson75" <cgilson75@...>
>How does this item read? If I get the text then I can add it to
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Fredrik <frestro@> wrote:
>> Some questions and observations on PE17:
>> 10) On page 189 s.v. WE (and in the editorial comment on WEG, p. 191), a
>> root WEK is referred to. I cannot find it in the list of "Eldarin Roots
> > and Stems". Was it deleted?
> This item was not deleted in the manuscript; but it was
> accidentally left out of PE 17.
the errata list.
Suilaid o Mellonath Daeron,
Gildir, Per Lindberg