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

PE17 errata

Expand Messages
  • merp@kingtape.se
    I just wanted to draw the attention to what I believe could be a minor error in Parma Eldalamberon 17: on page 26 is given the reference _OYO-_ ever
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 4, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I just wanted to draw the attention to what I believe could be a minor
      error in Parma Eldalamberon 17: on page 26 is given the reference
      "_OYO-_ 'ever eternal'". The correct form would be "OY- 'ever,
      eternal'" (as appearing in _The Lost Road_, p. 379). From what I can
      find, the The Parma Eldalamberon errata document (updated 20 December
      2008) does not include this note. (I also double-checked with the
      corrigenda provided in Vinyar Tengwar 46, which also has "OY-".)
      Cheers,
      Morgan Thomsen


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Giraudeau
      Hello, here are some possible errors in PE17 : PE17:5 both published and in the both published in the PE17:18 distinguised distinguished PE17:23
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 20, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello,

        here are some possible errors in PE17 :

        PE17:5
        both published and in the >> both published in the

        PE17:18
        distinguised >> distinguished

        PE17:23
        Etymogies >> Etymologies

        PE17:25
        a Qenya word [could it be "Quenya" instead ?]

        PE17:34
        The sheet sheet >> The sheet

        PE17:146
        Etym. AM- 'up' >> Etym. AM²- 'up'

        PE17:164
        and older variant of Eldamar >> an older variant of Eldamar

        PE17:166
        _ataquanta-_, refall, fall second time, double fall [could it be "refill" and "fill" instead, cf. _entaquanta- 'refill' next page and roots KWAT- in Etym. or QNTN or QATA in PE12]

        DG
      • cgilson75
        ... No, the allusion is to examples that were published at that time and also to examples written at that time in the Silmarillion materials but not yet
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 20 5:41 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, "David Giraudeau" <davidkiks@...> wrote:

          > here are some possible errors in PE17 :
          >
          > PE17:5
          > both published and in the >> both published in the

          No, the allusion is to examples that were published at that time and also to examples
          written at that time in the "Silmarillion" materials but not yet published then.

          >
          [...]
          >
          > PE17:25
          > a Qenya word [could it be "Quenya" instead ?]

          Yes, this should certainly be "a Quenya word." This is actually a silent expansion of
          Tolkien's "a Q. word" but he would have spelled it with the "u" if he had written it in
          full at this time.

          >
          [...]
          > PE17:146
          > Etym. AM- 'up' >> Etym. AM²- 'up'

          My feeling is that the superscripted number is superfluous in this context: it is not
          an essential component of the linguistic form; the reference is unambiguous since the
          gloss of the base is included; and the number would not mean anything to readers
          not already very familiar with _The Etymologies_ or having it before them as they
          were reading PE 17.

          >
          [...]
          > PE17:166
          > _ataquanta-_, refall, fall second time, double fall [could it be "refill" and "fill" instead, cf. _entaquanta- 'refill' next page and roots KWAT- in Etym. or QNTN or QATA in PE12]

          At the time I published PE 17 it seemed clear that either "refall" was a slip for
          "refill" or else _ataquanta_ was a slip for _atalanta_ and I intended (but in the
          event neglected) to point out the alternative possibilities in the annotation. The
          other two glosses are more hasty and could be interpreted either way. The reading
          of the "a" in the first gloss seemed clear at the time; but I see on reëxamining my
          copy of the ms. page that this gloss is written over something else in ball-point,
          which is too obscured to interpret, but may be contributing to an actual "i" in the
          gloss (written without a dot) looking like an "a." Given that "refall" is an unusual construction in English anyway, I think it is indeed much more likely that Tolkien
          wrote "_ataquanta_, refill, fill second time, double fill."

          Christopher Gilson
        • Hans Georg Lundahl
          If this is correct - sorry for an elfling rather than lambengolmor statement - any scandinavian members will be happy to know that Tolkien knew of the Swedish
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 24 11:52 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            If this is correct - sorry for an elfling rather than lambengolmor statement - any scandinavian members will be happy to know that Tolkien knew of the Swedish coffee house custom of _påtår_ and made _ataquanta_ to represent it in Quenya. Or does _refill_ occur often in English customs?







             Given that "refall" is an unusual construction in English anyway, I think it is indeed much more likely that Tolkien
            wrote "_ataquanta_, refill, fill second time, double fill."


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.