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

Re: PE17 errata

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 of 5 , Aug 20, 2011
      • 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 3 of 5 , Aug 24, 2011
        • 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.