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

Re: PE17 errata

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.