--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "David Giraudeau" <davidkiks@...> wrote:
> here are some possible errors in PE17 :
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> _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."