Patrick Wynne wrote:
>[I don't think _úcárer_ might be expected. For one thing, _úcarer_ occurs
>twice, in both At. V and VI, making it unlikely to be a slip. Moreover, as
>noted of this form in At. V in VT43:12: "Faint pencilled markings over the
>_e_ suggest that Tolkien intended to emend _úcarer_ > _úcarir_ (though
>the form remains _úcarer_ in At. VI)."
Yes, the form _úcarer_ remained in At. VI. To my mind, the pencilled
markings over the _e_ suggest that Tolkien *considered* changing _úcarer_ >
_úcarir_, but since the change did not carry over to At. VI he may have
thought twice about it.
In any case: Do you mean to suggest that _úcarer_ was a slip for _úcarir_?
I find it less unlikely that Tolkien omitted an accent mark than that he
wrote _e_ for _i_ by mistake.
Then again, if _úcarer_ was *not* a slip, then both _úcarer_ and _úcarir_
must be regarded as grammatical forms. If so, do they mean the same thing?
Perhaps there is some distinction that would explain the intentional use of
_e_ in this case. Such as, the two forms expressing past tense and aorist,
>Note the use of present _trespass_ in the traditional English rendition;
>this is of course used in its gnomic sense, stating a general truth: in
>Christian theology, Mankind is fallen and sinful; we 'do ill, sin, trespass'
>from birth to death, past, present, and future. So yes, sin is indeed a
>"periodically recurrent action" in fallen Mankind. In such circumstances,
>forgiveness must also be viewed as a general, ongoing process.
You omit the words "against us" in the text at hand. Forgiving the
trespasses of those who do (or have done) ill to us is one thing. Forgiving
the trespasses of those who do ill from birth to death (being fallen)...
that is quite another.