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

Re: [Lambengolmor] _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments

Expand Messages
  • Ales Bican
    ... **This is actually one of possibilities I suggested. I tried primarily to find the base from Etym and the most likely ones I could think of were KHAM-
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 7, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Petri Tikka wrote:

      > Ales Bican suggests in his study of the "Atalante Fragments"
      > that _nahamna_ "to hýþe" (V:47) might be analyzed as _na-_ "to"
      > prefixed preposition (V:374) + HAM- *"ground" (QL:39L) +
      > _-na_ (?) noun ending.

      **This is actually one of possibilities I suggested. I tried primarily
      to find the base from Etym and the most likely ones I could think
      of were KHAM- "sit" and KHAP- "enfold"; in the latter case,
      _hamna_ might be "something that is enfolded", hence "harbor".

      > One problem with this is that _-na_ is not
      > necessarily a noun ending;

      **You are quite right that the suffix _-na_ means a problem here,
      since it is rather an adjectival/participial suffix and the words
      (adjectives/participles) derived by it could be nominalized (and it
      seems that even some _-na_ adjectives could be verbalized, as
      _lumna-_ "heavy" and "to lie heavy").

      > _-na_ in _samna_ "wooden post" <
      > _STAB-_ might be an adjectival ending later developing a nominal
      > meaning (since the original meaning of STAB- isn't known)

      **Judging from _stabrô_ "carpenter, wright, builder", the base
      STAB- might mean something like "to hew, to wright, to build
      from wood". Hence _samna_ "wooden post" might literally be
      "something built from wood".

      > as also
      > _namna_ "statute" < *_nam-_ "judge" (in _namin_ "I judge",
      > VT41:13).

      **Here _namna_ "statute" might be "something that is/was judged",
      what do you think?

      > Another is that _-na_ might also be a form of the allative
      > case ending _-nna_ before consonants, since _-nna_ is in all likelihood
      > derived from _NÂ-_ (V:374).
      >
      > These are minor points, but I would rather analyze _nahamna_ as
      > _na-_ "to" nominal prefix

      **What do you mean by "nominal prefix"?

      > + HAM *"ground" + _-na_ allative case
      > ending. A similar construction is _nuhuinenna_ (SD:246) < _nu_
      > "under" (LR:398) + _huine_ "shadow" (LR:56) + _-nna_ allative
      > case ending. *_nahan_ "to ground" is indeed where ships come when
      > arriving at a harbour.

      **You may be right, though the word _nahan_ does not seem like
      a usual Q word. But then if a harbor can have a name like _Elenna_... : )

      > Prefixed prepositions (indicating grammatical
      > position in a sentence) are not used in the context where this word is
      > found, but instead case endings (e.g. _kilyanna_ "to-chasm"). Suddenly
      > having such a form would be surprising indeed, and the explanation
      > of euphony seems fragile, since understanding the meaning is mostly
      > outweighing in non-poetic texts.

      **You may be right, but the form *_hamnanna_ is slightly odd -- too
      many nasals. At any rate, there must be something unusual about the
      word _nahamna_, because it is the only word that is not a proper name
      that was not translated by Alboin.


      Ales Bican

      --
      kurvannapi vyalíkáni yah. priyah. priya eva sah.
      anekadós.adus.t.ó 'pi káyah. kasya na vallabhah.
    • Petri Tikka
      ... Isn t that what I just implied? So I do agree. ... I m not actually certain, but I think I mean it here as a preposition used as a mark of location
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 8, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Ales Bican tence:

        > Petri Tikka wrote:
        >
        > > _-na_ in _samna_ "wooden post" <
        > > _STAB-_ might be an adjectival ending later developing a nominal
        > > meaning [...]
        > [...]
        > > as also _namna_ "statute" < *_nam-_ "judge" (in _namin_ "I
        > > judge",VT41:13).
        >
        > **Here _namna_ "statute" might be "something that is/was judged",
        > what do you think?

        Isn't that what I just implied? So I do agree.

        > > These are minor points, but I would rather analyze _nahamna_ as
        > > _na-_ "to" nominal prefix
        >
        > **What do you mean by "nominal prefix"?

        I'm not actually certain, but I think I mean it here as a preposition
        used as a mark of location regardless of grammatical context, being
        an independent word, like _under-_ in _under-world_.

        > > + HAM *"ground" + _-na_ allative case
        > > ending. A similar construction is _nuhuinenna_ (SD:246) < _nu_
        > > "under" (LR:398) + _huine_ "shadow" (LR:56) + _-nna_ allative
        > > case ending. *_nahan_ "to ground" is indeed where ships come when
        > > arriving at a harbour.
        >
        > **You may be right, though the word _nahan_ does not seem like
        > a usual Q word. But then if a harbor can have a name like _Elenna_... : )

        That would be quite impossible in Finnish; adding case endings to nouns
        in order to form place names, I mean, because Finnish can't have
        identical case endings adjacent (though different ones are possible),
        and pre- and postpositions are rare.

        This introduces a question to me:

        How would one express grammatical movement to the place called _Elenna_
        in Quenya? One possibility is adding the allative case _-nna_ again to
        _Elenna_; it would produce a quite uneuphonic (*)*_Elennanna_, which
        would be subject to haplology. Thus simply _Elenna_ could be a possibility.
        Another is the preposition _na_ "to, towards" (V:374): *_na Elenna_, but
        this would induce tautology with two nearby allative elements of the same
        origin.

        > > Prefixed prepositions (indicating grammatical
        > > position in a sentence) are not used in the context where this word is
        > > found, but instead case endings (e.g. _kilyanna_ "to-chasm"). Suddenly
        > > having such a form would be surprising indeed, and the explanation
        > > of euphony seems fragile, since understanding the meaning is mostly
        > > outweighing in non-poetic texts.
        >
        > **You may be right, but the form *_hamnanna_ is slightly odd -- too
        > many nasals.

        If euphony is the problem, one may wonder why not *_na hamna_, with
        _na_ as a simple unglued preposition. I would consider analysing _na-_
        in _nahamna_ as a grammatical preposition quite implausible, though not
        impossible; I would suggest that you could update your analysis of the
        _Atalante_ fragments on this matter.

        >At any rate, there must be something unusual about the
        > word _nahamna_, because it is the only word that is not a proper name
        > that was not translated by Alboin.

        Yes, but it was translated into Old English.

        Mára mesta,

        Petri Tikka Helsinki, Finland
        kari.j.tikka@...
        http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/
      • David Kiltz
        ... Nominal prefixes occur frequently in Quenya: E.g. _mirroanwi_, tercenye_ etc. [_Mirroanwi_ Incarnates, those (spirits) put into flesh
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 9, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On Samstag, März 8, 2003, at 12:48 Uhr, Petri Tikka wrote:

          > Ales Bican tence:
          >
          >> Petri Tikka wrote:
          >>> I would rather analyze _nahamna_ as
          >>> _na-_ "to" nominal prefix
          >>
          >> **What do you mean by "nominal prefix"?
          >
          > I mean it here as a preposition
          > used as a mark of location regardless of grammatical context, being
          > an independent word, like _under-_ in _under-world_.

          Nominal prefixes occur frequently in Quenya: E.g. _mirroanwi_,
          tercenye_ etc.

          [_Mirroanwi_ 'Incarnates, those (spirits) put into flesh' < _mi-
          srawanwe_ (X:350); _essi tercenye_ 'names of insight' (X:216).
          Give glosses and page references, please! -- PHW]

          A discussion of euphony or dysphony follows.

          I think it's quite clear from the attested corpus that Quenya could use
          either a local preposition or a case ending in these cases: _mi Númen_
          vs. _Númessier_, _mi oromardi_ vs. _mahalmassen_. This should be
          possible with _na_ vs _-nna_ as well.

          > Why not *_na hamna_, with
          > _na_ as a simple unglued preposition. I would consider analysing _na-_
          > in _nahamna_ as a grammatical preposition quite implausible, though not
          > impossible.

          Because it's not a preposition here.

          I think to understand the meaning of _nahamna_ one has to see it in the
          context of the evolving text. _Nahamna_ changed to _kamindon_ >
          _akamna_ > _nukumna_ (IX:311). None of these forms seems to
          correspond to the OE "translation" _to h´ythe_. Indeed, I think all
          the above forms mean "humbled" as does the Adunaic
          translation _zabathaan_(IX:247 et al.).

          This leaves us with 3 roots, HAM-, KAM-, KUM-. Petri Tikka notes that
          HAM can be interpreted as"ground" in the QL. KAM might mean the same
          (cf. KEM- in The Etymologies or, perhaps, Adunaic _kamaat_.) I don't
          know about KUM. Maybe it's a further derivative ? Do KU3- "bow" or
          KUM- "void" come in ?

          At any rate, if we assume that HAM/KAM here means "ground", we get:
          "to-ground-ed", "ground-ed-like" (_kamin-ndon_), and "very-ground-ed"
          (with sundóma as an intensifier). _Nukumna_ may be "down-bow-ed"
          or "down-void-ed", if it doesn't also contain "ground".

          Of course, this is just an assumption for heuristic reasons. It shows,
          however, I think, that _-in_/_na_ here are indeed participle endings.
          If anything, the semantic connection with Latin _humilis_, as already
          noted by Ales, makes the case only stronger.

          David Kiltz
        • Carl F. Hostetter
          ... This presentation fails to account for a critical fact concerning the first stage of the (indeed) evolving text: Tolkien s Old English translation
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 9, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sunday, March 9, 2003, at 03:50 AM, David Kiltz wrote:

            > I think to understand the meaning of _nahamna_ one has to see it in
            > the context of the evolving text. _Nahamna_ changed to _kamindon_ >
            > _akamna_ > _nukumna_ (IX:311). None of these forms seems to correspond
            > to the OE "translation" _to h´ythe_. Indeed, I think all the above
            > forms mean "humbled" as does the Adunaic translation
            > _zabathaan_(IX:247 et al.).

            This presentation fails to account for a critical fact concerning the
            first stage of the (indeed) evolving text: Tolkien's Old English
            translation accompanies only the _first_ version; indeed the OE text is
            written on "a slip of paper giving the Quenya fragments in their
            original form" (IX:317), i.e., as Christopher Tolkien goes on to note,
            in a form identical to that in _The Lost Road_, not incorporating even
            the minor changes found in the first version of the text in _The Notion
            Club Papers_ (IX:310). The natural implication of this is that OE _to
            hy'the_ is a translation of _nahamna_.

            Of course, it remains _possible_ that _to hy'the_ does _not_ translate
            _nahamna_; i.e., that in the act of translating the restated _Lost
            Road_ text into OE, Tolkien, _at that point_, decided that the meaning
            he wanted to express was not whatever _nahamna_ means (in this
            scenario, perhaps Tolkien, in the intervening years, had himself
            forgotten what it meant when he wrote it!), and instead wrote _to
            hy'the_, meaning to subsequently alter the Quenya to match. But there
            are at least two problems with this: first, Tolkien's normal work
            pattern would have been to simply mark up _nahamna_ on the spot, to
            change it to the revised form, which he did not do; and second, the
            next time he wrote the passage out (for Text E, IX:310), it still has
            _nahamna_ (note that this version precedes the version accompanying the
            first Adunaic translation).

            Even the third time he wrote it, it has _kamindon_, which looks for all
            the world like an adverbial form, and indeed against it is written the
            partial gloss "-ly" (IX:311); hence, it cannot translate _to hy'the_
            either. Moreover, _kamindon_ first appears in the version of the text
            that accompanies the first Adunaic translation, and corresponds there
            to _zabathaan_ 'humbled'; so it seems pretty clear that _kamindon_ is
            meant to translate 'humbled', and so too _akamna_, as _nukumna_ does
            explicitly (it is glossed thus, IX:246). But despite the apparent similarity
            of _nahamna_ and _akamna_, they must come from different bases
            (_nahamna_ from a base in KH-, _akamna_ from one in _K-_). So we
            can't really infer anything about _nahamna_ from _akamna_. Nor can we
            _necessarily_ infer anything about _nahamna_ from any of the later
            Quenya and Adunaic forms.


            --
            =========================================================================================Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

            ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
            Ars longa, vita brevis.
            The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
            "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
            a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
          • Petri Tikka
            ... All nice and well, except that _mi_ in, within (V:373) and _-sse_ aren t cognates, while _na_ and _-nna_ are. One can sit _mahalmassen_ upon thrones
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 9, 2003
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              David Kiltz tence:

              > I think it's quite clear from the attested corpus that Quenya could use
              > either a local preposition or a case ending in these cases: _mi Númen_
              > vs. _Númessier_, _mi oromardi_ vs. _mahalmassen_. This should be
              > possible with _na_ vs _-nna_ as well.

              All nice and well, except that _mi_ "in, within" (V:373) and _-sse_
              aren't cognates, while _na_ and _-nna_ are. One can sit _mahalmassen_
              "upon thrones" (UT:305), but not *_mi mahalmar_ "in thrones". The root
              of this preposition _mi_ indeed means "inside" (V:373). The applicability
              of _-sse_ is presumably more general, since it is the general "locative"
              case (VT6:14), not specific "inessive" or "adessive" as there are in
              Finnish. So the possibility of _na_ and _-nna_ co-existing and being
              used equivalently can't really be inferred from these examples.

              But there are other examples, such as the prepositional cognate of
              _-sse_: _se_ "at, in" (VT43:30). Its known usage in the (admittedly
              sparce) corpus is limited, while examples of the cognate locative case
              are abundant. Their interchangability is indeed a possibility: "It is
              noteworthy that _mi kon-alkorin_, _(mi) SEkormen_, and
              _kokormeneSSE_ were all allowed to stand, even though they seem
              to mean the same thing." (VT27:25; emphasis mine). The same
              interchangability might be true also for the cognates _na_ and _-(n)na_,
              at least in the earlier (external and internal) stages, because _-nna_
              evolved from postpositional use of _na_. Cf. Quenya _lúmenna_
              "upon the hour"(WJ:367) vs. Telerin _lúmena_ (WJ:407).

              Later stages present a problem, because, as far as I know, there are no
              known direct correspondances between a pre-/ postpositional element being
              equivalent in usage to a cognate case ending in later (external) Quenya.
              This might (speculatively) be because Tolkien had decided that the original
              postposition _na_ had been glued into its nouns and become a case
              ending _-na_. Its postpositional usage would have been forgotten because
              of analogy with the common words glued to which it had become a case
              ending. Prepositional usage is another matter, which might have survived if
              it was common enough in CE beside the evidently very common
              postpositional use. Much can't be said firmly on this matter.

              > On Samstag, März 8, 2003, at 12:48 Uhr, Petri Tikka wrote:
              >
              > > Why not *_na hamna_, with
              > > _na_ as a simple unglued preposition. I would consider analysing _na-_
              > > in _nahamna_ as a grammatical preposition quite implausible, though not
              > > impossible.
              >
              > Because it's not a preposition here. [Basis for this]

              That is a possibility (though not convincing; see a recent post 343 by Carl
              Hostetter on this subject matter), but the context was around the
              possibilitythat there is a preposition or case ending in _nahamna_. I
              objected to thepossibility that _na-_ in _nahamna_ is a glued
              preposition, concidering it highly unlikely. For basis, see my previous
              posts on the subject .

              Petri Tikka Helsinki, Finland
              kari.j.tikka@...
              http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/
            • David Kiltz
              ... I didn t mean to say that. The Etymologies give Quenya _an, ana, na_ to, towards , prefix _ana_. That is pretty close to the meaning of _-nna_. I do not
              Message 6 of 10 , Mar 10, 2003
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sonntag, März 9, 2003, at 06:25 Uhr, Petri Tikka wrote:

                > David Kiltz tence:
                >
                >> I think it's quite clear from the attested corpus that Quenya could
                >> use
                >> either a local preposition or a case ending in these cases: _mi Númen_
                >> vs. _Númessier_, _mi oromardi_ vs. _mahalmassen_. This should be
                >> possible with _na_ vs _-nna_ as well.
                >
                > All nice and well, except that _mi_ "in, within" (V:373) and _-sse_
                > aren't cognates, while _na_ and _-nna_ are. One can sit _mahalmassen_
                > "upon thrones" (UT:305), but not *_mi mahalmar_ "in thrones". The root
                > of this preposition _mi_ indeed means "inside" (V:373).
                > So the possibility of _na_ and _-nna_ co-existing and being
                > used equivalently can't really be inferred from these examples.

                I didn't mean to say that.

                The Etymologies give Quenya _an, ana, na_ "to, towards", prefix _ana_.
                That is pretty close to the meaning of _-nna_. I do not say that _na_
                (as preposition) and _-nna_ were used in exactly the same way. Although
                the fact that _na_ and _-nna_ seem to be of identical origin makes it,
                if anything, more likely. But I think it is very likely that _na-_
                actually exists since it is attested in _nahamna_. Or, if you don't
                accept that example, it is listed in The Etymologies.

                >> Because it's not a preposition here. [Basis for this]
                >
                > That is a possibility (though not convincing; see a recent post 343 by
                > Carl
                > Hostetter on this subject matter), but the context was around the
                > possibilitythat there is a preposition or case ending in _nahamna_. I
                > objected to thepossibility that _na-_ in _nahamna_ is a glued
                > preposition, concidering it highly unlikely. For basis, see my previous
                > posts on the subject

                I entirely agree. A "glued" preposition is not a preposition at all.
                It's a nominal prefix. While a preposition _na_ might mean the same as
                _-nna_ a nominal prefix creates a new word.

                Prepositions are written separately, normally. Or does Tolkien's habit
                differ ?

                David Kiltz
              • Petri Tikka
                ... I said as much in the post you are replying to. ... Certainly it exists, no one is denying that, but its meaning is in dispute. ... Listed in the
                Message 7 of 10 , Mar 10, 2003
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  David Kiltz tence:

                  > The Etymologies give Quenya _an, ana, na_ "to, towards", prefix _ana_.
                  > That is pretty close to the meaning of _-nna_. I do not say that _na_
                  > (as preposition) and _-nna_ were used in exactly the same way. Although
                  > the fact that _na_ and _-nna_ seem to be of identical origin makes it,
                  > if anything, more likely.

                  I said as much in the post you are replying to.

                  > But I think it is very likely that _na-_
                  > actually exists since it is attested in _nahamna_.

                  Certainly it exists, no one is denying that, but its meaning is in dispute.

                  > Or, if you don't
                  > accept that example, it is listed in The Etymologies.

                  Listed in the Etymologies? I can't find such a prefix, only independent
                  preposition _na_ and prefix _ana-_ (VT:374).

                  > I entirely agree. A "glued" preposition is not a preposition at all.
                  > It's a nominal prefix. While a preposition _na_ might mean the same as
                  > _-nna_ a nominal prefix creates a new word.

                  Not always; cf. below.

                  > Prepositions are written separately, normally. Or does Tolkien's habit
                  > differ ?

                  Sometimes it does; e.g. the chart of pronouns suffixed with preposition
                  _ó-_ "with" (VT43:29) and _sekormen_, possibly with _se-_ locative
                  prefix (VT27:25). This is why Ales suspected (and beforme him also
                  Patrick Wynne and Christopher Gilson in VT27), by the translation
                  "to hýþe", that _na-_ in _nahamna_ is a grammatical preposition. I
                  have been objecting this; see previous posts on this thread by me.


                  [Not to mention _nuhuinenna_ 'under-shadow', showing _nu-_ 'under',
                  right there in the very text in question (IX:246). CFH]


                  Petri Tikka Helsinki, Finland
                  kari.j.tikka@...
                  http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/
                • Ales Bican
                  ... **Judging from _Elenna.nóreo_ in CO, I suppose it would be something like _Elenna.nórenna_, i.e. some additional word (here _nóre_ land ) would be
                  Message 8 of 10 , Mar 28, 2003
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Petri Tikka asked:

                    > How would one express grammatical movement to the place called _Elenna_
                    > in Quenya? One possibility is adding the allative case _-nna_ again to
                    > _Elenna_; it would produce a quite uneuphonic (*)*_Elennanna_, which
                    > would be subject to haplology. Thus simply _Elenna_ could be a possibility.
                    > Another is the preposition _na_ "to, towards" (V:374): *_na Elenna_, but
                    > this would induce tautology with two nearby allative elements of the same
                    > origin.

                    **Judging from _Elenna.nóreo_ in CO, I suppose it would be something
                    like _Elenna.nórenna_, i.e. some additional word (here _nóre_ "land")
                    would be attached to it, because as you note it would look and sound
                    somewhat strange with the additional word.

                    Then Petri suggested:

                    > I would suggest that you could update your analysis of the
                    > _Atalante_ fragments on this matter.

                    **I will certainly update it. I will try to incorporate what has been
                    said about the matter here. Helge Fauskanger was very kind to send me
                    his commentaries to the whole Analysis, so I am going to go through
                    the Analysis and revise some parts of it when I have time to.

                    As regards my opinions on what has been said about the topic since my
                    last responce to it, I agree with what Carl Hostetter wrote in messages
                    entitled 'Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments', one from March 9th
                    and one from March 10th, because it is more or less what I wanted to
                    say in the Analysis.

                    In another message Petri noted:

                    > Sometimes it does [i.e. prepositions are not written separately]; e.g. the
                    > chart of pronouns suffixed with preposition _ó-_ "with" (VT43:29) and
                    > _sekormen_, possibly with _se-_ locative prefix (VT27:25). This is
                    > why Ales suspected (and beforme him also Patrick Wynne and
                    > Christopher Gilson in VT27), by the translation "to hýþe", that _na-_
                    > in _nahamna_ is a grammatical preposition.

                    **Ah! So this is the place where I got the idea from. I had a feeling
                    that the idea of _nahamna_ being _na + hamna_ was not really my own
                    and that I saw it somewhere. However, since the majority of the
                    Analysis was written a year and half before the final revision, I could
                    not remember where I saw the idea. I tried to look it up, I also talked
                    about this with Patrick Wynne but we were not able to locate it. I am
                    glad it has emerged at length. : )

                    In another message David Kiltz wrote:

                    > This leaves us with 3 roots, HAM-, KAM-, KUM-. Petri Tikka notes that
                    > HAM can be interpreted as"ground" in the QL. KAM might mean the same
                    > (cf. KEM- in The Etymologies or, perhaps, Adunaic _kamaat_.) I don't
                    > know about KUM. Maybe it's a further derivative ? Do KU3- "bow" or
                    > KUM- "void" come in ?

                    **KUM was my assumption, but it was not the only one. We can find these
                    bases: KUPU "hump", KUVU "bent bow" (both from QL, p. 49L, R), KU3
                    "bow" (from Etym; + _kúna_ "bent, curved", MC:222). Bases KUMU "heap
                    up" (QL:49L) and KUB (meaning not given, contains a derivative _kumbe_
                    "mound, heap"; from Etym) might also be related to these.

                    Given the variety of bases I therefore postulated the base KUp "bend,
                    bow, hump" where the 'p' stand for a labial as such, because it cannot
                    be inferred what base underlied the form _kumna_, as the _m_ might be
                    a reflex of practically any labial: it might be KUP, KUB as well as
                    KUM (and even KUW/KUV I believe). (Let me note that the mysterious
                    so-called CB Grammar contains several forms which point to the base
                    KUB, but since the status of the document is not known, my conclusions
                    were not based on it.)

                    > At any rate, if we assume that HAM/KAM here means "ground", we get:
                    > "to-ground-ed", "ground-ed-like" (_kamin-ndon_), and "very-ground-ed"
                    > (with sundóma as an intensifier). _Nukumna_ may be "down-bow-ed"
                    > or "down-void-ed", if it doesn't also contain "ground".

                    **This is what I suggested in the Analysis, yes.


                    Ales Bican
                  • David Kiltz
                    ... Wouldn t that yield _kumpa_ rather than _kumna_ ? [Not necessarily. The _Etym._ gives instances of _*pn_ _mn_ in Quenya, notably Q. _telemna_ silver
                    Message 9 of 10 , Mar 28, 2003
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Freitag, März 28, 2003, at 03:34 Uhr, Ales Bican wrote:

                      > It might be KUP

                      Wouldn't that yield _kumpa_ rather than _kumna_ ?

                      [Not necessarily. The _Etym._ gives instances of _*pn_ >
                      _mn_ in Quenya, notably Q. _telemna_ 'silver' (adj.)
                      < KYELEP- or TELEP (V:366) and Q. _lemnar_ 'week'
                      < LEP- (V:368). However, the _Etym._ also has abundant
                      examples of bases ending in P with Q. derivatives containing
                      _-mp-_ rather than _-mn-_, e.g., _tompe_ pa.t. of _tope_
                      'covers' < TOP, _ampa_ 'hook' < GAP-, and _lempe_ 'five'
                      < LEP- (whence also _lemnar_ 'week'). A possible explanation
                      for these varying developments, at least at the time that the
                      _Etym._ was written, might be that P + N arising from
                      suffixion > _mn_ (_*lep-nar_ > _lemnar_), while elsewhere
                      Q. _-pm-_ is the result of nasal infixion, the nasal being
                      "homorganic", i.e. suited in point of articulation to the
                      consonant it precedes (_*le-m-pê_ > _lempe_). -- PHW]

                      >> At any rate, if we assume that HAM/KAM here means "ground", we get:
                      >> [...]

                      > **This is what I suggested in the Analysis, yes.

                      I know. I was basically recapping here.

                      David Kiltz


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