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

Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Mar 8 3:48 AM
    • 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 2 of 10 , Mar 9 12:50 AM
      • 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 3 of 10 , Mar 9 8:37 AM
        • 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 4 of 10 , Mar 9 9:25 AM
          • 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 5 of 10 , Mar 10 12:23 AM
            • 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 6 of 10 , Mar 10 8:42 AM
              • 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 7 of 10 , Mar 28 6:34 AM
                • 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 8 of 10 , Mar 28 9:49 PM
                  • 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.