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

Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Mar 9, 2003
    • 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 2 of 10 , Mar 9, 2003
      • 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 3 of 10 , Mar 10, 2003
        • 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 4 of 10 , Mar 10, 2003
          • 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 5 of 10 , Mar 28, 2003
            • 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 6 of 10 , Mar 28, 2003
              • 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.