- ... This presentation fails to account for a critical fact concerning the first stage of the (indeed) evolving text: Tolkien s Old English translationMessage 1 of 10 , Mar 9 8:37 AMView SourceOn Sunday, March 9, 2003, at 03:50 AM, David Kiltz wrote:
> I think to understand the meaning of _nahamna_ one has to see it inThis presentation fails to account for a critical fact concerning the
> 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.).
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."
- ... 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 thronesMessage 2 of 10 , Mar 9 9:25 AMView SourceDavid Kiltz tence:
> I think it's quite clear from the attested corpus that Quenya could useAll nice and well, except that _mi_ "in, within" (V:373) and _-sse_
> 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.
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:That is a possibility (though not convincing; see a recent post 343 by Carl
> > 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]
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
- ... 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 notMessage 3 of 10 , Mar 10 12:23 AMView SourceOn Sonntag, März 9, 2003, at 06:25 Uhr, Petri Tikka wrote:
> David Kiltz tence:I didn't mean to say that.
>> I think it's quite clear from the attested corpus that Quenya could
>> 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.
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]I entirely agree. A "glued" preposition is not a preposition at all.
> That is a possibility (though not convincing; see a recent post 343 by
> 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
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
- ... 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 theMessage 4 of 10 , Mar 10 8:42 AMView SourceDavid Kiltz tence:
> The Etymologies give Quenya _an, ana, na_ "to, towards", prefix _ana_.I said as much in the post you are replying to.
> 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-_Certainly it exists, no one is denying that, but its meaning is in dispute.
> actually exists since it is attested in _nahamna_.
> Or, if you don'tListed in the Etymologies? I can't find such a prefix, only independent
> accept that example, it is listed in The Etymologies.
preposition _na_ and prefix _ana-_ (VT:374).
> I entirely agree. A "glued" preposition is not a preposition at all.Not always; cf. below.
> 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 habitSometimes it does; e.g. the chart of pronouns suffixed with preposition
> differ ?
_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
- ... **Judging from _Elenna.nóreo_ in CO, I suppose it would be something like _Elenna.nórenna_, i.e. some additional word (here _nóre_ land ) would beMessage 5 of 10 , Mar 28 6:34 AMView SourcePetri Tikka asked:
> How would one express grammatical movement to the place called _Elenna_**Judging from _Elenna.nóreo_ in CO, I suppose it would be something
> 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
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**I will certainly update it. I will try to incorporate what has been
> _Atalante_ fragments on this matter.
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**Ah! So this is the place where I got the idea from. I had a feeling
> 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.
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**KUM was my assumption, but it was not the only one. We can find these
> 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 ?
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:**This is what I suggested in the Analysis, yes.
> "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".
- ... Wouldn t that yield _kumpa_ rather than _kumna_ ? [Not necessarily. The _Etym._ gives instances of _*pn_ _mn_ in Quenya, notably Q. _telemna_ silverMessage 6 of 10 , Mar 28 9:49 PMView SourceOn Freitag, März 28, 2003, at 03:34 Uhr, Ales Bican wrote:
> It might be KUPWouldn'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:I know. I was basically recapping here.
> **This is what I suggested in the Analysis, yes.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]