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

Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.