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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.