Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments
- On 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
- David 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
- Petri 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".
- On 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]