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

Re: _nahamna_ in the Atalante fragments

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Mar 10 8:42 AM
    • 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 2 of 10 , Mar 28 6:34 AM
      • 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 3 of 10 , Mar 28 9:49 PM
        • 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.