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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.