Errata in PE14
- View SourceThere is a form _neldelume_ on page 50 (footnote #57). Should it read
_neldellume_ instead, as it appears on following page 51?
[Yes, it should read _neldellume_. CFH]
Reference in note #54 (p. 69) should be "PE 12, p. 20" instead of "PE
13, p. 20".
On page 76 we read: "ANDA RÁMA '(a) long wing'." and footnote #28
explains that the "translation was originally '(a) long wing', altered
in ink". Is the original gloss actually "(a) long arm"? A similar
change in meaning is stated on p. 75 (note #27): ANDARÁMA 'long-armed'
>> 'long-wing'.[Yes. Footnote 28 on p. 76 should read: "The translation was originally '(a) long arm', altered in ink."
The Qenya sentence on page 54 has _ie-rautanéma_ 'had been stolen',
consisting of what seems a singular past tense form of the verb 'to
be' (_ie_, p. 57) and the past passive participle of the verb _rauta-_
(pa.t. *_rautane_ + ending _-ma_ for passive participle, p. 56; the
vowel lengthening obeys apparently the same mechanism seen in the
case of the indefinite article suffixed to trisyllabic nouns:
_tantare_ 'dance', _tantaré·ma_ 'a dance' p. 42). In note #89 it is
said that _ie-rautanéma_ was changed from _nye-rautanéma_. On the
other hand, _hye_ is another singular past tense form of the verb 'to
be' (beside _ie_ and _ye_). Is it possible that _nye-_ and _hye_ are
actually the same form in the manuscript?
[No, the first element of the deleted form is very clearly _nye_. Good observation, though. And thanks for catching these! CFH]