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

Early Qenya Grammar (_PE_ 14) queries

Expand Messages
  • Edouard Kloczko
    Two questions regarding the Early Qenya Grammar in _Parma Eldalamberon_ 14: 1) On p. 57 the compound tense _tuluvande_ is translated in English as is going
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 14, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Two questions regarding the "Early Qenya Grammar" in _Parma Eldalamberon_ 14:

      1) On p. 57 the compound tense _tuluvande_ is translated in English as 'is going to
      come' but labeled "fut. imperf." Should it not be "pres. fut." instead ? There is already
      a fut. imperf. _tulinwa_.

      [The reading "fut. imperf." is accurate as given. Note that _tulinwa_ "will be coming"
      is formed on the present participial stem (_tulin-_) with a future ending (_-wa_),
      while _tuluvande_ "is going to come" is formed on the future participial stem
      (_tuluvan(d)-_) with a present ending (_-e_). In both cases the presence of a present
      element in combination with a non-past participle "adds up to" an imperfect sense
      (and so "present" would in both cases be insufficient to the description). Furthermore,
      it is apparent that it is not simply the tense but further the order of these elements
      that fully defines and distinguishes the precise meanings of these two fut. imperf. forms,
      as seen in the English glosses. CFH]

      2) On p. 55 the Qenya adverbs are arranged according to the prefixing of the deictic
      particle _en_ (_qisse_/_enqisse_ ; _tyen_/_enken_; _sallo_/_entallo_, etc.), except for
      _(en)qinta_/_qint_ "thither". Should not the first form of the pair be _qint_ and the
      second _(en)qinta_?

      [The text as given, including the relative positions of this pair of forms, is accurate
      in showing the table as it came to stand after Tolkien's revisions, with one possible
      exception, sc., that the form _qint_ has a (relatively) light line through the top of it,
      perhaps indicating that it was ultimately deleted (though it may instead be a stray
      mark). As for the relative ordering of the pair in question, in comparison with the
      other pairs in the table, I would note that although the first form here, _(en)qinta_,
      does show an (optional) prefix _en-_, which occurs elsewhere only as the (invariable)
      first element of each of the second terms of all other pairs in this table, it should
      also be observed that the second term, _qint_ (whether or not deleted) here shows
      the same shortening (here by loss of final vowel) that is characteristic of the optional
      short forms of the second, _en-_terms of all the other pairs: a shortening that is
      lacking in the corresponding first terms of all of those pairs. Thus it is not at all
      clear-cut that Tolkien has simply inadvertantly reversed the formal relationship of
      the two terms in the pair _(en)qinta_/_qint_ with respect to the other pairs. CFH]

      Elfiquement votre,

      Edouard Kloczko
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.