Re: Call for input: _Vinyar Tengwar_ errata
In VT44, p. 37 n. 3 you write:
"Another Quenya preposition with a similar form and meaning is
_epe_ 'after' (VT42:32), seen also in _epesse_ 'after-name'
And on the next page Bill Welden corrects his VT42 article:
"_epe_ 'after'. The gloss should be 'before'."
Are both meanings, 'before' and 'after', attested for _epe_ in
[Yes. Arden's cross-reference to _VT_ 42 was an editorial oversight, due
to his article being written and prepared for publication before Bill's
letter was submitted. The cross-reference to UT and XII, of course, remain
>"_epe_ 'after'. The gloss should be 'before'."I see. May I ask, then, what was Bill's motivation to correct/change the
gloss of _epe_?
(Note that my question concerns the attested meaning(s) of the word _epe_,
regardless of what may be guessed from the word _epessi_.)
[Short answer: Bill discovered that he'd given the wrong translation for
_epe_ from the source document in question. Carl]
- --- In lambengolmor@y..., Fredrik <gwaihir@s...> wrote:
> >"_epe_ 'after'. The gloss should be 'before'."In the document I cited, _epe_ is clearly glossed 'before'. As a
> I see. May I ask, then, what was Bill's motivation to correct/change the
> gloss of _epe_?
novice to this sort of work, I glossed the word based on my
(incorrect) confidence that it meant 'after', without bothering to
check the reference. I have learned my lesson, and spent quite a few
hours looking up the references for the work I did in the latest VT.