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

Re: Call for input: _Vinyar Tengwar_ errata

Expand Messages
  • fr3dr1k_s
    Arden, 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_
    Message 1 of 12 , Jul 8 1:22 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Arden,

      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'
      (UT:266, XII:339)."

      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
      Tolkien's papers?

      /Fredrik

      [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
      valid. Carl]
    • Fredrik
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 8 1:10 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        >"_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_.)

        /Fredrik

        [Short answer: Bill discovered that he'd given the wrong translation for
        _epe_ from the source document in question. Carl]
      • williamwelden
        ... In the document I cited, _epe_ is clearly glossed before . As a novice to this sort of work, I glossed the word based on my (incorrect) confidence that it
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 8 3:46 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In lambengolmor@y..., Fredrik <gwaihir@s...> wrote:

          > >"_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_?

          In the document I cited, _epe_ is clearly glossed 'before'. As a
          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.

          --Bill
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.