G+ LoME Archive
Dec 17, 2017 (19:25)
Atalatyanente (atalatanyente?) Ambaro anyára parmakoa. I koranari amna min húme lempe tuxa linyenwa ampano tare Kemetesse (Hakapta? Egypt, see
) ar avalatina né an envinyatanentes. Parmar nelde húmi neltuxa quen kime tanome, i anyára tekina min húme toldo tuxa koranari yá...
Dec 17, 2017 (21:11)
I don’t think intransitive atalta can be used as the basic for transitive “to ruin”. It’s root is one of the rare triconsonantal verbal stems TALAT, and I don’t think it would allow causative verbal suffixes like yā or tā.
I think you would be better off coining a neologism from G. fectha “destroy, ruin, spoil”, probably from a root PHEK, hence Q. fehta, S. feitha.
Dec 17, 2017 (21:29)
eldamo.org - Eldamo : Quenya : nancar-
in the NQNT.
Dec 17, 2017 (22:27)
I saw this as from ata-latya- to reopen.
Dec 17, 2017 (22:49)
Dec 17, 2017 (23:42)
Hmm. I should have read more to get context. When I figured out it was the Library of Alexandria, I assumed the verb was “destroyed”.
Still, why not enlatya? The form at(a)latya would imply this is only the second time it’s been opened.
Dec 18, 2017 (00:47)
Re: latyane vs. latanye, the rule seems to be that intransitive verbs are pure weak verbs with suffix -ne while transitive verbs use nasal infixion before the prefix. Since latya is here transitive, I would use latanye. See, for example, PE17/64.
The same rule applies to the verbal suffix -ta which can also be both transitive and intransitive.
Dec 18, 2017 (00:54)
Ótulmanen (by coincident) min i ammaira parmaron úlume ehentanien,
I Losilleva Esse
, ná nyarna pá parmakoa ve sina.
Dec 18, 2017 (00:58)
it is not the one in Alexandria:
Dec 18, 2017 (17:35)
Isn't it the other way round? Cf.
transitive (PE 17:64; PE 17:189).
Dec 18, 2017 (18:58)
You are absolutely right. I switched them in my head as I was writing.
Dec 18, 2017 (20:31)
And if I understand LVS materials correctly, levelling occured in Tarquesta, where only weak forms survived.