Post 9fguHAhzdqz

Tamas Ferencz Aug 13, 2014 (14:41)

On page 25. of VT49 the conjugation of the preposition ar is published:

On page 35., editorial note 33., it is said that "A note on another slip bearing similar paradigms of ana 'to' and mi 'in' ... []"

Pending the publication of said note/slip, can we surmise what those two paradigms can look like?


anni/antye, anatye/alle, anale/ anse
anme, amme/anwe/ante, anate
anmet, ammet



imni/mitye/inle, ille/imse
imme/imwe, minwe/imte


Several of the above clash with forms from the ar and im ('self') paradigms, so I am probably way of in my guessing. Any thoughts?

+#Quenya +#prepositions

Roman Rausch Aug 14, 2014 (00:01)

Assuming always an-, I get:

1 anni
2 antye
3 alle
3 ande > anse (the former via anse > anze)

1 amme (dual ammet) (Since alle < adle doesn't revert to *arle by analogy, I don't expect any nm either.)
1 anwe
2 ande
3 ante

Assuming im- one gets the same as the reflexive paradigm, but assuming mi-:

1 mini
2 mitye
2 mile
3 mire (EDIT: or perhaps misse?)

1 mime (dual mimet)
1 mive (miwe)
2 mire
3 mite

I wouldn't worry too much about homophony, though. In German, the word pronounced [zi:] can mean 'she', 'they' and 'you (formal)'; and it causes no problems at all. One should never underestimate the Power of Context.