DLDm4gjVSD2 — G+ LoME Archive

Tamas Ferencz Nov 06, 2015 (12:44)

It's a funny thing with Quenya as we know it how sometimes we can have an overabundance of variations for certain grammatical or vocabulary items; it can be marvelous and frustrating at the same time. With the publication of Parma Eldalamberon 22 we now have, among others, yet another set of words added to our list of (modal or normal) verbs expressing ability, possibility, necessity. I am only listing from memory, so please correct if I miss anything:

pol- 'physically able'
ista- 'know how to'
lerta- 'free to do'
ek- 'may, can' impersonal
mauya- 'need, must' impersonal (although this may not be attested in Quenya as such, only as an active verb, but we have the Noldorin cognate)
KURU 'have power, strength, ability' although no verbal forms are given
nai 'have opportunity, chance, permission' so = 'may' impersonal or normal
ebe- 'mere possibility, likelihood, natural probability'; would the actual verbal form be *ev-/*eve-?

Have you yourself set up a preference, a system for yourselves for usage?

Александр Запрягаев Nov 06, 2015 (12:51)

+Tamas Ferencz Well, it depends on the era of the invention and whether we take a 'replacement' approach of thinking 'later overrides earlier' or a 'maximalist' one, taking everything of use and devising some explanations. Personally, I see the pol/ista/lerta cluster a most carefully developed one, connected to Osanwe-kenta which remained a part of Tolkien's concept ever on and linking to other known words such as poldorea etc. I see the PE22 approaches (all jottings, actually, no carefully devised essays!) as mere experimentation due to forgetfulness, nai obviously contradicting the ordinary na - i explanation appearing even on the same period in (carefully devised) Ambidexter glossaries. KURU has an uncertain quality for me, and mauya I accept, for this modality is nowhere seen to be expressed somehow else. (Why did he abandon kavinye from QVS? A perfect 'can' it was!)

Tamas Ferencz Nov 06, 2015 (13:06)

+Александр Запрягаев
he should have had Eldamo available, so that he could search his own vocabulary to see whether had already invented the word in question:)

Tamas Ferencz Nov 06, 2015 (13:08)

ek- is from WPP so it's pretty established also

Tamas Ferencz Nov 06, 2015 (15:03)

We can probably add ora- to the list in the sense of 'ought to, be compelled to'

Александр Запрягаев Nov 08, 2015 (10:16)

+Tamas Ferencz Did you mean HFN, maybe? ek is from VT49, the same Allen&Unwin reverse as the PE22 jottings. Personally, I think it's a better designed idea than the nai/kuru plan — but we must have in mind it is compatible with '_nó_ as after' idea, connected to the much more questionable zone of relative time prepositions; '_nó_ as before' is rather supported by texts, such as the Merin sentence.

Tamas Ferencz Nov 08, 2015 (18:24)

+Александр Запрягаев
yes, well, I have no idea why I thought it was from PE17... Nevertheless, I like, it, I like impersonal constructs in Q.

Björn Fromén Nov 09, 2015 (17:49)

+Александр Запрягаев
I see no reason why noa ’tomorrow’ should disqualify ek- . Actually ’after’ has better support than ’before’, since it was the meaning assigned to nó during most of Tolkien’s lifetime (cf. nó ’after’ in QL, the month names Nótuile, Nólaire, Norríve, Nócoire from ca. 1950 [PMe: 135], and noa in a note to the very late HFN).
As a conjunction nó is used for ’but’ (variant of ono?) in nō namin alasaila (VT 41:13), but the only text where nó for ’before’ occurs seems to be the Merin sentence, whose autenticity is still to be proved. Or do you know of any other?

Александр Запрягаев Nov 13, 2015 (20:32)

+Tamas Ferencz +Björn Fromén I now have a thought what really might disqualify ek-. It is the stem HEK, which in the final phonology clashes with it. And both of them with EKE 'sharp point'...

Tamas Ferencz Nov 13, 2015 (22:13)

+Александр Запрягаев I can't see how ek- clashes with heka- etc.

Александр Запрягаев Nov 14, 2015 (10:19)

+Tamas Ferencz Well, no exact correspondence (however, eka 'be gone' vs. eke 'can'?) And having ehta 'prick' beside it? Stretches the credibility…

Tamas Ferencz Nov 14, 2015 (16:04)

+Александр Запрягаев it does not really stretch mine, nor does it bother me too much. Context practically always helps, and the fact that eke is used impersonally.

Tamas Ferencz Nov 14, 2015 (16:05)

Tyávi lá kostuvaine, I guess? :)

Александр Запрягаев Nov 14, 2015 (16:12)

+Tamas Ferencz After some thought, I think eke should stay. A most careful study of all the relevant forms shows me that the hasty decision of 'H>zero initially in Q' is not so settled; in fact, the correct formulation given all evidence is 'H may remain or go, the latter especially when supported by analogy': (h)athea due to ATHA association, (abandoned) (h)óre from OR, (h)anta when AN (I could write about that a bit more); and HENET is abandoned (apparently). On this side, Tolkien's own reminder to himself that H stays. On the opposite side, the matters of Eruhantale, HEK and HO, which cannot be denied…