Special verbs: Not all Quenya verbs fit readily into the system sketched above. "Irregularities" are often historically justified in terms of the underlying phonological evolution Tolkien had in mind, and in this perspective the verbs are not irregular at all. So let us speak of "special" rather than "irregular" verbs.
特殊动词:并非所有Quenya动词都依循以上简述的系统规则。从历史角度看,“不规则者”经常合理地出现在托尔金所构想的潜藏的音韵学演进过程中,以此观之,这些动词并非完全不合道理。那么就让我们把它们称作“特殊”动词而非“不规则”动词吧。
One example of an historically justified "irregularity" is provided to the verb rer- "to sow". We might expect its past tense to be **rernë; cf. such examples as tir- "watch", past tense tirnë. But the actual past tense "sowed" is rendë. The discrepancy is easily explained: Whereas the verb tir- "to watch" directly reflects a primitive root TIR, so that the r had been r all along, the final -r of the verb rer- "to sow" actually comes from an earlier d: The original root is RED (LR:383). The past tense rendë is formed by simple nasal-infixion of this root, so this past tense is actually wholly analogous to (say) quentë as the regular past tense of quet- "to say, speak"
历史缘由所生的“不规则者”的其中一个例子就是动词rer- "to sow"。我们可以推想其过去式为**rernë;比较:合乎规则的实例tir- "watch",过去式为tirnë。但实际上,其过去式"sowed"是rendë。这种矛盾很容易解释:鉴于动词tir- "to watch"直接反映了一个原始词根TIR,其中的r自然不需变动,动词rer-中最末的r其实源于早先的d:其原始词根是RED(LR:383)。过去式rendë由词根添再加简单的鼻音中缀来构成,所以这个过去式同规则变化的quet- "to say, speak"的过去式quentë事实上是如出一辙的。
However, as Quenya evolved from primitive Elvish, an original d following a vowel normally became z and then r. So the root RED produced a primary verb rez- > rer-, but in the past tense form rendë, the nasal infix "shielded" the original d from the preceding vowel. Thus it remained d. - Other verbs that may belong to this category include hyar- "to cleave", ser- "to rest" and nir- "to press, thrust", since they are derived from roots SYAD, SED, NID (see VT41:17 about the latter). However, the past tense forms hyandë, sendë, nindë are not explicitly mentioned in published material.
然而,由于Quenya是从原始精灵语演化而来,故原先跟在元音之后的d通常都会变成z,继而成为r。所以词根RED产生的一个基本动词是由rez-到rer-,但是在过去式rendë中,鼻音中缀防止了位前元音对d的作用,这样一来d就得到了保留。其他可能属于此类的动词还包括hyar- "to cleave", ser- "to rest" and nir- "to press, thrust",因为它们都分别源自这些词根SYAD, SED, NID(有关后面这几个 参见 VT41:17)。但它们的过去式hyandë, sendë, nindë并未明确地出现在已出版的材料中。
One attested form that would belong in this category is lendë "went" as the past tense of the verb "to go, travel". The form lendë arises by nasal-infixion of a base LED (listed in the Etymologies; according to the WJ:363 it is re-formed from even older DEL). The basic form of the verb "to go" is lelya- (from older ledyâ), so the past tense lendë also illustrates another phenomenon: some verbs in -ya drop this ending in the past tense, which is then formed just as if we were dealing with a primary verb. Especially interesting in this regard is the verb ulya- "to pour", which Tolkien noted has a double past tense: "Poured" in the transitive tense, as in "the man poured water in a cup", is ulyanë with the normal past tense ending -në added to -ya: a perfectly "regular" form according to the rules set out above.
一个已得证可归于此类的实例形式是lendë "went"作动词"to go, travel"的过去式。lendë这个形式是在LED的基础上加鼻音中缀形成的(该形式被列在词源表中,根据WJ:363的说法,它是由更古老的DEL重构造而来)。动词"to go"的基本形式是lelya-(来自于早先的ledyâ),所以过去式lendë说明了另一个现象:一些以-ya作结的动词的过去式丢弃了这个词尾,这种构成方式就好像我们在处理一个基本动词一样。于此尤其有趣的是动词ulya- "to pour",托尔金将之注解为一个双过去式:"Poured"的一种传递时态,就像在"the man poured water in a cup"中一样,是带有通常的过去式词尾-në的ulyanë再加上-ya而得到的:一个基于法则的完美的“规则”形式如上所列。
However, the past tense "poured" in the intransitive sense, as in "the river poured into the gorge", is ullë. Notice how the ending -ya is suppressed and the past tense is formed directly from the stem UL. We do not have enough material to tell whether this suppression of -ya before the past tense ending -në is something that regularly occurs. It may be noted that the past tense of the verb farya- "to suffice" is given as farnë (not **faryanë); this form seems to support such a theory (LR:381 s.v. PHAR).
然而,过去式 "poured"在非传递时态中则不同,比如在"the river poured into the gorge"之中是ullë。注意词尾-ya是如何被抑制住的,这个过去式的构成直接源于词干UL。我们并没有足够的材料来说明过去式词尾-në对-ya的抑制是否是作为一种常规行为发生的。我们可以看到,动词farya- "to suffice"的过去式以farnë形式给出(而非**faryanë);这个构成似乎支持了这种理论(LR:381 PHAR条目下)。
As we have already touched on, Tolkien may have replaced the verb vanya- "to disappear" with auta- "go away, leave", which has a double set of past and perfect tenses: past oantë with perfect oantië if the verb is used with reference to physically leaving one place and going to another, but past tense vánë with perfect avánië when the verb is used of disappearing or dying off. The word vanwa "gone, lost, vanished, departed" is said to be the "past participle" of this verb, though it seems so irregular that it could just as well be treated as an independent adjective. See WJ:366.
就如我们在前文所接触到的,托尔金可能用auta- "go away, leave"替代了动词vanya- "to disappear",前者的过去和完成两种时态分别有两组形式:如果动词本身指物理上的从一处行至另外一处,则用过去式oantë和完成式oantië,如果指消失或是相继死亡,就要用另一组:过去式vánë和完成式avánië。单词vanwa "gone, lost, vanished, departed"据说是这个动词的过去分词,尽管它看上去如此不规则以至于可以被当做一个独立的形容词来对待。参见WJ:366。
2015年02月28日 07点02分
11