--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Thorsten Renk" <trenk@p...> wrote:

>

> > but why is not

> > _suilannad_ lenited, being an object of _aníra_? Would

> > this mean that a) gerunds are not lenited in an object

> > position or b) _aníra_ does not govern an accusative

> > for some raeson?

>

> I think the general assumption is that a gerund can take

> the role of an infinitive and is unlenited if this is so, hence

> 'desires to greet' and not 'desires the greeting of'.

> However, it is my (unproven) impression that gerunds

> can also develop into nouns (e.g. _hammad_ 'clothing')

> (LR:363) and I see no reason why these should be

> protected from lenition.



Yes I agree with you Thorsten.  It is clear that syntactic role plays

a large part in Sindarin syntax.  The idea of a gerund used verbally

would give ample reason for a lack of lenition.



Regarding Hammad:  I think this is probably something that needs to be

taken on an individual basis.  I doubt that all gerunds can be used

directly as hammad and suspect that the occurence of such is due to

shifting semantic use of a few words not the whole paradigm.



-Aaron Shaw

> but why is not

> _suilannad_ lenited, being an object of _aníra_? Would

> this mean that a) gerunds are not lenited in an object

> position or b) _aníra_ does not govern an accusative

> for some raeson?



I think the general assumption is that a gerund can take

the role of an infinitive and is unlenited if this is so, hence

'desires to greet' and not 'desires the greeting of'.

However, it is my (unproven) impression that gerunds

can also develop into nouns (e.g. _hammad_ 'clothing')

(LR:363) and I see no reason why these should be

protected from lenition.





> - is there any evidence showing that indirect objects

> (e.g. in dative expressions) should be lenited, too?

> (some list the above sentence in KL as an example, but

> I believe here _mhellyn_ is a direct object of

> _suilannad_ despite of the translation.



I don't understand you here - the translation is

" And he desires to greet there all his friends." which

makes it a direct object. But if you interpret _suilanna-_ as

_suil + anna-_ 'give greeting' (which I think is very plausible) then

you find a lenited object in dative. In the majority of cases,

_an_ is used to mark dative, there are only two (possible)

exceptions, one is the above sentence, the other Gilraen's

Linnod in which we cannot see lenition because _edain_

starts with a vowel.  See "The Sindarin Case System"

http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/elvish/cases.html

for a more detailed argument.



* Thorsten

Dear Friends,





sorry if this has been discussed to death before but

I cannot find any reference at the moment to these 2

questions:



- as KL shows in the sentence _ar e aníra ennas

suilannad mhellyn..._ that _mhellyn_ as an object of

_suilannad_ undergoes lenition; but why is not

_suilannad_ lenited, being an object of _aníra_? Would

this mean that a) gerunds are not lenited in an object

position or b) _aníra_ does not govern an accusative

for some raeson?



- is there any evidence showing that indirect objects

(e.g. in dative expressions) should be lenited, too?

(some list the above sentence in KL as an example, but

I believe here _mhellyn_ is a direct object of

_suilannad_ despite of the translation.



Thanks for your opinions,



=====

Thomas Ferencz



  -- love is the shadow that ripens the wine --









__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail