Quoting Pavel Iosad <edricson@...
> Neither are overt pronouns and agreement markers in complementary
> distribution in Sindarin: cf._le linnon im Tinúviel_ (IV:354). The
> subject is not exactly 'prefixed', but this seems to present a
> counterexample to Andreas' hypothesis.
Indeed it does. (Standard disclaimer; in at least one moment in time, Tolkien
appears to have envisioned Sindarin not to work like I assumed!)
But as "Im ... echant" demonstrates, they're not simply obligatory agreement
I did not actually suggest the forms be called "unsuffixed" - in the past
tense, these verbs of course commonly display a _tense_ suffix - but "without
a suffixed pronoun", which we would surely shorten as "pronounless" or some
such. I still think this is an acceptable conclusion - Pavel's example may
perhaps be interpreted as having a duplicated pronoun for emphasis - but if
the choice is between "3rd sg" and "personless", I think the later is the less