... 1) In Indo-European languages (to which Sindarin bears great resemblance syntactically and morphologically) a denominative from name would normally takeMessage 1 of 6 , Jun 14, 2004View SourceOn 12.06.2004, at 10:05, Beregond. Anders Stenström wrote:
> David Kiltz wrote:1) In Indo-European languages (to which Sindarin bears great
>> accusative in _-n_ may seem uncouth but there might be
>> another instance recorded. Namely, in the 'King's Letter' [IX}:
>> "...Perhael i sennui Panthael estathar aen...". 'Samwise who
>> should rather be called Fullwise'.
>> . . . I would find it hard to interpret _aen_ in the above phrase
>> as dative (< *an-e ?) for both phonetic and syntactic reasons.
> Can you explicate that? Looking purely at what the phrase
> means, it does not seem out of bounds to suppose that _est(a)-_
> means 'utter a name' or 'use a name', the name thus being its
> accusative object and _aen_ a dative. The interpretation would
> then be 'they(one)-shall-[utter-as-a-name] Fullwise to-him', or
> 'they(one)-shall-[use-as-a-name] Fullwise for-him'.
resemblance syntactically and morphologically) a denominative from
'name' would normally take the accusative. The problem (I think) with
your paraphrasing is that (again, at least in IE) syntactically such
verbs precisely do not work that way. E.g. Goth. _namnjan_ etc. 'call,
name' take a direct object. (The same is obviously true for verbs like
'to call, appeler. zvatj' etc.). In Finnish _nimittä_ takes the
So, a construction with *one* verb takes a direct object. Something to
be expected. Of course, the syntax changes the moment you use an
'instrumental' complement [as-a-name]. That's even more true for 'utter
a name', 'use a name' where you have an object 'name' precisely because
that meaning is not yet contained in the original verb. I. e. in such a
construction, obviously you would need a dative as the place of the
direct object is taken. While you may paraphrase (one) meaning of the
verb that way, I think it's not permissible break up the verb so that
the syntactical construction changes. (1)
That's why I think _aen_ (if it is a pronoun) to be much more likely
accusative. I'm not 100% excluding a dative, though. Maybe there is a
derivative of 'name' that works that way in some language? I'm curious.
2) Phonetically, I simply don't know whether _*an-e_ > _aen_.
(1) Doing so would, IMHO, be the same as to argue that 'to feed' takes
an indirect object (dative) because it can be paraphrased as 'give food
(to sb.) or 'to ask' as it may be paraphrased as 'to put a question to
sb.' etc.. I think you get the point.
... Neither do I. In a previous post I suggested *_an-i_ _aen_, but I now doubt it. More normally *_an-i_ would *_ain_, and the occurrence of _phain_ inMessage 1 of 6 , Jun 14, 2004View SourceDavid Kiltz wrote:
> 2) Phonetically, I simply don't know whether _*an-e_ > _aen_.Neither do I. In a previous post I suggested *_an-i_ > _aen_,
but I now doubt it. More normally *_an-i_ would > *_ain_, and
the occurrence of _phain_ in the same text as _aen_ (the King's
Letter, IX:128-131) is an obstacle to any argument for *_an-i_
that might be advanced.
If _aen_ is to be analyzed as a compound with _an_ as its first
element, perhaps the second element could be from the relative
root YA- (in Etymologies, and see VT43:16)..
> (1) Doing so would, IMHO, be the same as to argue that 'to feed' takesI did not suggest that 'call, name' can be paraphrased as 'use as
> an indirect object (dative) because it can be paraphrased as 'give food
> (to sb.) or 'to ask' as it may be paraphrased as 'to put a question to
> sb.' etc..
a name', but that the S verb _est(a)-_ might, for all we know,
actually mean 'use as a name' and not 'call', despite Tolkien's use
of _called_ in his translation of the phrase. As you noted in your
discussion with David Salo, the translation may not be so literal as
to gloss each word exactly.
There is a gloss "name" given for Q _esta-_ (VT45:12), but I do
not think there is an authorial gloss for its S cognate.
If _est(a)-_ has the name as its direct object, it would be
comparable (not quite similar) to the verb _nominalize_.
Hello, David Kiltz wrote, on the subject of assuming an indirect ... Well, in real-world languages of course a patient (that which is given, be it name name,Message 1 of 6 , Jun 15, 2004View SourceHello,
David Kiltz wrote, on the subject of assuming an indirect
patientive object for 'name', 'feed' and sundry:
>(1) Doing so would, IMHO, be the same as to argue thatWell, in real-world languages of course a patient (that
>'to feed' takes an indirect object (dative) because
>it can be paraphrased as 'give food (to sb.) or 'to
>ask' as it may be paraphrased as 'to put a question to
>sb.' etc.. I think you get the point.
which is given, be it name name, or food as in the case
of 'feed') will be expected to take a more privileged
syntactic position (sc. direct object) than the recipient.
However, applicative constructions and/or derivatives
(promoting peripheral arguments to core syntactic
positions) are not quite infrequent: for instance, Russian
_kormitj_ 'to feed' normally codes the one who is fed in
the accusative and the food with the instrumental.
However, its derivative _skarmlivatj_ (which means the
same, but also carries stylistic overtones) takes the food
as direct object and the one being fed as indirect object
in the dative.