13081Re: [ANE-2] A New Year's Question: "suffix pronoun" vs "pronominal suffix"
- Jan 1, 2011Dear Reinhard,
In a linguistic discussion I would prefer "suffixed pronoun." In
didactic discourse one uses whatever works.
The terms I use are "object/dative/possessive suffix."
The point is, I think, that the suffixed pronoun has the function of,
and is exchangeable with an independent pronoun (or particle-pronoun)
or a noun phrase in the same syntactic slot.
It is not exchangeable with the endings of the suffixtenses, for they
occupy a different slot (subject).
Although, I tend to agree that in Akkadian the stative endings are
In Ugaritic/Phoenician/Hebrew/Aramaic/Arabic that is a different
matter, although this view could (and should)
be maintained for stative QaTiL/QaTuL/QaTaL (paris/parus).
As to a suffix:
affigo/suffigo have the part. affixus/suffixus (I looked it up),
attached. So a suffix(ed) pronoun (pronomen suffixum) is identified as
But it is not interchangeable with attached particles (enclitics).
And now that I looked it up:
Ewald (Grammatica Critica Linguae Arabicae �367) has it: Pronomina
Gesenius (Ausf�hrliches Lehrgeba�de, � 56-57) has Pronomen Personale
Separatum as against P.P. Suffixum.
Bauer_Leander have Pronomen Suffixum as against "Selbst�ndiges
Personalpronomen, and similarly Jo�on (the French edition) and
Brockelmann (Arabische Grammatik).
That is where I stopped.
Von Soden has "Pronominalsuffixe"/Selbst�ndige Personalpronomina"
Van der Merwe/Naud�/Kroeze (Reference Grammar) speak of "Pronominal
As always, Noeldeke is most interesting: in his Syriac Grammar he has
"Subjektsformen" der Pronomina, Enclitische Formen an Part. und
Adjektiv (which we also have in post-biblical Hebrew),
Possessivsuffixa and Objektsuffixa. But there is an adder under
the grass, for suffixa is sc. pronomina! I suppose that is the origin
of pronominalsuffixe and "Pronominal Suffixes" etc.
A happy New Year. May 2011 help us forget 2010!
On 01/01/2011, at 11:57, R. Lehmann wrote:
> wouldn't that mean the the correct term could only be "SuffixED
> Actually I prefer pronominal suffix, esp. in contrast to
> conjugational suffixes as are suggested in Ugaritic, where many
> scholars even in German speak of Suffix Conjugation instead of
> Afformativ Conjugation or the like. At least pronominal suffix works
> much better when teaching Hebrew, Aramaic or Phoenician, at least in
> What's a suffix at all?
> Happy New Year,
> Dr. Reinhard G. Lehmann
> Academic Director
> Research Unit on Ancient Hebrew & Epigraphy
> FB 01/ Faculty of Protestant Theology
> Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz
> D-55099 Mainz
> Subsidia et Instrumenta Linguarum Orientis (SILO):
> 10th Mainz International Colloquium on Ancient Hebrew (MICAH):
> Am 01.01.2011 um 10:20 schrieb Frank Polak:
> > Actually, I think, "suffix pronoun" is the better term. After all,
> > possessive/object/dative suffix
> > (and the nominative suffix, if you think of the stative endings) are
> > interchangeable with
> > independent pronouns (and in the textual tradition also with nouns),
> > but not with, e.g., enclitic particles.
> > A happy new year,
> > Frank Polak
> > On 01/01/2011, at 01:18, Robert M Whiting wrote:
> >> A question arose the other day about the use of "suffix pronoun" in
> >> contrast to "pronominal suffix". I preferred the latter in a
> >> context but was told that "suffix pronoun" is the established term
> >> among
> >> demotists and that besides, "it's a bit more than a mere pronominal
> >> suffix."
> >> Now I would maintain that "suffix pronoun" and "pronominal
> suffix" are
> >> completely interchangeable (unlike some adjective-noun pairs like,
> >> say,
> >> "house cat" and "cat house") and using one or the other at any
> >> time
> >> would depend on whether one wanted to stress the pronoun or the
> >> aspect of the beast. I would also expect the grammatically correct
> >> "pronominal suffix" to be slightly preferred over the less robust
> >> "suffix
> >> pronoun" (with the more correct "suffixed pronoun" perhaps
> sharing the
> >> honors_).
> >> Well, demotists are strange creatures in any case, but are they
> >> biased towards "suffix pronoun" over "pronominal suffix"? To test
> >> conumdrum, I took the example of Marc Cooper and headed for The
> >> Google.
> >> These are the results of several searches (if they are difficult to
> >> read,
> >> switch to a fixed font):
> >> "pronominal suffix" phoenician | About 3,170 results
> >> "suffix pronoun" phoenician | About 220 results
> >> "pronominal suffix" arabic | About 13,800 results
> >> "suffix pronoun" arabic | About 1,250 results
> >> "pronominal suffix" hebrew | About 36,000 results
> >> "suffix pronoun" hebrew | About 1,280 results
> >> "pronominal suffix" akkadian | About 5,030
> >> "suffix pronoun" akkadian | About 317 results
> >> "pronominal suffix" ugaritic | About 4,100 results
> >> "suffix pronoun" ugaritic | About 174 results
> >> "pronominal suffix" ethiopic | About 3,200 results
> >> "suffix pronoun" ethiopic | About 308 results
> >> "pronominal suffix" "semitic languages" |About 3,430 results
> >> "suffix pronoun" "semitic languages" |About 356 results
> >> "pronominal suffix" egyptian | About 12,400 results
> >> "suffix pronoun" egyptian | About 2,490 results
> >> "pronominal suffix" coptic | About 1,270 results
> >> "suffix pronoun" coptic | About 720 results
> >> "pronominal suffix" demotic | About 277 results
> >> "suffix pronoun" demotic | About 459 results
> >> The usual caveats about Google searchs apply: There are doubtless
> >> numerous ovrlaps in the search results, but I think it likely that
> >> these
> >> will only increase the size of the numbers, not their relative
> >> proportions.
> >> The results are astonishing (at least to me). While semitists
> >> "pronominal suffix" over "suffix pronoun" by at least 10 to 1
> >> times this in some categories), demotists actually prefer "suffix
> >> pronoun"
> >> by about 5 to 3. Furthermore, other Egyptological branches also
> >> to
> >> be more amenable to "suffix pronoun", with Egyptian at only 5 to
> 1 in
> >> favor of "pronominal suffix" (due to the search parameters, there
> >> may a
> >> large number of Egyptian Arabic examples included in this number)
> >> Coptic at less than 2 to 1 in favor.
> >> So the claim that "suffix pronoun" is established among demotists,
> >> would
> >> seem to be borne out, and now comes the question: Why is this so?
> >> Why do
> >> demotists reverse a universal trend and prefer "suffix pronoun"
> >> "pronominal suffix"? I am loathe to ascribe this to the natural
> >> perverseness of demotists, so there must be some reason why this
> >> particular discipline bucks a trend that is obvious, if not
> >> overwhelming,
> >> among semitists. Is it based on a translation from some master
> >> demotist
> >> whose word cannot be altered? Does it have it roots it the wider
> >> field of
> >> Egyptology, which seems to be several times more tolerant of
> >> pronoun" than its semitist countepart?
> >> A second question is: Does anyone have any reason to believe that
> >> there
> >> is any difference in meaning between "suffix pronoun" and
> >> suffix"? Does anyone claim, or know of anyone who claims, that a
> >> "suffix
> >> pronoun" and a "pronominal suffix" are different things? Is this an
> >> idea
> >> that is current among demotists?
> >> Any help is welcome, but especially from those who plough the
> >> vowelless
> >> wastes of ancient Egyptian.
> >> Bob Whiting
> >> whiting@...
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > ------------------------------------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>