Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13081Re: [ANE-2] A New Year's Question: "suffix pronoun" vs "pronominal suffix"

Expand Messages
  • Frank Polak
    Jan 1, 2011
      Dear 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
      "nominative suffixes".
      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
      attachment.
      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
      Suffixa
      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
      Suffixes",
      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.

      Once again,

      A happy New Year. May 2011 help us forget 2010!

      Frank

      On 01/01/2011, at 11:57, R. Lehmann wrote:

      > Frank,
      > wouldn't that mean the the correct term could only be "SuffixED
      > pronoun"?
      > 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
      > Germany...
      > What's a suffix at all?
      >
      > Happy New Year,
      > Reinhard
      >
      > �
      > �
      > ����������������������������������������������������������������������
      > 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
      > Germany
      > lehmann@...
      > http://www.hebraistik.uni-mainz.de
      > http://www.ev.theologie.uni-mainz.de/297.php
      > Subsidia et Instrumenta Linguarum Orientis (SILO):
      > http://www.hebraistik.uni-mainz.de/182.php
      > 10th Mainz International Colloquium on Ancient Hebrew (MICAH):
      > http://www.micah.hebraistik.uni-mainz.de/204.php
      >
      > Am 01.01.2011 um 10:20 schrieb Frank Polak:
      >
      > > Actually, I think, "suffix pronoun" is the better term. After all,
      > the
      > > 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
      > certain
      > >> 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
      > given
      > >> time
      > >> would depend on whether one wanted to stress the pronoun or the
      > suffix
      > >> 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
      > really
      > >> biased towards "suffix pronoun" over "pronominal suffix"? To test
      > this
      > >> 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
      > prefer
      > >> "pronominal suffix" over "suffix pronoun" by at least 10 to 1
      > (several
      > >> times this in some categories), demotists actually prefer "suffix
      > >> pronoun"
      > >> by about 5 to 3. Furthermore, other Egyptological branches also
      > seem
      > >> 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)
      > and
      > >> 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"
      > over
      > >> "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
      > "suffix
      > >> 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
      > "pronominal
      > >> 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]
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic