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

13082Re: [ANE-2] A New Year's Question: "suffix pronoun" vs "pronominal suffix"

Expand Messages
  • Peter T. Daniels
    Jan 1, 2011
      Germans writing in German (as opposed to dropping Latin phrases in) these days
      tend to use "Endung" for the conjugational affixes in the perfect and "Suffix"
      for the pronominal suffixes. "Afformative" is a Germanism in English, and I
      don't recall Dennis using "sufformative" and "preformative," but they seem
      equally foreign.

      Eng. "affix" is the cover term for prefix, suffix, and infix; "ending" is
      usually a non-technical equivalent of "suffix" but the ending/suffix distinction
      could be convenient. It falls down, though, because "prefix," needed just as
      much in Semitic, has no "ending"-like counterpart.

      As for the original question, "pronominal suffix" is superior.--
      Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
      Jersey City

      From: Frank Polak <frankha@...>
      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sat, January 1, 2011 6:55:50 AM
      Subject: Re: [ANE-2] A New Year's Question: "suffix pronoun" vs "pronominal

      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 
      But it is not interchangeable with attached particles (enclitics).

      And now that I looked it up:
      Ewald (Grammatica Critica Linguae Arabicae ง367) has it: Pronomina 
      Gesenius (Ausf�hrliches Lehrgeba�de, ง 56-57) has Pronomen Personale 
      Separatum as against P.P. Suffixum.
      Bauer_Leander have Pronomen Suffixum as against "Selbstไndiges 
      Personalpronomen, and similarly Jo�on (the French edition) and 
      Brockelmann (Arabische Grammatik).
      That is where I stopped.
      Von Soden has "Pronominalsuffixe"/Selbstไndige Personalpronomina"
      Van der Merwe/Naud้/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.

      Once again,

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


      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

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic