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

A New Year's Question: "suffix pronoun" vs "pronominal suffix"

Expand Messages
  • Robert M Whiting
    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
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 31, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      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@...
    • 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
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        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]
      • R. Lehmann
        Frank, wouldn t that mean the the correct term could only be SuffixED pronoun ? Actually I prefer pronominal suffix, esp. in contrast to conjugational
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          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]
        • Donald R. Vance, Ph.D.
          I, too, prefer pronominal suffix for genitive and accusative pronouns suffixed to other words. For the subject markers, I use the terms sufformatives and
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            I, too, prefer pronominal suffix for genitive and accusative pronouns
            suffixed to other words. For the subject markers, I use the terms
            sufformatives and preformatives. I deal with the Semitic languages as
            a rule, though, and I picked up the terms from Pardee, I'm sure.
            Somehow, to my addled brain, "suffixed pronoun" implies a form that
            otherwise occurs independently but can be attached to another word
            with little or no change. Historically, of course, the pronominal
            suffixes came from the independent pronouns, but now have forms quite
            distinct from the independent forms, at least in Classical Hebrew. For
            what it's worth.

            It's been a while, but doesn't Coptic have pronouns that behave as I
            described "suffixed pronouns" above?

            Donald R. Vance, Ph.D.
            Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
            Oral Roberts University
            dvance@...
            donaldrvance@...


            On Jan 1, 2011, at 3:57 AM, 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]
          • Frank Polak
            Dear Reinhard, In a linguistic discussion I would prefer suffixed pronoun. In didactic discourse one uses whatever works. The terms I use are
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 1, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              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]
            • Peter T. Daniels
              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
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 1, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                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
                suffix"

                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 ง367) has it: Pronomina 
                Suffixa
                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 
                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

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Christophe Batsch
                Chers amis du 1er janvier, il mes paraît utile de conserver la distinction entre le cas-sujet (pronom suffixe ou suffixé) et les cas objets (suffixe ou
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 1, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Chers amis du 1er janvier,
                  il mes paraît utile de conserver la distinction entre le cas-sujet (pronom suffixe ou suffixé) et les cas objets (suffixe ou flexion pronominal-e).
                  Les expressions du type "préformante" ou "afformante" seraient alors réservées aux agglutinations non pronominales.
                  Bonne année à tous
                  Christophe Batsch
                  Prof d'hébreu et d'araméen
                  Lille, Paris








                  To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                  From: grammatim@...
                  Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 05:32:17 -0800
                  Subject: Re: [ANE-2] A New Year's Question: "suffix pronoun" vs "pronominal suffix"






                  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
                  suffix"

                  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 ง367) has it: Pronomina
                  Suffixa
                  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
                  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

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Douglas Petrovich
                  Bob, The prof I had for Middle and Late Egyptian at a well-established university, who also was trained in Demotic and Hieratic, consistently used suffix
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 1, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Bob,

                    The prof I had for Middle and Late Egyptian at a well-established university, who also was trained in Demotic and Hieratic, consistently used "suffix pronoun" as opposed to "pronominal suffix", so it is no surprise to me what you experienced with this Demotist. This seems to be the preference among Egyptologists, and there are few things more powerful than inertia with an attitude.

                    And incidentally, and possibly non-coincidentally, this prof revealed his hatred of English grammar when once our discussion digressed from Egyptian grammar to English grammar. The amazing thing to see was his supreme gift at handling Egyptian grammar vs. his distain and lack of confidence when turning to English grammar.

                    Technically speaking, "suffix pronoun" features two nouns, and thus is grammatically incorrect in English. The only legitimate alternative would be to hyphenate the words ("suffix-pronoun"), which essentially is the cowardly way out. So, one is left to ask, "Is it a suffix, or is it a pronoun?" This is what has led several of our respondents to suggest "suffixed pronoun" as a viable alternative.

                    In reference to one of your other comments along these lines, I would suggest to you that the two grammatically acceptable choices ("suffix pronoun" not being one of them) are indeed completely interchangeable, and that there is NO matter of using one or the other to stress the pronoun or the noun. This is an artificial notion.

                    The only other matter worth mentioning is that the respondent who prefers "suffixed pronoun" likely reveals the "gut feeling" of most native English speakers who are neither familiar or comfortable with the established pronominal form for the word pronoun, which--in this case-happens to be the word "pronominal".

                    Why abandon the established form for the one chosen? Many of us are just not comfortable using what is so unfamiliar. Honestly, though, most of us do the same with a wide variety of other adjectives, as well. For example, we tend to say "participle form" over "participial form", and so on. This is just a lack of discipline leading to a dumbing down.

                    We, as academics, do not like to associate ourselves with a derogatory term such as "dumbing down", but the reality is that we also are guilty of this in numerous ways, despite our love for precision and erudition. Part of humility, however, is being willing to call a spade a spade, even when it may be self-incriminating.

                    Hoping this helps,

                    Doug Petrovich
                    Toronto, CA

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Peter T. Daniels
                    There is absolutely no reason not to use a noun-noun collocation in English! For instance rye bread, arithmetic book. (In the latter you can see that it s two
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 1, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      There is absolutely no reason not to use a noun-noun collocation in English! For
                      instance rye bread, arithmetic book. (In the latter you can see that it's two
                      nouns because "arithmetic" is pronounced with its noun stress aRITHmetic and not
                      its adjective stress arithMETic.) (Note also noun stress, not nominal stress;
                      adjective stress, not adjectival stress.) Compare physics textbook, which could
                      be either a physical textbook or a virtual textbook.

                      Note also that "pronoun suffix" was not considered in the original study -- cf.
                      gender suffix (not generic suffix), number suffix (not numeric(al) suffix).
                       --
                      Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                      Jersey City




                      ________________________________
                      From: Douglas Petrovich <dp@...>
                      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Sat, January 1, 2011 2:20:50 PM
                      Subject: [ANE-2] A New Year's Question: "suffix pronoun" vs "pronominal suffix"

                       
                      Bob,

                      ...
                       
                      Technically speaking, "suffix pronoun" features two nouns, and thus is
                      grammatically incorrect in English. The only legitimate alternative would be to
                      hyphenate the words ("suffix-pronoun"), which essentially is the cowardly way
                      out. So, one is left to ask, "Is it a suffix, or is it a pronoun?" This is what
                      has led several of our respondents to suggest "suffixed pronoun" as a viable
                      alternative.
                       
                      ...

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • R. Lehmann
                      ... Amusing. At least myself never use Endung , because it is in such an extent unspecific always someone will confuse it with anything that makes a word
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Am 01.01.2011 um 14:32 schrieb Peter T. Daniels:

                        > 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.
                        >
                        >
                        Amusing. At least myself never use "Endung", because it is in such an extent unspecific always someone will confuse it with anything that makes a word longer than its lexical entry (plural, locale, whatever you want). "Endung" in my opinion is entirely useless.
                        > "Afformative" is a Germanism in English, and I
                        > don't recall Dennis using "sufformative" and "preformative," but they seem
                        > equally foreign.
                        >
                        Sorry, but "Afformativ" (though it will turn to an Germansim in English - any problem?) sounds perfect in contrast to preformative ("Präformativ") as being the main formative element of the verbal conjugation attached pre- and accordingly after the root. Ok, the better would fit "Sufformative", but I am afraid it will be a long way for the term to be accepted, at least in German ("Präformativ" and "Sufformativ"? Sounds strange ... or better tosay "postformative"?).

                        > 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.
                        >
                        Right. But practical language use has long since undermined etymology, at least in German, because there also is an (old) loan word "affigieren" which means "to attach something to (at the end)"...

                        Am 01.01.2011 um 15:27 schrieb Christophe Batsch:

                        > il mes paraît utile de conserver la distinction entre le cas-sujet (pronom suffixe ou suffixé) et les cas objets (suffixe ou flexion pronominal-e).
                        > Les expressions du type "préformante" ou "afformante" seraient alors réservées aux agglutinations non pronominales.
                        >

                        d'accord!


                        ¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
                        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



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Peter T. Daniels
                        s.u.  -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@verizon.net Jersey City ________________________________ From: R. Lehmann To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          s.u.
                           --
                          Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                          Jersey City




                          ________________________________
                          From: R. Lehmann <lehmann@...>
                          To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Sun, January 2, 2011 7:42:45 AM
                          Subject: Re: [ANE-2] A New Year's Question: "suffix pronoun" vs "pronominal
                          suffix"

                           
                          Am 01.01.2011 um 14:32 schrieb Peter T. Daniels:

                          > 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.
                          >
                          >
                          Amusing. At least myself never use "Endung", because it is in such an extent
                          unspecific always someone will confuse it with anything that makes a word longer
                          than its lexical entry (plural, locale, whatever you want). "Endung" in my
                          opinion is entirely useless.
                          > "Afformative" is a Germanism in English, and I
                          > don't recall Dennis using "sufformative" and "preformative," but they seem
                          > equally foreign.
                          >
                          Sorry, but "Afformativ" (though it will turn to an Germansim in English - any
                          problem?)

                           
                          Well, yes! German and English are different languages with more than two
                          centuries of separate development of philological and linguistic terminology.
                           
                          sounds perfect in contrast to preformative ("Präformativ") as being the main
                          formative element of the verbal conjugation attached pre- and accordingly after
                          the root. Ok, the better would fit "Sufformative", but I am afraid it will be a
                          long way for the term to be accepted, at least in German ("Präformativ" and
                          "Sufformativ"? Sounds strange ... or better tosay "postformative"?).

                          > 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.
                          >
                          Right. But practical language use has long since undermined etymology, at least
                          in German, because there also is an (old) loan word "affigieren" which means "to
                          attach something to (at the end)"...

                          That, you see, is precisely the problem. It's a false friend. "To affix" does
                          _not_ mean 'to attach at the end', but simply 'to attach'. You affix a postage
                          stamp to a letter, for instance.

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Robert M Whiting
                          ... No, this is not true. Essentially, any English noun can be used as an adjective (and vice versa). Indeed, some grammarians do not distinguish noun and
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Sat, 1 Jan 2011, Douglas Petrovich wrote:

                            > Technically speaking, "suffix pronoun" features two nouns, and thus is
                            > grammatically incorrect in English.

                            No, this is not true. Essentially, any English noun can be used as an
                            adjective (and vice versa). Indeed, some grammarians do not distinguish
                            noun and adjective at this level and subsume both under "substantives".
                            In any case, "noun" and "adjective" are function labels (not "functional
                            labels") and whether a given substantive functions as a noun or an
                            adjective depends entirely on its use in its own context. If you object
                            to "suffix pronoun" on grammatical grounds, then you must also object to
                            "brain damage", "heart disease", and "lung cancer" on grammatical grounds
                            because "brain", "heart", and "lung" are all clearly nouns. So it is the
                            attributive use of "suffix" in "suffix pronoun" that makes it an
                            adjective, not any immutable characterization assigned to it at birth.

                            "Suffix pronoun" is a morphological category in contradistinction to
                            "independent pronoun". As such, it serves a useful purpose in
                            classification systems, but outside of this function the concept is better
                            expressed by either "suffixed pronoun" or "pronominal suffix". I usually
                            avoid the classifcation problem by referring to "bound forms" or "free
                            forms" of the personal pronouns.

                            > The only legitimate alternative would be to hyphenate the words
                            > ("suffix-pronoun"), which essentially is the cowardly way out.

                            No, hyphenation (or conjoining) is used to indicate that the collocation
                            is a single stress unit rather than two stress units. It is the difference
                            between "black bird" and "blackbird". Here there is a dialectal preference
                            operating in that British English often writes a single stress unit as two
                            words while American English tends to hyphenate it. Similarly, words that
                            Americans would write as a single word the British tend to hyphenate.
                            Otherwise, one would not write an adjective-noun collation comprising two
                            stress units with a hyphen unless the entire unit were being used as an
                            adjective (e.g., "paintings of the seventeenth century", but
                            "seventeenth-century paintings").

                            > So, one is left to ask, "Is it a suffix, or is it a pronoun?"

                            Presumably, then, when encountering an expression such as "paper clip",
                            one is left to ask "is it a paper, or is it a clip?" -- is a "paper clip"
                            a clip for papers or is it a clip made out of paper. Such conumdrums as
                            "wood stove" or "picture window" must leave one completely
                            baffled, befuddled, and bewildered.

                            > This is what has led several of our respondents to suggest "suffixed
                            > pronoun" as a viable alternative.

                            No, what leads to the suggestion of "suffixed pronoun" is the fact that
                            while "suffix pronoun" is fine as a morphological classification or
                            category, once you use a suffix pronoun it becomes a suffixed pronoun. A
                            "suffix pronoun" is a pronoun that has the form of a suffix or can only be
                            used as a suffix. A "suffixed pronoun" is a pronoun that has been used as
                            a suffix. When speaking of morphological categories, "suffix pronoun" is
                            a quite acceptable term; when speaking of actual usage, the term "suffixed
                            pronoun" or "pronominal suffix" is usually more appropriate.

                            > In reference to one of your other comments along these lines, I would
                            > suggest to you that the two grammatically acceptable choices ("suffix
                            > pronoun" not being one of them) are indeed completely interchangeable,
                            > and that there is NO matter of using one or the other to stress the
                            > pronoun or the noun. This is an artificial notion.

                            In order to make sense of this I will assume that by "noun" in the
                            next-to-last sentence you meant "suffix".

                            I'm sorry, but this is hardly an "artificial notion". It is distiction
                            that that is fundamental to English grammar, and particularly syntax. A
                            noun is the name of something; as such it serves as the subject or object
                            of the verb. Almost all English sentences are about what the noun does or
                            has done to it. In any case, the noun is what is being talked about in an
                            English sentence that has both a noun and a verb. When one uses the
                            expression "suffix pronoun" or "suffixed pronoun" one is talking about
                            pronouns, because that's what the noun is; when one uses the expression
                            "pronominal suffix" one is talking about suffixes because that's what the
                            noun is. Now it is true that a "suffix(ed) pronoun" is a pronoun that has
                            the form of or is used as a suffix and that a "pronominal suffix" is a
                            suffix that represents a pronoun, so there is little distinction in the
                            meaning; but which one is more appropriate in any particular context
                            depends on whether you are talking about pronouns or suffixes. You seem
                            to have a very tenuous grasp on English grammar. Just out of curiosity,
                            what is your native language?

                            > The only other matter worth mentioning is that the respondent who
                            > prefers "suffixed pronoun" likely reveals the "gut feeling" of most
                            > native English speakers who are neither familiar or comfortable with the
                            > established pronominal form for the word pronoun, which--in this
                            > case-happens to be the word "pronominal".

                            I find this to be incomprehensible. The only assuption that allows it to
                            make sense is that for "established pronominal form" you meant
                            "established adjectival form", but that just yields a fairly long-winded
                            statement that most English speakers don't like the word "pronominal".
                            Since there is no evidence offered for the assertion that a majority of
                            native speakers don't like this word, it still makes no sense.

                            > Why abandon the established form for the one chosen? Many of us are just
                            > not comfortable using what is so unfamiliar. Honestly, though, most of
                            > us do the same with a wide variety of other adjectives, as well. For
                            > example, we tend to say "participle form" over "participial form", and
                            > so on. This is just a lack of discipline leading to a dumbing down.

                            Whether "participle form" or "participial form" is more appropriate
                            depends entirely on whether one is talking about participle forms or
                            participial forms. Similarly, it should also be noted that "pronoun
                            suffix" and "pronominal suffix" do not mean the same thing. A "pronominal
                            suffix" is a suffix used to express a pronoun while a "pronoun suffix" is
                            a suffix used with pronouns (in much the same way as a paper clip is a
                            clip used for papers).


                            Bob Whiting
                            whiting@...
                          • Peter T. Daniels
                            Actually, in Latin grammar the substantive and the adjective are the two kinds of noun.  -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@verizon.net Jersey City
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Actually, in Latin grammar the substantive and the adjective are the two kinds
                              of noun.
                               --
                              Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
                              Jersey City




                              ________________________________
                              From: Robert M Whiting <whiting@...>
                              To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Sun, January 2, 2011 12:30:50 PM
                              Subject: Re: [ANE-2] A New Year's Question: "suffix pronoun" vs "pronominal
                              suffix"

                               
                              On Sat, 1 Jan 2011, Douglas Petrovich wrote:

                              > Technically speaking, "suffix pronoun" features two nouns, and thus is
                              > grammatically incorrect in English.

                              No, this is not true. Essentially, any English noun can be used as an
                              adjective (and vice versa). Indeed, some grammarians do not distinguish
                              noun and adjective at this level and subsume both under "substantives".
                              In any case, "noun" and "adjective" are function labels (not "functional
                              labels") and whether a given substantive functions as a noun or an
                              adjective depends entirely on its use in its own context.

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Frank Polak
                              Please, let me return to the Latin. The latin passive participle suffixum means attached , suffixed if you want. In Noeldeke s usage it is shorthand for
                              Message 14 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Please, let me return to the Latin. The latin passive participle
                                suffixum means "attached",
                                "suffixed" if you want. In Noeldeke's usage it is shorthand for
                                "pronomen suffixum" or
                                suffix(ed) pronoun. The alternative "bound" or "free" form seems
                                preferable in linguistic
                                context.

                                Best regards,

                                Frank Polak
                                Tel Aviv University

                                On 02/01/2011, at 19:30, Robert M Whiting wrote:
                                > "Suffix pronoun" is a morphological category in contradistinction to
                                > "independent pronoun". As such, it serves a useful purpose in
                                > classification systems, but outside of this function the concept is
                                > better
                                > expressed by either "suffixed pronoun" or "pronominal suffix". I
                                > usually
                                > avoid the classifcation problem by referring to "bound forms" or "free
                                > forms" of the personal pronouns.
                                >
                                >



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.