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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.