183470Re: Further info on tense marking for nouns
- Oct 12, 2011
>exactly. the imperfect can also have a present meaning, however (otherwise
> Adonai (is) king. No copula necessary.
> Adonai reigned. The perfect of malak, to reign.
> Adonai will reign. The imperfect of malak.
how would you speak of the present?).
i believe the perfect construction has taken on a present meaning in the
modern language (e.g. ahavti = I love) but really don't know too much about
the modern language.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Adam Walker <carraxan@...> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Charles W Brickner <
> tepeyachill@...> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Constructed Languages List [mailto:CONLANG@...] On
> > Behalf Of Adam Walker
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:11 PM
> > To: CONLANG@...
> > Subject: Re: Further info on tense marking for nouns
> > I was thinking about this again since the Neilah service on Yom Kippur.
> > One
> > of the songs/prayers includes the repeated line "Adonai melech. Adonai
> > malach. Adonai yimloch." The translation ran "The L-ord is king. The
> > L-rd
> > was king. The L-rd will be king." Now I don't really speak Hebrew, but
> > ordinarily I would interpret "Adonai melech," as lord zero-copula king
> > two nouns juxtaposed to show equation. But then how to interpret the
> > clearly parallel "Adonai malach" and "Adonai yimloch"? Is this a case of
> > tense marking on a noun? I guess it could be explained as the noun and
> > third person present of the verb just co-incidentally having the same
> > (in which case it would be better to translate it as "The L-ord
> > reigns/reigned/will reign"). Is this identity of the nominal form and
> > 3p-sing PRES common in Hebrew? Or is this an odd case of tense marking
> > a
> > noun in Hebrew?
> > If I remember my Hebrew correctly from the seminary at Catholic U. this
> > what we have:
> > Adonai (is) king. No copula necessary.
> > Adonai reigned. The perfect of malak, to reign.
> > Adonai will reign. The imperfect of malak.
> > Charlie
> So is there any reason it couldn't be reinterpreted as kings/kang/will king
> (couldn't resist making it a strong verb) making it a tense marked noun?
> rather, and more on topic, is there any reason why it couldn't be evolved
> just such a way for conlanging purposes. this seems like a very
> tempting/valid way for such tense marking on nouns to arise which might,
> eventually, lead to an entirely verbless language, or alternately an
> entirely nounless one depending on development and analysis.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>