complete Quenya pronoun table
- Carl Hostetter wrote:
> Helge Fauskanger writes**If you mean the _ó-_ chart, then I do not think Helge is unaware of it.
> > As years and decades pass by, we cling to the hope that more material
> > will actually be published one day; our
> > grandchildren may yet see a complete Quenya pronoun table.
> Can Helge truly be unaware that a "complete Quenya pronoun table" has
> already been published, in _Vinyar Tengwar_ 43 (p. 29; you can download
> the issue of _VT_ in question at:
> http://www.elvish.org/VT/sample.html )?
He is, but he does not regard it as a complete Quenya pronoun table --
I think. Neither do I, because what we can see on the page is a chart
of declension of _ó-_ *"with". By a pronoun chart I would expect something
like "I, me is this and this in Quenya, you is that and that etc.", but this
is not what we see on the page. The chart is not glossed and that _-ni_
in _óni_ is 1st person singular is just a guess. Of course, in case of _-ni_
we can hardly doubt it is not so (though we do not know whether it is
a subject or object (resp. nominative or accusative) form).
However, a problem appears with _-se, -sa_ and _-te, -ta_. If they are
really 3rd person singulars and plurals (respectively), does, for instance,
_-se_ denotes both "he" and "she" or is it just "he" or just "she" or neither?
And what about forms _ótar_ and _ótari_? On what groups were labels
"3rd singular" and "3rd plural" (respectively) assigned to them? What
do they stand for? Are _-tar_ and _-tari_ really pronominal forms?
What if they mean simply *"with a king" and "with a queen", respectively?
And what about dual forms? They seem to be missing, though _-me_
could cover both plural and dual (along with inclusive and exclusive").
So even if it was a pronoun table, it is hardly complete. But it does not
matter whether the chart is this or that. What matters to me is what
particular forms of the chart stand for and mean. So this is not meant
to be either a defense of Helge or criticism of Carl, it is just an invitation
to discuss these forms (though a little bit unusual it may be).
- I agree that the chart is enigmatic, as it is unglossed; but I disagree
that it is incomplete. To argue that it is, you must show that
something is missing from it. I submit that we can't be sure of that.
And in any event, the parts that might be considered "missing" are
those that are found in the other charts on the sheet (see VT43:36 n.1,
now available in convenient downloadable form!), so we can even include
those to make the chart more satisfactory. (Though I still don't expect
it to be satisfactory to Helge.)
I greatly _encourage_ discussion of the forms and possible distinctions
of the various pronominal forms. Might I ask that we adjourn that to
the Lambengolmor list, where we'll get a much wider audience and
contribution of thoughts?
- Carl Hostetter wrote:
> I agree that the chart is enigmatic, as it is unglossed; but I disagree**Well, what is actually missing are glosses of the Quenya forms,
> that it is incomplete. To argue that it is, you must show that
> something is missing from it. I submit that we can't be sure of that.
but this of course does not make the table incomplete per se.
Nevertheless, missing glosses make our understanding of the table
more difficult and we may say that we miss some important information.
> And in any event, the parts that might be considered "missing" are**Yes, other charts are of great importance. However, we are speaking
> those that are found in the other charts on the sheet (see VT43:36 n.1,
> now available in convenient downloadable form!), so we can even include
> those to make the chart more satisfactory.
about the specific _ó-_ tables and evidence of other tables shows that
the table is rather incomplete, because it "only gives the 1 pl. exclusive
from _óme_, but charts for other prepositions on the same page also
incorporate the inclusive form" (VT43:36). But no matter where the
relevant forms are given, the chart(s) is/are not (a) _pronoun_ chart(s)
(as the citation itself suggests).
> (Though I still don't expect it to be satisfactory to Helge.)**I cannot speak for Helge but as I tried to show in my previous letter,
he does not probably regard it as a pronoun table (and neither do I).
> I greatly _encourage_ discussion of the forms and possible distinctions**I agree, this is not the best place for such a discussion. However,
> of the various pronominal forms. Might I ask that we adjourn that to
> the Lambengolmor list, where we'll get a much wider audience and
> contribution of thoughts?
if a much wider audience is desired, then I suggest it be moved to
TolkLang which (I suppose) has more members of Lambengolmor.
It is up to you where you will answer my questions, though. Or should
I introduce it myself? No problem with that.
Jag är hellre glad nu än om 25 år. (Agnes in _Fucking Åmål_)