Re: LoTR dialogue and soundtracks
- In Elfling message 33750 (<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/
message/33750>), David Salo writes:
> As for -ad forms having plurals: how plausible is it, really, thatDavid here falls once again into the trap of arguing not on the basis
> words like eithad "insult" or erthad "union" would *not* have plurals?
of Sindarin (or even Noldorin) data, but rather from English.
Certainly the _English_ words "insult" and "union" are fully concrete
nouns _in English_ and have plural forms _in English_; but that does
_not_ necessitate that the Sindarin words they gloss are and do as
well. To see this, let's just replace languages in Salo's question:
"how plausible is it, really, that words like (German) _Sprechen_
"language" or (Latin) _legendo_ "reading" would *not* have plurals"?
Sure, the English glosses can (and do) have plural forms. But the
German and Latin words _do not_.
> Why should one assume them to be exceptions?"Exceptions" to what? David makes it sound as though there were
numerous examples of gerunds, of which it is being claimed that a few
(like these two) do not have plural forms, while the rest do. The
situation, again, is that we have lots (by the standards of this
field) of apparent gerunds, _none_ of which have plural forms
attested. Those are the facts. Coupled with another fact, namely,
that many languages having formal gerunds (e.g. Latin and German)
have no plural forms of gerunds, it is evident that there is no basis
for claiming that Sindarin either does nor must have plural gerunds.
(The best we can say is that it _may_ have plural gerunds, and we
just happen not to have any attested yet.) So the only "assumption"
being made is by David himself, who assumes that these _must_ have
plural forms, and is content to make them up and present them as
though they were attested.