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

443Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: Prepositions and nominal suffixes attested in Elvish

Expand Messages
  • David Kiltz
    May 26 1:19 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On Samstag, Mai 24, 2003, at 01:10 Uhr, Hans wrote:

      >> demonstratives _su/so_. _si/se_ (cf. Et:385 sub S-). The entry in the
      >> Etymologies indicates that the distinction between _su/so_ is not one
      >> of case
      >
      > It doesn't indicate that in my copy.

      "S- demonstrative stem _su, so_ "he"; _si, se_ "she". What else would
      _he_ and _she_ be than nominatives ?

      In Sindarin, _hain_ and _hin_ (_i thiw hin_ is certainly "the signs
      these") can be used for the accusative. But one shouldn't adduce
      Sindarin forms as if they were Quenya, I think.

      > Of course, there's an uninflected (without quotation marks!) genitive
      > in Quenya. The same page XI:368 says "though 'possession' was
      > indicated by the adjectival suffix _-va_, or (especially in general
      > descriptions) by a 'loose compound'... _Orome rĂ³ma_ would mean
      > 'an Orome horn', sc. one of Orome's horns".

      Of course there isn't. And you just gave the line where Tolkien says
      so: 'Loose compound'. That's exactly it. So there is no *case*. The
      nominative can be used and the function is indicated by word order.
      That means, there are no *formal* markings in such constructions, hence
      it is not a case. Unlike the accusative, it was never marked in such
      constructions. Please, make a distinction between form and function, I
      think it's vital here.

      > My guess would be, that the first two lines, much
      > as in the Bodleian Declensions, denote subjective and normal cases,
      > which are not exactly like nominative and accusative: subjective
      > case was marked only when needed. Quenya became a language
      > of nominative/accusative type only later, and the subjective/normal
      > case reappeared in Adunaic.

      I think that is a very good guess. This would chime in with my
      assumption that only row 3 represents the accusative. In the inner
      history of Quenya, then, the accusative would get the _-t_ only later.

      David Kiltz
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic