523Re: Reflexivity of _im_
- Nov 5, 2003--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, David Kiltz <dkiltz@g...> wrote:
> _Im_ may well be used emphatically, or be an emphatic form butOh, I quite agree. I was not trying to imply such. But it is good
> that doesn't change the meaning of 'pronoun of the 1st sg.' one
to see that we agree that _im_ could very well be an emphatic form.
>I think one should not be misled by English "myself" as that isYes, and _anim_ is clearly a compound of _an_ + _im_. I don't
>clearly a compound = "my self".
expect _im_ to indicate "self" as in the English equivalent. You bring
up some very good points, so it seems clear to me now that we are
dealing with a 1st person form (which I never ruled out before, just
questioned). What would be interesting to know is whether Sindarin
verbal "inflections" are an agreement phenomenon or a clitized
pronoun. If this were to be a cliticized pronoun that would suggest a
nominative, or casus rectus as you put it, form _ni_.
> Lastly, _im_ cannot be a reflexive as far as I can see, as "Narvi madeYes, quite right. I was quite wrong here.
> myself them" doesn't make any sense.
> Lastly, I wouldn't expect the casus rectus (nominative) of the 1. sg.Oh, very interesting. I'm not sure that we can be compare these languages
> pronoun to be _ni_ as the attested form in Quenya is _inye_ possessive
so closely though in this case. They are separate entities and deserve to
be treated as such, even if they do share a common origin. I see no
reason why pronouns in an agglutinating language would have to
resemble those of a more analytic tongue.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>