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

523Re: Reflexivity of _im_

Expand Messages
  • Aaron Shaw
    Nov 5, 2003
      --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, David Kiltz <dkiltz@g...> wrote:

      > _Im_ may well be used emphatically, or be an emphatic form but
      > that doesn't change the meaning of 'pronoun of the 1st sg.' one

      Oh, I quite agree. I was not trying to imply such. But it is good
      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 is
      >clearly a compound = "my self".

      Yes, and _anim_ is clearly a compound of _an_ + _im_. I don't
      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 made
      > myself them" doesn't make any sense.

      Yes, quite right. I was quite wrong here.

      > Lastly, I wouldn't expect the casus rectus (nominative) of the 1. sg.
      > pronoun to be _ni_ as the attested form in Quenya is _inye_ possessive
      > -(i)nya_.

      Oh, very interesting. I'm not sure that we can be compare these languages
      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.

      Aaron Shaw
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic