525Verbal agreement and clitics (was Re: Reflexivity of _im_)
- Nov 5, 2003On 05.11.2003, at 17:32, Aaron Shaw wrote:
>> Lastly, I wouldn't expect the casus rectus (nominative) of the 1. sg.Certainly they are separate entities. Yet, I believe it is justified to
>> pronoun to be _ni_ as the attested form in Quenya is _inye_ possessive
> 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.
compare them because they are 'genetically' related. The typological
difference (which isn't really all that big, cf. S. _guren_ 'my heart'
with Q. _órenya_ [VT41:11]) doesn't matter here I think. Note that
independent pronouns aren't effected by 'agglutination vs analysis'.
E.g. Turkish has the independent pronouns _ben, sen, o_ 'I, you,
he/she/it' just as an analytical language, say English. Compare also
English, an 'analytical' (or even isolating') IE language, with Old Indic
which is rather more agglutinative (inflective). The similarity of the
pronouns is there because these languages are historically related,
that is, have sprung from one root. Eng. _I_, Thou < PIE _*eg'oH_,
_*tuH_ and Old Indic _aham, _tvam_ < PIE _*eg'H-om_, *_tu(H)-om_.
Typology doesn't bear on this matter, as far as I can see.
> What would be interesting to know is whether SindarinI don't know whether I understand you right. Historically, verbal
> 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_.
endings have their origin in pronouns (clitics). Inflecting languages
don't normally employ an independent pronoun with a verb unless the
endings have been worn down to a certain degree. In the latter case
languages tend to make the use of independent pronouns with a verb
obligatory. Still, inflecting languages and thus inflected verbs do
agree with the subject of the sentence. So, actually, it's an agreement
phenomenon + they are (originally) cliticized pronouns (or forms
thereof). So, Sindarin has its 1. sg. verbal marker in -n.
But no, as far as I know, Sindarin doesn't attach forms of the
independent pronoun to the verb (inflected or not) synchronically. That
means, while the ending _-n_ would be related to _nin_, _enni_ etc., it
is not the synchronical equivalent of the independent pronoun 'I' in
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>