629Re: Q _kiryassea_ adj?
- Feb 11, 2004On 11.02.2004, at 13:38, machhezan wrote:
> Video (dolium) quod in naui est.j. wust is right in pointing out that "what is on board ship" and "that
> Video (negotium) quod me placet.
> Based on Tolkien's use of the words _what_ and _that_, I'd guess he
> intended at least the adjectives to be usable without a specified noun,
> and maybe the relative sentences as well, just as in Latin.
is on board ship" aren't identical. When I said "they are the same", I
meant to say "for the question of noun vs adjective".
Tolkien might well have intended to mark the differences pointed out by
j. wust, namely 'video quod in navi est' == *_cénan kiryassea_
vs 'video hominem qui in navi est' == *_cénan kiryassea nér_. Lit. == +
'video innavitum hominem' ('innavitum having, of course, been made up
I wonder, however, whether Tolkien didn't mean a) "what is on board
ship" in the sense of 'whatever, anything that is on board ship' and b)
by "that is on board ship" simply meant 'used restrictively,
specifying'; that is, as an adjective/relative clause.
I would lean towards this second interpretation, that is, that Tolkien
wrote "what is on board ship" to note that _kiryassea_ could be used in
reference to people, goods etc.
That is because I don't think a use as in *_cénan kiryassea_ == 'video
quod in navi est' without a specified noun is possible, as _kiryassea_
would, in that case, be a noun, not an adjective.
This latter situation seems to be part of what Edouard Kloczko was
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>