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

629Re: Q _kiryassea_ adj?

Expand Messages
  • David Kiltz
    Feb 11, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      On 11.02.2004, at 13:38, machhezan wrote:

      > Video (dolium) quod in naui est.
      > 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.

      j. wust is right in pointing out that "what is on board ship" and "that
      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
      by me).

      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
      getting at.

      -David Kiltz
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic