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

630Re: Q _kiryassea_ adj?

Expand Messages
  • machhezan
    Feb 12, 2004
      David Kiltz wrote:
      > 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.

      This semantical difference corresponds exactly to the distributional
      difference that (b) is always accompanied by the noun or pronoun it
      specifies while (a) isn't ever, that is, (a) forms the head of a noun
      phrase while (b) is only a specifier. However, that difference doesn't
      correspond to any difference in spelling. I even believe that the
      semantical difference isn't but a reflect of the distributional one,
      that is, the more specific meaning of (b) is only a reflect of it's
      use as a specifier.

      > 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.

      Is there any evidence that Quenya noun phrases can't be formed by
      adjectives? If not, then I'd say that the confusion of "that is on
      board" (b) and "what is on board" (a) indicates that Quenya adjectives
      aren't only used as specifiers of noun phrases but also as their
      heads, like e.g. in Latin or in German, not like in English.

      j. 'mach' wust
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic