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

653Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: porennin/suffixed _nin_

Expand Messages
  • David Kiltz
    Apr 5, 2004
      On 04.04.2004, at 18:07, Beregond. Anders Stenström wrote:

      > David Kiltz skrev:
      >
      >> Tolkien glosses "...tiro nin..."[loc. cit.] as '_tiro_ ==== 'look
      >> towards (watch over), _nin_ ==== 'me'. It seems hard to drag over
      >> the 'towards' to _nin_.
      >
      > While I agree with the last statement, I do not think it follows
      > that _nin_ is accusative in _tiro nin_. Is there not a benefactive
      > notion in 'watch over'?

      No, I too think it is not 100% safe to take _nin_ here as an
      accusative. However, given that we can identify _enni_ as dative and
      _anim_ as 'for me' (benefactive), taking formally distinct _nin_ as
      denoting something different, doesn't seem unnatural. Rather, it
      looks like the most likely scenario.

      As for the 'benefactive': I use the term in a more restricted,
      syntactical way, not in its broadest semantical way. Naturally, such
      things as 'I praise, support, guard him' do carry a 'beneficiary'
      notion. That's not what I mean by it. 'Benefactive' means that in a
      sentence, a 3rd or 4th 'object' is involved, which does not function as
      direct of indirect object proper. In English, such objects are usually
      marked by 'for': Peter (subject) gives Mary (indirect object) a book
      (direct object) for John (beneficiary/indirect object). In classical
      grammar it's called 'dativus commodi'.

      So in a sentence like:

      1) I wrote him a letter, I would speak of 'addressee' function, or
      indirect object proper, whereas in a sentence

      2) I killed him an animal (i.e. I killed an animal for him) I'd speak
      of 'beneficiary' function.

      > And could not, at least in some languages,
      > a direction verb 'look towards' easily govern dative -- I think
      > _entgegenblicken_ does?

      Maybe. But compound verbs (preverb/preposition + primary verb) have
      always to be treated with caution when it comes to governing. It would
      seem that S. _tir-_ means 'to guard, watch' [Etym sub TIR-] cf. also
      _minas tirith_ 'tower of guard' [LR:passim]. An indirect object proper
      would require a direct object, I think. But yes, it may stand for a
      kind of 'prepositional' object in other languages but I cannot right
      now think of an example. Considering what we have in other languages,
      a direct object would seem more natural.

      Also, at least in Quenya, _tir-_ governs the accusative, cf. _man
      tiruva rĂ¡kina kirya_ [MC:222].

      Conversely (I know you're not saying that but) If indeed, _nin_ would
      be a beneficiary in the phrase _a tiro nin Fanuilos_, I think an
      obligatory direct object would be missing.

      -David Kiltz
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic