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

684Re: [Lambengolmor] Sindarin pronouns in -n ?

Expand Messages
  • David Kiltz
    Jun 14, 2004
      On 12.06.2004, at 10:05, Beregond. Anders Stenström wrote:

      > David Kiltz wrote:
      >> accusative in _-n_ may seem uncouth but there might be
      >> another instance recorded. Namely, in the 'King's Letter' [IX}:
      >> "...Perhael i sennui Panthael estathar aen...". 'Samwise who
      >> should rather be called Fullwise'.
      >> . . . I would find it hard to interpret _aen_ in the above phrase
      >> as dative (< *an-e ?) for both phonetic and syntactic reasons.
      > Can you explicate that? Looking purely at what the phrase
      > means, it does not seem out of bounds to suppose that _est(a)-_
      > means 'utter a name' or 'use a name', the name thus being its
      > accusative object and _aen_ a dative. The interpretation would
      > then be 'they(one)-shall-[utter-as-a-name] Fullwise to-him', or
      > 'they(one)-shall-[use-as-a-name] Fullwise for-him'.

      1) In Indo-European languages (to which Sindarin bears great
      resemblance syntactically and morphologically) a denominative from
      'name' would normally take the accusative. The problem (I think) with
      your paraphrasing is that (again, at least in IE) syntactically such
      verbs precisely do not work that way. E.g. Goth. _namnjan_ etc. 'call,
      name' take a direct object. (The same is obviously true for verbs like
      'to call, appeler. zvatj' etc.). In Finnish _nimittä_ takes the

      So, a construction with *one* verb takes a direct object. Something to
      be expected. Of course, the syntax changes the moment you use an
      'instrumental' complement [as-a-name]. That's even more true for 'utter
      a name', 'use a name' where you have an object 'name' precisely because
      that meaning is not yet contained in the original verb. I. e. in such a
      construction, obviously you would need a dative as the place of the
      direct object is taken. While you may paraphrase (one) meaning of the
      verb that way, I think it's not permissible break up the verb so that
      the syntactical construction changes. (1)

      That's why I think _aen_ (if it is a pronoun) to be much more likely
      accusative. I'm not 100% excluding a dative, though. Maybe there is a
      derivative of 'name' that works that way in some language? I'm curious.

      2) Phonetically, I simply don't know whether _*an-e_ > _aen_.

      -David Kiltz

      (1) Doing so would, IMHO, be the same as to argue that 'to feed' takes
      an indirect object (dative) because it can be paraphrased as 'give food
      (to sb.) or 'to ask' as it may be paraphrased as 'to put a question to
      sb.' etc.. I think you get the point.
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic