684Re: [Lambengolmor] Sindarin pronouns in -n ?
- Jun 14, 2004On 12.06.2004, at 10:05, Beregond. Anders Stenström wrote:
> David Kiltz wrote:1) In Indo-European languages (to which Sindarin bears great
>> 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'.
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_.
(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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>