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

688Acc. in -n and valence of esta

Expand Messages
  • David Kiltz
    Jun 15, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      On 14.06.2004, at 19:48, Beregond. Anders Stenström wrote:

      > I did not suggest that 'call, name' can be paraphrased as 'use as
      > a name', but that the S verb _est(a)-_ might, for all we know,
      > actually mean 'use as a name' and not 'call', despite Tolkien's use
      > of _called_ in his translation of the phrase. As you noted in your
      > discussion with David Salo, the translation may not be so literal as
      > to gloss each word exactly.
      >
      > There is a gloss "name" given for Q _esta-_ (VT45:12), but I do
      > not think there is an authorial gloss for its S cognate.
      >
      > If _est(a)-_ has the name as its direct object, it would be
      > comparable (not quite similar) to the verb _nominalize_.

      Well, Q _esta_ 'name' should be the correponding word. I quite agree
      it's not to be understood as 'to call' but related to _esse_ name. This
      makes it pretty parallel to e.g. Goth. _namnjan_. What I meant
      referring to 'paraphrasing' is that the syntactical construction only
      works in paraphrasing, not with an actual verb _esta, namnjan_ etc.
      It's okay to paraphrase the word to make the semantics clear but it
      doesn't mean that the syntax has to follow suite the same way.
      Again, I don't say an indirect object is impossible but a direct object
      (as in 'to name') seems more straightforward.

      -David Kiltz
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic