688Acc. in -n and valence of esta
- Jun 15, 2004On 14.06.2004, at 19:48, Beregond. Anders Stenström wrote:
> I did not suggest that 'call, name' can be paraphrased as 'use asWell, Q _esta_ 'name' should be the correponding word. I quite agree
> 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_.
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.
- Next post in topic >>