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

708Re: [Lambengolmor] Acc. in -n and valence of esta

Expand Messages
  • David Kiltz
    Jul 5, 2004
      On 16.06.2004, at 14:20, Carl Hostetter wrote:

      > Here's a thought: if _esta-_ does take the thing or person named as an
      > object, (direct or indirect) then presumably the named would be marked
      > with an objective form; why then do we have an apparenly unmarked form
      > of the relative pronoun, _i_ 'who' (according to the English gloss), as
      > opposed to some objective form meaning 'whom'/ 'to/for whom' (which
      > appears to have existed for at least some kind of Sindarin, cf. _ai_
      > *'for those who' in _Ae Adar Nín_)?

      Actually, I don't see any need to assume that the relative marker S.
      _i_ was specifically marked as a direct object. In 'Ae Adar Nín'
      "...sui mín i gohenam di ai gerir úgerth ammen", [VT44:21]. For me the
      most likely interpretation of this sentence is: *'sicut (et) nos eas
      (_i_) (sc. transgressiones) dimittimus illis (_di_) qui peccant in

      This would be quite parallel to Quenya _sív' emme apsenet tien i úcarer
      emmen_: *'sicut (et) nos dimittimus eas (_-t) illis (_tien_) qui
      peccant in nobis.

      Neither the direct nor indirect object is then marked in Sindarin. _Ai_
      would be a special form of the relative pronoun (maybe with a stress on
      totality? If _a yath_ is a clue this might be interpreted as _yath_
      'those' and a- intensive etc. prefix). Interpreting _di_ as referring
      back to _úgerth_ in the preceding line doesn't seem to work. What do
      you do with _i_ then? A double reference to _úgerth_ doesn't look
      likely to me: 'sicut (et) nos eas dimittimus eas quibus... ' ?

      -David Kiltz
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic