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

Re: Past/perfect in Eldarin

Expand Messages
  • gentlebeldin
    ... That s true, and I didn t understand it as a rebuke, since my comments were aimed at the terminology used for ENGLISH participles like seen or killed
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In lambengolmor@y..., "pa2rick" <pwynne@g...> wrote:

      > This is not meant as a specific rebuttal or rejoinder to the points
      > raised in Hans's post -- but it is worth reiterating at the commencement
      > of this thread that _Tolkien's_ own grammatical terminology as applied
      > to Elvish is the only terminology that truly matters.

      That's true, and I didn't understand it as a rebuke, since my comments
      were aimed at the terminology used for ENGLISH participles like "seen"
      or "killed" on the Ardalambion website.

      > Studying his use of terms such as "past participle", "past tense",
      > "perfect tense" etc. undoubtedly has much to teach us.

      I'm looking forward to read _Quendi and Eldar_, finally. I've ordered
      both WJ and SD through Amazon.

      I plan to post a few more thoughts about Elvish participles only after
      that: I don't trust the information I found at Ardalambion. Most forms
      are just reconstructed (and the really attested forms are not marked,
      let alone given references), so I have to check the original sources,
      first.

      Hans
    • Ivan A Derzhanski
      ... Unlike Pat, I can very well imagine situations where it may be advantageous to use categories, or names from them, different from the ones JRRT used, even
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 9, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        gentlebeldin wrote:

        > --- In lambengolmor@y..., "pa2rick" <pwynne@g...> wrote:

        > > [...] it is worth reiterating at the commencement of this
        > > thread that _Tolkien's_ own grammatical terminology as
        > > applied to Elvish is the only terminology that truly matters.
        >
        > [...] my comments were aimed at the terminology used for ENGLISH
        > participles like "seen" or "killed" on the Ardalambion website.

        Unlike Pat, I can very well imagine situations where it may be
        advantageous to use categories, or names from them, different
        from the ones JRRT used, even in a discussion of his languages.
        That said, anyone doing so must keep in mind that JRRT's terms
        and categories are the ones that the audience can reasonably be
        expected to be familiar with, so any departure from them carries
        the risk of misunderstanding. Great caution is therefore advised.
        Yet if the commonly accepted way of thinking and speaking about
        JRRT's languages is at all able to evolve beyond JRRT's own usage,
        it is in places such as this one, where they are the subject of
        informed discussion.

        By contrast, English is not our subject here, and while we may
        think that the established grammatical/linguistic terminology
        applied to English is suboptimal (as it often is), parting ways
        with it on this forum is probably never advisable. Ardalambion
        may be criticised for any number of things, but the fact that
        it uses standard English terms for the categories of English
        isn't one of them.

        Re participles: I don't see why a participle can't be past
        and/or passive just because it can be part of constructions
        that are themselves not past and/or not passive.

        --
        <fa-al-_haylu wa-al-laylu wa-al-baydA'u ta`rifunI
        wa-as-sayfu wa-ar-rum.hu wa-al-qir.tAsu wa-al-qalamu>
        (Abu t-Tayyib Ahmad Ibn Hussayn al-Mutanabbi)
        Ivan A Derzhanski <http://www.math.bas.bg/ml/iad/>
        H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria <iad@...>
        W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences
      • gentlebeldin
        ... Indeed, we should avoid misunderstandings. But I thought I made clear I was speaking of the group of participles of strong verbs like been, seen, done,
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 11, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In lambengolmor@y..., Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@m...> wrote:

          > By contrast, English is not our subject here, and while we may
          > think that the established grammatical/linguistic terminology
          > applied to English is suboptimal (as it often is), parting ways
          > with it on this forum is probably never advisable.

          Indeed, we should avoid misunderstandings. But I thought I made clear
          I was speaking of the group of participles of strong verbs like "been,
          seen, done, gone, fallen, spoken", having the suffix "(e)n(e)", like
          in one kind of Eldarin past tense (coincidence or not). If you tell me
          "passive participle" (and "irregular") is the standard term for that,
          so be it. As you said, English grammar isn't our main concern, here.

          > Re participles: I don't see why a participle can't be past
          > and/or passive just because it can be part of constructions
          > that are themselves not past and/or not passive.

          Maybe. Quite a few of the participles mentioned above are formed from
          intransitive verbs, however, so they can't possibly be used in ANY
          passive construction. "Suboptimal terminology" would be a mild way to
          put it, then.

          Concerning another point: If we want to compare Elvish languages and
          their tense structure with other languages, we won't be able to avoid
          the established terminology in this area entirely. And "resultative"
          is one of the possible meanings of perfect tense, others are called
          "experiential" or "extended now" (recent past/persistent situation).
          Naturally, I didn't invent those notions myself.

          Hans
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.