Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: Past/perfect in Eldarin
- gentlebeldin wrote:
> --- In lambengolmor@y..., "pa2rick" <pwynne@g...> wrote:Unlike Pat, I can very well imagine situations where it may be
> > [...] 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.
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
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
- --- In lambengolmor@y..., Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@m...> wrote:
> By contrast, English is not our subject here, and while we mayIndeed, we should avoid misunderstandings. But I thought I made clear
> 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.
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 pastMaybe. Quite a few of the participles mentioned above are formed from
> and/or passive just because it can be part of constructions
> that are themselves not past and/or not passive.
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.