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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: Past/perfect in Eldarin

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Aug 9 10:42 PM
    • 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 2 of 5 , Aug 11 3:00 PM
      • 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.