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

Re: [Lambengolmor] "Subjunctive"

Expand Messages
  • Boris Shapiro
    Aiya! Wednesday, October 2, 2002, 1:59:49 PM, Boris Shapiro wrote: CFH [It was not said that the _na_ + verb construction is CFH conditional . It was said
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Aiya!

      Wednesday, October 2, 2002, 1:59:49 PM, Boris Shapiro wrote:

      CFH> [It was not said that the _na_ + verb construction is
      CFH> "conditional". It was said that it is a "subjunctive or
      CFH> imperative" construction. The hortatory or volitive subjunctive

      But doesn't conditional include subjunctive?

      [Conditional aspect implies subjunctive, yes; but subjunctive does not
      (necessarily) imply conditional. CFH]

      I think that's where misunderstanding is. In Russian, constructions like
      E. "let it be" are imperative rather than subjunctive, and subjunctive
      constructions are for the most part conditional ("[subj] by [pred] esli";
      N.B. "esli" - "if").

      [In _form_, yes (or so I must accept your testimony, since my Russian is
      non-existent (contrary to fact? ;) ); but in _function_, in _meaning_, "let
      it be" can be regarded as either imperative (hortatory) or subjunctive
      (volitive) or both. There is not a one-to-one relationship between
      grammatical form and semantic function, nor is linguistic terminology
      always mutually exclusive. CFH]

      As far as I know, most new European languages developed new conditional
      types to express dependence, assumption, possibility, desirability and
      non-categorical predication of an action. All of them seem to imply a
      condition in some degree, though it is not always declared. I do not
      understand the difference between your hortative subjunctive and imperative,
      for even imperative implies that its goal is not achieved and therefore the
      desired condition is contrary to the present state of things.

      [Well, I didn't invent the terms hortatory or volitive subjunctive. They are
      standard linguistic terms. Nor did I say that hortatory/volitive subjunctive
      and imperative are completely separate and distinct terms or functions. CFH]

      I've always thought that the difference between subjunctive and imperative is
      that subjunctive implies some cause making (or capable of making, in theory)
      the desired condition unachievable because it depends on that cause-matter,
      while imperative simply urges to achieve the desired condition regardless of
      any antagonizing causes.

      [Again, I would refer you to a dictionary of grammar or a grammatical treatise
      to resolve your understanding of these standard linguistic terms. But I would
      say that it may well be that imperative and hortatory subjunctive can and
      probably often do blur as semantic functions, if not formally. CFH]

      Namaarie! S.Y., Elenhil Laiquendo [Boris Shapiro]


      : manen i orne polis tyule ai miste uulantuva nentien olwaryar? :
    • Boris Shapiro
      Aiya! Wednesday, October 2, 2002, 7:55:40 PM, CFH wrote: CFH But I would say that it may well be that imperative and hortatory CFH subjunctive can and
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Aiya!

        Wednesday, October 2, 2002, 7:55:40 PM, CFH wrote:

        CFH> But I would say that it may well be that imperative and hortatory
        CFH> subjunctive can and probably often do blur as semantic functions,
        CFH> if not formally. CFH]

        By the way, do you know other languages besides English with cases of
        formally identical imperative and (non-hortative) subjunctive?

        [Yes: Greek, at least in the first person. See:
        http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/subj-hortatory.htm
        CFH]

        Namaarie! S.Y., Elenhil Laiquendo [Boris Shapiro]


        : man hostuva usque wilwa turuo hessa uryala? :
      • Hans
        ... Indeed, that s the source of the misunderstanding. Russian is a highly inflected language, but it doesn t distinguish between conditional and subjunctive.
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In lambengolmor@y..., Boris Shapiro <elenhil@p...> wrote:

          > I think that's where misunderstanding is. In Russian, constructions like
          > E. "let it be" are imperative rather than subjunctive, and subjunctive
          > constructions are for the most part conditional ("[subj] by [pred] esli";

          Indeed, that's the source of the misunderstanding. Russian is a highly
          inflected language, but it doesn't distinguish between conditional and
          subjunctive. Both moods are indicated by the particle "by", analytically.
          But there's a difference: "conditional" means that the truth of your
          statement depends on conditions, while subjunctive indicates your
          faith: you use subjunctive I if you think it possible, and subjunctive
          II if you don't. Unfortunately, subjunctive is rudimentary in English
          (most forms of subjunctive I coincide with indicative present tense,
          and most forms of subjunctive II coincide with indicative past tense).
          If you want to see a working system with one conditional and two
          subjunctives, look at Italian.

          Hans
        • Ben Echols
          Hans wrote: H If you want to see a working system with one conditional and two H subjunctives, look at Italian. Another example is Spanish. It has one
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Hans wrote:

            H> If you want to see a working system with one conditional and two
            H> subjunctives, look at Italian.

            Another example is Spanish. It has one conditional verb tense and two
            subjunctives.

            Ben Echols
          • David Kiltz
            ... Ben, I m not sure what you mean by one conditional and two subjunctives . Spanish (like every West-Romanic language, including, e.g. French) has a
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 4, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thursday, October 3, 2002, at 10:03 PM, Ben Echols wrote:

              > Hans wrote:
              >
              > H> If you want to see a working system with one conditional and two
              > H> subjunctives, look at Italian.
              >
              > Another example is Spanish. It has one conditional verb tense and two
              > subjunctives.

              Ben, I'm not sure what you mean by "one conditional" and "two
              subjunctives". Spanish (like every West-Romanic language,
              including, e.g. French) has a category "subjunctive" and one
              "conditional". Both occur in two forms:

              Conditional 1) compraría
              Conditional 2) habría comprado

              Subjunctive 1) (que) compre
              Subjunctive 2) comprara or comprase (note: the first goes back to the
              Latin pluperfect and is also sometimes used as such, especially in
              South America).

              Germanic languages mostly employ the subjunctive for conditionals often
              with an extra auxiliary (e.g. English _would_ or German_würde_).
              So, for conditionals, where they are distinguished from subjunctives,
              we see periphrastic or agglutinative formations. Note that the Romanic
              languages' conditional is really a periphrastic formation (e.g.
              comparare habebam etc.).

              No explicit marker for the conditional is needed in Quenya. Cf.
              VT42:33, in the bottom most paragraph, starting from _lá karita i
              hamil..._.

              David Kiltz
            • Hans
              [OK, folks, let s bring this back to Tolkien s languages. CFH] ... I m sorry, David, but I have to disagree. The German würde is a modern development,
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 4, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                [OK, folks, let's bring this back to Tolkien's languages. CFH]

                --- In lambengolmor@y..., David Kiltz <dkiltz@g...> wrote:

                > Germanic languages mostly employ the subjunctive for conditionals often
                > with an extra auxiliary (e.g. English _would_ or German_würde_).

                I'm sorry, David, but I have to disagree. The German "würde" is a
                modern development, following the general tendency of replacement of
                the older, strong inflections by analytical (or, as you call it,
                periphrastic) constructions. German still has two genuine subjunctives
                (I'm afraid they'll vanish within the next hundred years, though), "er
                komme/ er käme" in the case of the verb "to come". Most of the forms
                of subjunctive I are very similar to forms of indicative present
                tense, ok. But some are different, and it's interesting that one of
                the differences has parallels in other languages: "be it so" is "so
                sei es" in German, different from indicative "so ist es". In Italian,
                you would use "sia" for "sei".

                > Note that the Romanic languages' conditional is really a periphrastic
                > formation (e.g. comparare habebam etc.).

                That's not true for Italian. The conditional is much used to express
                wishes politely (not unlike German or English or some other languages!),
                but forms like "vorrai" (I would) are real inflections, not periphrastic
                constructions or agglutinations.

                > No explicit marker for the conditional is needed in Quenya.

                That's true, unfortunately. A language lacking a word for "if"
                certainly doesn't need a conditional.

                Hans
              • Ben Echols
                [I m letting this through, but in general, follow-up messages of this sort, basically simply acknowledging a correction, will not be accepted on this list. Any
                Message 7 of 12 , Oct 4, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  [I'm letting this through, but in general, follow-up messages of this
                  sort, basically simply acknowledging a correction, will not be accepted
                  on this list. Any such response should be made in conjunction with
                  offering new information on the question at hand. Otherwise, make your
                  acknowledgments privately. CFH]

                  I never learned the other conditional. I am sorry for the mistake, I know
                  about the two different ways to do subjunctive. I am not a native speaker
                  of spanish, however I have been taking spanish classes for 4 years and
                  have been to spanish countries. But thanks for the information, you learn
                  something new everyday. :)

                  Ben Echols
                • Hans
                  ... Er... yeah, I m afraid this is a well-deserved rebuke. [I wouldn t call it a rebuke , just a reminder that posts to this list are, according to the
                  Message 8 of 12 , Oct 4, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In lambengolmor@y..., "Hans" <gentlebeldin@h...> wrote:
                    > [OK, folks, let's bring this back to Tolkien's languages. CFH]

                    Er... yeah, I'm afraid this is a well-deserved rebuke.

                    [I wouldn't call it a "rebuke", just a reminder that posts to this list
                    are, according to the guidelines, supposed to deal in some manner with
                    Tolkien's languages. That by no means excludes discussion of grammatical
                    features of other languages for purposes of comparison or illustration
                    or even speculation; but each such discussion should touch on Tolkien's
                    languages at some point. When we start _debating_ the grammatical
                    features of other languages, and comparing them to one another, we're
                    drifting off course. CFH]

                    Quenya may not have a conditional, but it's well known that JRRT thought
                    of a subjunctive once. Now the English subjunctive II is almost identical
                    with forms of past tense, and the German forms are close, too (though
                    with umlaut). Interestingly, the Quenya word glossed as a subjunctive
                    ("should flow", IX:247) coincides with an (augmentless) perfect,
                    "ullier", forms usually translated by JRRT with past tense. Of course,
                    that's one of the cases of later reinterpretations. In "Lost Road",
                    the word "ullier" was glossed "poured" (V:51). Nonetheless, there
                    can't be much doubt JRRT thought of a subjunctive later: the Adunaic
                    forms in the Notion Club Papers were meant to be translations of the
                    "Avallonian" ones, and the respective word _du-phursâ_ is glossed
                    "so-as-to-gush" (IX:247, again), and that's certainly not an
                    indicative mood.

                    Hans
                  • David Kiltz
                    -I m sorry if this is drifting away from Quenya but my response will (hopefully) set some things straight. This will ultimately be beneficial for the
                    Message 9 of 12 , Oct 6, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      -I'm sorry if this is drifting away from Quenya but my response will
                      (hopefully) set some things straight. This will ultimately be
                      beneficial for the discussion of the Quenya forms.

                      On Friday, October 4, 2002, at 09:54 PM, Hans wrote:

                      > --- In lambengolmor@y..., David Kiltz <dkiltz@g...> wrote:
                      >
                      >> Germanic languages mostly employ the subjunctive for conditionals
                      >> often with an extra auxiliary (e.g. English _would_ or German_würde_).
                      >
                      > I'm sorry, David, but I have to disagree. The German "würde" is a
                      > modern development, following the general tendency of replacement of
                      > the older, strong inflections by analytical (or, as you call it,
                      > periphrastic) constructions. German still has two genuine subjunctives,
                      > "er komme/ er käme" in the case of the verb "to come".
                      <snip>

                      Hans, but that's exactly what I said. Germanic languages (such as
                      German, even Modern German ;-) do use the subjunctive. In addition,
                      formations with an auxiliary arise. (Certainly with the idea of
                      disambiguating). I don't see how this is not "Germanic" although it is
                      a younger formation (which I never denied).

                      >> Note that the Romanic languages' conditional is really a periphrastic
                      >> formation (e.g. comparare habebam etc.).
                      >
                      > That's not true for Italian. The conditional is much used to express
                      > wishes politely (not unlike German or English or some other
                      > languages!), but forms like "vorrai" (I would) are real inflections,
                      > not periphrastic constructions or agglutinations.

                      1) Your analysis of the form is factually wrong. Even Italian _vorrai_
                      is ultimately _velle_ (or rather Proto-Romanic _volere_) + habui. The
                      only difference between Italian and Spanish is that Italian uses the
                      perfect as second part, Spanish the imperfect. By "really" I meant
                      "originally".

                      2) The semantics are irrelevant to the question of periphrasis or not.
                      I never said they weren't employed like that.

                      >> No explicit marker for the conditional is needed in Quenya.
                      >
                      > That's true, unfortunately. A language lacking a word for "if"
                      > certainly doesn't need a conditional.

                      Well, Tolkien writes that "if this uncertainty [i.e. a conditional
                      proposition for the future] is emphasized Quenya can say _nauva_ "will
                      be". So, Quenya does not require a specific marker if the semantics of
                      the sentence are clear.

                      It would be interesting to see whether the _-uva_ forms are a "pure"
                      future tense or rather some kind of prospective.

                      David
                    • Lukas Novak
                      David Kiltz wrote: DK It would be interesting to see whether the _-uva_ forms are a pure DK future tense or rather some kind of prospective. I have been
                      Message 10 of 12 , Oct 6, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        David Kiltz wrote:

                        DK> It would be interesting to see whether the _-uva_ forms are a "pure"
                        DK> future tense or rather some kind of prospective.

                        I have been having this impression for already a long time. More
                        specifically, I suspect that the -uva formation is originally
                        prospective/optative and only one of its usages evolved into pure
                        future. I imagine that Tolkien might have been inspired by the origin
                        of Greek future tense or English usage of the auxiliary "will" -
                        originally a modal verb.

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