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

Re[2]: [Lambengolmor] "Subjunctive"

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Oct 2, 2002
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 12 , Oct 3, 2002
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 12 , Oct 3, 2002
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 12 , Oct 4, 2002
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 12 , Oct 4, 2002
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 12 , Oct 4, 2002
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 12 , Oct 4, 2002
                View Source
                • 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 8 of 12 , Oct 6, 2002
                  View Source
                  • 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 9 of 12 , Oct 6, 2002
                    View Source
                    • 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.