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

Re: Finnish and Quenya future

Expand Messages
  • Petri Tikka
    ... That would clash with the negative element _u- (uv-, um-, un-)_, _ú, ?ugu_ (VT42:32). Unless they are related? Tolkien glossed it as originally
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, "Pavel Iosad" <edricson@t...> wrote:

      > Which would lead us to suppose that *-ú- is a (theoretically) possible
      > predecessor of the Quenya future.

      That would clash with the negative element _u- (uv-, um-, un-)_,
      _ú, ?ugu_ (VT42:32). Unless they are related? Tolkien glossed
      it as 'originally expressing _privation_'. Privation is an 'act of
      depriving', which (often) happens in the head when one wants
      something. One takes away other things and concentrates on
      having the thing. To express the future, English uses _will_ as an
      auxiliary verb, which originally had more of a meaning 'to want'.
      Similar semantics might be in question, if Quenya _-uva_ derives
      from _-uv_. Adding the frequent verbal ending _-a_, you
      have _-uva_. _-uva_ would have had a stronger meaning
      originally, but it would have softened as a possible cognate
      of Sindarin _-thV_ fell out of use, similarly to English _shall_
      vs. _will_.

      Petri Tikka Helsinki, Finland
      kari.j.tikka@...
      http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/
    • pa2rick <pwynne@gvtel.com>
      ... Actually, in the Quenya verbal system _i_ indicates the _aorist_, not the present tense. Examples include: _i KARIR quettar ómainen_ those who FORM words
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 30, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Petri wrote, regarding the Finnish pa.t. morpheme _i_:

        > That is one thing that was not borrowed to Quenya. _i_ in
        > Quenya actually indicates the present tense, e.g. in _carir_
        > pl.'make' (WJ:391). This could lead to confusion. For example,
        > _tulin_ means 'I come' in Quenya (V:395), while in Finnish it
        > means 'I came'!

        Actually, in the Quenya verbal system _i_ indicates the _aorist_,
        not the present tense. Examples include:

        _i KARIR quettar ómainen_ 'those who FORM words with voices'

        _lá karita i HAMIL mára alasaila (ná)_ 'not to do (in this
        case) what YOU JUDGE good (would be) unwise' (VT42:33)

        _Eleni SILIR lúmesse omentiemman_ 'The stars SHINE on the hour
        of our meeting' (VI:324)

        As I noted in message #157:

        "The _Etymologies_ also gives many 1 sg. aorist forms translated
        with the present tense: _karin_ 'I make, build', _tyavin_ 'I taste',
        _lavin_ 'I lick', _lirin_ 'I chant', _nyarin_ 'I tell', _nutin_ 'I
        tie', _serin_ 'I rest', _hyarin_ 'I cleave', _tulin_ 'I come', etc.

        "It is clear from these numerous examples that the Q. aorist is more
        closely rendered by the English present, specifically the English
        present in its 'gnomic' sense, i.e., 'when denoting a permanent
        situation or periodically recurrent action, without particular
        emphasis or definite indication of the temporal aspect' (Mario
        Pei, _A Dictionary of Linguistics_, 1954). As Alex Grigny de Castro
        put it in Elfling post 16447, 'Unlike Greek, Q aorist is more akin
        to present tense than to past. Like Greek, it can express general
        truths etc.' "

        -- Patrick Wynne
      • Petri Tikka
        ... Yes, that was known to me. There s no aorist vs. present (continual) tense distinction in Finnish, only one present tense. I find it quite strange that the
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 30, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Partit (Patrick) tence:

          > Actually, in the Quenya verbal system _i_ indicates the _aorist_,
          > not the present tense.

          Yes, that was known to me. There's no aorist vs. present
          (continual) tense distinction in Finnish, only one present
          tense. I find it quite strange that the term _aorist_ is applied
          to a tense that points to the present in Quenya. Why can't
          the term _present tense_ be applied here? Is it to distinguish
          it from the present tense with vocalic lengthening + _-a_,
          e.g. in _síla_ 'shines' (XI:367) < SIL- (V:385)?

          Petri Tikka Helsinki, Finland
          kari.j.tikka@...
          http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/

          [Since Quenya, unlike Finnish and English, _does_ possess
          morphologically distinct present (continuative) and aorist
          tenses, it would be highly confusing to refer to the Q. aorist
          as a "present" tense, all the moreso since the Q. aorist
          does not refer specifically to the present, but is instead used
          to express general truths or habitually recurrent actions,
          without specifying whether said action takes place in the
          past or present (hence the term 'aorist' < Gk. _aoristos_
          'indefinite'). English does not possess a separate aorist
          tense, and so the present tense is used in situations where
          an aorist sense is required -- the so-called 'gnomic' present.

          The aorist phrase _i karir quettar ómainen_ 'those who form
          words with voices' (XI:391), describing the Elves, is a good
          example of how the aorist was typically used in Quenya. It
          does not mean that there are necessarily Elves speaking at
          this very present moment, it means that speaking with
          words is something that Elves habitually or periodically
          do _in general_. One could thus presumably correctly
          describe a group of Elves standing in utter silence as
          _i karir quettar ómainen_, since in general Elves do speak,
          even though these particular ones are currently silent.

          -- Patrick Wynne
        • Petri Tikka
          ... Thank you, I understand now. But what about _Eleni SILIR lúmesse omentiemman_ The stars SHINE on the hour of our meeting (VI:324)? Here the time is
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 31, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Partit (Patrick) tence:

            > Since Quenya, unlike Finnish and English, _does_ possess
            > morphologically distinct present (continuative) and aorist
            > tenses, it would be highly confusing to refer to the Q. aorist
            > as a "present" tense, all the moreso since the Q. aorist
            > does not refer specifically to the present, but is instead used
            > to express general truths or habitually recurrent actions,
            > without specifying whether said action takes place in the
            > past or present (hence the term 'aorist' < Gk. _aoristos_
            > 'indefinite'). [...]

            Thank you, I understand now. But what about _Eleni SILIR
            lúmesse omentiemman_ 'The stars SHINE on the hour
            of our meeting' (VI:324)? Here the time is locked by
            _lúmesse_ 'on the hour', so it can not express a recurrent
            action, let alone a general truth. The moment is thus
            defined as present.

            Petri Tikka Helsinki, Finland
            kari.j.tikka@...
            http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/

            ***************************************

            [I disagree that the time in this phrase is locked by
            _lúmesse_, "so it can not express a recurrent action,
            let alone a general truth." There is nothing inherent in
            _lúmesse_ 'on the hour' that would restrict its point
            of reference to a single, non-recurrent moment in
            present time. In English, for example, one can say
            "My grandfather clock chimes _on the hour_", which
            expresses both a recurrent action and a general
            truth: the clock in question rings every hour, 24
            hours a day, seven days a week. Note that "chimes"
            in this sentence would be a gnomic present
            (= aorist).

            In the phrase _Eleni silir lúmesse omentiemman_
            'The stars shine on the hour of our meeting', the
            aorist _silir_ comes first in the sentence, and its
            context affects the interpretation of the next word
            _lúmesse_, not vice versa. Since the aorist indicates
            a general truth rather than a specific present event, the
            sense of the greeting in this case must be something
            like *'The stars shine whenever we meet'. No matter
            that the words are uttered by Frodo on his _first_
            meeting with Gildor -- this is, after all, meant to be a
            traditional greeting, not an expression coined by
            Frodo for that specific occasion.

            This contrasts with the Elvish greeting as it finally
            appears in _The Lord of the Rings_: _Elen síla
            lúmenn' omentielvo_ 'a star shines on the hour
            of our meeting' (LR:79). As you noted in message
            #307, this contains the present continuative _síla_,
            so that in the final text the Elvish greeting now (in
            contrast to the earlier aorist versions) refers only
            to the present, specific encounter: *'a star is
            shining (now) upon the hour of (this) our meeting'.

            -- Patrick Wynne]
          • David Kiltz
            ... Aorist in Greek means undefined, not fixed . Hence it fits the Quenya tense quite well (compare Patrick s description). Indeed, the name aorist fits
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 31, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              On Donnerstag, Januar 30, 2003, at 09:09 Uhr, Petri Tikka wrote:

              > I find it quite strange that the term _aorist_ is applied
              > to a tense that points to the present in Quenya

              Aorist in Greek means "undefined, not fixed". Hence it fits the Quenya
              "tense" quite well (compare Patrick's description). Indeed, the name
              "aorist" fits the Quenya tense better than the Greek since the latter
              was mostly used as a past tense. The past value, however, did not
              originally reside in the aorist form as such but in the augment e-.
              Note that the Quenya "perfect" tense employs a similar strategy. For a
              very close typological parallel you might want to look at Turkish.
              Turkish has an "aorist" as well which is used for general or gnomic
              statements. It's a present tense as well.

              David Kiltz
            • Lukas Novak
              ... This is one interpretation. Is not there another possible one, namely that the aorist is used in a sense not excluding temporal determination, but merely
              Message 6 of 9 , Feb 2, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Patrick Wynne responded to Petri Tikka:

                > In the phrase _Eleni silir lúmesse omentiemman_
                > 'The stars shine on the hour of our meeting', the
                > aorist _silir_ comes first in the sentence, and its
                > context affects the interpretation of the next word
                > _lúmesse_, not vice versa. Since the aorist indicates
                > a general truth rather than a specific present event, the
                > sense of the greeting in this case must be something
                > like *'The stars shine whenever we meet'. No matter
                > that the words are uttered by Frodo on his _first_
                > meeting with Gildor -- this is, after all, meant to be a
                > traditional greeting, not an expression coined by
                > Frodo for that specific occasion.

                This is one interpretation. Is not there another possible one, namely
                that the aorist is used in a sense not excluding temporal determination,
                but merely abstracting from it, not expressing it, leaving the job to
                the "luumesse" - that would be just another example of the principle
                that unnecessary grammatical determination is left out (like the "last
                declinable word" rule or absence of verbal personal endings if the
                subject is expressed)?

                [Certainly this is a _possible_ alternative interpretation, though I
                wouldn't say it's a _probable_ one, because -- again --it assumes
                that _lúmesse_ 'on the hour' somehow inherently points to a single
                incident in present time. -- Patrick.]

                > This contrasts with the Elvish greeting as it finally
                > appears in _The Lord of the Rings_: _Elen síla
                > lúmenn' omentielvo_ 'a star shines on the hour
                > of our meeting' (LR:79). As you noted in message
                > #307, this contains the present continuative _síla_,
                > so that in the final text the Elvish greeting now (in
                > contrast to the earlier aorist versions) refers only
                > to the present, specific encounter: *'a star is
                > shining (now) upon the hour of (this) our meeting'.

                Or perhaps Tolkien decided that it sounds better to express the
                singularity of reference by means of the verbal tense as well? :-)

                As to the matter of future tense, I have always been under the
                impression that the "-uva" formation is originally rather optative
                than purely future. I think that several things point to that: the use
                of "future" in the "nai" formula, the difference of the future tense
                from all the other tenses and the difference between Sindarin and
                Quenya future, which jointly suggest that the future tenses are quite
                young formations (and thus presumably derived from some other
                formations), the possibility of Tolkien's taking his inspiration from
                English (will="wish"), Greek (Greek furture seems to be an
                elaboration of aorist optative) and perhaps also Latin (Latin future of
                consonantal and -i stems is similar to present subjunctive, and future
                perfect differs from perfect subjunctive only in 1st sg. form)...
                For support Cirion's Oath may be cited as well - "Vanda sina termaruva..."
                sounds rather "optative" to me (and such usage of the -uva form would
                be archaism, which fits very well the occasion).

                However, I don't see how this -uv- can be associated with the
                "privative" stem "uu" - I cannot see how the optative meaning can
                be gained by attaching a negative or privative particle to the end of
                the verb. I could imagine that the "privative" meaning arose from the
                "optative", but this seems not to be the case, both because -uva seems
                to be a late formation and because the meaning of the "uu" stem in the
                Etymologies is probably intended as the original, primitive one.

                I would agree with Pavel in dividing the "uva" into "uv-" and "-a",
                but I suggest that the "-a" is maybe rather the "-a" of imperative
                (or perhaps the both a's can be traced to common meaning - certain
                feel of intensity or anxiety, that marks the action described by the
                verb as immediately concerning the situation?). A further step would
                be to suppose a primitive verb "ub-" or "uba(a)-", in imperative
                "uba(a)-" could perhaps give the desired meaning in connexion with
                verbal stems? (Well, I don't in fact believe that - I rather suspect
                that the elves simply liked the sound and made the ending up... ;-))

                Lukas
              • atarinke <martin.blom@chello.se>
                ... While I agree that on the hour may not necessarily point to a single incident in time, the hour we are talking about is specified by an attribute ( the
                Message 7 of 9 , Feb 5, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Lukas Novak wrote:

                  > This is one interpretation. Is not there another possible one, namely
                  > that the aorist is used in a sense not excluding temporal determination,
                  > but merely abstracting from it, not expressing it, leaving the job to
                  > the "luumesse" [snip]

                  to which Patrick Wynne responded:

                  > Certainly this is a _possible_ alternative interpretation, though I
                  > wouldn't say it's a _probable_ one, because -- again --it assumes
                  > that _lúmesse_ 'on the hour' somehow inherently points to a single
                  > incident in present time.

                  While I agree that 'on the hour' may not necessarily point to a single
                  incident in time, the hour we are talking about is specified by an
                  attribute ('the hour of our meeting') which seems quite exact to me.
                  And even disregarding that, Novak's point still holds, that the aorist
                  is maybe used not to exclude temporal determination, but merely to not
                  give any, something not unheard of in real languages (Chinese for
                  instance almost never has to).

                  ta-dam
                  Martin Blom
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.