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

Re: ÓNI, ONYE

Expand Messages
  • David Kiltz
    ... Why do you think they are not subjects ? You go swimming with me . While _me_ is in the oblique case here, its thematic role is certainly that of subject
    Message 1 of 17 , Apr 15 9:31 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Montag, April 14, 2003, at 04:00 Uhr, laurifindil wrote:

      > ÓNI, ONYE "you (both) with me" or simply "(you) with me".
      >
      > Furthermore, the pronoun _-ni, -nye_ should be declined in the
      > accusative case (since they are not subject).

      Why do you think they are not subjects ? "You go swimming with me".
      While _me_ is in the oblique case here, its thematic role is certainly
      that of subject (agent) of the sentence. (I.e. == "you and I go
      swimming"). I don't see what sense a direct object would make here.

      [I don't think it is valid to restructure a sentence and then assume that
      it has any _necessary_ bearing on the grammatical relationships of the
      parts of the original sentence. Besides, how would you explain away the
      fact that in _I Heru aselye_ 'the Lord is with thee', the subject is _Heru_,
      leaving _-elye_ as the object? The fact that the object_-elye_ has the
      same _form_ as an object as it does as a subject does _not_ mean that
      it cannot fill two grammatical roles. Especially in a language that we
      know lost the formal distinction between nominative and accusative
      generally.
      I also want to reiterate that there is absolutely no evidence to
      show that _óni_, _onye_ mean *'_you_ with me', sg. or pl. That is an
      assumption based on assumption (about the meaning of _ó-_). It is
      fine to specualte about such things, _so long as the fact that it is
      mere speculation is made explicit_. As, for example, by prefixing
      a hypothetical "*" to speculative translation. CFH]

      The dative in English is due to the particularity of Indo-European grammar.
      It would seem that the Quenya is more literally "together - I". Maybe
      an accusative would make sense when motion is involved, although I'm
      not sure whether that was one of its functions in Quenya.

      Note also that Sindarin _anim_ seems to exhibit the status rectus _im_
      (==subject case) as well.

      David Kiltz
    • David Kiltz
      ... 1) Yes and no. There are two different aspects (of relationship) here. A. The formal level. On the formal level, e.g. _elye_ might as well be accusative.
      Message 2 of 17 , Apr 16 1:20 AM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On Dienstag, April 15, 2003, at 06:31 Uhr, Carl Hostetter wrote:

        > I don't think it is valid to restructure a sentence and then assume
        > that it has any _necessary_ bearing on the grammatical relationships
        > of the parts of the original sentence.

        1) Yes and no. There are two different aspects (of relationship) here.
        A. The formal level. On the formal level, e.g. _elye_ might as well be
        accusative.

        [Note that I said "_necessary_ bearing". If one restructures a
        sentence and then uses it to make grammatical arguments concerning
        the functions of the parts of the sentence, the burden is on them to show
        that it is valid to do so in each particular case. CFH]

        B. Edouard, however, wrote "since they are not subject".
        This I do not agree with. Languages may vary as to how they encode a
        prepositional participant of a noun phrase (Semitic would use the
        genitive) but in a sentence like _I Heru aselye_ "the Lord is with
        thee", _asleye_ is, in my eyes, B. *functionally* the subject (namely
        Mary). Just as in the preceding parts of the prayer. "...Full of grace"
        "blessed thou art amongst women".

        [Whereas I would say that _-elye_ is _functionally_ the object of the
        preposition _as-_, but _formally_ indistinguishable from the nominative/
        subject form. That being said, I would welcome a typological study of
        attested Quenya to investigate whether and to what degree it varies
        from a western-Indo-European type in this and other matters.
        Moreover, it seems to me that asserting that _aselye_ 'with thee' is the
        subject is equivalent to saying that, in the sentence: "The grass is green",
        "green" is the subject (and, therefore, a noun). CFH]

        > Besides, how would you explain away the fact that in _I Heru aselye_
        > 'the Lord is with thee', the subject is _Heru_, leaving _-elye_ as the
        > object?

        Functionally, the first phrase can be rephrased as "thou art one the
        Lord is with". Here, I think it becomes clear that the case *encoding*
        does by no means necessarily imply anything about the function in a
        sentence. Or, with other words, I'm using "subject" and "object" as
        functional (semantical) categories, not formal ones.

        [You have yet to establish that your restructuring of the sentence has
        any necessary bearing on the interpretation of either the form or the
        function of the elements of the original sentence. CFH]

        So there is nothing to "explain away". When you say "leaving _-elye_
        as the object", you are referring to how an Indo-European language
        would typically encode a prepositional participant. That doesn't,
        however, change the fact (in my eyes) that it isn't the object of the
        sentence (functionally).

        [Again, I would say that _functionally_ it is the object (not of the
        sentence, but of the preposition), though _formally_ it is
        indistinguishable from a nominative/subject form. CFH]

        So, in short, I find that both you and Edouard fail to make a necessary
        distiction between the formal and functional level of the language here.

        [I don't feel that I have failed to make the necessary distinction; rather,
        the distinction I make of form vs. function seems to be the opposite of the
        one you make. CFH]

        > The fact that the object_-elye_ has the same _form_ as an object as
        > it does as a subject does _not_ mean that it cannot fill two grammatical
        > roles. Especially in a language that we know lost the formal distinction
        > between nominative and accusative generally.

        Absolutely with you. Never doubted that for a second.
      • Hans
        ... While this is true, it seems to me that the specific dual character of *WO _ó_/_o_ was emphasized only later, in _Quendi and Eldar_. That Q&E was
        Message 3 of 17 , Apr 26 3:06 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Patrick Wynne wrote:

          > In fact, pretty much any "A with B" construction could be viewed as "dual"
          > in the sense of describing a "union of two things or persons, or of two
          > groups thought of as units".

          While this is true, it seems to me that the specific dual character of
          *WO > _ó_/_o_ was emphasized only later, in _Quendi and Eldar_. That
          Q&E was written later than the chart containing _óni_, _onye_, etc.
          (VT43:29), seems to be confirmed by the fact that we read there about
          *WO that "This does not remain in Q as an independent word" (XI:367).
          Indeed, in the latest version of _Aia María_, _olesse_ does no longer occur.
          A preposition (even with an appended pronoun) would be an independent
          word.

          [Indeed. Facts stated by Tolkien at one point in the conceptual history
          of his languages have no _necessary_ bearing on any other stage of that
          long history. The willingness to _force_ such facts to apply at all other
          stages and in all attested examples is a phenomenon of a regularizing and
          simplifying mind asserting its desires over both history and evidence, and
          is thus anti-scholarly. The proper approach is to examine _all_ the evidence
          bearing on a particular element or device, weighing each example and/or
          statement against the others, and then making such observations and
          claims as this evidence, as a whole, permits. CFH]

          It's interesting that we find _o_ not as a preposition, but as a conjunction in
          the Notion Club Papers, _O sauron túle_ (IX:246), replacing _Ar_ in an earlier
          variant. It seems to be used in the sense "with (them)", which is close to "and".
          This closeness in JRRT's understanding is confirmed by a preliminary version
          of a sentence in _The Return of the King_: _Sinome nimaruva yo hildinyar tenn'
          Ambar-metta!_ (XI:56), where _yo_ (the non-dual counterpart of *_wo_ according
          to XI:367) was replaced by _ar_ in the final version: _Sinome maruvan ar Hildinyar
          tenn' Ambar-metta!_ (LR:946). VT43:33 mentions a root _ara_ "along side", and
          the closely related _as-_ is used in the sense "with" (VT43:30), so it seems that
          Quenya _ar_ has a more commitative sense than the English "and".

          Patrick further wrote:

          > nominative endings such as _-nye_, _-(e)lye_, etc. could in fact be attached
          > to prepositions to serve as objects. The chart in question indicates that these
          > forms coexisted with forms such as _óni_, _óle_, in which the endings _-ni, -le_
          > actually are accusative in form.

          While I agree on the first part, I'd like to see some evidence why _-ni, -le_ are
          accusative in form. The sentence quoted above shows that _ni-_ was used as
          nominative "I" in _nimaruva_, and the well-known _tye-meláne_ in _The Lost
          Road_ (V:68 in my DelRey paperback) shows the long form _tye_ as accusative
          "thee". _le_ seemed to coexist with a form *_lye_, as we know from a
          communication by Helge Fauskanger in Elfling message #14958 (May 11, 2000):
          _lyenna_ (obviously "upon you") is found in an JRRT autograph dating from 1968.

          [So says Helge. I wonder whether the word in question could instead be
          _tyenna_? Tolkien's _t_s and _l_s are sometimes difficult to distinguish, as he
          had a habit of placing the cross-bar of his _t_s far to the right of the vertical
          member, and also of "blending" it with the start of a following consonant. CFH]

          So it seems to me that _-ni, -le_ are just short forms, which (as the long forms)
          can be both nominative and accusative. This would be in accordance with the
          Plotz Letter, saying that accusative vanished from spoken Quenya, and the
          difference to nominative "was adequately expressed by word order" (VT6:14).
          Indeed, attaching a pronoun to a preposition clearly marks it as an object!

          Still, there should have been a formal difference in Book Quenya, and it's curious
          that it didn't survive. In languages like German, English, Italian,... the difference
          between acc. and nom. is no longer expressed in nouns, but still visible in
          pronouns. Given the fact that JRRT much hesitated even with the nominative forms
          of the pronouns, it seems unlikely that he had a clear vision of hypothetical
          accusative forms in Book Quenya, though.

          Hans
        • Patrick H. Wynne
          Hans wrote, in response to my statement that in _óni, óle_ the ... One reason for assuming _óni_ contains acc. _-ni_ is phonological, and a key piece of
          Message 4 of 17 , Apr 29 5:43 AM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Hans wrote, in response to my statement that in _óni, óle_ "the
            endings _-ni, -le_ actually are accusative in form":

            > While I agree on the first part, I'd like to see some evidence
            > why _-ni, -le_ are accusative in form. The sentence quoted
            > above shows that _ni-_ was used as nominative "I" in _nimaruva_,
            > and the well-known _tye-meláne_ in _The Lost Road_ (V:68 in
            > my DelRey paperback) shows the long form _tye_ as accusative
            > "thee".

            One reason for assuming _óni_ contains acc. _-ni_ is phonological,
            and a key piece of evidence occurs in the very sentence Hans cites:
            _tye-meláne_ 'I love thee' (V:61). The Etymologies gives the base
            of 'I' as NI- (2), and a consistent phonological rule throughout the
            external history of Q(u)enya is that original short final _*-i_
            becomes _-e_, e.g. *_liñwi_ 'fish' > Q _lingwe_ (V:369 s.v. LIW-).
            Thus it is likely that the subject pronoun _-ne_ 'I' in _tye-
            meláne_is from earlier *_-ni_. Original short *_i_ was retained
            medially, and so we see the subject prefix _ni-_ 'I' in
            _nimaruva_ 'I will abide' and _nilendie_ 'I have come' (IX:56).

            In _óni_, however, this subject pronoun *_ni_ cannot be present,
            because *_ô-ni_ would regularly yield **_óne_. We must assume
            therefore that _-ni_ in _óni_ is from earlier *_-nî_, and it is
            very likely this lengthened _-î_ indicates *_-nî_ is accusative.
            According to the Plotz declension, Quenya originally possessed
            a distinct accusative marked by lengthening of the final vowel:
            nom. _cirya_ / acc. _ciryâ_; nom. _lasse_ / acc. _lassê_. This
            was retained in the written form of the language (Book
            Quenya), but was lost in the spoken tongue, the difference
            between nom. and acc. being "adequately expressed by
            word order" (PE10:27). Evidently the nom./acc. distinction
            was not _entirely_ lost in Quenya, being retained in the
            pronouns -- just as in English, in which the nom./acc.
            distinction has been lost in nouns but is retained in
            pronouns: he/him, she/her, they/them (as Hans notes).

            Note that the various versions of the Átaremma consistently
            maintain the distinction between nom. _emme_ 'we' and
            acc. _me_ 'us', e.g. _emme avatyarir_ 'we forgive' versus _úa
            mittanya me_ 'do not lead us' in At. I (VT43:8). Acc. _me_
            'us' occurs in the dual form _met_ 'us two' in _Namárie_ as
            the object of a preposition: _imbe met_ 'between us (two)'.
            And I would propose that it is this same acc. _me_ that
            appears in _óme_ *'with us' in the chart cited in VT43:29.
            Similarly, the pl. pron. _-te_ in _óte_ on the chart appears
            to be masculine, and can probably be identified with acc.
            _te_ 'them' in _a laite te_ 'praise them!' (LR:932), referring
            to Frodo and Samwise.

            -- Patrick H. Wynne
          • Beregond. Anders Stenström
            While Patrick Wynne presents reasons for his description of _-ni_ as accusative in form , distinct from the nominative ending . . . _-nye_ and from the
            Message 5 of 17 , May 2, 2003
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              While Patrick Wynne presents reasons for his description of _-ni_
              as "accusative in form", distinct from the "nominative ending . . .
              _-nye_" and from the subject prefix _ni-_ (the corresponding suffix
              form of this being rather _-ne_).

              But how is _-le_ distinct in form (as opposed to usage) from the
              subject prefix _le-_ (found in the discarded _le.ana_ in line 1 of
              Tolkien's unfinished Quenya version of the litany of Loreto,
              VT 44:12-13)?

              Meneg suilaid,

              Beregond

              [As previously discussed, while acc. _-ni_ in _�ni_ appears
              identical in form to nom. _ni-_ in _nimaruva, nilendie_, the
              acc. form must actually derive from *_-n�_, while the nom.
              form must derive from *_ni_ (> _-ne_ in _tye-mel�ne_ 'I
              love thee'). Note also that as a nom. prefix we see _ni-_
              with a short _i_, not **_n�maruva, n�lendie_.

              Similarly, while _-le_ in _�le_ appears identical in form to
              _le-_ in _le-ana_, it would be reasonable to suppose (after
              the model of nom. *_ni_, acc. *_n�_) that in the earlier
              language there was a formal distinction between nom.
              *_le_ and acc. *_l�_. And just as we see nom. _ni-_, not
              **_n�-_, in _nimaruva, nilendie_, so we see nom. _le-_ in
              _le-ana_, not **_l�-_.

              Also note Q _m�ne_ 'on-us' (IX:310), which might be
              analyzed as acc. *_m�_ 'us' + enclitic postposition *_-ne_
              'on' (perhaps cognate with ON, EN _ne-_ *'in', as in ON
              _nestak-_ 'insert, stick in', EN _nestegi_ < STAK- 'split,
              insert', V:388).

              -- Patrick H. Wynne]
            • Beregond. Anders Stenström
              ... Would not _é_ in **_lé-ana_ have been reduced, as is usual in hiatus position? That is, can we tell from this single example whether subject and object
              Message 6 of 17 , May 14, 2003
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                I wrote and Patrick Wynne answered:

                > But how is _-le_ distinct in form (as opposed to usage) from the
                > subject prefix _le-_ (found in the discarded _le.ana_ . . .)
                >
                > [. . . we see nom. _le-_ in _le-ana_, not **_lé-_. . . .]

                Would not _é_ in **_lé-ana_ have been reduced, as is usual
                in hiatus position? That is, can we tell from this single example
                whether subject and object form were not identically _lé_, both
                taking the form _le_ in the contexts under discussion?

                I do find Patrick's interpretation more attractive, though.

                Meneg suilaid,

                Beregond

                [I would say that yes, **_lé-ana_ would have been an allowable
                form at the time the pronoun chart was written, given the
                occurrance of _úa_ and _úalye_ in Átaremma I and IIa, which
                are contemporary with the chart. And while assuming con-
                sistency in pronominal forms taken from different compositional
                periods is an iffy proposition at best, we might suppose that
                the nom. prefix _ni-_ with short vowel in _nimaruva, nilendie_
                also argues that nom. prefix _le-_ in _le-ana_ was inherently
                short, rather than being long but shortened in hiatus position.

                It is _not_, however, an iffy proposition to suppose consistency
                in pronominal forms appearing in the same text. I have shown
                that _-ni_ in _óni_ must derive from *_-nî_, the lengthened
                vowel strongly suggesting that it is accusative; I have shown
                that _-me_ in _óme_ is identical in form with accusative _me_
                'us' in the Átaremma and elsewhere, and that _te_ in _óte_
                appears to be identical to accusative _te_ 'them' in _a laita
                te_ 'praise them'. It is not unreasonable then to suppose that
                the other forms in this same chart, _óle_ et al., are based on
                accusative forms as well, with of course the exception of
                _onye, olye_, in which the endings _-nye, -lye_ are attested
                as nominative.

                -- Patrick H. Wynne]
              • David Kiltz
                ... What, then, is your definition of object in this context? ... In German? What about e.g. nom. _der Ochse_, acc. _den Ochsen_? David Kiltz
                Message 7 of 17 , May 14, 2003
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Samstag, April 26, 2003, at 12:06 Uhr, Hans wrote:

                  > Indeed, attaching a pronoun to a preposition clearly marks it as an
                  > object!

                  What, then, is your definition of "object" in this context?

                  > In languages like German, English, Italian,... the difference
                  > between acc. and nom. is no longer expressed in nouns

                  In German? What about e.g. nom. _der Ochse_, acc. _den Ochsen_?

                  David Kiltz
                • David Kiltz
                  ... I don t understand the connection you make between green and with thee . The first is an adjective, with thee is not. Indeed with thee has no
                  Message 8 of 17 , May 14, 2003
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mittwoch, April 16, 2003, at 10:20 Uhr, Carl Hostetter wrote:

                    > Moreover, it seems to me that asserting that _aselye_ 'with thee' is
                    > the subject is equivalent to saying that, in the sentence: "The grass is
                    > green", "green" is the subject (and, therefore, a noun).

                    I don't understand the connection you make between "green" and "with
                    thee". The first is an adjective, "with thee" is not. Indeed "with
                    thee" has no characteristics of an adjective but "thee" clearly is a
                    noun, just as in a phrase "with the dog" "dog" is a noun. I'd be
                    curious to know what you mean.

                    [My point is that the (predicate) prepositional phrase "with thee" is no
                    more the "subject" of the sentence than is the (predicate) adjective
                    "green". Yet you have called "with thee" the subject of the sentence.
                    Further, to what follows, while it is true that the copula has no
                    grammatical object in these sentences -- so far as I know that was
                    never in question, and certainly I never claimed that "with thee" is
                    the object of the copula -- nonetheless the preposition "with" does
                    have an object, namely "thee". CFH]

                    A functional object, as I understand it, is the second participant of a
                    verbal sentence. Cf. "I (subj.) see you (obj.)". In a nominal sentence
                    there is no object (functionally or logically). "The lord is with thee"
                    is functionally the same as "Thou art with the Lord" or "The Lord and
                    thou art together" (with semantic nuances, but that's irrelevant at
                    this point). The fact that in most I.-E. languages nouns, taking
                    prepositions, take the same *form* as objects of a verbal sentence do
                    does not, in any way, make them functionally the same. While I agree
                    that _elye_ may well be an oblique case (although the form isn't
                    clear), there is no question that it isn't an object. "To be" has a
                    valence of 1, it can never take an object. "With thee" is part of the
                    nominal phrase, it is an adnominal addition, not one to the verb. In
                    German the sentence reads "der Herr ist mit Dir". _Dir_ is the form of
                    the indirect object (dative) of _Du_ ("You"). Just as _Thee_. To call
                    _mit Dir_ an indirect object would, with all respect, in my eyes, be
                    absurd. Imagine a sentence: "Ich warte dich ihm" vs "Ich warte mit dir
                    auf ihn". In the latter sentence ("I wait for him with you") _auf ihn_
                    is indeed a prepositional object, however, _mit dir_ is *not* a
                    prepositional indirect object.

                    Maybe, it boils all down to a question of terminology. Just as in a
                    sentence "the window was hit by a bullet" "bullet" is the logical
                    subject, so is "with the" in the sentence in question. Again, the
                    *formal* identity of e.g. in German the indirect object (dative) with a
                    (pro)noun after the preposition "mit" has nothing to do with their
                    respective functions in these two, very different, cases.

                    [Yes, indeed, it has everything to do with terminology, as I thought
                    we'd already established. When you used "subject" as a shorthand for
                    the "logical subject" of the sentence, others (quite naturally, I think)
                    took it to mean the _grammatical_ subject of the sentence. This was
                    not really a matter of form, but of grammatical vs. (your view of)
                    logical function. But I still haven't been persuaded that the predicate
                    prepositional phrases in the sentences under discussion are in any
                    way a subject, logical or otherwise. CFH]
                  • David Kiltz
                    ... The distinction logical vs grammatical subject is, IMHO, in general terms unfortunate. The definition of grammatical subject is apparently based solely
                    Message 9 of 17 , May 14, 2003
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Mittwoch, Mai 14, 2003, at 06:03 Uhr, Carl Hostetter wrote:

                      > When you used "subject" as a shorthand for the "logical subject" of
                      > the sentence, others (quite naturally, I think) took it to mean the
                      > _grammatical_ subject of the sentence. This was not really a matter
                      > of form, but of grammatical vs. (your view of) logical function. But I
                      > still haven't been persuaded that the predicate prepositional phrases
                      > in the sentences under discussion are in any way a subject, logical or
                      > otherwise. CFH]

                      The distinction logical vs grammatical subject is, IMHO, in general
                      terms unfortunate.

                      The definition of "grammatical subject" is apparently based solely on
                      formal grounds.

                      [Not at all. I think of the grammatical subject of a sentence as that
                      part of the sentence filling the role or function of the subject,
                      regardless of its form. You are quite right to have noted that form and
                      function must be kept separate (no matter how much they might coincide
                      at times); but that is not the failure of distinction here. As I see it,
                      you are taking a predicate prepositional phrase == prep. + grammatical obj.
                      of prep., and calling this the "subject" of the sentence, by which you mean
                      "logical subject". I have yet to be convinced that this has any validity,
                      but even if it does, it was your use of "subject" for (whatever you mean by)
                      "logical subject" that caused the confusion. CFH]

                      I think this view doesn't do the language justice. If, syntactically,
                      the subject is the first participant of a verb (or the only one of the
                      copula) then it is most prominently encoded as nominative but it
                      doesn't have to be. As you accepted, "to be" doesn't take an object.
                      What then is "thee", the object of a preposition ? I never heard
                      anybody call it that.

                      [Oh, but I have, many, many times, from many different sources,
                      spoken and written. I daresay anyone educated in grammar in an
                      English-speaking school will have learned to call such the "object of
                      the preposition". CFH]

                      The term object is ambiguous here since it is applied to two
                      syntactically (not formally) completely different phenomena. What I'm
                      aiming it, is establishing a relation between the syntactical terms subject
                      and object vis-à-vis case endings. Unlike Ivan Derzhanski I don't think
                      this obscures anything because there is no one-to-one relation between
                      those categories. I still don't see how it could make sense to say a
                      preposition takes the accusative and dative, hence we give it the same
                      name as a syntactical relation to a verb.

                      [And yet we do, and for very long now have. CFH]

                      Why bother with syntax anyway, if we don't make a distinction? I'm not
                      trying to obscure an equation that doesn't exist but to illustrate a
                      difference.

                      Out of curiosity: How would you define the function of subject and
                      object in a sentence?

                      [I don't think I would attempt to; I'm not that kind of linguist. But I
                      knows 'em when I sees 'em. CFH]

                      David Kiltz
                    • Frederick Hoyt
                      [This discussion is drifting far afield from Tolkien s languages -- whatever the linguistic merits of the discussion, we can be pretty certain that Tolkien
                      Message 10 of 17 , May 14, 2003
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        [This discussion is drifting far afield from Tolkien's languages -- whatever
                        the linguistic merits of the discussion, we can be pretty certain that Tolkien
                        never concerned himself with "pivots" or "binding theory prominence" while
                        practising his language-making Art. If anyone wishes to continue this
                        discussion, it will have to be brought 'round to Tolkien again. CFH]

                        Please pardon me if I crash this thread.

                        Yehuda Falk of the Hebrew University has written a very nice (short,
                        clear, to the point) paper on the distinction between different notions
                        of "subject." He summarizes varies threads of research going back to at
                        least the early 1970's, and motivates a basic distinction between the
                        Pivot (grammatical subject, discourse-functional subject), and Logical
                        Subject (most 'salient' thematic participant). The distinction is
                        backed up by a battery of criteria drawing on a wide range of
                        languages. It's available online as a PDF:

                        http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/5/lfg00falk.pdf

                        Distinguishing between the Pivot and Logical Subject might go a long
                        way toward clearing up some of the terminological issues addressed in
                        the preceding posts. Whether or not one chooses to adopt the
                        terminology, the evidence clearly supports the distinction between a
                        grammatical subject and a semantic subject.

                        Thanks,

                        Fred Hoyt

                        Frederick M. Hoyt
                        Linguistics Department
                        University of Texas at Austin
                        fmhoyt@...
                        LIN 312 - The Linguistics of Middle-earth website:
                        http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~fmhoyt/LIN312Homepage/312Main.html
                      • Lukas Novak
                        ... Please excuse me to intrude on your learned discourse, but it seems to me that the differences are more than slight . It seems to me that arguing that
                        Message 11 of 17 , May 15, 2003
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          David Kiltz wrote:

                          > A functional object, as I understand it, is the second participant of a
                          > verbal sentence. Cf. "I (subj.) see you (obj.)". In a nominal sentence
                          > there is no object (functionally or logically). "The lord is with thee"
                          > is functionally the same as "Thou art with the Lord" or "The Lord and
                          > thou art together" (with semantic nuances, but that's irrelevant at
                          > this point).

                          Please excuse me to intrude on your learned discourse, but it seems
                          to me that the differences are more than "slight". It seems to me that
                          arguing that these three sentences are "logically the same" is to make
                          the same mistake as many logicians do when they claim that since a
                          proposition A1 is equivalent to A2, they are one and the same (and
                          according to the logician's preferences, either A1 is claimed to be
                          only an inadequate expression of which the true logical form is A2,
                          or vice versa).

                          In my opinion, at least on the logical level there is a clear distinction
                          between the proposed three sentences. In "The Lord is with thee",
                          "The Lord" is the logical subject, of which "being with thee" is
                          predicated. In "You are with the Lord", the subject is "You",
                          and in the last one the subject is "The Lord and thou".
                          Although these sentences are _logically_ equivalent, i.e. they imply
                          from each other mutually, they are in fact essentially different:
                          they have different subjects and predicates. In the first you say
                          about the Lord that he has some relation of proximity to "thee", in
                          the second you say that "thou" have some relation of proximity to the
                          Lord. As theologians would claim, these relations are not the same and
                          differ radically in their ontological nature.

                          I am not exactly aware of what you mean by "functional", so I will
                          refrain from arguing whether they can be said to be "functionally" the
                          same. However, my belief is that grammar serves to express in some way
                          the logical structure of thought (or language, if you will). Therefore
                          it seems to me that if there is a logical distinction between two
                          sentences, and if there is some distinction in their grammatical structure,
                          that can be seen as corresponding to this logical distinction, then it
                          is unsubstantiated to deny that the grammatical structure reflects directly
                          the actual logical strucxture of these sentences, and can therefore
                          not be dismissed as mere surface variation in expressing one and the
                          same thing (thought or proposition).

                          > Maybe, it boils all down to a question of terminology. Just as in a
                          > sentence "the window was hit by a bullet" "bullet" is the logical
                          > subject, so is "with the" in the sentence in question.

                          I think I have to disagree from the (philosophical-)logician's point of
                          view. In this sentence the subject indeed is "the window". It is
                          the window that is the object of the mental act of characterizing,
                          known as judgement, therefore it is the window what is the subject of
                          the judgement from the logical point of view; and the characteristic
                          ascribed to the window is certain passion it suffers from the bullet,
                          i.e. it is the characteristic "that which has been hit by a bullet" is
                          the predicate of the judgement. Of course, this proposition or
                          judgement implies a _distinct_ judgement about the bullet, ascribing
                          it an _action_, namely that of having hit the window. And it also
                          implies many other distinct judgements, e.g. a judgement about the
                          existence of the action of the bullet's hitting the window, etc. They
                          are logically equivalent, but that does not mean identical.

                          I think I can trace why it seems that the "logical" subject of passive
                          sentences is the agent. It is because the real agent is the
                          ontological subject of the action. But the real patient is also
                          the ontological subject - of its passion. And regardless of all that, the
                          question of what the _logical_ subject of a judgement or proposition is
                          does not in any way depend on what the ontological subject is and what
                          the ontological property is. Nothing hinders you from making an
                          ontological property, such as action or passion (see the abovementioned
                          example) the logical subject of your proposition, since as long as
                          anything is capable of becoming an (ontological) object of human thought,
                          it is capable of becoming the logical subject of the judgements made
                          by humans, since to think about something means to ascribe it some
                          characteristics in judgements, in which it is the subject and the
                          characteristics the predicate.

                          Lukas, a would-be philosopher, but not a linguist,
                          who is nevertheless deeply enjoying this extremely
                          interesting discussion.
                        • Lukas Novak
                          ... There was a rule in scholasticians disputations that it was the task of the one who denied a distinction to prove the identity, not vice versa. The reason
                          Message 12 of 17 , May 15, 2003
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            David Kiltz wrote:

                            > Why bother with syntax anyway, if we don't make a distinction? I'm not
                            > trying to obscure an equation that doesn't exist but to illustrate a
                            > difference.

                            There was a rule in scholasticians' disputations that it was the task
                            of the one who denied a distinction to prove the identity, not vice
                            versa. The reason is that a false distinction does not produce
                            any false implications (it only hinders from inferring some true ones);
                            whereas false identity does.

                            Lukas
                          • Ales Bican
                            Patrick Wynne wrote in response to Hans wish to see some evidence ... **However, it must be noted that development of monosyllabic words (MWs) differed from
                            Message 13 of 17 , May 23, 2003
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Patrick Wynne wrote in response to Hans' wish "to see some evidence
                              why _-ni, -le_ are accusative in form":

                              > One reason for assuming _óni_ contains acc. _-ni_ is phonological,
                              > and a key piece of evidence occurs in the very sentence Hans cites:
                              > _tye-meláne_ 'I love thee' (V:61). The Etymologies gives the base
                              > of 'I' as NI- (2), and a consistent phonological rule throughout the
                              > external history of Q(u)enya is that original short final _*-i_
                              > becomes _-e_, e.g. *_liñwi_ 'fish' > Q _lingwe_ (V:369 s.v. LIW-).

                              **However, it must be noted that development of monosyllabic
                              words (MWs) differed from development of polysyllabic ones.
                              For instance, it seems that certain short vowels were lost finally
                              (cf. _abaro_ > CE _abar_, WJ/XI:371). This could not happen in MW,
                              because the very word would be lost then. Also, we know that long
                              vowels were reduced to short ones finally. However, MWs seem not
                              to reduce them, cf. _ní_ "woman" < NÍ (Etym) or _vá_, apparently
                              from _bá_ (WJ/XI:370). The Plotz Letter informs us that "all long
                              vowels were reduced to short vowels finally" in Spoken Quenya.
                              Again MWs seem not follow the rule, because we have _sí_ "now"
                              in "_Namárie_", for instance.

                              > Thus it is likely that the subject pronoun _-ne_ 'I' in _tye-
                              > meláne_is from earlier *_-ni_.

                              **That is certainly possible (though the subject pronoun for
                              "I" could have been simply *_-ne_ then (i.e. with the original
                              _e_, not from _i_)).

                              I think we do not have explicit examples of development of final
                              short _-i_ in MWs, but it is possible that even in them the _-i_
                              turned to _-e_. Or at least in the Etym (and _Lost Road_) era.
                              We may also note that Etym gives _no_ "under", apparently from
                              *_nu_. This would then show change of final _-u_ to _-o_
                              (parallel to change of _-i_ to _-e_) in a MW. Nevetheless, "_Namárie_"
                              gives _nu_ "under" instead. If we suppose that the "_Namárie_"
                              version of the preposition has the same origin, i.e. *_nu_, then it
                              might be that Tolkien changed his mind and decided that vowels
                              (or at least _u_ and _i_) did not undergo any change. Of course, the
                              origin of _nu_ might have been *_nó_, but we should then ask why
                              the long vowel was shortened if another long vowel in _sí_ was not.

                              > Note that the various versions of the Átaremma consistently
                              > maintain the distinction between nom. _emme_ 'we' and
                              > acc. _me_ 'us', e.g. _emme avatyarir_ 'we forgive' versus _úa
                              > mittanya me_ 'do not lead us' in At. I (VT43:8).

                              In a reply to Beregond Patrick wrote:

                              > I have shown that _-ni_ in _óni_ must derive from *_-nî_, the
                              > lengthened vowel strongly suggesting that it is accusative
                              > ["because *_ô-ni_ would regularly yield **_óne_"]; I have shown
                              > that _-me_ in _óme_ is identical in form with accusative _me_
                              > 'us' in the Átaremma and elsewhere, and that _te_ in _óte_
                              > appears to be identical to accusative _te_ 'them' in _a laita
                              > te_ 'praise them'. It is not unreasonable then to suppose that
                              > the other forms in this same chart, _óle_ et al., are based on
                              > accusative forms as well, with of course the exception of
                              > _onye, olye_, in which the endings _-nye, -lye_ are attested
                              > as nominative.

                              However, _me_ seems to be a nominative form as well, cf. _men_
                              in the same text. The form is not *_mén_, so it points rather to
                              nominative. I have mentioned that the form _sí_ "now" did not
                              undergo the shortening. Now consider _sín_ in SD/IX:310: the
                              vowel is not shortened when an ending _-n_ is added (whatever
                              its function). In Etym such a shortening is seen, because the base
                              SI- lists _sin_ besides _sí_. This is therefore another piece that
                              suggests that Tolkien changed his mind as regards the development
                              and behavior of MWs, because the form _sin_ appears in an
                              earlier version of the _Atalante_ Fragments (see LR/V:46).
                              Moreover, it is usually nominative (the least marked form) that
                              acquires case ending (more precisely, it is the least marked form
                              serves as nominative).

                              The fact that the reflex of final short CE _-i_ in _-e_ in Quenya is
                              not, in my view, sufficient for assuming that _-ni_ in an accusative
                              form, because as I have tried to show the behavior of CE
                              monosyllabic words is slightly different to the behavior of CE
                              polysyllabic words.

                              The question is whether_-ni_, _-le_ etc. in the _ó-_ chart (VT43:29)
                              are suffixes or whether the _ó-_ is a prefix. What I want to say is
                              which of the segments could stand alone, that is, which of them is
                              a separate word -- if any of them.

                              If _-ni, -le_ etc. are only suffixes and cannot stands as separate words,
                              I would not speak of them as of nominative or accusative forms but
                              rather as subject and object forms. Nominative does not necessarily
                              means subject and accusative does not necessarily mean object. Now
                              the question is of course whether they are subject or object forms.
                              It may be they are both (with _nye_ and _lye_ as alternatives).
                              However, if _ni, le_ etc. are separate words, then we can speak
                              about nominative and accusative, because the least marked forms
                              would be nominative from which accusative could be formed.
                              Nominatives would act as subjects and accusative as (direct) objects
                              in most cases. Yet here again I do not think we can say whether
                              they are the former or the latter, since the accusative as a case did
                              not exist in Spoken Quenya. Now as regards the forms _-s_ and
                              _-t_ (in _ós_ and _ót_, being variants of _ósa_ and _óta_), they
                              are hardly separate words. They may be reduced forms of _-sa_
                              and _-ta_ or plain suffixes, perhaps like _-nye_ and _-lye_, but
                              these could also perhaps stand alone, cf. _tye_ and _lye_ in _lyenna_.

                              > Acc. _me_ 'us' occurs in the dual form _met_ 'us two' in _Namárie_ as
                              > the object of a preposition: _imbe met_ 'between us (two)'.

                              **If _me_ is an accusative form, we should ask why the long vowel was
                              here shortened if long vowels seem not to be shortened in MWs. The
                              same with _met_ -- why is it not *_mét_?

                              > And I would propose that it is this same acc. _me_ that appears in
                              > _óme_ *'with us' in the chart cited in VT43:29. Similarly, the pl. pron.
                              _-te_ in _óte_ on the chart appears to be masculine, [...].

                              Does it? I think you meant "personal" (_-ta_ being impersonal), at least
                              this is what is implied from what is said on p. 20 of VT43. But if you really
                              meant masculine, what would be the corresponding feminine form?


                              Ales Bican
                            • Hans
                              ... In fact, the Plotz Letter says so explicitly, the sentence you quoted continues: ... and before final cons. in words of two or more syllables . This is
                              Message 14 of 17 , May 25, 2003
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, Ales Bican <ales.bican@s...> wrote:

                                > The Plotz Letter informs us that "all long
                                > vowels were reduced to short vowels finally" in Spoken Quenya.
                                > Again MWs seem not follow the rule, because we have _sí_ "now"
                                > in "_Namárie_", for instance.

                                In fact, the Plotz Letter says so explicitly, the sentence you quoted
                                continues: "... and before final cons. in words of two or more
                                syllables". This is obviously connected with stress, remember
                                that the prefix _ó-_ becomes _o-_ when unstressed (XI:367).
                                With the retraction of stress, final vowels became unstressed
                                always, and shortened. This did not necessarily (or never?)
                                happen in monosyllabic words.

                                > **That is certainly possible (though the subject pronoun for
                                > "I" could have been simply *_-ne_ then (i.e. with the original
                                > _e_, not from _i_)).

                                I can't see any reason to assume that. The _-ne_ in _meláne_ has a
                                natural explanation, and in any other case I know of, the form is
                                _ni_ or derived from it. Let's analyze a few occurrences of the 1.
                                person sg. pronoun in the corpus:

                                We have
                                _ni_ "I" (Arctic Sentence)
                                _Atarinya_ "my father" (V:61)
                                _meláne_ "I love" (same page)
                                _inye_ "I" (same page)
                                _indo-ninya_ "my heart" (V:72)
                                _nin_ "me" (same page)
                                _NI_2 "I" (V:378)

                                This shows a consistent picture up to Etymologies: _ni_ or _inye_ as
                                "I", _-nya_ or even _ni-nya_ as possessive suffix, _ni-n_ as dative.
                                The change *_-ni_ >_-ne_ in final position was purely phonological.
                                A short pronominal suffix _-n_ is found in numerous entries in
                                Etymologies, too. Again, this fits into the general picture: short final
                                vowels (since unstressed) were lost often. So we can see two
                                alternative developments: *_-ni_ > _-ne_ > _-n_, or instead
                                strengthening of the suffix _-ne_ > _-nye_. It seems likely that
                                the possessive suffix was formed by combining _ni_ with the adjectival
                                suffix _-ya_, *_-niya_ > _-nya_. The pronoun remained through all
                                stages of Quenya. It appeared as a prefix shortly:

                                _nilendie_ "I have come" (IX:56)
                                _nimaruvan_ "I shall dwell" (same page)

                                The dative form _nin_ "for me" appears in Namárie (LR:368) and in the
                                late notes on _óre_ (VT41:11). Some time between them, we have the
                                forms _ónye_ and _óni_. As I said already, the argument that the pronouns
                                are not nominative (or subjective) in form makes sense, in my opinion.
                                They shouldn't be, because a subject doesn't need prepositions.

                                > The fact that the reflex of final short CE _-i_ in _-e_ in Quenya is
                                > not, in my view, sufficient for assuming that _-ni_ in an accusative
                                > form, because as I have tried to show the behavior of CE
                                > monosyllabic words is slightly different to the behavior of CE
                                > polysyllabic words.

                                Sure, but _-ni_ attached to anything are two syllables at least. Of
                                course, Patrick's argument relies on the assumption that the
                                custom of attaching pronominal suffixes to prepositions (which
                                obviously did not exist in CE) occurred earlier than the change
                                of final short -i > -e.

                                It seems that _ni_ did not occur as a stand-alone word in the corpus
                                after the Arctic Sentence. _inye_ seems to be derived form an
                                augmented form *_i-ni_. At least, that would explain the difference
                                to _elye_ "you" (LR:368).

                                I'll return to "you" (and other pronouns) in other posts.

                                Hans
                              • David Kiltz
                                ... Orthotone vs enclitic variants ? David Kiltz
                                Message 15 of 17 , May 26, 2003
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Freitag, Mai 23, 2003, at 09:00 Uhr, Ales Bican wrote:

                                  > **If _me_ is an accusative form, we should ask why the long vowel was
                                  > here shortened if long vowels seem not to be shortened in MWs. The
                                  > same with _met_ -- why is it not *_mét_?

                                  Orthotone vs enclitic variants ?

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