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

Re: ÓNI, ONYE

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Apr 26, 2003
    • 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 2 of 17 , Apr 29, 2003
      • 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 3 of 17 , May 2, 2003
        • 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 4 of 17 , May 14, 2003
          • 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 5 of 17 , May 14, 2003
            • 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 6 of 17 , May 14, 2003
              • 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 7 of 17 , May 14, 2003
                • 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 8 of 17 , May 14, 2003
                  • 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 9 of 17 , May 15, 2003
                    • 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 10 of 17 , May 15, 2003
                      • 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 11 of 17 , May 23, 2003
                        • 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 12 of 17 , May 25, 2003
                          • 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 13 of 17 , May 26, 2003
                            • 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.