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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Quenya accusative pronouns

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.