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

Prepositional complements

Expand Messages
  • David Kiltz
    i Héru aselye (VT43:28) - Dominus Tecum - the Lord is with Thee. A short inquiry into a prepositional complement. Let s look at the English sentence first.
    Message 1 of 11 , May 15 6:49 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      i Héru aselye (VT43:28) - Dominus Tecum - the Lord is with Thee.

      A short inquiry into a prepositional complement.

      Let's look at the English sentence first. _The Lord is with Thee_ is a
      nominal sentence. _Is_ here seems to represent the copula, not a full
      verb. More likely so, because we have probably to think of the
      association not as strictly speaking spatial or temporal but (also)
      metaphorical. The subject of the sentence is clearly _The Lord_. The
      occurrence of an object in a sentence is governed by the predicate of
      that sentence. The copula doesn't allow for an object. What, then, is
      _with Thee_ ? Well, I think it's used predicatively just as _great_ in
      _God is great_ or _grass is green_. As it stands with the copula it is
      by necessity a subject predicate, just as in e.g. _Jon is a student_.
      It describes God.

      Now for the grammatical encoding.

      How then is it, that in most modern European languages prepositions
      demand inflected nouns after them? The answer to that, I believe, is
      that all those languages carry historical vestiges in their innards
      that survive, with the *function* of the prepositions having
      (gradually) changed over time. What are prepositions and how did they
      work historically ?

      As can be gleaned from information provided by the oldest attested
      I.-E. languages (namely Vedic, Hittite and Greek) PIE did not have
      preposition strictu sensu. Rather those (as it appears now) little
      words were used adverbially or adnominally rather freely. The important
      thing, however, is, that they were originally *inflected nouns". Cf.
      *_(s)up-o_ (with *-o as directive), *_(s)uper(i) (with *-er(i) as
      locative) and *_per-i_ (locative *-i, cf. also Hittite _per_ "house").
      Combining one inflected noun (later: preposition) with another demands
      (more or less) complex syntax. Now, how did this system work ? Many
      notions that are expressed by prepositions in many modern European
      languages, weren't in PIE. Rather, they were expressed by means of
      (case) endings. Modern examples will be from English:
      To say "with" (sociative) e.g. Vedic would use the instrumental, cf.
      Rigveda 1.1.5b _devó devébhir aá gàmat "the god (Agnih) shall come
      (here) *with the gods*. "With" is expressed by the instrumental pl.
      _-bhih_. Similarly Rigveda 1.1.4b: _sá íd devésù gacchati_ "It is
      verily he (Agnih) who walketh amongst (the) gods. With _devesu_ loc.
      pl. of _devah_ "god".

      These two examples should illustrate what I mean. Now, when PIE used
      "prepositions" more complex things resulted, as they were themselves
      inflected. Let's take an English sentence: _He walked out of the room_.
      If PIE would have used a "preposition" in such a context, the English
      equivalent would have been something like: "He walked from the room
      (gen./abl.) to the outside". Likewise, _with you_ didn't require a
      preposition at all. With a preposition something like _together you-at_
      == "with you" can be imagined. Now we can see two things 1) Modern
      prepositional phrases are *over-characterized". Case endings do
      indicate differences in usage (although not typically in English but
      cf. German _im Haus_ vs _ins Haus_ "in the house vs into the house")
      but, at any rate, they work differently than they did then. 2) An
      accusative or dative must also be interpreted as directional cases.
      Case endings are much smaller units in PIE. Case endings themselves
      seem to (at least some) derive from postposition. To be very brief,
      these endings were more like Quenya prepositions (it would seem to me).
      They are always attached to previously inflected forms.

      So, we see that in Quenya, with its prepositions _ó_ and _as_
      apparently not being inflected for case, there is no reason whatsoever
      to suppose the (pro)nouns governed by them were necessarily in an
      oblique case (unless double marking occurred or a special movement was
      to be indicated). _-elye_ in _aselye_ has neither the function (syntactically)
      of an object in the sentence, nor seems there to be a reason for _as-_ or
      _ó_ to take a specific case.

      [But as Pat Wynne has already shown
      (<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/413>)
      the attested form _óni_ (with optional full, and apparently nominative, form
      _onye_; VT43:29), if the result of regular phonological development, must
      be due to the old accusative form (or else we would expect **_óne_). And
      other forms in the same chart -- e.g., _óle_ (with optional nominative form
      _olye_), _óme_, _óte_, etc. -- could also have originally arisen from
      accusative forms with lengthened vowels (and, in the cases of _óme_ and
      _óte_, the pronominal part corresponds formally with attested, specifically
      accusative, independent forms, sc. _me_ (VT43:8) and _te_ (LR:932),
      repsectively). That being said, the optional full forms may indicate a
      tendency towards later levelling of the prepositional pronouns to
      nominative forms; and in this regard it is noteworthy that other
      prepositional charts on the same page (VT43:36n.1) do show full,
      apparently nominative, pronominal forms in positions where the first
      chart has short forms. CFH]

      It remains, however, possible that Tolkien simply mimicked the
      situation in I.-E. languages of the stage of Latin, Early Germanic
      etc. without really giving much considerations to the syntactical
      nature of prepositions. Still, there is a good chance he did. Lastly,
      to be able to really judge matters in Quenya, it would be important to
      know whether the accusative in Quenya served any "directional" purpose
      as well.

      Excursus:

      Grammatical encoding is ultimately motivated and triggered by
      semantics, thematic roles. However, every system once established,
      focuses on certain aspects, while not marking others. Ironically, my (I
      think wrong) point to equate subject == agent, so booed at, is the only
      way, I think, to describe _with Thee_ as an object. Note, however, that
      this is not correct. Rather, on a thematic level _with Thee_
      accumulates a substantial number of (proto-) patientoid
      characteristics, while _The Lord_ is clearly a (Proto-) Agent. Typical
      features of an agent are, among others, +control, +instigation, while
      the typical patient lacks those features. While it may be argued that
      Saint Mary "instigated" God's being with her because of her comport and
      pureness, she certainly didn't control it. While God clearly is the one
      who wills, "instigates" and controls the action.

      David Kiltz

      P.S.: I would like to ask those concerned to forgive me the somewhat
      eruptive style of previous replies.
      P.S.2: For those interested in that sort of craziness: Some time ago
      (when I was less busy) I translated the ring poem into Syriac:
      http://kiareh.bei.t-online.de/PDFs/Ring_Verses_in_Syriac.pdf.
      Note there is a mistake in line 3: It should be _labnainosho_. Also,
      the Syriac font is less than perfect.
    • Hans Georg Lundahl
      ... There is a difference between an _appositum ex recto_ like: _God_ in _The Lord is God_ _thou_ in _The Lord art thou, O Jesu!_ _great_ in _The Lord is
      Message 2 of 11 , May 15 9:22 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        David Kiltz <dkiltz@...> wrote:

        > i Héru aselye (VT43:28) - Dominus Tecum - the Lord is with Thee.

        > The copula doesn't allow for an object. What, then, is _with Thee_ ? Well,
        > I think it's used predicatively just as _great_ in _God is great_ or
        > _grass is green_. As it stands with the copula it is by necessity a subject
        > predicate, just as in e.g. _Jon is a student_. It describes God.

        There is a difference between an _appositum ex recto_ like:
        _God_ in _The Lord is God_
        _thou_ in _The Lord art thou, O Jesu!_
        _great_ in _The Lord is great_
        _the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost_ in
        _The Lord is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost_

        and an _appositum ex obliquo_ like:
        _with thee_ in _The Lord is with thee_
        _of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob_ in
        _The Lord is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob_

        The former describe God in himself, the latter in relation to others, and the _apposita ex oblquo_ are oblique cases of precisely those others.

        Hans Georg Lundahl

        Gå före i kön och få din sajt värderad på nolltid med Yahoo! Express

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David Kiltz
        ... *Uninflected* forms, of course. -David Kiltz
        Message 3 of 11 , May 16 9:54 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Donnerstag, Mai 15, 2003, at 03:49 Uhr, David Kiltz wrote:

          > They are always attached to previously inflected forms.

          *Uninflected* forms, of course.

          -David Kiltz
        • Hans
          I m sorry, but I think the moderators are right: we should return to JRRT. In fact, Russian has FAR MORE passive constructions, than English! The reflexive
          Message 4 of 11 , May 16 1:39 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm sorry, but I think the moderators are right: we should return to JRRT. In fact,
            Russian has FAR MORE passive constructions, than English! The reflexive
            construction for passive IS used often, and there are two passive participles
            (past and present), not one as in English or German. But that's off topic,
            indeed.

            So let's resume after David's "What are prepositions and how did they work
            historically ?", looking at JRRT's notions. He often called them (or the particles
            from which they evolved) "adverbial elements". Just a few examples:

            Q&E, root *AWA. Adverbs _oa_, _oar_, survived in Sindarin as a preposition
            _o_ (from, of) (XI:366).

            *HO: "ancient adverbial element, occurring principially as a proclitic or enclitic",
            it was the origin of a verbal prefix or a case-marker _-o_ (XI:368).

            *WO: the origin of a verbal prefix, not surviving as a word according to Q&E
            (XI:367), but obviously the origin of the preposition _ó/o_ mentioned in the earlier
            translations of prayers (VT43:29).

            From Adunaic (at the same time that Tolkien played with pronominal prefixes
            in Quenya): the normal case of nouns (zero marking) is also "the base to which
            certain adverbial 'prepositional' affixes are added; such as _ô_ 'from', _ad_, _ada_
            'towards', _mâ_ 'with', _zê_ 'at'." (IX:429). This is extremely interesting, because
            all of it has obvious parallels in Quenya. Remember the suffix _-ma_ for
            instruments with which you do something, or _má_ 'hand'. Remember the
            preposition _sê_ 'at' (VT43:30), or the locative ending _-sse_, which appeared
            as _-ze_ occasionally.

            Since prepositions modify the relation of a verb to its object, they ARE adverbial.
            This relation could as well be described by an inflection of the object (and the
            role of objects IS usually marked by inflections), so they are redundant, in principle.
            BUT redundancy is built into language naturally. Moreover, inflections have a tendency
            of fading away in languages like the modern Germanic or Romance languages or
            Sindarin. Then, the burden lays more and more heavily on the adverbial particles
            placed between verb and object, and so they become PREPOSITIONS, i.e. words
            PLACED BEFORE objects. Of course, they can have this role before, in heavily
            inflected languages like Russian or Latin or Quenya. They are connected with
            objects, however, with inflected nouns or pronouns, and since they (for semantic
            reasons) combine only with certain inflections, a synchronic view may be that
            they "govern" a case, or that the object is the object of a preposition. No, they
            don't/aren't, the defining factor is the verb and its relation to the object.

            Hans
          • David Kiltz
            ... This refers probably to the genitive in _-o_, pl _-on_ and probably also the ablative _-Vllo_. In the latter case, _3o_ or _ho_ is assimilated to the
            Message 5 of 11 , May 22 2:52 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Freitag, Mai 16, 2003, at 10:39 Uhr, Hans wrote:

              > *HO: "ancient adverbial element, occurring principially as a proclitic
              > or enclitic",
              > it was the origin of a verbal prefix or a case-marker _-o_ (XI:368).

              This refers probably to the genitive in _-o_, pl _-on_ and probably
              also the "ablative" _-Vllo_. In the latter case, _3o_ or _ho_ is
              assimilated to the shorter form _-Vl_ (cf. Entu, Ensi, Enta Declension
              VT36:8). _-o(n)_ is attached to the noun either in singular or plural
              respectively. But is it attached to a specific case ? The question,
              perhaps, can be answered by looking at the chart of the Entu, Ensi,
              Enta declension. The first three lines run thus:

              1) entu ensi enta en
              2) ento ente enta en
              3) ento ente etta enda.

              The authors of VT36 take the first line to represent the nominative on
              the ground of general considerations. I.e., conventionally, the nom. is
              written first in any chart. The second row, then, is taken to represent
              the forms of the acc. Lastly, the third row is considered as
              representing an alternative genitive.

              While I agree on the first row, I do not think the interpretation of
              the 2. and 3. row likely.

              Firstly, the difference between 1 and 2 in masc, and fem., namely
              _-tu_, _-si(<ti)_ vs _-to_, _-te_ finds its exact correspondents in the
              demonstratives _su/so_. _si/se_ (cf. Et:385 sub S-). The entry in the
              Etymologies indicates that the distinction between _su/so_ is not one
              of case. Hence the same is likely for _entu_ and _ento_. A possible
              distinction might be that one form refers to actual males/females while
              the other is used more metaphorically. But that's pure speculation at
              this point. It may also be suggestive that pure _en_ occurs in the
              first two rows, whereas an (old) accusative is normally characterised
              by V+ (e.g. nom. _cirya, vs ac. _ciryá_). We find such a + form in the
              third row (_enda_). Note, however, that (en) is given as variant (?).
              Lastly, the assumption of an "uninflected" genitive for Quenya seems a
              little flawed to me.

              Things such as _airetári-lírinen_ or _ambar-metta_ should rather be
              treated as compounds. The hyphen seems to indicate that, while such
              compounds could apparently be formed rather freely in Quenya. Two
              elements of a compound can have various relations. Where two nouns are
              involved the most frequent (virtual) case relation is that of a
              genitive. That means simply that, the first element functions as an
              attribute to the second. So, the fact that _ambar-metta_ can, of
              course, be paraphrased as _metta i ambaro_ doesn't allow for the
              assumption of an endingless genitive. Note that in Indo-European
              languages compounds where the first member is indeed inflected occur.
              However, they aren't in a majority. The older the language the less
              likely this is to happen.

              The authors also note a difference in English between _Here is her
              book_ and _the book he has is hers_(VT36:20). I don't see how this is
              related to the issue. Suffice it to say that both _her_ and _hers_ are
              inflected forms. Also, they don't normally appear in compounds. (Unless
              there is a "her-cat" next to a "she-cat"). So I take it the latter
              examples or English pronouns strictly refer to the use of the pronoun
              _enta_ etc.. Still, how would such a distinction (attributive vs
              predicative) work with a *demonstrative* pronoun. Note that _his_ and
              _her_ are possessive pronouns. That is, they are inherently
              "genitival". The formal distinction _her_ vs _hers_ is a very late
              innovation to avoid confusion with _her_ (=¬c/dat.). E.g. **the book
              is her == she is the book. There is no distinction for _his_ or _its_
              since they're unambiguous. Cf. also _I see the colour of that yonder_
              vs _this is the colour of that yonder_. I don't see how you would fit
              _enta_ vs _entan_ in here.

              In other Germanic languages we find strong and weak forms of the
              adjective in these functions but that doesn't bear on the matter. That
              means, in my eyes, there is no base for the assumption of a third
              "genitive" case.

              In my view, the third row must be regarded as representing the
              accusative. If this is correct, we can also answer the question to what
              "case" (if any) Quenya inflectional suffixes are attached to. If,
              indeed, the third form in the third row _etta_ is an accusative, then
              it seems clear that this is not a derivational basis since the
              inflected forms of _enta_ all show the stem _ent-_ (with one noticeable
              exeption: _etya_).

              So it would seem likely, that also _-o_ was not attached to the
              accusative. But what about _-ho_ ? It was apparently attached to _-Vl_.
              This _Vl_ must, it would seem, contain an element _l_ since a final d
              would have > r in auslaut. Or maybe *_Vd+3V_ > _VllV_ can be assumed?
              Maybe via *_VddV_. What do you think ?

              > Since prepositions modify the relation of a verb to its object, they
              > ARE adverbial.

              Unless, of course, we're dealing with a NOMINAL SENTENCE in which case
              they are ADNOMINAL.

              David Kiltz
            • Carl F. Hostetter
              In message 438, David Kiltz discusses the so-called _Entu_, _Ensi_, _Enta_ Declension , first presented and analyzed by Christopher Gilson ... This last is a
              Message 6 of 11 , May 22 7:32 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                In message 438, David Kiltz discusses the so-called "_Entu_, _Ensi_,
                _Enta_ Declension", first presented and analyzed by Christopher Gilson
                in _Vinyar Tengwar 36. A few comments:

                > The authors of VT36 take the first line to represent the nominative on
                > the ground of general considerations. I.e., conventionally, the nom.
                > is written first in any chart. The second row, then, is taken to
                > represent the forms of the acc.

                This last is a very flat statement, concealing a considerable amount of
                the actual process of arriving at the proposal that the second row
                reflects the accusative inflection, which in fact involves (VT36:18-19)
                a detailed formal and structural comparison between the two halves of
                the chart in question; i.e. between the inflection of _entu_, _ensi_,
                _enta_, _en_, and that of the apparently dual forms of a stem _as-_
                (perhaps from demonstrative *_sa-_ 'that' or 'it'; cf. N _ha_ 'it'
                (V:385), Q _san_ 'then', i.e. *'at that (time)' (MC:216), and, perhaps,
                the conjunction _sa_ 'that' in the so-called "_Merin_ Sentence", for
                which see: <http://www.elvish.org/elm/merin.html>).

                > Lastly, the assumption of an "uninflected" genitive for Quenya seems a
                > little flawed to me. Things such as _airetári-lírinen_ or
                > _ambar-metta_ should rather be treated as compounds.

                Were those the only examples of an uninflected genitive cited by Chris
                in forming his argument, I might agree with you. However, Chris also
                cited two other, very clear, examples (VT36:20): _Valinóre Yénie_ 'the
                Annals of Valinor' (X:200), and _Coron Oiolaire_ 'Mound (of)
                Ever-Summer' (S:357).


                |======================================================================|
                | Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org |
                | |
                | ho bios brachys, he de techne makre. |
                | Ars longa, vita brevis. |
                | The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. |
                | "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take |
                | such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about." |
                |======================================================================|


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Hans
                ... No, this refers to the page I quoted, where we further read that the ancient adverbial element occurred also as enclitic, as attached to noun stems (the
                Message 7 of 11 , May 23 4:10 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, David Kiltz <dkiltz@g...> wrote:

                  > On Freitag, Mai 16, 2003, at 10:39 Uhr, Hans wrote:
                  >
                  >> *HO: "ancient adverbial element, occurring principially as a proclitic
                  >> or enclitic", it was the origin of a verbal prefix or a case-marker _-o_
                  >> (XI:368).
                  >
                  > This refers probably to the genitive in _-o_, pl _-on_ and probably
                  > also the "ablative" _-Vllo_.

                  No, this refers to the page I quoted, where we further read that the ancient
                  adverbial element occurred also as "enclitic, as attached to noun stems (the
                  usual place for the simpler 'prepositional' elements in PQ)." (XI:368) Since
                  medial _h_ was lost, this became _-ô_, a genitive inflexion, properly a
                  partitive genitive. I didn't have in mind the ablative.

                  > In the latter case, _3o_ or _ho_ is assimilated to the shorter form _-Vl_
                  > (cf. Entu, Ensi, Enta Declension VT36:8).

                  VT36 doesn't say so, and I doubt it, honestly speaking. The shorter
                  form with _Vl_ is more likely the result of loss of a final vowel, imho.

                  > _-o(n)_ is attached to the noun either in singular or plural respectively.
                  > But is it attached to a specific case ?

                  In the sentence quoted above, JRRT spoke of "noun stems", not nouns
                  having an inflectional suffix already.

                  > 1) entu ensi enta en
                  > 2) ento ente enta en
                  > 3) ento ente etta enda.
                  >
                  > The authors of VT36 take the first line to represent the nominative on
                  > the ground of general considerations.

                  That's not entirely true: Chris Gilson compared the chart against others,
                  like the Bodleian Declensions and the Plotz Letter, and made a rather
                  convincing observation concerning the first row of the lower, obviously
                  dual part. By the way, the conclusion was that the first row is a subjective
                  case, that is not necessarily the unmarked case, the one which is the base
                  for inflexions. It was not unmarked in the Bodleian Declensions, but had a
                  suffix _-n_ in the singular.

                  > demonstratives _su/so_. _si/se_ (cf. Et:385 sub S-). The entry in the
                  > Etymologies indicates that the distinction between _su/so_ is not one
                  > of case

                  It doesn't indicate that in my copy. Instead, there are listed three N
                  forms _ho_, _hon_, _hono_ for "he", three _he_, _hen_, _hene_ for "she"
                  and two _ha_, _han_ for "it". Alternative forms or cases? They are followed
                  by three plurals _huin_, _hîn_, _hein_. Are they alternative forms of "they"?
                  Are they the respective plurals of masculine, feminine, neuter gender? Or
                  are they cases of "they"? The last two forms, _hîn_ and _hein_, look familiar:
                  _Narvin hain echant_, "Narvi made them", _teithant i thiw hin_ "drew these
                  signs" (LR: 297) and here _hain_ is certainly accusative, "them", and I
                  wouldn't be too much surprised if it's literally "the signs their", genitive.
                  Now if the last three forms can be different cases, why not _su_/_so_ or
                  _si_/_se_? Which cases, that would be the question. Certainly the first one
                  would be a specifically subjective one, denoting a subject, i.e. an animate.

                  > Lastly, the assumption of an "uninflected" genitive for Quenya seems a
                  > little flawed to me.

                  Of course, there's an uninflected (without quotation marks!) genitive in
                  Quenya. The same page XI:368 says "though 'possession was indicated by
                  the adjectival suffix -va, or (especially in general descriptions) by a 'loose
                  compound'... Orome róma would mean 'an Orome horn', sc. one of Orome's
                  horns". The flaw in the argument in VT36 is: if genitive is expressed by
                  word order here, it doesn't need an inflexion, i.e. it isn't a case at all, much
                  as accusative vanished from spoken Quenya. Now that doesn't mean that
                  the genitive was always uninflected and expressed by word order alone,
                  and it would be reasonable if the remains of those inflexions would show
                  up in pronouns, not in nouns. So the suggestion in VT36:20 is a
                  possibility... one of several. My guess would be, that the first two lines, much
                  as in the Bodleian Declensions, denote subjective and normal cases, which are
                  not exactly like nominative and accusative: subjective case was marked only
                  when needed. Quenya became a language of nominative/accusative type only
                  later, and the subjective/normal case reappeared in Adunaic.

                  > So it would seem likely, that also _-o_ was not attached to the accusative.

                  Of course, it wasn't, see above. Those enclitics attached to noun stems, much
                  as in Adunaic the normal (uninflected) case was (among other things) "the base
                  to which certain adverbial 'prepositional' affixes are added; such as _ô_ 'from',
                  _ad_, _ada_ 'to, towards', _mâ_ 'with', _zê_ 'at'." (IX:429) It's very interesting
                  how many of the early concepts of Quenya entered into Adunaic, and how
                  many of them resurfaced after its abandoning.

                  Hans
                • David Kiltz
                  ... S- demonstrative stem _su, so_ he ; _si, se_ she . What else would _he_ and _she_ be than nominatives ? In Sindarin, _hain_ and _hin_ (_i thiw hin_ is
                  Message 8 of 11 , May 26 1:19 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Samstag, Mai 24, 2003, at 01:10 Uhr, Hans wrote:

                    >> demonstratives _su/so_. _si/se_ (cf. Et:385 sub S-). The entry in the
                    >> Etymologies indicates that the distinction between _su/so_ is not one
                    >> of case
                    >
                    > It doesn't indicate that in my copy.

                    "S- demonstrative stem _su, so_ "he"; _si, se_ "she". What else would
                    _he_ and _she_ be than nominatives ?

                    In Sindarin, _hain_ and _hin_ (_i thiw hin_ is certainly "the signs
                    these") can be used for the accusative. But one shouldn't adduce
                    Sindarin forms as if they were Quenya, I think.

                    > Of course, there's an uninflected (without quotation marks!) genitive
                    > in Quenya. The same page XI:368 says "though 'possession' was
                    > indicated by the adjectival suffix _-va_, or (especially in general
                    > descriptions) by a 'loose compound'... _Orome róma_ would mean
                    > 'an Orome horn', sc. one of Orome's horns".

                    Of course there isn't. And you just gave the line where Tolkien says
                    so: 'Loose compound'. That's exactly it. So there is no *case*. The
                    nominative can be used and the function is indicated by word order.
                    That means, there are no *formal* markings in such constructions, hence
                    it is not a case. Unlike the accusative, it was never marked in such
                    constructions. Please, make a distinction between form and function, I
                    think it's vital here.

                    > My guess would be, that the first two lines, much
                    > as in the Bodleian Declensions, denote subjective and normal cases,
                    > which are not exactly like nominative and accusative: subjective
                    > case was marked only when needed. Quenya became a language
                    > of nominative/accusative type only later, and the subjective/normal
                    > case reappeared in Adunaic.

                    I think that is a very good guess. This would chime in with my
                    assumption that only row 3 represents the accusative. In the inner
                    history of Quenya, then, the accusative would get the _-t_ only later.

                    David Kiltz
                  • David Kiltz
                    ... Based on what ? My suggestion seems to be phonetically plausible. Whereas loss of long -ô seems not. David Kiltz
                    Message 9 of 11 , May 26 1:50 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Samstag, Mai 24, 2003, at 01:10 Uhr, Hans wrote:

                      >> In the latter case, _3o_ or _ho_ is assimilated to the shorter form
                      >> _-Vl_
                      >> (cf. Entu, Ensi, Enta Declension VT36:8).
                      >
                      > VT36 doesn't say so, and I doubt it, honestly speaking. The shorter
                      > form with _Vl_ is more likely the result of loss of a final vowel,
                      > imho.

                      Based on what ? My suggestion seems to be phonetically plausible.
                      Whereas loss of long -ô seems not.

                      David Kiltz
                    • David Kiltz
                      ... As Hans notes, _Orome_ here has genitival function without (overt) case markings. Such constructions also occur in English: _Mount Doom_ = Mount of doom
                      Message 10 of 11 , May 26 5:27 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Donnerstag, Mai 22, 2003, at 04:32 Uhr, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                        >> Lastly, the assumption of an "uninflected" genitive for Quenya seems a
                        >> little flawed to me. Things such as _airetári-lírinen_ or
                        >> _ambar-metta_ should rather be treated as compounds.
                        >
                        > Were those the only examples of an uninflected genitive cited by Chris
                        > in forming his argument, I might agree with you. However, Chris also
                        > cited two other, very clear, examples (VT36:20): _Valinóre Yénie_ 'the
                        > Annals of Valinor' (X:200), and _Coron Oiolaire_ 'Mound (of)
                        > Ever-Summer' (S:357).

                        I think the answer is found in Hans post:

                        > "though 'possession was indicated by the adjectival suffix -va, or
                        > (especially in general descriptions) by a 'loose compound'... Orome
                        > róma would mean 'an Orome horn', sc. one of Orome's horns.

                        As Hans notes, _Orome_ here has genitival function without (overt) case
                        markings. Such constructions also occur in English: _Mount Doom_ ==
                        "Mount of doom" Hence, we do not have another genitive case here but
                        probably something that is formally == nominative but functionally a
                        genitive of possession or association.

                        David Kiltz

                        [I agree with your statement regarding functionality, but I would myself be
                        more expansive than to write that the uninflected genitive "== nominative", as
                        that seems to imply more than I would commit to. Rather, I would simply
                        note that uninflected forms in Quenya are used for genitive and nomnative
                        functions (as well as accusative). Further, I do not agree that we cannot
                        speak of an uninflected genitive "case"; it seems to me that by your argument,
                        we can speak neither of nominative nor accusative _cases_ in Quenya, either;
                        which is clearly not the case (no pun intended). CFH]
                      • Hans
                        ... I don t think this is _the_ answer: simply case is used in different meanings. This is not a mistake, but general practice, as the following quote from
                        Message 11 of 11 , May 27 8:14 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, David Kiltz <dkiltz@g...> wrote:

                          > As Hans notes, _Orome_ here has genitival function without (overt)
                          > case markings. Such constructions also occur in English:
                          > _Mount Doom_ == "Mount of doom" Hence, we do not have another
                          > genitive case here but probably something that is formally ==
                          > nominative but functionally a genitive of possession or association.

                          I don't think this is _the_ answer: simply "case" is used in
                          different meanings. This is not a mistake, but general practice, as
                          the following quote from the entry "case" in the _American Heritage
                          Dictionary_ may show:

                          "11 b. Case In some varieties of generative grammar, the thematic or
                          semantic role of a noun phrase as represented abstractly but not
                          necessarily indicated overtly in surface structure. In such
                          frameworks, nouns in English have Case even in the absence of
                          inflectional case endings."

                          Consequently, "nominative" is sometimes used to denote a function,
                          namely being the subject (JRRT calls that "subjective" in Adunaic,
                          and it is inflected in that language), and sometimes it may denote
                          the absence of infectional endings, that's called "normal case" in
                          Adunaic (and may be used for subjects and direct objects).

                          The logical flaw in VT36, imho, is the conclusion that since an
                          *uninflected* genitive exists, the only slightly inflected (but
                          *inflected*!) third row in the chart could be a genitive. It's
                          possible, but I don't see sufficient evidence.

                          [Since as you say it _is_ possible, then it cannot be a logical flaw to
                          propose it. It would however be a fallacy to say that it was _proven_
                          to be so, but of course Christopher Gilson never said that. CFH]

                          As I wrote already, I think Quenya made a subjective/normal
                          distinction at that time (since even the later "Bodleian Declensions"
                          do so). This means marking of the subject in cases of ambiguity, so
                          the marking of direct objects would be superfluous, an accusative
                          inflexion simply wasn't needed.

                          The distinction _su_/_so_ may have been one of subjective/normal case
                          earlier, but at the time of the _Etymologies_, it may have been
                          reinterpreted already, and the final _-u_ was considered an older
                          form, replaced by _-o_ later. Cf. the entry ÓROK-: "*_órku_ goblin:
                          Q _orko_, pl. _orqi_."

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