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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: Prepositions and nominal suffixes attested in Elvish

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , May 26, 2003
    • 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 2 of 11 , May 26, 2003
      • 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 3 of 11 , May 26, 2003
        • 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 4 of 11 , May 27, 2003
          • 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.