Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: Prepositions and nominal suffixes attested in Elvish
- On Samstag, Mai 24, 2003, at 01:10 Uhr, Hans wrote:
>> In the latter case, _3o_ or _ho_ is assimilated to the shorter formBased on what ? My suggestion seems to be phonetically plausible.
>> (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,
Whereas loss of long -ô seems not.
- On Donnerstag, Mai 22, 2003, at 04:32 Uhr, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
>> Lastly, the assumption of an "uninflected" genitive for Quenya seems aI think the answer is found in Hans post:
>> 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).
> "though 'possession was indicated by the adjectival suffix -va, orAs Hans notes, _Orome_ here has genitival function without (overt) case
> (especially in general descriptions) by a 'loose compound'... Orome
> róma would mean 'an Orome horn', sc. one of Orome's horns.
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 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]
- --- In email@example.com, David Kiltz <dkiltz@g...> wrote:
> As Hans notes, _Orome_ here has genitival function without (overt)I don't think this is _the_ answer: simply "case" is used in
> 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.
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_."