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

RE: [Lambengolmor] Aorist participle?

Expand Messages
  • Pavel Iosad
    Hello, ... A somewhat similar situation obtains in Russian. Even though Russian does not possess the necessary distinction, still a correlation between the
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 29, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      Carl F. Hostetter asked:

      > My question for the group is: are there any Primary-world languages
      > having an aorist vs. present tense verb-stem distinction that form
      > participles on the aorist stem, either in addition to or
      > instead of the present-tense stem?

      A somewhat similar situation obtains in Russian. Even though Russian
      does not possess the necessary distinction, still a correlation between
      the tense of the finite forms and participles derived from a particular
      stem is observable.

      Generally, the Russian verb system revolves around two basic stems,
      traditionally termed the 'infinitive stem', i. e. the infinitive minus
      the suffix -t', and the present tense stem, i. e. the present tense
      minus the personal endings. The first stem is the basis of, inter alia,
      the past tense and the past participles, while the second one yields the
      present-future tense and the present participles:

      delat', 'to do'
      Infinitive stem dela-, present tense stem delaj-

      delaj-u DO-1SG 'I do'
      delaj-usch-ij DO-PrAP-NOM:SG (one who is doing)
      delaj-em-yj DO-PrPP-NOM:SG (something that is being done)

      but

      dela-l DO-PAST (I did)
      dela-vsh-ij DO-PaAP (one who did)

      et cetera.

      I believe that participles can also be formed from different stems in
      Bulgarian, and there is a correlation between the aspectual properties
      of the finite forms and participles (which is even closer to the Quenya
      situation), but perhaps Ivan will enlighten us on this better than I
      can.

      Pavel
      --
      Pavel Iosad pavel_iosad@...

      Nid byd, byd heb wybodaeth
      --Welsh saying


      [Thanks, Pavel, that is interesting! I feel I should offer a gentle
      nudge though to make sure we don't drift too far afield. What I'm
      trying to get at is some indication of how likely it is that a language
      that has a clear present participle vs. past participle distinction,
      the former formed (so far as we can judge from the available
      evidence) at least nearly exclusively on the present-tense stem,
      but also separate aorist, present, and past tenses, would in fact
      also be able to form participles on the aorist stem, either as a third,
      independent class of participles, or as a variant form of the
      present participle. CFH]
    • Hans Georg Lundahl
      Wrote CHF in Pavel Iosad s post: What I m trying to get at is some indication of how likely it is that a language that has a clear present participle vs. past
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 29, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Wrote CHF in Pavel Iosad's post:

        "What I'm trying to get at is some indication of how likely it is that
        a language that has a clear present participle vs. past participle
        distinction, the former formed (so far as we can judge from the
        available evidence) at least nearly exclusively on the present-tense
        stem, but also separate aorist, present, and past tenses, would in
        fact also be able to form participles on the aorist stem, either as a
        third, independent class of participles, or as a variant form of the
        present participle. CFH"

        Likelihood? I severely doubt that JRRT thought in terms of "how likely
        is it that a language with postpositions has a PSO basic word order?"
        which if he did not means such considerations would hardly limit his
        choice of grammatical structures. As Pavel Iosad indicated, however,
        one can in Slavonic languages form present participles of imperfective
        and perfective verbs alike. Where the distinction would be like Q
        aorist and present tense.

        Hans Georg Lundahl

        [Of course there was no question of likelihood in _Tolkien's_ mind:
        the language either had this feature or it didn't. But that's looking
        at the matter from the wrong end: what _we_ have to hand is not
        Tolkien's mind, but the evidence of his writings. And in these
        writings we have a handful of present participles and a _single_
        (potential) example of an aorist participle. Since we know that
        Tolkien's Eldarin languages generally follow Indo-European and
        Finno-Ugric grammatical patterns -- those being, not coincidentally,
        the languages Tolkien was most knowledgable about -- it is natural
        to look to those languages (in particular) for possible examples and
        even clarification of phonological, morphological, and syntactic
        phenomena or patterns that we see, or think we may see, in
        Tolkien's languages. And in areas of uncertainty like the present
        case, corroboration of putative phenomena or patterns in Primary-
        world languages _does_ speak to the _likelihood_ of the correctness
        of an analysis and that the phenomenon or pattern under
        investigation pertains in Tolkien's languages.
        As for my "nudge", it was not meant as a comment on
        Pavel's post, but as clarification based on comments on the
        matter I have received in messages not posted to the list. CFH]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.