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

RE: [Lambengolmor] 3rd person vs. personeless vs. unsuffixed

Expand Messages
  • Andreas Johansson
    ... Indeed it does. (Standard disclaimer; in at least one moment in time, Tolkien appears to have envisioned Sindarin not to work like I assumed!) But as Im
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Quoting Pavel Iosad <edricson@...>:

      > Neither are overt pronouns and agreement markers in complementary
      > distribution in Sindarin: cf._le linnon im TinĂºviel_ (IV:354). The
      > subject is not exactly 'prefixed', but this seems to present a
      > counterexample to Andreas' hypothesis.

      Indeed it does. (Standard disclaimer; in at least one moment in time, Tolkien
      appears to have envisioned Sindarin not to work like I assumed!)

      But as "Im ... echant" demonstrates, they're not simply obligatory agreement
      endings either.

      I did not actually suggest the forms be called "unsuffixed" - in the past
      tense, these verbs of course commonly display a _tense_ suffix - but "without
      a suffixed pronoun", which we would surely shorten as "pronounless" or some
      such. I still think this is an acceptable conclusion - Pavel's example may
      perhaps be interpreted as having a duplicated pronoun for emphasis - but if
      the choice is between "3rd sg" and "personless", I think the later is the less
      confusing option.

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