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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: Reflexivity of _im_

Expand Messages
  • Andreas Johansson
    ... I think Pavel has demonstrated to satisfaction that there is no simple answer to that question - either Tolkien changed the rules, or the rules are, well,
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 5, 2003
      Quoting Aaron Shaw <lemnas@...>:
      > What would be interesting to know is whether Sindarin
      > verbal "inflections" are an agreement phenomenon or a clitized
      > pronoun.

      I think Pavel has demonstrated to satisfaction that there is no simple answer
      to that question - either Tolkien changed the rules, or the rules are, well,
      intricate. Or both, of course.

      Andreas
    • David Kiltz
      ... Certainly they are separate entities. Yet, I believe it is justified to compare them because they are genetically related. The typological difference
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 5, 2003
        On 05.11.2003, at 17:32, Aaron Shaw wrote:

        >> Lastly, I wouldn't expect the casus rectus (nominative) of the 1. sg.
        >> pronoun to be _ni_ as the attested form in Quenya is _inye_ possessive
        >> -(i)nya_.
        >
        > Oh, very interesting. I'm not sure that we can be compare these
        > languages so closely though in this case. They are separate entities and
        > deserve to be treated as such, even if they do share a common origin.
        > I see no reason why pronouns in an agglutinating language would have to
        > resemble those of a more analytic tongue.

        Certainly they are separate entities. Yet, I believe it is justified to
        compare them because they are 'genetically' related. The typological
        difference (which isn't really all that big, cf. S. _guren_ 'my heart'
        with Q. _órenya_ [VT41:11]) doesn't matter here I think. Note that
        independent pronouns aren't effected by 'agglutination vs analysis'.
        E.g. Turkish has the independent pronouns _ben, sen, o_ 'I, you,
        he/she/it' just as an analytical language, say English. Compare also
        English, an 'analytical' (or even isolating') IE language, with Old Indic
        which is rather more agglutinative (inflective). The similarity of the
        pronouns is there because these languages are historically related,
        that is, have sprung from one root. Eng. _I_, Thou < PIE _*eg'oH_,
        _*tuH_ and Old Indic _aham, _tvam_ < PIE _*eg'H-om_, *_tu(H)-om_.
        Typology doesn't bear on this matter, as far as I can see.

        > What would be interesting to know is whether Sindarin
        > verbal "inflections" are an agreement phenomenon or a clitized
        > pronoun. If this were to be a cliticized pronoun that would suggest a
        > nominative, or casus rectus as you put it, form _ni_.

        I don't know whether I understand you right. Historically, verbal
        endings have their origin in pronouns (clitics). Inflecting languages
        don't normally employ an independent pronoun with a verb unless the
        endings have been worn down to a certain degree. In the latter case
        languages tend to make the use of independent pronouns with a verb
        obligatory. Still, inflecting languages and thus inflected verbs do
        agree with the subject of the sentence. So, actually, it's an agreement
        phenomenon + they are (originally) cliticized pronouns (or forms
        thereof). So, Sindarin has its 1. sg. verbal marker in -n.

        But no, as far as I know, Sindarin doesn't attach forms of the
        independent pronoun to the verb (inflected or not) synchronically. That
        means, while the ending _-n_ would be related to _nin_, _enni_ etc., it
        is not the synchronical equivalent of the independent pronoun 'I' in
        Sindarin.

        David Kiltz
      • Aaron Shaw
        ... Both true statements. It just makes one (perhaps just me as I know much less than I wish ;)) wonder whether these similarities might also be misleading.
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 5, 2003
          --- In lambengolmor@yahoogroups.com, David Kiltz <dkiltz@g...> wrote:

          >Yet, I believe it is justified to compare them because they
          >are 'genetically' related.

          >The similarity of the pronouns is there because these languages are
          >historically related, that is, have sprung from one root.

          Both true statements. It just makes one (perhaps just me as I know
          much less than I wish ;)) wonder whether these similarities might
          also be misleading. Unless we can theoretically "unlayer" a word, so
          to speak, who can say what suffixes, infixes, etc. might have occured
          in one language and not the other. I suppose I am merely
          questioning our _knowledge_ of how Quenya and Sindarin pronouns are
          to be derived. I personally don't know much about this - are we
          fairly sure in our knowledge of how these forms were derived? (both
          morphologically and semantically?). I just am not sure whether a
          suffix on a quenya pronoun would make that much of a difference in
          the derivation of a Sindarin form. =)

          [It is indeed a dangerous thing to assume that any particular feature,
          of Quenya, phonological, morphological, semantic, or otherwise,
          will have a direct cognate in Sindarin, as, to pick just a few examples,
          the example of Q. _esse_ 'name' but S. _eneth_ 'name' in Tolkien's
          translations of the Lord's Prayer, the plural _-r_ of Quenya nouns, or
          the future-tense marker Q _-(u)va_ but S _-ath-_, show. CFH]

          >Inflecting languages don't normally employ an independent pronoun
          >with a verb unless the endings have been worn down to a certain
          >degree.

          Yes, "pro-drop" or rich inflectional languages versus modern English
          for example. I am just curious whether these "personless" forms
          originally were derived from a clitic + verb (or later inflection)
          with a later loss of an agreement morpheme, or whether these are
          entirely differing forms that at no point in time were inflected.

          > But no, as far as I know, Sindarin doesn't attach forms of the
          > independent pronoun to the verb (inflected or not) synchronically.

          No, I wouldn't assume so either.

          >it is not the synchronical equivalent of the independent
          >pronoun 'I' in Sindarin.

          An old _ni_ inflection would be, which after vowel dropping has
          become _-n_. This suggests to me that the only true "nominative"
          forms were archaic ("Sindarin" as we know it then seemingly lacking
          true "nominative" forms?) and that all others (currenly _im_?) are
          emphatic - syntactically and possibly in form as well. While
          certainly emphatic forms retain the person, I just am not sure
          whether they can truly be treated as normal "pronouns" in both
          interpretation or syntax. I don't know much about the diachronic
          views on modern romance languages but they must be similar in
          development? Does anyone know more about these?

          Aaron Shaw
        • David Kiltz
          ... I perfectly agree. I adduced Q. _inye_ etc. solely because you had suggested that a 1. sg. in Sindarin should be _ni-_ referring to the entry NI2- in _The
          Message 4 of 11 , Nov 5, 2003
            On 05.11.2003, at 21:51, Aaron Shaw wrote:

            > Unless we can theoretically "unlayer" a word, so to speak, who
            > can say what suffixes, infixes, etc. might have occured in one
            > language and not the other

            I perfectly agree. I adduced Q. _inye_ etc. solely because you had
            suggested that a 1. sg. in Sindarin should be _ni-_ referring to the
            entry NI2- in _The Etymologies_. I simply wanted to illustrate that the
            order of elements nasal+vowel isn't irreversible. Of course, the fact
            that Q. has _inye_ doesn't prove anything for Sindarin.

            On the other hand it is known that 1st and 2nd person pronouns
            (especially singular) tend to be very archaic.

            David Kiltz

            [While I agree with David's statement in general, it isn't clear to me
            that _inye_ exhibits the reversibility of CV- (and VC-) bases. Rather,
            it appears that the basic element is modified, not reversed, to _-nye_,
            and the _sund�ma_ _i_ prefixed. Note that _elye_ seems also to be
            formed in this same manner. CFH]
          • David Kiltz
            ... Quite. Seemingly reversible might have been better. I meant to say that _iN_ (N = any nasal) is quite possible, whatever the exact process that leads to
            Message 5 of 11 , Nov 6, 2003
              On 06.11.2003, at 08:51, Carl Hostetter wrote:

              > While I agree with David's statement in general, it isn't clear to me
              > that _inye_ exhibits the reversibility of CV- (and VC-) bases. Rather,
              > it appears that the basic element is modified, not reversed, to _-nye_,
              > and the _sundóma_ _i_ prefixed. Note that _elye_ seems also to be
              > formed in this same manner. CFH]

              Quite. 'Seemingly reversible' might have been better. I meant to say
              that _iN_ (N == any nasal) is quite possible, whatever the exact process
              that leads to that form. Indeed, I think Carl's suggestion is a very
              good idea. So in _elye_ you would assume influence of the 1st person
              pronoun? In strict analogy we would expect _+ele_ <_*elê_ <_*ele-e_,
              wouldn't we?

              [As my friend and colleague Christopher Gilson once observed,
              "Go not to the Lambengolmor for counsel, for they will say both
              perhaps and maybe". CFH]

              While not noted as such in _The Etymologies_, we might have cases of a
              stem that is virtually INI, ELE with the possibility of left and right
              branching vowels. Just as e.g. ANA 2/NÁ 2 which yields _ná_ 'is', _nat_
              'thing' and _anwa_ 'actual, true' [V:348/374].

              As for the 'm' in S. _im_, there is, perhaps, a faint possibility that
              it has been influenced by the 1st pl. That would, however, be
              typologically unusual.

              David Kiltz
            • Jerome Colburn
              ... ...well, perhaps more likely, I, myself, write inscriptions, I, myself, am writing this inscription, or I, myself, wrote this inscription. But
              Message 6 of 11 , Nov 11, 2003
                At 02:10 PM 11/5/03 +0100, David Kiltz wrote:
                >On 04.11.2003, at 23:54, Aaron Shaw wrote:
                >
                >Still, even in Modern English (correct me if I'm wrong) you
                >wouldn't say **"myself writes this inscription" but rather "I, myself,
                >*write* this inscription".

                ...well, perhaps more likely, "I, myself, write inscriptions," "I, myself,
                am writing this inscription," or "I, myself, wrote this inscription."

                But **"myself writes this inscription" reminds me of the dialectal English
                ascribed to Irish speakers and commonly found in folk texts, where "myself"
                stands for Gaelic _mise_. Yet that too is emphatic rather than reflexive.

                +-------------------------+
                + Airesseo Kolvorno +
                + Jerome Colburn +
                + jcolburn@... +
                +-------------------------+
                "Do you not be happy with me as the translator of the books of you?" -- New
                Yorker cartoon
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.