Re: [Lambengolmor] Re: Reflexivity of _im_
- Quoting Aaron Shaw <lemnas@...>:
> What would be interesting to know is whether SindarinI think Pavel has demonstrated to satisfaction that there is no simple answer
> verbal "inflections" are an agreement phenomenon or a clitized
to that question - either Tolkien changed the rules, or the rules are, well,
intricate. Or both, of course.
- On 05.11.2003, at 17:32, Aaron Shaw wrote:
>> Lastly, I wouldn't expect the casus rectus (nominative) of the 1. sg.Certainly they are separate entities. Yet, I believe it is justified to
>> pronoun to be _ni_ as the attested form in Quenya is _inye_ possessive
> 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.
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 SindarinI don't know whether I understand you right. Historically, verbal
> 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_.
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
- --- In email@example.com, David Kiltz <dkiltz@g...> wrote:
>Yet, I believe it is justified to compare them because theyBoth true statements. It just makes one (perhaps just me as I know
>are 'genetically' related.
>The similarity of the pronouns is there because these languages are
>historically related, that is, have sprung from one root.
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 pronounYes, "pro-drop" or rich inflectional languages versus modern English
>with a verb unless the endings have been worn down to a certain
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 theNo, I wouldn't assume so either.
> independent pronoun to the verb (inflected or not) synchronically.
>it is not the synchronical equivalent of the independentAn old _ni_ inflection would be, which after vowel dropping has
>pronoun 'I' in Sindarin.
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?
- On 05.11.2003, at 21:51, Aaron Shaw wrote:
> Unless we can theoretically "unlayer" a word, so to speak, whoI perfectly agree. I adduced Q. _inye_ etc. solely because you had
> can say what suffixes, infixes, etc. might have occured in one
> language and not the other
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.
[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]
- On 06.11.2003, at 08:51, Carl Hostetter wrote:
> While I agree with David's statement in general, it isn't clear to meQuite. 'Seemingly reversible' might have been better. I meant to say
> 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]
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_,
[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
- At 02:10 PM 11/5/03 +0100, David Kiltz wrote:
>On 04.11.2003, at 23:54, Aaron Shaw wrote:...well, perhaps more likely, "I, myself, write inscriptions," "I, myself,
>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".
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