- ... 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, 2003View SourceQuoting 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.
- ... 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 2 of 11 , Nov 5, 2003View Source--- 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?
- ... 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 _TheMessage 3 of 11 , Nov 5, 2003View SourceOn 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]
- ... 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 toMessage 4 of 11 , Nov 6, 2003View SourceOn 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
- ... ...well, perhaps more likely, I, myself, write inscriptions, I, myself, am writing this inscription, or I, myself, wrote this inscription. ButMessage 5 of 11 , Nov 11, 2003View SourceAt 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