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
    • 0 Attachment
      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
    • 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 2 of 11 , Nov 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 3 of 11 , Nov 5, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 11 , Nov 6, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 11 , Nov 11, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              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.