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

Re: Verbal agreement and clitics

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.