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

Reversible forms (was Re: Verbal agreement and clitics)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.