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

Q _kiryassea_ adj?

Expand Messages
  • laurifindil
    In _Parma Eldalamberon_ 14, p. 79 Tolkien writes that _kiryassea_ is an adjectival form and translates it as that is on board ship . I can hardly understand
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 10, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      In _Parma Eldalamberon_ 14, p. 79 Tolkien writes that _kiryassea_ is an
      adjectival form and translates it as "that is on board ship".

      I can hardly understand "that" ;) since on page 47 we
      read "_kiryassea_ 'what is on board ship'". So: That or what or both?

      I'm a bit lost...

      Could somebody construct an English sentence with "that/what is on
      board ship" as an adjective? Looks more to me like a noun; what/that
      is on board ship = the content of a ship = shipment ?

      Edouard Kloczko


      [While I agree that the wording of the gloss in the manuscript version
      is a bit unusual, I would say that in both versions the gloss of _kiryassea_
      is intended to convey that the adjective can be used to define and specify
      a noun's location. Thus in Early Qenya we might say _n·Elda kiryassea_
      'the Elf that is on board ship'. CFH]
    • David Kiltz
      ... 1) The construction what vs that seems to be resolvable if we take the 2nd ( that ) to be a shortened relative clause. So both mean the same. 2) I
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 11, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        On 10.02.2004, at 13:39, Edouard Kloczko wrote:

        > In _Parma Eldalamberon_ 14, p. 79 Tolkien writes that _kiryassea_ is an
        > adjectival form and translates it as "that is on board ship".

        > Could somebody construct an English sentence with "that/what is on
        > board ship" as an adjective? Looks more to me like a noun; what/that
        > is on board ship == the content of a ship == shipment ?

        > [... I would say that in both versions the gloss of _kiryassea_is intended
        > to convey that the adjective can be used to define and specify
        > a noun's location. Thus in Early Qenya we might say _n·Elda kiryassea_
        > 'the Elf that is on board ship'. CFH]

        1) The construction 'what' vs 'that' seems to be resolvable if we take
        the 2nd ('that') to be a shortened relative clause. So both mean the
        same.

        2) I think Carl's example sentence shows the usage of _kiryassea_. It
        is clearly _kirya_ 'ship' + loc. _-sse_ + adj. marker _-a_. While such
        constructions are usually, in European languages, rendered by relative
        clauses, the Quenya word is nevertheless an adjective.

        The sentence _n·Elda kiryassea_ may perhaps be more closely rendered
        as 'the on-board-ship-y Elf'. (The Elf is on board ship...) or, as Carl's
        example suggests with the copula not written: 'The Elf is one that is
        on board ship'. 'The Elf is an on-board-ship-y one' The -y sentences
        aren't grammatical in English but, I think, show the underlying
        grammatical construction.

        -David Kiltz
      • machhezan
        Relative sentences specify the noun that they refer to, and so do adjectives. The English word _what_, however, isn t a proper relative pronoun in English,
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 11, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Relative sentences specify the noun that they refer to, and so do
          adjectives. The English word _what_, however, isn't a proper
          relative pronoun in English, since it can only be used in relative
          sentences that don't specify any (pro)noun. Examples:

          Relative sentences that refer to a noun:

          I see the barrel _that_ is on board ship.
          I see a thing _that_ I like.
          **I see the barrel _what_ is on board ship.
          **I see a thing _what_ I like.


          Relative sentences that don't refer to a noun

          **I see (it) _that_ is on board ship.
          **I see (it) _that_ I like.
          I see _what_ is on board ship.
          I see _what_ I like.

          It seems to be a characteristic of the English language that
          relative sentences (and adjectives) can't be used without the (pro)
          noun they specify, since other languages, Latin for instance, use
          the same word for both kinds of relative sentences:

          Video (dolium) quod in naui est.
          Video (negotium) quod me placet.

          Based on Tolkien's use of the words _what_ and _that_, I'd guess he
          intended at least the adjectives to be usable without a specified noun,
          and maybe the relative sentences as well, just as in Latin.

          suilaid
          j. 'mach' wust
          http://machhezan.tripod.com
        • David Kiltz
          ... j. wust is right in pointing out that what is on board ship and that is on board ship aren t identical. When I said they are the same , I meant to say
          Message 4 of 11 , Feb 11, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            On 11.02.2004, at 13:38, machhezan wrote:

            > Video (dolium) quod in naui est.
            > Video (negotium) quod me placet.
            >
            > Based on Tolkien's use of the words _what_ and _that_, I'd guess he
            > intended at least the adjectives to be usable without a specified noun,
            > and maybe the relative sentences as well, just as in Latin.

            j. wust is right in pointing out that "what is on board ship" and "that
            is on board ship" aren't identical. When I said "they are the same", I
            meant to say "for the question of noun vs adjective".

            Tolkien might well have intended to mark the differences pointed out by
            j. wust, namely 'video quod in navi est' == *_cénan kiryassea_
            vs 'video hominem qui in navi est' == *_cénan kiryassea nér_. Lit. == +
            'video innavitum hominem' ('innavitum having, of course, been made up
            by me).

            I wonder, however, whether Tolkien didn't mean a) "what is on board
            ship" in the sense of 'whatever, anything that is on board ship' and b)
            by "that is on board ship" simply meant 'used restrictively,
            specifying'; that is, as an adjective/relative clause.

            I would lean towards this second interpretation, that is, that Tolkien
            wrote "what is on board ship" to note that _kiryassea_ could be used in
            reference to people, goods etc.

            That is because I don't think a use as in *_cénan kiryassea_ == 'video
            quod in navi est' without a specified noun is possible, as _kiryassea_
            would, in that case, be a noun, not an adjective.

            This latter situation seems to be part of what Edouard Kloczko was
            getting at.

            -David Kiltz
          • machhezan
            ... This semantical difference corresponds exactly to the distributional difference that (b) is always accompanied by the noun or pronoun it specifies while
            Message 5 of 11 , Feb 12, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              David Kiltz wrote:
              > I wonder, however, whether Tolkien didn't mean a) "what is
              > on board ship" in the sense of 'whatever, anything that is
              > on board ship' and b) by "that is on board ship" simply
              > meant 'used restrictively, specifying'; that is, as an
              > adjective/relative clause.

              This semantical difference corresponds exactly to the distributional
              difference that (b) is always accompanied by the noun or pronoun it
              specifies while (a) isn't ever, that is, (a) forms the head of a noun
              phrase while (b) is only a specifier. However, that difference doesn't
              correspond to any difference in spelling. I even believe that the
              semantical difference isn't but a reflect of the distributional one,
              that is, the more specific meaning of (b) is only a reflect of it's
              use as a specifier.

              > That is because I don't think a use as in *_cénan
              > kiryassea_ = 'video quod in navi est' without a specified
              > noun is possible, as _kiryassea_ would, in that case, be a
              > noun, not an adjective.

              Is there any evidence that Quenya noun phrases can't be formed by
              adjectives? If not, then I'd say that the confusion of "that is on
              board" (b) and "what is on board" (a) indicates that Quenya adjectives
              aren't only used as specifiers of noun phrases but also as their
              heads, like e.g. in Latin or in German, not like in English.

              suilaid
              j. 'mach' wust
            • David Kiltz
              ... I agree. Of course _what_ is used that way and by virtue of its function ( indefinitum ) can refer to anything/everything. Still, my point was that I think
              Message 6 of 11 , Feb 13, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                On 13.02.2004, at 01:25, machhezan wrote:

                > This semantical difference corresponds exactly to the distributional
                > difference

                I agree. Of course _what_ is used that way and by virtue of its
                function ('indefinitum') can refer to anything/everything. Still, my
                point was that I think it was used by Tolkien not to say anything about
                the use of _kiryassea_ as the head of a noun phrase (or as a noun,
                formed by zero-derivation from an adjective). Rather, that it simply
                indicated that _kiryassea_ can refer to any, well, semantic field, if
                you will. That is, e.g. people, cattle, goods etc.. But see below.

                > Is there any evidence that Quenya noun phrases can't be formed by
                > adjectives? <snip>
                > That Quenya adjectives
                > aren't only used as specifiers of noun phrases but also as their
                > heads, like e.g. in Latin or in German, not like in English.

                Well, it depends on whether you want to keep the term 'adjective' even
                in a case like German "das Gute siegt" or "Evil evil mars" like Olssen
                [1988: Das 'substantivierte' Adjektiv im Deutschen und Englischen. In:
                FoL 22, S.337-372]. Where he describes 'das Gute' or 'Evil' as elliptic
                (ellipsis of N). This follows cases such as German "zieh' das Grüne an"
                'put on the green one (sc. dress)'. In the latter case, German indeed
                differs from English in that 'das Grüne' can be the head of a NP.
                However, a phrase like "das Gute siegt" is entirely different. 'Das
                Gute' here needs no complement and there is no ellipsis. Rather, it
                serves as an abstract (hence it is neuter, things like 'der Gute/die
                Gute' would, again, be elliptic, as 'man/woman' aut sim. are to be
                understood). So, I think it's right, as it's normally done, to treat
                'das Gute' as a noun (which it syntactically and semantically is). In
                such cases, of course, English works similarly, that is, it can use
                adjectives as nouns (header of a NP) without formal derivation. Cf.
                "Oft evil evil mars".

                Cases like a) "das ist ein Guter (e.g. Kaffee)" vs b) "that's a good one"
                (/coffee) are different. (That fact that Modern English can, in such
                cases, use adjectives only as specifiers (i.e. has to insert some kind
                of 'prop noun') is probably due to pragmatic reasons, i.e. because
                English has lost grammatical gender distinction.)

                Now for Quenya. I solely based my assessment on Tolkien's statement
                that _kiryassea_ is an adjective. Case b ('an evil one') then might be
                possible in Quenya if we take the word 'adjective' in a very broad
                sense. Envisage a situation where you tell someone "do you see the Elf
                over there? He's my friend." "Which one? I see two, one on the quay and
                one on board ship". "_Kiryassea meldonya_ (sc. 'the one on board ship
                is my friend'). If we take _kiryassea_ here to be the head, then I
                would tend to say yes, it is permissible, because the term 'adjective'
                could be extended to such a use, although _kiryassea_ is functionally a
                noun here. Still, it's a conditioned function in ellipsis.

                Now case a ('evil...') is what Edouard Kloczko touched upon
                > (Looks more to me like a noun; what/that
                > is on board ship == the content of a ship == shipment ?)

                Case a, I'd venture to say, is not possible in Quenya. For two reasons:

                1) _Kiryassea_ in that case would be truly a noun (unconditioned), and
                hence, Tolkien wouldn't have called it an adjective (not without a
                further remark, however).

                2) As far as I know, there are no attestation of zero-derivation
                conversion of adjectives to nouns in Quenya. Unless, you take words
                like _Vala_ 'angelic Power' and _Vása_ 'the Consumer' as original
                adjectives. But I think they are rather originally verbal 'has power',
                'consumes'. (These forms are in themselves remarkable, being old
                formations, they seem to be modelled after Valarin formations. That,
                however, is another matter).

                So, to sum up, I think adjectives (if taken in the broadest or, X-bar
                sense) can be headers of a noun phrase (no evidence to the contrary is
                known to me) but only in case b (of course, as they are no adjectives
                in case a).

                That, I hope, might also be an answer to E. Kloczko's first post. That
                is, something like "salut mon cher" would be possible but something
                like + "le cher" == 'what is dear/expensive == e.g. 'a precious stone', I
                think is not.

                Note that all these assertions are based on Tolkien's wording. Therefore
                all statements regarding Quenya usage are (at times highly) putative.
                Remarks on general grammatical phenomena are not, unless explicitly
                marked as such.

                -David Kiltz



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • machhezan
                ... I prefer morphology to semantics or syntax for the decision whether it s noun or adjective. Since there are cases like _Gutes mit Bösem vergelten_ to
                Message 7 of 11 , Feb 13, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  David Kiltz wrote:

                  > So, I think it's right, as it's normally done, to treat 'das Gute' as a
                  > noun (which it syntactically and semantically is).

                  I prefer morphology to semantics or syntax for the decision whether
                  it's noun or adjective. Since there are cases like _Gutes mit Bösem
                  vergelten_ 'to repay good with evil' which show the adjectival endings
                  _-s_ and _-m_, I consider these words adjectives, in a "broad sense",
                  if you will, yet I prefer broad senses to petty discriminations (if I have
                  a choice!).

                  [I would consider these distinctions to be far from "petty". As linguists,
                  we should _always_ bear in mind that there is not a one-to-one
                  correspondence between form and function, only stronger or weaker
                  correlations. Indeed, the failure to recognize that Tolkien's languages
                  behave just like "real" languages in this regard contributes mightily to
                  the mistaken but all too common belief that they are far more artificial
                  than they are, and than Tolkien intended them to appear. CFH]

                  Of course, the meaning of _das Gute_ is highly abstract, I'd say this
                  word is a theological-philosophical term, perhaps even more than
                  the English word _the good_. It wouldn't surprise me if most languages
                  formed such abstract words by derivation.

                  However, I think we can neither exclude nor confirm the possibility that
                  certain adjectives could express abstract concepts by themselves, that is,
                  when they're not used as specifiers of another word. At least the two
                  mentioned occurences of _kiryassea_ don't provide any evidence for this
                  question.

                  [We do however have an explicit statement from Tolkien regarding this
                  phenomenon in general in "Early Qenya": "Adjective may be freely used as
                  nouns; their declension then is, of course, identical with that of ordinary
                  nouns, according to the KALMA, SINQE, PILIN classes" (with some distinction
                  in the plural): PE14:77. From a much later period, we also see the apparent
                  adjectival form *_ñavëa_ used as a noun menaing 'consonant', in the plural
                  form _ñávëar_, VT39:8. CFH]

                  suilaid
                  j. 'mach' wust
                  http://machhezan.tripod.com
                • pkmarmor
                  Carl commented - ... Compare the (?late) Quenya example in XI:367 ... the adj. _onóna_ twin-born , also used as a noun one of a pair of twins . pkm
                  Message 8 of 11 , Feb 16, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Carl commented -
                    >
                    > We do however have an explicit statement from Tolkien regarding
                    > this phenomenon in general in "Early Qenya": "Adjective[s] may be
                    > freely used as nouns..."

                    Compare the (?late) Quenya example in XI:367 "... the adj.
                    _onóna_ 'twin-born', also used as a noun 'one of a pair of
                    twins'."

                    pkm
                  • Jerome Colburn
                    ... And _Apanónar_ Afterborn, _Firyar_ Mortals , _Fírimar_ those apt to die WJ:387. Much earlier, _Engwar_ the Sickly LR:245.
                    Message 9 of 11 , Feb 17, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 11:44 PM 2/16/04 +0000, pkmarmor wrote:

                      >Carl commented -
                      > >
                      > > We do however have an explicit statement from Tolkien regarding
                      > > this phenomenon in general in "Early Qenya": "Adjective[s] may be
                      > > freely used as nouns..."
                      >
                      >Compare the (?late) Quenya example in XI:367 "... the adj.
                      >_onóna_ 'twin-born', also used as a noun 'one of a pair of
                      >twins'."

                      And _Apanónar_ "Afterborn," _Firyar_ "Mortals", _Fírimar_ "those apt to
                      die" WJ:387. Much earlier, _Engwar_ "the Sickly" LR:245.

                      +-------------------------+
                      + Airesseo Kolvorno +
                      + Jerome Colburn +
                      + jcolburn@... +
                      +-------------------------+
                      "Do you not be happy with me as the translator of the books of you?" -- New
                      Yorker cartoon
                    • Paula Marmor
                      ... Similarly _Vanya_ is ...from an adjectival derivative _*wanja*_ from the stem _*WAN_... , and _Linda_ is clearly a derivative of the primitive stem
                      Message 10 of 11 , Feb 18, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- Jerome Colburn identified more adjectives used as nouns.

                        Similarly _Vanya_ is "...from an adjectival derivative _*wanja*_
                        from the stem _*WAN_...", and _Linda_ is "clearly a derivative of
                        the primitive stem _*LIN_ (showing ... adjectival _-á_)"
                        (XI:382-3).

                        Presumably _Sinda_ and the early clan names _Minyar_ 'Firsts',
                        _Tatyar_ 'Seconds', and _Nelyar_ 'Thirds' (XI:380, 421) are formed in
                        the same way.


                        Paula Marmor
                      • Beregond. Anders Stenström
                        Another set of nominalized adjectives is, I think, the High-elven names for the days of the week, from _Elenya_ to _Valanya_. If they are thus in origin
                        Message 11 of 11 , Feb 19, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Another set of nominalized adjectives is, I think, the High-elven
                          names for the days of the week, from _Elenya_ to _Valanya_. If
                          they are thus in origin adjective attributes of an understood _ré_,
                          _Tárion_ (the alternative name for _Valanya_) would similarly be
                          a genitive attribute.

                          Suilad,

                          Beregond
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.