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

Re: Q _kiryassea_ adj?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.