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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Sindarin pronouns in -n ?

Expand Messages
  • Beregond. Anders Stenström
    ... Can you explicate that? Looking purely at what the phrase means, it does not seem out of bounds to suppose that _est(a)-_ means utter a name or use a
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 12, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      David Kiltz wrote:

      > accusative in _-n_ may seem uncouth but there might be
      > another instance recorded. Namely, in the 'King's Letter' [IX}:
      > "...Perhael i sennui Panthael estathar aen...". 'Samwise who
      > should rather be called Fullwise'.
      > . . . I would find it hard to interpret _aen_ in the above phrase
      > as dative (< *an-e ?) for both phonetic and syntactic reasons.

      Can you explicate that? Looking purely at what the phrase
      means, it does not seem out of bounds to suppose that _est(a)-_
      means 'utter a name' or 'use a name', the name thus being its
      accusative object and _aen_ a dative. The interpretation would
      then be 'they(one)-shall-[utter-as-a-name] Fullwise to-him', or
      'they(one)-shall-[use-as-a-name] Fullwise for-him'.

      Meneg suilaid,

      Beregond
    • Beregond. Anders Stenstr�m
      ... Or the interpretation of _i sennui Panthael estathar aen_ might be who rather Fullwise they(one)-shall-[use-as-a-name] for-whom , with _aen_
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 13, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I wrote:

        > it does not seem out of bounds to suppose that _est(a)-_
        > means 'utter a name' or 'use a name', the name thus being its
        > accusative object and _aen_ a dative. The interpretation would
        > then be 'they(one)-shall-[utter-as-a-name] Fullwise to-him', or
        > 'they(one)-shall-[use-as-a-name] Fullwise for-him'.

        Or the interpretation of _i sennui Panthael estathar aen_ might
        be 'who rather Fullwise they(one)-shall-[use-as-a-name] for-whom',
        with _aen_ < *_an-i_, '(to/for) whom'. (This may have been
        suggested before, but it was not mentioned in the two posts that
        David Kiltz referred to.)

        But then again, _aen_ may not be a pronoun at all, but a modal
        particle that turns 'they shall' into 'they ought to'. I think these
        two ideas indicate the essential possibilities for interpreting the
        phrase.

        Suilaid,

        Beregond
      • David Kiltz
        ... 1) In Indo-European languages (to which Sindarin bears great resemblance syntactically and morphologically) a denominative from name would normally take
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 14, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          On 12.06.2004, at 10:05, Beregond. Anders Stenström wrote:

          > David Kiltz wrote:
          >
          >> accusative in _-n_ may seem uncouth but there might be
          >> another instance recorded. Namely, in the 'King's Letter' [IX}:
          >> "...Perhael i sennui Panthael estathar aen...". 'Samwise who
          >> should rather be called Fullwise'.
          >> . . . I would find it hard to interpret _aen_ in the above phrase
          >> as dative (< *an-e ?) for both phonetic and syntactic reasons.
          >
          > Can you explicate that? Looking purely at what the phrase
          > means, it does not seem out of bounds to suppose that _est(a)-_
          > means 'utter a name' or 'use a name', the name thus being its
          > accusative object and _aen_ a dative. The interpretation would
          > then be 'they(one)-shall-[utter-as-a-name] Fullwise to-him', or
          > 'they(one)-shall-[use-as-a-name] Fullwise for-him'.

          1) In Indo-European languages (to which Sindarin bears great
          resemblance syntactically and morphologically) a denominative from
          'name' would normally take the accusative. The problem (I think) with
          your paraphrasing is that (again, at least in IE) syntactically such
          verbs precisely do not work that way. E.g. Goth. _namnjan_ etc. 'call,
          name' take a direct object. (The same is obviously true for verbs like
          'to call, appeler. zvatj' etc.). In Finnish _nimittä_ takes the
          partitive.

          So, a construction with *one* verb takes a direct object. Something to
          be expected. Of course, the syntax changes the moment you use an
          'instrumental' complement [as-a-name]. That's even more true for 'utter
          a name', 'use a name' where you have an object 'name' precisely because
          that meaning is not yet contained in the original verb. I. e. in such a
          construction, obviously you would need a dative as the place of the
          direct object is taken. While you may paraphrase (one) meaning of the
          verb that way, I think it's not permissible break up the verb so that
          the syntactical construction changes. (1)

          That's why I think _aen_ (if it is a pronoun) to be much more likely
          accusative. I'm not 100% excluding a dative, though. Maybe there is a
          derivative of 'name' that works that way in some language? I'm curious.

          2) Phonetically, I simply don't know whether _*an-e_ > _aen_.

          -David Kiltz

          (1) Doing so would, IMHO, be the same as to argue that 'to feed' takes
          an indirect object (dative) because it can be paraphrased as 'give food
          (to sb.) or 'to ask' as it may be paraphrased as 'to put a question to
          sb.' etc.. I think you get the point.
        • Beregond. Anders Stenstr�m
          ... Neither do I. In a previous post I suggested *_an-i_ _aen_, but I now doubt it. More normally *_an-i_ would *_ain_, and the occurrence of _phain_ in
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 14, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            David Kiltz wrote:

            > 2) Phonetically, I simply don't know whether _*an-e_ > _aen_.

            Neither do I. In a previous post I suggested *_an-i_ > _aen_,
            but I now doubt it. More normally *_an-i_ would > *_ain_, and
            the occurrence of _phain_ in the same text as _aen_ (the King's
            Letter, IX:128-131) is an obstacle to any argument for *_an-i_
            that might be advanced.

            If _aen_ is to be analyzed as a compound with _an_ as its first
            element, perhaps the second element could be from the relative
            root YA- (in Etymologies, and see VT43:16)..

            > (1) Doing so would, IMHO, be the same as to argue that 'to feed' takes
            > an indirect object (dative) because it can be paraphrased as 'give food
            > (to sb.) or 'to ask' as it may be paraphrased as 'to put a question to
            > sb.' etc..

            I did not suggest that 'call, name' can be paraphrased as 'use as
            a name', but that the S verb _est(a)-_ might, for all we know,
            actually mean 'use as a name' and not 'call', despite Tolkien's use
            of _called_ in his translation of the phrase. As you noted in your
            discussion with David Salo, the translation may not be so literal as
            to gloss each word exactly.

            There is a gloss "name" given for Q _esta-_ (VT45:12), but I do
            not think there is an authorial gloss for its S cognate.

            If _est(a)-_ has the name as its direct object, it would be
            comparable (not quite similar) to the verb _nominalize_.

            Suilaid,

            Beregond
          • Pavel Iosad
            Hello, David Kiltz wrote, on the subject of assuming an indirect ... Well, in real-world languages of course a patient (that which is given, be it name name,
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 15, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello,

              David Kiltz wrote, on the subject of assuming an indirect
              patientive object for 'name', 'feed' and sundry:

              >(1) Doing so would, IMHO, be the same as to argue that
              >'to feed' takes an indirect object (dative) because
              >it can be paraphrased as 'give food (to sb.) or 'to
              >ask' as it may be paraphrased as 'to put a question to
              >sb.' etc.. I think you get the point.

              Well, in real-world languages of course a patient (that
              which is given, be it name name, or food as in the case
              of 'feed') will be expected to take a more privileged
              syntactic position (sc. direct object) than the recipient.
              However, applicative constructions and/or derivatives
              (promoting peripheral arguments to core syntactic
              positions) are not quite infrequent: for instance, Russian
              _kormitj_ 'to feed' normally codes the one who is fed in
              the accusative and the food with the instrumental.
              However, its derivative _skarmlivatj_ (which means the
              same, but also carries stylistic overtones) takes the food
              as direct object and the one being fed as indirect object
              in the dative.

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