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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Sindarin pronouns in -n ?

Expand Messages
  • Beregond. Anders Stenstr�
    ... 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 1 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 2 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�
        ... 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 3 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 4 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.