Re: [Lambengolmor] Sindarin pronouns in -n ?
- 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' takesI did not suggest that 'call, name' can be paraphrased as 'use as
> 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..
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_.
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 thatWell, in real-world languages of course a patient (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.
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.