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

Re: [Lambengolmor] Sindarin pronouns in -n ?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.