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

Acc. in -n and valence of esta

Expand Messages
  • David Kiltz
    ... Well, Q _esta_ name should be the correponding word. I quite agree it s not to be understood as to call but related to _esse_ name. This makes it
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 15, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      On 14.06.2004, at 19:48, Beregond. Anders Stenström wrote:

      > 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_.

      Well, Q _esta_ 'name' should be the correponding word. I quite agree
      it's not to be understood as 'to call' but related to _esse_ name. This
      makes it pretty parallel to e.g. Goth. _namnjan_. What I meant
      referring to 'paraphrasing' is that the syntactical construction only
      works in paraphrasing, not with an actual verb _esta, namnjan_ etc.
      It's okay to paraphrase the word to make the semantics clear but it
      doesn't mean that the syntax has to follow suite the same way.
      Again, I don't say an indirect object is impossible but a direct object
      (as in 'to name') seems more straightforward.

      -David Kiltz
    • Hans Georg Lundahl
      As a latinist I cannot help bumping in when it comes to the valence of a verb meaning name . Latin has double valence system for nuncupare: 1) nuncupare
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 15, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        As a latinist I cannot help bumping in when it comes to the
        valence of a verb meaning "name".

        Latin has double valence system for nuncupare:

        1) nuncupare huiusmodi hominem regem
        (two different accusatives);

        2) nuncupare huiusmodi hominem nomine regis
        (instrumental for the name):

        For "I am called" Latin has "to me is the name", "to me"
        being obviously a dative, but the name can be either
        nominative (corresponding to acc. if mihi est had been
        replaced by habeo) or dative - as a qualification of mihi,
        standing in the dative:

        1) nomen mihi est Gaius;
        2) nomen mihi est Gaio.

        The question is, Sindarin not being a case language, and
        fossilised pronominal instrumentals tending to become
        used as adverbs of reason, it would not be most secure to
        assume that the name itself is the usual non-case-marked form
        of it, whereas the pronoun, if fossilising anything except a
        non-case-marked form, would fossilise the accusative,
        irrespective of what syntactical case -- except nominative/subject
        -- it was used for. Of course, some northern languages -- North
        German "mir", "dir", English "him", "her", Danish "ham", "henne",
        Swedish "honom", "henne" -- actually use some fossilised datives
        as oblique pronominal forms.

        Could this be of some help?

        Höstrusk och grå moln - köp en resa till solen på Yahoo! Resor

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Beregond. Anders Stenström
        ... That was not my point: what I tried to say was that S _est(a)-_ might actually mean use as a name and not name . No doubt it is the direct cognate to Q
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 15, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          David Kiltz (>) answered me (>>):

          > > 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',
          >
          > Well, Q _esta_ 'name' should be the correponding word. I quite agree
          > it's not to be understood as 'to call' but related to _esse_ name.

          That was not my point: what I tried to say was that S _est(a)-_
          might actually mean 'use as a name' and not 'name'. No doubt it
          is the direct cognate to Q _esta_, but its meaning need not be
          identical.

          > Again, I don't say an indirect object is impossible but a direct
          > object (as in 'to name') seems more straightforward.

          I can see that interpreting S _est(a)-_ as 'to name' is more
          straightforward, in the light of what denominative verbs from
          'name' mean in other languages, and especially in the light of
          Q _esta_. But I can not see that [verb]+[accusative: the named]+
          +[predicative: the name] is per se more straightforward than
          [verb]+[accusative: name]+[dative: the named].

          Suilaid,

          Beregond
        • Hans Georg Lundahl
          ... I can. The name is an attribute of the named. Therefore it is rather a predicative attribute (or predicative, in this terminology) than a gift to him. [But
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 16, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            "Beregond. Anders Stenström" <beregond@...> wrote:

            >I can not see that [verb]+[accusative: the named]+
            >+[predicative: the name] is per se more straightforward than
            >[verb]+[accusative: name]+[dative: the named].

            I can. The name is an attribute of the named. Therefore it is rather a predicative attribute (or predicative, in this terminology) than a gift to him.

            [But then one could come back and note, correctly, that a name is a _given_ attribute, not an inherent one -- the more so in the example from the "King's Letter" -- and we are back to the other perspective. Which really is what we're talking about: different languages have different idioms for names and naming based on differing perspective; and sometimes even have more than one idiom within a single language. CFH]

            Höstrusk och grå moln - köp en resa till solen på Yahoo! Resor

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David Kiltz
            ... Certainly. Yet the ample evidence afforded to us by real world languages clearly indicates that, whenever a verb is used that means not just call aut
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 16, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              On 16.06.2004, at 13:24, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

              > Which really is what we're talking about: different languages have
              > different idioms for names and naming based on differing perspective;
              > and sometimes even have more than one idiom within a single language.

              Certainly. Yet the ample evidence afforded to us by real world
              languages clearly indicates that, whenever a verb is used that means
              not just 'call' aut sim. (and even then) we have a construction with
              direct object. It is the 'named' that is coded as direct object. One
              could argue that this is due to the greater salience of the human agent
              in marking hierarchy. But I think the coding is due to the fact that the
              'named' is here the first and necessary complement to the verb. That
              is, you can say 'they named their child' but 'they used Peter as a
              name' is not a complete sentence (unless, of course it refers to some
              prior statement like 'the child was born'. Then, however, it isn't a
              complete sentence either but rather a disconnected complement).

              This, IMHO, is why "[verb]+[accusative: the named]+
              +[predicative: the name] is per se more straightforward than
              [verb]+[accusative: name]+[dative: the named]".

              I'd venture to say that in accusative languages this is a syntactical
              universal, necessitated by the coding strategy of this kind of
              language. I'm always referring to a verb that I view as derivative of
              'name', not just any verb. So, 'to say' would work clearly differently.
              But my whole point is that 'to name' (and that is what I think we have
              in The King's Letter) works this way.

              [Here's a thought: if _esta-_ does take the thing or person named as an
              object, (direct or indirect) then presumably the named would be marked
              with an objective form; why then do we have an apparenly unmarked form
              of the relative pronoun, _i_ 'who' (according to the English gloss), as
              opposed to some objective form meaning 'whom'/ 'to/for whom' (which
              appears to have existed for at least some kind of Sindarin, cf. _ai_ *'for
              those who' in _Ae Adar N�n_)? Since its referent is the object in question,
              the named person, ought it not by the same typological argument likewise
              show object inflection? (A similar observation about the form and apparent
              function of the relative in this phrase was made, if I recall correctly, in
              Ivan Derzhanski's discussion of _i Panthael estathar aen_ in his article
              "_Peth i dirathar aen_: Some Notes on Eldarin Relative Constructions" in
              VT 38.) CFH]

              The example adduced by Pavel Iosad:

              > 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.

              is interesting. Clearly, we have a stylistically marked construction
              here. A question: Can you say in English 'I fed the cat its milk' ?

              [Yes, and without much markedness, except that we generally don't
              speak of "feeding" liquids, but rather typically associate the verb
              "feed" with solid food. I would more naturally say, "I gave the cat (its)
              milk"; similarly, I wouldn't say "The cat ate its milk", but rather "The
              cat drank its milk". CFH]

              If so, how does it contrast with 'I fed the cat with milk' ?

              [This would be a marekdly unusual thing to say in English, execpt e.g. as
              a full and formal response to the question "What did you feed the cat with?".
              CFH]

              (I'm aware that this is not an English language list but I would use
              the answer in illucidating, or trying to, the Sindarin construction
              further).

              [No problem. CFH]

              -David Kiltz
            • David Kiltz
              ... Actually, I don t see any need to assume that the relative marker S. _i_ was specifically marked as a direct object. In Ae Adar Nín ...sui mín i
              Message 6 of 6 , Jul 5 10:45 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                On 16.06.2004, at 14:20, Carl Hostetter wrote:

                > Here's a thought: if _esta-_ does take the thing or person named as an
                > object, (direct or indirect) then presumably the named would be marked
                > with an objective form; why then do we have an apparenly unmarked form
                > of the relative pronoun, _i_ 'who' (according to the English gloss), as
                > opposed to some objective form meaning 'whom'/ 'to/for whom' (which
                > appears to have existed for at least some kind of Sindarin, cf. _ai_
                > *'for those who' in _Ae Adar Nín_)?

                Actually, I don't see any need to assume that the relative marker S.
                _i_ was specifically marked as a direct object. In 'Ae Adar Nín'
                "...sui mín i gohenam di ai gerir úgerth ammen", [VT44:21]. For me the
                most likely interpretation of this sentence is: *'sicut (et) nos eas
                (_i_) (sc. transgressiones) dimittimus illis (_di_) qui peccant in
                nobis'.

                This would be quite parallel to Quenya _sív' emme apsenet tien i úcarer
                emmen_: *'sicut (et) nos dimittimus eas (_-t) illis (_tien_) qui
                peccant in nobis.

                Neither the direct nor indirect object is then marked in Sindarin. _Ai_
                would be a special form of the relative pronoun (maybe with a stress on
                totality? If _a yath_ is a clue this might be interpreted as _yath_
                'those' and a- intensive etc. prefix). Interpreting _di_ as referring
                back to _úgerth_ in the preceding line doesn't seem to work. What do
                you do with _i_ then? A double reference to _úgerth_ doesn't look
                likely to me: 'sicut (et) nos eas dimittimus eas quibus... ' ?

                -David Kiltz
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.