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

Re: [Lambengolmor] [was:Acc. in -n and] valence of esta

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Jun 15 5:56 AM
    • 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 if mihi est had been
      replaced by habeo) or dative - as a qualification of mihi,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 2 of 6 , Jun 15 1:10 PM
      • 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 3 of 6 , Jun 16 4:24 AM
        • 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 4 of 6 , Jun 16 5:20 AM
          • 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 5 of 6 , Jul 5, 2004
            • 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.