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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.