Re: [Lambengolmor] Acc. in -n and valence of esta
- On 16.06.2004, at 14:20, Carl Hostetter wrote:
> Here's a thought: if _esta-_ does take the thing or person named as anActually, I don't see any need to assume that the relative marker S.
> 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_)?
_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
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... ' ?