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

Etym. _karin_: present or aorist?

Expand Messages
  • Helios De Rosario Martinez
    In recent messages the verb form _karin_ I make, build from the _Etymologies_ s.v. the verbal root KAR- make, do (V:362), was incidentally cited,
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 11, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      In recent messages the verb form _karin_ 'I make, build' from the
      _Etymologies_ s.v. the verbal root KAR- 'make, do' (V:362), was
      incidentally cited, classifying it as 1st person singular aorist.

      The label of _karin_ as an aorist form is supported by the note c.
      1969 cited at VT41:17, where Tolkien tells that verb forms with _-i_
      are "the stem of the aorist tense". According to this, _kari-_ whould
      be the aorist stem of the root KAR-. Complementarily, the form _kare_
      (seemingly < *_kari_ with regular opening of final _-i_) acts as
      infinitive in the sentence _alasaila ná la kare tai mo nave mára_ 'it
      is unwise not to do what one judges good' at VT42:34, which is
      explicitly told by Tolkien to be "in general 'aorist' terms", in a
      text from the last years of his life (cf. VT42:33 for the dating).

      However, it is possible that _karin_ at _Etym._ is not an aorist form,
      but present. Verb forms in _-i-_ (_-e_ in the absence of suffixes)
      belong to the present tense of "regular" basic verbs in earlier
      conceptual stages: see "_Matar_ and _Tulir_" (MT), "The Qenya Verb
      Forms" (QVF) and various examples at the verbs section of the "Early
      Qenya Grammar" (EQG), PE14:23-34, 57-58. Actually, the aorist tense
      occurs in a very distinct form (ended in _-ya_, -_mo_, _-le_...) at
      QVF (cf. PE14:28, 34).

      I think it probable that _karin_, and the many other verbs ending in
      _-in_ from _The Etymologies_, were conceived in that context as
      present forms, as in the earlier paradigms. Their glosses are not
      helpful, as English present tense may be used for both the present and
      aorist functions. However, present is to me a more natural tense to be
      given as the first reference in a dictionary than the aorist.

      In fact, MT apparently represents only present tenses, and both QVF
      and EQG give the conjugation of the present tense first; furthermore,
      at QVF, where both present and aorist are represented, aorist in fact
      is given last, and when there is a relation between their forms aorist
      is told to be "as present" (PE14:28, 34), and not the reverse(*). So,
      if _Etym._ ever used aorist as the "reference" tense, that singularity
      could be expected to be noted somewhere throughout the text.

      Related to this, the difference between the well-known greeting _elen
      síla lúmenn' omentielvo_ 'a star shines upon the hour of hour meeting'
      and its draft forms _eleni silir..._ 'the stars shine...' and _elen
      silë..._ 'a star shines' (VI:324-325), has been elsewhere considered a
      change in the tense (aorist > present, cf. VT41:15, for instance), but
      instead they could be a reflection of a change in the conception of
      how the present tense was formed.

      A limitation of this argument is that in _The Lost Road_, more or less
      contemporary to the _Etymologies_ and written before any draft of _The
      Lord of the Rings_, the form _tye-méla_ '[I] love thee' (not directly
      glossed) occurs, seemingly a present like that of _elen síla..._ , and
      like present _quéta_ in contrast to aorist _quete_ (VT41:15, 18). So,
      it seems that the present formation of _The Lord of the Rings_ and
      later texts was already conceived when the _Etymologies_ was being
      composed. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that _-i_ was
      already conceived as the aorist stem characteristic, as it was in the
      last years of Tolkien's life. The Q. verb _mel-_ 'love' is given at
      _Etym._ just as the stem (and not *_melin_), leaving room to think
      that it might not be the same kind of basic verb as _kar-_, and that
      its present form could be different (thus enabling _tye-méla_ and
      _tye-meláne_). And even if this was not implied, as Patrick Wynne and
      Rich Alderson recently noted, there is no reason to think that a verb
      need have one and only one form for a given tense.


      (*) Against this, it could be argued that the conception of time is
      different for Elves and Men, and that the first ones could find
      completely natural to refer a verb by the tense which expresses an
      habitual or time-indefinite action... if it is that the _Etymologies_
      were conceived to be composed by some Elven sage, and that fact was
      considered in this kind of details.

      Helios


      [Helios raises a important point of caution: given the shifting nature of
      Tolkien's languages, even in fundamental categories, it is important
      to distinguish between what Tolkien actually _states_ about any
      particular class or formation at a particular stage in the conceptual
      development of his languages, from what is _assumed_ to be the
      case based on the evidence from other conceptual stages.

      That being said, I don't agree that there would necessarily be
      anything odd in citing the aorist form of a verb as opposed to the
      present tense form, _per se_. The actual practice seems to be rather
      to cite the _least marked_ formation first, followed by whatever forms
      are necessary to illustrate the other formation classes. It happens that
      for Latin as for most Western European languages this least marked
      form of the verb is its present tense; but this neeed not be true of
      languages generally. So in those stages of Tolkien's languages where the
      aorist is the least marked form, it would be quite expected for the
      aorist form to be the first cited. CFH]
    • Andreas Johansson
      ... The most common form for citation, as far as Western European languages are concerned, is surely the infinitive, regardless of how marked it is compared to
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 12, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Quoting Helios De Rosario Martinez <imrahil@...>:

        > That being said, I don't agree that there would necessarily be
        > anything odd in citing the aorist form of a verb as opposed to the
        > present tense form, _per se_. The actual practice seems to be rather
        > to cite the _least marked_ formation first, followed by whatever forms
        > are necessary to illustrate the other formation classes. It happens that
        > for Latin as for most Western European languages this least marked
        > form of the verb is its present tense; but this neeed not be true of
        > languages generally. So in those stages of Tolkien's languages where the
        > aorist is the least marked form, it would be quite expected for the
        > aorist form to be the first cited. CFH

        The most common form for citation, as far as Western European languages are
        concerned, is surely the infinitive, regardless of how marked it is compared to
        other forms.

        I however quite agree with Carl's larger point - that a form being the citation
        form is no ground for assuming it to be a present tense form. Indeed, the many
        European languages that use the infinitive as the citation form is a powerful
        counter-example.

        Andreas

        [Every Latin dictionary I am familiar with cites verbs by 1st. sg. pres. act. ind.,
        (and then by infinitive). Standard Greek dictionaries follow the same convention,
        as do those of Welsh (e.g. the _Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru_). English dictionaries
        universally cite the 1st sg. pres. So in fact many dictionaries of Western IE
        languages do not cite the infinitive form of the verb first. It is true that many
        do, e.g. for most (all?) Romance languages, and for those Germanic languages that
        have a distinct infinitive inflectional form (though even here the practice seems
        aimed at citing an actual speech form from which the least-marked tense stem
        can readily and mechanically be extracted, which in these IE languages happens
        to be the present tense). CFH]
      • David Kiltz
        ... One might add that a formation is used that (generally) conveys the best idea of the basic nature of the verb, the most transparent. That s not necessarily
        Message 3 of 3 , Feb 13, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          On 12.02.2006, at 01:35, Carl Hostetter wrote:

          > The actual practice seems to be rather
          > to cite the _least marked_ formation first, followed by whatever forms
          > are necessary to illustrate the other formation classes

          One might add that a formation is used that (generally) conveys the
          best idea of the basic nature of the verb, the most transparent.
          That's not necessarily the present tense. A good example to underline
          Carl's point are Semitic languages which cite the 3rd sg. perfect
          because it's structurally the most transparent. Another example is
          Korean which uses a present form but -lacking person markers- can
          choose between various reverential levels. It uses the one whose
          suffix least modifies the basic verbal stem. Lastly consider
          Sanskrit, which cites roots.

          For most (modern) european languages (germanic, romance, slavic,
          baltic, finnish...) though, it's indeed the (or one) infinitive.

          David Kiltz

          [Harm J. Schelhaas also wrote, to make the same point about Semitic
          citation standards: "As an example of a non IE language with a different
          convention, in Hebrew verbs are cited by 3rd (male) sg. perf. act." CFH]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.