Hallo everyone!
I’m here for the first time and I’m impressed with your linguistic skills. Forgive me my poor English, Sindarin and so on.
I’m interested in everything middle-earthen and I sometimes think about things that I’m too stupid to think of. ;-) For example, lastly I’m in the search of Sindarin pronouns. Doing it I came back to Ae Adar Nín.
The word di used in the text is, as I found, usually considered to be the 3rd person plural pronoun in the Dative case. It’s unlike the other known pronouns which form Dative with an- i.e. enni, anim, ammen. It only resembles le, if we assume that in phrases: le nallon and le linnathon it is Dative (I cry to you, I shall sing for you) and not Accusative (I call you, I’ll sing about you).
We also have two words for forgiving: diheno and goheno. We can discuss whether divine forgiveness is different from that of a human or whether there is need to distinguish forgiving guilties from forgiving the guilty ones.
But let’s come back to the word di standing right behind goheno. It seems to me that it may belong to it, like it belongs to diheno. Can we say treneri bent (to tell a story) interchangebly with neri tre bent and ortheri ngyth (to overpower foes) with teri or gyth? If so, diheno can be split in the same way and another prefix could be attached to it resulting in goheno di, and all that to avoid connecting prefixes with each other - perhaps godiheno wouldn’t be allowed in Sindarin.
Below you can see my attepmts to figure it out:
ar (and) di-heno (ab-solve) ammen (to-us = us; maybe something like: send to us release of) i úgerth (the bad-deeds) vin (of ours) sui (like) mín i (ours who = we who) go-henam di (withal-solve ab = also absolve) ai (those who, compare: quenya yar) gerir (make) úgerth (bad-deeds) ammen (to-us)
PS. Maybe that was a bad idea but I’ve used word absolve and not forget because it’s made heno look like it meant get.
What do you think? Maybe lambengolmor can instantly destroy this theory - for every lesson I will be grateful. I still do not have a reasonable idea on mín
in the prayer - Gandalf, why the… Genitive?
Александр Запрягаев Jun 07, 2015 (14:57)
Remy Corbin Jun 07, 2015 (15:18)
Knowledge of Quenya is needful when studing Sindarin and scarce information of verb rection make the thing more difficult.
As for the T and S pronouns in Quenya, in Quettaparma Quenyallo there is mentioned 'hé' meaning 'him (the other him, not 'sé'), but maybe that was completely out of use in the time of LotR.
Александр Запрягаев Jun 07, 2015 (15:29)
Matt Dinse Jun 07, 2015 (15:31)
As for hé, VT49:14-15 mentions hé in "a text on reflexives dating to c. 1965", saying that it was "used for a 3rd person of second reference which was not the subject of a 3rd person sentence, or was not the same as the 3rd person of first reference in a sentence with 1 or 2 person subject." An example is given: " melinyes (or melin sé) apa la hé (or lanye hé) 'I love him but not him (the other, etc.)'"
In a text from 1968 or later, Tolkien used hye for this (meaning "other person", but "also used as a 3rd person entering account [who is] not subject of the original verb"), which Wynne notes is probably related to hya "or", noting the stem khy- "other" and some CE and Quenya derivatives. Tolkien gives an example of hye usage, with "A struck B, and B fled" = "he struck him and he fled", where A = sé and B = hye.
Александр Запрягаев Jun 07, 2015 (15:57)
+Remi Korben All of this actually leads to a question whether Sindarin pronouns are inflected for dative at all; for there are definite attested uses for oblique forms in dative meanings, not only le, but den as well, if we are to take it as 3rd person, but only fossilized ammen and enni for actual dative. Is it possible these are the only two forms employed by Sindarin, and others are rendered by accusative?
Matt Dinse Jun 07, 2015 (16:11)
As for han and sa, we also have sana wende from the 1955 version of Nieninqe - but you're probably already aware of that.
Александр Запрягаев Jun 07, 2015 (17:24)
+Remi Korben Also, there is another thing that's been bothering me recently: ai in the same prayer was first written as ayath. Might indicate a sort of class-plural, hence pointing to this word as the actual subject of gerir úgerth — and reminding once too well about aen in KL, possibly being a conceptual follower of it (form change reflecting two incompatible fractions)! This way, David Salo's speculations of an indefinite 'ones, they' are backed, gohenam di ai gerir úgerth being nothing more that 'we forgive ones doing misdeeds', with possible ai < ae + i(n) relative contraction and di is once again better interpreted as a postfix for over-loaded *go-díhenam (though I cannot exclude the other possibilities; the actual sheet of paper is too overcrowded with jottings to make sense of which forms are actually abandoned; maybe, di is a Tolkien's reminder to himself, 'consider dihenam for gohenam', and nothing else).
For my original proposal there is one more backup: dîn in same KL which is used in far-demonstrative connotation, 'his (of one far from speaker)'; a possible opposition for 'his/hers (close)' could well be *hîn, though it inevitably clashes with 'this' is plural.
Remy Corbin Jun 07, 2015 (20:08)
Remy Corbin Jun 07, 2015 (20:36)
And still in the matter of pronouns: could 'enni' be the only Dative for 1 prs. sg., there being 'ni', and 'im, în, anim' be the general reflexive pronouns for any person, like Q 'immo', wouldn't it evolve to 'im'?
Александр Запрягаев Jun 07, 2015 (20:45)
We are explicitly given the paradigm of emphatic pronouns im/ech/est (e) for 1st/2nd/3rd persons; im is, furthermore, from imbe. I guess, it's fair to conclude that anim/anech/anest are reflexive ones, that is, 'for myself', etc. Enni couldn't be the only for a simple reason we know ammen as well, and it is clearly glossed 'to us', and us alone, in all contexts. One may wonder, why not annin then?
în is reflexive 'one's own' (Russian свой), that's clear from the context, where it's counterposed to dîn.
Remy Corbin Jun 07, 2015 (20:54)
Александр Запрягаев Jun 07, 2015 (21:47)
Remy Corbin Jun 07, 2015 (22:16)
Matt Dinse Jun 08, 2015 (04:10)
nit might be *angen.tyeis fromkye(√ki), and Sindarin-gwould also be from-kor-kj(since IIRC primitive kj became c in Sindarin_). We have gi attested, and gen in lammegen (compare lammenin).Alternately, I'm not sure if the mutation in *achen would be more appropriate than *angen - someone else will have to comment on that.
+Александр Запрягаев , we do actually have ónen an >> ōn anim >> ōn annin in PE17:147. So maybe it could be possible to have coexisting enni, annin, anim and *engi, angen, anech (or *echi, achen, anech? I don't know).
Tamas Ferencz Jun 08, 2015 (08:56)
BTW, going back to the original question: prefixes moving away from their verbs is a standard feature of Hungarian, so I don't find the idea outlandish, but as +Александр Запрягаев says we could also very well have two versions of the same verb with slightly different meaning.