There are a lot of errors that I need to fix from the extremely useful stuff you guys have been pointing out in the other thread, but the hypotheses, especially the ones where I'm getting close to the edge in reconstructed grammar, those need outside criticism. I've been itching to discuss these with people and haven't really gotten a chance too.
Before you sits a duck wearing glasses, perching atop a stool to look down at you. A yardstick is taped to her wing. " Im dreamingfifi adh uin i vant dhîn. That," she says, waving a yardstick at you, ...
In Chapter 3 Lesson 2 you list phrases like aran nan ivor 'a king with a crystal' as possessives. Although the preposition nan can have a genitive meaning, I don't think phrases like the above can be called possessive, as the focus of the phrase is the possessor (aran) which the second part (nan ivor) qualifies; in this respect, it is similar to the attested Quenya structure A arwa B 'A having/possessing/characterized by B'. In this respect, I'd rather call these adjectival phrases.
Later in this chapter, you talk about adjectives not being lenited when they are predicates, and then you add (I wish we had a blockquote markup in G+):
"An exception would be when the subject of the "to be" sentence is a pronoun. You can't have an adjective directly modifying a pronoun, so there is no reason for the distinction above. The adjective indirectly modifying a pronoun always undergoes soft mutation."
Are you basing this on an attested example, or is it your theory? I find it implausible that separate rules would apply to adjectives as predicates depending whether they follow nouns or pronouns; I'd rather assume they stay unlenited in all cases.
I'm on campus at the moment, and I don't have my books with me, so I'll try to describe how I came to these conclusions as best I can without references.
In Ch3L2 I focused more on how to get the meaning of the genitive across, less on the grammatical trait itself - though I did try to explain that as well. I also described the full meaning of /nan/ as best I could, and it's included on the preposition lesson later.
Speaking of the preposition lesson, I'm planning on giving it it's own chapter, with a focus on morphemes put on nouns, adjectives, and verbs. I find what I have on it at the moment kind of rushing through it all, without giving it the proper time it needs.
Are you basing this on an attested example, or is it your theory? I find it implausible that separate rules would apply to adjectives as predicates depending whether they follow nouns or pronouns; I'd rather assume they stay unlenited in all cases.
Much of it is simple hypothesis. I get that the Adjective would be mutated after a pronoun from C'ovannen, but that may have been Tolkien making a "howdy!" phrase, and it might not count.
My reasoning that nouns and adjectives would be treated differently comes from "Lheben teil brann i annon" which is Noldorin, and also, extremely tentative, seeing as it is Noldorin, not Sindarin.
The Adh comes from PE17. Tolkien kept changing his mind, but it seems that use of "adh" came down like this: "a" with vocalic mutation before consonants, and "adh" before vowels, with "ar" being a borrowing from Quenya.
Tamas Ferencz Feb 05, 2013 (14:12)
Tamas Ferencz Feb 05, 2013 (15:40)
Tamas Ferencz Feb 05, 2013 (15:53)
"An exception would be when the subject of the "to be" sentence is a pronoun. You can't have an adjective directly modifying a pronoun, so there is no reason for the distinction above. The adjective indirectly modifying a pronoun always undergoes soft mutation."
Are you basing this on an attested example, or is it your theory? I find it implausible that separate rules would apply to adjectives as predicates depending whether they follow nouns or pronouns; I'd rather assume they stay unlenited in all cases.
Tamas Ferencz Feb 05, 2013 (16:08)
Tamas Ferencz Feb 05, 2013 (16:16)
""For", "and", and "so" can be translated with a (before consonants) and adh (before vowels)."
Where does the rule about adh come from?
I'll stop for now:)
Fiona Jallings Feb 05, 2013 (22:54)
In Ch3L2 I focused more on how to get the meaning of the genitive across, less on the grammatical trait itself - though I did try to explain that as well. I also described the full meaning of /nan/ as best I could, and it's included on the preposition lesson later.
Speaking of the preposition lesson, I'm planning on giving it it's own chapter, with a focus on morphemes put on nouns, adjectives, and verbs. I find what I have on it at the moment kind of rushing through it all, without giving it the proper time it needs.
Are you basing this on an attested example, or is it your theory? I find it implausible that separate rules would apply to adjectives as predicates depending whether they follow nouns or pronouns; I'd rather assume they stay unlenited in all cases.
Much of it is simple hypothesis. I get that the Adjective would be mutated after a pronoun from C'ovannen, but that may have been Tolkien making a "howdy!" phrase, and it might not count.
My reasoning that nouns and adjectives would be treated differently comes from "Lheben teil brann i annon" which is Noldorin, and also, extremely tentative, seeing as it is Noldorin, not Sindarin.
The Adh comes from PE17. Tolkien kept changing his mind, but it seems that use of "adh" came down like this: "a" with vocalic mutation before consonants, and "adh" before vowels, with "ar" being a borrowing from Quenya.
Thanks a bunch!
Fiona Jallings Feb 05, 2013 (22:57)