G+ LoME Archive
May 15, 2017 (04:04)
“Ilya ré *Emillere,” quente harunya hantien verirya, haruninya, onnattain quain, er ion emilinya.
‘“Every day (is) Mother’s Day,” said (habitually) my grandfather to thank his wife, my grandmother, for their ten children, one of whom (is) my mother.’
for consistency with specifically attested
from early Qenya for ‘grandfather’, ‘grandmother’ for lack of later words
I have interpreted
‘to thank’ as having the person thanked as direct (accusative) object and used a dative object to express the reason for the thanks based on the PE22 page 163 discussion of the verbal root HAN and Eldamo’s possibly connecting it with
May 15, 2017 (09:27)
PE22 also gives examples for the use of past imperfect as a consuetudinal (habitual) past, e.g.
"used to do/make", so you might go for
May 15, 2017 (13:18)
Thanks. I forgot about that material when rendering this; I must be a bit rusty. Is that past imperfect using the older imperfect participle still valid in the later language or should a construct like
be used? I'm also assuming that the past continuous
doesn't necessarily have the habitual connotation.
May 17, 2017 (09:09)
that is indeed a dilemma not easy (for me) to resolve; for if we chuck out
do we also chuck out other contemporary forms of the paradigm, like
etc.? I am unwilling to do that as they bring a welcome expansion of possibilities. I am not saying they are absolutely
(languages can function perfectly well with just the three basic tenses after all), but they add diversity, and an "ancient" flavour to the language.
I am now leaning towards the idea that I (i.e. in my idiolect) keep the
in their consuetudinal "used to" sense; otherwise the active participle would be in its
form everywhere. After all, Tolkien's reason for chucking out the
ending was its clash with the possessive pronominal suffix - there is no danger of that in the
May 18, 2017 (00:21)
This does seem like a fertile general discussion topic. I, too, like the plethora of forms based on a few core building blocks for specificity, expressiveness/variety, "completeness"/naturality (lack of excessive "artificial" restrictions within the low-level linguistic framework), and taste. Your ideolectical idea sounds quite sensible in a tricky situation. I think that preserving or at least permitting most such "natural" forms when they don't clash problematically with later structures is generally desirable, as is updating when sensible as with the participle. Hopefully there are ways to retain language consistency and elegance during such processes.