Post FM5Ct4qjafi

Lőrinczi Gábor Dec 05, 2015 (17:55)

Based on PE/17, I’ve always thought that S -g is the informal (familiar) 2nd p. sg. verbal suffix, while -dh is the formal (polite) 2nd p. sg. verbal suffix, the latter of which was replaced by -l by Quenya influence (cf. the verb linnathol in PE/22:167 and the pronoun change de, dhe >> le in PE/17:26). In the conjugation chart presented in VT/50:22, however, +Carl Hostetter considers cerig the polite form, while cerith (the precursor of ceridh, I suppose) the familiar form.

Now, what is the truth?

Ekin Gören Dec 05, 2015 (18:44)

+Fiona Jallings +Александр Запрягаев
Ni & -n 1st
Ci/gi & -g 2nd fam.
Le & -l 2nd form.
De/dhe & -dh 2nd sg. Doriath form.
Te/de & ?? 3rd [-d poss. only?]

Me/ve & -f 1st exc
Pe/be & -b inc
De/dhe & -dh 2nd plural
Ti/di? & ?? 3rd [-r verb only?]

Александр Запрягаев Dec 05, 2015 (18:51)

+Lőrinczi Gábor The concept has shifted multiply, but, as per VT49, which shows the final ideas of 1969, compatible to omentielvo, the idea is stated clearly: ki vs. de/le is familiar vs. formal distinction, and the distribution between those latter was like that: in Q. le went singular (-lye) and de plural (-lle); in Telerin de only remained: while in S. de developed into plural only, replaced by le sg. (see also linnathol in LVS) only per Quenya influence. From the known data, the pronominal picture of classical Sindarin is reconstructed with precision:

1 -n
2fam. -g
2form. -l
3 X

1excl. -f
1incl. -b
2 -dh
3 -r

However, this cannot be the case when speaking about dialects especially Doriath; based on the PE17 table, I venture for that:

1 -n
2fam. -g
2form. -dh
3 X

1excl. -vid
1incl. -bid
2 -dhid
3 -d

1excl. -f
1incl. -b
2 -dh(ir)
3 -r

Lőrinczi Gábor Dec 05, 2015 (21:44)

+Александр Запрягаев Maybe I wasn't quite clear about what exactly my problem is. :) I’m well aware that Tolkien’s ideas were ever-changing, I just don’t understand on what basis does +Carl Hostetter think that -g represented the polite 2nd p. sg. verbal suffix in the early ‘50s. He writes that "…where apparently … 2a [cerig] and 2b [cerith] are polite and familiar, respectively" in VT/50:22.

Lőrinczi Gábor Dec 05, 2015 (21:50)

+Ekin Gören May I ask from where did you get these pronouns? I'm pretty sure that most of them (e.g., ni, me, pe, etc.) are not attested.

Ekin Gören Dec 05, 2015 (22:08)

+Lőrinczi Gábor The same way Alex mentioned (see the resemblance between our replies). As for your question, I too don't understand how -g can be seen as 2nd formal...

Tamas Ferencz Dec 06, 2015 (11:03)

+Lőrinczi Gábor well he is a member here, perhaps he will clarify it himself if you tag him

Paul Strack Dec 07, 2015 (04:11)

I don't know the answer either. It could be a transient re-imagining of the primitive forms by Tolkien or a misinterpretation by Hostetter (perhaps Tolkien put the formal before the familiar contrary to his normal conventions).

Maybe, though Tolkien imagined some kind of semantic shift where the familiar became formal. English "thee" was originally familiar, but after it fell out of common use, many modern English speakers see it as formal due to its use in older texts, particularly the Bible and Shakespeare.