Post Fby2Z1bfjT1

Tamas Ferencz Feb 16, 2017 (23:25)

Guys, I would like to pick your brains on two bits in LVS7 in PE22.
1) on p154 there is this quite generic statement "... The particular infin. with - Italian differing in use from the preceding mainly in being able to receive pronominal object affixes". Now I know that Tolkien goes on to give us only examples with kar-, and it has been long the assumption in the community (as far as I know) that the ita forms only appear with primitive verbs, I think that from Tolkien's later assertion that the vowel i is carried through in participal forms of ta/ya/t/y verbs we can infer that the same is true for ita, and forms like tultaitas "to fetch it", istaitas "to know it" would occur. Would you agree?
2} on the following page there is this baffling sentence : "the verbal participles (capable like the definite infin ita of taking pronominal affixes) in ila."
I am having a hard time imagining a situation where a word like karila would take a pronominal affix, either objective or possessive. Can you think of some sample sentences? Unless the participles can start functioning as nouns (like in Hungarian for example) in which case a possessive ending is imaginable.

Александр Запрягаев Feb 17, 2017 (08:18)

1) Though the historical derivation (cf. Noldorin/Sindarin gerunds in -ad) implies something like antata etc., the way you describe is exactly what I postulate. I would ortita for half-strong, ortaita for causative, taltita (or rather taltíta?) for TALAT stems etc.
2) I don't see any problem here at all (with objectives). It is, after all, a concise way to express subordinates. 'The Elda who did it will be sent away,' Elda káriélas nai aumentar and such. And, of course, in substantivisation. And why not possesives? 'One who owns it,' mo harilas.

Tamas Ferencz Feb 17, 2017 (09:07)

+Александр Запрягаев right. I must have had a brain fog (sanar híse) yesterday that these did not occur to me. Thank you

Александр Запрягаев Feb 17, 2017 (09:14)

+Tamas Ferencz One more quirk I think shoud realize in ita endings (as inspired by QVS): I assume they should agree with the number of (expressed or implied) subject. As following:

'I wish to do it' merinye karitas,
'We two wish to do it' merimme karistas,
'We wish to do it' merilme kariltas.

Same with ortita/ortista/ortilta, TALAT taltita/taltista/taltitta, caus. ortaita/ortasta/ortalta.

Tamas Ferencz Feb 17, 2017 (09:19)

+Александр Запрягаев from what do you derive this assumption?

Александр Запрягаев Feb 17, 2017 (09:20)

I think this is the only way to update the examples of PE22:118 etc. to ita forms.

Andre Polykanine Feb 28, 2017 (00:28)

+Александр Запрягаев I thought ita was a non-changeable (particle? suffix?) So, am I wrong and is it really conjugated like this?

Tamas Ferencz Feb 28, 2017 (09:50)

+Andre Polykanine there some examples in PE22 that suggest that they may be declined for number; mind you, this was from the era of pronominal prefixes, and we don't have evidence that the idea carried through to later stages, but it is possible.

Александр Запрягаев Feb 28, 2017 (09:52)

+Andre Polykanine When Tolkien has not yet conceived ita and applied objectives right to the stem, he definitely and consistently made them agree with the number of the expressed or implied subject. No reason to assume otherwise later, as Eldarin verbs always agree in number with their subjects in any other situation.