G+ LoME Archive
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
of taking pronominal affixes) in
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.
Feb 17, 2017 (08:18)
1) Though the historical derivation (cf. Noldorin/Sindarin gerunds in
) implies something like
etc., the way you describe is exactly what I postulate. I would
?) 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,'
Feb 17, 2017 (09:07)
right. I must have had a brain fog (sanar híse) yesterday that these did not occur to me. Thank you
Feb 17, 2017 (09:14)
One more quirk I think shoud realize in
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'
'We two wish to do it'
'We wish to do it'
Feb 17, 2017 (09:19)
from what do you derive this assumption?
Feb 17, 2017 (09:20)
I think this is the only way to update the examples of PE22:118 etc. to
Feb 28, 2017 (00:28)
was a non-changeable (particle? suffix?) So, am I wrong and is it really conjugated like this?
Feb 28, 2017 (09:50)
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.
Feb 28, 2017 (09:52)
When Tolkien has not yet conceived
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.