Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Languages » Quenya Discussion » two questions about pronouns
Author Topic:
Lex
Council Member
Posts: 131
Send Message
Avatar
Post two questions about pronouns
on: July 27, 2007 12:23
We have the phrase yonya inyë tyë-méla "i, too, love you, my son", where tyë is evidently the object pronoun for "you" (though it is placed before the verb, and with hiphen).

Since we have the endings -nyë for -n "i", -lyë for -l "you" (sing. and plural, formal), could *-tyë be a possible long form of -t "you" (sing, not formal)? Ex: melityes "you love her/him".


Another question:
All pronominal endings are used as both subject and object, except for -ntë "they", which is subject only, and -t, -tat (this one used with the infinitive) "them", which are object only.
Well, when used as objects, they are actually direct objects, or can be either direct or indirect?
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: two questions about pronouns
on: July 28, 2007 12:44
could *-tyë be a possible long form of -t "you" (sing, not formal)?


It is clearly attested as such in VT49:16, however the same table does *not* contain a short variant -t for 2nd person sg (that is mentioned in a different source).

All pronominal endings are used as both subject and object, except for -ntë "they", which is subject only, and -t, -tat (this one used with the infinitive) "them", which are object only.


I don't understand what you write. Long pronominal endings are to my knowledge never seen in an object role. Some of the endings have short variants, those are sometimes seen in the role of the direct object. -ta- is part of the infinitive-gerund ending, it is not part of a pronominal ending. I don't know where *=tat as such would be attested. Tolkien's late idea seems to be that -t is a dual ending,the short form of -twa, not specifically an object ending (VT49:16).
Lambengolmo
Council Member
Posts: 239
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: two questions about pronouns
on: July 28, 2007 11:03
You should not use a pronominal ending for indirect objects.
Lex
Council Member
Posts: 131
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: two questions about pronouns
on: July 28, 2007 11:57
Yes, i guess my question was not that clear, though a part of it you managed to answer.

Well, pronominal endings and independent pronouns can be either in a subject role or in a (direct) object role.

melinyel or melin le "i love you (as a friend)" (aorist)
mahtuvaryet or mahtuvas ce "he will fight you" (future tense)
mératyes or mérat ta "you want it" (present tense)

But can pronominal endings and independent pronouns be in a indirect object role as well?

lindaneryen or lindanes nye "she sang to me" (past tense)

i believe not... to express an indirect object, i think i have to use some case ending or perhaps a preposition, but i am not sure if this is mandatory.


i have new questions now:

Is there any short form of -ntë "they" (subject and object)? if so, i believe it is -t...

Is there any short form of -lvë / -lmë / -mmë?

The workbook says that in a simple construction (i read it: without an object) the short form of the pronominal endings are more often used. Does that mean i can use the long form if i think it would sound better in a sentence?

hláran or hláranyë "i am hearing"
polin quetë or polinyë quettë "i can speak"
melinyë le "i love you"

And last, is it possible to make a sentence with a plural subject (or more than one subject) separate from the verb and a pronominal ending as an object glued to the verb? Ex:

The orcs will fight you


EDIT: Lambengolmo posted before me ... and i added one question

[Edited on 28/7/2007 by Lex]
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: two questions about pronouns
on: July 28, 2007 10:10
In VT49:16 we now have a complete table of pronominal verb endings by Tolkien. This table does not agree with all the forms you find in the local workbook. Neither does it agree with material written previously by Tolkien. So there is not a unique answer to your question, they can only be addressed in comparison with a specific paradigm.

Is there any short form of -ntë "they" (subject and object)? if so, i believe it is -t...


-nte doesn't exist in VT49:16, the 3rd pl. is -lte and has no short form.

Is there any short form of -lvë / -lmë / -mmë?


VT49:16 has th 4th form -ngwe in dual, none of the forms have a short variant.

The workbook says that in a simple construction (i read it: without an object) the short form of the pronominal endings are more often used.


Only two forms in VT49:16 have variants at all - that is -nye/-n and -lye/-l. -tye exists without a variant **-t in the table, -s without a long **-rye.

As to what Tolkien's intentions are - clearly a form hiruvalye is attested (being part of LOTR, it had become fixed, so it must agree with any subsequent paradigm) - given the state of the attested material, I can't say what is 'more often used'.

And last, is it possible to make a sentence with a plural subject (or more than one subject) separate from the verb and a pronominal ending as an object glued to the verb?


There is an attested example of such a construction in the Ataremma.
Lex
Council Member
Posts: 131
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: two questions about pronouns
on: July 29, 2007 05:39
-nte doesn't exist in VT49:16, the 3rd pl. is -lte and has no short form.
But -ntë and it's short form -t are valid pronouns aren't they? At least -ntë is attested in Cirion's Oath: "Nai tiruvantes.....".
which are the translations for -ltë? "He, she, it" or just "he, she"?

VT49:16 has th 4th form -ngwe in dual, none of the forms have a short variant.
-mmë is a dual pronoun as well. So now we have two dual pronouns... But we don't know if -mmë is inclusive, exclusive or both.. How about -ngwë?

-tye exists without a variant **-t in the table, -s without a long **-rye.
So, that means there is no *-t (for either -ntë or -tyë) nor *-ryë (for -s).... But could *-t and *-ryë be used as possible pronouns (*-t for either -ntë or -tyë, and *-ryë for -s)?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And last, is it possible to make a sentence with a plural subject (or more than one subject) separate from the verb and a pronominal ending as an object glued to the verb?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There is an attested example of such a construction in the Ataremma. Forgive my ignorance, i don't know what is the Ataremma.
What is that example?

If i say "the orc will fight you", it wold be in quenya: i orco mahtuval (or ?mahtuvat -> *-t as a short form of -tyë)".
But if i say "the orcs will fight you" i don't know what to do to make the verb plural (i don't know where in the verb i put the plural -r, nor even if -r is to be used here...)

Helge Fauskanger's course mentions that, according to VT43: 36, (a form of) quenya has the pronoun -llë (second person plural), which would share -lyë the short form -l. Helge says those who want a pronoun specifically for the second person plural may use -llë (because we don not know if -lyë is singular or singular and plural, though we may well use it for plural too).
Does that table in VT49: 16 include -llë? Could i use -llë or not?


I don't have access to VT. I know, i must buy it, but i don't know if the articles are written for people who study linguistics or "common" people like me. Is there a place on the web where i could get the table for free (though i strongly believe there is not)?
I think i will have to wait for some quenya course around to be updated
thorsten
Council Member
Posts: 271
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: two questions about pronouns
on: July 29, 2007 07:41
But -ntë and it's short form -t are valid pronouns aren't they?


What do you mean by 'valid'? Cirion's oath wasn't published by JRRT himself, so as far as he was concerned, that was just a draft version, as the table of pronouns published in VT49:16 was just a draft. Neither had any finality in Tolkien's mind.

-t is a different matter - that occurs in lautuvalmet in LOTR - but Tolkien was still free to change the precise meaning - in VT49:16 it occurs as 3rd person dual 'the pair of them', not as a variant of -nte.

There are by now a lot of pronominal tables available for Quenya, but they contradict each other. What form is valid and what not becomes a question of choice, not an absolute question.

which are the translations for -ltë? "He, she, it" or just "he, she"?


'they'

But we don't know if -mmë is inclusive, exclusive or both.. How about -ngwë?


From the notation it seems -mme is exclusive and -ngwe inclusive.

But could *-t and *-ryë be used as possible pronouns (*-t for either -ntë or -tyë, and *-ryë for -s)?


You can use anything you like - the fact is, in this table Tolkien didn't.

What is that example?


siv' emme apsenet tien 'as we forgive them [the sins] those [the sinners]' Note that the use of -t here is not compatible with VT49:16.

But if i say "the orcs will fight you" i don't know what to do to make the verb plural (i don't know where in the verb i put the plural -r, nor even if -r is to be used here...)


Quite obviously, Tolkien's idea was then that in most cases the object would be an independent pronoun, not a verb ending. So i orcor mahtuvar lye(nna) would seem fine.

Is there a place on the web where i could get the table for free (though i strongly believe there is not)?


As of now, I don't think so. It will in due time become part of the discussion of my article on Quenya pronouns
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email