Re: Quenya phrase (was Re: RV: Translations [Conlang T Shirt])
|Date:||Friday, November 5, 1999, 22:36|
Brook Conner <nellardo@...> wrote:
> Why does the "lambelya" move between "nai" and "maruva"? I was under
> the impression that Quenya, while generally being SVO, was rather
> flexible about word order.
Well, then why not?
> Further, I still am not satisfied with "sinome" not being declined.
> It's a noun, not a pronoun - "here" doesn't need an antecedent. It is
> specifying the location of the action named by the verb. If we
> replaced "sinome" with "Ro'men" - the East, a location - what would
I fail to understand your point. _Sinome_ is an adverb! If you
actually want to say 'in this place', you say _sina nomesse_
(or whatever word for 'place' in the locative case). But 'here'
is already locative. I guess that ablative and allative case
still do have to be marked, _sinomello_ and _sinomenna_, but
I'm sure *_sinomesse_ is redundant. Even without possessing
all published material, I'd bet anything against the possibility
that it's attested somewhere; while OTOH we *have* an attested
example of undeclined _sinome_ which you have worked into a
weird vocative... In King Elessar's words,
I don't see any comma, or exclamation point, or the vocative
particle _=E1_, or anything that could indicate it's a vocative.
> The example from King Elessar, either it's a vocative phrase: "Here!"
> or it's the direct object, in which case others have indicated it may
> not be declined simply because the DO was not always declined to the
In Book Quenya (older literary form) the accusative was marked,
lengthening the last vowel in the singular, and changing the
normal plural -(vowel)r to -(vowel)i, as H. Fauskanger explains.
In spoken Quenya, accusative wasn't marked at all. I ask you again,
what is _sinome_ supposed to be DO of? _Sinome maruvan_ is, for all
we know, an intransitive phrase, 'Here I will dwell', not a transitive
one 'This place I will inhabit' or something of the sort.