Syntax

• Article
• Modality

Article

Use of the Article

To explain various asymmetries with regard to the (non-)use of definite article in Quenya as compared to English, we will exploit the distinction of semantic and pragmatic uniqueness as originally introduced by Löbner¹ and some generalizations made by Ortmann² and Schwarz³ over weak-strong article splits encountered in many languages.

Nominal Concept Types

In his theory Löbner proposes a lexical distinction of noun types in how they classify the universe:

Lexical units have their default combination [±U][±R], but virtually each of them can undergo a type shift into any other combination:

Nouns which interpretation coincides with their lexical combination are then called nouns of this type, and which interpretation diverges from that combination are then called concepts of this type. The four possible types are then called: 

The terminology distinguishes the noun's underlying type (eg. functional noun, FN) from its actual use (eg. functional concept, FC).

Semantic vs Pragmatic Uniqueness

It is crucial then to distinguish between individual and functional nouns on one hand which are lexically unique, and concepts which uniqueness results from the context (linguistic or extra-linguistic). In his work Ortmann claims that this distinction results in the fundamental split of the article use: concepts are marked in a more explicit way. It's especially easy to obseve such tendency in languages which show two types of definite articles — weak and strong — like German.

The matter is not only complicated by the fact that articles tend to invade into other categories⁴, but also by fuzzy cases which could be analyzed either as semantic or pragmatic. The latter especially results in the article variation in closely related languages.

Strong Article in Quenya

The first major difference we can point between Quenya and English is the (non-)use of the article with unique nouns, where it is logically redundant:

However, it occurs with unique concepts to mark the incongruence:

Many languages diverge here from the Ortmann's statement where Quenya adheres to it: they use the weak (semantic) article in the immediate use IC like in the sentence above. Schwarz shows that the weak article is used without anaphoricity. The immediate use IC is pragmatic but non-anaphoric. Löbner's and Ortmann's uniqueness scale avoids to include immediate use IC altogether.

The Threshold of Semantic and Pragmatic Uniqueness

Some corner cases which don't clearly belong either to semantic or pragmatic uniqueness are:

Non-Lexical Functional Concepts

Non-lexical FC is a concept where semantic uniqueness comes about by syntactic structure and semantic composition rather than by the lexical meaning of the head noun. In particular, these are nouns combined with ordinal numbers, and with superlative forms of attributive adjectives. In these cases uniqueness is achieved by the lexical meaning of the modifier.

Complex FC in Quenya

Quenya superlative adjectives do not take the article⁵, and  neither do the determining adjectives like last, next, only:

To the same list of adjectives belongs same, yet Tolkien gives an example i imya “the same”. [PE23/134]

 While no canonical example of ordinal number with a noun exists, they belong to the same category, and it is expected to observe a lack of the article with them too.

Bridging

Bridging or ‘definite associative anaphora’ (DAA) describes a noun, typically a functional noun, which is uniquely defined by its relation to a previously mentioned noun:

Based on the world knowledge, the hearer knows that at a wedding, there should be one and only one bride, a room has only one ceiling and a car needs a motor. DAAs combine properties of pragmatic uniqueness (by virtue of anaphoricity) and semantic uniqueness (by virtue of involving a FN). It is therefore natural for there to be considerable variation in the use of articles.

DAA in Quenya

Tolkien himself explains the use of the article with DAA on at least one occasion, — i falmalinnar:

The waves are implied in ilye tier: […]  Those routes had naturally been over the waves. [PE23/134]

There's no other canonical example of DAA in the current corpus of Quenya, but two sentences are close approximations to such:

The first example Eru → the children is a 'relational anaphora', and the second example one → the left hand is 'part-whole' DAA. Even though Schwarz and Ortmann discuss how part-whole and maker-product DAAs differ in their semantic-pragmatic dichotomy in some languages, the examples above show that in Quenya any DAA is marked by the article.

Autophoric Nouns

Autophoric nouns establish their unique reference by a restrictive relative clause. Context-dependency affects the weak-strong article choice, but it seems Quenya in general requires an article uniformly (even when the relative clause is reduced) unless superceded by another determiner:

In a bit confused way, to this list can also belong this line from Namárie:

This is how Tolkien explains the use of i eleni:

Thus in Galadriel’s lament it is said tintilar i eleni: that is, those stars that adorned or shone through the transparent roofs of the Domes of Varda, which were not all the visible stars, nor in fact the actual stars of the firmament of the outer world. [PE23/133]

Or, in other words, stars → that tremble in the vaults of Varda: even though the noun itself is not syntactically autophoric, it is implicitly. 

Quenya as a Split I System

The simplified scale of uniqueness suggested by Löbner and Ortmann:

deictic SN < anaphoric SN < autophoric SN < DAA < non-lexical IC, FC < IN, FN < proper names

where the cut-off position for the article use varies from language to language:

Footnotes

1: Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326, 1985

2: Frames and Concept Types: 293-321, 2014

3: Two Types of Definites in Natural Language, Florian Schwarz, 2009

4: as in Greek, where the article is used even with names

5: PE17/91

Modality

Propositional modality

Epistemic modality is concerned with the speaker's attitude towards whether the proposition is true. There are three types which are common in languages:

There is then two-way distinction between:

In many languages one of these contrasts is either the only one present in the system or the more important one.

Some languages have ways to indicate that the judgement is either weaker or stronger. English, for instance, uses the past tense forms of the modals. These express a lower degree of commitment.

Propositional modality in Quenya

Quenya possesses epistemical possibility-necessity contrast with further differentiation in strength. There is no evidence for inference contrast, and it's assumed that either deductive and/or assumptive would be translated as unmarked future.

Speculative

Tolkien provided several contradicting paradigms for uncertain statements:

Note that modal particle should directly precede the verb (PE22/97). Otherwise it is interpreted as a conjunction if:

cé 'may' in PE22/154 (21-1969), PE22/158 (22-1969); 'if' in AS (08-1969)

(Also see on Optative)

Deductive & Assumptive

No examples of deductive exists. No clear example of assumptive exists, but we can make an educated guess.

It may be added that even languages that have future tenses that are not formally modal, but belong within the inflectional system, often use these tenses for similar purposes. They are used in an assumptive sense, like English will, in, e.g., French and Italian (cf French ça sera le facteur 'that'll be the postman')

Event modality

Event modality refers to events which have not taken place yet. The distinction is drawn between conditioning factors, which are:

Deontic

Similarly to epistemic modality, deontic modality distinguishes between:

Additionally we can consider commissive, where speaker commits themself to do something. In English it is signalled by the modal verb shall. "You shall not pass!" — where Gandalf commits himself to ensuring that the balrog will not pass the bridge — is a canonic example of commissive.

Just as with epistemic modals, the force of the judgements can be weakened:

Deontic modality in Quenya

Tolkien did not explicitly talk about permission and obligation in Quenya, but we have a few words which might fit the slot.

Dynamic

Dynamic modality expresses the ability and willigness (in English done with can and will respectively). In many languages there is no formal distinction between permission and ability. In English, however, the distinction is in that may is not used to indicate ability.

Dynamic modality in Quenya

Abilitive is expressed in Quenya with lexical verbs:

Volitive is only attested in negative constructions:

Imperative

Most languages have a specific form that can be identified as Imperative. In languages such as English, where the modal systems are marked by modal verbs, the imperative is quite independent of them. But notionally, imperative is closely associated with deontic modals.

Unlike in English, in Quenya Imperative is a part of its modality system, expressed by an optional particle á.

[To Do] Add description of gradation

Optative

The subjunctive is frequently used for wishes and fears:

The more correct term applicable to Quenya would be desiderative and timitive. We have examples of two constructions:

The distinction then can be reminiscent of cé being used as an epistemic particle before the verb, or conjunction if initially.

Note that the use of nai as a desirative marker was already present in Early Qenya (PE14/59), where nai was also the weak marker of epistemic possibility. In this sense the Early Qenya was very similar to the subjunctive use in European languages in this context.

Purposive

Clauses that express purpose are marked with a conjunction plus the subjunctive in Latin and Classical Greek, and similarly in Spanish and Italian:

We have one purposive sentence in Quenya:

which potentially can use (defunct) subjunctive.

Unreality

In a large number of languages a clear distinction can be made between real and unreal conditions. In some languages this is marked with the tense alone, in others by a combination of tense and mood. Similarly to the discussion on epistemic and deontic modality, the 'modal-past' weakens the supposition, stating the condition less likely to occur.

Conditions that predict, in terms of cause and effect, the occurence of one event on condition of another, always require a modal verb in apodosis (both real and unreal):

Non-predictive conditionals such as If John came, Mary left, which merely indicate that if the protasis is true, so is the apodosis, without necessarily implying that there is a cause and effect, have no restrictions on the tense and modality of such sentences.

In Quenya

PE22/120 system is a verbatim carry-over from Latin system:

Compare Latin schema:

with Quenya:

The difference between aiqe + Past, enai + Past vs auve + Past, au + Past might be as in:

with the 1st, there is an implication that I had the ability and merely needed help to fulfill it, but with the second it is clear that I did not have the ability, but would have had it if (impossibly) I had been older.

PE22/138 had differences (que > quí > íte in pencil):

PE22/158 was discarded: