# Article

<p class="callout warning">Needs to be revised with new information from PE23!</p>

To explain various asymmetries with regard to the (non-)use of definite articles in Quenya as compared to English, we will exploit the distinction of semantic and pragmatic uniqueness as originally introduced by Löbner<span style="color: rgb(186, 55, 42);"><sup>1</sup></span> and some generalizations made by Ortmann<sup><span style="color: rgb(186, 55, 42);">2</span></sup> and Schwarz<sup><span style="color: rgb(186, 55, 42);">3</span></sup> 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:

<div class="split-container" id="bkmrk-%5B-r%5D-nouns-point-to-"><div class="column preview-pane"><div><div class="content markdown-body">- \[-R\] nouns point to a member of a class: *rock, architect, chair*;
- \[+R\] nouns require a \[-R\] noun to bound them to the scene: *wheel, sister, head*;
- \[-U\] nouns might have several instances within the same scene: *tree, brother, minister*;
- \[+U\] nouns pick out a unique memeber within the scene: *Peter, weather, father*.

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

<div class="split-container" id="bkmrk-%5B-u%5D-%E2%86%92-%5B%2Bu%5D%3A%C2%A0a-rock%C2%A0"><div class="column preview-pane"><div><div class="content markdown-body">- \[-U\] → \[+U\]: *a rock* → *the rock*;
- \[+U\] → \[-U\]: *the mother of a child* → *a late mother*;
- \[-R\] → \[+R\]: *a book* → *my book*;
- \[+R\] → \[-R\]: *the king of Spain* → *a king*.

</div></div></div></div>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:

<div class="split-container" id="bkmrk-%C2%A0-%5B-u%5D-%5B%2Bu%5D-%5B-r%5D-sor"><div class="column preview-pane"><div><div class="content markdown-body"><table><tbody><tr><th> </th><th>\[-U\]</th><th>\[+U\]</th></tr><tr><th>\[-R\]</th><td>sortal</td><td>individual</td></tr><tr><th>\[+R\]</th><td>relational</td><td>functional</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div></div></div></div><p class="callout info">The terminology distinguishes the noun's *underlying type* (eg. *functional noun*, FN) from its *actual use* (eg. *functional concept*, FC).</p>

## 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 categories<sup><span style="color: rgb(186, 55, 42);">4</span></sup>, 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:

<div class="split-container" id="bkmrk-type-quenya-english-"><div class="column preview-pane"><div><div class="content markdown-body"><table><thead><tr><th>type</th><th>Quenya</th><th>English</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>SN</td><td>antanen **hatal**</td><td>I cast **a spear**</td></tr><tr><td>RN</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>IN</td><td>**anar** caluva</td><td>**the sun** shall shine</td></tr><tr><td>FN</td><td>**lambe** Eldaiva</td><td>**the language** of the Eldar</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div></div></div></div>However, it occurs with unique concepts to mark the incongruence:

<div class="split-container" id="bkmrk-type-quenya-english--1"><div class="column preview-pane"><div><div class="content markdown-body"><table><thead><tr><th>type</th><th>Quenya</th><th>English</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>IC</td><td>á sac' **i fendë**</td><td>close **the door**</td></tr><tr><td>FC</td><td>**i yávë** mónalyo</td><td>**the fruit** of thy womb</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div></div></div></div><p class="callout info">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.</p>

## The Threshold of Semantic and Pragmatic Uniqueness

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

<div class="split-container" id="bkmrk-bridging%3A-%22john-boug"><div class="column preview-pane"><div><div class="content markdown-body">- Bridging: "John bought *a book* today. **The author** is French".
- Autophoric nouns: "He bought **the car** *that was shown on TV*".
- Non-lexical FC: "**The highest** *mountain*".

</div></div></div></div>### 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 article<sup><span style="color: rgb(186, 55, 42);">5</span></sup>, and neither do the determining adjectives like *last, next, only, same*:

<div class="split-container" id="bkmrk-m%C3%A9tima-hrestallo-c%C3%ADr"><div class="column preview-pane"><div><div class="content markdown-body">- *métima hrestallo círa* \[MC/221\] "leave the last shore"

</div></div></div></div>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:

<div class="split-container" id="bkmrk-i-looked-into%C2%A0the-ro"><div class="column preview-pane"><div><div class="content markdown-body">- I looked into *the room*. **The ceiling** was very high
- *My new car* needed repairing, **the motor** was broken
- I've just been to *a wedding*. **The bride** wore blue.

</div></div></div></div>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

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

<div class="split-container" id="bkmrk-alcar-mi-tarmenel-na"><div class="column preview-pane"><div><div class="content markdown-body">- *alcar mi Tarmenel na Erun ar mi cemen rainë i hínin* \[VT44/32\]. "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will toward men". 'The children' is definite in the reference to Eru.
- *an cé mo quernë cendelë númenna, i hyarma tentanë Melcorello* \[VT49/6-8\]. "For if one turned the face westward, the left hand pointed away from Melkor". 'The left hand' is definite in the reference to *one*.

</div></div></div></div><p class="callout info">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.</p>

### 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:

<div class="split-container" id="bkmrk-%C3%81taremma-i-ea-han-ea"><div class="column preview-pane"><div><div class="content markdown-body">- *Átaremma i ea han Ea* \[VT43/12\] "our Father who art in Heaven"
- *manar i·ennor i me·kenner* \[MQ: PE22/124\] "who are the persons that we saw?"
- *caita mornie i falmalinnar imbe met* \[RGEO/58\] "darkness lies on the foaming waves between us"

</div></div></div></div>## Quenya as a Split I System

The simplified scale of uniqueness suggested by Löbner and Ortmann:

*deictic SN* &lt; *anaphoric SN* &lt; *autophoric SN* &lt; *DAA* &lt; *non-lexical IC, FC* &lt; *IN, FN* &lt; *proper names*

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

<div class="split-container" id="bkmrk-english%3A%C2%A0deictic-sn%C2%A0"><div class="column preview-pane"><div><div class="content markdown-body">- English: *deictic SN* &lt; \[*anaphoric SN* &lt; *autophoric SN* &lt; *DAA* &lt; *non-lexical IC, FC* &lt; *IN, FN*\] &lt; *proper names*
- Quenya: *deictic SN* &lt; \[*anaphoric SN* &lt; *autophoric SN* &lt; *DAA*\] &lt; *non-lexical IC, FC* &lt; *IN, FN* &lt; *proper names*

</div></div></div></div>### Data

<div class="split-container" id="bkmrk-sentence-gloss-type-"><div class="column preview-pane"><div><div class="content markdown-body"><table><thead><tr><th>sentence</th><th>gloss</th><th>type</th><th>prediction</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>lassi lantar **súrinen**</td><td>the leaves fall in **the wind**</td><td>IN</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>utúlie'**n aure**</td><td>**the day** has come</td><td>SN → IC (IU)</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>a laita **tárienna**</td><td>praise to **the height**</td><td>FN → IC (DR)</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>**alcar** Oromeo</td><td>**the splendour** of Oromë</td><td>FN</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>**anar** caluva</td><td>**the sun** shall shine</td><td>IN</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>**Andúne** pella</td><td>beyond **the West**</td><td>IN</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>**i yáve** mónalyo Yésus</td><td>**the fruit** of thy womb Jesus</td><td>RN → FN (CA)</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>**súle** Manweo etsurinye</td><td>**the spirit** of Manwe went out</td><td>FN</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>á sac' **i fende**</td><td>close **the door**</td><td>RN → IC (IU)</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>auta **i lóme**</td><td>**the night** is passing</td><td>SN → IC (IU)</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>caitas lá **i sír**</td><td>it is beyond **the river**</td><td>SN → IC (IU)</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>**cále** fifírula</td><td>**the light** fading</td><td>IN</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>TBD</td><td>TBD</td><td>TBD</td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table>

---

</div></div></div></div>##### 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](https://florianschwarz.net/FSDiss/FS-Diss_gradschoolformat.pdf), Florian Schwarz, 2009

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

5: PE17/91

<div class="split-container" id="bkmrk-"><div class="column preview-pane" id="bkmrk--1"><div id="bkmrk--2"><div class="content markdown-body" id="bkmrk--3"></div></div></div></div>