Myrtheos@... wrote:

>

> As the title of this mail would suggest, I am looking for the accepted way to

> express the preposition 'about...' or 'concerning...' in mature Quenya, if,

> of course, there is one. Would I go with the Genitive case ending,

> interpreting the 'of...' implied as that used in a more archaic sense in

> english (ex: 'Tell me of your journey')? Or, could I possibly use the

> 'respective' case, the use of which, I have been told, we know not? I would

> greatly appreciate any help that could be given on the matter.

  Yes, use the genitive, as in Quenta Silmarillion.

  Angasule

Myrtheos@... wrote:

>

> As the title of this mail would suggest, I am looking for the accepted way to

> express the preposition 'about...' or 'concerning...' in mature





I always (so far) have found ways of using the versatile -ION. As in the

famous: Silmarill-ION = "Of the Silmarils."





Tony Spurlock

Regnum Pictorum

http://members.xoom.com/tspurlock/

> Myrtheos@A... wrote:

> >

> > As the title of this mail would suggest, I am looking for the

accepted way to

> > express the preposition 'about...' or 'concerning...' in mature

quenya

>

>

> I always (so far) have found ways of using the versatile -ION.

As in the

> famous: Silmarill-ION = "Of the Silmarils."

>

>

> Tony Spurlock



I would just like to add some nuance to Tony's answer: The

ending _-ion_ is the genitive plural while the genitive is -o (this

can of course be found on ardalambion*). the whole expression

is

_quenta silmarillion_ "history of the silmarils"

"history of the silmaril" would be _quenta silmarilo_



* also a genitive plural. http://www.uib.no/people/hnohf



if you take a word like :_corma_, "ring", whose plural is

_cormar_, you would have _quenta cormaron_, "the history of the

rings".



Greg



p.s. Dorothea, I'm back

Tony Spurlock wrote:

>

> Myrtheos@... wrote:

> >

> > As the title of this mail would suggest, I am looking for the accepted way

to

> > express the preposition 'about...' or 'concerning...' in mature

>

> I always (so far) have found ways of using the versatile -ION. As in the

> famous: Silmarill-ION = "Of the Silmarils."

  That is the genitive case (in this case, the plural, silmarilli

'silmarils' + -on). For a good site about this go to Ardalambion, at

http://www.uin.no/people/hnohf

  Angasule

> As the title of this mail would suggest, I am looking for the accepted

way to express the preposition 'about...' or 'concerning...' in mature

Quenya, if, of course, there is one.



You can probably use the genitive case, as suggested by Tony and Angasule.

If _Quenta Silmarillion_ can be used for "the Saga of (=about, concerning)

the Silmarils", the genitive can perhaps also be used in a sentence like

_nyarnente nin i Silmarillion_, "they told me about the Silmarils".



The stem OS in Etym yields a "Noldorin"/Sindarin word meaning "about,

concerning", _o_ (becoming _oh_ before a vowel, as in _o Hedhil_ = "about

Elves" [Edhil]; this _h_ is a remnant of the original S). Perhaps we can

have *_os_ as a Quenya preposition of the same meaning ("about Elves" =

*_os Eldar_, if you don't want to use the genitive _Eldaron_).



- HF

"Helge K. Fauskanger" wrote:



> You can probably use the genitive case, as suggested by Tony and Angasule.

> If _Quenta Silmarillion_ can be used for "the Saga of (=about, concerning)

> the Silmarils", the genitive can perhaps also be used in a sentence like

> _nyarnente nin i Silmarillion_, "they told me about the Silmarils".





You know, the original poster (Myrtheos@...) gave no particular hint

of how this info is to be used. There are nuances which govern how we

pick and choose from among affixes/terms/clauses-or-phrases that "can

mean" what we need to say, seeking for that which "best means". Myrtheos

uses two examples from English - "about" and "concerning" - which CAN

share a meaning with each other and with the Quenya genitive, though

"about" = to encircle or contain and "concerning" = apprehensively

relevant to some party's condition. 'They told me OF the Silmarils' in

Quenya or English is no different than 'they told me ABOUT the

Silmarils.' The Quenya genitive affix can convey the sense "of," nearly

to the point of meaning "proceeding from," and I think Tolkien is

especially clever to adapt that sense when using -ION to signify

progeny, as the Ardalambion page says: _patronymic ending "-son"_. (It

has always seemed to me that the name of  Eonwe, originally conceived of

as the son of Manwe and Varda - and, ergo, the most glorious Son of all

- is bluntly derived from *eon = son + -we = masculine nominal; yielding

He-Son, Son-Dude or the like.)



Now, I get the impression that Myrtheos could easily have included (or

would have no objection to) the word "regarding" as another synonym

along with _about_ and _concerning_. Of course, here the sense derives

from 'to look at' or 'to look on' a subject or topic. Now, what if his

goal is to find the Quenya translation for a TITLE of something, say a

book or poem or essay. For example, suppose the title were "Thoughts on

Elves." In such a case, the genitive CAN mean what we want, but will

ALSO be meaning "thoughts OF/FROM Elves," an entirely different thing

altogether! If we leave the subject unstated - ie, remove "thoughts"

from our example above - we arrive at a very common sort of title, the

kind that often began "De re..." in Latin treatises, yielding in our

English example simply _On Elves_, a succinct and dignified title that

means about/concerning/regarding Elves.



My point? Perhaps he should look at slightly idiomatic usages to achieve

his goals, like the way we use _on_ in the phrase "On Elves."



What's Quenya for ON, anyway?





Tony Spurlock

http://members.xoom.com/tspurlock/

>> If _Quenta Silmarillion_ can be used for "the Saga of (=about, concerning)

>> the Silmarils", the genitive can perhaps also be used in a sentence like

>> _nyarnente nin i Silmarillion_, "they told me about the Silmarils".



Well, I just can't get rid of the thought that we maybe could employ the

RESPECTIVE here. Yes, we don't know etc., but is there any more probable

possibility for the respective to mean than "concerning", "about"?



Lukas

Tony Spurlock a écrit:

>

> "Helge K. Fauskanger" wrote:

>

> > You can probably use the genitive case, as suggested by Tony and Angasule.

> > If _Quenta Silmarillion_ can be used for "the Saga of (=about, concerning)

> > the Silmarils", the genitive can perhaps also be used in a sentence like

> > _nyarnente nin i Silmarillion_, "they told me about the Silmarils".

>

> You know, the original poster (Myrtheos@...) gave no particular hint

> of how this info is to be used. There are nuances which govern how we

> pick and choose from among affixes/terms/clauses-or-phrases that "can

> mean" what we need to say, seeking for that which "best means". Myrtheos

> uses two examples from English - "about" and "concerning" - which CAN

> share a meaning with each other and with the Quenya genitive, though

> "about" = to encircle or contain and "concerning" = apprehensively

> relevant to some party's condition. 'They told me OF the Silmarils' in

> Quenya or English is no different than 'they told me ABOUT the

> Silmarils.' The Quenya genitive affix can convey the sense "of," nearly

> to the point of meaning "proceeding from," and I think Tolkien is

> especially clever to adapt that sense when using -ION to signify

> progeny, as the Ardalambion page says: _patronymic ending "-son"_. (It

> has always seemed to me that the name of  Eonwe, originally conceived of

> as the son of Manwe and Varda - and, ergo, the most glorious Son of all

> - is bluntly derived from *eon = son + -we = masculine nominal; yielding

> He-Son, Son-Dude or the like.)

>

<snip>



The Q. gen.case ending _io-n_ and -ion suffx. meaning "son of" are unrelated.



The Q. -ion suffix comes from the PQ root *jon(d)-, the gen. case ending

"o(n)" comes from the PQ "preposition/posposition" *ho "from, of (partitive)".



The second pl.ending -n in -on (Silmarilli-on < Pre-Q. *Silmarilli-o) was an

Amanian innovation.



Eonwe/Fionwe is said by Tolkien to a Valarin name simply adapted to Q.

orthography.



EJK

Tony wrote



>...book or poem or essay. For example, suppose the title were "Thoughts on

>Elves." In such a case, the genitive CAN mean what we want, but will

>ALSO be meaning "thoughts OF/FROM Elves," an entirely different thing

>altogether!



Although this has very little to do with this subject, I was wondering

whether the **possessive-adjectival etc. case would not translate "thoughts

of elves", litterally "elvish thoughts/elf-type thoughts", thus leaving the

genetive meanig exclusively what we want.



Greg - still no "quendi and the eldar"

_________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.



Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.

--- Tony Spurlock <aspurloc@...> wrote:



> You know, the original poster (Myrtheos@...)

> gave no particular hint

> of how this info is to be used. There are nuances

> which govern how we

> pick and choose from among

> affixes/terms/clauses-or-phrases that "can

> mean" what we need to say, seeking for that which

> "best means".



[snipping much]



> My point? Perhaps he should look at slightly

> idiomatic usages to achieve

> his goals, like the way we use _on_ in the phrase

> "On Elves."



**We really don't have this option because 1) there

are no native speakers to ask and 2) we have so few

texts to study there aren't enough written examples to

answer these types of questions.  For this reason it

is probably best to take the simplest approach--it's

the best we can do, and at least people will have a

good chance of being able to understand each other.



**I'm not dismissing your suggestion however, since

many speakers of Quenya are non-native speakers of

English.  This shows up in how they speak Quenya

(distribution of case and prepositions, choice of verb

tenses, syntax, etc.).  The difficulty, I think, is in

being able to generalize well enough that people who

don't automatically make the same distinctions as

English speakers make can still speak and understand

the languages, which they are certainly doing anyway.

The non-native speakers often point out  these

difficulties which I think is all to the good.



**and you asked, "what's Quenya for "on"?"  But now I

have to ask you--what's the context?  If the sun is

shining on the mountain, mountain will be in the

accusative: Anar kala orotenna.  If the shoe is on the

foot, it is probably Hyapa na talesse (locative case).

  Hyapa is an old word for shoe dredged up from the QQ.

  (This is from memory, I hope I have my vocabulary

right.)



> Tony Spurlock

> http://members.xoom.com/tspurlock/





__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!

http://mail.yahoo.com/

Lukas wrote:



>Well, I just can't get rid of the thought that we maybe could employ the

>RESPECTIVE here. Yes, we don't know etc., but is there any more probable

>possibility for the respective to mean than "concerning", "about"?



It would be the most likely possibility if tolkien had himself referred to

this case as RESPECTIVE. Unfortunately he didn't even name it, which might

just as well mean that it could be vocative or any other imaginable case -

something to do with time clauses for instance. As it is, it seems to be a

shortened form of the locative...



Greg

_________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.



Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.

>It would be the most likely possibility if tolkien had himself referred to

>this case as RESPECTIVE. Unfortunately he didn't even name it, which might





Oh, sorry, I did not know it.



>just as well mean that it could be vocative or any other imaginable case -

>something to do with time clauses for instance. As it is, it seems to be a

>shortened form of the locative...





How about the suggestion of somebody whose name I have fogotten, that there be a

relation between "short" and "long" cases, such as allative-dative and

locative-respective, namely that the "short" cases would mean the same as the

long ones, but in a more abstract sense?



Lukas

> >It would be the most likely possibility if tolkien had himself referred

>to

> >this case as RESPECTIVE. Unfortunately he didn't even name it, which

>might

>

>

>Oh, sorry, I did not know it.

>

> >just as well mean that it could be vocative or any other imaginable case

>-

> >something to do with time clauses for instance. As it is, it seems to be

>a

> >shortened form of the locative...

>

>

>How about the suggestion of somebody whose name I have fogotten, that there

>be a

>relation between "short" and "long" cases, such as allative-dative and

>locative-respective, namely that the "short" cases would mean the same as

>the

>long ones, but in a more abstract sense?

>

>Lukas



I think that was Anthony Appleyards idea originally. One reason that I have

it a little difficult to believe it (tho' it's entirely possible AFAICT) is

the plurals. The "long" cases have plurals in _-r_ or _-n_, with and extra

ending AFTER the case ending, while the "short" cases pluralize by infixing

an _-i-_, ie have the plural marker BEFORE the case ending. So while _coas_

(the "respective" of _coa_ "house", meaning unknown) indeed looks alot like

a shortening of _coasse_ (the lookative of _coa_; "in/at a house"), the

plurals _coais_ and _coassen_ look quite different, certainly the former

isn't a mere shortening (with more abstract meaning or no) of the later.



                                                 Andreas



PS, all four inflected forms of _coa_ mentioned above are AFAIK attested.

_Coas_, _coasse_ and _coassen_ wouldn't be very controversial, but _coais_

contains simple vowel plus diphthong in a hiatic position, something that I

can't remember seeing in any attested Q word. Possibly it should be

simplified in some way, perhaps to _coes_; unstressed _ai_ sometimes becomes

_e_ (but not always, cf _Eldain_ "for elves" etc).

>

>

>--

>Moderator address: elfling-owner@egroups.com

>Unsub address: elfling-unsubscribe@egroups.com

>Elfling welcome/rules: http://www.terracom.net/~dorothea/elfling.html

>Elfling FAQ: http://www.terracom.net/~dorothea/elfaq.html

>List Guides: Angasule, Greg Dyke, Claude Heyman

>



_________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.



Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.

>One reason that I have

>it a little difficult to believe it (tho' it's entirely possible AFAICT) is

>the plurals. The "long" cases have plurals in _-r_ or _-n_, with and extra

>ending AFTER the case ending, while the "short" cases pluralize by infixing

>an _-i-_, ie have the plural marker BEFORE the case ending. So while _coas_

>(the "respective" of _coa_ "house", meaning unknown) indeed looks alot like

>a shortening of _coasse_ (the lookative of _coa_; "in/at a house"), the

>plurals _coais_ and _coassen_ look quite different, certainly the former

>isn't a mere shortening (with more abstract meaning or no) of the later.

>PS, all four inflected forms of _coa_ mentioned above are AFAIK attested.

>_Coas_, _coasse_ and _coassen_ wouldn't be very controversial, but _coais_



Mhm, I do not think it is such a problem. One could think of many ways how this

final state could have developed - e.g. there originally was the plural -i-

infixed in the long cases too, but it was lost before the doubled consonant.

Then, a secondary ending -n was added in order to mark the plural clearly (such

things happen in real languges quite often, and something similar has, as I

believe, happened in the case of the genitive: "aldaron" from "alda" + plural

ending "-r" + genitive "-o" + secondary plural "-n" to make the difference of

sg. and pl. more clear). Or, one may treat the endings separately, something

like attached adverbs or particles (very similar to the pronominal endings of

verbs), and suppose that there are two modifications (long-concrete and

short-abstract) of such adverbs, triggering different ways of attaching to the

stem. I think it is quite certain that the short cases aren't simple shortenings

of the long ones, but this very simple way how to explain the relation is not

the only possible, I believe.



>contains simple vowel plus diphthong in a hiatic position, something that I

>can't remember seeing in any attested Q word. Possibly it should be

>simplified in some way, perhaps to _coes_; unstressed _ai_ sometimes becomes

>_e_ (but not always, cf _Eldain_ "for elves" etc).



If developing the first of my ideas, maybe the -i- would be lost in this case as

well, and some seconday plural ending attached then - maybe a second -i, as

the -r and -n are phonologically impossible? But then, what would happen to the

intervocalic -s- ("coasi")? Would it rhotacise, or should it in fact be doubled

(supposing that it originates with the double -ss-, the doubled consonant at the

end of the word having been simplified as in "Silmaril", but "Silmarilli" - thus

"coas", but pl. "coassi")??? But maybe the -i ending was so connected with the

notion of nominative, that this could not happen...



Well, enough, the only possible answer to all this is of course "who can

tell?"...



Lukas