William,

I appreciate your taking the time to reply to my post in detail. This
is a subject that is close to my heart, and I've never really
expressed myself on it to my satisfaction.

My intention is not to stop you from composing in Elvish, but to help
you do a better job. Whether I have anything to offer you, of course,
is something you will need to decide for yourself. I _will_ say that
I have been thinking about this subject for over thirty-five years,
and have had many conversations (some late into the night) with a
wide range of people both smarter and more knowledgable about Tolkien
than me.

First off, I seem to have confused the issue by seeing the
name "Thranduil" but perceiving the name "Thingol" (in my defense the
former is most likely the literary offspring of the latter and I have
them lumped together in the woodshed of my mind). What say we set
that whole unfortunate incident aside?

I will stand by my statement that Quenya must have a grounding in
Tolkien's world in order to be Quenya; but by "grounding" I mean
something very specific and even then I do not mean the statement to
be anything other than a perspective. After all, one can even find a
perspective from which _lle_ is a Quenya word; so I hope you are not
so challenged by this particular perspective of mine that you miss
its possible value.

So. Here is part of what I take Tolkien's statement about "necessary
history" to mean.

Every word has a story packed up inside of it. For every word there
was a time and a place where that word was first used; and using a
word for the first time is such an extraordinary event that it's
likely to be an interesting story. The word "calculate" tells the
story of a time when counting was done using pebbles (Latin
_calculii_). The word "candy" of a time when Arabs
(Ar._qandi_, whence – possibly – Candia, a name of Crete) were
confectioners to the medieval Mediterranean. This is a characteristic
of all real-world languages, and it is something Tolkien was keenly
aware of.

The word _elen_, as we are told, is a derivative of a form
ELE "behold!", used by the Elves on seeing the stars when
they first awoke. _aear_ comes from a root meaning "fear",
and tells a story of the Elves first facing the Great Sea. Some of
the number words go back to finger-games among the young Elves. In
this regard Quenya is very much like any real language.

Now to the extent that we are using the words that Tolkien coined and
grammar he devised, your argument stands up to scrutiny: those words
do have a fictional history (or by dint of Tolkiens' genius
_appear_ to have a history); and of course we can also use them to
discuss (some) things outside of Tolkien's fictional world.

But we don't stop there: we invent new words. Everyone who
composes more than a few sentences of Quenya invents new words. These
words each tell a story, of course; but it is almost always a story
of Elfling members playing with Quenya. The finished composition is
judged by whether Elfling members, knowing exactly the subset of
Elvish which Tolkien composed and we have available to us, can
understand the result. To me, this process, and the words that
result, are utterly alien to the essence of Quenya.

But I do not mean to go from _little hope_ to _no hope_. Let me
suggest a very different criterion for judging Elvish translations.

First, a thought experiment. Imagine that Tolkien wrote a letter in
the last years of his life in which he translated a well-known text
into Quenya (say The Old Walking Song, the first piece of poetry in
the Lord of the Rings). Instead of simply publishing the letter,
however, the owner commissions translations from two modern-day
Quenya experts and publishes all three translations alongside each
other.

Do you think you'd be able to pick out Tolkien's? What
characteristics would distinguish it? For one thing, it would surely
have one or two surprising words or bits of grammar, perhaps even new
roots or irregular forms: features, note well, which would probably
get challenged and replaced if it were presented here as a neo-Quenya
composition. I hold that the _very process_ we use to judge neo-
Quenya makes it blander and more mechanical than Tolkien's Quenya.

Now imagine that someone produces a translation of that poem
_designed_ to fool the judges in that hypothetical taste-test. If you
are drawn to Quenya because of its beauty; and if its beauty is a
reflection of Tolkien's sense of language, then isn't this
the neo-Quenya translation which is fairest to the spirit of Quenya?

This is the principle that I use when I am translating things into
Elvish: to produce a composition which might be mistaken for
Tolkien's; and you're right: it's a standard which I will
never really achieve. But again, there will always be room for growth!

If you are coining new Quenya words, isn't it most respectful to
Quenya to coin them according to the same principles that Tolkien
used, to the extent that we can understand and apply those
principles? That includes an understanding of the phonological
history of the forms; some degree of irregularity (which is most
often just regularity disguised by phonological change); and, just as
important, the relationship of the word to everyone who has used it,
especially to the person who used it for the first time.

I'm not saying that you have to explicitly tell us the story
packed into the word, but that story must be there: either because
you have figured out what it is, or because you have such an
intuitive understanding of language that you naturally produce forms
for which explanations can be easily produced after the fact.

One short example will possibly clarify what I am saying. Suppose we
want a word for "lock". Now locks are a product of a fallen
world, and we may assume that they were not known or needed in the
early days of the Elves' march, and therefore not part of the
common vocabulary; so that Quenya and Sindarin would have different
words.

In Doriath they would be needed; and perhaps originally made by
magic, so that we may use *_tap-lokka_ stop-spell, or S. _tabloch_.
As a bonus, it turns out that nobody can chase the English word
_lock_ back past common Germanic. Borrowing from Elvish, perhaps?
This suggestive relationship to primary-world words is another
principle of word formation deeply embedded in the nature of Elvish.

In Eldamar, locks might have been an invention made more out of
intellectual curiosity; and who better to have invented them than the
Elvish poster-boy for a fallen world, Fëanor. From _silima_ and
_palantír_ we know that he might use three syllable words for his
inventions more often than the language at large; and might make up
compounds (whereas compounding in Quenya, outside of names of people
and plants is rare). This lock (which might have first been devised
to close boxes and not doors) is a kind of clasp, to protect secrets,
possibly _nullatangwa_ `secret-clasp', which maybe could be
shortened to _nullatan_.

I wouldn't present it in this detail; possibly no more than:

S. _tabloch_ `lock' (Quenya used a different word,
_nullatan_).

Whether I have successfully channeled Tolkien is a matter for your
personal taste. But these words do have the same sort of grounding in
Middle-earth history as Tolkien's words do.

And back to the original issue.

As far as I am concerned, a word without a story inside of it is like
a pillow without any stuffing. Translating an English word gives a
word with stuffing, but it is the stuffing of the English word, with
a Quenya pillow-case on top of it.

To me, it's not fair (to Quenya) to call such words
"Quenya".

I will be happy to have your perspective for consideration!

--Bill

quildarener skrev:

   Cagalj might be
> rendered *Calyo if translation presents a problem.

Rather Tyahalyo* or Tyaalyo*, since _C_ is "tsh"
in the original.

--

/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
                 A h-ammen ledin i phith!                \ \
      __  ____ ____    _____________ ____ __   __ __     / /
      \ \/___ \\__ \  /___  _____/\ \\__ \\ \  \ \\ \   / /
      / /   / /  /  \    / /Melroch\ \_/ // /  / // /  / /
     / /___/ /_ / /\ \  / /Roccondil\_  // /__/ // /__/ /
    /_________//_/  \_\/ /Eowine __  / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
   ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
|| Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
"A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)

Thanks! that was back before i knew about elfling, so i'll look.


> > Hi everyone.
> >
> > I was pondering the word 'edregol', 'especially'
> > from the KL.
> >
> > I'm told it's unanalysable. I was wondering if it
> > might not come from
> >
> > *et 'out' + *REK 'prick' + the -ol we see in
> > 'bregol' and so on.
> > [...]
>
>
>There was a discussion on edregol back around 2003
>maybe here on Elfling, I am sure you will find it if
>you search the archives.
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Manager address: elfling-owner@yahoogroups.com
>Unsub address: elfling-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>Elfling welcome: http://www.terracom.net/~dorothea/elfling.html
>Elfling FAQ: http://nellardo.com/lang/elf/faq.html
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Fredon Le Hobbit skrev:
> Bonjour tout le monde !.. Hello everybody !..
> I try to find, since a few time, to translate my name in Sindarin.
> My name is Frédéric.
> The origins are deutch : fridu [Friede] rihhi [Herrscher]

Certainly you mean Old High German?  In any case _rihhi_ is OHG.

> in french = paix souverain
> in english = peace ruler
> and in Sindarin = sîdh caun.
> My name is sometimes translate : "le roi pacifique", "the peacefull king".
> Can I translate this "Caun-sîdhen" ?
> Thank you for your precious help.
> Fredon Le Hobbit.

"Peace-lord" would probably be Sidhgon* in Sindarin.
It depends a bit on how the combination _dh+c_
would change in compounding, something I think is not
fully known.  Does anybody have an opinion?
--

/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
                 A h-ammen ledin i phith!                \ \
      __  ____ ____    _____________ ____ __   __ __     / /
      \ \/___ \\__ \  /___  _____/\ \\__ \\ \  \ \\ \   / /
      / /   / /  /  \    / /Melroch\ \_/ // /  / // /  / /
     / /___/ /_ / /\ \  / /Roccondil\_  // /__/ // /__/ /
    /_________//_/  \_\/ /Eowine __  / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
   ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
|| Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
"A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)

It just might happen that we have to agree that we disagree. At least I
feel I understand the problem now a good deal better.

I think we agree that the grammatical environment of an _-ing_ form in
English can be different - both a 'noun' and a 'verb' position (for lack
of terminology, I will refer to the form as such as gerund and to its
environment as either 'noun' or 'verb' - recognized by the fact (among
others) that in the 'verb' position the gerund can take an adverb, in the
'noun' position it takes an adjective). So 'teaching them well' is a
gerund in verb position, 'good teaching' is a gerund in noun position in
my way of speaking.

I think we'd also agree that in the king's latter _suilannad_ is in 'verb'
position whereas _suilad_ is in 'noun' position. In Sindarin I will call
all _-ad/-ed_ for which derivation from verbs by a former ending _-ta_ is
the most likely origin 'gerunds'. This excludes for example _barad_
'tower' whose final _-ad_ is directly from the root BARAT (LR:351) and
_athrad_ 'ford' which is listed under both AT (LR:349) and RAT (LR:383)
and which most likely is a compound of the two elements, its final _-ad_
then simply from RAT.

Now, in a nutshell, our disagreement is if we accept

- Since the form is in a noun position, it has to be treated just like any
other noun. Nouns usually have plurals, hence the default assumption
should be that the form can be pluralized.

as a reasonable proposition.

I still don't know about Latin, my impression is that Latin gerunds never
can be in 'noun' position, hence you'd argue that the whole issue of
plurals doesn't arise. Fine with me. For the record: Latin gerunds can not
be pluralized as far as I know.

In German, gerunds can occupy both the 'verb' and the 'noun' position -
and can in neither position be pluralized (modulo free use of the language
- thanks for the feedback from other German speakers, after 2 years in the
US, I was unsure if my German language brain wiring would go astray, but
here we go...). Hence the default assumption goes wrong here. You say this
is because German may have undergone some special historical development,
which we (or at least I) don't know, and would hence be atypical, but you
haven't actually been able to prove that yet.

In English, presumably due to a blending, _-ing_ forms can appear in both
'noun' and 'verb' position. Plurals are not seen in 'verb' position but
appear in 'noun' position. But note that for a significant number of
English _-ing_ words even in the noun position plural is
odd/ungrammatcial: 'good thinking' - but '**thinkings', 'good acting' but
'actings', 'swift calculating' but '**calculatings' - 'true seeing' - but
'**seeings', 'quick running' - but '**runnings' (yeah, I am sure there is
some slang in America/Australia/NZ/wherever where some of these are
grammatical as well... - well, double negation is likewise not well
defined in all versions of English - I ain't got no money...). I haven't
gone through all English verbs in a dictionary, but it seems to me that
the majority of English verbs has _-ing_ forms which are either odd in the
noun position or, if they can occupy a noun position they don't pluralize
there well. Quite a few forms seem to pluralize only in a context
different from the standard one - 'good saving' (to a goalkeeper)
'savings' (on my bank account), 'swift reading' (a book) 'I get multiple
readings' (from a radar screen), 'laborious building' (act of) 'high
buildings' (finished result) and so on. So it seems to me that the
suggested 'default' assumption doesn't even for English work too well -
why doesn't it here if it is supposed to be default? For what language is
it actually good to assume that gerunds can occupy both 'verb' and 'noun'
position and regularly have plurals in the noun position?

In Quenya, we only have evidence for the _ta_ form to occupy verb position
and a different form in noun position. So like in Latin, you'd tell me
this is irrelevant. Okay. That is apparently different in Sindarin. But
since not all _ing_ forms in English plrualize in noun position - how are
we supposed to know which ones do in Sindarin? All? Just the English ones
(conveniently...) ? A different set which we don't know (how do you know
_suilad_ is in then)?

I am sorry, I still don't see it why you find that your default assumption
is compelling. It is certainly possible that _suilad_ has a plural
_?suilaid_ - but then I never doubted that. My view is still that English
seems to be the slightly exceptional language here, and lacking any
positive evidence for plurals of _-ad/-ed_ forms derived from verbs, I
wouldn't suggest to assume that they do. In fact, I would be mildly
surprised if they do. But what I don't see is a highly compelling case
that they should.

Well, I think everyone can make up his own mind (or possibly most people
are scared away by the technicalities by now).

* Thorsten

B. P. Jonsson wrote:

>"Peace-lord" would probably be Sidhgon* in Sindarin.
>It depends a bit on how the combination _dh+c_
>would change in compounding, something I think is not
>fully known.  Does anybody have an opinion?

Based on _ardh+calen_ > Ard-galen (Silm.), David Salo hypothesizes that "-dh
became the stop -d before nonnasal stops" (Gateway 184, 179). I guess that
practice would result in *_Sidgon_ (Sidgón? cf. *_randír_? [
http://www.jrrvf.com/cgi-bin/hisweloke/sindarin.cgi?search=randir&phon=ipa
]).

Elhath

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

> If you mean by this that some writings eg. in English aremore "English"
> because they use all the available options of thelanguage in a more
> precise, diverse and inventive way, then I wouldcertainly agree with
> you. I am not saying it is impossible, onlyextremely difficult (though
> there are some Vin-Eldarin compositionsthat are quite close). But a text
> using English in a limited wayis not somehow less English in the sense
> that it is partly somethingdifferent from English.

So we're down to semantics...At some point it probably stops being the
language - I refuse to accept _Lye duraser naa i'Meneldalie, tanya
n'eldelie, imya tyara ri'avarien tyar, awruva ten' ai'er._ as either
Sindarin or Quenya in spite of the fact that some elements are still
recognizeable. But okay, I'm fine with _**Im nan garel galph o nen_ being
called Sindarin - as long as it's called very, very bad Sindarin.

The crucial issue, however, is not so much how we call it but rather what
it is and what we want it to be. So as long as we agree that _**Im nan
garel galph o nen_ can and in fact should be improved and brought closer
to Tolkien's ideas (if we want it to be Sindarin, that is) then I don't
mind how we call it.


>> and includes many words with non-Quenya
>> phonology (like _carpa-_ 'pluck' which contains the Quenya
>> forbidden cluster _rp_).

> I've never heard that _rp_ is against Quenya phonotactics. In fact
> just the opposite is attested, cf. _harpa_ 'helmet' (VT45:21) and
> _terpellienna_ 'into temptation' (VT43:8).

_terpellienna_ 'into temptation' is evidently a compound - where normal
rules for intervocalic clusters are relaxed. But okay, I give you _harpa_.
Let me add that these appear to be the only words in Quenya with this
cluster. So it ought to be included into the 'allowed but rare' list.
Thanks for the pointer.

> But you just yourself noted that a couple of word were left
> unaltered in _Markirya_ - there are plenty of more examples in other
> places. Although it is statistically much more likely that Tolkien
> would have changed a word, it is not impossible that he retained it.
> Remember that statistical truths are not factual truths. They tell
> you the general weighted possibilty, not the actual probability in a
> specific case.

In a random system they would - but of course Tolkien's language invention
process is not random, so we may actually study it and improve our
understanding and predictive ability. If you compare a bit, you'll find
that you can loosely split the vocabulary into 'core' words and
'auxiliary' words - 'core words', especially names, are present almost
unchanged in every stage of the development, but their etymology changes.
To give an example (stealing from Helge's essay...):

"In the Etymologies, the Quenya word for "book" (parma) is derived from a
stem PAR "compose, put together", identifying a book as a "thing that is
composed", evidently referring to the efforts of the author. The word
parma appeared already in the QL, p. 72, but here it meant primarily
"skin, bark" and hence "parchment" - "book, writings" being only
secondary, poetic meanings. There is not yet any hint of a connection with
a word for "compose"; indeed no word with this meaning appears in the QL
at all."

So once the core words with a new etymology set the stage for a new
conceptual phase, Tolkien then starts deriving from the new roots
determined by the core words the whole bunch of auxiliary words. Compare
_Idril_ 'beloved' (PE11:50) with later _Idril_ Q: _Itarille_ 'sparkling
brilliance' and the new meaning presumably caused _íta_ "a flash" (PM:363)
_ita-_ "sparkle" (SA:ril, PM:363) - these new 'auxiliary' derivations
cannot be static if the meaning of the core name Idril is changed - they
change alongside with the new Etymologies and stories behind the names,
always revolving around the fixed elements whose sound was presumably set
in Tolkien's mind and just needed to be re-explained from time to time.

> And what comes to Vin-Quenya compositions, would you
> say that inventing a root and a word out of thin air is better than
> taking an attested word from QL that very possibly but not certainly
> might have been changed later?

Of course I wouldn't. In fact, I do use adapted Qenya words where I can't
find anything better - I just want to make people aware that this is not a
well-controlled procedure where we can take a word, polish it a bit and
assume this is indeed what Tolkien had in mind but rather an ill-defined
procedure which we use because the alternative (i.e. inventing words out
of nothing) is even worse. So I readily agree that often it's the best we
have - say, a 40% chance of being right every time is better than nothing
- but still means that statistically most is incorrect. As it usually
happens when the missing word finally emerges in a late source...

* Thorsten

Thorsten Renk wrote:

> It just might happen that we have to agree that we disagree.

     That might happen. Gildir, Per Lindberg, has several times told us
in the Mellonath Daeron that studies show that email discussions are
good for getting a lot of suggestions on the table, but not very good
for achieving agreement.

> At least I feel I understand the problem now a good deal better.
>
> I think we agree that the grammatical environment of an _-ing_ form in
> English can be different - both a 'noun' and a 'verb' position (for lack
> of terminology, I will refer to the form as such as gerund and to its
> environment as either 'noun' or 'verb' - recognized by the fact (among
> others) that in the 'verb' position the gerund can take an adverb, in the
> 'noun' position it takes an adjective). So 'teaching them well' is a
> gerund in verb position, 'good teaching' is a gerund in noun position in
> my way of speaking.
>
> I think we'd also agree that in the king's latter _suilannad_ is in 'verb'
> position whereas _suilad_ is in 'noun' position.

     Yes.

> In Sindarin I will call
> all _-ad/-ed_ for which derivation from verbs by a former ending _-ta_ is
> the most likely origin 'gerunds'. This excludes for example _barad_
> 'tower' whose final _-ad_ is directly from the root BARAT (LR:351) and
> _athrad_ 'ford' which is listed under both AT (LR:349) and RAT (LR:383)
> and which most likely is a compound of the two elements, its final _-ad_
> then simply from RAT.
>
> Now, in a nutshell, our disagreement is if we accept
>
> - Since the form is in a noun position, it has to be treated just like any
> other noun. Nouns usually have plurals, hence the default assumption
> should be that the form can be pluralized.
>
> as a reasonable proposition.

     That is a good summing-up. I would like to edit "treated just like
any other" to "regarded as a".

> I still don't know about Latin, my impression is that Latin gerunds never
> can be in 'noun' position, hence you'd argue that the whole issue of
> plurals doesn't arise. Fine with me. For the record: Latin gerunds can not
> be pluralized as far as I know.

     As far as I remember, the situation in Latin is as you say.

> In German, gerunds can occupy both the 'verb' and the 'noun' position -
> and can in neither position be pluralized (modulo free use of the language
> - thanks for the feedback from other German speakers, after 2 years in the
> US, I was unsure if my German language brain wiring would go astray, but
> here we go...). Hence the default assumption goes wrong here. You say this
> is because German may have undergone some special historical development,
> which we (or at least I) don't know, and would hence be atypical, but you
> haven't actually been able to prove that yet.

     I say that there is no grammatical (intrinsic) reason for this
feature of German grammar, hence it must have an historical (extrinsic)
basis. It is not necessarily atypical (although I would expect that).

> In English, presumably due to a blending, _-ing_ forms can appear in both
> 'noun' and 'verb' position. Plurals are not seen in 'verb' position but
> appear in 'noun' position. But note that for a significant number of
> English _-ing_ words even in the noun position plural is
> odd/ungrammatcial: 'good thinking' - but '**thinkings', 'good acting' but
> 'actings', 'swift calculating' but '**calculatings' - 'true seeing' - but
> '**seeings', 'quick running' - but '**runnings' (yeah, I am sure there is
> some slang in America/Australia/NZ/wherever where some of these are
> grammatical as well... - well, double negation is likewise not well
> defined in all versions of English - I ain't got no money...). I haven't
> gone through all English verbs in a dictionary, but it seems to me that
> the majority of English verbs has _-ing_ forms which are either odd in the
> noun position or, if they can occupy a noun position they don't pluralize
> there well. Quite a few forms seem to pluralize only in a context
> different from the standard one - 'good saving' (to a goalkeeper)
> 'savings' (on my bank account), 'swift reading' (a book) 'I get multiple
> readings' (from a radar screen), 'laborious building' (act of) 'high
> buildings' (finished result) and so on. So it seems to me that the
> suggested 'default' assumption doesn't even for English work too well -
> why doesn't it here if it is supposed to be default?

     "Colourless green dreams sleep furiously". _Calculatings_ is no less
grammatical because it is hard to think up a case where it would be
used.

> For what language is
> it actually good to assume that gerunds can occupy both 'verb' and 'noun'
> position and regularly have plurals in the noun position?

     For an unknown language, my default assumption about gerund forms
would be that they can only occupy 'verb' positions (as in Latin, and
apparently Old English).
     For Sindarin, we do find some gerunds in 'noun' position. But it
does not have to mean that "gerunds can occupy both 'verb' and 'noun'
position". Using a gerund form as a noun could be a device for
word-forming, without be generalized to a usage pattern for all gerund
forms.

> In Quenya, we only have evidence for the _ta_ form to occupy verb position
> and a different form in noun position. So like in Latin, you'd tell me
> this is irrelevant. Okay. That is apparently different in Sindarin. But
> since not all _ing_ forms in English plrualize in noun position - how are
> we supposed to know which ones do in Sindarin? All? Just the English ones
> (conveniently...) ? A different set which we don't know (how do you know
> _suilad_ is in then)?

     I think that, with no significant exceptions, English _-ing_-nouns
have _-ings_-plurals.

> I am sorry, I still don't see it why you find that your default assumption
> is compelling.

     I think it is because I view the principle 'nouns have plurals' as
very basic, and I see no grammatical reason why a certain derivational
class (gerund forms used as nouns) should be disqualified from having
plurals.

> It is certainly possible that _suilad_ has a plural
> _?suilaid_ - but then I never doubted that. My view is still that English
> seems to be the slightly exceptional language here,

     I am still curious why you expect the derivation of a noun as a rule
to affect its capacity to take a plural form, finding the opposite
exceptional.

> and lacking any
> positive evidence for plurals of _-ad/-ed_ forms derived from verbs, I
> wouldn't suggest to assume that they do.

     Let us keep our eyes open for such evidence!

> In fact, I would be mildly
> surprised if they do. But what I don't see is a highly compelling case
> that they should.
>
> Well, I think everyone can make up his own mind (or possibly most people
> are scared away by the technicalities by now).

     Thanks for this discussion.

	 Meneg suilaid,

		 Beregond

> Neo-Quenya critics seem to constantly shifting their
> ground: "It's not Tolkien, therefore it's not Quenya (except when I
> write it in my exercises and diaries)." "Neo-Quenya words are
> too 'obvious." "Neo-Quenya words are too obscure." Neo-Quenya
> grammar is too  mechanical. Neo-Quenya is anything goes. Neo-Quenya
> is not "scientific." etc. It appears to be just an attempt to
> squelch either anyone's Quenya but their own or Quenya composition
> generally.

I assumed this to be rather obvious, but I am not representing anyone in
this discussion but myself. I would think that there is no homogeneous
block of Neo-Quenya critics. I do happen to share many positions with say
Pat Wynne or Carl Hostetter, not because they are so nice people but
rather because of other reasons: In a few cases I worked out a problem
before knowing their result, my result usually was very close to what was
published in VT. Whenever I ask a question with regard to an
interpretation I get a well-thought answer based on Tolkien's writings. So
in fact I share their position insofar as we seem to agree in what the
scientific approach is like, and in an ideal world logic is independent
  from who applies it. But there are many different objections against
Neo-Quenya and I don't presume to represent all of them, I have a very
clear list of objections myself, and only that I can discuss.

Similarly, you seem to be assuming that e.g. _**endruviamb_ is a far
fetched example as far as Neo-Quenya use goes. It may be for you - but I
assure you I have seen plenty of Neo-Sindarin/Neo-Quenya words which
blatantly violate phonology, I have seen plenty of English and German
being literally, word by word, translated into Elvish, _**linnan_ instead
of _linnon_ is an actual example from a German website 'teaching' Elvish
and I would argue that your own use of Neo-Quenya (which seems to be
rather thought-through) is hardly representing a majority of Neo-Quenya
texts in the web. Since this is a discussion on a public list, you will of
course have to bear with me criticizing things you haven't done or
proposed because I want other people to think about it, similarly I will
have to let your different Neo-Quenya critics' voices stand and only
answer my part of it (and hope that someone else explains his part).

> For your above example, I'd have to agree. But as you well know,
> that "scheme" often changed over time. Does this mean, for instance,
> that genitive forms in the Etymologies resembling datives in later
> Quenya should not be changed? What about verbs in -ta that have weak
> forms added to that stem in the Etymologies but strong forms (e.g.
> aane from anta) in the Qenya lexicon, or the sound combination -kt-
> in the QL corresponding to -ht- in the Etymologies? Could we not
> legitimately alter forms from one scheme to conform with another in
> at least some cases? There are valid arguments on both sides of
> these questions.

> And using "just science"--isn't that the "artificial regularity"
> that Hostetter accuses Neo-Quenya of? There are many inconsistencies
> in Tolkien that conflict with what "scientists" say should be there
> and can't explain. When "scientists" try anyway, are they violating
> the genius of the language? Apparently  one man's "science" is
> another's "artificial regularity" when he's judging someone else's
> work. This is why I feel you should be less quick to do so on such
> pot-calling-kettle grounds.

You seem to have a different concept of a scientific approach than I do.
The idea of science is to work something out without fooling yourself and
others. So scientific method has, in a nutshell, safeguards against that.
It is not supposed to be applied to 'alter' or 'unify' Tolkien's work but
to understand it. Let me outline what I mean by that.

* search all available and relevant evidence and present it _as it is_
with proper references (so that others can redo the analysis independent
of your conclusions to be presented later)
That is not easy, because it involves a decision what you consider
relevant (so you have to explain your decision to the reader). For
example, if you want to work out what the plural of Sindarin words with
the vowel distribution a-a is, you'd find 8 times e-ai, 8 times e-e and 5
times e-ei if you include the Etymologies into the study, but 7 times e-ai
and 1 time e-e if you don't include the Etymologies. This is because the
pattern is consistently different in Noldorin, and you can fool yourself
by not realizing that and treating Noldorin as if it were Sindarin in all
aspects, so in fact you have two strongly correlated data samples, one
favouring _e-e/ei_ and the other _e-ai_, and by mixing them you destroy
the correlation.

* present the facts that can be established from the data - for example,
you can prove existence of forms, you can count numbers and so on - in the
above example it's fact that Sindarin has a two attested mechanisms,
_e-ai_ and _e-e_ and that _e-ai_ is more often seen, in Noldorin _e-ei_
and _e-e_ are often optional and _e-ai_ is rare.

* draw your conclusions from the facts and present them as such (so that
someone else can think it through) above e.g. I'd conclude that _e-ai_ is
the regular pattern in Sindarin, _e-ei_ in Noldorin and that there seems
to be a conceptual shift

* present everything that speaks against your conclusions. In the above
example I'd make a note that not all Noldorin forms seem to have optional
_e-ei/e_ and that the monosyllabic example _alph > eilph_ shows that _a >
ei_ doesn't seem to be completely obsolete in Sindarin

* establish the context with other conceptual stages - i.e. compare with
the pattern in Early Noldorin and Goldogrin

* cite all relevant other works and acknowledge contributions from other
people

* ultimately, publish in a refereed journal - so you make sure that your
idea is capable of convincing more people than only yourself before it is
published. Everyone can publish whatever he/she wants on his/her website -
and sadly we see plenty of examples dealing with Elvish (sort of...) in
the web. In fact, only a tiny minority of sites has more or less accurate
information, although it gets better now that Harry Potter becomes more
important again.

If you investigate a problem like that, everyone browsing through your
article can easily verify what is fact, what is conclusion, how can we
interpret the data, what do other people think - so the idea is to give
others all they need to judge the value of your contribution themselves.
It goes without saying that what comes out must be dictated by the data,
not by what you wish. So if you start with the goal of creating
'speakable' Quenya, you already bring in what you wish and don't do
science any more (although you can still apply parts of the scientific
method).

Let me give you a close-to-reality example. Assume we had needed the
genitive of 'cat'

Your argument, applied to the genitive, goes like that:
* _meoi_ is an attested word for 'cat'
* _-o_ is the attested genitive singular ending
=> 'of a cat' must therefore be _meoio_ (mind you, you did accept _meoir_
by the same reasoning)

Now, some of us may find _eoio_ suspicious, but I assume you'd be fine
with it since it is based on attested elements.

I would proceed as follows:

* establish context: _meoi_ was written between 1915 and 1920 - the
nearest grammar is the EQG where we'd find a genitive _*meoin_ so that is
by far the most likely form in Tolkien's mind when he wrote the word
* only if we take the later system of case inflection does the cluster
_eoio_ ever arise, so it is not something which is in Tolkien's works, it
is something we have put in.

The next question I'd ask is - what vowel clusters does later Quenya
actually have? Can we find other examples to see if the cluster is
acceptable or not? Is there a later root/word attested for 'cat'? Would
there be a clash with another word/

I don't know (_oio_ comes to my mind as an attested cluster) - but I would
proceed along these lines.

So as for 'artificial regularity' - that problem doesn't really arise for
me. In scientific mode, I treat all samples in their context, i.e. at that
time the plural was XXX, later it changed to YYY. I propose to try to
understand Goldogrin, Noldorin and Qenya in their timeframe as independent
entities instead of viewing them as imperfect Sindarin/Quenya. Then, we
can establish the relation between Sindarin/Noldorin and Qenya/Quenya.

If we understand all that (in an ideal world) and the changes each
language has undergone, then you can leave the scientific work and make it
'speakable' by dealing with the contradictions and changes. I think the
most consistent approach is to pick a timeframe and weigh conflicting
information by the closeness to the timeframe. For example, for my courses
I favour material close to Namárië and LOTR, i.e. I have not (and will
not) incorporate _im_ as general reflexive form in Sindarin because at the
timeframe selected for my course it still meant 'I' as a pronoun. I never
ever criticize someone else's composition if I can recognize that he's
using a different timeframe, because that decision is arbitrary.

Likewise, if a Qenya word clashes with your selected later timeframe
phonology, you have to deal with it by either altering it or not using it
at all. Mind you - all this has nothing to do with science because we make
decisions what to throw out and what to alter now. However, Neo-Quenya is
almost always based on a timeframe (the people making their own Elvish on
Arwen fansites usually don't order Parma Eldalamberon - luckily...
otherwise we'd see a flood of Qenya), usually it's Helge's, and that means
to my knowledge as late as possible.

Tolkien's languages 1915 are different from his languages 1960 - that is
just a fact, it can be proven easily. So you have to keep that in mind
when you want to make something of his texts that is close to his ideas.

* Thorsten

On quenyanizing, I was generally thinking how would the elves write these
names if they heard a today's speaker pronouncing it, without knowing their
meanings. Yet, what you told me here, is simply great although it's not what
I thought of.
[...]

>As for _Cagalj_ I'm afraid I can't help you.  Since you are in Croatia
>you should visit a library to find out the meaning of the name, then
>you can get back and we will be happy to help you translate it.

As for Cagalj, well it is an animal, latin Canis aureus L. smaller than a
wolf, a subspecies of a jackal. I don't think it will help, all I can think
for translation is 'little wolf' or something similiar.

Precisely for the reasons named above (the meaning and forms of many
names being lost, distorted,  misunderstood, etc.) I differ with the
usual procedure in that it often produces Quenya names difficult to
connect with the original ones, sometimes collapsing several names
in the source languages together. (An extreme example is Eruanna,
which could represent Grace, Hannah, Dorothy, Jane, Joan, etc., and
the masculinized form Eruanno Theodore, John, Jonathan, etc., with
the Quenya Lapseparma's efforts to distinguish these ingenious but
somewhat arbitrary). As the main function of proper names is not to
describe but identify and distinguish, this can lead to problems in
those areas. I mention this not to reject the practice but to point
out its unrecognized drawbacks and to offer truly Quenyarized forms
(a practice often derided as un-Tolkienlike, despite Yeesu, Maria,
and Hristo)as an alternative to the translated ones. In Tolkien's
case this could be

*Yohanno *Ronaldo *Rewello *Tyelcanyo,

  with the last both an approximate Quenyarization and a pretty fair
translation of its literal meaning ("Hasty-Bold" < tyelca + canya,
with haplology). There is always the even more heretical alternative
of leaving the name as it is with the slight alteration of k to c
(Tolcien), as it already fits Quenya phonetics easily
(cf. "Elainen").

Miroslav, or at least the second element, Quenyarizes more awkwardly
(*Mirosalaavo?) and might be better translated. Cagalj might be
rendered *Calyo if translation presents a problem.
-------------------------------------------------

If it's not to much trouble, could you tell me how you got to these Some
would say that Calyo could associate to much with light? (-o as masculine
ending)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Melroch 'Aestan" <melroch@...>
To: <elfling@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: [elfling] Re: Quenyanizing personal names


> quildarener skrev:
>
>   Cagalj might be
> > rendered *Calyo if translation presents a problem.
>
> Rather Tyahalyo* or Tyaalyo*, since _C_ is "tsh"
> in the original.

So g -> h?
Other I understand and is logical.

I would appreciate your advice how to translate the following line in
quenya:

Summary of quenya grammar from the Third age of ME

My attempt:
Sintanyarie quenya tengwesto tyelde Neldea randasse Endóreo

- as far as i know there is no word for 'summary', so i made up a compound
sintanyarie 'short telling'. Better suggestions would be nice.
- quenya tengwesto, this is a phrase, therefore only tengwesta 'grammar' in
genitive, quenya is used as an adjective.
- tyede Neldea randasse, this i think will cause some doubts. What this
summary is all about is quenya; not any quenya but exclusively quenya from
the end of the third age. Therefore this marks a position in time of this
quenya, and so I used locative. Imo again, there is no way for this to be an
ablative case, since there is no true function of ablative mentioned here.
- Endóreo, dont think anyone will have a problem with this.

bonjour

Quenay Lapseparma translates Frederic as Seeretur.. in
Sindarin it would be ehm... Idharan or Idhgon... what
do you think?

> Bonjour tout le monde !.. Hello everybody !..
> I try to find, since a few time, to translate my
> name in Sindarin.
> My name is Frédéric.[...]
> Can I translate this "Caun-sîdhen" ?
[...]

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Thorsten Renk" <trenk@p...> wrote:

>[...] the grammatical environment of an _-ing_ form in
> English can be different - both a 'noun' and a 'verb' position (for
lack
> of terminology, I will refer to the form as such as gerund and to
its
> environment as either 'noun' or 'verb' - recognized by the fact
(among
> others) that in the 'verb' position the gerund can take an adverb,
in the
> 'noun' position it takes an adjective). So 'teaching them well' is
a
> gerund in verb position, 'good teaching' is a gerund in noun
position in
> my way of speaking.
>
> I think we'd also agree that in the king's latter _suilannad_ is
in 'verb'
> position whereas _suilad_ is in 'noun' position. In Sindarin I will
call
> all _-ad/-ed_ for which derivation from verbs by a former ending _-
ta_ is
> the most likely origin 'gerunds'.>


<<I've followed this whole discussion with interest, but I still
don't see why it's necessary to complicate things so much. Why speak
of "-ing forms in noun/verb position" when the terms "(verbal)
noun/gerund" suffice? Isn't this just splitting hairs?
As I pointed out in message #32121, I think Beregond's criteria
(gerund when modifiable by adv. [and able to take object], but verbal
noun when modifiable by adj. [and able to take article and generally
pluralizable]) make it fairly easy to discern gerunds and verbal
nouns in English. In addition, there is "-ing" when used to form
present participles, as used in the diverse progressive tenses in
combination with forms of to be/to have and to be.

No matter what the origins of the different functions of "-ing" may
be in English (see Melroch's post: Old English present participles in
_-ende_, gerunds in _-enne_, action [i.e. verbal] nouns in _-ing_),
in modern English we can clearly distinguish between them, in spite
of their now identical forms, using the above criteria.
Thus I'd contest that in a phrase like "teaching them well" the
status of "teaching" may only be ambiguous (without a larger context)
with regard to whether it's a gerund (a complete sentence would then
go something like: "Teaching them well was my first priority") or a
present participle ("I was teaching them well" or "They have been
teaching them well" or "She is teaching them" well etc.) A present
participle can of course be modified by an adverb ("well"), since
it's a verb form, and so can the gerund--part and parcel of
its "verbal qualities".

With regard to "good teaching", I'd thus still contest that this is
not a gerund at all--qualified as it is by an adj. I'd call it a
verbal (or action) noun, period. Possible sentences would
include "The good teaching of the Buddha spread throughout Asia"
or "Good teaching is essential for keeping students interested" etc.
Note how "teaching" in these examples can't take an object ("Good
teaching them is essential for keeping students interested" is not
grammatical).

As for Sindarin, we seem to agree that _suilad_ is a noun in KL
(which would also be corroborated by Tolkien's own translation,
although admittedly, and as mentioned before, this may not be the
most reliable criterion), though it _may_ originally be derived from
a gerund. Cf. Beregond's input: "with 'A Pherhael . . . suilad'
compare 'Gurth an Glamhoth'--_gurth_ (noun) corresponds to _suilad_,
_an_ corresponds to _an_ (> _a_ + nasal mutation), and _Glamhoth_
corresponds to _Perhael_ (both nouns)."

_Suilannad_, on the other hand, is a gerund, and as you, Thorsten,
remark also in your Sindarin course, it can in English be rendered as
an infinitive--which is what Tolkien does: "And he desires _to greet_
there all his friends." ("He desires _greeting_ all his friends"
might be a little awkward, but would still be a grammatical sentence,
and would naturally still be a gerund--you couldn't for example slide
an article in there, **"the greeting all his friends", it would then
have to be "the greeting _of_ all his friends, and then we'd be
dealing with a "run-of-the-mill" verbal noun again).

The fact that Sindarin gerunds (and Quenya ones, cf. Cirion's Oath:
Tolkien's translation of _enyalien_ as "in memory" [noun] is clearly
a free rendering, but a more literal translation would be "for
recalling" ["-ing" gerund], or, alternatively, "to recall" [inf.],
both governing the objects _Elenna-nooreo_ and _Elendil_, as gerunds
can) may often be rendered as infinitives in English does by no means
affect the clear-cut distinctions that can in my opinion be made
between the different functions of "-ing" as present participle,
gerund, and verbal noun.

The definition "In Sindarin I will call all _-ad/-ed_ for which
derivation from verbs by a former ending _-ta_ is the most likely
origin 'gerunds'" may still be valid, of course. In Quenya, forms in
_-ta_ are indeed gerundial/infintival. I believe, though, that in
Sindarin, gerunds may become normal nouns (and as I hinted above, I
think the sentence structure in the case of _A Pherhael . . . suilad_
supports this), just as in English, both present participles ("that
was a _stirring_ movie") and past participles ("he was so _drunk_")
can become adjectives--it all depends on the grammatical function
within a larger context (a sentence).>>

Greetings,

Hisilome

Just a few brief answers.

> <<I've followed this whole discussion with interest, but I still
> don't see why it's necessary to complicate things so much. Why speak
> of "-ing forms in noun/verb position" when the terms "(verbal)
> noun/gerund" suffice? Isn't this just splitting hairs?

Because I have no formal training in grammar besides school, so a 'verbal
gerund' means to me the same as 'gerund in verb position', I had to chose
some terminology, and I could have adopted yours as well. As long as you
have little prior knowledge of other people's definitions, all these
things are just labels being attached to a situation.

> With regard to "good teaching", I'd thus still contest that this is
> not a gerund at all--qualified as it is by an adj.

Here is where the problem comes up. First, many definitions found in the
web call this form a gerund. Second, exactly that form in German is called
a gerund. Since the discussion was ultimately not about English but
Elvish, we have to chose a more general terminology (which may not fit so
well for English) - maybe yours is different from mine, but what we talk
about is an object which is in form identical to the gerund (e.g. _-ing_
in English or _-ad/-ed_ in Elvish) and which can occupy both noun and verb
position (there I go again, using my own terminology ;-) ).

> As for Sindarin, we seem to agree that _suilad_ is a noun in KL
> (which would also be corroborated by Tolkien's own translation,
> although admittedly, and as mentioned before, this may not be the
> most reliable criterion), though it _may_ originally be derived from
> a gerund.

You stress this _may_ again. Unless you can propose a compelling
alternative etymology connecting _suilannad_ and _suilad_ (which I didn't
find) the odds are vastly in favour of the gerund derivation. That
alternative formation should also include _orthad_ from 'rising of the
star' - since we can e.g. say 'the beautiful rising of the star' it is in
noun position - and maybe even _aderthad_.

> _Suilannad_, on the other hand, is a gerund, and as you, Thorsten,
> remark also in your Sindarin course, it can in English be rendered as
> an infinitive--which is what Tolkien does: "And he desires _to greet_
> there all his friends."

Yes, but the infinitive replacement doesn't always work - 'your doing of
bad things' doesn't go to a infinitive easily, so I dropped the
replacement criterion in favour of the adverb/adjective one - 'your doing
well in the next exam will improve your score...'

> The fact that Sindarin gerunds (and Quenya ones, cf. Cirion's Oath:
> Tolkien's translation of _enyalien_ as "in memory" [noun] is clearly
> a free rendering, but a more literal translation would be "for
> recalling" ["-ing" gerund], or, alternatively, "to recall" [inf.],
> both governing the objects _Elenna-nooreo_ and _Elendil_, as gerunds
> can) may often be rendered as infinitives in English does by no means
> affect the clear-cut distinctions that can in my opinion be made
> between the different functions of "-ing" as present participle,
> gerund, and verbal noun.

We all agreed to that, the adverb/adjective test being the best criterion
suggested so far (assuming we can all identify the participle...)


> The definition "In Sindarin I will call all _-ad/-ed_ for which
> derivation from verbs by a former ending _-ta_ is the most likely
> origin 'gerunds'" may still be valid, of course. In Quenya, forms in
> _-ta_ are indeed gerundial/infintival. I believe, though, that in
> Sindarin, gerunds may become normal nouns

What is a 'normal' noun? The german gerund can be used in noun position
but remembers its origin in so far as it cannot be pluralized in German,
so it doesn't become a 'normal' noun in at least one real-world language.
My position is that even many of what you'd like to call 'action nouns'
cannot form plurals in English. So why do you insist they can in Elvish?

* Thorsten

Rainalcar skrev:
> On quenyanizing, I was generally thinking how would the elves write these
> names if they heard a today's speaker pronouncing it, without knowing their
> meanings. Yet, what you told me here, is simply great although it's not what
> I thought of.
> [...]
>
>
>>As for _Cagalj_ I'm afraid I can't help you.  Since you are in Croatia
>>you should visit a library to find out the meaning of the name, then
>>you can get back and we will be happy to help you translate it.
>
>
> As for Cagalj, well it is an animal, latin Canis aureus L. smaller than a
> wolf, a subspecies of a jackal. I don't think it will help, all I can think
> for translation is 'little wolf' or something similiar.
>

'little wolf' is |rácince*| or |narmince*|.

--

/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
                 A h-ammen ledin i phith!                \ \
      __  ____ ____    _____________ ____ __   __ __     / /
      \ \/___ \\__ \  /___  _____/\ \\__ \\ \  \ \\ \   / /
      / /   / /  /  \    / /Melroch\ \_/ // /  / // /  / /
     / /___/ /_ / /\ \  / /Roccondil\_  // /__/ // /__/ /
    /_________//_/  \_\/ /Eowine __  / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
   ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
|| Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
"A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)

Rainalcar skrev:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Melroch 'Aestan" <melroch@...>
> To: <elfling@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 9:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [elfling] Re: Quenyanizing personal names
>
>
>
>>quildarener skrev:
>>
>>  Cagalj might be
>>
>>>rendered *Calyo if translation presents a problem.
>>
>>Rather Tyahalyo* or Tyaalyo*, since _C_ is "tsh"
>>in the original.
>
>
> So g -> h?
> Other I understand and is logical.

Well, since there is no _g_ in Quenya you have to
change it into something similar (_c, ng, h, y_ or _w_).
I choose _h_ since there is alternation between _g_
and _h_ in some Slavic languages.  In older loanwords
Russian used _g_ for foreign _h_ and I simply reversed
the process.
--

/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch at melroch dot se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
                 A h-ammen ledin i phith!                \ \
      __  ____ ____    _____________ ____ __   __ __     / /
      \ \/___ \\__ \  /___  _____/\ \\__ \\ \  \ \\ \   / /
      / /   / /  /  \    / /Melroch\ \_/ // /  / // /  / /
     / /___/ /_ / /\ \  / /Roccondil\_  // /__/ // /__/ /
    /_________//_/  \_\/ /Eowine __  / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
   ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
|| Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
"A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)

I wrote:

>     "Colourless green dreams sleep furiously". _Calculatings_ is no less
> grammatical because it is hard to think up a case where it would be
> used.

>>since not all _ing_ forms in English plrualize in noun position - how are
>>we supposed to know which ones do in Sindarin? All? Just the English ones
>>(conveniently...) ? A different set which we don't know (how do you know
>>_suilad_ is in then)?
>
>     I think that, with no significant exceptions, English _-ing_-nouns
> have _-ings_-plurals.

     A better way of saying it may be this: the plural of any _V-ing_ is
_V-ings_. With some V-s you will seldom or never find any good use for
the plural form, but any time you actually wish to pluralize an
_-ing_-noun the form exists.
     In the same way, the subset of Sindarin _-ad_-nouns that can
presumably be pluralized is, one might say, the set of all _-ad_-nouns
one will ever wish to pluralize.

	 Suilaid,

		 Beregond

Bill Welden wrote:

> As far as I am concerned, a word without a story inside of it is
> like a pillow without any stuffing. Translating an English word
> gives a word with stuffing, but it is the stuffing of the English
> word, with a Quenya pillow-case on top of it.
>
> To me, it's not fair (to Quenya) to call such words
> "Quenya".

I understand your point. Words don't exist in a vacuum, they each
have a story rooted in history. This was very important to Tolkien
and is in fact a part of the fascination of his languages. The way
the Eldar see and have seen the world is diffrent from how the
English or the speakers of any other language see and have seen the
world. But actually most of the well-known Vinquenya coinages are
intelligent enough not to be direct borrowings from any one
language. One must also note that for the international bunch that
make up the users of Eldarin it is most often not such a huge
temptation to use the etymological semantics of any one language
(especially English) for Vineldarin words. Consequently the coinages
are most often either 1) hypothetical cognates of Ardian words or 2)
formations made as directly as possible out of roots having the
basic meaning of the intended word.

The first option fits of course perfectly into the demand of
internal history. The history is already there in Tolkien! :) This
is most certainly not a fool-proof option, because for some reason
(like conflict with other words or a new coinage or loan for the
same meaning) the logical cognate might have been rejected or have a
different meaning. But sometimes this option has resulted in words
that are later attested: Q (*)_horya-_ 'begin suddenly and
vigorously' based on N _herio-_ (LR:364), attested in VT45:22 with
the gloss 'have an impulse, be compelled to do something, set
vigorously out to do' (the last meaning being practically the same
as the deduced one). The second option is attested in the corpus,
eg. _ráne_ 'straying, wandering' < RAN- 'wander, stray' (LR:383).
Not a very interesting story behind this, just basic logic plentily
abounding in Elven minds. ;) I've coined a Q word *_lúma_
for 'clock' and I dare say it's possible if the Elves first
encountered/discovered the clock as an unpresidented novelty and
coolly pondered on the basic meaning of the object. Otherwise
anything from *_narma_ to *_tingotan_ might be possible. The better
your knowledge of Elven history and culture, the better your Elvish
coinage.

Petri Tikka
http://www.geocities.com/petristikka/

>     A better way of saying it may be this: the plural of any 'V-ing' is
> 'V-ings'. With some V-s you will seldom or never find any good use for
> the plural form, but any time you actually wish to pluralize an
> '-ing'-noun the form exists.
>     In the same way, the subset of Sindarin _-ad_-nouns that can
> presumably be pluralized is, one might say, the set of all _-ad_-nouns
> one will ever wish to pluralize.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here or what it would be
based on.  What I understand is that we actually know the mechanism for
pluralization, so 'X-ing > X-ings' in English. Well, we also know the
mechanism in German, should we ever desire to use it - 'das Sein, **die
Sein'. We have a good guess about the mechanism in Quenya, should Tolkien
wish to use it: _carita > ?caritar_

However, these forms do not 'exist' except as theoretical concepts in your
mind - their existence or grammaticality is determined by the fact if they
are actually used or not. Should 40 million Germans decide that '**die
Sein' is good grammar, the next issue of the Duden will include it as
grammatical - as of yet, the form doesn't exist except as a potential
candidate. The fact that we know how to build it if we want to do so has
nothing to do with that.

So in fact, I think all this is really obscuring the fact that your
fallback default assumption 'if usable as noun must have plural' really
doesn't describe the reality of language use in either English or German
well. I read texts dealing with calculating things in English all the time
- I have never encountered '?calculatings' and I doubt I ever will. So to
claim that the form exists seems rather bold to me.

You answered this last time with  'Colourless green dreams sleep
furiously'. I find this sentence grammatically okay, but logically flawed,
so you probably want to argue that the missing plural of a noun is a
logical or semantic problem, not a grammatical one. The reason for oddness
is that here only the combination of words doesn't go well together,
grammatically a dream can sleep, logically not. I find that concept hard
to explain, 'I am my father's son and he is mine' is nice grammar but in a
more hidden way logically flawed. Your sentence is only absurd because of
the combination of words - whereas 'calculatings' is odd regardless of the
context, I cannot recall or construct a single context in which it would
make sense.

So it seems to me that a missing plural is a grammatical property of a
single word, whereas forbidden combinations of words exist on a different
level which is not governed by grammar any more. For example, 'sit down'
can never take an object, 'sit down a chair' is not grammatical. That has
nothing to do with 'a chair' - there's simply no noun that would make the
problem go away. So this is the a grammatical problem. 'a dream sleeps'
on the other hand is not a grammar question - the problem is associated
with neither 'dream' or 'sleep', because replacing either element can lead
to grammatical sentences, 'a sheep sleeps' or 'a dream exists'. I maintain
that a missing '**calculatings' is not a problem fixed by exchanging
something or bringing it into the right context, it is a problem intrinsic
to the expression.

In any case, if you really maintain that a form 'calculatings' exists (or
that in fact every _-ing_ - word has such a plural), I would ask you to
give evidence for it.

* Thorsten

> Which ("anything goes")I said at the end of my last post was
> not my opinion. My opinion is that yourn tentative conclusions
> should be presented as such and not as Tolkien canon used as a basis
> to criticize and dismiss others' work. That's a distinction
> scientists seem to have trouble making.

Thus spoke quildarener, and yet in the same post, we find the classical
opening line for the 'anything goes' argument:

> On the other hand, based on which Sindarin texts can you
> confidently say that gerin would not be used instead of sogon/segin?

The conversation occurs all too often along these lines:
A: "I believe this form is wrong because such, such and such"
B: "Hm, but can we be absolutely sure of that?"
A: "No, but it's the most likely interpretation"
B: "Well, if you cannot absolutely rule it out then I keep using it."

So the claim is that one has to prove that a form is wrong before people
stop using it - since proving things conclusively, one and for all, is
hard in general, and more so in the finite corpus of Tolkien's languages,
this implies that almost nothing can definitively 100% be falsified (in
spite of the attested 1st person singular _ónen_ 'I gave' there is a tiny
possibility that the 1st person plural is _?annannem_ - I see no way to
definitely rule it out. I don't even see how I can rule out that
_??anannen_ doesn't occur in an unpublished text or that Tolkien had it in
mind.). So in fact since so few things can be falsified, you can do what
you like because what cannot be falsified is possible, isn't it. (Almost)
anything goes.

Underlying seems to be the idea that it is reasonable to choose to believe
any one among several possible things and act on it. Which defies common
sense. I cannot conclusively rule out that my workplace will be hit by a
meteor overnight, so it is possible that I don't have to go to work
tomorrow. However, most people being employed will probably agree that it
is a good idea to go to work nevertheless and that it is silly to stay at
home because a meteor might hit. The reason is of course that my workplace
surviving is the most likely outcome, so common sense dictates to believe
not any possibility but the most likely one and act on that.

Given the fact that for a given English sentence I can create a
near-infinity of different strings of Sindarin words, endings and grammar
bits, based on English idiomatic use, or French, Russian, Finnish, Latin,
random..., and given that only very few of the strings will correspond to
a valid translation, the default assumption is 'wrong until made
plausible'. A superficial glance reveals that Sindarin grammar and idiom
is actually different from English one, cf. the role of pronouns, word
order...

So the question is not if I can rule out confidently that _garo_ is not
used for 'to drink', the question is if anyone can make even remotely
plausible that it would be used. If you suggest a
translation/construction, it is not the duty of other people to prove you
wrong, it is your duty to argue why it should be right.

* Thorsten

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Thorsten Renk" <trenk@p...> wrote:
>
> Just a few brief answers.
>
> > <<I've followed this whole discussion with interest, but I still
> > don't see why it's necessary to complicate things so much. Why
speak of "-ing forms in noun/verb position" when the terms "(verbal)
> > noun/gerund" suffice? Isn't this just splitting hairs?
>
> Because I have no formal training in grammar besides school, so
a 'verbal gerund' means to me the same as 'gerund in verb position',
I had to chose some terminology, and I could have adopted yours as
well. As long as you  have little prior knowledge of other people's
definitions, all these things are just labels being attached to a
situation.

<<<<First of all, there was a slight misunderstanding here: I didn't
mean the term "verbal" in brackets to apply to both "noun"
and "gerund", what I meant was: there are nouns in -ing, which I
would call verbal or action nouns, on the one hand, and gerunds on
the other (which in English happen to also be formed with -ing). I
wouldn't use the term "verbal gerund" but I know some people do. Of
course you are right that to some extent these are "just" matters of
labeling. But I would insist that in English verbal or action nouns
are just that: nouns, not gerunds. So, in a nutshell, for me there
are _verbal nouns_ and there are _gerunds_--rather clearly defined by
the whole adj./adv. qualifier dichotomy, and some other criteria such
as the ability to take objects or not, which we seem to agree on. I'm
not sure about German though. :)>>>>



> > With regard to "good teaching", I'd thus still contest that this
is not a gerund at all--qualified as it is by an adj.
> > Here is where the problem comes up. First, many definitions found
in the web call this form a gerund. Second, exactly that form in
German is called a gerund. Since the discussion was ultimately not
about English but Elvish, we have to chose a more general terminology
(which may not fit so well for English) - maybe yours is different
from mine, but what we talk about is an object which is in form
identical to the gerund (e.g. _-ing_ in English or _-ad/-ed_ in
Elvish) and which can occupy both noun and verb position (there I go
again, using my own terminology ;-) ).

<<<<Well, the mere fact that a grammatical object is in _form_
identical to a gerund of course by no means indicates with certainty
that it actually _is_ a gerund, as present participles in English
clearly show. But naturally you are right to point out that in
Elvish, things may be different. Personally, though, and as I've
mentioned at the end of my previous mail, I tend to think that in
Elvish just as in English, it is always the _context_ that matters,
partly because only the larger context will reveal some of the
criteria mentioned above. If it's used as a noun (as in _Ar
Pherhael...suilad_, it _is_ a noun to me, and if it's used as a
gerund/infinitive (as in the _suilannad_-sentence), then that's what
it is.
Again, you could argue that you simply use the term "gerund in noun
position" for what I call a "verbal noun" and the term "gerund in
verb position" for what I plainly call a "gerund", but I still feel
that this unnecessarily blurs the border (in English) between verbal
nouns on the one and gerunds on the other hand. And since you seem to
agree that nouns are qualified by adj. and can take an article, and
that this distinguishes them from gerunds, I don't quite understand
how you can still insist on calling something like "good teaching" a
gerund, albeit it one in "noun position"?>>>>



> > As for Sindarin, we seem to agree that _suilad_ is a noun in KL
> > (which would also be corroborated by Tolkien's own translation,
> > although admittedly, and as mentioned before, this may not be the
> > most reliable criterion), though it _may_ originally be derived
from a gerund.
>
> You stress this _may_ again. Unless you can propose a compelling
> alternative etymology connecting _suilannad_ and _suilad_ (which I
didn't find) the odds are vastly in favour of the gerund derivation.
That alternative formation should also include _orthad_ from 'rising
of the star' - since we can e.g. say 'the beautiful rising of the
star' it is in  noun position - and maybe even _aderthad_.

<<<<As I indicated, I am quite willing to give you the gerund
_derivation_--I'd say you are much more knowledgeable in Elvish
grammar and etymology than I am :), and I already acknowledged that I
think your statement "In Sindarin I will call all _-ad/-ed_ for which
derivation from verbs by a former ending _-ta_ is the most likely
origin 'gerunds'" provides us with as good a definition for gerunds
_in Sindarin_ as we may be able to get. What I said was that some
Sindarin gerunds may have developed into verbal (or action) nouns at
some point, with all the grammatical features those involve, just
like participles are often used as adjectives in English. I believe
this is what we might be seeing in the _suilad_-sentence, and also
for _orthad_ in a phrase like "the beautiful rising of the star".>>>>



> > _Suilannad_, on the other hand, is a gerund, and as you, Thorsten,
> > remark also in your Sindarin course, it can in English be
rendered as an infinitive--which is what Tolkien does: "And he
desires _to greet_ there all his friends."
>
> Yes, but the infinitive replacement doesn't always work - 'your
doing of bad things' doesn't go to a infinitive easily, so I dropped
the replacement criterion in favour of the adverb/adjective one -
  'your doing well in the next exam will improve your score...'

<<<<Frankly, I don't follow you here. _Of course_ the infinitive
replacement doesn't work in "your doing of bad things", for the very
reason that in this phrase we are dealing with a _noun_, and not a
gerund! I thought we agreed that the infinitive replacement strategy
can _only_ work for gerunds (and, granted, sometimes not even then--
which is, as you point out, why the additional adj./adv. qualifier
criterion is so handy)? (cf. your message #32101: "a) gerund if 'X-
ing A' can be replaced by 'to X A' (i.e. 'greeting everybody is a
habit' can be recast as 'to greet everybody is a habit'; b) noun if
that replacement does not work (i.e. 'greeting from the king' doesn't
give a grammatical sentence when recast as '**to greet from the
king')"). That we are dealing with a noun here can also be shown by
applying our other criteria: "doing of bad things" could take an
article ("the doing of bad things"), and it can be qualified by an
adj. ("the frequent doing of bad things").

As for "your doing well in the next exam will improve your score",
since here "doing" is modified by an adverb, it's clearly a gerund
(even though the replacement strategy wouldn't work so well in this
example, at least not without some rephrasing).

So, I'm willing to agree with you that the "replacement strategy" is
not always a reliable indicator. We know that it _never_ works with
action (verbal) nouns, but since it doesn't _always_ work with
gerunds, either, it's indeed better to rely on the adj./adv.
distinction. (On the other hand, _if_ the replacement strategy works,
we can still be sure that we're dealing with a gerund.)>>>>



> > The definition "In Sindarin I will call all _-ad/-ed_ for which
> > derivation from verbs by a former ending _-ta_ is the most likely
> > origin 'gerunds'" may still be valid, of course. In Quenya, forms
in _-ta_ are indeed gerundial/infintival. I believe, though, that in
> > Sindarin, gerunds may become normal nouns
>
> What is a 'normal' noun? The german gerund can be used in noun
position but remembers its origin in so far as it cannot be
pluralized in German,  so it doesn't become a 'normal' noun in at
least one real-world language. My position is that even many of what
you'd like to call 'action nouns' cannot form plurals in English. So
why do you insist they can in Elvish?

<<<<Well, that's not a very good term, I agree. :) What I meant was:
Nouns (like sugar, man, cat, mathematics, house, England...) and
verbal nouns (like taking, making, sitting, meaning) as opposed to
gerunds (which, as we seem to agree, are a special noun form with
verbal properties).

Nouns and verbal nouns are characterized by the facts (among other
things) that they can take the definitive article and are qualifiable
by adjectives. Many of them (but by no means all, this is what I
meant by "generally") are also able to form plurals. But mark you,
it's not only many of the action or verbal nouns (like seeing,
stating, faking etc.; nouns from the underlying verbs in these cases
are often formed by other means than "-ing", eg. sight, sighting or
statement etc.) that lack plurals, but others as well (e.g. milk,
readiness, hardihood)--often generic terms (which sometimes can also
form plurals though, e.g. the waters of the Nile) and formations in -
ness, -hood etc.

So, the situation is really quite complex (and apparently different
from German, where you seem to be saying that verbal nouns [what you
call "gerunds in noun position"] can _never_ be pluralized, which is
clearly not true in English).
What we know for sure is that gerunds (what you call "gerunds in verb
position") can never form plurals.

Finally, where did I insist (or even mention) that action nouns in
Sindarin can _always_ form plurals? We could be dealing with a
situation similar to that in English: some verbal nouns can form
plurals (in English that would for example include sitting, shooting,
teaching, beating, writing, saying, making, dropping, rating, meaning
etc.), and some can't. I guess at this point, there's no way to know
for sure which one is true for _suilad_.>>>>

Greetings,

Hisilome

>May the benediction of this house bring joy and prosperity to all who will

>enter with the heart pure.

>Nai almare coa sino coluva alassea ar aute ilyain i tuluva minna as i oore
poica.

Elhath suggsted:

> My version, pointing at some considerables (_alassea_ being an adjective,
etc.): _Nai almare coa sino coluva alasse ar lar ilyannar i mittar as poice
oorer_.

"With the heart pure" - well, _as_ may mean primarily "together with", but
here "with" means rather "having", perhaps best translated as _arwa_ (here
pl. _arwe_) + genitive. Moreover, _óre_ has certain highly specialized
meanings, so I think we should rather go for _enda_ as the translation of
"heart".

Seems Tolkien dropped the word _lar_, and _aute_ is a very old Qenya form
the conceptual survival of which is open to grave doubts. Maybe we can use
_almare_ for "prosperity" (one of the glosses of this word), whereas
_almie_ can be used to translate "benediction".

_Nai almie coa sino antuva alasse ar almare ilyain [or, illin] i tuluvar
minna arwe poica endo_, perhaps.

- HKF

After due consideration it appears to me that those who regard
Sindarin plurals of verbal nouns as very probable act on the
assumption that English and Sindarin would be closely related.

In connection with this issue _eithad_ is interesting. Obviously it
is the gerund form of the verb _eitha-_: "treat with scorn, insult",
from PQ _*ek-ta_, presumably blended with _*hek-ta_ (WJ:365)

Tolkien wrote (ibid.): "To say to anyone _ego!_ was indeed the
gravest _eithad_."

Of course, except for the two Sindarin words, the whole sentence is
in English, and we don't see _eithad_ in a Sindarin context, but in
the English sentence it is definitely used as a verbal noun, taking
the definite article and an adjective. Some may argue: 'Granted that
something can be "the gravest _eithad_", a potential plural of
_eithad_ seems to suggest itself.'

On the other hand a translation of _eithad_ within this phrase would
certainly be: "the gravest insult", not "**the gravest insulting,
**the gravest treating with scorn", not to mention plural forms.
(I'm no native speaker, please correct me, if I'm wrong.)

Obviously the Sindarin verb _eitha-_ is able to generate a verbal
noun, the English verb "to insult" lacks this ability. Without doubt
the "normal" English noun "insult" can be pluralized, but does this
tell us that the Sindarin verbal noun _eithad_ would behave in the
same way?

IMO the example demonstrates that Sindarin and English are quite
different. There _may_ exist a plural _?eithaid_, but as long as we
don't have any attested examples I would hestitate to use it.


> We could be dealing with a  situation similar to that in English:
> some verbal nouns can form plurals [...], and some can't.

Yes, we could, but actually we don't know, and considering the
numerous differences, we cannot decide whether we are "dealing with
a situation similar to that in English".


Greetings
Erna

>> Yes, but the infinitive replacement doesn't always work - 'your
> doing of bad things' doesn't go to a infinitive easily, so I dropped
> the replacement criterion in favour of the adverb/adjective one -
>  'your doing well in the next exam will improve your score...'
>
> <<<<Frankly, I don't follow you here. _Of course_ the infinitive
> replacement doesn't work in "your doing of bad things", for the very
> reason that in this phrase we are dealing with a _noun_, and not a
> gerund!

Sorry, my mistake! You're entirely right, my example is pointless here.
The replacement  doesn't seem to work with _your doing well_ though - that
is presumably what I had in mind.

* Thorsten

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Thorsten Renk wrote:

> 'calculatings' is odd regardless of the
> context, I cannot recall or construct a single context in which it would
> make sense.

     I can construct such a context. And others have done so: go to
www.google.com and search for "calculatings".
     I think it is relatively rare partly because the noun _calculating_
(as opposed to the gerund) is itself uncommon, _calculation_ being
preferred. Similarly with _insulting/s_ that was brought up in
another post: _insult/s__ is commonly preferred, but _insulting_ and
_insultings_ occur in actual usage.
     'Plurale tantum' seems to be a much more frequent phenomenon than
'singulare tantum' (an label I have never seen used). The article at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural#Defective_nouns> offers
_specie_ as English example of a lexically pluralless singular, but
has a whole list of singularless plurals.

 	 Suilaid,

 		 Beregond

>> 'calculatings' is odd regardless of the
>> context, I cannot recall or construct a single context in which it would
>> make sense.
>
>     I can construct such a context. And others have done so: go to
> www.google.com and search for "calculatings".
>     I think it is relatively rare partly because the noun _calculating_
> (as opposed to the gerund) is itself uncommon, _calculation_ being
> preferred. Similarly with _insulting/s_ that was brought up in
> another post: _insult/s__ is commonly preferred, but _insulting_ and
> _insultings_ occur in actual usage.


Okay, I would like a native English speaker confirm to me that
'calculatings', 'actings', 'insultings' and so on are indeed grammatical.
I don't believe in google evidence.

* Thorsten

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Beregond, Anders Stenstr|m"
<beregond@u...> wrote:

>go to www.google.com (...)

>Similarly with _insulting/s_ that was brought up in another post:
>_insult/s__ is commonly preferred, but _insulting_ and _insultings_
>occur in actual usage.


I have searched "insultings" on google and the first result was the
website >afghanmania.com< where the "admin" wrote (09.11.2003):
"Postings wich contains personal insultings would deleted". (sic)

But yes, it may be "actual usage".....


Aelindis

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "aelindis" <aon.912734440@a...> wrote:
> After due consideration it appears to me that those who regard
> Sindarin plurals of verbal nouns as very probable act on the
> assumption that English and Sindarin would be closely related.

<<<<Since you are quoting from my mail, I'd like to stress for the
record that nowhere in any of my posts on this topic did I claim or
even hint that I regard "Sindarin plurals of verbal nouns as _very
probable_". Rather, I say they are one _possibility_, as a careful
reading of my argument will reveal.>>>>
>
> > We could be dealing with a  situation similar to that in English:
> > some verbal nouns can form plurals [...], and some can't.
>
> Yes, we could, but actually we don't know, and considering the
> numerous differences, we cannot decide whether we are "dealing with
> a situation similar to that in English".

<<<<Right, which is exactly what I wrote (and it would be nice not to
quote out of context): "We _could_ [emphasis added] be dealing with a
situation similar to that in English: some verbal nouns can form
plurals (in English that would for example include sitting, shooting,
teaching, beating, writing, saying, making, dropping, rating, meaning
etc.), and some can't. I guess at this point, _there's no way to know
for sure_ which one is true for _suilad_."

So, no argument here--at least not from me. ;)>>>>

Greetings,

Hisilome