Your long poem seems to be very good. I like its flavour which does
not do unjustice to the flow of the language.

Here are some suggestions for you.

Tence Tuilinde:

> quorina i Alta Síressë,
> drowned in the Great River,

quorina -> quorine etc.

> i hormë i mahtaner
> the hordes who fought towards

As _horme_ is singular, the verb must also be singular.

> Siné inya metta yando.
> This was my end too.

*inya -> ninya

> San, haira, hlarnenyë óma.
> Then, afar, I heard a voice.

_Haira_ is an adjective, use rather the adverb _haiya_.

> Tultasenyë entula;
> It summons me to return;

**tultasenye -> tulataryen

There are some other problems further up the poem, but perhaps other
people could be helpful and point them out. Otherwise, good job.

Elen siluva lyenna,

Petri S. Tikka

Hi again,
the reason I asked about what was the correct numerals is  for the first that
I'm a little confeused how it should be. Some people maybe experienced it as
a rhetorical question, but I want to get it right. My second reason is that
I'm working an the grammar (a kind a script to a linguistic computer
language) for numerals in quenya. My intention is to contribute the list of
already incuded languages of this computer language called GF.

At this moment I have done a prototype of the numeral gramma,  but I've got a
problem. The common grammar works for numbers in the mathematical expresion 0
< n < 1000000, there n stands for a number.

If I follow the idea of how to express a number according to
en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Quenya_Numerals and update it according to VT47 and
VT47 as I interprets it, I still have som questions.
How to express numbers greater than 9999?
With a hundred number, you just use the multiple from two to nine.
154 -> canta leminquain tuxa
362 -> atta enenquain nel*tuxa (the * is for the question if the gluing vowel
is needed or not)
For a tousend number with a multiple of up to nine, there isn't a problem
either. The problem starts if the multiple is greater.
24533 -> neldë nel*quain lemintuxa ? húmë
How should one express this?
I can see some alternatives:
1) 24533 -> neldë nel*quain lemintuxa canta yoquain húmë
2) 24533 -> neldë nel*quain lemintuxa canta-yoquain-húmë
3) 24533 -> neldë nel*quain lemintuxa húmë  canta yoquain
4) 24533 -> neldë nel*quain lemintuxa lumihúmë canta yoquain
This is just guessing, and the last one was a really wild one, but the _lumi-_
prefix was there to inform the reader/listener that the thousend is a
multiple of what that followes next.

Quenya uses a reversed reading comparing to english, that's the reason behind
3 and 4.
Compare it with this..
24533 -> twenty-four thousend five hundred thirty-three
Here you see that multiples are placed to the left of the digit to affect, and
digit with lesser significans to the right.

My question is; is one supposted to put a longer/bigger multiple to the left
or to the right of the digit that one shall affect?
There's no question, when the multiple is 2 to 9, then it's just a prefix to
use.

If one is supposted to use alternatives 1 or 2, then there will be a problem.
If one says: canta yoquain húme.
Does it mean 24000 or 1024?
Even if one also was supposted to say _minë_ before _húmë_ it could be some
problems.
Let's say: minë húmë.
Does it than mean 1001 or just 1000?
To avoid this then you have to use a prefix instead.
Compare _minë húmë_ with _minhúme_ and _minë minhumë_.
Let's go back to the question of: canta yoquain húmë.
If one uses the min-prefix, it will be much more obvious what one mean.
canta yoquain minhumë.

This leads me to a last question. The word _mindóra_ (one million), does it
mean just a million or one million? Is the word for million _dóra_? If a
million is _dóra_ then two million ought to be _yodóra_ and so on.

/Cassa-lelyaro

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, Melroch 'Aestan <melroch@...> wrote:
>
> Besides _Moron*_ is simply ill-formed Quenya.
> A quick look in the Quettaparma Quenyallo
> indicates that the alternant _mor-_ is not very
> common.  The closest analogy in an authentic
> name is _Orocarni_ "Red Mountains", which suggests
> that the correct rendering of "Black Mountain"
> would be _Oromorne*_ -- without both arbitrary
> haplologies and unfortunate cross-linguistic
> associations.
Yet, what about Mordor? I would say that Mordor is the closest
analogy... And if you think more about this issue, Orocarni is name of
a mountain, and Mordor and Montenegro are countries, right? :) So,
according to this analogy, I think that *Moron (*Moront-) is still a
little bit better than *Oromorne (which could be a name for some
mountain rather), no matter what 'moron' means in English, Serbian,
Greek, or any other language. :) And I like haplology very much, it's
my favourite mutation in Quenya, and there's something similar in
Serbian, too. If you write Mororon in Tengwar, I believe you'll see
very clear why did haplology occur.

--

¡Eala Earendel Gilthoniel!

  » *Thom says:* ~ Well, if I wan'a join a conversation, I guess I ought
to let folk know I'm here.

Hello, I'm Thom. I have been a fan of Tolkein's work for years, and have
been getting deeper into the study of it. I am also interested in the
phenomena of Role-playing games. You will find that I am a
transcultural, multi-subject, kind of fellow and may need a little
reminder from time to time to keep on subject.
[...]

Petri Tikka wrote
>Your long poem seems to be very good. I like its flavour which does not do
unjustice to the flow of the language.
>Here are some suggestions for you.

Petri - thank you for the comments made so far, especially for the encouragement
and praise.  Working entirely on my own for the past 2 years has been hard. 
It's not only great to get help, but a word of praise is so inspiring!

> quorina -> quorine

Fine, thanks, of course that is right.

>as _horme_ is singular, the verb must also be singular

I have double checked this, and in Helge's word list and in LT2 341 the word
_horde_ is given in the singular as  _horma_, so I made it _horme_ in order to
make it _hordes_.  If you have a different source please let me know and I'll
reconsider it.  I certainly meant both noun and verb to be plural.

>*inya -> ninya

Again, yes. I double checked myself and I had missed _ninya_.

>_Haira_ is an adjective, use rather the adverb _haiya_.

I believe my grammatical understanding was wrong here.

>Tultasenye entula;
>It summons me to return;

>**tultasenye -> tulataryen

I don't understand this correction I'm afraid.  Could you elaborate it for me?

Many thanks

Tuilinde



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--

¡Eala Earendel Gilthoniel!

  » *Thom says:* ~ I have questions: Apparently, Tolkien both did not,
nor intended to finish building his languages, and that is good because
languages evolve with their cultures, and as his world is not really
finished, the components of that world ought not be finished, either.
When learning one of those Languages, however, how much inventiveness
outside of his work is one allowed?

If Quenya is based on Finnish, could one fill in the blanks with
Finnish, with an understanding of the differences evolving between the
two, and the same with Sindarin from Cymraeg?

And is there any ... advice, on what direction to gain better data to
get that to happen? I have Dragon Flame, and Ruth Noel's book, but they
are limited to what actually exists. If I wanted to write a poem in
Sindarin, I might "hunger" for words that don't exist yet.

   ~«
[...]

> I think that the person, who have been editing this wikibook have done a
> really nice job.
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Quenya

I don't share your opinion, neither with regard to the general accuracy of
the article nor with regard to the numerals.

First, there are no references to Tolkien's work, so I find it very
difficult to verify where info is taken from.

Then, theory is frequently passed off as fact, cf. e.g. in pronouns:

"_mana ná coimas?_ "what is lembas?""

What Tolkien really wrote is _Mana i·coimas Eldaron_ (PM:396) - comparing
with earlier incarnations of Qenya where we find the verb 'to be' merged
with the question word, cf. _Man-ie?_ 'What is it?' (LR:59) it is likely
that this is a similar contraction _man ná > mana_ 'what is?'. In that
case, _*mana ná_ would of course be nonsense. Cf. my reasoning in
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/elvish/to_be.html
Isn't really apparent from the article.

Likewise, I'd very much like to know where

"The reflexive pronoun is expressed by the ending -co. It replaces the
object ending of the verb:
_ceninyes_ "I see him/her/it"
becomes
_ceninyeco_ "I see myself"
_meliryeco_ "he/she/it loves himself/herself/itself""

is attested - I can't recall such a rule, maybe it is in Early Qenya?
Frequently, unattested and highly hypothetical forms are quoted alongside
with attested formations, forms from vastly different conceptual phases
are thrown together without note... And so on, I could continue for a few
pages. I would not recommend the Wiki entry as a reference under any
circumstances - resources on other sites are much more reliable.

> Anyway after been looking into the numerals, I recalled that in the
> wordlist (that Helge Fauskanger edits ), there is a note on the word for
> "ten" has been changed since VT48 and some other numerals was changed in
> VT47.

I believe what you mean is that we have new attested words. Numerals do
not 'change' in VT47/48, we simply now know how Tolkien thought about them
in his late phase around 1968+ , not that what is in the Etymologies would
suddenly be 'wrong' or anything like that.

It is an open secret that Tolkien had different ideas with regard to his
languages at different times, so we have simply learned some more of them.
There is no point in trying to 'merge' or 'reconcile' late forms into the
scheme defined by earlier forms - they need not (and usually do not)
conform to the same scheme (which the Wiki-article doesn't seem to know).

> The multiples of 10, thus 20 to 90, was earlier constructed with the
> suffix –
> cainen, so the consequence ought to be the suffix quain.
>
>         20   yuquain
>         30   nel(e)quain
>         40   can(a)quain
>         50   leminquain
>         60   enenquain
>         70   otsoquain
>         80   tol(o)quain
>         90   neterquain
>         100   tuxa

This is a nice example of what I mean: The 'old' forms are taken from the
Qenya-Lexicon.

PE14:49 lists '_kea (...) kainen_ partitive after other numerals.

We see that in action further down e.g. _kantakainen_ '40' which we must
read literally as the partitive 'four of tens'. This agrees very well with
the partitive ending _-inen_ described a few pages earlier PE14:46 which
has the literal meaning 'of, out of'.

But that is not what the ending _-nen_ in later Quenya means - here it is
the Instumental, not the partitive, cf. e.g. the Plotz Letter. Instead,
the genitive in _-ron_ would have taken over this meaning, cf. WJ:368. So,
clearly these are two different schemes which can't be readily merged
because the partitive suffix changed.

The same is true for 'hundred' and the 'million' - they are early Qenya
and need not agree with the later scheme.  You'll look in vain for
anything like the Wiki-table in Tolkien's writings - it's a rather
artificial (and impossible) construct. Tolkien even tried a duodecimal
counting scheme in various places. So, to a good degree, your difficulties
stem from creating a table for numbers out of fragments which are
completely taken out of context and which do not conform to the same
scheme. Just have a look into what Tolkien actually wrote instead of
referring to Wiki and you'll see what I mean.

* Thorsten

Well, when I requested help in translating the names of these countries  I never
imagined I woud be opening the gate for such a lively  discussion, which is a
great thing!

   I bet you thought I just cooked it all up and laid back to watch what happens
:-)

   I just want to say a couple of things: I don't know about others, but I  would
not be offended by how the name of my country sounds in another  language or
what other (possibly offensive and/or amusing meanings it  might have).  We all
adapt names of other countries to the sounds  of our language or find some other
way to name them.  For example,  Germany in B/C is called Njemacka, in Serbian
Nemacka, from nijem/nem  meaning "mute" - i.e. someone who doesn't speak our
language.  I  wouldn't be surprised if other peoples named their neighbours with
a  similar name, just like there are those who name themselves "people"  and
others "outsiders/barbarians" or something similar, not necessarily  from a
desire to offend, but because  they are different, "us vs  them".

   Like I said, I'm far from an expert in Sindarin, only a student, and  one who
has many obstacles to overcome.  For example, VAT was  recently introduced in
BiH and it had a devastating effect on the  publishing industry; book prices
have skyrocketed and many publishers  filed for bankruptcy.  That means that I
don't have access to  books on Sindarin and have to rely on Internet sources and
your help  and suggestions.  You have all been great,  thank you very  much!

   Since we're talking about country names, how about adding towns to the  mix? 
My town, Mostar is (alledgedly) named after the "mostari"  who guarded the 
bridge (most) over the Neretva river. You could  say it is a bridge town since
it has numerous bridges, the most famous  of which is the Old Bridge.  A friend
suggested a compound  Ostiant, but I'm also interested in adapting it to S/Q. 
Neretva -  unknown meaning but because of its emerald green color it might be 
called Calenduin in Sindarin.  Sarajevo, the capital: "saraj" -  castle/court,
so "castle-town".  Suggestions for  translations/adaptations?

Rainalcar <temp@...> wrote:  > Rainalkar wrote:
>
> > Why would Serbs, Croats, whoever, care are the name of
> > their countries translated to quenya alike to some ugly
> > words in english?
>
> Why would Native Americans be embarrassed because
> a Swedish name means "shit" in their (non-English)
> language?  Yet they did.

That is not a situation to embarras, but to (positively) laugh. I remember
when a croatian reporter went to Portugal on Euro - the customs had a good
laugh seeing that his surname means "fucker" in portugese (sorry for the
vocab ;)

> > What has english got to do with
> > anything? Or why not german? Or italian? MUCH more
> > people where I live speak german and italian far more
> > than english.
>
> I didn't single out English; it's just that in
> this case the unfortunate association happens
> to be with English!  I would certainly not call
> anybody's country _Dummkopf_ or _Cretino_ (or
> call someone _Hyaise_ or _Merda_ or _Catso_ --
> all "well-formed" Quenya words! :-)



---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low  PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> I don't share your opinion, neither with regard to the general accuracy of
> the article nor with regard to the numerals.
>
> First, there are no references to Tolkien's work, so I find it very
> difficult to verify where info is taken from.

I agree with that the wikibook lacks good references and as you pointed out
that the Wikibook also contains a mix of "different" quenya which is
unfortunate, particular when the person have compiled text which is togather
about 150 pages.


> > Anyway after been looking into the numerals, I recalled that in the
> > wordlist (that Helge Fauskanger edits ), there is a note on the word for
> > "ten" has been changed since VT48 and some other numerals was changed in
> > VT47.
>
> I believe what you mean is that we have new attested words. Numerals do
> not 'change' in VT47/48, we simply now know how Tolkien thought about them
> in his late phase around 1968+ , not that what is in the Etymologies would
> suddenly be 'wrong' or anything like that.

Sorry I expressed myself in a wrong way.


> It is an open secret that Tolkien had different ideas with regard to his
> languages at different times, so we have simply learned some more of them.
> There is no point in trying to 'merge' or 'reconcile' late forms into the
> scheme defined by earlier forms - they need not (and usually do not)
> conform to the same scheme (which the Wiki-article doesn't seem to know).
>
> > The multiples of 10, thus 20 to 90, was earlier constructed with the
> > suffix –
> > cainen, so the consequence ought to be the suffix quain.
> >
> >         20   yuquain
> >         30   nel(e)quain
> >         40   can(a)quain
> >         50   leminquain
> >         60   enenquain
> >         70   otsoquain
> >         80   tol(o)quain
> >         90   neterquain
> >         100   tuxa
>
> This is a nice example of what I mean: The 'old' forms are taken from the
> Qenya-Lexicon.
>
> PE14:49 lists '_kea (...) kainen_ partitive after other numerals.
>
> We see that in action further down e.g. _kantakainen_ '40' which we must
> read literally as the partitive 'four of tens'. This agrees very well with
> the partitive ending _-inen_ described a few pages earlier PE14:46 which
> has the literal meaning 'of, out of'.
>
> But that is not what the ending _-nen_ in later Quenya means - here it is
> the Instumental, not the partitive, cf. e.g. the Plotz Letter. Instead,
> the genitive in _-ron_ would have taken over this meaning, cf. WJ:368. So,
> clearly these are two different schemes which can't be readily merged
> because the partitive suffix changed.
>
> The same is true for 'hundred' and the 'million' - they are early Qenya
> and need not agree with the later scheme.  You'll look in vain for
> anything like the Wiki-table in Tolkien's writings - it's a rather
> artificial (and impossible) construct. Tolkien even tried a duodecimal
> counting scheme in various places. So, to a good degree, your difficulties
> stem from creating a table for numbers out of fragments which are
> completely taken out of context and which do not conform to the same
> scheme. Just have a look into what Tolkien actually wrote instead of
> referring to Wiki and you'll see what I mean.
>
> * Thorsten

Well thank you for that you answered. I must ask you. Didn't you have a page
on your site before, which was about numerals? I can't find it anymore. One
of the reasons I'm interested in how to "read out"  a number in (LOTR)quenya,
is that I'm interested to write the grammar-file to a program that can read
decimal (1 to 999999) to many languages. I would like to contribut this
program with quenya.
If there are no word for hundred and thousend, then it will be more difficut
to solve.
It is for a project that my university teacher and professor in computer
science is working on. The project is called GF -- Grammatical Framework, and
it's about a system that you can write grammar-files, which describes a
language so you in longer run can create a machine translater or other types
of langues programs. In a wider time frame I would like to write down the
grammar for lotr-quenya. At the moment I'm remaking the functions for making
the noun case tables. In the long run it would be possible i.e. to use Concil
of Elronds export function of quenya wordlist for create a morphologic
wordlist with all word cases.

/Cassa-lelyaro

Also posted on Aglardh, feel free to comment here or
over there:


W.B Yeats

I Ninqui Aiwi

Nai nauvamme, ammelda, ninquie aiwi or earewinge!
Yeryamme lantatinweo náro epe lertas sinta ar vanya;
Ar tindómeva luinitinweo náre, lumna Ilmeno
rímasse,
endammassen ekkuitie, ammelda, nyére úfirima.

*Lúve tule i *olandollor, i níti, 'n indil ar i
losille;
�lalye *tínen óla, ammelda, i lelyala nárenen
lantatinweo,
Var i luinitinweo nárenen i lumna míka i lantala
*níte:
An nai nauvamme ninquie aiwi or i ranyawinge, emme
yúyo!

Unótime tolli ni sahtar, ar falasseli Nanaanie,
Yasse Lúme tankave me hehta, ar Nainie lá *allelya
ente;
Háya 'n indillo ar losillello, yerne i nárellon
nauvamme,
Nauvamme ké ninquie aiwi, ammelda, liltala
earewingesse!

---

WOULD that we were, my beloved, white birds on the
foam of the sea!
We tire of the flame of the meteor, before it can fade
and flee;
And the flame of the blue star of twilight, hung low
on the rim of the sky,
Has awakened in our hearts, my beloved, a sadness that
may not die.

A weariness comes from those dreamers, dew-dabbled,
the lily and rose;
Ah, dream not of them, my beloved, the flame of the
meteor that goes,
Or the flame of the blue star that lingers hung low in
the fall of the dew:
For I would we were changed to white birds on the
wandering foam: I and you!

I am haunted by numberless islands, and many a Danaan
shore,
Where Time would surely forget us, and Sorrow come
near us no more;
Soon far from the rose and the lily, and fret of the
flames would we be,
Were we only white birds, my beloved, buoyed out on
the foam of the sea!

---

notes:

*lúve: sadness, noun derivative of LUB-, VT45:29
*olando: dreamer, cf. Cormacolindo
*tínen: Instr. of _te_ "they"; _óla-_ might as well
govern a partitive for all I know, but I have chosen
the instrumental here
*níte: n. moisture, dew, NEI(ET) VT45:38
*allelya: approach, cf. _anglenna-_ in KL

Re: 3rd verse 3rd line: I am not quite sure which of
the numerous meanings of fret applies here -- I just
hope I am on the right track...


Thomas Ferencz

Let's discuss Eldarin languages - http://aglardh.middangeard.hu
Footprints - the Middangeard blog - http://www.middangeard.hu/blog

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

If you could evaluate my translation - I will also state croatian and
english translation, literaly as close as possible to the original.
---------------------
Lijepa na¹a
Our beatiful
Vanyalma

Lijepa na¹a domovino,
Our beatiful homeland (vocative),
A vanya marnórelma,

oj junaèka zemljo mila,
oh dear, heroic land,
a kalla nóre melda,
First issue is the word kalla - I know it's derivation is quite temptative,
so I need your suggestions here.

stare slave djedovino,
grandfatherland of ancient glory
harunóre alkareo yára,
haru 'grandfather' is QL, but atar doesn't sound good to me, so I will stick
with haru which is literal.

da bi vazda sretna bila!
may you ever be happy!
nai oiale nauva alassea!

Mila kano si nam slavna,
Dear as much as you are gloriuos (to us) - in croatian, this dative is quite
common
Melda ve alkarin tye ná,

Mila si nam ti jedina,
Only you are dear to us,
Melda tye eresse men ná,

Mila kuda si nam ravna,
Dear where you are flat (to us),
Melda yasse tye lára ná,

Mila kuda si planina!
Dear where you are mountainous! (literaly mountain)
Melda yasse tye orontea ná!
I know there is an adjective oronta 'steep' but I cannot see any other way
to derive 'mountainous' from oront- but *orontea. Still, other suggestions
would be nice.

  Teci Dravo, Savo teci,
Flow Drava, Sava flow,
A ulya Lutulle, Úlea ulya,
Other option was to quenyanize the names to *Ráva, *Sáva, but I don't feel
like it because - see below. As for these names, Lutu- + -lle, and Úlea is a
adjective functioning as a noun.

Nit ti Dunav silu gubi,
Nor you Danube lose power,
Poldore Síreva lá lanta,
Quenyanizing Dunav would come out as *Luna - rather silly, and *Anduna is
temptative. However,  I was unable to find the word for 'lose', so I
translated everything as 'Strength of Dunav falls not'. Poldore comes from
ETYM.

Sinje more svijetu reci,
Azure sea say to the world,
Luinaire palúrinen á quete,

Da svoj narod Hrvat ljubi.
That a Croat loves his people.
ye Horvat mele lierya.
I'm still thinking between Hruát and Horvat.

Dok mu njive Sunce grije,
As long as the Sun warms his crofts,
Tenna restaryannar Anar kaluva,
Aorist is also possible, but then I lose all rhyme because some verbs are
primary, and some are a-verbs. Is there a problem if I use future tense? I'm
thinking of a sentence as 'Until the Sun will warm his crofts'.

Dok mu hra¹æe bura vije,
As long as bura (type of wind) will whirl his oaks (not literaly oaks,
understood as oak-branches, but this is hard to translate).
Tenna nornoryar súre hwinyuva,

Dok mu mrtve grobak krije,
As long as grave hides his dead,
Tenna firineryar noire nurtuva,

Dok mu ¾ivo srce bije.
As long as his alive heart beats.
Tenna kuinarya hón palpuva.

Any suggestions, especialy on euphony, would be very appreciated.

> I agree with that the wikibook lacks good references and as you pointed
> out that the Wikibook also contains a mix of "different" quenya which is
> unfortunate, particular when the person have compiled text which is
> togather about 150 pages.

Unfortunate indeed :-/ From my own experience, it is much easier to
include all references and markers for hypothetical forms from the
beginning rather than to do it a posteriori. But never mind...

> I must ask you. Didn't you have a page on your site before, which was
> about numerals?

No, definitely not. You must have confused that with another site.

> One of the reasons I'm interested in how to "read out"  a number in
> (LOTR)quenya,
> is that I'm interested to write the grammar-file to a program that can
> read
> decimal (1 to 999999) to many languages. I would like to contribut this
> program with quenya.
> If there are no word for hundred and thousend, then it will be more
> difficut to solve.

The fact is that numbers in late Quenya (say Etymologies and beyond, i.e.
what is typically referenced for LOTR-style Quenya vocabulary and grammar)
show some drift (cf. _caer_ and _pae_ for 10) although the general ideas
remain stable and that numbers beyond 20 are not really known. For that
reason, your program can only deal with your construct of a number system,
not with Tolkien's.

A rather straightforward solution would be to write your routines for the
Early Qenya number system - that is well known and self-consistent and has
all numbers attested. And we even know how to translate multiplication -
_hue yullume i hualqe_ = 'twice nine is eighteen'. In fact, it is what I
would suggest to do.


> In a wider time frame I would like to write down the
> grammar for lotr-quenya. At the moment I'm remaking the functions for
> making the noun case tables.

No such thing as LOTR-Quenya grammar. Even if you take Tolkien's own noun
tables in the Plotz letter as the reference, you're still stuck with
plenty of forms which do not conform with expectations (because Tolkien
altered the grammar while thinking about a new problem) - just to give a
few examples, _Menelze_ instead of the expected _**Menelesse_ 'in heaven'
  from the Ataremma or _péti_ 'lips' which shows a plural marker in addition
to a dual marker, something not seen in the Plotz letter at all.

So, a program that has 'learned' the grammar from Namárie is unlikely to
correctly analyze the Ataremma, Markirya or Fíriel's song - because the
'standard' Neo-Quenya grammar which is often used in Fanfic compositions
is just a construct, unknown to Tolkien.

In that sense, Quenya is poorly suited to your project :-/

* Thorsten

Hello!
I am trying to translate a poetry from English to Sindarin but I lack
words.
Could you please help me?
Here is the original text and my attempt to translate it (line by
line ; I put dots where I could not find a word) :

> The thick light crawls
> _i 'aldûg lyyga_ (I derived a verb _lyyg-_ from _lyyg_ in the hope
> to mean something like "to crawl")
>
> Along the sharp leaves
> _............ i less vegyr_ (I assumed that the plural form of
> _lass_ should be _less_ though I did not find the official plural
> form)
>
> And vanishes into crimson fumes
> _a ................. an yps neru_ (is there anything better than
> _naru_ to translate "crimson"? ; I found _ops_ for "smoke", but I'd
> prefer a word that renders "fume" more accurately)
>
> That come licking the grey skins
> _tolel lefi i flaid vithrin_
>
> Of strange fairies hanging to flosses
> _o ............  ..........  .............. an ............_
>
> Where twisted leprechauns drain
> _ennas yrch nyrn sauthar_ (I didn't find a translation for "where",
> so I used "there")
>
> Liquid coal from their wounds
> _..........  ....... na ........ heru_ (I assumed that _heru_
> should be the plural form of _haru_)


Thanks in advance!
Crow

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, BloodyCrow <bloodycrow@...> wrote:

> I am trying to translate a poetry from English to Sindarin but I
lack
> words.
> Could you please help me?

If you are actually resolved to translate this poem into Sindarin,
you will probably be bound to rephrase the English text
considerably, IMHO.

> > The thick light crawls
> > _i 'aldûg lyyga_ (I derived a verb _lyyg-_ from _lyyg_ in the
hope
> > to mean something like "to crawl")

> _i 'aldûg_: _gal-_ (from _*ñgal_) would become _i ngal-_ (lenited).

> _**lyyga_: I would advise against using this word. BTW, from
your 'derived' verbal stem I would rather expect it to be a basic
verb.
As there is no verb 'to crawl'/'to creep', I would suggest a
rewording such as 'approaches secretly', or the like. But you must
make your own decision.


> > Along the sharp leaves
> > _............ i less vegyr_ (I assumed that the plural form of
> > _lass_ should be _less_ though I did not find the official
plural
> > form)

The plural of _lass_ would be _laiss_.
The plural of _megor_ might be irregular _migor_, but maybe _megyr_,
formed by analogy, is also justifiable.


> > And vanishes into crimson fumes
> > _a ................. an yps neru_ (is there anything better
than
> > _naru_ to translate "crimson"? ; I found _ops_ for "smoke", but
I'd
> > prefer a word that renders "fume" more accurately)

The plural of _naru_ (_narw_) might rather be _neiru_. I'm not sure
which of the various words for 'red' woud express 'crimson'.

'smoke' is _osp_.


> > That come licking the grey skins
> > _tolel lefi i flaid vithrin_

I would maybe form a relative clause: _i delir (= lenited _telir_)
lavel (= present participle) [...]_.


> > Where twisted leprechauns drain
> > _ennas yrch nyrn sauthar_ (I didn't find a translation
for "where",
> > so I used "there")

Maybe you could use the reconstructed _*ias_ (relative
pronoun 'where').


> > Liquid coal from their wounds
> > _..........  ....... na ........ heru_ (I assumed that _heru_
> > should be the plural form of _haru_)

Again, the plural seems to be _heiru_.


I am quite aware of the fact that I have not been a great help with
rewording/reconstructing/filling the gaps in your translation. Maybe
someone else with more creativity will do this. :-)


Erna

I have offered the English version of my poem "Faramir" to the editor of Amon
Hen.  He has accepted it for publication, but would like to run it in parallel
with the Quenya version.
If anyone has any further helpful comments to correct or improve it before I
send it to him I would indeed be most grateful.
I would hate to see it in print in Amon Hen and then be told of lots of
mistakes.
Thank you in anticipation to anyone who may generously spend time and effort on
this for me.

Namarie!      Susan Frances ~ Tuilinde

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Rainalcar" <temp@...> wrote:
>
> Any suggestions, especialy on euphony, would be very appreciated.
>
I like the melody of "Lijepa nasa" very much. Rainalcar, you gave me
the inspiration, I shall now start translating the Serbian anthem. :)
And perhaps we could translate "Hej, Slaveni" together. :D

----- Original Message -----
From: "Djordje D. Bozovic" <zlatiborica@...>
To: <elfling@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 4:13 PM
Subject: [elfling] Re: Croatian national anthem.


> --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Rainalcar" <temp@...> wrote:
>>
>> Any suggestions, especialy on euphony, would be very appreciated.
>>
> I like the melody of "Lijepa nasa" very much. Rainalcar, you gave me
> the inspiration, I shall now start translating the Serbian anthem. :)
> And perhaps we could translate "Hej, Slaveni" together. :D
>

Why not? If it is to quenya, I'm (still) not to farmiliar with sindarin. You
can make an attempt, I'll be more than happy to help.

Tuilindë,

It is a well written peice.

> Nuravë harna, nenyë alantala,

***Long ú in _Núra_, also I can't understand the a- prefix on the
act. part. of _lanta_, perhaps you could explain it?

> alantala mir i nura mornië,

***Again, long ú and prefix a-, just to point them out...

> Er hilyanen' i fëar

***Just so you know, no elision marker is necessary on the shortened
suffix -n(ye), unless you perhaps have "-ny' e-"...

> 'Morna Heruva

***What does this appostrophie (') signify?

> uryaina alantala coaressë,

***Again, the a- prefix, and locative pl. of _coa_ may be
simply 'coassen'.

> ar nehtaina i Pelerinnar.

***Locative might work instead of allative for 'on the Pelennor'.

> Si fëanya né vanwa,

***Is the -i- in *Si supposed to be long? (_sí_)

> nyeressë er ranyanen'

***Again this elision might not be necessary....

> Siné inya metta yando.

***I thought the word was simply _sin_ in this case, but since Mr.
Tikka didn't comment on it, you may want to double check it...

> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

***Well done, good luck on it, and hopefully more help to come and a
well polished publication!

Bob Powers

Tulindë,

   Great poem. I agree with you about Jackson not including even a brief scene
between Aragorn and Faramir was one mistake that shouldn't have been allowed. At
any rate, besides the comments by others already noted, here are some of my
thoughts:

   nenyë alantala > I'm not sure this really works. The English is a predicate
sentence, which  means that "falling" is a predicate adjective". I would make
this
   _ni lantala [né]_. The copula is optional but if you think it is necessary I
would put it in the end for the sake of cadence. Also the correct verb for "to
fall" is _lanta-_. What you have is I think from _atalantë_ which actually means
"downfall". Stick with the more normal verb _lanta-_ in all cases.

   alantala mir i nura mornië > lanatala mir [núra] mornië. In the English
version you don't have "deep", so I would drop it in the Quenya (or conversely,
put it in the English)

   estel pella... > my preference would be _han estel, etc._ simply because the
alternation between monosyllabic and polysyllabic words creates a cadence
similar to (though in reverse of) the English.

   ....Pelerinnar > definitely you should use the locative, since you can
translate it as "slain at the Pelennor" and be correct.

   hormë > hormar; _hormë_ is an adjective meaning "urgency"; _hormar_ is the
correct plural of _horma_.

   Sinë > Sina (this) singular

   áné > tultanë _tulta-_ can also mean "to bring", in which case I would use the
verb _naham-_  in the next stanza for "tosummon" > nahamneryen: "it summons me"

   aupela > autula "come away" I think would be more acceptable.

   meldorenya-macilo > meldomacilinyar > meldo + macil + -inya + -r

   sailo ar poldo > nólë ar poldo. _saila_ means "wise". _nólë_ or _nolwë_ means
"wisdom, deep lore", also the last declinable word rule applies here so you only
need to put the genitive on the last word in the phrase.

   entul' cuilenn' ar estelenna > á entula cuilë ar estelenna; you need _á_ to
indicate the imperative and the last declinable word rule applies here as well.

   tarassi vinyë > vinyë tarassi, since Quenya, unlike Sindarin, tends to put the
adjective before the noun as English does.

   cenen i anta nye > cenen i anta (not sure why you have _nye_ here)

   appëar inyë > appëar nyë (accusative form)

   Mana 'aran cána? > Man' aran cána? However, since _aran_ is definite you might
want to put in the definite article in which case this becomes _Mana i aran
cána?_

   iHeru 'Mordoro > iHeru Morinórëo, since _Mordor_ is the Sindarin form

   I'm sure I've missed some but these are the ones I noticed right away.
Hopefully, between all the comments you'll have a great poem in Quenya. Good
luck!

   Arthur


Utúlie'n Estel!

---------------------------------
Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo!
Messenger with Voice.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thorsten Renk wrote:

> No such thing as LOTR-Quenya grammar. Even if you take Tolkien's own noun
  tables in the Plotz letter as the reference, you're still stuck with
plenty of forms which do not conform with expectations (because Tolkien
altered the grammar while thinking about a new problem) - just to give a
few examples, _Menelze_ instead of the expected _**Menelesse_ 'in heaven'
[...]

The adjective _menelessea_ in VT44:16 would suggest that #_menelesse_ is
indeed a possible locative of _menel_, though it can be shortened as
(_menelze_ >) _menelde_. I don't think anything has turned up (in late
material, that is) that definitely contradicts the Plotz letter, though
there are some forms that _supplement_ Plotz. (Another example: Plotz does
not indicate what the plural possessive ending is, but in Quendi and Eldar
we learn that it is _-iva_.)

Plotz never discusses how case endings are added to nouns ending in a
consonant, so it tells us nothing about how _menel_ would behave.

> the 'standard' Neo-Quenya grammar which is often used in Fanfic
compositions is just a construct, unknown to Tolkien.

I think I should use the word "compilation" rather than "construct" (which
implies the "construction" of something entirely new). Neo-Quenya attempts
to duplicate the grammar underlying the texts we have, above all the
samples occurring in the LotR itself, and also other sources to the extent
they don't contradict the LotR samples. If our grammatical deductions are
correct, the resulting "compiled" grammar does consist of ideas that
existed in Tolkien's mind at some point or another, though the "compiled"
system _as a whole_ very likely draws on different conceptual phases that
may not have coexisted originally (that is, as Tolkien saw the language).

Does this invalidate the "Tolkienian" nature of the compilation? Well,
opinions would probably differ. One could say that our compiled "complete"
grammar does not contradict Tolkien's ideas because there is no reason to
assume that he _ever_ had a crystal-clear vision of the entire grammatical
system (hence there is nothing to contradict). But some would no doubt say
that precisely since he hadn't, any attempt to put together such a
"complete" grammar cannot produce something that is truly Tolkienian.

Taking a balanced view is probably the best thing here. A Neo-Quenya
grammar is much like the published Silmarillion: a unified, _edited_
version based on Tolkien's many layers of ideas. No one will assert that
the Silmarillion that was published in the late seventies is exactly the
book JRRT himself would have published if he himself had lived to produce a
"final" version of it. Yet his name very properly appears on the title
page.

Similarly, if some of us venture to suggest what a normalized Neo-Quenya
grammar could look like, we do not thereby claim to know what Tolkien might
have produced if he had indeed written and published the Elvish grammar he
describes as "desirable" in one of his letters. A normalized Quenya grammar
necessarily cannot be "pure Tolkien", it will also reflect the preferences
of the editor, but nevertheless, it will be Tolkienian material that this
editor is editing.

Almost inevitably, the result tends to be a grammar more idealized and
streamlined that that which actually appears in the primary sources. For
instance, in my compositions I invariably let adjectives agree in number
with the noun they describe, and I might even expect others to do the same
-- though I am perfectly well aware that in quite a few cases, there is no
such agreement in Tolkien's own texts. How should a Neo-Quenya grammarian
deal with this fact? Did Tolkien's ideas differ at various times, did he
make some honest mistakes, or are we to conclude that it is simply
_optional_ whether adjectives agree in number or not? In such a case I
would go with the most "canonical" source, Namárie and its interlinear
translation in RGEO, where we find _linte yuldar_ for "swift draugths" and
Tolkien explicitly identified _linte_ as a "pl." adjective.

There are plenty of relatively minor issues that can be endlessly debated,
such as whether _carne_ or _cáre_ is the best option for the past tense of
_car-_ "do", or whether the word for "8" should be _tolto_ or _toldo_, but
I do feel that our Neo-Quenya compilations capture many of Tolkien's
general ideas about the language well enough. And certainly we have managed
to reproduce its general style, if indeed we can claim to have reproduced
anything when we "simply" put Tolkien's words together to form actual
texts.

- HKF

Hello!


I tried to create an elvish name for myself (in Quenya), but I'm not
sure whether I did it right.

The meaning of the name should be something like "docile" but I didn't
find any translation for that.
So I tried to circumscribe it with the following words:

tá = high
meldo = friend
ilyë-on = of all  (is this correct?)
fëar = spirit / soul

tá meldo ilyë-on fëar
(This should be: high friend of all souls)

Then I tried to combine these words and got the name:  Táldofar

Is that a correct elvish name?

Or do you perhaps have any other ideas or suggestions how to create a
name with these words or with its meanings?


Thanks in advance!


Best regards,

Martin Roll

Hi,

--- Martin Roll <mail@...> wrote:


> The meaning of the name should be something like
> "docile" but I didn't
> find any translation for that.
> So I tried to circumscribe it with the following
> words:
>
> t� = high
> meldo = friend
> ily�-on = of all  (is this correct?)
> f�ar = spirit / soul
>
> t� meldo ily�-on f�ar
> (This should be: high friend of all souls)

I do not know how you arrived at this meaning, what I
see for docile is (m-w.com):

Main Entry: doc·ile
Pronunciation: 'dä-s&l also -"sIl, esp British
'dO-"sIl
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin docilis, from docEre to teach; akin
to Latin decEre to be fitting -- more at DECENT
1 : easily taught
2 : easily led or managed : TRACTABLE
synonym see OBEDIENT


>
> Then I tried to combine these words and got the
> name:  T�ldofar
>
> Is that a correct elvish name?

It fits Quenya phonology, yes, but your intended
meaning is not at all recognizable in it...

>
> Or do you perhaps have any other ideas or
> suggestions how to create a
> name with these words or with its meanings?

You should then first decide whether you want a name
that menas more or less 'docile', or another that is
'high friend of all souls' (whatever that may be).

'friend of soul(s)' could be Fearendil or Fearondil, I
think adding 'high' and 'all' would just complicate
things too much.

As for 'docile' I _could_ imagnine sg like *Túlima
meaning 'leadable', but I am curious what others'
opinion may be on this.

Shine on,

Thomas Ferencz

Let's discuss Eldarin languages - http://aglardh.middangeard.hu
Footprints - the Middangeard blog - http://www.middangeard.hu/blog

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

>> the 'standard' Neo-Quenya grammar which is often used in Fanfic
> compositions is just a construct, unknown to Tolkien.

> I think I should use the word "compilation" rather than "construct"
> (which implies the "construction" of something entirely new).

I chose the term 'construct' rather deliberately (among other reasons,
because it has a somewhat provocative ring to it and may draw attention to
the underlying point). The problem which brought my reply (matching a list
of numbers from the Early Qenya grammar with material from 'Eldarin
Hands, Fingers and Numerals' ) and the Wiki-compilation
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Quenya
of Q(u)enya material which suggests without much ado that number schemes
  from these vastly different sources can be matched readily is in my view
justification for the word.

I believe Helge is quite aware of the differences between a Neo-Quenya
grammar and Tolkien's actual writings, and for the most part I agree very
much with the presentation in his Quenya course. However, many other
people are not so aware (and frankly, I am tired of defending Tolkien's
own forms against overeager Neo-Quenya enthusiasts who (in good faith)
'correct' everything towards a standard grammar).  The simple fact is that
there is a pronounced lack of awareness of how standardized some features
of the grammar are and on how few examples whole paradigms are based
(often 1). Needless to say, real language paradigms can not always
correctly be predicted from one example.

> Neo-Quenya attempts to duplicate the grammar underlying the texts we
> have, above all the
> samples occurring in the LotR itself, and also other sources to the
> extent they don't contradict the LotR samples.

Helge will probably agree that using numerals based on a partitive
_-inen_  does disagree with LotR samples. In that sense (and in quite a
few others, e.g. marking of unattested forms) the Wiki-book is
qaulitatively different from his own presentation (to which my comments
apply admittedly somewhat less).

> If our grammatical deductions are
> correct, the resulting "compiled" grammar does consist of ideas that
> existed in Tolkien's mind at some point or another, though the "compiled"
> system _as a whole_ very likely draws on different conceptual phases that
> may not have coexisted originally (that is, as Tolkien saw the language).

In my view, you can only 'compile' things into a whole which share the
same context. Suppose we are trying to design a showroom for a museum
which should resemble a living room in post-WW2 Germany. Clearly, having a
coal oven, a rocking chair and a grammophone next to the flatscreen TV,
the mobile phone and the DVD player would seem a bit odd - while all these
things did (or do) exist in German living rooms, as a rule they don't
coexist - they are 50 years apart (but so is the early Qenya grammar and
Tolkien's late writings). The resulting living room could be called a
construct - likewise, drawing from sources which at some point existed in
Tolkien's mind does not guarantee that the sum would not be artificial -
it is well known that even post-LOTR sources contradict each other
(sometimes even published samples). I think it is fair to call it a
'compilation' as long as no internal contradictions need to be smoothed
over - as soon as heavy editing is involved I'd rather go with 'construct'.

> Does this invalidate the "Tolkienian" nature of the compilation?

Does the fact that anachronisms are present invalidate the German nature
of the living room exhibit? Well, yes and no - it still retains some
degree of Germanness, but it is not a living room which is in any sense
typical. Germans would probably smile broadly if you present it to them as
if it would be the genuine thing. I imagine something similar for
Neo-Quenya...

> Almost inevitably, the result tends to be a grammar more idealized and
> streamlined that that which actually appears in the primary sources.

Yes, and frankly, I think something is lost along the way. Neo-Quenya
texts have some of the falvour of Tolkien's texts, but if given an
unpublished text by Tolkien and a Neo-Quenya text unknown to me, I think
it would be quite easy to tell them apart - Tolkien's text would reflect
the spirit of the language without clinging to details.

Consider the simple phrase _et i péti_ from the last VT. Standard Quenya
would proably yield _et i peullo_ (or maybe _et i pelto_). In contrast,
Tolkien did
* leave out the ablative
* use a t-dual
* use an additional plural marker -i
Neither idea is completely novel - prepositions without open case marker
(probably accusative then) occur elsewhere, t-duals are usually seen and
dual + plural occurs in _aldaru_. The end result (at least to my taste)
appears more pleasant than the two 'standard' forms. But I guess that
hardly anyone would have dared to take the same freedom in a Neo-Quenya
text. So the flavour of the actual Tolkien samples is different, and this
essence is difficult to capture in the (artificial) regularity of
Neo-Quenya grammar.

> How should a Neo-Quenya grammarian
> deal with this fact? Did Tolkien's ideas differ at various times, did he
> make some honest mistakes, or are we to conclude that it is simply
> _optional_ whether adjectives agree in number or not? In such a case I
> would go with the most "canonical" source.

I don't want to spoil anyones fun with Neo-Quenya texts (including my own
fun). But I think there is a difference between Tolkien's Quenya and
standardized Neo-Quenya and people should be aware of that. As long as
that is the case, there need not be an unque solution.

In the case at hand, a research project (grammar on the computer) was made
about Quenya. I think it is scientifically unsound unless it is very clear
whose Quenya is under investigation - mine, Helge's, Tolkien's early or
late. Grammar (or any linguistics) investigations into Elvish should be
primarily based on what Tolkien wrote about Elvish, not on what any one of
us made of it (and I shouldn't have to mention that). I think research
needs to be held to higher standards than enjoying the languages privately.

As for Neo-Quenya, I believe there can (potentially) be more to Neo-Quenya
compositions than following a previously agreed set of standard grammar
rules - I think that by studying the variations and experiments Tolkien
tried with the language, one can try to 'learn' about the underlying
essence, the taste which dicatates these shifts and deviations. If so, we
could 'allow' for similar experiments in Neo-Quenya if the outcome is then
more pleasant, if well done, that would in my view be closer to Tolkien's
Quenya than what we do now. But of course, this is hard to describe or
formalize, so I can't give any rules how to make such compositions (in
fact, I haven't actually tried although I am carrying this idea since Bill
Weldon posted similar ideas here).


> There are plenty of relatively minor issues that can be endlessly
> debated, such as whether _carne_ or _cáre_ is the best optionfor the
> past tense of_car-_ "do"


I don't know if people would consider it a minor issue if I speaked and
writed simplified standard English past tense - but for me the issue here
is to convey the message that Quenya is not 'simple' in the past tense
(and has a bunch of nasty exceptions) but that everything points to a rich
and complex structure of forms, and in my experience, that is not what
most people think.

So, I feel that calling Neo-Quenya a 'compilation' is going to make
readers lean back, relax and be fine with Ardalambion (or 'Quetin i lambe
eldaiva') Quenya whereas calling it a 'construct' might be able to bug a
few more folks enough to have a look into Tolkien's writings and see the
differences. So, I'll stay with the construct. I don't want people to feel
fine talking about Quenya grammar without knowing the original writings.

* Thorsten

Hi,


I think I made a mistake to use the English word "docile".

As I'm a German it's not that easy for me to find English words I never
used before to describe my character. ;-)


The right meaning should be something like "well-tempered" or
"good-natured".

If there is someone who speaks German, too.... I'm searching for an
elvish name that has the meaning "gutmütig". :-)


Sorry for the inconvenience.


Thanks in advance again.

Best regards,
Martin Roll




Atwe schrieb:

[...]
>I do not know how you arrived at this meaning, what I
>see for docile is (m-w.com):
[...]
>to Latin decEre to be fitting -- more at DECENT
>1 : easily taught
>2 : easily led or managed : TRACTABLE
>synonym see OBEDIENT
[...]
>As for 'docile' I _could_ imagnine sg like *Túlima
>meaning 'leadable', but I am curious what others'
>opinion may be on this.
[...]

Martin Roll skrev:
> Hi,
>
>
> I think I made a mistake to use the English word "docile".
>
> As I'm a German it's not that easy for me to find English words I never
> used before to describe my character. ;-)
>
>
> The right meaning should be something like "well-tempered" or
> "good-natured".
>
> If there is someone who speaks German, too.... I'm searching for an
> elvish name that has the meaning "gutmütig". :-)

A search <http://dict.leo.org/ende?&search=gutm%FCtig>
gives "well-tempered, good natured, of good nature".

There is Quenya

_mára_ "useful, fit, good" (of things) (MAG; see MA3;
Arct, VT42:34, VT45:30)

_indo_  "heart, mood" (ID, VT39:23)

and Sindarin

_maer_  "useful,  fit,  good (of things)" Ety/371 (MAG)

_ind (inn)_ "inner  thought,  meaning,  heart" Ety/361 (IN-ID)

So maybe Quenya _Márindo*_, Sindarin _Maerin(d)_?

> Atwe schrieb:
>
> [...]
>
>>I do not know how you arrived at this meaning, what I
>>see for docile is (m-w.com):
>
> [...]
>
>>to Latin decEre to be fitting -- more at DECENT
>>1 : easily taught
>>2 : easily led or managed : TRACTABLE
>>synonym see OBEDIENT
>
> [...]
>
>>As for 'docile' I _could_ imagnine sg like *Túlima
>>meaning 'leadable', but I am curious what others'
>>opinion may be on this.

--

/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! ||

Somewhere, I'm not sure where but perhaps via elvish.org/gwaith there is a list
of personal names rendered into Quenya. It's possible that Martin is listed
there already. I know Helge has an article at Ardalambion entitled "Now We All
Have Elvish Names" which was the inspiration for this list. You might want to
try Helge's site first and see if there is a link. Good luck.

   Arthur


Utúlie'n Estel!

---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min
with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://www.elvish.org/elm


--- Arthur Boccaccio <elhanan_austin@...> wrote:

> Somewhere, I'm not sure where but perhaps via
> elvish.org/gwaith there is a list of personal names
> rendered into Quenya.

Thomas Ferencz

Let's discuss Eldarin languages - http://aglardh.middangeard.hu
Footprints - the Middangeard blog - http://www.middangeard.hu/blog

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I must say I find this topic interesting, and I believe that I should point
out some things, when I feel that some of the things is a result of what I
wrote under annother topic.

My comments isn't cronological after what has been written before, and my
comments do not take a position on the issue whatever Neo-Quenya is a
construct or  a compilation, just some things around it.

Since I felt myself a little hit by the comments in earlier posts in the topic
I want to point out, that I'm aware of that Tolkien put in a historical
parameter in his languages, in the way that the languages changed over the
time. Because of this it would be to difficult to manage to write a
grammar-file (A type of sourcefile to a specific gramatical language system.)
to all of it. This "problem" exists in all natural (spoken) languages, that
it changes over time, but you do not normally mention it. For example a book
that covers the english language, you do not mention this fact unless if the
book covers ancient english or over annother time epoch other than the
language of today.

Anyway, my intention was to write the grammar for the timeperiod of LOTR,
which I would have mentioned in the grammar library.

Yes I would actual liked to read/studied all his work, but I find it
difficullt. That's way I like quotations in references, so I can be able to
"get a taste of it of my own". Anyway for us (I can't really talk for all of
us, but I don't think I'm alone with this opinion) who hasn't read all the
texts that Tolkien wrote, really appreciate the work of several persons,
which both of you are included. Your works serves as gateways to Tolkiens
works, and I believe that they can work as  a support when one feel oneself
ready to go to the next step and study more and deeper in the languages of
Tolkien.

As I have come to understand over time is that there is a variety "grammatical
rules" which Tolkien changed over time (real time) and tested. And some of
the coexists and there is not always "one truth".

So what do you call your own courses? (T.Renk and H.K.Fauskanger) Is it
Neo-Quenya or is it Tolkien-Quenya (For the LOTR period and maybe little
simplified). I must ask you for a definition of Neo-Quenya. I thought I had
one clear definition, but after reading in this topic, I realized that my
definition was probarbly not so good. After reading your mails, I wounder if
the definition is a standarized LOTR-Quenya. I thought that Neo-Quenya had
something to do with "filling the gap" of those questions Tolkien left to the
world after he had passed away and to be more a standarized Quenya.

If that's true, then if we go back to the making of a Quenya grammar library,
I can see a developement path of this project. As a first step I try to
implement the standardized grammatical rules from any of the courses.
Ofcause, the course that will be used have to be referenced. In the
sourcefiles, for each "grammatical rule", such as paradigms and so on should
have references to the work of Tolkien.
Before continuing it would be nice if people that have deeper knoledge than I
have, could test the different rules. For example check if case generation of
nouns are ok and so on according to that "degree" of quenya.
When the standardized lotr-quenya looks ok, next step would be to implement
alternatives. GF (the garammatical language system) is able to "catch"
alternative way of expression and idioms too, if one programmes it to do so.
But if people here think that it would be immense of work to implement Tolkien
lotr-quenya and there are to many quenstions to make a complete grammar, then
I have to take your word for it. In that case I have to be content with
Neo-Quenya instead. This is nothing I would prefere, but if Quenya is too
uncomplete, the it's not possible. In that case it would be possible to break
it down to different parts. E.g. to list diferent verbforms and be able to
list all or filter it for a specific time period, with and without "omited"
formes and inflections. Match words for finding references of simulare
inflection. Genereating morphological lexicons with possibles of limiting the
output e.g. to lotr-quenya without omited words.
Possibles are many, but the out come depend on the input.

Anyway it will proberly take some time before I'll get some time over to
begin, but I'm interested to see if there is some interest for it. I'm also
interested to see if there might be persons who have deeper knowledge than I
have, and who would like to test the results and correct me if my
interpretations and assumptions are wrong.


torsdagen den 11 maj 2006 19.33 skrev Thorsten Renk:
> >> the 'standard' Neo-Quenya grammar which is often used in Fanfic
> >
> > compositions is just a construct, unknown to Tolkien.
> >
> > I think I should use the word "compilation" rather than "construct"
> > (which implies the "construction" of something entirely new).
>
> I chose the term 'construct' rather deliberately (among other reasons,
> because it has a somewhat provocative ring to it and may draw attention to
> the underlying point). The problem which brought my reply (matching a list
> of numbers from the Early Qenya grammar with material from 'Eldarin
> Hands, Fingers and Numerals' ) and the Wiki-compilation
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Quenya
> of Q(u)enya material which suggests without much ado that number schemes
>  from these vastly different sources can be matched readily is in my view
> justification for the word.
>
> I believe Helge is quite aware of the differences between a Neo-Quenya
> grammar and Tolkien's actual writings, and for the most part I agree very
> much with the presentation in his Quenya course. However, many other
> people are not so aware (and frankly, I am tired of defending Tolkien's
> own forms against overeager Neo-Quenya enthusiasts who (in good faith)
> 'correct' everything towards a standard grammar).  The simple fact is that
> there is a pronounced lack of awareness of how standardized some features
> of the grammar are and on how few examples whole paradigms are based
> (often 1). Needless to say, real language paradigms can not always
> correctly be predicted from one example.
>
> > Neo-Quenya attempts to duplicate the grammar underlying the texts we
> > have, above all the
> > samples occurring in the LotR itself, and also other sources to the
> > extent they don't contradict the LotR samples.
>
> Helge will probably agree that using numerals based on a partitive
> _-inen_  does disagree with LotR samples. In that sense (and in quite a
> few others, e.g. marking of unattested forms) the Wiki-book is
> qaulitatively different from his own presentation (to which my comments
> apply admittedly somewhat less).
>
> > If our grammatical deductions are
> > correct, the resulting "compiled" grammar does consist of ideas that
> > existed in Tolkien's mind at some point or another, though the "compiled"
> > system _as a whole_ very likely draws on different conceptual phases that
> > may not have coexisted originally (that is, as Tolkien saw the language).
>
> In my view, you can only 'compile' things into a whole which share the
> same context. Suppose we are trying to design a showroom for a museum
> which should resemble a living room in post-WW2 Germany. Clearly, having a
> coal oven, a rocking chair and a grammophone next to the flatscreen TV,
> the mobile phone and the DVD player would seem a bit odd - while all these
> things did (or do) exist in German living rooms, as a rule they don't
> coexist - they are 50 years apart (but so is the early Qenya grammar and
> Tolkien's late writings). The resulting living room could be called a
> construct - likewise, drawing from sources which at some point existed in
> Tolkien's mind does not guarantee that the sum would not be artificial -
> it is well known that even post-LOTR sources contradict each other
> (sometimes even published samples). I think it is fair to call it a
> 'compilation' as long as no internal contradictions need to be smoothed
> over - as soon as heavy editing is involved I'd rather go with 'construct'.
>
> > Does this invalidate the "Tolkienian" nature of the compilation?
>
> Does the fact that anachronisms are present invalidate the German nature
> of the living room exhibit? Well, yes and no - it still retains some
> degree of Germanness, but it is not a living room which is in any sense
> typical. Germans would probably smile broadly if you present it to them as
> if it would be the genuine thing. I imagine something similar for
> Neo-Quenya...
>
> > Almost inevitably, the result tends to be a grammar more idealized and
> > streamlined that that which actually appears in the primary sources.
>
> Yes, and frankly, I think something is lost along the way. Neo-Quenya
> texts have some of the falvour of Tolkien's texts, but if given an
> unpublished text by Tolkien and a Neo-Quenya text unknown to me, I think
> it would be quite easy to tell them apart - Tolkien's text would reflect
> the spirit of the language without clinging to details.
>
> Consider the simple phrase _et i péti_ from the last VT. Standard Quenya
> would proably yield _et i peullo_ (or maybe _et i pelto_). In contrast,
> Tolkien did
> * leave out the ablative
> * use a t-dual
> * use an additional plural marker -i
> Neither idea is completely novel - prepositions without open case marker
> (probably accusative then) occur elsewhere, t-duals are usually seen and
> dual + plural occurs in _aldaru_. The end result (at least to my taste)
> appears more pleasant than the two 'standard' forms. But I guess that
> hardly anyone would have dared to take the same freedom in a Neo-Quenya
> text. So the flavour of the actual Tolkien samples is different, and this
> essence is difficult to capture in the (artificial) regularity of
> Neo-Quenya grammar.
>
> > How should a Neo-Quenya grammarian
> > deal with this fact? Did Tolkien's ideas differ at various times, did he
> > make some honest mistakes, or are we to conclude that it is simply
> > _optional_ whether adjectives agree in number or not? In such a case I
> > would go with the most "canonical" source.
>
> I don't want to spoil anyones fun with Neo-Quenya texts (including my own
> fun). But I think there is a difference between Tolkien's Quenya and
> standardized Neo-Quenya and people should be aware of that. As long as
> that is the case, there need not be an unque solution.
>
> In the case at hand, a research project (grammar on the computer) was made
> about Quenya. I think it is scientifically unsound unless it is very clear
> whose Quenya is under investigation - mine, Helge's, Tolkien's early or
> late. Grammar (or any linguistics) investigations into Elvish should be
> primarily based on what Tolkien wrote about Elvish, not on what any one of
> us made of it (and I shouldn't have to mention that). I think research
> needs to be held to higher standards than enjoying the languages privately.
>
> As for Neo-Quenya, I believe there can (potentially) be more to Neo-Quenya
> compositions than following a previously agreed set of standard grammar
> rules - I think that by studying the variations and experiments Tolkien
> tried with the language, one can try to 'learn' about the underlying
> essence, the taste which dicatates these shifts and deviations. If so, we
> could 'allow' for similar experiments in Neo-Quenya if the outcome is then
> more pleasant, if well done, that would in my view be closer to Tolkien's
> Quenya than what we do now. But of course, this is hard to describe or
> formalize, so I can't give any rules how to make such compositions (in
> fact, I haven't actually tried although I am carrying this idea since Bill
> Weldon posted similar ideas here).
>
> > There are plenty of relatively minor issues that can be endlessly
> > debated, such as whether _carne_ or _cáre_ is the best optionfor the
> > past tense of_car-_ "do"
>
> I don't know if people would consider it a minor issue if I speaked and
> writed simplified standard English past tense - but for me the issue here
> is to convey the message that Quenya is not 'simple' in the past tense
> (and has a bunch of nasty exceptions) but that everything points to a rich
> and complex structure of forms, and in my experience, that is not what
> most people think.
>
> So, I feel that calling Neo-Quenya a 'compilation' is going to make
> readers lean back, relax and be fine with Ardalambion (or 'Quetin i lambe
> eldaiva') Quenya whereas calling it a 'construct' might be able to bug a
> few more folks enough to have a look into Tolkien's writings and see the
> differences. So, I'll stay with the construct. I don't want people to feel
> fine talking about Quenya grammar without knowing the original writings.
>
> * Thorsten
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>

Aiya!

Wednesday, May 10, 2006, 12:59:38 PM, Helge K. Fauskanger wrote:


HKF> Taking a balanced view is probably the best thing here. A Neo-Quenya
HKF> grammar is much like the published Silmarillion: a unified, _edited_
HKF> version based on Tolkien's many layers of ideas.
Comparing Neo-Quenya with Silmarillion is fundamentally wrong, because
Silmarillion  was  legitimised  only by its completeness. Without this
goal  being  actually  achievable, the editorial liberties Christopher
Tolkien  had  to take would not have been justified. Were he unable to
compile  a  _complete_  version  of  the legendarium, he would have no
right   to apply the kind of unification you're talking about. Instead
of  freely  editing and recombining the material, he would have had to
present  the  material in its proper form, unchanged and supplied with
necessary commentaries and research.

And  that  is exactly what he did with the not-so-complete majority of
his  father's  papers,  and  what  he intended to be the proper way of
presenting  still  unpublished  texts!  There  is  no  possibility  of
compiling  a  unified  version  of  various  pieces  concerning Quenya
numerals,  for  example. So it is absolutely not justified for someone
to try to squeeze them into one standardised text.

Now,  Tolkien's  Quenya  is in no way comparable to the legendarium by
its  completeness.  So  far,  there is no possibility of compiling the
various   versions   into   one   unified  edition,  as  it  was  with
Silmarillion.  So  no justification there is for taking liberties with
Quenya as Christopher Tolkien did with the legendarium.



Namaarie! S.Y., Elenhil Laiquendo

: man taare antaava nin iluuvatar · enyaare tar i tyel · iire anarinya queluva?
:

Also posted on Aglardh:

Laer 'Lamren, that is, an attempt at an alliterative
verse in NeoSindarin. Enjoy...


Laiss bo gelaidh laeb, laer lacha
Gwael nalla vi gwelu, glamor lâf in eryd
Amdir eria vi elei vín, sui elloth vi eryn
Maelui pân i merith, milui i thlyss
i bathrar i barth. Brûn si
Gost vín, i gaul gwannant, guruth drega --
Aerlinn rîb erin ael, egleria i Chîr.

Fresh are the leaves on the trees, the summer is in
flame
A gull cries in the air, echo licks the mountains
Hope rises in our dreams, like a flower in the woods
Lustful are all the feasts, sweet the whispers
that fill the meadow. Old and worn is
Our fear, the burden has passed, death flees --
Hymn floats over the lake, to praise the Lord.

Shine on,

Thomas Ferencz

Let's discuss Eldarin languages - http://aglardh.middangeard.hu
Footprints - the Middangeard blog - http://www.middangeard.hu/blog

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com