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

>> 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

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

>

>

>

> 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

> time. (...)

> Anyway, my intention was to write the grammar for the timeperiod of LOTR,

> which I would have mentioned in the grammar library.



I don't think that is the essential point (unless I misunderstand you) -

the difference between Elvish is that it develops in fictional (internal)

time from the awakening of the Elves to the 3rd age AND in real (external)

time from the beginnings in 1916 to the later writings of 1968+. So a

given time period in fictional time, say the 3rd age, still spans some

decades of real time development of the language. 3rd age Qenya as

conceived in the Etymologies is not the same as 3rd age Quenya as

conceived in 'Markirya'. It is this external development which is very

different from real language evolution which leads to internal

contradiction and editorial problems, not the fictional history of the

language.



Even if you say 'timeperiod of LOTR', Q(u)enya still remains variable in

external time and in that sense your timeframe is ill-defined.



> 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).



As I hopefully have made clear in disclaimers in the course and on my

webpage, what is in the course is my personal edition of Tolkien's Quenya.

"I make no claim that the ideas I present here necessarily reflect

Tolkien's ideas, although I certainly aim for this ideal." I don't think

'a little simplified' is quite appropriate: "Because, creating a speakable

Sindarin or Quenya is not only about filling in the gaps with clever

reconstructions - it involves at times heavy editorial decisions and

throwing out Tolkien-made material on the basis of personal preferences."

(all quotes from my page).



> 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.



Any merging of forms from different context, any invention and

reconstruction of forms, any guesswork to fill gaps, any dismissal of

Tolkien-made forms to homogenize the language could appropriately called

Neo-Quenya, Quenya then being Tolkien's language considered in its

appropriate context and with the knowledge that there is both internal and

external history to it (much of Neo- aims at removing the external history

to make the language speakable - real languages cannot deal with two

timelines). Well, that may be my definition :-)



* Thorsten

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?

: