> But I think people will not  disagree that we are looking at two different
projects here, not at two  different ways of doing the same project.

Yes, of course. So, It won't be fruitful enough to continue on this subject...

> With 23 scholarly articles on my webpage, don't  you think I am simply *the
wrong audience* to complain that a more  scholarly presentation of Tolkien's
works would be nice?

Partial work on some point at some time is one thing, a complete work (even on
only one point) according to the full timeline is another one.

I think you are indeed the *right audience*, since you have success with your
course, you could be also one of the right people to give some changes in the
way people appreciate Tolkien's invented languages.

But here again, we have cleraly not the same point of view as some of your
remarks elsewhere ("Often, it is rather Adûnaic how the author of these lines
thinks it could be than Adûnaic as Tolkien envisioned it") informed me.

> Fine - then why  don't for example *you* do it? Why don't *you* write an
article about the  development of, say, the allative case throughout the
development of  Quenya. I'd really welcome more people working on the early
material or  making their work more accessible in public.

I was waiting for this question. I'm not such a fool to ask you to do all the
job without having myself some ideas about this. ;-)

I do not claim to have all the necessary knowledge for such a work but at this
moment, my main problem is time.

I have, in fact, many projects. One of those being the translation of many VT in
French, with the kind authorization of the Editorial Team and the Tolkien
Estate. I haven' finished yet but I have already translated thirteen articles
and one whole issue (43), as you can see on my website
(http://lambenore.free.fr/telechargements.html). I also worked on some *heavy*
projects, as "Le Livre de la Marche" (Eng. "The Mark's Book") a 234 pages book
concerning the Rohirrim, French translation of Didier's Sindarin dictionary or
its update from PE17, etc.

Such scholar work require first to do a complete study of the whole corpus, that
has never been done by anybody. I will try to do this kind of study, in some
way.
I have already compiled a Quenya lexicon
(http://www.tolkiendil.com/doku.php?id=langues:lexiques:quenya-francais), thanks
to Edouard J. Kloczko's own book on Quenya (the only professional linguist I
know who works on Tolkien's languages with so much rigour). But I don't update
it anymore, since it contains some errors and would be quite inappropriate.

My question was rhetocial, since I guess you won't do any "turn over" about your
point of view or your works.

Cordially,

David Giraudeau


      
_____________________________________________________________________________
Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente http://mail.yahoo.fr

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

Does anyone know what the difference between the Angerthas letters #55
and #56 is?   The only thing I can find is the webpage Dan Smith's
Fantasy Fonts at http://www.acondia.com/fonts/cirth/info/index.html.
In the sections for the Angerthas Moria and Angerthas Erebor, he says of
#55 and #56:





>>  [1]  Letter #55 represents silent-e or a schwa sound. A schwa is an
unstressed vowel that can be spelled with any vowel in English
orthography. The schwa occurs only in unstressed syllables.



>>  [2]  Letter #56 represented a sound similar to the schwa. This sound
occurs only in stressed syllables.





He then cites sources for the information (everything on the page, not
on #55 & #56 specifically) as LotR App E and ToI: Appendix on Runes.
However, I have not been able to find anything in those sources that
says anything about stressed vs. unstressed syllables.  I have a hard
time even imagining a schwa being in a stressed syllable, at least if
it's not considered a "full" vowel.  There is the reference in LotR App
E that says  "the new 55, 56 were in origin a halved form of 46, and
were used for vowels like those heard in English _butter_, which were
frequent in Dwarvish and in the Westron.  When weak or evanecent they
were often reduced to a mere stroke without a stem."   Does this just
mean they both sound like _u_ in _butter_?   Is the difference then the
accent as the website claims?



Thanks-



Jay Lawson







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

Hi,

I must say that I have a little problem with your "apsayomenier".
Translating this compound, I would probably come up with
"meat-meeting, food-meeting" which for my taste does not sound very
elegant. Since this compound does neither render perfectly
"gastronomic event" nor  "Tablée elfique", why not use simply the word
"meren" that means feast, festival.
In PE17, we have two words for "Welcome" :
amatúlie = blessed arrival (prefix: AMA(N)- (good with holiness or
sanctification, blessed)
alatúl(i)e = welcome (with prefix: ALA- (good, healthy, prosperous,
fortunate, (well))

For the word "sens", I think "tyáve" could be used (see Etym Online).

I think rather than trying to translate every word, you could
paraphrase the whole thing. Elves seem to have a preference to convey
wishes through the stars or the sun :) (VT49), something like:

Alatúlie Eldarin Merendenna. Nai anar caluva rénna sina ar luhtuva
tyáveldar.

Welcome to the Elvish Feast. May the sun shine on this day and enchant
your tastes.

Hope this helps.




--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, Evenstar <evenstar62@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> A nice project in the South of France will take place, "Tablées
> Elfiques", freely translated Eldarini apsayomenier or eldarini apsave
> yomenier.
>
> The problem is that they wish to translate the following sentence:
>
> Bienvenue aux Tablées Elfiques, réjouissez vos sens et profitez du
moment !
> Welcome to the "Eldarini apsayomenier", dilight your senses and take
> advantage of the moment!
>
>
> I've tried to create the word "coming" from "tul-" = tulë and I've
> constructed  "Mára tulë" for "welcome"
>
> I found no word for "delight". I've not be able to create a verb from
> "alassë" (joy) so I inteded to tell: "The joy be with you" = "Nai i
> Alassë nauva aselyë"
>
> I've thought for "take advantage of" to use the verb "mel-" but it's
> more for love feeling so I tried to derive a verb from the word
> "festival" (meren, merend-, merendë) which would be "meren-"
>
> At the end, I obtain:
>
> Mára tulë Eldarini apsayomenieressë, nai i Alassë nauva aselyë ar á
> merena lúmë sina!
>
> or
>
> Mára tulë eldarini apsave yomenieressë nai i Alassë nauva aselyë ar á
> merena lúmë sina!
>
> What do you think about all this?
>
> Do you have any ideas or corrections?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Evenstar
> http://www-ambar-eldaron.com
> Le Monde des Elfes
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>> With 23 scholarly articles on my webpage, don't  you think I am simply
>> *the wrong audience* to complain that a more  scholarly presentation of
>> Tolkien's works would be nice?
>
> Partial work on some point at some time is one thing, a complete work
> (even on only one point) according to the full timeline is another one.

Well, clearly I am doing 'another one' then. I do present several studies
ranging from the GL or the QL all the way to late sources. It seems you
just didn't read them, otherwise you'd know. So what exactly is the point
you wish to make?

> I think you are indeed the *right audience*, since you have success with
> your course, you could be also one of the right people to give some
> changes in the way people appreciate Tolkien's invented languages.

I believe I do that. I just don't tell people to appreciate Tolkien's
languages only in the way you'd see it appreciated.

> But here again, we have cleraly not the same point of view as some of
> your remarks elsewhere ("Often, it is rather Adûnaic how the author of
> these lines thinks it could be than Adûnaic as Tolkien envisioned it")
> informed me.
(...)
> My question was rhetocial, since I guess you won't do any "turn over"
> about your point of view or your works.

You know, what bugs me here is not only that you'd dismiss my scholarly
integrity like that, but that you're making assumptions about 'my point of
view' and combining 'my works' into one bag - of course all of that goes
together.

So, let me make one thing completely clear:

I have a an interest in scholarly investigation of Tolkien's languages,
and in the presentation of the languages as Tolkien saw them. You can (if
you think you can prove me wrong) take any of my scholarly works and hold
it to a scientific standard, and we can argue from there. And I do believe
I have done and am doing valuable work in this direction.

I also have an interest in using Tolkien's languages in Neo-Quenya,
Sindarin and Adûnaic compositions, and I try to be very honest and careful
about this distinction (see the text you quote about Adûnaic) so that a
reader does not confuse strict, scholarly work with not-so-strict
non-scholarly work. Note that these are different things - just like it is
possible to appreciate Tolkien's languages from more than one perspective.

However, you (or Didier or anyone else) can not conclude from the fact
that I do sometimes non-scholarly work with Tolkien's languages that I am
unable or unwilling to do scholarly work. Logic doesn't allow that. This
can only be concluded if you, despite all disclaimers, insist that there
is only 'my works' as a whole. If you cannot see this distinction, then I
suggest to read more carefully what I write. If you don't want to uphold
it for whatever reasons then that's your problem.

> I have, in fact, many projects. One of those being the translation of
> many VT in French, with the kind authorization of the Editorial Team and
> the Tolkien Estate. I haven' finished yet but I have already translated
> thirteen articles and one whole issue (43), as you can see on my website
> (http://lambenore.free.fr/telechargements.html). I also worked on some
> *heavy* projects, as "Le Livre de la Marche" (Eng. "The Mark's Book") a
> 234 pages book concerning the Rohirrim, French translation of Didier's
> Sindarin dictionary or its update from PE17, etc.

Yes, these are translations of scholarly works, not scholarly research.
Likewise, if you compile a dictionary based on Edouard Kloczko's book,
then it seems to me he is the researcher, no?

So where is the actual scholarly research you're referring to?

Cheers,

* Thorsten

> In PE17, we have two words for "Welcome" :
> amatúlie = blessed arrival (prefix: AMA(N)- (good with holiness or
sanctification, blessed)
> alatúl(i)e = welcome (with prefix: ALA- (good, healthy, prosperous,
fortunate, (well))

Note that those words were rejected by Tolkien (as the whole root PEN, cf. PE17
bottom of p. 172). Anyway, we must also notice that the prefix _ala-_ under the
root ALA- (PE17 p. 146) were retained, as the compound _alaquenta_ 'well
(happily) said'.

David Giraudeau



      
_____________________________________________________________________________
Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente http://mail.yahoo.fr

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

I'm not that familiar with Angerthas, but from what I remember from my studies,
the difference between those two sounds is in stress.  Schwa appears for example
in _About_, _differEnce_, or the articles _A_ and _thE_ when they are pronounced
normally (e.g. a desk, the desk, not /ei desk, thee desk/), and is usually
marked with an overturned e.  I'm not sure about the term for the stressed
version of this sound (I think it's wedge), and it appears in words such as
_cUt_, _bUt_ etc. It is marked with an overturned v.

They are very different sounds, and they definitely don't both sound as the _u_ 
in _butter_; only the second, _stressed_ sound does.


________________________________
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.




----- Original Message ----
From: Jay Lawson <lawson@...>
To: elfling@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:00:19 AM
Subject: [elfling] angerthas #55 & #56


Does anyone know what the difference between the Angerthas letters #55
and #56 is?   The only thing I can find is the webpage Dan Smith's
Fantasy Fonts at http://www.acondia. com/fonts/ cirth/info/ index.html.
In the sections for the Angerthas Moria and Angerthas Erebor, he says of
#55 and #56:

>>  [1]  Letter #55 represents silent-e or a schwa sound. A schwa is an
unstressed vowel that can be spelled with any vowel in English
orthography. The schwa occurs only in unstressed syllables.

>>  [2]  Letter #56 represented a sound similar to the schwa. This sound
occurs only in stressed syllables.

He then cites sources for the information (everything on the page, not
on #55 & #56 specifically) as LotR App E and ToI: Appendix on Runes.
However, I have not been able to find anything in those sources that
says anything about stressed vs. unstressed syllables.  I have a hard
time even imagining a schwa being in a stressed syllable, at least if
it's not considered a "full" vowel.  There is the reference in LotR App
E that says  "the new 55, 56 were in origin a halved form of 46, and
were used for vowels like those heard in English _butter_, which were
frequent in Dwarvish and in the Westron.  When weak or evanecent they
were often reduced to a mere stroke without a stem."   Does this just
mean they both sound like _u_ in _butter_?   Is the difference then the
accent as the website claims?

Thanks-

Jay Lawson

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






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

Giraudeau David wrote:

> Note that those words were rejected by Tolkien (as the whole root
> PEN, cf. PE17 bottom of p. 172). Anyway, we must also notice that the
> prefix _ala-_ under the root ALA- (PE17 p. 146) were retained, as the
> compound _alaquenta_ 'well (happily) said'.

Although the notes containing _alatúl(i)e_, _amatulya_ "welcome"
(PE17:172) were rejected, it does not imply that these particular words
suffered the same fate (as you might be implying?). The notes also
contain _mára_, which undoubtedly survives. Nevertheless, it is
possible, as they are not attested elsewhere. One might as well use
_Alla!_ "Hail! Welcome!" (PE17:146), unless adverbs cannot be added to
it. If one comes to that conclusion, using _alatúlie_ is surely safer
for Neo-Quenya purposes than a coinage.

Petri Tikka

The page as such has been rejected that does not necessarily mean that
all the elements are invalidated.
"Alatúlie" seems to me a very likely compound since the stem ALA- on
page 146 is used in exactly this sense in "alaquenta" as you pointed
out. In addition under ALA-, there is ALLA! Hail, Welcome. But to me
the use of the interjection "Hail" and the "Welcome" of a guest is not
quite the same. Hence my choice of "Alatúlie".




--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, Giraudeau David <davidkiks@...> wrote:
>
> > In PE17, we have two words for "Welcome" :
> > amatúlie = blessed arrival (prefix: AMA(N)- (good with holiness
or sanctification, blessed)
> > alatúl(i)e = welcome (with prefix: ALA- (good, healthy,
prosperous, fortunate, (well))
>
> Note that those words were rejected by Tolkien (as the whole root
PEN, cf. PE17 bottom of p. 172). Anyway, we must also notice that the
prefix _ala-_ under the root ALA- (PE17 p. 146) were retained, as the
compound _alaquenta_ 'well (happily) said'.
>
> David Giraudeau
>
>
>
>
_____________________________________________________________________________

> Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente
http://mail.yahoo.fr
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Aiya!

I'd like to ask you about your opinion on this question: Should
eldarin stems beginning with W- and with GW- be distinguished?

I don't know any Quenya word beginning with _gw-_ and any Sindarin
word beginning with _w-_. If I have understood well, Quenya words in
_w-_ (or _v-_ in the language of Exiles) have Sindarin cognates
beginning with _gw-_. How could an elvish Lambengolmo have found out
where in Common Eldarin was W- and where GW-?

Thus I would say that there was originally W- and in Telerin branch
this beginning was strengthened to GW-. (Or maybe there was
originally only GW and in Quenya branch the G disappeared.)

But in the Etymologies, there is written: "GWEN- (distinguish WEN
(ED)). Q _wenya_ green, yellow green [...]" This note seems to say
that my conclusion is not correct...

What do you think about it?

Quenduluin
http://quenyalambe.wz.cz

You are on the right track. :)

But why don't you look at the online Sindarin dictionary, the PE roots
of the words beginning with GW? The answer is obvious

quenduluin wrote:
> Aiya!
>
> I'd like to ask you about your opinion on this question: Should
> eldarin stems beginning with W- and with GW- be distinguished?
>
> I don't know any Quenya word beginning with _gw-_ and any Sindarin
> word beginning with _w-_. If I have understood well, Quenya words in
> _w-_ (or _v-_ in the language of Exiles) have Sindarin cognates
> beginning with _gw-_. How could an elvish Lambengolmo have found out
> where in Common Eldarin was W- and where GW-?
>
> Thus I would say that there was originally W- and in Telerin branch
> this beginning was strengthened to GW-. (Or maybe there was
> originally only GW and in Quenya branch the G disappeared.)
>
> But in the Etymologies, there is written: "GWEN- (distinguish WEN
> (ED)). Q _wenya_ green, yellow green [...]" This note seems to say
> that my conclusion is not correct...
>
> What do you think about it?
>
> Quenduluin
> http://quenyalambe.wz.cz
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1587 - Release Date: 2/8/2008 5:30
ìì
>
>
>

> Well, clearly I am doing 'another one' then. I do present several studies
ranging from the GL or the QL all the way to late sources.

Yes, I know, 3 about Q(u)enya.


> It seems you just didn't read them, otherwise you'd know. So what exactly is
the point you wish to make?

It seems to me that learning Neo-Quenya in the blindness of unexplained
standardizations is not the good way. Mr Fauskanger gave the only example of a
good way to give a fuller understanding and a broader view. This project can be
indeed criticized, but it is, conceptually, the only way to bring something else
than some kind of Quenyarin porridge of unknown origin.


> I believe I do that. I just don't tell people to appreciate Tolkien's
languages only in the way you'd see it appreciated.

I think your course could take a different way.


> see the text you quote about Adûnaic

About this Pseudo-Adûnaic course, it is funny to notice that none of the
title's elements are attested...


> You know, what bugs me here is not only that you'd dismiss my scholarly
integrity like that, but that you're making assumptions about 'my point of
view' and combining 'my works' into one bag - of course all of that goes
together.

I jugde on facts. Where did I 'combine' your works into one bag ? I can't (and I
don't), of course, strictly compare your studies and this Quenya Course. But it
seems to me that it's a little bit paradoxical to give full studies on some
points and not using those demonstrations in your course.


> However, you (or Didier or anyone else) can not conclude from the fact that I
do sometimes non-scholarly work with Tolkien's languages that I am unable or
unwilling to do scholarly work. Logic doesn't allow that.

Where did I say that ?


> Yes, these are translations of scholarly works, not scholarly research.

I didn't talk about "research", but "project", that is quite different. Anyway,
I didn't list all my works.

My own goal is first to give valuable material to the French community of
Tolkiendili and Lambendili. Using English is indeed the only way to spread
widely any work. Let's see what will be done in future. ;-)


> Likewise, if you compile a dictionary based on Edouard Kloczko's book, then it
seems to me he is the researcher, no ?

No. Since my lexicon was _first_ based on his own work but had evolved by itself
out of Mr Kloczko's own work.


As we won't find any common field in this debate, let's stop this muted
discussion.

Nai Eru tye mánata.

Cordially,

David Giraudeau



      
_____________________________________________________________________________
Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente http://mail.yahoo.fr

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

--- Den tir 2008-07-29 skrev LS <verbalasphyxiation@...>:

Fra: LS <verbalasphyxiation@...>
Emne: [elfling] Looking for Quenya translation help
Til: elfling@yahoogroups.com
Dato: Tirsdag 29. juli 2008 05.13
 
> Would anyone be willing to translate three words from English to Quenya for
me? The words I need translated are 'creativity' , 'passion', and 'knowledge'.
I've looked through all the word lists I can find, including Ardalambion, and
the nearest I can find for creativity is create, which I can use if I must. I'd
like to try to find something a bit closer. There's also an entry there for
knowledge, and I believe the Quenya word nólë is what I want there.
** We have no word for “passion”. I used _uryala felme_ “burning feeling” for
“zeal” in my recently-published Bible translations; maybe some neologism like
*_urufelme_ “fire-feeling” will do?
 
For “knowledge” I believe _istya_ is the least ambiguous word. _Nóle_ may also
do.
 
There is no Tolkien-made word for “creativity” as such. _Curwe_ means “technical
skill and invention” (PM:360 cf. 344). *_Polie ontien_ (or *_polie ontiéva_?)
could refer to an “ability to create”.
 - HKF

... And would that 'obvious' answer be that at the time of the 1930s
Etymologies, roots starting with GW- produced w- in Qenya but b- in
Noldorin, and ones with W- gave w-/v- and gw-, respectively? This was
likely in comparison to PQ kw- > p- in the Noldorin branch (I am
confused as to which 'Lhammas' tree the Etymologies corresponds with,
esp. with the tiny handwriting of the actual pictures, so my
terminology may be / is likely off).

So there was a reason for distinguishing Eldarin stems with W- and GW-
in regard to the 1930s Etymologies - context!

I do not know whether we have attested examples of roots beginning
with GW- in later documents, and a glance at the online index to
Vinyar Tengwar shows nothing relevant (VT45-6 are
additions/corrections to the published 1930s Etym, so they don't help,
VT40 deals with pre-1920 Elvish [just to round it up], and VT47 is
simply quoting GWIN- in Etym).

We are given a primitive form _gwa-lassa_, _gwa-lassiê_ in letter 211
from 1958, but both in earlier and later texts (Etym. c. 1930s and
Quendi & Eldar c. 1959-60) #gwa- is from wo- > wa- (when unstressed) >
gwa-. In Etym., wa- is said to be Eldarin, and in Q&E gwa- is
"prehistoric Sindarin", but combining the two may not be such a good
idea (i.e. using Etym. to assume that wa- in Q&E is CE rather than
PQ). So no root in GW- there.

Does anyone know of / can find later (externally, of course) roots in
GW-, and even what their Noldorin/Sindarin (depending on the
timeframe) derivatives begin with?

- Matt Dinse

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, Gil <avalon@...> wrote:
>
> You are on the right track. :) [...] The answer is obvious
>
> quenduluin wrote:
> > Aiya!
> >
> > I'd like to ask you about your opinion on this question: Should
> > eldarin stems beginning with W- and with GW- be distinguished?
> >
> > I don't know any Quenya word beginning with _gw-_ and any Sindarin
> > word beginning with _w-_. If I have understood well, Quenya words in
> > _w-_ (or _v-_ in the language of Exiles) have Sindarin cognates
> > beginning with _gw-_. How could an elvish Lambengolmo have found out
> > where in Common Eldarin was W- and where GW-?
> >
> > Thus I would say that there was originally W- and in Telerin branch
> > this beginning was strengthened to GW-. (Or maybe there was
> > originally only GW and in Quenya branch the G disappeared.)
> >
> > But in the Etymologies, there is written: "GWEN- (distinguish WEN
> > (ED)). Q _wenya_ green, yellow green [...]" This note seems to say
> > that my conclusion is not correct...
> >
> > What do you think about it?
> >
> > Quenduluin
> > http://quenyalambe.wz.cz

Dear David,

so, let me give a short summary of what I have gathered:

Your chief scholarly contribution to the Elvish community is a
French-Quenya lexicon which you do not update any more because you feel it
is inappropriate. Apart from that, you translate scholarly works into
French (which in itself is valuable work, but not scholarly research). So,
as far as I understand these matters, that makes me an active scholarly
researcher into Tolkien's languages, but not you.

We may argue about the value of a Quenya lexicon which isn't updated, but
I dare say that as far as our contributions to the scholarly understanding
of Elvish go, you are in no position to criticize any lack from my side.
You are, as everyone, of course in a position to criticize my work on a
scientific level - but such criticism must be based on specific points,
and actually argued. You seem reluctant to enter into such discussion and
keep it on the philosophical level, but I will respond to one of the few
actual points you make below.


>> Well, clearly I am doing 'another one' then. I do present several
>> studies ranging from the GL or the QL all the way to late sources.
>
> Yes, I know, 3 about Q(u)enya.

It would seem that you don't (underscoring my point) - there are

* The Quenya Pronominal System
* The Quenya Past Tense
* The Quenya Perfect Tense (no substantial material prior to LOTR, but the
bit in the EQG is reseached and cited)
* The Eldarin Numerals (Quenya and Sindarin branches)
* The verb 'to be' in Tolkien's Elvish languages (Quenya and Sindarin
branches)
* Impersonal constructions in Elvish (Quenya and Sindarin branches)

So - my count is in fact six ranging from Qenya to Quenya. No further
comment.


> It seems to me that learning Neo-Quenya in the blindness of unexplained
> standardizations is not the good way.

Yes, I just wonder why you'd think that. Are you an expert for teaching
languages? I have actually spoken to some - and the feedback was that the
course does a good job in a difficult situation. Are you suggesting that I
deceive people and never give them any choice or opportunity to access
more rigorous and scholarly texts? But we have dealt with this already -
it's mainly down to the (in)ability to read and understand the disclaimers
everywhere. Are you worried that these people, kept in blindness, will
never become scholars? But quite a number actually did - and still
appreciates the courses. So what makes you say it?

> Mr Fauskanger gave the only example of a good way to give a fuller
> understanding and a broader view. This project can be indeed criticized,
> but it is, conceptually, the only way to bring something else than some
> kind of Quenyarin porridge of unknown origin.

> I think your course could take a different way.

There is little point in re-writing Helge's course, as it already exists.
This much should be obvious. It is in fact mentioned in mine as a more
rigorous alternative, so whoever feels like it can take it. So it seems to
me a bit you are just being destructive here for whatever reason.

Do you feel you have to defend people which I 'trick' into learning
unattested material? Has it ever occurred to you that there are people who
are not interested in a scholarly study of Elvish, but are interested in
Elvish? It seems you completely fail to understand that not everyone is
scholarly minded. Think of popular science books - they contain
simplifications and often inaccurate statements and simple language when
compared to scientific papers - does that mean they shouldn't be written?
Or they shouldn't be written by the scientists but only by other people?
Frankly, I think that's a pretty snobbish attitude.

> About this Pseudo-Adûnaic course, it is funny to notice that none of the
> title's elements are attested...

Yes, I will refrain from commenting on phrases like 'some kind of
Quenyarin porridge' and 'Pseudo-Adûnaic' - frankly, I can't take that too
seriously coming from you.

But let us pause and have a look at the claim. You'd claim that given
_Nimriyê_ 'Elvish' and _nimir_ 'Elf' and  _Adûnâim_ '*Númenóreans', it
takes somehow away from Tolkien's genius to deduce that _#-yê_ expresses
the language of a people and further deduce that _*Adûnâyê_ is the
language of the _Adûnâim_?

I'm afraid, you seem to fail to grasp a main property of languages here,
i.e. that their purpose is not to exist in a fixed set of phrases only,
but that e.g. endings actually can be applied to many words.

In a broader context, in order to gain knowledge, there are reductionistic
and holistic techniques. Reductionism is the art of taking things apart,
breaking them into their components. Which teaches you something about the
inner working. Holism is the art of putting things back together
(sometimes in a new way) - which teaches you things you could never have
learned from just seeing the parts.

Obviously, rigorous scholarly work on Tolkien's languages is reductionism
and teaches you a lot. But it's not the end of the story, nor is it the
whole story. Neo-Elvish is the corresponding holism, it teaches you things
you'd never have learned otherwise.

Which is why your insight into Tolkien's languages will always miss a part
- the aesthetics of actually using a language, seeing how its inflections
fall together for starters. But again - that's your lack of insight and
your problem, not mine.

> As we won't find any common field in this debate, let's stop this muted
> discussion.

I'm fine with stopping here, but you can't wish to stop and have the last
word simultaneously - so please make your choice if you want to respond -
either is fine with me.

* Thorsten

> Does anyone know of / can find later (externally, of course) roots in
> GW-, and even what their Noldorin/Sindarin (depending on the
> timeframe) derivatives begin with?


PE17:154 has  three roots in GW-, GWAL, GWAN and GWAY.

  From GWAL we have e.g. Q: _walya_ 'be excited' _walta_ 'to excite' and
Sindarin _balch_ 'fierce'

  From GWAN we have Q: vanya S: bain 'fair-haired'

  From GWAY we have _waina_, later _vaina_ 'blonde' S: _baen_ 'fair-haired'

(GWAY apparently replaces the root GWAN which was struck out).

So the pattern is clear I think.

* Thorsten

Well, I will reply even if David does not. *grin*
 
I started out studying Helge's Quenya course because at the time that's all that
was available. I enjoyed it very much but I also have a background (sort of) in
linguistics so I could pretty much follow what he was saying but I know a number
of people without such a background who struggled through it and sometimes just
gave up on it.
 
Now, Thorsten comes along with his own Quenya (and Sindarin) course and while I
had friends who still insisted that it was too advanced for them (I suspect they
failed English grammar back in high school, too), I found it quite good (and
still do) because it made certain aspects of the language more approachable and
easier to understand. I had the hardest time figuring out the associative
declension in nouns until I looked at Thorsten's explanation. I wasn't so
concerned about 'scholarly citations' because I knew I could go to Helge for
that if I truly wanted it or simply examine my own copies of Vinyar Tengwar or
Parma Eldalamberon.
 
I really find all these arguments about neo-Eldarin rather stupid and puerile to
some degree. I am grateful beyond measure for anyone taking the time to make
these languages that are so fascinating to me (and others) accessible and, even
more importantly, usable.
 
Thorsten's Adûnaic course, coupled with the word list made available on Elfling
some time ago, for instance, allowed me to construct very simple sentences in
the language for characters in a story that takes place on Númenor (yes, I'm one
of those people you purists have nightmares about -- a  Middle-earth fanfiction
writer!). For me it made the story and the characters more authentic and many of
my readers who themselves do not study these languages appreciate my efforts to
'educate' them in that regard. I sprinkle most of my stories with Quenya and
Sindarin and have even gone back to earlier stories and modified them when new
information about these languages come to light.
 
At any rate, what I appreciate about Thorsten's approach is that he encourages
his 'students' to take much of what we know (and what he says) cum grano salis
because we simply do not have a definitive Quenya/Sindarin/Adûnaic and must
always keep that in perspective whenever we study and/or use these languages.
 
As someone with a sociolinguistics background I love 'playing' with the
languages and imagining the social background for them. What aspects of Sindarin
culture impacted the Exilic Quenya of the Noldor? How did Quenya impact the
Sindarin spoken in Gondolin or Nargothrond? When the Exiles returned to Aman,
how did the change in their form of Quenya impact the social structure of the
Amaneldi and their view of the Exiles?

All these and other questions are the basis of much of my fiction as I explore
the ramifications of all this upon the various elvish societies and communities.
Now, you can poo-hoo this as nonsense and that is your Eru-given right, but I
strive very hard to make the languages as accurate as possible and encourage
other writers of Tolkien fanfiction to take the time to research the sources and
use 'correct' Eldarin rather than the fake Grelvish and such that still are the
bane of decent writing.

I know that through my own efforts other such writers are either taking the time
to learn for themselves or seeking help from those who have, such as myself. I
am often called upon to 'translate' something into Quenya or Sindarin for
someone else's story. I have even created my own original poetry and such for
that purpose. (Case in point: a writer wanted a lullaby that Thranduil would
possibly sing to Legolas wounded in the Battle of Five Armies. She was hoping
for one or two phrases in Sindarin that she could sprinkle into her story and
compose the rest of the lullaby in English. I ended up composing the entire
lullaby in Sindarin for her... it was a nice break from what I was doing at the
time.)
 
Well, this is longer than I intended and possibly not even welcomed by the
various parties involved in this discussion, but I figured I would at least let
you 'scholars' know from one who uses these languages that the courses that are
offered by people like Helge and Thorsten are probably more welcomed by the
plebians than the highbrows suspect.
 
And now, if you will excuse me... I need to get back to the chapter I'm writing.
*grin*
 
Arthur



"What part of 'You're dead' don't you understand? ~ Námo to an Unidentified
Elven Fëa giving the Lord of Mandos grief.




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

Suilad,

I'd like to comment on this ...

On 5-Aug-08, at 10:50 AM, Thorsten Renk wrote:
> Dear David,
>
> [...]
>
> Do you feel you have to defend people which I 'trick' into learning
> unattested material? Has it ever occurred to you that there are
> people who are not interested in a scholarly study of Elvish, but
> are interested in Elvish? It seems you completely fail to understand
> that not everyone is scholarly minded. Think of popular science
> books - they contain simplifications and often inaccurate statements
> and simple language when compared to scientific papers - does that
> mean they shouldn't be written?
> Or they shouldn't be written by the scientists but only by other
> people?
> Frankly, I think that's a pretty snobbish attitude.
>

In defense of Thorsten, but also of the others who are being
criticised for presenting non-attested material as if it were "the
real thing" (among other things):

I am one of those who are interested in Elvish - Sindadin - in itself
- not in the scholarly study.

I am, however, very well able to distinguish between these two
perspectives. I don't need to have it simplified, I am just not that
interested in the scholarly aspects. If there are constructions or
words / word forms being added to the language to make it more usable,
I am thankful for that, because "using" the language is what I am
learning it for. I trust the ones who do that to be true to the
original sources as much as possible. That can be a daunting task as I
have understood it, because professor Tolkien changed his mind quite
often. That only increases the respect that I owe them.

The only thing that I wish for is that there would emerge one shared
form of 'extended Sindarin' in time.

Having said that, I still like to know what is attested and what not,
and I find background  like "how is this-or-that reconstructed" very
interesting. As far as I have experienced, Pedin Edhellen and the
dictonary that I use - Hesperides - do just that.

Maike

Thorsten Renk wrote :

> Your chief scholarly contribution to the Elvish community is a
French-Quenya lexicon which you do not update any more because you feel
it is inappropriate.

I feel it inappropriate _because_ I think I could create a new one, with more
informations and entries.


>
Apart from that, you translate scholarly works into French (which in
itself is valuable work, but not scholarly research). So, as far as I
understand these matters, that makes me an active scholarly researcher
into Tolkien's languages, but not you.

I even made some other works of lesser importance. But not as you did, of
course. Anyway, lexicography remains a very good exercice, not of the same kind
as your studies but not of lesser importance.


>
We may argue about the value of a Quenya lexicon which isn't updated,
but I dare say that as far as our contributions to the scholarly
understanding
of Elvish go, you are in no position to criticize any lack from my side.

Your
comparison is quite reducing. Anybody can have ideas about something
even if not having done them yet. Anybody can criticize you, even if
you don't agree. I don't critize a lack from your side but this strange
kind of dichotomy in your view.


> So - my count is in fact six ranging from Qenya to Quenya. No further 
comment.

I
was talking about the 3 ones (pronominal system, past tense, perfect
tense) which exemplified and matched the kind of works about the "grammar
features"
I was talking about, _specifically_ (and only) about Quenya.


>
Has it ever occurred to you that there are people who are not
interested in a scholarly study of Elvish, but are interested in
Elvish? It seems you completely fail to understand that not everyone is
scholarly minded.

No, of course. I have never been against any
conception of Neo-languages from Tolkien's own.


> Or they shouldn't be written by the scientists but only by other people? 
Frankly, I think that's a pretty snobbish attitude.

Which I don't have.


> But let us pause and have a look at the claim. You'd claim that
given _Nimriyê_ 'Elvish' and _nimir_ 'Elf' and _Adûnâim_ '*Númenóreans'
, it takes somehow away from Tolkien's genius to deduce that _#-yê_
expresses the language of a people and further deduce that _*Adûnâyê_
is the language of the _Adûnâim_?

Did
I say it would be difficult ? No, of course. But the fact that none of
the words are attested. Nothing else.


>
I'm afraid, you seem to fail to grasp a main property of languages
here, i.e. that their purpose is not to exist in a fixed set of phrases
only, but that e.g. endings actually can be applied to many words.
Which
is why your insight into Tolkien's languages will always miss a part -
the aesthetics of actually using a language, seeing how its inflections
fall together for starters. But again - that's your lack of insight and
your problem, not mine.

Don't worry about this. I know that Neo-Elvish is an important part too. As,
say, using the Tengwar in new creations too.


>
I'm fine with stopping here, but you can't wish to stop and have the
last word simultaneously - so please make your choice if you want to
respond -
either is fine with me.

*laugh*
Asking new questions and creating a new subject is not the right way to close a
discussion, isn't it ?
And stop a discussion on a given subject is not the same as to stop _all_
discussions.

Arthur Boccaccio wrote :

> Thorsten's Adûnaic course, coupled with the word list made available on
Elfling some time ago, for instance, allowed me to construct very
simple sentences in the language for characters in a story that takes
place on Númenor (yes, I'm one of those people you purists have
nightmares about -- a  Middle-earth fanfiction writer!).

Don't worry, I have no more nightmare about this ! Everybody can do whatever he
want, as long as he does not lie on its activity.

> I figured I would at least let you 'scholars' know from one who uses
these languages that the courses that are offered by people like Helge
and Thorsten are probably more welcomed by the plebians than the
highbrows suspect.

Here is, I think, the biggest mistake : I have never claimed to be some sort of
'highbrow' or learned scholar, nor I claimed any superiority on anybody (it
would be clearly wrong).


So, without anymore sarcasm, and since the moderator indicated me rigthly that
Mr. Renk and me are "beginning to repeat ourselves", I'll try again to resume in
a simple way my previous messages :

1) Since you seem to have made researchs of your own on Quenya, why not create a
blended work containing your conclusions from previous works on Quenya applied
to your Neo-Quenya standards, in order to justify them and to give a fuller view
of your intellectual progress ?

Without having any idea of purely scholar works, opening people to a bit of
linguistic is not a crime. As just say to people "_tehtar_ are diacritics signs"
could bring them to look in a dictionary the meaning of this word, without any
idea of torturing them with complex notions.

I'm probably wrong, so...

2) Calling your normalized language "Neo-Quenya" is not pejorative nor shameful.
Your standards are differents from those of Mr. Fauskanger. Your language is not
Quenya nor is Mr. Fauskanger's one. Since :
a) it does not exist any fixed and final grammar,
b) your language changes with each new publication,
c) you are not JRR Tolkien but somebody with your own partial vision of its
creation.
So, we can't talk about "re-contructed grammar of Quenya" but rather "grammar of
re-constructed Quenya (i.e. Neo-Quenya)", or as Terry Dock entitled rightly his
own grammar : "Prescriptive Grammar of Neo-Quenya". I respect this, but let's
just call things by their names. I don't think it is "puerile or stupide" enough
to accept this. ;-)

Finally, I beg your pardon, Mr. Renk, if any of my words hurt you. It was not my
intention.

Cordially,

DG


      
_____________________________________________________________________________
Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente http://mail.yahoo.fr

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

> 1) Since you seem to have made researchs of your own on Quenya, why not create
a blended work containing your conclusions from previous works on Quenya applied
to your Neo-Quenya standards, in order to justify them and to give a fuller view
of your intellectual progress ?

As I pointed out repeatedly - the reason is time, or better the lack of
time. Deciding on a form may be 10 minutes work - bringing the decision
process to a clear-cut, well referenced writeup may be 5 hours. Since I am
not in any way paid for doing Elvish, I have to earn my living in a
different way, and I have limited time and resources to do Elvish - which
means I must priorize what is important and what not. And the kind of
thing you'd like to have is (I agree) useful - but not that useful that it
will be up on my priority list any time soon.

> 2) Calling your normalized language "Neo-Quenya" is not pejorative nor
shameful. Your standards are differents from those of Mr. Fauskanger. Your
language is not Quenya nor is Mr. Fauskanger's one. Since :
> a) it does not exist any fixed and final grammar,
> b) your language changes with each new publication,
> c) you are not JRR Tolkien but somebody with your own partial vision of its
creation.

No, I am entirely fine with the term 'Neo-Quenya' (and never voiced any
objection). However, for some reason you have chosen the wording 'some
kind of Quenyarin porridge of unknown origin' which is pejorative. So I'd
rather hear your comment about that term which you actually used.

> So, we can't talk about "re-contructed grammar of Quenya" but rather "grammar
of re-constructed Quenya (i.e. Neo-Quenya)", or as Terry Dock entitled rightly
his own grammar : "Prescriptive Grammar of Neo-Quenya". I respect this, but
let's just call things by their names. I don't think it is "puerile or stupide"
enough to accept this. ;-)

Yes, strangely enough, when I point this out in the preface to my Adunaic
course, you use this very disclaimer to throw it into my face as evidence
that I would not respect Tolkien's work as it is - so can you make up your
mind just how I should describe things?

Cheers,

* Thorsten

I'm sorry to say that I do not understand this particular line of
reasoning by David Giraudeau:

David wrote (Message #35026):
> Partial work on some point at some time is one thing, a complete
work (even on only one point) according to the full timeline is
another one.

Thorsten replied (Message #35029 ):
> Well, clearly I am doing 'another one' then. I do present several
studies ranging from the GL or the QL all the way to late sources. It
seems you just didn't read them, otherwise you'd know.

To which David answered (Message #35036):
> Yes, I know, 3 about Q(u)enya.

Thorsten replied (Message #35039):
> It would seem that you don't (underscoring my point) - there are

* The Quenya Pronominal System
* The Quenya Past Tense
* The Quenya Perfect Tense (no substantial material prior to LOTR,
but the
bit in the EQG is reseached and cited)
* The Eldarin Numerals (Quenya and Sindarin branches)
* The verb 'to be' in Tolkien's Elvish languages (Quenya and Sindarin
branches)
* Impersonal constructions in Elvish (Quenya and Sindarin branches)

To which David replied (Message #35043):
> I was talking about the 3 ones (pronominal system, past tense,
perfect tense) which exemplified and matched the kind of works about
the "grammar features" I was talking about, _specifically_ (and only)
about Quenya.


It seems to me that the other mentioned articles (Eldarin
Numerals, The verb 'to be', Impersonal constructions) do indeed meet
the criteria initially established by David himself just as well.
The fact that readers of e. g. "Impersonal constructions in Elvish"
are enabled to compare particular features of Quenya grammar to
possibly related ones in Qenya as well as in Goldogrin, Noldorin and
Sindarin does not take away from Quenya research, quite the contrary,
in my opinion.

I will not comment on David's fundamental critique of Thorsten's
courses since I agree with the notice that the argumentation might
become repetitive.


Regards,
Erna

ok i picked out what i want but i CANT figure out how to make it into
proper tengwar like on the ring... if tried to find good sorces to
craft this phrase into the beautiful art it is..but iv had no luck ...
the phrase is "  Linnon am meleth vîn  "  wich means I sing because I
love you.... i mean if anyone can help me out i have posted on some
forms of what i had..and somone recomended me here and said since u
tried they would help you so if somone could draw or do whateverof the
proper *ring* tengwar lettering for that phrase i would be relived of a
heavy burdon..thank you

Thegnome

I am pleased to announce that Volume II of the collected Quettar is
now available.

This 112 page volume covers issues 11 to 20, published in 1981 to
1984. It includes the tengwar numerals presented by Christopher
Tolkien, as well as several `classic' articles.

See http://www.quettar.org/

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Thorsten Renk wrote :

>> So, we can't talk about "re-contructed grammar of Quenya" but
rather "grammar of re-constructed Quenya (i.e. Neo-Quenya)" , or as
Terry Dock entitled rightly his own grammar : "Prescriptive Grammar of
Neo-Quenya". I respect this, but let's just call things by their names.
I don't think it is "puerile or stupide" enough to accept this. ;-)

> Yes, strangely enough, when I point this out in the preface to my Adunaic
course, you use this very disclaimer to throw it into my face as evidence
that I would not respect Tolkien's work as it is - so can you make up your mind
just how I should describe things?

It seems that you don't feel the difference.
Trying to rebuild some sort of standardized Quenya according to _Tolkien's
vision_ is one thing, but proposing a normalized language that often is "rather
Adûnaic _how the author of these lines thinks it could be_ than Adûnaic as
Tolkien envisioned it" is another one, I think.

I just explain here my choice and don't wait for any answer.

Cordially,

DG


      
_____________________________________________________________________________
Envoyez avec Yahoo! Mail. Une boite mail plus intelligente http://mail.yahoo.fr

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

ramaroreo wrote:

> The page as such has been rejected that does not necessarily mean
that all the elements are invalidated.
"Alatúlie" seems to me a very likely compound since the stem ALA- on
page 146 is used in exactly this sense in "alaquenta" as you pointed
out. In addition under ALA-, there is ALLA! Hail, Welcome. But to me
the use of the interjection "Hail" and the "Welcome" of a guest is not
quite the same. Hence my choice of "Alatúlie".

On her forum
(http://www.ambar-eldaron.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?t=116), Evenstar
was reluctant to use this word, arguing that _ala-_ has more than one
meaning.
I don't think it is quite relevant here, since roots with -LA- or -AL-
elements were used by Tolkien at the same time for very different
purposes and meanings (even if some were rejected), as in Etymologies
(VT45-6) or in PE17.

DG

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "davidkiks" <davidkiks@...> wrote:

> On her forum
> (http://www.ambar-eldaron.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?t=116), Evenstar
> was reluctant to use this word, arguing that _ala-_ has more than one
> meaning.
> I don't think it is quite relevant here, since roots with -LA- or -AL-
> elements were used by Tolkien at the same time for very different
> purposes and meanings (even if some were rejected), as in Etymologies
> (VT45-6) or in PE17.

I would always use an attested Quenya construction, unless there is a
definite reason to think it obsolete. Tolkien's ambivalence about LA-
and AL- stems never changed, so one would be hard put to avoid them
altogether. Evenstar suggests *_mára tule_ instead of _alatúl(i)e_,
_alatulya_ (PE17:172) for welcome. I don't think it would be superior
to the attested versions because 1) it's simply not Tolkien-originated
Quenya, 2) it's not idiomatic (the attested one is, as would be a more
inventive Neo-Quenya coinage) and 3) it isn't grammatically correct.
_Mára_ does not mean "well", but "good", and _tule_ is only used as
infinitive, not verbal noun or imperative. It'd have to be *_á tule
márie/mai_, *_tulamárie/tulamai_ etc., for one to resort to needless
creation.

But why am I defending this word so fervently? Because I like how it
sounds! And it sounds quite a lot like Finnish _tervetuloa_ "welcome".

Petri Tikka

>On her forum
>(http://www.ambar-eldaron.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?t=116), Evenstar
>was reluctant to use this word, arguing that _ala-_ has more than one
>meaning.
>I don't think it is quite relevant here, since roots with -LA- or -AL-
>elements were used by Tolkien at the same time for very different
>purposes and meanings (even if some were rejected), as in Etymologies
>(VT45-6) or in PE17.

The root ALA- 'good, blessed, fortunate' is apparently from the same
conception as Q. _lá_ 'yes' < _ala_ 'good' mentioned years ago in
VT42:33. Most derivatives from this root are unproblematic even if one
assumes the conception where _lá_ 'no' and _ala_ is a negative root,
because they have already coexisted in 'The Etymologies', although
derived from GAL- (a bleniding with GAL- is also mentioned in PE17:146).

I see however a problem with the prefix _ala-_, since in one
conception it means 'well, happily' (_alaquenta_), in the other it has
_exactly the same form_, but means 'not' (_alasaila_ 'unwise'
VT42:33-34). So one has to be careful here, imho using the prefix for
both meanings would be not much different from mixing _lá_ 'yes' and
_lá_ 'no'.

RR.

> It seems that you don't feel the difference.
> Trying to rebuild some sort of standardized Quenya according to _Tolkien's
vision_ is one thing, but proposing a normalized language that often is "rather
Adûnaic _how the author of these lines thinks it could be_ than Adûnaic as
Tolkien envisioned it" is another one, I think.
>
> I just explain here my choice and don't wait for any answer.


It seems you didn't read the Adunaic course either...

Just a brief note with regard to my wording: Of course I don't 'invent'
new forms of Adunaic not based on what Tolkien wrote. That is actually the
very problem, because sticking to the few attested examples of use
*without* inventing new constructions confines one to an awkward use of
the language. As exemplified in English e.g. by

"I am doing a try for a using of English in that I use only a number of
constructions."

(so I didn't have a verb for 'to try', I didn't have the noun 'usage' but
just the gerund 'using', I didn't have the relativ pronoun 'which' and I
don't know the adjective 'small').

We can argue if my sentence is actually grammatical or not - but the point
is, it is awkwardly used. Same problem with Adunaic. Tolkien of course
wouldn't write Adunaic like that - he would simply continue inventing. But
I, limited to what can be reconstructed, am limited to an Adunaic which I
am sure Tolkien would never use.

As I am equally sure our Neo-Quenya, sticking to what is attested, would
never be the same as what Tolkien, free to invent new words, devices and
grammar, would have produced given the same text to be translated.

So I do think I understand the problem rather well, and there are not two
separate issues as you seem to think.

Cheers,

* Thorsten

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

How would you all form a quenya
adjective from _Eressea_ which already
is a substantivated adjective?
I don't like neither _eressearin*_ or
_eresseaina*_ (is _-aina even a valid
adjective formant in late-life Quenya?)

As for "late-life": since Tolkien calls
Exilic and Númenórean Quenya "late" it
gets ambiguous whether "late Quenya"
refers to periods in the history of
Arda or to periods in Tolkien's life.
I therefore propose to use "early-life,
mid-life, late-life" when referring to
Tolkien's lifetime (should it be needed,
since one can also say "pre/post-QL/Etym/LR").



/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte 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! ||

Thank you very much, these are exactly the examples I needed.

Having noticed that _gw-_ is a quite favourite word-beginning in
Sindarin, I didn't see that this doesn't imply that proto-elvish GW-
remained _gw-_ in Sindarin... but as Matt Dinse wrote, the shift GW >
_b_ can be quite well expected, since it is parallel to the well-
known shift KW > _p_. Now I understand it.

Quenduluin


--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Thorsten Renk" <trenk@...> wrote:
>
>
> > Does anyone know of / can find later (externally, of course)
roots in
> > GW-, and even what their Noldorin/Sindarin (depending on the
> > timeframe) derivatives begin with?
>
>
> PE17:154 has  three roots in GW-, GWAL, GWAN and GWAY.
>
>  From GWAL we have e.g. Q: _walya_ 'be excited' _walta_ 'to excite'
and
> Sindarin _balch_ 'fierce'
>
>  From GWAN we have Q: vanya S: bain 'fair-haired'
>
>  From GWAY we have _waina_, later _vaina_ 'blonde' S: _baen_ 'fair-
haired'
>
> (GWAY apparently replaces the root GWAN which was struck out).
>
> So the pattern is clear I think.
>
> * Thorsten
>

Benct Philip Jonsson scripsit:

> How would you all form a quenya
> adjective from _Eressea_ which already
> is a substantivated adjective?
> I don't like neither _eressearin*_ or
> _eresseaina*_ (is _-aina even a valid
> adjective formant in late-life Quenya?)

"eresseáva" ?

Lukas