I read somewhere that because 1) Elvish is not a real language, in that
there are no elves that we can ask to confirm/deny whether something is
correct or not, and because 2) it's creator has passed on, and because
3) there is generally more than one way to phrase something in any
language, that a 'best guess with supporting evidence' is as good as I
would ever get.   I had no idea the people on this board were so
interested in absolute accuracy!  I do not fault you for that nor am I
criticizing your passion, in fact, I  wish I had a fraction of your
knowledge (as well as the ability to learn another language).   I did
not expect such a detailed analysis of my phrase but I sure did enjoy
the discussion.   Very interesting!

At any rate, both Thorsten's and Tuilinde's sggestions work *for me*.

Although you have provided a translation I am able to use, can someone
explain the parts to me so that I understand the construction?  In the
"Structure of Quenya" portion of this website:
http://folk.uib.no/hnohf/quenya.htm
<http://folk.uib.no/hnohf/quenya.htm>
I found an explanation of the word _nanye_  to mean  "I am", but I could
find no explanatin for _-deva_.

I did find an explanation of the ending _-va_ to express ownership
(which is exactly what I'm trying to do) but I could find nothing for
either  _-deva_ or  _-de_ .  Can anyone tell me what it means?   Is it
added because '...wenva' is hard to pronounce and '...wendeva' isn't?

Another thing I have been unable to find are the words for "help" ("May
I help you?"),  "please" (Please bring me some wine") , and "thank you".
(I tried searching for these words in the group messages but looking for
"help" and "thank you" in a group like this pulls up almost every
post!).

Thanks, again!  BTW, is it OK if I lurk on this board?  I don't have the
knowledge to contribute but your discussions are fascinating and I'm
sure I will learn something...

Barb

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Thorsten Renk" <trenk@...> wrote:
>
>
> >> Not surprising - possession in Quenya is expressed with a case. So
> >> _Ranaewendeva_ would translate 'belonging to Ranaewen' (the
inflection
> > of
> >> the name is a bit tricky, as the name itself appears to be
> >> Sindarin-inspired rather than Quenya) - so _nanye Ranaewendeva_ 'I
am
> >> belonging to Ranaewen' would perhaps do.
> >
> > I am not sure this is entirely accurate.
>
> Neither am I (that's why I wrote 'perhaps') :-)
>
> > It is my impression that the
> > possessive case (or as Tolkien calls it, "possessive-adjectival
> > genitive") is used attributively only â€" that is, possessive
nouns
> > always refer back to other nouns (e.g. _yuldar
lisse-miruvóreva_
> > "draughts of sweet mead", _róma Oromeva_ "Orome's horn"). Or
am I
> > forgetting something?
>
> I guess the question is where your impression comes from. Presumably
from
> the attested examples of possessives in Quenya texts - which are more
or
> less the following:
>
> _róma Oroméva_, _lambë Eldaiva_, _Mindon Eldaliéva_,
_Amillë Eruva
> lissëo_, _i arani Eldaivë_, _yuldar lisse-miruvóreva_,
_Taurë Huinéva_,
> _Nurtalë Valinóreva_, _Noldo-quentasta Ingoldova_
>
> It's true that there the possessive always refers to a noun. But then,
> English does permit a (colloquial) construction 'it is John's', so
does
> German 'das ist Johanns'. Nevertheless, if you were to sample English
> genitive constructions, you'd find that the overwhelming majority of
cases
> also refers to a noun. So it is unclear to me how the fact that in
some 10
> examples we observe the possessive referring to a noun would imply
that
> this necessarily must always be so.
>
> Of course that in itself does not prove that my construction is in any
way
> valid, neither does it make it even plausible. For plausibility, I
would
> invoke (in addition to the observation that several languages do seem
to
> permit the colloqial use of 'to be + genitive' without an explicit
noun)
> the following two observations:
>
> * The possessive ending _-va_ has a close relationship to the
adjectival
> suffix _-va_ (_tereva_, _anwa_...), and we can assume that adjectives
> could be used in forms like _nanye tereva_
>
> * in _i arani Eldaivë_ the possessive ending actually behaves more
like an
> adjective in the way it forms plural _-va > -ve_
>
>
> So it seems that there is evidence that sometimes the possessive can
be
> treated as if it were an adjective - which is more or less the
property I
> used above. We may not be able to decide if the form is accurate (and
I
> certainly don't claim it) - but I think I can argue that it is
somewhat
> plausible.
>
> Cheers,
>
> * Thorsten
>




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

I'm glad that Thorsten was able to help you.  There is cultural reason for you
having so much trouble.  The Eldar, be they Sindar or Quendi, did not believe in
possessing another living being, so there is no statement for 'I belong to.' 
Even when a couple was expecting a child, they would something like 'We've been
blessed with a child!' as opposed to 'We're having a baby!'

I'm not surprised that you found a 'I am bound to' statement in the Grey Company
lexicon, because some strange things happen in that group...

                  Crowbabe74


--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, Thorsten Renk <trenk@...> wrote:
>
> > I have been trying for the past 3 months to translate the following phrase:
"I BELONG TO Ranaewen" into Quenya for a pet's collar.
> >
> > Researching every online 'dictionary' I could find, and finding no
translation for either "belong to" or "property of" I decided to use the verb
"bound" as in "I am bound to".
>
> Not surprising - possession in Quenya is expressed with a case. So
> _Ranaewendeva_ would translate 'belonging to Ranaewen' (the inflection of
> the name is a bit tricky, as the name itself appears to be
> Sindarin-inspired rather than Quenya) - so _nanye Ranaewendeva_ 'I am
> belonging to Ranaewen' would perhaps do.
>
> > What I came up with was _amin nauta an Ranaewen_.
>
> That seems to use Grey Company Elvish rather than Tolkien's - _amin_ is
> the telltale...
>
> > And, for laughs, if you could translate the phrase I came up with so that I
can see what I did wrong, that would help me to not make the same mistake in the
future.
>
> Isn't meaningful in either Sindarin or Quenya - _amin_ doesn't mean
> anything in either of those. The Grey Company *probably* took it from
> _anim_ 'for myself' but made an error in the interpretation of the phrase
> and the transcription - parts of the language is are Tolkien-inspired - a
> related thing occurs in their use of _iant iaur_ 'old bridge' where
> Sindarin has _iant_ 'bridge' and _iaur_ 'old' - the GC was not aware of
> the word order being different in Sindarin and English and hence lists
> _iant_ as 'old' and _iaur_ is 'bridge' - they have a clear disclaimer
> though that they do not deal with Tolkien's languages, so I wonder where
> you picked um _amin_.
>
> Cheers,
>
> * Thorsten
>

It might be easier just to rephrase it as "Ranaewen possesses me," which would
be _Ranaewen harya ni._ "Harya" was once used as the default verb for "to have,"
but it was glossed "possess" (I think). Even though "sam-" has in many cases
replaced it, I think that it is probably still a conceptually valid synonym
because other words from the root 3AR are still
used.---------------Herenvarno--------------------------------------------------\
------------

That's interesting.  I guess you don't really "own" a pet, either, you are
merely caring for it.  But there must be some way of describing a voluntary
assosiation with someone or thing, as in 'I belong to the Irish-American Club'
or I am married (bound?) to my husband.  Is there not?

And, what about inanimate things -- would you never say, "This ring belongs to
me"?  Is it the "I" that's throwing things off or the "belong to"?

I would like to have something like "Property of Ranaewen" embroidered on my
suitcase straps, as well.  I can't really use "I am bound to Ranaewen" for that
but, again, I found no translation for "property".

Barb

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "crowbabe74" <crowbabe74@...> wrote:
>
> I'm glad that Thorsten was able to help you.  There is cultural reason for you
having so much trouble.  The Eldar, be they Sindar or Quendi, did not believe in
possessing another living being, so there is no statement for 'I belong to.' 
Even when a couple was expecting a child, they would something like 'We've been
blessed with a child!' as opposed to 'We're having a baby!'
>
> I'm not surprised that you found a 'I am bound to' statement in the Grey
Company lexicon, because some strange things happen in that group...
>
>                  Crowbabe74
>
>
> --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, Thorsten Renk <trenk@> wrote:
> >
> > > I have been trying for the past 3 months to translate the following
phrase: "I BELONG TO Ranaewen" into Quenya for a pet's collar.
> > >
> > > Researching every online 'dictionary' I could find, and finding no
translation for either "belong to" or "property of" I decided to use the verb
"bound" as in "I am bound to".
> >
> > Not surprising - possession in Quenya is expressed with a case. So
> > _Ranaewendeva_ would translate 'belonging to Ranaewen' (the inflection of
> > the name is a bit tricky, as the name itself appears to be
> > Sindarin-inspired rather than Quenya) - so _nanye Ranaewendeva_ 'I am
> > belonging to Ranaewen' would perhaps do.
> >
> > > What I came up with was _amin nauta an Ranaewen_.
> >
> > That seems to use Grey Company Elvish rather than Tolkien's - _amin_ is
> > the telltale...
> >
> > > And, for laughs, if you could translate the phrase I came up with so that
I can see what I did wrong, that would help me to not make the same mistake in
the future.
> >
> > Isn't meaningful in either Sindarin or Quenya - _amin_ doesn't mean
> > anything in either of those. The Grey Company *probably* took it from
> > _anim_ 'for myself' but made an error in the interpretation of the phrase
> > and the transcription - parts of the language is are Tolkien-inspired - a
> > related thing occurs in their use of _iant iaur_ 'old bridge' where
> > Sindarin has _iant_ 'bridge' and _iaur_ 'old' - the GC was not aware of
> > the word order being different in Sindarin and English and hence lists
> > _iant_ as 'old' and _iaur_ is 'bridge' - they have a clear disclaimer
> > though that they do not deal with Tolkien's languages, so I wonder where
> > you picked um _amin_.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > * Thorsten
> >
>

>Although you have provided a translation I am able to use, can someone
>explain the parts to me so that I understand the construction? In the
>"Structure of Quenya" portion of this website:
>http://folk. uib.no/hnohf/ quenya.htm
><http://folk. uib.no/hnohf/ quenya.htm>
>I found an explanation of the word _nanye_ to mean "I am", but I could
>find no explanatin for _-deva_.


>I did find an explanation of the ending _-va_ to express ownership
>(which is exactly what I'm trying to do) but I could find nothing for
>either _-deva_ or _-de_ . Can anyone tell me what it means? Is it
>added because '...wenva' is hard to pronounce and '...wendeva' isn't?
 
"-va" is the ending being used. The 'e' is simply a connecting vowel. The 'd'
shows up because 'wen' "maiden" descends from a primitive root, either 'wende'
or just 'wend', I'm not sure. But I know that the Quenya is 'wende/vende'. When
used at the end of compounds like in your name this simply becomes 'wen' (in
Sindarin the word is likely always 'wen', but I don't know much Sindarin so I
can't say for sure) But when endings are added to it, the missing consonant
reappears, hence 'wendeva'




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

> Although your grammatical argument is plausible, I think this is the
> sort of translation where one should take into account the use that is
> made of it.

> This sentence is supposed to go on a collar. Without the pet, a
> colloquial "Ranaewen's" will not inform us what Ranaewen owns.

This is a bit like arguing that a basket with blankets in and a label
'Fido' will us not tell who Fido is. Barb asked for a translation of 'I
belong to...', not for a discussion if 'I' without pet in the collar
identifies uniquely who usually wears the collar :-)


> Then a pet is not an inanimate thing. In relation with people, the
> genitive seems to be used only: Indis i-Ciryamo "the Mariner's Wife".

_i arani Eldaivë_ involves demonstrably people, no inanimate thing, and
uses possessive. So what you claim is just not true.

> I feel animate things cannot be owned, so I would rather use the
> genitive "Ranaeweno"

Yes, but quite evidently Barb feels that she can own her pet. She is not a
Noldo, she does not have to subscribe to the philosophy and worldview of
the Noldor when using Quenya. It's a far stretch to conclude from _Indis
i-Ciryamo_ (which is usually taken to show that genitive is used in family
relationships) and Tolkien's comment that Elves would not talk about
'having children' that they would think the same way about pets - which
are not usually thought of as a family relationship, mildly put. And it is
even more of a stretch to conclude from that that this is actually a
grammatical property of the language (i.e. something everyone has to use
when using the language), rather than part of the Elvish belief system.

The two do not necessarily coincide: The Finnish language for example does
not express male or female as grammatical gender - but it would be a
mistake to assume the Fins are not aware that humans come with different
gender.

We all may have our prejudice how far concepts like 'not having children'
extend (Can I have a brother? A friend? A trusted horse? A slave? A tree?
A home? Anything? Would the Noldor use 'have' only when describing actions
of Morgoth?) - but they are just that - impressions and guesswork.

Cheers,

* Thorsten

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, wrote:


> > This sentence is supposed to go on a collar. Without the pet, a
> > colloquial "Ranaewen's" will not inform us what Ranaewen owns.
>


Wouldn't a collar inscribed in ANY language "I belong to ..." have no meaning
when it wasn't being worn?


>
> We all may have our prejudice how far concepts like 'not having children'
> extend


Even though the Eldar didn't believe you could own another living being, would
they never converse with others who did and, therefore, have the need to refer
to, for instance, slaves?  Would they then use the word from the other language,
much like the word "computer" is the same in english and german?

I realize that the quenya lexicon is far from complete but, theoretically, we
don't believe you should steal but we have a word for it.  Wouldn't they?

I just ordered Thorsten's course book on Quenya so, hopefully, this discussion
will soon make more sense to me.

Barb

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Thorsten Renk" <trenk@...> wrote:
>
> This is a bit like arguing that a basket with blankets in and a label
> 'Fido' will us not tell who Fido is. Barb asked for a translation of 'I
> belong to...', not for a discussion if 'I' without pet in the collar
> identifies uniquely who usually wears the collar :-)

A basket with a label "Fido" tells us at least that Fido is the user of the
basket. However a collar with "I belong to ..." tells us who the owner of the
collar is (with or without pet) but not the name of the one wearing the collar.
So your example is bit shaky.

In addition, I think your irony is out of place, this is a discussion forum and
every proposal around a translation should be treated as such - a proposal that
may be along a different line of thought.

>
> > Then a pet is not an inanimate thing. In relation with people, the
> > genitive seems to be used only: Indis i-Ciryamo "the Mariner's Wife".
>

> _i arani Eldaivë_ involves demonstrably people, no inanimate thing, and
> uses possessive. So what you claim is just not true.

"What you claim is just not true". Have I not used a very careful wording: seems
to be used.., I feel that..., I would...?? I do not see any claims on my part.

I interpret "i arani Eldaive" as "kings who happen to be Elves" in other words
if there is a group of kings some are Elves, some are not, therefore this is an
adjectival form. If there is a group of Elves and some among them are kings, I
see this as "i arani Eldaron", because the kings belong to the group of Elves
and this relationship might be governed by the genitive.


> > I feel animate things cannot be owned, so I would rather use the
> > genitive "Ranaeweno"


> Yes, but quite evidently Barb feels that she can own her pet. She is not a
> Noldo, she does not have to subscribe to the philosophy and worldview of
> the Noldor when using Quenya.

Yes, and quite evidently I think that Barb is perfectly entitled to feel that
she can own her pet, otherwise I would not have used "I feel", but would have
claimed: "Pets cannot be owned, you have to...".An input is an input and nothing
more.

Órerámar

In response to the responses, I'd say that the Tolkien Estate as such should
realize that this "Tolkien thing" is far bigger than your average corporate
intellectual property rights issue, and that trying to manage Tolkien and all
his works with strict legal methods is doomed to fail. It's the proverbial
herding cats. I myself am a fantasy writer (as of yet only a few of my
non-fantasy poems have been published), but I realize that once a work is out to
the public, the public owns it, no longer me. Sure, I can "retain the rights"
blah-blah-blah in some niggling legal sense, but in reality I've lost my work
inside the brain of each reader. And how and when it comes out of each mind into
the collective mind ... is totally out of my control ... and I could only make a
fool of myself trying to control and shape it with legal rules and regulations.

In general, I'm sad about how possessive people have become over Tolkien. To me,
part of the problem stems from how his work speaks to us so much at an intuitive
level. One musician once said this about music: music that you really love, that
really strikes you and moves you is like a homesickness for a place you've never
been to, nor ever will find. That sums up Tolkien for me. It also means people
are going to behave irrationally due to the general uncontrollability of the
lost, modern human trying to find that mysterious home Tolkien so wonderfully
played on our heartstrings.

Mellyn!

To return to Barbara's original question (and perhaps make this thread a little
calmer and to the point), I took a new look at the sources and came across the
verb _harya_ 'possess'.

So, "Ranaewen possesses me" could perhaps be translated _Ranaiwen harya ni_
(with a careful, and not essential, quenyarization of "Ranaewen").

Yours,
Måns


--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Barbara Healy" <barbhalley@...> wrote:
>
> I have been trying for the past 3 months to translate the following phrase: "I
BELONG TO Ranaewen" into Quenya for a pet's collar.
>
> Researching every online 'dictionary' I could find, and finding no translation
for either "belong to" or "property of" I decided to use the verb "bound" as in
"I am bound to".
>
> What I came up with was _amin nauta an Ranaewen_.
>
> I then spent over a month figuring out how to transcribe that into Quenya
Annatar which I managed to do with a combination of OTT, MSWord, and Photoshop. 
I submitted it to be transferred onto the collar.
>
> Two days later I discovered the TengScribe group here on Yahoo, entirely by
accident, and was told that my grammar was incorrect!  They recommended that I
use _Im naud na_ (which looks like a conjugation of the verb _nauta_ ) and also
suggested that I verify that with you guys.
>
> I did searches for "belong to" and "property of" and "bound to" but since all
of those phrases have gramatical meanings, that was all my searches returned,
not the Quenyan meanings I was looking for! ('bound to' did return a similar
query but with respect to Sindarin, and I am looking for Quenyan.)
>
> Can someone please tell me what the correct phrase is and why?
>
> And, for laughs, if you could translate the phrase I came up with so that I
can see what I did wrong, that would help me to not make the same mistake in the
future.
>
> Thank you in advance for any help you can provide.
>
> Barb Healy
>

> In addition, I think your irony is out of place, this is a discussion
> forum and every proposal around a translation should be treated as such
> - a proposal that may be along a different line of thought.

I am sorry if you feel offended, and there is and was no irony intended (I
do not use the smiley as a marker of irony). As Barb already replied - the
fact that 'I belong to...' on a collar has the same conceptual 'problem'
in any language should tell you that you're not proposing a translation of
a sentence, but an alteration of the requested translation which is not
mandated by problems in formulating the sentence, but rather by general
philosophical considerations. Which I feel leads a bit away from
discussing translations.


> "What you claim is just not true". Have I not used a very careful
> wording: seems to be used.., I feel that..., I would...?? I do not see
> any claims on my part.

'In relation with people, the genitive seems to be used only' is a careful
claim, the fact that it is worded carefully should however not keep me
  from pointing out that it is wrong. I regret that you seem to perceive
this as a personal attack, however I am confident that pointing out
examples which contradict what you say is quite acceptable in a discussion.

> I interpret "i arani Eldaive" as "kings who happen to be Elves" in other
> words if there is a group of kings some are Elves, some are not,
> therefore this is an adjectival form.

Yes - so in other words if there is a group of dogs, and some belong to
Ranaewen, others not, you can use the adjectival form. In other words, we
denote specifically 'Ranaewenish' dogs.


> If there is a group of Elves and some among them are kings, I see this
> as "i arani Eldaron", because the kings belong to the group of Elves and
> this relationship might be governed by the genitive.

And in a fictional example, of there is a group of things belonging to
Ranaewen, and some of them are dogs, you'd use genitive because the dogs
are a subgroup among the things belonging to Ranaewen.

So, somehow your reasoning for kings seems to lead to the use of
possessive when applied to dogs.

> Yes, and quite evidently I think that Barb is perfectly entitled to feel
> that she can own her pet, otherwise I would not have used "I feel", but
> would have claimed: "Pets cannot be owned, you have to...".An input is
> an input and nothing more.

So, then there is no need for you to be offended if I offer a different
opinion? What I wrote about the statements about children not necessarily
generalizing to dogs is just a different input after all, and nothing
more... Yet you seem to feel that I am not entitled to giving a different
input? Please let us return to a discussion of grammar - I think this
direction of discussion is not very fruitful.

All the best,

* Thorsten

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Thorsten Renk" <trenk@...> wrote:
>
>As Barb already replied - the
> fact that 'I belong to...' on a collar has the same conceptual 'problem'
> in any language should tell you that you're not proposing a translation of
> a sentence, but an alteration of the requested translation which is not
> mandated by problems in formulating the sentence, but rather by general
> philosophical considerations. Which I feel leads a bit away from
> discussing translations.
>
Barb is quite right, the conceptual problem is the same in any other language,
also in English. Would she put simply "Barbara's" on a pet collar and risking
that someone might actually think that she is the one who is wearing it (after
all there exist all sorts of fashion accessories). Pointing to eventual problems
in translations is the responsibility of the translator. I may just take this
translation thing a bit too serious - sorry professional habit.


>
>  from pointing out that it is wrong. I regret that you seem to perceive
> this as a personal attack, however I am confident that pointing out
> examples which contradict what you say is quite acceptable in a discussion.

Absolutely, that is what makes a discussion. It is not the contradictory example
that sound offensive, it is the slightly peremptory wording... and well you
can't help it (..that it is wrong). But no worry, I am not offended.

Indeed, let's go back to grammar:
>
> > I interpret "i arani Eldaive" as "kings who happen to be Elves" in other
> > words if there is a group of kings some are Elves, some are not,
> > therefore this is an adjectival form.
>
> Yes - so in other words if there is a group of dogs, and some belong to
> Ranaewen, others not, you can use the adjectival form. In other words, we
> denote specifically 'Ranaewenish' dogs.


Eldaive is adjectival and distinguishes Elves from other kindred. Applying this
example to Ranaewn would mean that she is part of a kind among other kinds.
Obviously Ranaewen belongs to the human kind and in our world there is no other
beside this. Ranaewenish dogs sound like a new dog breed.
>
>
> > If there is a group of Elves and some among them are kings, I see this
> > as "i arani Eldaron", because the kings belong to the group of Elves and
> > this relationship might be governed by the genitive.
>
> And in a fictional example, of there is a group of things belonging to
> Ranaewen, and some of them are dogs, you'd use genitive because the dogs
> are a subgroup among the things belonging to Ranaewen.
>
> So, somehow your reasoning for kings seems to lead to the use of
> possessive when applied to dogs.

Sorry, cannot adhere to that, see above.

I agree, that a single example (mariner's wife) seems a bit light to support an
opinion. But there are more examples:

vanimálion ontari
yáve mónalyo Yésus
Eruo ontaril
Nasser ar kenime kantar Valaron ar Maiaron

But it is not these examples alone that motivated my input. I mentioned the
argument "animate". One gets sometimes a conviction out of a detail and cannot
remember the source. My own conviction is actually based on the pronoun "se"
that is said to be used "for living things including plants" (VT49). That is why
I would use the -o genitive and not the adjectival, possessive, descriptive
form.

By the way, it would be nice if different arguments treated in a post would be
attributed to the members who brought them in. For someone not reading the whole
thread, it looks as if the different points had been brought by the same person.
Thanks.


  Yet you seem to feel that I am not entitled to giving a different
> input?

Of course you are, as already said, with what else one is supposed to have a
discussion.

>Please let us return to a discussion of grammar - I think this
> direction of discussion is not very fruitful.

Which I have done. However I do not agree with the last part of your sentence -
I think our exchange holds plenty of points that could lead to fruitful
discussions: What means translation? Sens and nonsense of Elvish translations.
Is there any responsibility involved in translation - towards the user, the
creator of the language?
Discussion about Elvish belief system and relation with grammar, etc.

I think this could be excellent topics for an Omentielva discussion!

Where some see a half empty glass - others see with pleasure a half full one!

Regards

Órerámar

Suilad,

"Yes, but quite evidently Barb feels that she can own her pet. She is not a
Noldo, she does not have to subscribe to the philosophy and worldview of the
Noldor when using Quenya."

I wasn't trying to imply that I think people can't OWN a pet...I have two cats
myself.  I just though that since I've read so many letters in this group about
how extrapolating on Tolkien's Elven lexicons is verboten and justification for
unending disrespect as a Tolkien linguist, that an explanation of WHY - in
accord with what Tolkien himself wrote - it is difficult to find phrases like 'I
belong to...' within the languages of the Eldar might have been of interest.

It appears that Tolkien's presentation of the Eldarin cultures, through his
writings, are not considered to be deserving of the same idea - that
extrapolating on them is a perfectly acceptable practice, as long as the
languages themselves are preserved, gaps and all.

Personally, I'm not terribly concerned with the body of translation requests. 
If someone wants something translated, this is the place to come to.  However,
the Elfling F.A.Q. does address this -
http://nellardo.com/lang/elf/faq.html#s0.4

As stated in the last paragraph of this question, people are encouraged to do
research on their own before coming here, and I know that Barb did that, because
she proved it in her inquiry.  I'm not implying that she is one if these people
-

"...someone with little real interest in the languages waltz in, demand an
immediate translation into "Elvish," and vanish into the ether as soon as their
question is answered."

Having read the body of this question, I came away with the impression that
providing an explanation for her difficulties, based on the information
presented in Tolkien's non-linguistic writings, would not cause any upset.  I'm
sorry for thinking that interest in the stories themselves was prominent here.

"Even though the Eldar didn't believe you could own another living being, would
they never converse with others who did and, therefore, have the need to refer
to, for instance, slaves?"

Since this question was asked from within the context of story, I'm responding
in the same way - This is a passage from 'The Ruin of Doriath - Ch. 22 of the
'Quenta Silmarillion, part the of 'The Silmarillion'...

"Hurin having spent many years in bondage on the high seat of Thangorodrim,
where Morgoth had him chained, was released into Beleriand with a procession as
if he were a prince of Angband. Morgoth thought to try and diminish the credit
of Hurin's reputation by making him seem to be a traitor to his allys.

Hurin took his freedom, though embittered by all that he had seen through the
eyes of his great enemy, and he went forth. He was now grim to look upon, The 28
years of his bondage had taken it's toll on his flesh and he was haggard and
ill-kept. He walked unbowed and bearing a great black staff and a sword and made
his way to the cliffs of Echoriath, where the secret passage to Gondolin lay
hid."

As enslavement and torture were among Morgoth's hobbies, the Elves, particularly
those dwelling in Gondolin, often saw the consequences of such treatment.  As
such, they didn't engage in such practices themselves.  There was no slave-trade
among the Eldar, so the need for them to associate with people that practiced
enslavement would have been non-existant, save for attempts of freeing the
enslaved people.

Yes, there are examples of people being held captive by some among the Elves,
such as in the Hobbit, where the Dwarves  were held by King Thranduil.  However,
specific reasons -  wanting to know the full truth behind their presence in
Mirkwood - were given, and the nature of the imprisonment starkly contrasts that
of Morgoth, and those in allegiance -

"Then the elves put thongs on him {Thorin}, and shut him in one of the inmost
caves with strong wooden doors, and left him.  They gave him food and drink,
plenty of both, if not very fine; for Wood-Elves were not goblins, and were
reasonably well-behaved even to their worst enemies, when they captured them. 
The giant spiders were the only living thing that they had no mercy upon."

                          The Hobbit - Ch. 8 - Flies and Spiders

Hopefully, this post answers the raised questions, and doesn't lead to a bunch
of resentful replies.

                        Respectfully,

                                   Crowbabe74


--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "ramaroreo" <ramaroreo@...> wrote:
>
> --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Thorsten Renk" <trenk@> wrote:
> >
> > This is a bit like arguing that a basket with blankets in and a label
> > 'Fido' will us not tell who Fido is. Barb asked for a translation of 'I
> > belong to...', not for a discussion if 'I' without pet in the collar
> > identifies uniquely who usually wears the collar :-)
>
> A basket with a label "Fido" tells us at least that Fido is the user of the
basket. However a collar with "I belong to ..." tells us who the owner of the
collar is (with or without pet) but not the name of the one wearing the collar.
So your example is bit shaky.
>
> In addition, I think your irony is out of place, this is a discussion forum
and every proposal around a translation should be treated as such - a proposal
that may be along a different line of thought.
>
> >
> > > Then a pet is not an inanimate thing. In relation with people, the
> > > genitive seems to be used only: Indis i-Ciryamo "the Mariner's Wife".
> >
>
> > _i arani Eldaivë_ involves demonstrably people, no inanimate thing, and
> > uses possessive. So what you claim is just not true.
>
> "What you claim is just not true". Have I not used a very careful wording:
seems to be used.., I feel that..., I would...?? I do not see any claims on my
part.
>
> I interpret "i arani Eldaive" as "kings who happen to be Elves" in other words
if there is a group of kings some are Elves, some are not, therefore this is an
adjectival form. If there is a group of Elves and some among them are kings, I
see this as "i arani Eldaron", because the kings belong to the group of Elves
and this relationship might be governed by the genitive.
>
>
> > > I feel animate things cannot be owned, so I would rather use the
> > > genitive "Ranaeweno"
>
>
> > Yes, but quite evidently Barb feels that she can own her pet. She is not a
> > Noldo, she does not have to subscribe to the philosophy and worldview of
> > the Noldor when using Quenya.
>
> Yes, and quite evidently I think that Barb is perfectly entitled to feel that
she can own her pet, otherwise I would not have used "I feel", but would have
claimed: "Pets cannot be owned, you have to...".An input is an input and nothing
more.
>
> Órerámar
>

Suilad,

from Thorsten -

"We all may have our prejudice how far concepts like 'not having children'extend
(Can I have a brother? A friend? A trusted horse? A slave? A tree? A home?
Anything? Would the Noldor use 'have' only when describing actions of Morgoth?)"

I never said they didn't use words like 'my,' simply that living things were not
considered possessions.  Ownership could still be known, but odds are good that
animals like horses would have been considered communal, resulting in ideas of
'here is a horse you can use for your journey.'  Remember, the Elves were quite
predisposed to giving what was needed...

I guess the question is - can these sentences be translated into one or more of
the Eldarin tongues?  If so, then this really comes down to a matter of pronoun
usage.

"We've been blessed with a child."
"We've been given a child."
"This is my brother."
"We are brothers."
"This is my friend."
"We are friends."
"This horse is a trusted mount."
"They were enslaved."
"I planted this tree to shade the home of my family."
"I fashioned this sword well, and I give it to you."

                           Crowbabe74



--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Thorsten Renk" <trenk@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Although your grammatical argument is plausible, I think this is the
> > sort of translation where one should take into account the use that is
> > made of it.
>
> > This sentence is supposed to go on a collar. Without the pet, a
> > colloquial "Ranaewen's" will not inform us what Ranaewen owns.
>
> This is a bit like arguing that a basket with blankets in and a label
> 'Fido' will us not tell who Fido is. Barb asked for a translation of 'I
> belong to...', not for a discussion if 'I' without pet in the collar
> identifies uniquely who usually wears the collar :-)
>
>
> > Then a pet is not an inanimate thing. In relation with people, the
> > genitive seems to be used only: Indis i-Ciryamo "the Mariner's Wife".
>
> _i arani Eldaivë_ involves demonstrably people, no inanimate thing, and
> uses possessive. So what you claim is just not true.
>
> > I feel animate things cannot be owned, so I would rather use the
> > genitive "Ranaeweno"
>
> Yes, but quite evidently Barb feels that she can own her pet. She is not a
> Noldo, she does not have to subscribe to the philosophy and worldview of
> the Noldor when using Quenya. It's a far stretch to conclude from _Indis
> i-Ciryamo_ (which is usually taken to show that genitive is used in family
> relationships) and Tolkien's comment that Elves would not talk about
> 'having children' that they would think the same way about pets - which
> are not usually thought of as a family relationship, mildly put. And it is
> even more of a stretch to conclude from that that this is actually a
> grammatical property of the language (i.e. something everyone has to use
> when using the language), rather than part of the Elvish belief system.
>
> The two do not necessarily coincide: The Finnish language for example does
> not express male or female as grammatical gender - but it would be a
> mistake to assume the Fins are not aware that humans come with different
> gender.
>
> We all may have our prejudice how far concepts like 'not having children'
> extend (Can I have a brother? A friend? A trusted horse? A slave? A tree?
> A home? Anything? Would the Noldor use 'have' only when describing actions
> of Morgoth?) - but they are just that - impressions and guesswork.
>
> Cheers,
>
> * Thorsten
>

I came upon this author's note in Tolkien's essay 'Eldarinwe Leperi
are Notessi' (Vinyar Tengwar, issue 48, p.6):

	 "[Pengolodh] had some acquaintance with Khuzdul in its archaic form
as used in the habitations of the Dwarves in Ered Lindon."

	 Although, as the editor Patrick H. Wynne points out, the conception
of Pengolodh presented in this essay differs from how he is described
in the earlier 'Quendi and Eldar' (HoMe XI), I'm more curious about
what Tolkien says here about the tongue of the Dwarves of the Blue
Mountains. How do you think we should understand the statement that
these Dwarves used an archaic form of Khuzdul? I can think of at least
two possible interepretations:

	 1) It would it be archaic (i.e., being somewhat different in form
and structure) in comparision to the Dwarvish used in other Dwarven
realms of Middle-earth. This would perhaps mean that the Dwarves of
Ered Luin continued (in the Second and Third Ages) to have a different
dialect of Khuzdul than, for example, the Dwarves of Khazad-dûm.

	 2) The distinction is merely referring to that Khuzdul (in general)
has evolved since the Elder days in which Pengolodh learnt some
pieces.

	 Perhaps I'm being excessivey concerned about details, but as far as
my limited knowledge goes, I can't recall any place where Tolkien says
that the Dawrves had different dialects (although this probably would
be likely). Any opinions?

	 Cheers/ Morgan Thomsen  BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif;font-size:12px; }

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

> "We all may have our prejudice how far concepts like 'not having
> children'extend (Can I have a brother? A friend? A trusted horse? A
> slave? A tree? A home? Anything? Would the Noldor use 'have' only when
> describing actions of Morgoth?)"
>
> I never said they didn't use words like 'my,' simply that living things
> were not considered possessions.

Sorry, I am confused: This seems to be a different issue. That possessive
pronouns are applied to children is not controversial: _yonya_ 'my son' is
an attested form. But I fail to see why possessive pronouns (or the
possessive case for that matter) must be interpreted to denote possession
only - it is quite clear to me that _yuldar lissë-miruvóreva_ does not
mean that the draughts are considered a possession of sweet mead. The
possessive pronouns mark something else - _-nya_ is a thing which is
associated with me - it could have its origin in me, it could be a part of
me, it could be a relative or a friend - possession is only one of many
different meanings of the pronoun. Likewise with the possessive case - it
does not only mark a possession, but also much more loosely defined
associations.

> Ownership could still be known, but odds are good that animals like
> horses would have been considered communal, resulting in ideas of 'here
> is a horse you can use for your journey.'  Remember, the Elves were
> quite predisposed to giving what was needed...

Yes, I remember especially Feanor's disposition to give away the
Silmarilli when needed, and the Teleri handing over the Swan-Ships just
for the asking because the Noldor needed a ride across the sea :-) Are you
really referring to these Elves? Because the Noldor were the Quenya native
speakers, and I have parts of the Silmarillion in mind which would make
them appear in a less gentle light.

> I guess the question is - can these sentences be translated into one or
> more of the Eldarin tongues?  If so, then this really comes down to a
> matter of pronoun usage.

As I said above, it is not really controversial if Quenya pronouns can be
applied to children. The question is the range of application of Elvish
verbs derived from 3AR denoting 'to possess, to have to hold', i.e. Quenya
_harya-_ and Sindarin _gar-_ (again, it is not controversial that Elves
did see the need to express possession as such - the root is rather
productive and 'realm' is derived from it, so you can even have (or
possess) a kingdom). There is a statement in MR:228 where Tolkien notes
that "no Elf would speak of possessing children; he would say: 'three
children have been added unto me', or 'are with me'". Since he presumably
referes to _harya-_ here, we can infer that an English 'I have three
children' is not idiomatic Quenya as used by Elves. But communal
possession of horses can hardly be inferred.

I know that there is a trend to project many very idealistic traits on
Tolkien's elves. But before arguing translations from that perspective,
please consider the actions of the Noldor, and characters such as Feanor,
Eol, Maeglin or Thingol. They can at times be rather mean-spirited or
greedy - but they spoke Sindarin or Quenya nevertheless (and Feanor
actually spoke Quenya pretty well).

All the best,

* Thorsten

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

Hi all,

Just to avoid any misunderstanding and before anyone is reacting with a heated
reply, I would like to add an explanation to the last paragraphe of my last
reply to Thorsten, because I suddenly realized that the "sense and nonsense of
Elvish translations" could be interpreted that I consider the requested
translation or any of the answers as "nonsense". This is evidently not the case,
I consider such exchanges as most useful, not the least because they make me
usually search the sources once more. Our contradictory views and different
approach to translation just reminded me of a few questions that I ask myself
now and then and that I consider interesting topics of discussion.
By the way, the "sense and nonsense" I was thinking of concerns mostly name
translations for tattoos that abound on some forums.

Hope this clarifies everything.

Regards
Órerámar


> >Please let us return to a discussion of grammar - I think this
> > direction of discussion is not very fruitful.
>
> Which I have done. However I do not agree with the last part of your sentence
- I think our exchange holds plenty of points that could lead to fruitful
discussions: What means translation? Sens and nonsense of Elvish translations.
Is there any responsibility involved in translation - towards the user, the
creator of the language?
> Discussion about Elvish belief system and relation with grammar, etc.
>
> I think this could be excellent topics for an Omentielva discussion!
>
> Where some see a half empty glass - others see with pleasure a half full one!
>
> Regards
>
> Órerámar
>

> Eldaive is adjectival and distinguishes Elves from other kindred.
> Applying this example to Ranaewn would mean that she is part of a kind
> among other kinds. Obviously Ranaewen belongs to the human kind and in
> our world there is no other beside this. Ranaewenish dogs sound like a
> new dog breed.

Yes - because English doesn't work this way. Try translating the
possessive as 'associated with' - then _lambe Eldaiva_ is 'the language
associated with the Elves', _Taurë Huinéva_ is the 'forest associated with
gloom', _Nurtalë Valinóreva_ is the 'hiding associated with Valinor' and
_laman Ranaewendeva_ is the 'animal associated with Ranaewen', and
suddenly it doesn't really sound like a new dog breed any more. I suspect
you just have a very rigid meaning for the possessive in mind.

> Sorry, cannot adhere to that, see above.
> I agree, that a single example (mariner's wife) seems a bit light to
> support an opinion. But there are more examples:
>
> vanimálion ontari
> yáve mónalyo Yésus
> Eruo ontaril
> Nasser ar kenime kantar Valaron ar Maiaron

The first is a family relationship, the second is origin, the third a
mixture of both and the last part of the whole - are you really suggesting
that the chief reason why they use genitive here is not to differenciate
these shades of meanings from the range of meanings of the possessive, but
rather just because there are persons involved?

> But it is not these examples alone that motivated my input. I mentioned
> the argument "animate". One gets sometimes a conviction out of a detail
> and cannot remember the source. My own conviction is actually based on
> the pronoun "se" that is said to be used "for living things including
> plants" (VT49). That is why I would use the -o genitive and not the
> adjectival, possessive, descriptive form.

Well, the possessive certainly applies to living things occasionally, e.g.
_Taurë Huinéva_ (I am sort of assuming a forest contains enough life). But
why would a distinction maintained on the level of pronouns have
implications for the case system anyway? Finnish has such a distinction in
the pronouns, but it is not maintained in the case system. English has it
as well - but the Genitive and the prepositions do not work differently
for animate and inanimate things. So it seems there is no actual good
reason for your conviction.

> By the way, it would be nice if different arguments treated in a post
> would be attributed to the members who brought them in. For someone not
> reading the whole thread, it looks as if the different points had been
> brought by the same person. Thanks.

I don't actually think it should matter who made an argument - it should
matter if it is sound or not, and admittedly I often don't pay attention
to who said what - I respond to the argument rather than to the person.
Sorry if that confuses anyone.

All the best,

* Thorsten

This is my first stab at writing some Quenya -- does this have the sense I
intend?  I'm not sure of a few points.  After studying the Ardalambion website,
I came up with this:

_Er corma tana melmengwa,
Er corma nute vet,
Er corma varna melessengwa,
Ar illume quilta wet._

Before my questions, a word on how this came to be:  While looking for
interesting wedding rings, I noticed a site that offered one in "Elvish."  What
they did was to take the "one ring to rule them all" classic inscription, and
changed the words a bit to make it a more appropriate sentiment (that is, turned
it into a love poem), and then simply substituted Tengwar characters (using the
Black Speech mode, of all things!) for the English letters.

I decided I'd try to do an actual translation into Quenya of the love poem, then
have THAT written in Tengwar using Quenya mode, instead, for my wedding ring.

The original in English that I'm tring to capture went like this:

"One ring to show our love,
One ring to bind us,
One ring to seal our love,
and forever to entwine us."

What I believe I rendered in Quenya is intended to literally read as:

"One ring to show the love of I and thou [inclusive dual form],
One ring to tie us,
One ring to secure the love of I and thou,
and always to encircle us."

I changed those words to find matches in the dictionaries -- I couldn't find
exact translations for "bind", "seal", and "entwine", so I looked for synonyms.

Also, to break it up a little, I intended to use earlier or more
archaic-sounding forms for "love" ( _melesse_ )and "us" ( _wet_ ) in the third
and fourth lines, than in the first two lines ( _melme_ and _vet_ ).  The idea
is to capture some poetic feel of timelessness by using the older forms, and to
make a better-sounding poem.

So, might that be intelligible to an Elf?

Another question -- is there an approved way to create the verb-sense of
"entwine" from the noun _lia_ ?  I'm thinking of something like a gerund in
reverse...

Next, did I get the "dual inclusive" forms _-ngwa_ correct, or did I horribly
misunderstand their usage?

Also, are there any long vowels I have to worry about marking as such in the
Tengwar transcription?  (I am using YaTT for the transcription).

Finally, did I use the infinitives properly, or should I have used _tanata_ and
_nutita_ and _varnata_  for example?  Or the even more puzzling infinitive form
_tanatie_ etc.?

Thanks in advance for any helpful pointers and corrections!

Bob

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "crowbabe74" <crowbabe74@...> wrote:
>
> I'm glad that Thorsten was able to help you.  There is cultural reason for you
having so much trouble.  The Eldar, be they Sindar or Quendi, did not believe in
possessing another living being, so there is no statement for 'I belong to.' 
Even when a couple was expecting a child, they would something like 'We've been
blessed with a child!' as opposed to 'We're having a baby!'
> (...)
>
>                  Crowbabe74


I'm no longer dealing much with Tolkien linguistic issues, yet this nevertheless
is an interesting topic, so my two cents (for what it's worth):

Cultural background very often is influencing grammar, or (parts of) grammatical
peculiar features are rooted in culture. Interestingly this influence can be
restricted to only one feature whereas others may be unaffected, don't ask me
why.
With regard to "grammatical" possession e.g. in Dakotan languages (Sioux), one
has to differentiate "the world" in quite some ways according to different
grammatical features.

"Possession" as in "this is yours" (he nitawa), i.e. expressions using the verb
(i)tawa (about: to belong to) doesn't seem to require much categorizing. One
even is allowed to use it with regard to human beings in constructions like "my
wife" (winyan mitawa kin - about: the wife she belongs to me).

This is very different and quite complicated when using the grammatical
feature(s) of personal affixes:

1) These are not allowed with words denoting e.g. water, earth and animals
(except for horses! but not dogs although often denoted with the same word:
sunka=dog/tasunka=his horse),

2) body parts only can go with personal affixes but not "possessive affixes
(derived from the verb (i)tawa - see above): e.g. micante (my heart), cante (his
heart) etc., but not **mitacante, **tacante. (In this category, also another
personal affix is used (e.g. ma-) with body parts conceived as NOT being subject
to will power: e.g. maazuntka=my kidney)
This is called "inseparable possession"

3) terms of relationship are treated grammatically like "inseparable possession"
(yet there are a lot of additional variant forms of suffixes, making things
pretty complicated)

4) The so called "separable possession" is expressed by the prefix ta (mita,
nita etc.) which is derived from the above verb. There are many quite
complicated and subtle nuances to be considered in this category (that I won't
elaborate on in this place here). mitasunka (my horse), nitakola (your friend) -
and even: mitawicu (my spouse). The latter is much more formal than the above
winyan mitawa kin.

Please forgive this a bit off-topic excursion ;-)

Best

A.

Just hoping you may know how I can get my hands on "taped" either audio or
video, courses or instruction of any kind for Tolkein's Elvish  Language.

--- On Sun, 7/19/09, Thorsten Renk <trenk@...> wrote:


From: Thorsten Renk <trenk@...>
Subject: Re: [elfling] Re: You are my last resort -- can someone help me?
To: elfling@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 5:18 PM


 




> Eldaive is adjectival and distinguishes Elves from other kindred.
> Applying this example to Ranaewn would mean that she is part of a kind
> among other kinds. Obviously Ranaewen belongs to the human kind and in
> our world there is no other beside this. Ranaewenish dogs sound like a
> new dog breed.

Yes - because English doesn't work this way. Try translating the
possessive as 'associated with' - then _lambe Eldaiva_ is 'the language
associated with the Elves', _Taurë Huinéva_ is the 'forest associated with
gloom', _Nurtalë Valinóreva_ is the 'hiding associated with Valinor' and
_laman Ranaewendeva_ is the 'animal associated with Ranaewen', and
suddenly it doesn't really sound like a new dog breed any more. I suspect
you just have a very rigid meaning for the possessive in mind.

> Sorry, cannot adhere to that, see above.
> I agree, that a single example (mariner's wife) seems a bit light to
> support an opinion. But there are more examples:
>
> vanimálion ontari
> yáve mónalyo Yésus
> Eruo ontaril
> Nasser ar kenime kantar Valaron ar Maiaron

The first is a family relationship, the second is origin, the third a
mixture of both and the last part of the whole - are you really suggesting
that the chief reason why they use genitive here is not to differenciate
these shades of meanings from the range of meanings of the possessive, but
rather just because there are persons involved?

> But it is not these examples alone that motivated my input. I mentioned
> the argument "animate". One gets sometimes a conviction out of a detail
> and cannot remember the source. My own conviction is actually based on
> the pronoun "se" that is said to be used "for living things including
> plants" (VT49). That is why I would use the -o genitive and not the
> adjectival, possessive, descriptive form.

Well, the possessive certainly applies to living things occasionally, e.g.
_Taurë Huinéva_ (I am sort of assuming a forest contains enough life). But
why would a distinction maintained on the level of pronouns have
implications for the case system anyway? Finnish has such a distinction in
the pronouns, but it is not maintained in the case system. English has it
as well - but the Genitive and the prepositions do not work differently
for animate and inanimate things. So it seems there is no actual good
reason for your conviction.

> By the way, it would be nice if different arguments treated in a post
> would be attributed to the members who brought them in. For someone not
> reading the whole thread, it looks as if the different points had been
> brought by the same person. Thanks.

I don't actually think it should matter who made an argument - it should
matter if it is sound or not, and admittedly I often don't pay attention
to who said what - I respond to the argument rather than to the person.
Sorry if that confuses anyone.

All the best,

* Thorsten


















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

To Aolung -

Thank you for sending this reply; I spent some time on a Lakota reservation in
South Dakota, and it's always interesting to learn more about the structure of
the Sioux languages, as well have examples from another language that reflect
what I've been trying to say.  Hannon le,

           Crowbabe74


--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "aolung" <Ti@...> wrote:
>
> --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "crowbabe74" <crowbabe74@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm glad that Thorsten was able to help you.  There is cultural reason for
you having so much trouble.  The Eldar, be they Sindar or Quendi, did not
believe in possessing another living being, so there is no statement for 'I
belong to.'  Even when a couple was expecting a child, they would something like
'We've been blessed with a child!' as opposed to 'We're having a baby!'
> > (...)
> >
> >                  Crowbabe74
>
>
> I'm no longer dealing much with Tolkien linguistic issues, yet this
nevertheless is an interesting topic, so my two cents (for what it's worth):
>
> Cultural background very often is influencing grammar, or (parts of)
grammatical peculiar features are rooted in culture. Interestingly this
influence can be restricted to only one feature whereas others may be
unaffected, don't ask me why.
> With regard to "grammatical" possession e.g. in Dakotan languages (Sioux), one
has to differentiate "the world" in quite some ways according to different
grammatical features.
>
> "Possession" as in "this is yours" (he nitawa), i.e. expressions using the
verb (i)tawa (about: to belong to) doesn't seem to require much categorizing.
One even is allowed to use it with regard to human beings in constructions like
"my wife" (winyan mitawa kin - about: the wife she belongs to me).
>
> This is very different and quite complicated when using the grammatical
feature(s) of personal affixes:
>
> 1) These are not allowed with words denoting e.g. water, earth and animals
(except for horses! but not dogs although often denoted with the same word:
sunka=dog/tasunka=his horse),
>
> 2) body parts only can go with personal affixes but not "possessive affixes
(derived from the verb (i)tawa - see above): e.g. micante (my heart), cante (his
heart) etc., but not **mitacante, **tacante. (In this category, also another
personal affix is used (e.g. ma-) with body parts conceived as NOT being subject
to will power: e.g. maazuntka=my kidney)
> This is called "inseparable possession"
>
> 3) terms of relationship are treated grammatically like "inseparable
possession" (yet there are a lot of additional variant forms of suffixes, making
things pretty complicated)
>
> 4) The so called "separable possession" is expressed by the prefix ta (mita,
nita etc.) which is derived from the above verb. There are many quite
complicated and subtle nuances to be considered in this category (that I won't
elaborate on in this place here). mitasunka (my horse), nitakola (your friend) -
and even: mitawicu (my spouse). The latter is much more formal than the above
winyan mitawa kin.
>
> Please forgive this a bit off-topic excursion ;-)
>
> Best
>
> A.
>

Suilad,

I've put this reply under a new topic header, because like a number of the
replies before it, it has nothing to do with the original translation request. 
A question was raised to me, and it's my intention here to answer it in what is
hopefully a civil manner.  What I've written is from within the context of
story, since that is the manner in which the questions have been asked...

Regarding this quote from Thorsten -

Yes, I remember especially Feanor's disposition to give away the Silmarilli when
needed, and the Teleri handing over the Swan-Ships just for the asking because
the Noldor needed a ride across the sea :-) Are you really referring to these
Elves? Because the Noldor were the Quenya native speakers, and I have parts of
the Silmarillion in mind which would make them appear in a less gentle light.

Yes, I am REALLY referring to these Elves...here's a few examples as to why,
also from The Silmarillion -

"And it came to pass that the masons of the house of Finwë, quarrying in the
hills after stone (for they delighted in the building of high
towers),first discovered the earth-gems, and  brought them forth in countless
myriads; and they devised tools for the cutting  and shaping of gems, and carved
them in many forms. They hoarded them not, but gave them freely, and by their
labour enriched all Valinor."

"Many jewels the Noldor gave them(The Teleri), opals and diamonds and pale
crystals, which they strewed upon the shores and scattered in the pools;
marvellous were the beaches of Elende in those days."

And two from the time following Feanor's rebellion, the Kinslaying, the burning
of the Swan-ships, etc, etc, which I'm including to show that the Noldor also
gave their lives; you really can't be less selfish; when they said they wanted
to repent from their folly, they meant it...

"In the front of that fire came Glaurung the golden, father of dragons, in his
full might; and in his train were Balrogs, and behind them came the black armies
of the Orcs in multitudes such as the Noldor had never before seen or imagined.
And they assaulted the fortresses of the Noldor, and broke the leaguer about
Angband, and slew wherever they found them the Noldor and their allies.
Grey-elves and Men. Many of the stoutest of the foes of Morgoth were destroyed
in the first days of that war, bewildered and dispersed and unable to muster
their strength."

"But the host of the Valar prepared for battle; and beneath their white banners
marched the Vanyar, the people of Ingwë, and those also of the Noldor who never
departed from Valinor, whose leader was Finarfin the son of Finwë...
The meeting of the hosts of the West and of the North is named the Great Battle,
and the War of Wrath. There was marshalled the whole power of the Throne of
Morgoth, and it had become great beyond count, so that Anfauglith could not
contain it; and all the North was aflame with war.
But it availed him not."

In short - he lost...

In my opinion, it's not fair to let an obsessed leader's action's serve to
define the mentality of the people as a whole...'

Regarding his refusal to give the Silmarilli to the Valar, there was no logic in
his obsession, and it 'kinda' bit him in the butt...

And as far as the actions of the Teleri to refuse 'handing over' their ships,
the Noldor who followed Feanor didn't ask, but demanded by force an expectation
of generosity that couldn't be met, and then resorted to greater force when the
demand was refused.

And since the Silmarillion clearly states that Fingolin's people ceased fighting
the Teleri as soon as they learned that they didn't blindly attack the Noldor,
and Finarfin's people abandoned the trek and turned back to plead for pardon
from the Valar, it's clear that Feanor's charisma only went so far...

Anyone wishing to is certainly welcome to reply, but I feel that I have said all
that I really need to say here.  I can pull quotes from Tolkien's writings with
the best of 'em, but just because I can, doesn't mean I care to for any great
period of time for purposes such as these.

               Annaka

Mellyn!

     Omentielva Nelya, 6-9 August in Whitehaven, England, is
drawing nigh. All information is found at <www.omentielva.com>.
     For practical reasons, we will now close the online registration.
If you want to join us in this last minute, write to me about it,
and as long as it is at all still possible we will welcome you!

	 Meneg suilaid,

		 Beregond
		 secretary of Omentielva

I _think_ that if I combine _carag_ "tooth of rock, spike" with the ending
_-ien_ seen in Ithilien et al., the result would be spelled Caradien, a name for
a very craggy region or a badlands.  But I wouldn't be surprised to find that I
had gotten it wrong.

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "promenadeofthedeer" <riverbeauty@...> wrote:
>
> I _think_ that if I combine _carag_ "tooth of rock, spike" with the ending
_-ien_ seen in Ithilien et al., the result would be spelled Caradien, a name for
a very craggy region or a badlands.  But I wouldn't be surprised to find that I
had gotten it wrong.
>

Why would "g" become "d" in this compound? We have, for example, _Eregion_ (<
_ereg_ + _-ion_) not _*Eredion_.

By the way _*Caragian(d)_ (or umlauted _*Ceregian(d)_) (< _carag_ + _-ian(d)_)
sounds better for me. ;)

I chose to reply to this, because it serves to illustrates an interesting
point in the study of languages, i.e. the connection between mindset of a
people and the idiomatic expressions they use (for the linguistically and
philosophically interested, this goes into the direction of what is known
as the Sapir-Whorf-hypothesis).

(...)
> In my opinion, it's not fair to let an obsessed leader's action's serve
> to define the mentality of the people as a whole...'
>
> Regarding his refusal to give the Silmarilli to the Valar, there was no
> logic in his obsession, and it 'kinda' bit him in the butt...
>
> And as far as the actions of the Teleri to refuse 'handing over' their
> ships, the Noldor who followed Feanor didn't ask, but demanded by force
> an expectation of generosity that couldn't be met, and then resorted to
> greater force when the demand was refused.

This is all interesting and certainly mostly true, but in my opinion
misses the original point. The original question was not 'Are the Noldor
capable of generosity?' - yes, of course they are (as, among other things,
the quotes show). That was not in doubt. The question with regard to
language was rather 'Was the mindset of the Noldor such that they would
have no concept of possessing (living) things and consequently would not
use expressions of possession (possessive pronouns, the verbs 'to possess,
to have' and the possessive case...) at all (not with regard to living
things)?'

As a side remark, I don't buy into the notion that even a gifted leader is
capable of getting a people to do anything fundamentally against their
nature. For starters, this is equivalent of stating that the rest of the
Noldor were incapable of exercising their own judgement, which makes them
little more than mindless puppets. But this is (Elvish) psychology, and
for lack of solid evidence I'll not pursue this further.

As for implications for languages, consider idiomatic Japanese: The
language has a multitude of relative social status markers. A person
called Akio Asakawa becomes Asakawa-san when I meet him formally, Akio-kun
when he is my buddy and we go out for a drink, Asakawa-sama when he is my
customer, Asakawa-sensei when I know he is a learned person (say my
dentist) and so on. But it doesn't stop here, the verb forms and words to
use change accordingly. Moving through everyday life in Japan, one
continuously moves through different strata of social status and marks
this in the language. But this concept of relative social status has no
real equivalent in (most?) English speaking societies (for example in the
US, I usually get by on first name basis addressing people using 'you'
without distinguishing status), therefore idiomatic Japanese is not
translatable without either lengthy explanations or loss of this
information. So, the hypothesis is, in the same sense as English has no
expressions of relative social status in everyday life because the
underlying mindset lacks the concept, Elvish may not have expressions of
possession of (living) things in their language because the Elvish mindset
lacks the concept.

It is interesting to note that the concept of 'generosity', quite unlike
communal possession of things (horses,...), implies the concept of
individual possession. If you own a car, and I need one, and you lend it
to me, I'd call this generous. But let's turn to something which is close
to communal possession as we can find - say Wikipedia. If you would allow
me to use Wikipedia, in what sense would you possibly be generous? My
right to use Wikipedia is as good as yours, so there can be no generosity
for communally owned goods. In Elvish terms, if the swan ships would have
been communal possession, the right of the Noldor to use them would have
been as good as the right of the Teleri, and the Teleri would have been
quite wrong to refuse them. The fact that the Noldor saw the need to
demand the ships and the Teleri saw fit to refuse this demand illustrates
strikingly that the Elvish mindset had a strong sense of possession - the
Teleri felt that the ships where theirs and not free for the taking.

So, there is no question that the Elves had a concept of possession - not
only do we know the root 3AR for possession words, we also have evidence
where they fought over possession of something. Having a concept of
possession does not prevent generosity - quite the contrary, as outlined
above, it is a necessary condition for generosity to be meaningful.

The only relevant question is now how far the concept of possession
applies. We know that it applies to ships, we know that it does not apply
to children, so can a Noldo possess a horse?

One should note that the remark about Elves not viewing children as
possessions is made in the context of an essay dealing with Elvish family
life in which children are rare (if I recall correctly, I am currently on
the road and can't access my books) - and not in a context in which is
stated that Elves valued all living things. On the other hand, as I
indicated earlier, _garth_ 'realm' is derived from 3AR, indicating that
the root is quite applicable to people. Possessive pronouns can readily be
applied to family members. And so on... (see my previous posts). Thus, in
order to make the point that Elves do not have a concept of possession of
living things, one would have to produce some sort of evidence for this.

And I would finally like to see that evidence rather than more private
speculations about the Elvish mindset. Where is *any* evidence for
communal possession of, say, horses?

And even if the Elvish mindset is such that it does not include possession
of living things, the language may not be. Modern English-speaking
societies do not have the concept of owning people - but if you dig into
the history of the US, you can find slavery in the southern states not so
long ago - and people there spoke English as well. Thus, the concept of
owning people is not really strongly linked with the idiomatic use of the
language in this case.

That - the link between mindset and language - is in my view the relevant
issue - not if the Noldor were at times also very generous.

All the best,

* Thorsten

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "narbeleth" <lorinczig@...> wrote:
>
> --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "promenadeofthedeer" <riverbeauty@> wrote:
> >
> > I _think_ that if I combine _carag_ "tooth of rock, spike" with the ending
_-ien_ seen in Ithilien et al., the result would be spelled Caradien, a name for
a very craggy region or a badlands.  But I wouldn't be surprised to find that I
had gotten it wrong.
> >
>
> Why would "g" become "d" in this compound? We have, for example, _Eregion_ (<
_ereg_ + _-ion_) not _*Eredion_.
>
> By the way _*Caragian(d)_ (or umlauted _*Ceregian(d)_) (< _carag_ + _-ian(d)_)
sounds better for me. ;)
>
Thank you!  I knew I had gotten something wrong. Caragiand sounds like a
suitably craggy name for very broken country.

>And I would finally like to see that evidence rather than more private
>speculations about the Elvish mindset. Where is *any* evidence for
>communal possession of, say, horses?

Funny you should mention horses. I was just thinking. In the Silmarillion it
says Maedhros gave Finglofin's people a bunch of horses 'cause he felt bad
about ditching them in Araman.
 
Now let's imagine for a moment that Maedhros had given Fingolfin some nice Elven
maidens to make up for all the maidens lost at the Helcaraxe.
 
That doesn't seem very Elvish at all does it? If that he'd done that, it would
have seemed to indicate that Maedhros and Fingon saw the Elf maidens as
possessions wouldn't it?
 
But on the other hand, they don't appear to have a problem with dealing with
horses in like manner. So it seems they didn't see horses the same way they saw
other Elves after all; does it?
 
Not to say that Elves don't love their horses. They just don't seem to have a
problem with treating them like possessions. (at least these two particular
Elves didn't)
 
Nothing wrong with this. I thought it was a very nice gesture. And I wouldn't be
surprised if I learned that a few of the younger Sons of Feanor threw some
little Elven hissy fits when big brother gave away so many of their best horses.
;)
 
 
P.S. I haven't actually read every single one of the other posts on this topic,
so I'm gonna feel dumb if this has already been mentioned. :)

--- On Thu, 7/30/09, Thorsten Renk <trenk@...> wrote:


From: Thorsten Renk <trenk@...>
Subject: Re: [elfling] Regarding generosity among the Noldor...
To: elfling@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, July 30, 2009, 5:16 AM


 




I chose to reply to this, because it serves to illustrates an interesting
point in the study of languages, i.e. the connection between mindset of a
people and the idiomatic expressions they use (for the linguistically and
philosophically interested, this goes into the direction of what is known
as the Sapir-Whorf- hypothesis) .

(...)
> In my opinion, it's not fair to let an obsessed leader's action's serve
> to define the mentality of the people as a whole...'
>
> Regarding his refusal to give the Silmarilli to the Valar, there was no
> logic in his obsession, and it 'kinda' bit him in the butt...
>
> And as far as the actions of the Teleri to refuse 'handing over' their
> ships, the Noldor who followed Feanor didn't ask, but demanded by force
> an expectation of generosity that couldn't be met, and then resorted to
> greater force when the demand was refused.

This is all interesting and certainly mostly true, but in my opinion
misses the original point. The original question was not 'Are the Noldor
capable of generosity?' - yes, of course they are (as, among other things,
the quotes show). That was not in doubt. The question with regard to
language was rather 'Was the mindset of the Noldor such that they would
have no concept of possessing (living) things and consequently would not
use expressions of possession (possessive pronouns, the verbs 'to possess,
to have' and the possessive case...) at all (not with regard to living
things)?'

As a side remark, I don't buy into the notion that even a gifted leader is
capable of getting a people to do anything fundamentally against their
nature. For starters, this is equivalent of stating that the rest of the
Noldor were incapable of exercising their own judgement, which makes them
little more than mindless puppets. But this is (Elvish) psychology, and
for lack of solid evidence I'll not pursue this further.

As for implications for languages, consider idiomatic Japanese: The
language has a multitude of relative social status markers. A person
called Akio Asakawa becomes Asakawa-san when I meet him formally, Akio-kun
when he is my buddy and we go out for a drink, Asakawa-sama when he is my
customer, Asakawa-sensei when I know he is a learned person (say my
dentist) and so on. But it doesn't stop here, the verb forms and words to
use change accordingly. Moving through everyday life in Japan, one
continuously moves through different strata of social status and marks
this in the language. But this concept of relative social status has no
real equivalent in (most?) English speaking societies (for example in the
US, I usually get by on first name basis addressing people using 'you'
without distinguishing status), therefore idiomatic Japanese is not
translatable without either lengthy explanations or loss of this
information. So, the hypothesis is, in the same sense as English has no
expressions of relative social status in everyday life because the
underlying mindset lacks the concept, Elvish may not have expressions of
possession of (living) things in their language because the Elvish mindset
lacks the concept.

It is interesting to note that the concept of 'generosity' , quite unlike
communal possession of things (horses,...) , implies the concept of
individual possession. If you own a car, and I need one, and you lend it
to me, I'd call this generous. But let's turn to something which is close
to communal possession as we can find - say Wikipedia. If you would allow
me to use Wikipedia, in what sense would you possibly be generous? My
right to use Wikipedia is as good as yours, so there can be no generosity
for communally owned goods. In Elvish terms, if the swan ships would have
been communal possession, the right of the Noldor to use them would have
been as good as the right of the Teleri, and the Teleri would have been
quite wrong to refuse them. The fact that the Noldor saw the need to
demand the ships and the Teleri saw fit to refuse this demand illustrates
strikingly that the Elvish mindset had a strong sense of possession - the
Teleri felt that the ships where theirs and not free for the taking.

So, there is no question that the Elves had a concept of possession - not
only do we know the root 3AR for possession words, we also have evidence
where they fought over possession of something. Having a concept of
possession does not prevent generosity - quite the contrary, as outlined
above, it is a necessary condition for generosity to be meaningful.

The only relevant question is now how far the concept of possession
applies. We know that it applies to ships, we know that it does not apply
to children, so can a Noldo possess a horse?

One should note that the remark about Elves not viewing children as
possessions is made in the context of an essay dealing with Elvish family
life in which children are rare (if I recall correctly, I am currently on
the road and can't access my books) - and not in a context in which is
stated that Elves valued all living things. On the other hand, as I
indicated earlier, _garth_ 'realm' is derived from 3AR, indicating that
the root is quite applicable to people. Possessive pronouns can readily be
applied to family members. And so on... (see my previous posts). Thus, in
order to make the point that Elves do not have a concept of possession of
living things, one would have to produce some sort of evidence for this.

And I would finally like to see that evidence rather than more private
speculations about the Elvish mindset. Where is *any* evidence for
communal possession of, say, horses?

And even if the Elvish mindset is such that it does not include possession
of living things, the language may not be. Modern English-speaking
societies do not have the concept of owning people - but if you dig into
the history of the US, you can find slavery in the southern states not so
long ago - and people there spoke English as well. Thus, the concept of
owning people is not really strongly linked with the idiomatic use of the
language in this case.

That - the link between mindset and language - is in my view the relevant
issue - not if the Noldor were at times also very generous.

All the best,

* Thorsten


















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

Actually, IMHO most countries are somewhat broken. Now back to our regularly
schedule broadcast ...

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:36 AM, promenadeofthedeer <riverbeauty@...
> wrote:

>
>
> --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com <elfling%40yahoogroups.com>, "narbeleth"
> <lorinczig@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com <elfling%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "promenadeofthedeer" <riverbeauty@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I _think_ that if I combine _carag_ "tooth of rock, spike" with the
> ending _-ien_ seen in Ithilien et al., the result would be spelled Caradien,
> a name for a very craggy region or a badlands. But I wouldn't be surprised
> to find that I had gotten it wrong.
> > >
> >
> > Why would "g" become "d" in this compound? We have, for example,
> _Eregion_ (< _ereg_ + _-ion_) not _*Eredion_.
> >
> > By the way _*Caragian(d)_ (or umlauted _*Ceregian(d)_) (< _carag_ +
> _-ian(d)_) sounds better for me. ;)
> >
> Thank you! I knew I had gotten something wrong. Caragiand sounds like a
> suitably craggy name for very broken country.
>
>
>



--
--- Haiku -----

One legged egret
Standing in the flowing stream
Awaiting the fish


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