I'm working on a Sindarin toponym for East Bight.  There doesn't
appear to be an easy translation of bight or loop.  Perhaps it would
be adequate to translate this as "cúrhún", from "cûn" for "bow-shaped"
and "rhûn" for "east", applying vowel shortening for the compound?

Kris Kowal

Or circle? Ring? Court?

Mike

Bight
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

>But not "power" in the sense of "energy" think about it. I think 'tûr' is more
like "mastery" rather than "energy".
hmm, interesting. 
So 'tûr' would be power in the sense of control rather than power in the sense
of ability.
--- On Thu, 9/30/10, slasher_tb <slasher_tb@...> wrote:

From: slasher_tb <slasher_tb@...>
Subject: [elfling] Re: A solar boat with an Elvish Name...
To: elfling@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, September 30, 2010, 12:46 PM
















 









       But not "power" in the sense of "energy" think about it. I think 'tûr' is
more like "mastery" rather than "energy".



--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, CLH harding <clh8518@...> wrote:

>

> >I think it's cool that they are looking at Elvish names with good eyes, they
definitely sound fair. I have to hand it to the Swiss!

> Although I must say that Túranor wouldn't translate as "The Power of the
Sun" as they wanted but rather as "Master of the Sun" or "Victor over the Sun"
which I think sounds a little pretentious! XD 

>

> That's what I though at first too, but according to my word list anyway
there's a word 'tûr' than means "power".

>






























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

Illuvatar?

Thing/being/spirit?

Mike
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

While I couldn't find anything for loop, Hisweloke's Sindarin dictionary
gives

*circle* ◈ *echor* *S.* [ˈɛxɔr] *n.* outer circle, encircling, outer ring
â—‡
LotR/V:I, LotR/Index, S/430 ◈ †*rind* **S.* [rˈind] (*rhind* *N.*, *rhinn*
*
N.*) *n.* circle ◇ Ety/383, X/RH, X/ND1 ◈ †*ringorn* **S.* [rˈiŋgɔrn]
(*
rhingorn* *N.*) *n.* circle â—‡ Ety/365, X/RH

Does that help?



On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Mike Adams <abrigon@...> wrote:

>
>
> Or circle? Ring? Court?
>
> Mike
>
> Bight
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
>



--
I enjoy the massacre of ads. This sentence will slaughter ads without a
messy bloodbath.


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

A little more digging indicates the origin to be OE byht, which is related
to PIE bheug- (> bend, buxom) meaning a bend. You may want to use words for
bend/angle/corner

*angle* ◈ *bennas* *N.* [bˈɛnnɑs] *n.* angle, corner ◇ Ety/352, Ety/375
â—ˆ *
nass* *N.* [nˈɑss] *n.* *1.* point, (sharp) end ○ *2.* angle or corner ◇
Ety/375, VT/45:37
That is also from Hisweloke (
http://www.jrrvf.com/hisweloke/sindar/online/sindar/dict-en-sd-strict.html)

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Phillip Wayne <exuyangi@...> wrote:

> While I couldn't find anything for loop, Hisweloke's Sindarin dictionary
> gives
>
> *circle* ◈ *echor* *S.* [ˈɛxɔr] *n.* outer circle, encircling, outer ring
> ◇ LotR/V:I, LotR/Index, S/430 ◈ †*rind* **S.* [rˈind] (*rhind* *N.*, *
> rhinn* *N.*) *n.* circle ◇ Ety/383, X/RH, X/ND1 ◈ †*ringorn*
**S.*[rˈiŋgɔrn] (
> *rhingorn* *N.*) *n.* circle â—‡ Ety/365, X/RH
>
> Does that help?
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Mike Adams <abrigon@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Or circle? Ring? Court?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Bight
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> I enjoy the massacre of ads. This sentence will slaughter ads without a
> messy bloodbath.
>



--
I enjoy the massacre of ads. This sentence will slaughter ads without a
messy bloodbath.


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

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Phillip Wayne <exuyangi@...> wrote:

> A little more digging indicates the origin to be OE byht, which is related
> to PIE bheug- (> bend, buxom) meaning a bend. You may want to use words for
> bend/angle/corner
>

I'm familiar with "bight" as jargon in the context of knot-tying, where it
means a loop of rope, with the ends meeting in parallel. So, this makes
sense. It's clear that Tolkien was referring to the shape of a logged region
of southern Mirkwood, which is vaguely crescent-shaped, not coming to a
point.


>
> *angle* ◈ *bennas* *N.* [bˈɛnnɑs] *n.* angle, corner ◇ Ety/352, Ety/375
â—ˆ *
> nass* *N.* [nˈɑss] *n.* *1.* point, (sharp) end ○ *2.* angle or corner ◇
> Ety/375, VT/45:37
> That is also from Hisweloke (
> http://www.jrrvf.com/hisweloke/sindar/online/sindar/dict-en-sd-strict.html
> )
>

I'm going to go out on a limb and attempt to translate this as "eastern
crescent-shaped encroachment".

cûn + (maeg - ed) rhúnen
cúnmaeghed rhúnen

It might be a bit of a stretch to form "penetration / piercing / deep-going
into" as a gerund of _maeg_, and I bet I got the inflection wrong. I'm also
only guessing that the post-vowel _g_ from _maeg_ would be lenited.

Kris Kowal


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

It's been a while since I've been here, but I need help with a translation. Some
guy on a dating site sent me a message that said "Nai hiruvalie Menelessie".

(Probably my fault for using a pic of me in my elf costume as the profile
picture!)

I've found it used in taglines a lot, but didn't see a translation when I
looked.
So far the best I've got is:
Nai = "Be it that" or "May it be", implying a wish
hir- = "find"
uva = future tense, rendering the above to "will find"?
lie = "people" or "race"
Menelessie = "in heaven"



So, "May you find people in heaven"????

I'll admit to being very much out of practice here. Is this the elvish version
of that singles-bar staple: "Did it hurt when you fell from heaven?"

I'll preface this with the disclaimer that I'm just a rank amateur when it comes
to Quenya, but it occurs to me that if -lië were actually -lyë, that would be
the second-person singular pronominal ending and the verb would be translatable
"thou shalt find" (it occurs in this form in the poem _Namárië_).  I'm not sure
how much that helps, though, since even then the sentence seems opaque:  "May
you find in heaven"?  It may be that the intent was something like "May you be
found in heaven", but I'd be surprised if the Quenya passive works this way (if
it exists at all, outside of participles).

By the way, I think "in heaven" would actually be "Menelessë".

HTH

- Grant


--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "starinthedarkness" <starinthedarkness@...>
wrote:
>
> It's been a while since I've been here, but I need help with a translation.
Some guy on a dating site sent me a message that said "Nai hiruvalie
Menelessie".
>
> (Probably my fault for using a pic of me in my elf costume as the profile
picture!)
>
> I've found it used in taglines a lot, but didn't see a translation when I
looked.
> So far the best I've got is:
> Nai = "Be it that" or "May it be", implying a wish
> hir- = "find"
> uva = future tense, rendering the above to "will find"?
> lie = "people" or "race"
> Menelessie = "in heaven"
>
>
>
> So, "May you find people in heaven"????
>
> I'll admit to being very much out of practice here. Is this the elvish version
of that singles-bar staple: "Did it hurt when you fell from heaven?"
>

I don't think the line translates exactly to the pick up line....
as regards to the mistakes in grammar...

First of all "lie" means "people" in the sense of a grouping not in the generic
sense of "people", which would be more appropriate to translate as a plural of
person, man, etc, acceptable would be "queni", or depending on context
"fírimar", etc, and it wouldn't be appended to the verb. So I think the phrase
you mentioned should literally be:

Nai hiruvalye queni menelesse
"May you find people in Heaven"

How about for a pick-up line: Your beauty, brightest of the stars!: Vanimelda,
elenion ancalima! lol

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "starinthedarkness" <starinthedarkness@...>
wrote:
>
> It's been a while since I've been here, but I need help with a translation.
Some guy on a dating site sent me a message that said "Nai hiruvalie
Menelessie".
>
> (Probably my fault for using a pic of me in my elf costume as the profile
picture!)
>
> I've found it used in taglines a lot, but didn't see a translation when I
looked.
> So far the best I've got is:
> Nai = "Be it that" or "May it be", implying a wish
> hir- = "find"
> uva = future tense, rendering the above to "will find"?
> lie = "people" or "race"
> Menelessie = "in heaven"
>
>
>
> So, "May you find people in heaven"????
>
> I'll admit to being very much out of practice here. Is this the elvish version
of that singles-bar staple: "Did it hurt when you fell from heaven?"
>

"everything is illuminated in light of the past"

I found some sort of translation for it, but wnated to know if any of you guys
could help perfect it

Iluve (everything) na-(is) kaly (to illuminate) e' (in) me'a (light) en' (of)
I'(the) wanwie (past)

I have a feeling it is completely wrong.

"Nai hiruvalie Menelessie" makes little sense. _Nai hiruvalye Menelesse_
would mean "may you find in heaven" (and as we see, the sentence is
screaming for an object that just isn't there).

- HKF

I'm curious if any information was available on how the Sindar expressed
egocentric directions.  We have _adel_, which means "in rear of, behind" and the
possible #_ab_ (from Abonnen) meaning "before/in front (spacial), behind/after
(temporal)", but how would these be used?

My best guess would be that the direction is used with a dative noun/pronoun;
e.g., _adel ammen_ "behind us" (lit. "behind to/for us"), _ab an Edhil_ "in
front of the Elves" (lit. "in front to/for the Elves").  I think this is similar
to how the construction is formed in Welsh (cf. _tu ôl i ni_), which lends it
some credance.

Any thoughts on this?

> Menelessie = "in heaven"

I would argue that the right way to say "in heaven" should be _Erumande_ (cf.
VT43:12), since Tolkien apparently concluded that the Eldar would know that "in
heaven" was just a figure of speech.

This shows in passing that the locative case is much more irregular than most
people seem to think (the literal "in heaven" being _menelde_ in Quenya, and
maybe — maybe, mind you — _menelze_ in Vanyarin; VT43:9,12). If we consider that
the latest versions of the Pater Noster represent Tolkien's most detailed and
accomplished thoughts on locative, that is.

Best,
Damien

I disagree, I think Tolkien was toying with the idea of how the locative would
look like. In fact there are several versions of the Pater Noster and several
other appearances of the locative in other works. We have no reason to assume
that he wouldn't modify it further or render other ideas null.

I think we always have to bear in mind that this is a conlang and Tolkien loved
to play with it.

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Damien" <elendil.voronda@...> wrote:
>
>
> > Menelessie = "in heaven"
>
> I would argue that the right way to say "in heaven" should be _Erumande_ (cf.
VT43:12), since Tolkien apparently concluded that the Eldar would know that "in
heaven" was just a figure of speech.
>
> This shows in passing that the locative case is much more irregular than most
people seem to think (the literal "in heaven" being _menelde_ in Quenya, and
maybe — maybe, mind you — _menelze_ in Vanyarin; VT43:9,12). If we consider that
the latest versions of the Pater Noster represent Tolkien's most detailed and
accomplished thoughts on locative, that is.
>
> Best,
> Damien
>

Thorsten, Helge and the many illustrious and active scholars whom I am
indebted to:

"But there is - one is a natural language, the other an artificial
language. So in that respect, I think your analogy with Latin fails,
Cicero did not create Latin, and he had by far less control over its shape "


I realize that, in my haste to comment on the issue of terminology, I
am guilty of that sin of miscommunication.  In particular, I did not
take the necessary steps to define my position, nor did I take the
opportunity to describe what others' perspectives are on the issue.  I
beg forgiveness, and will make the brief attempt to describe my
perspective, so that we may talk to each other, and not at each other,
as we have been.


The quote above from Thorsten exhibits what I would call the community
consensus:  Quenya is a product of creative genius, embodied in
Tolkien, and as such requires care and respect when discussing various
aspects of the language; as an "artificial" language, it must needs be
approached and considered differently - that is, any proposed
interpretation of extant evidence is suet to change with further
evidence, and knowledge of the grammar and usage cannot be fully known
without further autographs from Tolkien.  There is much I agree with,
of course.  The premise is correct, but I find the conclusion faulty
on linguistic grounds.  Here, I refer to linguistic exclusively as
scientific study of language, not as philosophy.  On philosophical
grounds, the conclusion is quite appropriate: creative works are
subject to authorial right  and integrity.  However, I believe that we
approach this issue only philosophically and literally, and not purely
linguistically.  We must have both, in the community, in order to have
that variation of opinion that provides better overall knowledge.

All of my previous posts approach the issue from an entirely different
perspective: that of the linguist.  I am an avid Tolkien fan, of
course, but more so strive to be a scholastic linguist.  As such, I
have to reexamine my views on many issues near and dear to me.  Thus,
I have turned an objective eye to the scholarly approach to Tolkienian
linguistics and found a disappointing lack of critically linguistic
analysis on some issues.  Not that there are no trained linguists
involved; to the contrary, many have proven to be far better than I.
However, the approach taken tom describing Quenya, using it and such,
ha been couched in terms of a literary or philosophical bent.
Thorsten's quote above is disheartening to me, because I hope that
Thorsten and Helge would both appreciate a purely linguistic approach
to the topic.  We are all entitled to differing opinions, of course,
and I more Than respect that.  If I may, I would like to address the
distinctives of approach g this as a linguistic, and not a
philosophical issue.

First, there is a fundamental distinction between what Thorsten said
above, and what can be linguistically argued.  Language, as such, is
defined as a system of symbols (semiotes) in particular ways ti
facilitate communication.  All languages, as an organic system, vary
and change over time, sometimes from one language into another,
sometimes from one dialect into one or more.  As such, a false
distinction is being made between "natural" and "constructed"
languages.  Linguistically, any language that meets the fundamental
criteria for being a language is, in fact, a language, regardless of
its genesis.  How the language begins is irrelevant to how it
proceeds, develops, matures and grows.  In fact, the only determining
factor in how a language is treated is the community of speakers
themselves.  Some languages, for political or aesthetic reasons,
attempt to restrict or manage the growth and evolution of the
language.  Some examples would be l'Académie  Française, or in
constructed languages, Marc Okrand and the KLI.  However, if a
significant portion of the speaking community  followed one pattern of
grammar, one word or phrase that wasn't officially sanctioned by the
governing body, it would still be a part of the language by virtue of
fitting within the defined parameters of the language within a
particular community of speakers.  Therefore, it is irrelevant whether
or not Cicero had any role in defining Latin, for Latin was defined by
her speakers alone.  It is a common myth that without a governing body
or standards committee, there would be gross inconsistencies and
misunderstandings in the language.  It is simply not true, since
language is not usually consciously development, but organically
evolving through use.  Such use would necessarily be understandable in
order to be repeated, used and spread.  Thus, we cannot approach
Quenya any differently: Tolkien went to great pains to devise this
beautiful tongue, and even some of its history and development, but
that does not mean that without Tolkien, we cannot have a sustainable,
fluent community of speakers.

Secondly, we have to keep our emotions at bay, and realize that all
languages have criteria which distinguish them from one another.  As
each criterion, or set of criteria, changes, the language moves
further away from what it was, into what it is.  Sometimes that's a
new dialect, rarer times, it's a new language.  As such, my linguistic
argument against the term Neo-Quenya is that the grammar, phonology,
syntax and such do not differ substantially enough from Exilic Quenya
to be called a different language.  As such, it would make more sense
to brand earlier dialects or versions of Quenya, such as Exilic Quenya
and Early Quenya, whilst maintaining the contemporary dialect as
Quenya.  Issues of vocabulary are not generally enough variation to
distinguish languages, if a core of the vocabulary is largely
unchanged.  Adding vocabulary is a natural part of all languages, and
the community of speakers organically determines what new terms are
acceptable for general use.  As well, issues of idiom and metaphor are
irrelevant, since they only reflect the thought and culture of the
place and time of at particular era of the language.  Look at English
pop culture terminology over the past sixty years;  there is wide
variation, yet none if it qualifies as distinct dialects or languages.
  It is grand ti figure out how an elf would have said or phrased
something in their day, and it is useful for literary and historic
purposes. Yet it is not so essential to the language itself that our
Quenya is not authentic without it.  The more we learn about Tolkien's
developments and idioms, the more we can insert that into our
historical understanding of Quenya and use it in our own speech and
compositions.

To say we do not know enough Quenya to be able to use it fluently
implies two things:   That the language is in itself insufficient, and
that there is an ideal, hidden goal that we must unveil or be cursed
to incompleteness.  I see no linguistic reasons to regard our current
Quenya as incomplete.  Our *historical* understanding is incomplete,
but as we unveil that, we can incorporate it into our contemporary
Quenya.

I know this is a point of controversy for some, and that is why I say
that this is my perspective, and I feel it has been largely missing
from the scholarship  However, I absolutely respect the opposite
opinion and really hope Thorsten, Helge and the rest of the community
will allow ne to work alongside them with my intense passion for
Tolkien and linguistics.

I apologise for the length and misunderstanding.  Thank you all so
much for your contributions and hard work.

Jonathon

On Monday, September 27, 2010, Thorsten Renk <trenk@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> The base on which to build is, of course, much
>> smaller, and will probably never be as wide as we could wish (it doesn't
>> seem that Tolkien ever wrote the Great Quenya Epic); but large flowers
>> can bloom on narrow stalks, and both the flower and the stalk are part
>> of the same plant.  In the same way, 21st century Quenya, "neo-Quenya",
>> or whatever you want to call it, is still Quenya; just a different phase
>> of the language, not something opposed to it.
>
> Well, here we're using 'Quenya' to refer to two different things. If you
> think of a hierarchy
>
> Quenya:
>
> * Tolkien-made Quenya
> * Neo-Quenya
> * ...
>
> in analogy with
>
> Latin:
>
> * classical Latin
> * medieval Latin
> *...
>
> in which Quenya is a label for a group of (languages? dialects?) which
> share many common features then I don't think we have too much
> disagreement here. Neo-Quenya and Tolkien's Quenya share much. I don't
> think you saw me write that these are opposed things.
>
> If Neo-Quenya is 'wrong' usage of Quenya or a different dialect depends of
> course on what perspective you take. You can be a pragmatist, arguing a
> language is what people make of it and how they use it, so if enough
> people use Quenya in some way or the other, that in a sense defines the
> standard (as with Latin). Or you can take the perspective that here
> invented languages are in fact not like real languages, and that the
> intention of the inventor defines the language (that's my perspective, in
> case there was any doubt). Which is why I wrote 'from Tolkien's
> perspective' earlier. But if you define the standards of what is 'correct'
> in a language by how a signiicant group of people use it, then you can
> naturally come to your conclusions. Although, in your case and Sindarin or
> Helge's and Quenya, it would be a bit of circular reasoning, since plenty
> of people use Sindarin/Quenya in a particular way because you said so in
> the first place.
>
>> There's absolutely no reason why 21st-century Quenya or Sindarin should
>> be any different.
>
> But there is - one is a natural language, the other an artificial
> language. So in that respect, I think your analogy with Latin fails,
> Cicero did not create Latin, and he had by far less control over its shape
> than Tolkien did over Quenya.
>
> But if 'Quenya' is used to refer to Tolkien-made Quenya in particular and
> the claim is made that this Quenya and Neo-Quenya they are 'the same',
> then I do not agree at all. They are not the same, and I have listed
> plenty of examples for distinguishing criteria. However, you don't seem to
> make that claim, so no need to discuss here.
>
> Cheers,
>
> * Thorsten
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Uum...the 'Father of All,' last time I checked...in layman's terms ~ God.

                                 Crowbabe

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, Mike Adams <abrigon@...> wrote:
>
> Illuvatar?
>
> Thing/being/spirit?
>
> Mike
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>

everything is illuminated in light of the past

	 perhaps:

ilqua na calina i calasse yárello

	 literally:

everything is illumined in the light from former days



calina ("k") adj. "light" (KAL), "bright" (VT42:32) “(literally illumined)
sunny, lightâ€� (PE17:153)â€" but apparently a noun "light" in coacalina, q.v.

yárë noun "former days"

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "anabel.fernandez11" <anabel.fernandez11@...>
wrote:
>
> "everything is illuminated in light of the past"
>
> I found some sort of translation for it, but wnated to know if any of you guys
could help perfect it
>
> Iluve (everything) na-(is) kaly (to illuminate) e' (in) me'a (light) en' (of)
I'(the) wanwie (past)
>
> I have a feeling it is completely wrong.
>

Hi!

Sometimes ago, we had a discussion on my forum. Someone was asking for
the translation of an astrological sign. And Maegluin tried to respond.
Then, we've created the twelve Zodiacal signs into Quenya, just for fun.

I've even done an illustration of it.

If you want to have a look, you're welcome!

http://www.ambar-eldaron.com/english/

Enjoy!

Evenstar
http://www.ambar-eldaron.com/english/
The Elves' World


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

Names or what constallaion you can see from Middle Earth?

I know tolkien mentioned two constellation?

Mike


Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

I would generally agree with this sentiment (for whatever my opinion is worth!),
but I do diverge on the issue of terminology.

I think that "Quenya", as an unqualified term, should not be applied to any
particular dialect.  "Quenya", as it is with "English", should be a catch-all
term for all the mutually intelligible dialects of the Oareldi(be they Vanyarin,
Exilic, or what-have-you).

Since, however, a distinction must be made for scholarly purposes, I think that
Tolkienian Quenya could perhaps be referred to as High Quenya or _Tarquenya_ --
a shameless take-off from _tarquesta_.  Or it could simply be called Tolkienian
Quenya, as this is marvelously unambiguous (if somewhat lacking in an aesthetic
sense).  Similarly, modern Quenya might be considered a sort of Vulgar Quenya.
_Ilaurea Quenya_, "Daily Quenya", or _Quenya Quenion_, "the Quenya of the
People", could be mythopoeic names.

Anyway, that's my take on the terminology issue.  As a final note, I'm not
actually opposed to the term "neo-Quenya"; I merely think that "Vulgar Quenya"
might be a better term.


--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, Jonathon Omahen <composr@...> wrote:
>
> I realize that, in my haste to comment on the issue of terminology, I
> am guilty of that sin of miscommunication.
>
> ...  As such, my linguistic
> argument against the term Neo-Quenya is that the grammar, phonology,
> syntax and such do not differ substantially enough from Exilic Quenya
> to be called a different language.  As such, it would make more sense
> to brand earlier dialects or versions of Quenya, such as Exilic Quenya
> and Early Quenya, whilst maintaining the contemporary dialect as
> Quenya.  Issues of vocabulary are not generally enough variation to
> distinguish languages, if a core of the vocabulary is largely
> unchanged.  Adding vocabulary is a natural part of all languages, and
> the community of speakers organically determines what new terms are
> acceptable for general use.  As well, issues of idiom and metaphor are
> irrelevant, since they only reflect the thought and culture of the
> place and time of at particular era of the language.  ...
>
> Jonathon

> The quote above from Thorsten exhibits what I would call the community
> consensus:

Hardly. In all likelihood, it is a minority opinion on this list.

> All of my previous posts approach the issue from an entirely different
> perspective: that of the linguist.  I am an avid Tolkien fan, of
> course, but more so strive to be a scholastic linguist.  As such, I
> have to reexamine my views on many issues near and dear to me.  Thus,
> I have turned an objective eye to the scholarly approach to Tolkienian
> linguistics and found a disappointing lack of critically linguistic
> analysis on some issues.  Not that there are no trained linguists
> involved; to the contrary, many have proven to be far better than I.
> However, the approach taken tom describing Quenya, using it and such,
> ha been couched in terms of a literary or philosophical bent.
> Thorsten's quote above is disheartening to me, because I hope that
> Thorsten and Helge would both appreciate a purely linguistic approach
> to the topic.


I beg to differ. There's no philosophy coming in from my side - just plain
application of scientific method and common sense.

As I see it, linguistics is a set of tools to unravel the structure of a
language, given a set of samples of expressions in the language. There's
no prescription in linguistics how to choose the appropriate set of
samples though. That's a common theme of the scientific method - the
scientific method tells us how to measure something properly, and it tells
us how to proceed to interpret the measurement, but it rarely tells us
what to measure - that we have to find out ourselves by intuition,
experience and luck. The rule is - garbage in, garbage out - if there's a
flaw or bias in the selection of a measured sample which we don't
understand, we can't expect to get the correct interpretation.

Applied to linguistics: If I were to try to study the structure of Spanish
based on collecting expressions from Englishmen who have been studying
Spanish for 6 weeks, I could not be expected to get a meaningful result.
The sample would be quite appropriate to study how likely idiomatic
English expressions are carried over into a foreign language by beginners,
or to study the difficulties of Spanish grammar for English people - but
common sense tells me that it would not help me to study Spanish.
Nevertheless, if I would do this study, and the set of samples would be
all I see, there would not be a red flag anywhere in the analysis. I would
get an answer how the structure of Spanish works. To learn that this
answer is wrong, I would need additional samples of the language (e.g. go
to Spain and realize that people speak very differently). In other words,
the scientific method tells us that we can and should make consistency
tests to see how well our deductions hold.

Coming to Quenya, I don't see the choice of the samples to analyze as a
philosophical question. In order to get the right sample, we have (as in
the case of Spanish) to avoid sampling expressions from people who don't
know how the language works. Quenya had at best a community of fluent
speakers of zero, and of people who know how it works of one. He has died,
so the appropriate comparison is perhaps a dead language like ancient
Egyptian which has no contemporary speakers or people how really know how
it works and a finite set of written samples.

In the same way as no scholar would try to figure out how Egyptian works
by analyzing samples of Hieroglyphs written by his students as exercises
or amusement (it's certainly possible to do so), but only by looking at
ancient originals, so it doesn't make any sense to me to try to learn
anything about the structure of Quenya by analyzing what guesses later
students of Quenya have made about its structure (or do you really want to
claim that linguistics fails for Hieroglyphs or that Hieroglyphs written
by learners of Egyptology should be analyzed to learn how ancient Egyptian
works?).

As for consistency checks, the question is reasonably simple if we can get
new samples over time (in the case of Egyptian by new excavations, in the
case of Elvish by new publications). If new samples do not force
alterations of the structure we have established so far, we can claim
understanding, if they force alterations we can not. Any student of e.g.
the Sindarin past tense can certify that we failed miserably in
consistency checks so far. In plain words - scientific method tells us
that almost certainly Sindarin and Quenya are not how we currently think
they are (I have simplified a bit because neither Tolkien's notes not
Egyptian excavations all refer to precisely the same langauge - there are
changes dependent on in what layer of the past you dig - these have to be
accounted for in any consistency check systematically, which can however
be done, just makes things more complicated).

You can now invoke a definition by XYZ to argue that according to that
definition what people use should be referred to as Quenya - but that
doesn't change the fact that we can show (by doing consistency checks
whenever new material by Tolkien is published) that what we believe to be
Quenya relates to Tolkien's Quenya as Spanish used by Englishmen beginning
to learn to Spanish spoken by native speakers. Yes - in a sense that is
Spanish. No - it is not the same thing.

My impression of what you are really arguing for is that you (or me, or
anyone else) has as much idea about the structure of Quenya as Tolkien,
and that we can write as good Quenya and that we can therefore have a
living language Quenya if we have enough speakers.

Well, I and a few other folks believe we could tell. I don't feel that my
Quenya measures up to standards (and that's considered quite good in the
community), and I don't feel that anyone else's Quenya is nearly there. In
fact, I have by now given several examples of where the differences are.
Based on those, I am quite sure 90% of extant (Neo-)Quenya not written by
Tolkien could be identified by nothing more than a superficial glance. My
impression is, if people were to develop the Quenya into a living
language, it would be a pale and inferior copy of the real thing, simply
because that development would happen largely without the insight of how
the real thing works. Not because of any philosophical considerations
about authorship or intellectual property. An insight which we do not have
(and maybe never will) for lack of samples - a kind of Egyptian based on
just the Rosetta stone and one or two papyri. Of course people could make
a working Egyptian based on the extant samples and use it as a living
language - but it wouldn't be 'the real thing' either. That's why I (and
others) feel that Quenya not written by Tolkien needs to be called a
different name.


Cheers,

* Thorsten

thank you!

--- On Sun, 10/10/10, winterhavik <winterhavik@...> wrote:

From: winterhavik <winterhavik@...>
Subject: [elfling] Re: Need help with this quote
To: elfling@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, October 10, 2010, 8:38 PM
















 









       everything is illuminated in light of the past



	 perhaps:



ilqua na calina i calasse yร�rello



	 literally:



everything is illumined in the light from former days



calina ("k") adj. "light" (KAL), "bright" (VT42:32) โ€�(literally
illumined) sunny, lightโ€� (PE17:153)โ€" but apparently a noun "light"
in coacalina, q.v.



yร�rรซ noun "former days"



--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "anabel.fernandez11" <anabel.fernandez11@...>
wrote:

>

> "everything is illuminated in light of the past"

>

> I found some sort of translation for it, but wnated to know if any of you guys
could help perfect it

>

> Iluve (everything) na-(is) kaly (to illuminate) e' (in) me'a (light) en' (of)
I'(the) wanwie (past)

>

> I have a feeling it is completely wrong.

>






























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

Thorsten,

"Hardly. In all likelihood, it is a minority opinion on this list."

Then I do apologise if I in any way mischaracterised the community!
That was never my intention, and thank you for correcting me.

"I beg to differ. There's no philosophy coming in from my side - just plain
application of scientific method and common sense."

Which then is followed by your explication of linguistic analysis for
descriptive Quenya grammar.  I completely agree, to that extent.  I
must have miscommunicated once again, which I am sorry for. :)  I
would never argue that our descriptive grammar of Quenya should come
from anywhere but Tolkien's corpus, notes, etc.  The philosophical
argument comes after all that data is collected - what do you do with
it?   Your opinion is that we can use our knowledge to compose art
text and such for fun, but that our Quenya will never amount to the
haute style of Tolkien, and thus should not be branded with the same
iron.  I would not necessarily disagree.  My thoughts on the matter
were:  I have no problem wanting to label our contemporary Quenya
differently from Tolkien, so as not to confuse his style with ours, as
well as his innate authority.

The linguistic (scientific) approach you described is one I would
undertake myself:  we cannot get a description of Quenya based on the
current speakers trying to learn it secondarily.  However, there is a
critical mass of grammar, primarily in morphology and syntax, where we
can have a high degree of certainty as to its accuracy.  As you
pointed out, areas we simply have no evidence for are nothing more
than taking a stab in the dark - and we are quite often wrong.  There
is nothing wrong with that at all.  In fact, I am suggesting that,
with contemporary fluency in Quenya, we would be able to refine and
revise the strict definition of particular grammar through further
findings in Tolkien's materials.  That should not necessarily preclude
us from becoming fluent in the extant grammar, corpus and vocabulary,
and then attempting to apply that knowledge daily.  As a community of
speakers and users, we would certainly fill in gaps here and there,
but we would necessarily give preference to an "official" Tolkien
version if it is produced.  Until that time, I think the case can be
made that we now have enough fairly concrete grammatic and structural
knowledge in place to achieve a high degree of fluency in the current
version of the language.

"My impression is, if people were to develop the Quenya into a living
language, it would be a pale and inferior copy of the real thing, simply
because that development would happen largely without the insight of how
the real thing works."

This is the juncture at which we disagree.  This is where philosophy
comes into play, because how you approach the different stages of
Quenya now ceases to be purely linguistic and scientific, but
philosophical.  I am not calling your opinion, method or approach
wrong, I am simply saying that this opinion does not comport with
linguistic reality.  You have attached a romanticised perfection to
Tolkien's Quenya over and above any further usage or development.
This is a linguistic fallacy, since all valid usages of the language
that are grammatical are not inherently better or worse than another.
If we delve into arcane or unknown grammar, then it must be said that
Tolkien's takes absolute precedence.  However, in matters we do know
about, Tolkien's stylistic usage of Quenya is just that: style.  It is
as though one person wrote a book in English based on their own
preferences and taste, and another person wrote according to the
dictates of "The Elements of Style".  Neither person's prose is better
or worse "English", just different.  The same principle applies to all
language, including Quenya.  When we see and adjective coming both
before and after a noun in the corpus, and can define both as
grammatical, yet see Tolkien taking a stylistic preference, then that
should be stated.  But just because that preference exists, doesn't
make it the "proper" version of the language - simply a particular
style.  You are entirely free to prefer Tolkien's style above anyone
else's (which I'm sure most of us agree with :) ), but that does not
make his Quenya "superior" to yours, when we are dealing with the same
vocabulary, grammar, etc.

I will never disagree with how the scholarship in general is
approached:  we must push forward in combing through Tolkien's corpus
and notes to determine an even more accurate picture of Quenya
throughout all of its stages.  But this should not preclude us from
being extremely and intimately involved with its use as a practical
language, if we desire to do so.  We should feel very confident with
what aspects we do know, and remain flexible and cautious with areas
we are uncertain about.  But I digress. :)

As I have said, I am indebted to the mass of scholarship present here,
and really hope none of you think I am attacking you.  I am not
opposed to any of your opinions, just offering a differing one, and
challenging some of the conceptions.  When I am wrong, I am pleased to
admit it and be corrected.  I really hope to work more with all of you
and contribute some very useful work to the field.

And to Thorsten and Helge, I am indebted to your dissertations and tutorials.

Jonathon

On 11 October 2010 05:15, Thorsten Renk <trenk@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The quote above from Thorsten exhibits what I would call the community
> > consensus:
>
> Hardly. In all likelihood, it is a minority opinion on this list.
>
> > All of my previous posts approach the issue from an entirely different
> > perspective: that of the linguist. I am an avid Tolkien fan, of
> > course, but more so strive to be a scholastic linguist. As such, I
> > have to reexamine my views on many issues near and dear to me. Thus,
> > I have turned an objective eye to the scholarly approach to Tolkienian
> > linguistics and found a disappointing lack of critically linguistic
> > analysis on some issues. Not that there are no trained linguists
> > involved; to the contrary, many have proven to be far better than I.
> > However, the approach taken tom describing Quenya, using it and such,
> > ha been couched in terms of a literary or philosophical bent.
> > Thorsten's quote above is disheartening to me, because I hope that
> > Thorsten and Helge would both appreciate a purely linguistic approach
> > to the topic.
>
> I beg to differ. There's no philosophy coming in from my side - just plain
> application of scientific method and common sense.
>
> As I see it, linguistics is a set of tools to unravel the structure of a
> language, given a set of samples of expressions in the language. There's
> no prescription in linguistics how to choose the appropriate set of
> samples though. That's a common theme of the scientific method - the
> scientific method tells us how to measure something properly, and it tells
> us how to proceed to interpret the measurement, but it rarely tells us
> what to measure - that we have to find out ourselves by intuition,
> experience and luck. The rule is - garbage in, garbage out - if there's a
> flaw or bias in the selection of a measured sample which we don't
> understand, we can't expect to get the correct interpretation.
>
> Applied to linguistics: If I were to try to study the structure of Spanish
> based on collecting expressions from Englishmen who have been studying
> Spanish for 6 weeks, I could not be expected to get a meaningful result.
> The sample would be quite appropriate to study how likely idiomatic
> English expressions are carried over into a foreign language by beginners,
> or to study the difficulties of Spanish grammar for English people - but
> common sense tells me that it would not help me to study Spanish.
> Nevertheless, if I would do this study, and the set of samples would be
> all I see, there would not be a red flag anywhere in the analysis. I would
> get an answer how the structure of Spanish works. To learn that this
> answer is wrong, I would need additional samples of the language (e.g. go
> to Spain and realize that people speak very differently). In other words,
> the scientific method tells us that we can and should make consistency
> tests to see how well our deductions hold.
>
> Coming to Quenya, I don't see the choice of the samples to analyze as a
> philosophical question. In order to get the right sample, we have (as in
> the case of Spanish) to avoid sampling expressions from people who don't
> know how the language works. Quenya had at best a community of fluent
> speakers of zero, and of people who know how it works of one. He has died,
> so the appropriate comparison is perhaps a dead language like ancient
> Egyptian which has no contemporary speakers or people how really know how
> it works and a finite set of written samples.
>
> In the same way as no scholar would try to figure out how Egyptian works
> by analyzing samples of Hieroglyphs written by his students as exercises
> or amusement (it's certainly possible to do so), but only by looking at
> ancient originals, so it doesn't make any sense to me to try to learn
> anything about the structure of Quenya by analyzing what guesses later
> students of Quenya have made about its structure (or do you really want to
> claim that linguistics fails for Hieroglyphs or that Hieroglyphs written
> by learners of Egyptology should be analyzed to learn how ancient Egyptian
> works?).
>
> As for consistency checks, the question is reasonably simple if we can get
> new samples over time (in the case of Egyptian by new excavations, in the
> case of Elvish by new publications). If new samples do not force
> alterations of the structure we have established so far, we can claim
> understanding, if they force alterations we can not. Any student of e.g.
> the Sindarin past tense can certify that we failed miserably in
> consistency checks so far. In plain words - scientific method tells us
> that almost certainly Sindarin and Quenya are not how we currently think
> they are (I have simplified a bit because neither Tolkien's notes not
> Egyptian excavations all refer to precisely the same langauge - there are
> changes dependent on in what layer of the past you dig - these have to be
> accounted for in any consistency check systematically, which can however
> be done, just makes things more complicated).
>
> You can now invoke a definition by XYZ to argue that according to that
> definition what people use should be referred to as Quenya - but that
> doesn't change the fact that we can show (by doing consistency checks
> whenever new material by Tolkien is published) that what we believe to be
> Quenya relates to Tolkien's Quenya as Spanish used by Englishmen beginning
> to learn to Spanish spoken by native speakers. Yes - in a sense that is
> Spanish. No - it is not the same thing.
>
> My impression of what you are really arguing for is that you (or me, or
> anyone else) has as much idea about the structure of Quenya as Tolkien,
> and that we can write as good Quenya and that we can therefore have a
> living language Quenya if we have enough speakers.
>
> Well, I and a few other folks believe we could tell. I don't feel that my
> Quenya measures up to standards (and that's considered quite good in the
> community), and I don't feel that anyone else's Quenya is nearly there. In
> fact, I have by now given several examples of where the differences are.
> Based on those, I am quite sure 90% of extant (Neo-)Quenya not written by
> Tolkien could be identified by nothing more than a superficial glance. My
> impression is, if people were to develop the Quenya into a living
> language, it would be a pale and inferior copy of the real thing, simply
> because that development would happen largely without the insight of how
> the real thing works. Not because of any philosophical considerations
> about authorship or intellectual property. An insight which we do not have
> (and maybe never will) for lack of samples - a kind of Egyptian based on
> just the Rosetta stone and one or two papyri. Of course people could make
> a working Egyptian based on the extant samples and use it as a living
> language - but it wouldn't be 'the real thing' either. That's why I (and
> others) feel that Quenya not written by Tolkien needs to be called a
> different name.
>
> Cheers,
>
> * Thorsten
>

> I disagree, I think Tolkien was toying with the idea of how the locative would
look like. In fact there are several versions of the Pater Noster and several
other appearances of the locative in other works. We have no reason to assume
that he wouldn't modify it further or render other ideas null.
>
> I think we always have to bear in mind that this is a conlang and Tolkien
loved to play with it.

Yes indeed, he was toying with the locative. Yet it seems that the version I
quoted (_Erumande_) was indeed the latest one he wrote, and that it was
corrected no further. Where it not for the (very late) change in suffixes for
the first person plural pronouns, this last version looks really similar to the
very late Quenya texts we have (and it is in any case closely contemporary to
the publication of the LR).

The fact that there are several draft version extent is no reason for discarding
the last one known to us. Otherwise, since pretty much _all_ Tolkien texts exist
in several versions, this is ground to reject _anything_ that wasn't published
while Tolkien was alive (a sustainable but not very constructive philosophical
position). Unless you have very specific reasons to reject these texts in
particular, of course, but on my side I can't see any.

Besides, the Plotz letter abundantly shows that differing Quenya stems may have
somewhat different case endings. Since it is not possible to prove a negative,
do _you_ have any later example of a similar stem (nominative ending in -n, or
at least in a nasal) with a different locative? We might have to change this
supposition based on future publications (as always), but if there are no later
contradictory source, the most reasonable conclusion is that this was the most
regular way to form a locative for this kind of noun.

Added complexity and lack of regularity in case endings is just what we should
expect in Quenya. Didn't Tolkien warn us that "both languages [Quenya and
Sindarin] are, of course, extremely difficult"? There is little disagreement
that this is the case for Sindarin. So why denying this to Quenya?

Regards,
Damien

`However, there is a critical mass of grammar, primarily in morphology and
syntax, where we can have a high degree of certainty as to its accuracy.'
Morphosyntax doesn't fully describe a natural language. In my opinion, we will
never attain more than a "learner variety" of Quenya, simply because even
Tolkien's Quenya is not a natural language. As admirable as Tolkien's Quenya is,
it does not nearly approach the complexity of a natural language.

`When we see an adjective coming both before and after a noun in the corpus, and
can define both as grammatical, yet see Tolkien taking a stylistic preference,
then that should be stated. But just because that preference exists, doesn't
make it the "proper" version of the language – simply a particular style.'
And how do you know that the word order variation AN/NA doesn't have subtle
semantic connotations for quendi (by which I mean fictitious native speakers of
Quenya)? Or even for Tolkien?
As a native speaker of German, I'm rather cautious about free word order. It's a
syntactocentric notion. It's not fundamentally fallacious, but doesn't fully
capture the intricacies of the natural language.

Hm. Not very much to the point. What I'm perhaps trying to get at is:

When secondarily learning Quenya, we have to caution ourselves. You talk about
"filling in gaps here and there"; I would even suppose that learners would
develop intuitions beyond the purely grammatical restrictions – essentialy,
partway nativize Quenya. Not a bad thing in itself, but another reason for
distinguishing
• the fictitious "real thing", natural Quenya as spoken by quendi
• Tolkien's Quenya
• learners' varieties

>> "My impression is, if people were to develop the Quenya into a living
>> language, it would be a pale and inferior copy of the real thing, simply
>> because that development would happen largely without the insight of how
>> the real thing works."
>
> This is the juncture at which we disagree.  This is where philosophy
> comes into play, because how you approach the different stages of
> Quenya now ceases to be purely linguistic and scientific, but
> philosophical.  I am not calling your opinion, method or approach
> wrong, I am simply saying that this opinion does not comport with
> linguistic reality.  You have attached a romanticised perfection to
> Tolkien's Quenya over and above any further usage or development.
> This is a linguistic fallacy, since all valid usages of the language
> that are grammatical are not inherently better or worse than another.
> If we delve into arcane or unknown grammar, then it must be said that
> Tolkien's takes absolute precedence.  However, in matters we do know
> about, Tolkien's stylistic usage of Quenya is just that: style.

I don't think it's merely a matter of style. Some linguists at least talk
about that as well - that there's a connection between language and the
way thoughts are formed. A strong version of that idea is given by the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but as far as I know there are also others around.

To give a real-world example: Japanese has ways to express different
levels of politeness which English lacks completely, which correlate with
(shifting) differences in social status in the Japanese hierarchy (for
example, my dentist is a learned person, so he is Yamamoto-sensei, but
when he is customer in my shop, he is appreciated as a customer and
becomes Yamamoto-sama, but should I be another dentist, he is my buddy and
we  go for a beer  after work, he becomes Akio-kun).

It is impossible to get Japanese 'right' by speaking only grammatical
sentences without understanding the social patterns. I can speak valid
grammatical sentences all the time, and still people will realize
immediately that I'm not a native speaker.

Proper use of a language is more than being able to produce grammatical
sentences. Context matters in reality, and we can't pretend that it
doesn't. A grammatical sentence with the correct meaning in the wrong
context is inherently worse than another valid sentence with the same
meaning - in the case of Japanese, at best I might make people smile, at
worst I might seriously offend someone if I get the politeness level wrong.

If you were to write a book in Japanese without taking care of getting the
level of politeness right according to context, the Japanese would tell
you that this is not their language, you're doing it wrong. It would not
just be a matter of different style - what is missing is that you apply
(e.g.) American thought patterns (which don't use the same social status
characterization) to Japanese words instead of adpoting Japanese thought
patterns.

Applied to Quenya - Tolkien's languages have an intimate connection to
Middle-Earth. We know many cases in which there is a story behind a word.
We also know that Elvish changes over time by design (very different from
languages we usually deal with). In order to 'get it right', you'd need to
understand Middle-Earth the way Tolkien did, the same way as to get
Japanese 'right', you need to understand (among other things) how Japanese
people move through a world of different social status. In the case of
Japanese, that is not a mere question of philosophy and style - that it a
real problem, it is addressed in actual language courses (e.g. when you
try to learn Japanese) and we can't pretend that producing grammatical
sentences is all it takes. Why should Elvish be any different?

To state it in a very provocative way: In order to speak correct Quenya,
you'd have to learn to think like an Elf. Given that we do not enjoy a
perspective involving thousands of years of experience, it is very
unlikely that we can do that. Arguably, Tolkien also could not really do
it - but he, being the author of both language and myth, has some
advantages.

> As I have said, I am indebted to the mass of scholarship present here,
> and really hope none of you think I am attacking you.  I am not
> opposed to any of your opinions

As far as I am concerned, we have a polite and interesting discussion.

Cheers,

* Thorsten

If I may, I'm not certain that there are actually two opposing views here.  No
one is suggesting that "vulgar" Quenya and Tolkienian Quenya are the same.  From
what I can tell, Jonathon (and I) simply think that the term "Quenya" should not
be denied to modern compilations.  Just as improper English is still English,
and nonstandard Japanese is nevertheless Japanese and not some novel tongue, the
incomplete modern understandings of Quenya are _Quenya_ nonetheless.

I would say, however, that this talk of value is rather odd.  "Good" and "bad"
are of little use when talking about languages.  Now, we could talk about
Standard Quenya or some such thing, but not "better" Quenya.  That (as Jonathon
has pointed out) is a purely philosophical judgment.

To turn around Thorsten's argument, Japanese spoken in a community without an
understanding of the honorary markers would still serve perfectly well.  It
might be nonstandard, but it would not be "bad", per se.  Similarly, Quenya
spoken in a modern community might be "nonstandard" -- insofar as a standard can
be said to even exist -- but it would not really be "poor" or "bad".  Merely
different.  And it would certainly not be a different language. (But again, I
don't think this is what is being debated!)

At any rate, that's my view.  Think of it what you will; I'm sure that there are
men here who know far more of this than I.

A recent discussion on Neo-Quenya style provides just the excuse for a replay of
one of my favorite translations, from Atwe of the Aglardh website. I love to
re-read this beautiful flow of Quenya, and used it to work on learning
vocabulary. Here is my translation of it and some of the vocab notes I took as I
was puzzling over the meaning. You'll find a lot more excellent Quenya at the
Aglardh website.



Yalúmesse yasse  Once upon a time in which
enge yanda cúma,   There was a wide void
úm' erma ú ear  No physical matter, no sea
ú alarce falmar;  No swift waves
úcarna né Arda,  Unmade was Earth
utompa né Menel- Uncovered was Heaven
hácala undume,  A yawning abyss
u hatal linqueo.           No spear of grass
valaine Valar tá  Divine Valar then
túra carmenta cárer,    great art made
i maira Mar 	 The sublime earth
mai acáriente.  well they have made
Hyarmello Heranar From the south a blessed sun
ho ear oryala 	 Behind the sea arising
sisíle salquenna  Shining onto the grass
sinya mi yúcale.           New in twilight

(JRR Tolkien: The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún, 2008, pp59-)

cuma void (cumna empty)
erma noun "physical matter"
arna passive participle *"built, made"
tompë (1) pa.t. of top- (topë), vb. "cover"
hácala ("k") participle yawning" undumë "abyss"
hatal n "spear" Another word for "spear" is ehtë.
linquë  *"grass, reed"
tá 1) adv. "then"
Carmë ("k") noun "art"
  túra adj. "big, great"
maira adj. "admirable, excellent, precious"; "splendid, sublime"
mai (1) adv. "well"

héra adj. "chief, principal" (KHER)
hérë noun "lordship" (LT1:272)
	 heren (1) noun "order"; Heren Istarion "Order of Wizards" (UT:388)
heren (2) noun "fortune", etymologically "governance" ("and so what is in store
for one and what one has in store") (KHER).
herenya adj. "fortunate,wealthy, blessed, rich" (KHER)

ho prep. "from" (3O); cf. hó-
	 hó- verbal prefix; "away, from, from among", the point of view being outside
the thing, place, or group in thought
sinya adj. "new" (SI)
sisíla- is said to be the "frequentative" form of sil yúcalë ("k") noun
"twilight" (KAL, Also yualë.

In friendly dialogue:

   I'll try to keep this as brief and to-the-point as possible, but hey, you
know me.  :)

          "I don't think it's merely a matter of style. Some linguists at
least talk
about that as well - that there's a connection between language and the
way thoughts are formed. A strong version of that idea is given by the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but as far as I know there are also others around."

   Well, you're talking to someone who, at a linguistic level, disagrees with
a strong view of Sapir-Whorf.  There are many fundamentals on which to
disagree in the hypothesis, but at the core, language cannot, by definition
alter perception of reality, merely the expression of reality.  One cannot
change how their bodies perceive the world, but can change how they express
those realities, and whether or not they make particular distinctions.
Language flows from our internal perception, processing and interpretation
of reality, not the other way round.  Changing the language, or limiting it,
in order to discourage certain perceptions, does not negate or actually
soften those perceptions, but merely reassigns them different linguistic
expressions.  Our culture, upbringing and personal philosophies become
encoded in our language, and are thus passed down, but it is not the
language itself that effects any change in thinking.  Forcing oneself to
speak in a certain way does not automatically change the way one thinks.  In
fact, we have to make a concerted effort to think in a new way in connection
with that language, a point you bring up below.


"To give a real-world example: Japanese has ways to express different
levels of politeness which English lacks completely, which correlate with
(shifting) differences in social status in the Japanese hierarchy (for
example, my dentist is a learned person, so he is Yamamoto-sensei, but
when he is customer in my shop, he is appreciated as a customer and
becomes Yamamoto-sama, but should I be another dentist, he is my buddy and
we go for a beer after work, he becomes Akio-kun)."

Now we have something common we can relate to.  :)  In Japanese, such
distinctions as politeness level (which is exhibited, as you noted, in
personal suffixes, but also in verb endings, honorific prefixes and
suffixes, etc) stem from the social construct in Japan.  Those constructs
brought about the formulation of those grammatical and lexical
characteristics, but it does not change the basic grammaticality of the
language.  In fact, you and I agree completely on this issue:  it is
possible to be entirely grammatical, while making massive faux-pas that a
native would never make.  This, however does not negate the correctness of
the phrase, sentence, etc.  It does, however affect the degree of competency
that speaker has in that language group.  This is a salient point, and you
are correct to bring it up.


"Proper use of a language is more than being able to produce grammatical
sentences. Context matters in reality, and we can't pretend that it
doesn't."

Once again, we absolutely agree, and that truly separates the scholarship
generated by yourself, Helge, and many other good Quenya (and Quendian)
scholars from those whose efforts produce slightly more limited materials.
The ability to find the context, search for it and apply it to the task at
hand is, I agree, essential in discovering the true culture, meaning and
"nativeness" behind Quenya (and other tongues of Arda).

"Given that we do not enjoy a
perspective involving thousands of years of experience, it is very
unlikely that we can do that."

Well, I agree that the ancient mind of an Elf, in the historical Quenya we
look at, is intrinsically non-human, I would agree.  For the application of
Quenya studies, however, I believe quite strongly that we should internalise
many of the perspectives and mindsets of the Elven mind, as far as we humans
can, and adapt that to our day and culture.  I do not find that to be
disrepectful of Tolkien's legacy in any way.

I may have muddled my premise, but truly, these are all very spot-on
linguistic realities we have to cope with:  in order to speak perfectly
accurate, historically perfect Quenya, Sindarin, etc., we must have a
concrete view of the Quendian world, history, mythology, mindset and
manners.  But alas, our view is quite limited.  I also agree that we should
be striving for not only grammatical accuracy, but also cultural accuracy,
and strive towards producing Quenya that sounds and feels as though it were
produced with a Quendian mindset.

That being said, I understand that that goal is nigh impossible, even were
the vast amounts of unpublished documentation to come to light.  However, I
disagree that the best we can ever do is produce a "learners" or "QSL"-style
Quenya.  We should try to better understand the ancient Quenya mind, and
*never cease* in that endeavour.  I contend that that is not a necessary
goal to have achieved in order to have a contemporary Quenya that is the
heir of that more distant, ancient Quenya.  And truly, calling it something
other than Quenya is not a terrible idea - I simply ask that those studying
the issue understand the basic linguistic truth that both languages belong
together as a language, or language family.  I am interested in
reconstructing the ideal Tolkienian Quenya, as many of you are, but not
merely for artistic and scholarly ends (though those are just, adequate and
admirable).  I am interested in reconstructing that for the end of better
informing contemporary usage of the language.  Our contemporary Quenya (be
it Neo-Quenya, or otherwise named) should evidence clear descent from
Tolkien's Quenya:  it should be very close grammatically (and should be
modified when needed), and the cultural and mental constructs should be
clear descendents of the ancient Quenya expression of mind.  To this end, I
think both of our methods of approaching the current knowledge of Quenya and
its scholarship may, in fact, produce closely related research.  The major,
and perhaps only, difference I think would be the application of such
research.


My original objection to the term, "Neo-Quenya", may not be as well founded
as I once held, and so I repent of that assertion.  However, I do hold to my
tenets that we can have a reasonable knowledge of the language, culture and
history, and that this knowledge can be learned, internalised and built upon
as the foundation of a contemporary, living and active Quenya.

And I'm really, really going to have to get out to an Omentielva conference
someday. :D