Hi folks,

I'm tinkering with the idea of a map/picture of the Solar System, as drawn by a
young Vanya Elf of Valinor. I wanted to make sure my Quenya, esp. the Vanyarin
form (cribbed from Thorsten Renk's site here:
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/elvish/vanyarin_quenya.html), is correct. If
anybody would be willing to give it a look and apply red ink as needed, I'd be
very appreciative!

(I know some of the attributions of planet names (Neptune and Uranus) might be
questionable, and the layers of the atmosphere are very early Tolkien, but for
the planets, it's either one way or the other, and as for the layers of the air,
I just like the idea and image more than anything else. The non-canonical star
names are made up more or less at random on my part)

The Stars - i Eleni

Betelguese - Vorondél
Sirius - Chelluin
Orion - Menelmacar
Big Dipper - Valacirca
Cassiopeia - Wilwarin
Aquila - Soronúmë
Auriga - Anarríma
Gemini - Telumendil
The Pleiades -  Rembemiratta
Corona Borealis - Ríë Durino
Arcturus - Turma (Shield)
Capella - Emerwen (Shepherdess)
Rigel - Tyelpënil (Silver Star)
Aldebaran - Childo (Follower)
Antares -  Arnel (Royal Star)
Pollux - Nappa (Talon)
Castor - Quessë (Feather)
Fomalhaut - Lúlëcë (Little Sapphire)
Deneb - Ëarel (Sea Star)

The Solar System - Imbar

Sun - Anar
Earth - Arda
  upper atmosphere - Waiya
  middle atmosphere - Ilmen
  inner atmosphere - Wista
   upper half - Hwanyamar
   lower half - Aiwenórë
Moon - Iþil
Mercury - Elemmírë
Venus - Eärendil
Mars - Carnil
Jupiter - Alcarinquë
Saturn - Lumbar
Uranus - Nénar
Neptune - Luinil

The "author's" note - Ní Calie Wilyañóla cárë emma sina.

Thanks in advance!

Paul Leone

It seems to mean:

I will always be there for you

Always (illume) I will be (nauvan) there (enta literally "that yonder') for
you.(elyen)

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "talkie_t" <talkie_t@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone.
>
> someone wrote a sentence to me in elvish a long time ago and I have recently
found it but am having trouble translatingit.  I have tried looking on the
internet but with no joy.
>
> the sentence is:
>
> "illume nauvan enta elyen"
>
> any ideas???
>
>
> Thanks
>

God .... Tree elves?

Mike
Alaska

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <varyar77@...> wrote:
>
> Betelguese - Vorondél

On a recent meeting, Mellonath Daeron had a discussion about stars, and there we
concluded that Borgil (= *Vorondél) is not likely to be Betelgeuse, since
Betelgeuse is part of Orion: in The Lord of the Rings, Borgil is described as
rising *before* Menelvagor (= Orion). A more likely candidate is Aldebaran,
situated as it is between the Pleiades (= Remmirath) and Orion.

> Auriga - Anarríma
> Gemini - Telumendil

On the same meeting we postulated Gemini for Anarríma and Boötes for Telumendil
as likely identifications. Auriga for Anarríma is a suggestion I have not seen
before -- it would be interesting to see the arguments for that.

/Måns

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "talkie_t" <talkie_t@...> wrote:
>
> "illume nauvan enta elyen"

"I will always be that yonder for you".

Possibly _enta_ 'that yonder' is supposed to be something else.

Yours,
Måns

--- On Sat, 7/16/11, Mans <at@...> wrote:

From: Mans <at@...>
Subject: [elfling] Re: Double check my (Vanyarin) Quenya?
To: elfling@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, July 16, 2011, 4:47 AM

       --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <varyar77@...> wrote:

> Betelguese - Vorondél

On a recent meeting, Mellonath Daeron had a discussion about stars, and there we
concluded that Borgil (= *Vorondél) is not likely to be Betelgeuse, since
Betelgeuse is part of Orion: in The Lord of the Rings, Borgil is described as
rising *before* Menelvagor (= Orion). A more likely candidate is Aldebaran,
situated as it is between the Pleiades (= Remmirath) and Orion.That seems more
than sensible - my astronomical knowledge is fairly slim, as is obvious! 

> Auriga - Anarríma

> Gemini - Telumendil

On the same meeting we postulated Gemini for Anarríma and Boötes for Telumendil
as likely identifications. Auriga for Anarríma is a suggestion I have not seen
before -- it would be interesting to see the arguments for that.I grabbed the
identification from various sites found via Google. This one on the Council of
Elrond forums
(http://www.councilofelrond.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&\
req=viewarticle&artid=248) lays out a case like so "So I prefer to think of
Anarríma as the constellation Auriga, which is the only one near enough to Orion
that could be seen as circular. It looks like a bright pentagon. Its main star,
Capella, is the sixth-brightest star in the night sky, and even looks quite
yellowish, as if it were a Sun-like jewel in the crown!"Thanks for the help,
it's much appreciated!Paul

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

Måns wrote:

> Borgil (= *Vorondél)

     Do we know the root of the first element in _Borgil_, viz.
_born_ 'hot, red' (L 347), so that Quenya cognate *_vor-_ can
be deduced?

	 Suilad,

		 Beregond

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "ithidrielnarsilion" <cardozac@...> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
> I am new to the list, so please forgive me if this question has been asked
before. I did a search but did not find the answer I was seeking. This post also
does a comparison between Fauskanger's Quenya course and Thorsten Renk's as it
is where my confusion arises.
>
> In Fauskanger's course, he points out two ways to make negation. The first
uses the negative verb UGU/UMU, the second uses the word lá. Renk, on the other
hand, suggests using the negative verb UA-. The Etymologies do not mention an
UA- stem that I can find. UGU/UMU is attested.
>
> Have there been new developments that have led Renk to move from UGU/UMU to
UA?
>
> Thanks for your assistance,
> Ithidriel
>

Hello Ithidril!

Thorsten Renk's course takes the "ua-" from  Parma Eldalamberon #17, Page 144.

In this matter, I think that Fauskanger's course is a bit outdated, as it
appears that Tolkien rejected UMU for UGU. It also seems that Tolkien rejected
and reused the root AL|LA for AL, meaning "good, blessed, fortunate".

dreamingfifi

Thank you all for your interest.
I am well aware that translating names like that is quite meaningless, and
especially so if they are tied to specific real-world peoples/places/events; I
was just choosing a pen name, came into some questions about phonetics and
world-building.

So _Mirimor_ sounds more like a name that other /gave/ to the Teleri, rather
that one they used for themselves.

That Venice/Esgaroth parallel was more a mental association than an effort to
"translate" a real world city, but my question still stand; what would be a
plausible Quenya name of Esgaroth?
Would you start from "Lake-town" and make something like _*Ailinosto_ ? Is it
possible to extrapolate from Esgaroth something about Quenya?

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

> In Fauskanger's course, he points out two ways to make negation. The first
uses the negative verb UGU/UMU, the second uses the word l? Renk, on the other
hand, suggests using the negative verb UA-. The Etymologies do not mention an
UA- stem that I can find. UGU/UMU is attested.

The Ardalambion course is not as upgrated, while you can get a reference to ua-
in HKF's Quenya Wordlist.

> Have there been new developments that have led Renk to move from UGU/UMU to
UA?

Yes, as you will find in the Wordlist, ua- came with the release of Parma
Eldalamberon 17, I think.

Suilad o Morthegil!

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com <mailto:elfling%40yahoogroups.com>,
"ithidrielnarsilion
" <cardozac@...> wrote:

  > In Fauskanger's course, he points out two ways to make negation. The
first uses the negative verb UGU/UMU, the second uses the word l? Renk,
on the other hand, suggests using the negative verb UA-. The Etymologies
do not mention an UA- stem that I can find. UGU/UMU is attested.

As others have already pointed out, the verb UA- was not yet published
when I wrote my course.

I don't think the older negative verbs in the Etymologies are
necessarily wholly "obsolete" just because a similar-meaning form turns
up in late material, but I would indeed normally use UA- in verbal
negation now.

I think I dare to say that the LONG-announced revision of my Quenya
course is finally close to uploading, and I have already written an
appendix where I mention the "new" negative verb.

- HKF

Thank you, dreamingfifi!

This was a very helpful response. I am still studying PE #17, so your page
reference was of great help.

Hantalyel,
Ithidriel


--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "dreamingfifi" <elvenswordsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "ithidrielnarsilion" <cardozac@> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings,
> > I am new to the list, so please forgive me if this question has been asked
before. I did a search but did not find the answer I was seeking. This post also
does a comparison between Fauskanger's Quenya course and Thorsten Renk's as it
is where my confusion arises.
> >
> > In Fauskanger's course, he points out two ways to make negation. The first
uses the negative verb UGU/UMU, the second uses the word lá. Renk, on the other
hand, suggests using the negative verb UA-. The Etymologies do not mention an
UA- stem that I can find. UGU/UMU is attested.
> >
> > Have there been new developments that have led Renk to move from UGU/UMU to
UA?
> >
> > Thanks for your assistance,
> > Ithidriel
> >
>
> Hello Ithidril!
>
> Thorsten Renk's course takes the "ua-" from  Parma Eldalamberon #17, Page 144.
>
> In this matter, I think that Fauskanger's course is a bit outdated, as it
appears that Tolkien rejected UMU for UGU. It also seems that Tolkien rejected
and reused the root AL|LA for AL, meaning "good, blessed, fortunate".
>
> dreamingfifi
>

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Beregond, Anders Stenström" <beregond@...>
wrote:

> Do we know the root of the first element in _Borgil_, viz.
> _born_ 'hot, red' (L 347), so that Quenya cognate *_vor-_ can
> be deduced?

Not from the late sources, but in Early Noldorin there is _bordh_ 'heat, rage',
_byr, buir_ 'fire', _boir, boer_ 'hot, raging'. The Qenya cognates are _mure_ <
_*murye_, _mury-_ 'heat, close weather', _murya_ 'close, muggy' (PE13:139,160).
The primitive forms are _mbúrya:_, _mburye:_, _mburyá:_ where _y_ becomes _dh_
after the stressed vowel in Noldorin. This points to a root *MBUR-.

However, in the QL the root is PURU- < *PUD-, with _puru-_ 'burn', _purma_
'fire, blaze', _pus_ (_pust-_) < _*puðt-_ 'boil' and so on (QL:75); probably
inspired by Greek _pyr_ in particular (see lambengolmor #808).

If the former of these conceptions still holds later, the Quenya cognate of S.
_born_ would be _*murna_. The latter conception cannot lead to _born_, the root
has to be *PUR-, with the Quenya cognate then being _*purna_.
It actually makes sense that the root is not BOR-, as it is already occupied
with the meaning 'steadfastness, endurance'.

RR.

Thank you, Helge,
I am very happy to hear that your course is getting an update soon. It has been
an important source for me in my Quenya studies. As soon as you announce the
update, I will be downloading anew.

Ithidriel


--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Helge K. Fauskanger" <helge.fauskanger@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com <mailto:elfling%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "ithidrielnarsilion
> " <cardozac@> wrote:
>
>  > In Fauskanger's course, he points out two ways to make negation. The
> first uses the negative verb UGU/UMU, the second uses the word l? Renk,
> on the other hand, suggests using the negative verb UA-. The Etymologies
> do not mention an UA- stem that I can find. UGU/UMU is attested.
>
> As others have already pointed out, the verb UA- was not yet published
> when I wrote my course.
>
> I don't think the older negative verbs in the Etymologies are
> necessarily wholly "obsolete" just because a similar-meaning form turns
> up in late material, but I would indeed normally use UA- in verbal
> negation now.
>
> I think I dare to say that the LONG-announced revision of my Quenya
> course is finally close to uploading, and I have already written an
> appendix where I mention the "new" negative verb.
>
> - HKF
>

I was nursing a theory based on _Man agorech_, based on my pet "oblique -n on
pronouns" theory. _Ma_ would be the root, and the –n on it marks the oblique
case, seeing as the sentence is "what did [?the two of] you do". "What" would be
in the Oblique case, wouldn't it?

Then I started to break down the other later uses of this root in Quenya.

Ma – Designated the interrogative root in ancient elven tongues. It appears that
Quenya uses it by adding case suffixes to it, as seen in _manen_ which means "by
what means?", or by using it by itself, in the form _mana_ (the –a deleted when
followed by a vowel, perhaps?).

There is a theory running around that _ma_ is a basic root, unblemished or
modified by meaning until it gains a case suffix. Until then, it simply means
that whatever sentence it begins is now a yes/no question. But, I'm not sold on
the idea. It appears to have a strong leaning to just meaning "what?" – but this
is an abstract thought, a feeling, not an absolute.

So, we have Ma-, and we add other suffixes to get other interrogative pronouns.
Mana – "what/who/whom?"
*Mo – "of what?" (possibly _*mano_ as well?)
*Mava – "whose?"
*Masse – "on/in where?"
*Man – "to/for whom?"
*Mallo – "from where?"
*Manna – "into/to where?"
Manen – "by what means?/how?"

How do we apply this to Sindarin?

This has several implications, I think. The –n could simply be part of the
ancient root and not attached to any dative meaning; and the Sindarin version of
cases, with pronouns instead of suffixes, should be useable in Neo-Sindarin.

I really like the oblique theory, even though there is no way to substantiate it
either way. For the purposes of Neo-Sindarin translation, I think it should be
acceptable, but I suppose that's up to the larger community of Neo-Sindarin
translators and possible future notes of Tolkien's discovered in some forgotten
corner.

My list of interrogative pronouns:
Man – "who/whom/what?" (With possible nominative _*Ma_)
*Amman – "to/for whom/what?"
*Mivan – "in where?"
*Navan – "at when?"
*Naman – "at/to where?"
*Neman – "during when?"
*Oman – "from where?"
And so continuing with other prepositions...

This is significantly different from my earlier ideas... of simply borrowing
from Quenya. This is much more logical in my eyes, but I want to see what others
think on this messy, Neo-Elvish issue. Any thoughts?

Hello everyone!

It has been a number of years since I have subscribed to or posted on
Elfling.  However, I occasionally read through messages on the Yahoo group
archive.  Recently, I've done some reading about the Certhas Daeron, and I
have a few questions about them and the phonologies they represent.

In appendix E, Tolkien writes that "The principal additions, however, the
introductions of two new series, 13-17, and 23-28, were actually most
probably inventions of the Noldor of Eregion, since they were used for the
representation of sounds not found in Sindarin."  My questions are these:

1)  23-28 are apparently a labialized velar series.  These sound are all
found within Quenya, correct?  Also, do they appear in Sindarin at all?

2)  13-16 would, at first glance, appear to be a postalveolar series.
However, Tolkien says that "CH is only used to represent the sound heard in
*bach* (in German or Welsh), not that in English *church*." This is repeated
several times throughout the appendix. The only indication that 13 & 14 are
postalveolar affricates /tʃ dʒ/ is that they are found in this particular
series.  Is this an example of an inconsistency by Tolkien or is there
another explanation?

3)  13 is, to my knowledge, used by Sindarin and also Quenya.  If it is used
by Sindarin, that would contradict the idea that the series was added for
sounds not found in Sindarin.  Am I correct that 13 is used in Sindarin?

4)  What exactly is 17 [nj] ?  Is this a common consonant cluster?  If so,
is it found in one of the Middle-earth languages we know about?  Or, is it a
palatal nasal /ɲ/ or palatalized alveolar nasal /nʲ/ or something else?

5)  Are the sounds of 13-17 found at all in Sindarin or Quenya?

Thank you for any replies.

Jay


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

Hi. Perhaps this page might help you?

http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Angerthas_Daeron

The table is arranged in a way to show the relationship between pronunciation
and cirth shapes   

>1)  23-28 are apparently a labialized velar series.  These sound are all
>found within Quenya, correct?  Also, do they appear in Sindarin at all?


They aren't found in Quenya exactly, specifically 'gw' and 'ghw'. Quenya has no
'gw' by itself, only 'ngw';


'gw' appears in Sindarin but 'ghw' doesn't


>2)  13-16 would, at first glance, appear to be a postalveolar series.
>However, Tolkien says that "CH is only used to represent the sound heard in
>*bach* (in German or Welsh), not that in English *church*." This is repeated
>several times throughout the appendix. The only indication that 13 & 14 are
>postalveolar affricates /tʃ dʒ/ is that they are found in this particular
>series.  Is this an example of an inconsistency by Tolkien or is there
>another explanation?

You are correct that they are postalveolar. I wouldn't call it an inconsistency
though. The statement 'CH as in German or Welsh' refers to the spelling used for
the names in the narrative. In the Certhas table (which is not part of the
narrative) he uses a different convention because they represent a system more
complex than Elvish.


>3)  13 is, to my knowledge, used by Sindarin and also Quenya.  If it is
used
>by Sindarin, that would contradict the idea that the series was added for
>sounds not found in Sindarin.  Am I correct that 13 is used in Sindarin?

No; as you noted 13 represents /tʃ/ and this sound is not found in Sindarin.


>4)  What exactly is 17 [nj] ?  Is this a common consonant cluster?  If
so,
>is it found in one of the Middle-earth languages we know about?  Or, is it a
>palatal nasal /ɲ/ or palatalized alveolar nasal /nʲ/ or something else?

Judging by its shape (consult the table in the link I gave you) it represents a
sound midway between front /n/ and back /Å‹/. I think you could spell it as
/ɲ/. Unfortunately I don't know the exact phonological term to describe it. As
far as I know it's not used in the known languages, but one would guess that it
might occur in Dwarvish or some Mannish or even Avarin language.


>
>5)  Are the sounds of 13-17 found at all in Sindarin or Quenya?

No but they are found in 3rd Age Westron, although I am not sure about 17.

Hello Jay,

Normally I'm also a long-standing lurker on this list. And at the
moment I have nothing to add to Palatinus' useful replies.

But I breaking my usual silence to mention the existence of
elfling2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:elfling2@yahoogroups.com> , in case you
are not already aware of it. It might be useful to post your question
there again, as that list is especially intended for discussion of
Tolkienian scripts, whereas this list is more specifically intended for
languages. I note, however, that your question rather straddles the
border between both.

Kind regards, Harm.


--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, Jay Lawson <jay.lawson@...> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone!
>
> It has been a number of years since I have subscribed to or posted on
> Elfling. However, I occasionally read through messages on the Yahoo
group
> archive. Recently, I've done some reading about the Certhas Daeron,
and I
> have a few questions about them and the phonologies they represent.
>
> .....



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

Hi Palatinus-

Thank you much for the reply.  I found it extremely helpful in getting more
familiar with the Angerthas, as well as Sindarin & Quenya phonology and
Tolkien's transliteration conventions.  I appreciate the help.  My replies
(and further questions!) to your individual points:



> Hi. Perhaps this page might help you?
>
> http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Angerthas_Daeron
>
> The table is arranged in a way to show the relationship between
pronunciation and cirth shapes

Yes, that is quite useful!




> >1)  23-28 are apparently a labialized velar series.  These sound are all
> >found within Quenya, correct?  Also, do they appear in Sindarin at all?
>
> They aren't found in Quenya exactly, specifically 'gw' and 'ghw'. Quenya
has no 'gw' by itself, only 'ngw';
>
> 'gw' appears in Sindarin but 'ghw' doesn't

I read the following in the 1st lesson of Helge's Quenya course:  "Besides
the palatalized consonants, we have the labialized consonants: nw, gw and qu
(= cw)."  I would assume then that Quenya does have gw /gÊ·/, unless there is
something I am missing something that rules it out?  EDIT:  I just found it:
"In fact, gw occurs only in that position, and always in the combination ngw
(not "ñw" but "ñgw", still using "ñ" as Tolkien did):".  From that, I gather
than ngw is more of a consonant cluster than a true phoneme, IE /Å‹gÊ·/, which
is to say that there is a simple phonotactic rule saying that /gÊ·/ must
always follow /Å‹/.

So far, I see nothing indicating that Quenya has gh /ɣ/ or ghw /ɣʷ/.  It
also doesn't seem to have kh /x/, other than that it changed to eventually
become h /h/, which is is some positions (before a [t]) still pronounced as
/x/.  Nw /nÊ·/ appears in Quenya and is only at the start of words, and used
to be the labialized velar nasal /Å‹Ê·/.

From what I can tell, Sindarin seems to have had the same set of
orthographical values as Quenya: that is kw, gw, ngw, nw, but no khw or
ghw.  The difference is that they are all consonant clusters in Sindarin,
rather than being true labialized consonants.

I'm basing this on what I have read so far on Ardalambion, as well as
http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Sindarin,
http://www.elvish.org/gwaith/sindarin_phonetics.htm, and
http://your-sindarin-textbook.realelvish.net/.  I hope they are all
accurate.  At the least, I do trust Ryszard Derdzinski's page, since I am
familiar with his name.  Do feel free to correct anything I've stated, since
I am actually quite new to learning the Elvish tongues.




> You are correct that they are postalveolar. I wouldn't call it an
inconsistency though. The statement 'CH as in German or Welsh' refers to the
spelling used for the names in the narrative. In the Certhas table (which is
not part of the narrative) he uses a different convention because they
represent a system more complex than Elvish.

Got it, and it makes sense.




> No; as you noted 13 represents /tʃ/ and this sound is not found in
Sindarin.

Since you mention the different system of transliteration above, I
understand this now.




> >4)  What exactly is 17 [nj] ?  Is this a common consonant cluster?  If
so,
> >is it found in one of the Middle-earth languages we know about?  Or, is
it a
> >palatal nasal /ɲ/ or palatalized alveolar nasal /nʲ/ or something else?
>
> Judging by its shape (consult the table in the link I gave you) it
represents a sound midway between front /n/ and back /Å‹/. I think you could
spell it as /ɲ/. Unfortunately I don't know the exact phonological term to
describe it. As far as I know it's not used in the known languages, but one
would guess that it might occur in Dwarvish or some Mannish or even Avarin
language.

If it is indeed "midway between front /n/ and back /Å‹/", then yes, it's
logical that it would be /ɲ/ which is a palatal nasal. What gives me pause
is the difference in #22 Å‹ vs. #33 ng.  It looks like ng is pronounced as
/Å‹/ at the start of a word and with an audible /g/ medially, as /Å‹g/.  Is
this correct, and is that the only difference between Å‹ ang ng?
Additionally, since the series #13-17 was created for sounds outside
Sindarin, and since Quenya has a set of palatalized consonants, why would
only nj (ny in Quenya transliteration for the narrative?) appear when Quenya
has others such as ty and ly?  I don't see any method for the certhas to
indicate palatalization the way the Dwarves added a sign to indicate
aspiration.




> >5)  Are the sounds of 13-17 found at all in Sindarin or Quenya?
>
> No but they are found in 3rd Age Westron, although I am not sure about 17.

I'm not sure if Westron was around yet at the time of the Elves of Eregion.
From what I gather, Adunaic would have been around, and would have started
to influence whatever tongues of Men were spoken in northwest Middle-earth,
along with Sindarin.  So, Westron may have been in a sort of pre-natal
stage.  I could see 13-17 being in Adunaic, Khuzdul, or whatever Mannish
tongues were around.  I don't see evidence of them in Adunaic, and I'm not
even sure what Mannish tongues existed then.  Taliska was more of a 1st Age
language, was it not?  Khuzdul is a definite possibility, although it seems
odd since Hebrew & Arabic (the most likely inspirations for Khuzdul) don't
have ch or j /tʃ dʒ/, other than through loan words of other languages.
Yiddish does have them, though, so maybe that influenced Tolkien to include
them in Khuzdul.



Thanks again!


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

Eh, what has happened here?

That should be elfscript2@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:elfscript2@yahoogroups.com>  !

I know I started to write `elfscript', then went to check my
groups for the correct address, which made me realise that as the
elfscript list was overrun with spam long ago, after its originator
abandoned it without trace or appointing a successor, the elfscript2
list was created to take its place. How that turned into
`elfling2' I have no idea!

Apologies for wrongfooting any reader here, especially Jay!

P.S. Somewhere at the back of my mind the impression lurks that there
once was an elfling2. Whether or not that is a figment of my
imagination, it certainly doesn't exist now. Nor would the very
basic description I gave for elfscript2 have fitted it. HJS


--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, harm.j.schelhaas@... wrote:
>
>
> Hello Jay,
>
> .....
>
> But I breaking my usual silence to mention the existence of
> elfling2@yahoogroups.com <mailto:elfling2@yahoogroups.com , in case
you
> are not already aware of it. It might be useful to post your question
> there again, as that list is especially intended for discussion of
> Tolkienian scripts, whereas this list is more specifically intended
for
> languages. I note, however, that your question rather straddles the
> border between both.
>
> Kind regards, Harm.
>




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

Háno yo meldo

After the terrible crimes committed in Oslo and at Utoeya on July 22,
2011, I would like to express my deepest sympathy with the Norwegian
people and everyone affected all over the world. In this forum, a
special greeting to our Norwegian Elflingers. All of Scandinavia
(including my own country, Denmark) is profoundly affected by these
crimes, and as Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg has said, this
should lead to more solidarity, more openness, more democracy, more
humanity.

The following line was originally written by the Norwegian poet Nordahl
Grieg after the occupation of Norway by Germany during the second world
war. Many in Norway have quoted the line on Facebook, in public
speeches, and in the papers during the last week. I have, according to
my ability, translated the line into Neo-Quenya.

All comments and suggestions for corrections are welcome.

_Nalme ta manka nóre sinasse, ilya nahtana ea háno yo meldo._

'We are so few in this country. Each slain is brother and friend.'

Original Norwegian: 'Vi er så få her i landet, hver fallen er bror
og venn.' 'We are so few here in this country, each fallen is brother
and friend.'

Comments:

There is no word for 'few' in later Quenya or Sindarin as far as I can
tell. I have used _manka_ from the Qenya Lexicon, even though it seems
incompatible with the later phonology in the Etymologies.

The original poem in Norwegian has 'here in this country' which in
Quenya would be something like _si nóre sinasse_. Maybe a
construction like _nóre sinomesse_ 'here in this country' could work?

All the best,
Peter

Peter wrote:

  > After the terrible crimes committed in Oslo and at Utoeya on July 22,
2011, I would like to express my deepest sympathy with the Norwegian
people and everyone affected all over the world. In this forum, a
special greeting to our Norwegian Elflingers.

I cannot function as a representative of my entire nation, and I live
nowhere near the site of the terrorist attacks, but I thank you for your
words. The participants at the youth camp affected came from all over
the country, and from the realease of many new names tonight, I learn
that two of the 70+ people that were killed came from families living
less than 30 minutes' drive from my home.

  > The following line was originally written by the Norwegian poet
Nordahl Grieg after the occupation of Norway by Germany during the
second world war. Many in Norway have quoted the line on Facebook, in
public speeches, and in the papers during the last week. I have,
according to my ability, translated the line into Neo-Quenya.

  > _Nalme ta manka nóre sinasse, ilya nahtana ea háno yo meldo._
  > 'We are so few in this country. Each slain is brother and friend.'

I think this is a very decent rendering. _Manka_, I guess, must be pl.
_manke_ to agree with the plural pronoun 'we'. Also, I believe _ná_
rather than _ea_ must be the copula (if any copula is used at all – it
can be left out). _Ea_ is (I think) a more absolute 'exists' rather than
a simple 'is'.

Perhaps _nanka_ (PE17:68) can be used for 'slain'? The form _nahtana_ is
certainly Tolkienian, but the Professor seems to have wavered about the
exact form of these passive participles (_hastaina_ 'marred' from MR:254
would rather point to *_nahtaina_, with a quite different stress pattern).

  > There is no word for 'few' in later Quenya or Sindarin as far as I
can tell. I have used _manka_ from the Qenya Lexicon, even though it
seems incompatible with the later phonology in the Etymologies.

Does it? In terms of synchronic phonology it is surely quite acceptable.
In the QL it is derived from a root MANGA. If we re-interpret this as,
say, MAÑ(A) within Tolkien's later scheme, we could still get to _manka_
by adding the adjectival ending -ka. I have often used _manka_ for 'few'
in certain compostitions of my own. The only alternative I could think
of would be some such neologism as _úrimba_ 'non-numerous', which is
certainly not elegant!

Whether we use an inclusive or an exclusive 'we' is of course a matter
of taste; the original Norwegian makes no such distinction, no more than
the English translation. _Nalme_ is correct if this is taken as the
people of 'this country' speaking to foreigners.

I would however tend to think that this is intended as a word of bitter
comfort spoken AMONG the people of 'this country'. If so, read _nalve_
(or archaically, _nalwe_) with an inclusive 'we'.

  > The original poem in Norwegian has 'here in this country' which in
Quenya would be something like _si nóre sinasse_. Maybe a construction
like _nóre sinomesse_ 'here in this country' could work?

The Norwegian text ultra-literally reads 'here in the country', which is
just an idiom for 'in this country'. Your first suggestion _nóre
sinasse_ must be quite acceptable, with the demonstrative following as
in Tolkien's _vanda sina_ 'this oath', and the locative ending added at
the end in accordance with the 'last declinable word' rule. But we have
also seen fronted demonstratives (cf. Tolkien's _sana wende_ 'that
maiden'), so _sina nóresse_ may be equially possible.

Well. This tragedy is a strange starting-point for discussing
technicalities of Elven grammar. A few days ago I was rebuked for a
remark I made in a another forum, where I inserted a brief thought about
the disaster and one moderator somehow felt I sounded disrespectful
(which wasn't my intention, but I certainly won't blame the moderator
for being VERY sensitive these days). So now I am a bit over-cautious to
express myself just right in these troubled times. But surely Peter and
I are trying to honor the victims, not bury ourselves in a dry
discussion on Quenya grammar.

- Helge K. Fauskanger

--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Helge K. Fauskanger" <helge.fauskanger@...>
wrote:

>  > _Nalme ta manka nóre sinasse, ilya nahtana ea háno yo meldo._
>  > 'We are so few in this country. Each slain is brother and friend.'
>
> I think this is a very decent rendering.

Thanks! I really appreciate your comments and suggestions.

> _Manka_, I guess, must be pl.
> _manke_ to agree with the plural pronoun 'we'.

It seems silly to pluralize 'few' since it would always be in the plural (?),
but perhaps you are right.

> Also, I believe _ná_
> rather than _ea_ must be the copula (if any copula is used at all – it
> can be left out). _Ea_ is (I think) a more absolute 'exists' rather than
> a simple 'is'.

The more absolute sense was intended, but maybe it is better to use _ná_,
thinking about how Tolkien interpreted this in VT49:28: "... joining
adjs./nouns/pronouns in statements (or wishes) asserting (or desiring) a thing
to have a certain quality or to be the same as another."

>
> Perhaps _nanka_ (PE17:68) can be used for 'slain'? The form _nahtana_ is
> certainly Tolkienian, but the Professor seems to have wavered about the
> exact form of these passive participles (_hastaina_ 'marred' from MR:254
> would rather point to *_nahtaina_, with a quite different stress pattern).

I took _nahtana_ from the sentence _nahtana ló Turin_ *'slain by
Turin'(VT49:24), but _nanka_ seems equally attested. I wonder if Tolkien saw
these as having different meanings or nuances or if they were simply two
thoughts at two different times.

>> I have used _manka_ from the Qenya Lexicon, even though it
>> seems incompatible with the later phonology in the Etymologies.
>
> Does it? In terms of synchronic phonology it is surely quite acceptable.
> In the QL it is derived from a root MANGA. If we re-interpret this as,
> say, MAÑ(A) within Tolkien's later scheme, we could still get to _manka_
> by adding the adjectival ending -ka.

I guess I meant in terms of diachronic etymology, since in the Etymologies
_manka-_ means trade, anyways it fits nicely, and complements words (sometimes)
indicating 'many' like _limbe_ and _hosta_.

> Whether we use an inclusive or an exclusive 'we' is of course a matter
> of taste; the original Norwegian makes no such distinction, no more than
> the English translation. _Nalme_ is correct if this is taken as the
> people of 'this country' speaking to foreigners.
>
> I would however tend to think that this is intended as a word of bitter
> comfort spoken AMONG the people of 'this country'. If so, read _nalve_
> (or archaically, _nalwe_) with an inclusive 'we'.

You are right, and inclusive was what I intended. Reading the paradigm in
VT49:16, -lwe is not specified as archaic. Do we know it is?

> But surely Peter and
> I are trying to honor the victims, not bury ourselves in a dry
> discussion on Quenya grammar.
>
> - Helge K. Fauskanger
>

Indeed we are trying to honor the victims. I guess many would see it as
'burying' oneself in Quenya grammar. I think we agree that discussions about
Tolkien languages is more a way of coming forward, be public, and share thoughts
and emotions.

All the best,
Peter

In watching The Colbert Report last night, Stephen's love for The Lord of the
Rings came through again:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/393421/july-28-2011/the-r\
epublican-ring-of-power

It got me thinking about his Colbert SuperPAC and how one would translate that
term into Quenya. Breaking down the term:
Super Political Action Committee

I've arrived at the following:

Colbero anyomenie vistalan i aranie

Justification:
Colbero = 1) Leave out "t" in Colbert to maintain pronunciation as "col-bear" 2)
-o for genitive case
anyomenie = 1) an- superlative prefix (for "Super") 2) yomenie = "meeting" to
serve as equivalent of "committee"
vistalan = 1) vista = change; 2) -l for participle; 3) -an for dative to convey
"for"... "for the changing"
i aranie = 1) "of the kingdom"

So.. Colbero anyomenie vistalan i aranie *hopefully* means "Colbert's great
committee/meeting for the changing of the kingdom"

Suggestions welcome.

- Don

Just a quick thought. Perhaps, 'few'  should be in the partitive, since it
refers only to a sub-group, rather than a plural. It may be that living in
Finland has skewed my perceptions, however.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:54 PM, pengolodh_dk <pedelberg@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, "Helge K. Fauskanger" <helge.fauskanger@...>
> wrote:
> [chop]
>
> > _Manka_, I guess, must be pl.
> > _manke_ to agree with the plural pronoun 'we'.
>
> It seems silly to pluralize 'few' since it would always be in the plural
> (?), but perhaps you are right.
> [image: Yahoo!
Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkazBzYzFsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAz\
ExMDg5ODcEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5ODQ0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzExOTczNDE4>
> Switch to:
Text-Only<elfling-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Tr\
aditional>,
> Daily Digest<elfling-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
> Unsubscribe <elfling-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms
> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>    .
>
>
>
[chop]


--
Often wrong, never in doubt


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

or another who can speak the entire language of the lexicon, english to elvish
translations of words and phrases in audio form.  I would buy this and would
also add it to my websites(the link to sell it).  thankyou,  tanYa payne

As for pluralizing _manka_ 'few' which must logically be plural always:
One may compare this to _rimba_ 'numerous'. The actual form encountered
would be _rimbe_ (older _rimbai_) in most contexts,. but we could have
such combinations as _rimba lie_ "a numerous people". Perhaps _manka
lie_ could be used for "a people not numerous".

As for the suggestion that _manka_ should be in the partitive, I am not
sure that Quenya has a special adjectival form of the partitive plural.
In the phrase _ondolisse morne_ "on black rocks" (Markirya) we see
_morna_ appearing in its simplest plural form when modifying a noun in
the partitive plural (ondoli).

Of course, this could work differently if an adjective is used as a de
facto noun (like when _Vanyar_ "Beautiful Ones" is used as the name of a
clan -- not _Vanye_! Then _Vanyali_ could surely be used for "some
individual Vanyarin Elves").

Frankly we don't have good examples of how adjectives used as predicates
are treated in Quenya. The plural adjectives I can think of are
typically direct attributes to nouns. In German, adjectives used as
predicates don't agree in number at all, and that could be true for
Quenya as well for all we know -- but with no evidence any way, I would
go for the most straightforward system and let adjectives agree in
number in all positions. But hypothetically at least, adjectives
appearing "independently" as predicates could be inflected as nouns.

- HKF

Aiya helpful people...

I am writing a song in Quenya that will be on an upcoming album. I would
like to avoid grammar errors, and so I send this out to you all in hopes
that I will avoid that terrible fate. Any and all comments on the
grammar would be appreciated. I've left off the accent marks to avoid
issues with those in the forums. I am aware of their need.
Vantalmer lancave ar isilme tintala lassinen i talamesse
Ve miri caline i mornienna. Isilme tucame ata marenna

Oma hlussa i surinen ve i pilindi Oromeon
Lumba istalme i lume utulie auta Endore

Ai cene Eldamar orta Rasello ve Silmaril Earendillo
Ve soron Manweo ramar palune Or luine falmar ar i fanya falle

I aldaron Lorienesse, i sirelindo i nand'Imladrisse
Hostalmer sanwelmar enyalien atanin, naucoin, ar periandin

Hilya min Osseo lindale ve ciravalme or Alataire
Atappa min i lauce litse antuvar fealmar alta alasse
I am concerned about a number of issues.

     1.  I wonder whether I want the inclusive we here (-lme), or an
exclusive we (-mme).   It depends on whether the song is by elves for
elves or by elves for others, I suppose. I'm seriously thinking of going
exclusive as the album is focusing on hobbits and this is the only
elvish song.
     2. I'm not sure about "tintala." I wish to say "moonlight sparkling
through the leaves on the ground," but I'm not sure tintala is the
correct form for that meaning.

     3. In the line about storing memories of men, of dwarves and of
hobbits, I'm not sure if Nauco is inflected correctly for dative and
plural, and whether I need to use Casain (or is it Casarin?) instead...

     4. I created "atappa" from at- meaning again, and appa- meaning
touch.  Does it convey "to touch again" well? Or is there another way?
     5. Finally, are there appropriate places to elide here? Would a
quenya speaker say: luin'falma, fan'falle, or calin'i mornienna? Would
ve with an article right after condense to vei?

Thanks for your assistance,
Ithidriel




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

I think Feanor would hit the roof of the Halls of Mandos of he heard the
word's  "Silmaril Earendillo".

--- On Tue, 8/2/11, ithidrielnarsilion <cardozac@...> wrote:

From: ithidrielnarsilion <cardozac@...>
Subject: [elfling] Translation Help
To: elfling@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, August 2, 2011, 4:41 PM
















 









       Aiya helpful people...



I am writing a song in Quenya that will be on an upcoming album. I would

like to avoid grammar errors, and so I send this out to you all in hopes

that I will avoid that terrible fate. Any and all comments on the

grammar would be appreciated. I've left off the accent marks to avoid

issues with those in the forums. I am aware of their need.

Vantalmer lancave ar isilme tintala lassinen i talamesse

Ve miri caline i mornienna. Isilme tucame ata marenna



Oma hlussa i surinen ve i pilindi Oromeon

Lumba istalme i lume utulie auta Endore



Ai cene Eldamar orta Rasello ve Silmaril Earendillo

Ve soron Manweo ramar palune Or luine falmar ar i fanya falle



I aldaron Lorienesse, i sirelindo i nand'Imladrisse

Hostalmer sanwelmar enyalien atanin, naucoin, ar periandin



Hilya min Osseo lindale ve ciravalme or Alataire

Atappa min i lauce litse antuvar fealmar alta alasse

I am concerned about a number of issues.



1.  I wonder whether I want the inclusive we here (-lme), or an

exclusive we (-mme).   It depends on whether the song is by elves for

elves or by elves for others, I suppose. I'm seriously thinking of going

exclusive as the album is focusing on hobbits and this is the only

elvish song.

     2. I'm not sure about "tintala." I wish to say "moonlight sparkling

through the leaves on the ground," but I'm not sure tintala is the

correct form for that meaning.



3. In the line about storing memories of men, of dwarves and of

hobbits, I'm not sure if Nauco is inflected correctly for dative and

plural, and whether I need to use Casain (or is it Casarin?) instead...



4. I created "atappa" from at- meaning again, and appa- meaning

touch.  Does it convey "to touch again" well? Or is there another way?

     5. Finally, are there appropriate places to elide here? Would a

quenya speaker say: luin'falma, fan'falle, or calin'i mornienna? Would

ve with an article right after condense to vei?



Thanks for your assistance,

Ithidriel



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



























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

No doubt! But alas! He was long gone when Earendil acquired it!

As it became part of Earendil's constellation, I think it is proper to give him
ownership!

Ithidriel


--- In elfling@yahoogroups.com, CLH harding <clh8518@...> wrote:
>
> I think Feanor would hit the roof of the Halls of Mandos of he heard the
word's  "Silmaril Earendillo".