Finally today I've received "The Collected Vinyar Tengwar vol. 3", so I
was able to look at the "Bodleian Declension" (BD). (Until now I've
tried to reconstruct it from other sources). That shocked me! Many of
the assumptions I have made in the previous post need to be drastically
> This nominal plural pattern clearly changed in '31, but it's useful
> in the anlaysis of the "Secret Vice" poems (SVP), as Tolkien did not
> entirely reject _-li_ as the "normal" plural maker (different from the
> so-called partitive plural).
But in the BD a different plural with _li_ has been already developed .
This is the biggest particular I have missed until today.
> [a] _-li_ seems to be used to form plurals from nouns ending in
> _-o_ and _-a_: > _ondoli_ < _ondo_ > _rámali_ < _ráma_
These instead could be (and probably are, see below) so-called
"partitive plural" forms (non-subjective) of _ondo_ and _ráma_.
> The only excpetion in SVP is _tyulmi[n_] < _tyulma_ 'mast', but this
> word is found in "_Earendel_" (EAR), which seems to have other
> "exceptions" (see _kalmainen_ below).
> and probably _qímari_ < *_qímare_ (whose etymology is mysterious,
> because certainely it's not related to QIMI!).
This is an invalid assumption. The singular form could be _*qímar_ as
> [d] _-li_ is used as plural marker whenever a case ending is added:
However, they could be "partitive plural" forms as above. Probably this
is the right assumption, because it explains how in OM1 _talainen_ and
_kulukalmalínen_ are both translated with plural words: _talainen_ is
instrumental plural of _tala_ (like _kiryainen_ in BD) _kulukalmalínen_
is instrumental "partive plural" of _kulu_ + _kalma_ (like _kiryalínen_
This interpretation will also resolve the differences in EAR where
_kalmainen_ and _talalínen_ are both translated with plural words:
_kalmainen_ instrmental plural of _kalma_ _talalínen_ instrumental
"partitive plural" of _tala_ (let's forget _**talale_!), in this
scenario the change _talainen_>_talalínen_ in OM2 becomes only a change
in usage of a plural form, and not the change of formation.
> In OM2 [<OM1 _talainen_] and EAR we find the *instrumental plural
> _talalínen_; in a precedent analysis I've proposed the existence of a
> word _*talale_, however the lenghtened _i_ is probably the result of
> *_li + inen_: *_tala- + -li- + -inen_ > _talalínen_ (same derivation in
> OMI where we find _kulukalmalínen_ < _kulu- + -kalma- + -li- + -inen_.
> That word contrasts with the later _kalmainen_ in EAR translated by
> Tolkien 'in the lights'.
> (1) according to the "_Entu_... Declension" (ED) _kalmainen_ would be
> singular meaning *'(with) the light'
> (2) according to the "Bodleian Declension" (BD) _kalmainen_ would be
> plural *'(with) the lights', but this leads to analysing _talalínen_ in EAR
> as _*talale + -inen_ (plural),
> and coincidentally similar to _talalínen (tala+li+inen)_ in OM2.
> The two hypotheses above give two different intervals betwen (OM1>)
> OM2 and EAR (closer to NIE): nearer (and to BD also) according to (1), and
> an interval (and/or a successive conceptional stage) a little broader
> according to (2), which would help to give a more precise date to BD
Deleting all the considerations I had previously written (those quoted
above), the grammar of SVP poems is very close both with the "_Entu_,
_Ensi_, _Enta_" declension (VT36) and BD, leaning between the two.
What in SVP differs from BD is: [a] Where in BD the "subjective" plural
is _kiryar_<_kirya(n)_ in EAR it's still _tyulmin_<_tyulma [*tyulman]_.
Evidence of the usage of _n_ also in "non-partitive" plural are also
_wingildin_ in EAR and NIE, _maiwin_ in OM2 and probably _tálin_ in
NIE. (in SVP the ending _-r_ seems to be used for dative/locative; see
Ales Bican's article on "-s case"
[b] the "allative" ending is *_-nta_ (_sapsanta; tollanta [OM1];
tollalinta [OM2]_ as in "Entu, Ensi, Enta"; while in BD is *_-nda_
Now that I've received the full version of BD, many problems have
I'm looking forward to receiving PE16, to see the new materials on