Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

a couple of questions

Expand Messages
  • Isaac Penzev
    Aiya! I m new to these lists, so let me introduce myself. My [nick]name is Yitzik, I m a linguist, an interpreter and a conlanger from Ukraine (a republic in
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 1, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Aiya!
      I'm new to these lists, so let me introduce myself. My [nick]name is Yitzik,
      I'm a linguist, an interpreter and a conlanger from Ukraine (a republic in
      former Soviet Union). Some of you may know me from other conlang lists.
      Recently I have started learning Quenya, not because I'm a fan of Tolkien,
      but because I merely liked the sound and the structure of the language.
      As we know, there are certain gaps in our attempts to reconstruct Quenya
      vocabulary and grammar structure. That raises a couple of questions I want
      to ask you, dear colleagues.

      1) Is there any way to count numbers beyond 12? E.g. to say "thirteen"?

      2) I know there are no attested words for "where" and "there" in the
      available corpus. Some people reconstruct "where" as *massë. I have not yet
      found any reference to "there". We have the word "here" (="in this place") -
      sinomë. Would the words coined according to this pattern, *manomë and
      *tanomë, plausible, or at least understandable?

      I really don't want to raise flame wars by these question, so please try to
      remain objective. I understand quite well that the answer "no" is still an
      answer :))

      Best wishes,
      -- Yitzik
    • Peter
      ... say thirteen ? In the new issue of Vinyar Tengwar there is actually an answer to your question. The last two issues of Vinyar Tengwar has dealt
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 1, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In quenya@yahoogroups.com, "Isaac Penzev" <isaacp@u...> wrote:
        > 1) Is there any way to count numbers beyond 12? E.g. to
        say "thirteen"?

        In the new issue of Vinyar Tengwar there is actually an answer to
        your question. The last two issues of Vinyar Tengwar has dealt
        extensively with Quenya numerals, so you would propably be
        interested in obtaining these. From issue No. 48 we get the numerals
        13 Q. _quainel_, 14 Q. _quaican_, 15 Q. _quailepen_, 16 Q.
        _quainque_, 17 Q. _otoque_, 18 Q. _toloque_, 19 Q. _neterque_. There
        are several differemt forms of these numerals and several different
        modes of forming them. I suggest you read the issue (and the former
        one) to learn the context these forms come from, as they are not
        some finalized table but different ideas that can be read in
        Tolkien's notes.

        >
        > 2) I know there are no attested words for "where" and "there" in
        the
        > available corpus. Some people reconstruct "where" as *massë. I
        have not yet
        > found any reference to "there". We have the word "here" (="in this
        place") -
        > sinomë. Would the words coined according to this pattern, *manomë
        and
        > *tanomë, plausible, or at least understandable?

        In _Námarie_ "wherein (pl.)" is _yassen_ so maybe you can use _*ya_
        as a demonstrative pronoun meaning "where". But maybe it is the
        interrogative you want? I believe that that is what people have
        reconstructed as Q. _*masse_.

        There are a lot of different forms in the (posthumously) published
        corpus meaning "there" and "where". I cannot list them all here,
        since it would take a long study to present them in a proper manner.
        Most of the demonstrative pronouns meaning "there" circle around the
        word _en_ f. ex. in _en i úmavaisor_ "*there on the throne of hate"
        from _Sí Qente Fëanor_ in Parma Eldalamberon No. 15. This is an
        early source, but _en_ keeps popping up as the demonstrative "there"
        taking different shades of meaning.

        All the best,
        Peter
      • Isaac Penzev
        ... In the new issue of Vinyar Tengwar there is actually an answer to your question. The last two issues of Vinyar Tengwar has dealt extensively with Quenya
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 1, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Peter tencë:

          >>>
          In the new issue of Vinyar Tengwar there is actually an answer to
          your question. The last two issues of Vinyar Tengwar has dealt
          extensively with Quenya numerals, so you would propably be
          interested in obtaining these.
          <<<

          Thank you very much. Unfortunately, as I had previously told, I am living in
          Ukraine (not in the USA), thus VT subscription is not possible for financial
          (and probably technical) reasons.

          >>>
          From issue No. 48 we get the numerals
          13 Q. _quainel_, 14 Q. _quaican_, 15 Q. _quailepen_, 16 Q.
          _quainque_, 17 Q. _otoque_, 18 Q. _toloque_, 19 Q. _neterque_.
          <<<

          Ah, very interesting. They seem more decimal than duodecimal!


          > sinomë. Would the words coined according to this pattern, *manomë
          and
          > *tanomë, plausible, or at least understandable?

          >>>
          But maybe it is the
          interrogative you want? I believe that that is what people have
          reconstructed as Q. _*masse_.
          <<<

          Yes, it was interrogative. Should I have written "where?" for this? I know
          about _*massë_ from Thorsten Renk's textbook: I only looked it through, I'm
          learning now from Helge Fauskanger's course, you see. I merely mean _*massë_
          does not seem adverbish enough. And, secondly, I need to repeat the
          question: are the forms _*manomë_ and
          _*tanomë_ plausible, or at least understandable, even if they are not
          attested?

          > All the best,
          > Peter

          Thank you,
          best wishes,
          -- Yitzik \ Isaac Penzev, from snowy and frosty Ukraine (that's next to
          Russia, men.)
        • Peter
          ... living in ... financial ... Two issues of VT cost 8$. I am in no position to judge your economy, but I think it s very cheap (and I don t live in the USA
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 2, 2006
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            > Thank you very much. Unfortunately, as I had previously told, I am
            living in
            > Ukraine (not in the USA), thus VT subscription is not possible for
            financial
            > (and probably technical) reasons.

            Two issues of VT cost 8$. I am in no position to judge your economy,
            but I think it's very cheap (and I don't live in the USA either).
            Maybe you could write to the editor to sort out any technical
            difficulties.

            > Yes, it was interrogative. Should I have written "where?" for
            this? I know
            > about _*massë_ from Thorsten Renk's textbook: I only looked it
            through, I'm
            > learning now from Helge Fauskanger's course, you see. I merely
            mean _*massë_
            > does not seem adverbish enough.

            I guess _*masse_ is as good as any, if you need the
            interrogative "where?". Personally I don't like the sound of it, and
            am looking forward to the possible publication of a more beautiful
            word for "where?" ;-)
            Why do you want _*masse_ to be "adverbish"? What do you mean?


            > And, secondly, I need to repeat the
            > question: are the forms _*manomë_ and
            > _*tanomë_ plausible, or at least understandable, even if they are
            not
            > attested?


            I don't like them very much, but I guess people would understand
            them. I don't think they are plausible (= something Tolkien would
            have come up with if we could ask him), they are certainly not
            attested. What do you intend _*manome_ to mean? and is
            _*tanome_ "there, in that place"? _*tanome_ makes more sense than
            _*manome_.

            Cheers,
            Peter
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.