Conceptual Development: In the earliest Lost Tales, the father of Tuor was first named G. “axe” (LT2/88, LT2A/Peleg). The name was revised to ᴱN. in Lays of Beleriand from the 1920s (LB/145). The name only became N. in the Silmarillion drafts from the 1930s (SM/24, LR/275), and in The Etymologies was given as a Noldorin name meaning “heart-vigour, courage”, derived from primitive ᴹ✶ (Ety/KHŌ-N, GOR). In notes for the Silmarillion revisions from the 1950s-60s Tolkien decided his name was adapted from his native language, as noted above.
]]> + @@ -12005,6 +12006,7 @@ After removing the pronominal prefix ya- and the pluConceptual Development: This character was named G. when he first appeared in the earliest Lost Tales (LT1/48), and kept this name thereafter, though sometimes it appeared in variant forms such as Tûr (LT2/202) or Turlin (SM/5). Christopher Tolkien suggested the earliest version of this name was probably associated with the root ᴱ√ “be strong” (LT1A/Tuor). In The Etymologies from the 1930s, N. was given the meaning “strength-vigour” and derived from primitive ᴹ✶ (Ety/TUG, GOR). In notes for the Silmarillion revisions from the 1950s-60s Tolkien decided his name was adapted from his native language, as noted above.
]]>The earliest precursor to this root was ᴱ√KERE “turn” from the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s, though this root’s derivatives mostly had to with earthenware and pottery (QL/46). In the Early Quenya Grammar of the 1920s Tolkien introduced several variants of this root: ku̯ere, ki̯ere and elaboration ᴱ√kereke “turn round and round, send to and fro”, the latter said to be the basis of words having to do with “weave” in a syncopated form √kreke (PE14/65). In this document, none of these variants had any derivatives, but it seems the first of these ku̯ere survived in Tolkien’s later conception of the languages.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would mostly use √KWER for “revolve, *turn”, and avoid the variant √KWEL which (a) has no derivatives and (b) conflicts with √KWEL “fade”. However, √KWEL is useful for preserving Noldorin words having to do with rotation from the earlier sense of the root ᴹ√PEL “revolve on fixed point” from the 1930s, so I would keep it as Sindarin-only variant to allow the retention of words like N. pelthaes “pivot”; this may also have been Tolkien’s motive for having such a variant of √KWER “revolve”.
]]>In The Etymologies, the words for “throat” were ᴹQ. lanko and N. lhanc from the root ᴹ√LAK¹ with nasal-infixion (Ety/LAK, Ety/TARAG). The Noldorin form also appeared as an element in the adjective N. tarlanc “stiff-necked, obstinate”. In The Lord of the Rings, it seems that this last word had shifted to S. tarlang, as in the place name Tarlang (LotR/790). The earlier words reappeared as S. lang and Q. lango “neck, passage”, whose roots were either √LAG (PE17/65) or √LAƷA (PE17/91-92).
Tolkien also established the word Q. lá as the Quenya element meaning “beyond”, most notably in the preposition pella (the Namárië poem, LotR/377), whose literal meaning was “beyond the border”. There is an early hint of this sense in The Etymologies in the root ᴹ√LĀ, unglossed but said to be related to the “ablative element” ᴹ√LŌ (EtyAC/LŌ). Other possible precursors are ᴱ√ALA² “spread” and related ᴱ√LAHA or ᴱ√LĀ from the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s (QL/29, 32, 50).
In notes from 1965, Tolkien stated that the root of lá “beyond” was √LAŊ, distinct from the root √LAG of lango (PE17/65). But in notes from 1967, Tolkien briefly considered using the root √ALA/LA for lá “beyond” (PE17/90), but quickly changed it to √LAƷA “cross, pass over, go beyond” (PE17/91-92), the same as the root of Q. lango “neck” as noted above. This leaves us with two scenarios: that lango “neck” and lá “beyond” had distinct origins from the roots √LAG and √LAÑ respectively (1965: PE17/65), or that lango “neck” and lá “beyond” had the same origin in the root √LAƷ “cross, pass over, go beyond” (1967: PE17/91-92).
-Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin I prefer the 1967 scenario with the root √LAƷA “cross, pass over, go beyond”, and would assume “neck” is based on the sense “passage”, since it frees up the root √LAG to retain its meaning from The Etymologies: ᴹ√LAG “*cut” (Ety/LAG). For “throat” words, see the discusssion in the entry for ᴹ√LAK¹.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin I prefer the 1967 scenario with the root √LAƷA “cross, pass over, go beyond”, and would assume “neck” is based on the sense “passage”, since it frees up the root √LAG to retain its meaning from The Etymologies: ᴹ√LAG “*cut” (Ety/LAG). There are quite a few Quenya neologisms dependent the existence of √LAÑ “across”, however, so I would assume this exists as a variant of √LAƷ. For “throat” words, see the discusssion in the entry for ᴹ√LAK¹.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume this root means “growl, grumble, mumble” to allow the salvaging of early words derived from ᴱ√NURU.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root appeared as {ᴹ√TEƷ >>} ᴹ√TEÑ “line, direction” with derivatives like ᴹQ. tie/N. tê “line, way” and ᴹQ. téra/N. tîr “straight, right” (Ety/TEƷ, TEÑ). In the Outline of Phonology Tolkien gave √TEG “line”, whereas √TEÑ was given as the basis for Q. tenna “a thought, notion, idea” and thus clearly with a different meaning; see the entry √TEÑ for further discussion. In any case it is clear that Tolkien considered various ancient velar consonants for the second consonant of this root, all ultimately vanishing in the child languages with similar vocalic effects: 1910s teχ-, 1920s teg-, 1930s {teʒ- >>} teñ- and 1950s teg-.
-Neo-Quenya: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume this root was √TEƷ in order to preserve the validity of the word téma “series”. This is because Tolkien kept vacillating on the development of gm, but usually had gm > ngw, so that teg-mā > tengwa, not téma.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root appeared as {ᴹ√TEƷ >>} ᴹ√TEÑ “line, direction” with derivatives like ᴹQ. tie/N. tê “line, way” and ᴹQ. téra/N. tîr “straight, right” (Ety/TEƷ, TEÑ). In the Outline of Phonology Tolkien gave √TEG “line”, whereas √TEÑ was given as the basis for Q. tenna “a thought, notion, idea” and thus clearly with a different meaning; see the entry √TEÑ for further discussion. In any case it is clear that Tolkien considered various ancient velar consonants for the second consonant of this root, all ultimately vanishing in the child languages with similar vocalic effects: 1910s teχ-, 1920s teg-, 1930s {teʒ- >>} teñ- and 1950s teg-.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root ᴹ√TUL had the gloss “come, approach, move towards (point of speaker)” with derivatives like ᴹQ. tul-/N. tol- “come” and ᴹQ. tulta-/N. toltha- “send for, fetch, summon” = “(orig.) make come” (Ety/TUL); in the 1930s the “support” words seem to have been transferred to (probably unrelated) ᴹ√TULUK. √TUL “come” was mentioned regularly in Tolkien’s later writings (PE22/103; PE17/188; PE22/156), in one 1969 note with the extra gloss “approach” (PE22/168), so the 1930s senses for the root seem to have been retained thereafter.
]]>Nothing of this blended paradigm remained in The Etymologies of the 1930s, where Tolkien instead had ᴹ√WEY “wind, weave” as the basis for ᴹQ. Vaire/N. Gwîr “Weaver”, and in this document the root was blended with ᴹ√WAY “enfold” in Quenya because wei > wai (Ety/WEY). Tolkien seems to have abandoned this phonetic rule by the time he wrote his Quenya Notes (QN) from 1957, where he instead said:
Owing to the use of gwae / gwaew “wind” as in Gwaehir, we must have √WAYA = blow, or be disturbed. √WAYA cannot therefore be used = “weave”, and Vairë has no connexion with winds or stories. EITHER Vairë must become name of Osse’s wife: Q váya is used of sea (as waters, motion). OR Vairë’s name be changed: sc. to Vérë, √WER- “twine, weave”, were-, weave (PE17/33).
Ultimately Tolkien made neither of these changes to Vairë, and this section was rejected. In a set of roots from December 1959 (D59) Tolkien said “√WIRI, weave; hence Vaire (literally ‘weaving’), not from WAY” (PE17/191). The name Q. Vairë “Ever-weaving” was also derived from √WIR in notes associated with the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60 (VT39/10). However, in notes from the late 1960s Tolkien said “weaving with cross-threads or withes was represented by the distinct base {WAY >>} WIG, often in strengthened form waig-” (VT42/10 and VT42/29 note #27). So it seems Tolkien continued to vacillate on the weaving roots.
-Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think the 1959-60 root form √WIR lets us salvage the largest number of words, and it is not clear how Vairë would be derived from late-60s waig-.
]]> +Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think the 1959-60 root form √WIR lets us salvage the largest number of words.
]]>There are no good examples of wu > u, but such a sound change is likely given similar changes such as [v/β] vanishing before [u] and how .
]]> +Likewise, this sound change can be seen in the futures of verbs stems ending in w:
+]]>This Quenya word “seven” is derived from the same root that produced S. . One possible explanation of otko > osko is that tk > þk > sk, with þ to s as usual and then sk > x [ks] via metathesis. Near this word Tolkien wrote “tk > sk in Q., T., S.” which seems to indicate this was a universal (and thus perhaps Primitive Elvish) sound change. However, AQ. otko is almost certainly the result of the Quenya syncope, strongly implying these were parallel changes in the child languages (there is no further other evidence of Telerin or Sindarin sound changes tk > sk).
+This Quenya word “seven” is derived from the same root that produced S. . One possible explanation of otko > osko is that tk > þk > sk, with þ to s as usual and then sk > x [ks] via metathesis. Near this word Tolkien wrote “tk > sk in Q., T., S.” which seems to indicate this was a universal (and thus perhaps Primitive Elvish) sound change. However, AQ. otko is almost certainly the result of the Quenya syncope, strongly implying these were parallel changes in the child languages (and I have found no further evidence of Telerin or Sindarin sound changes tk > sk).
Another example from Quenya Notes from 1957 (QN: PE17/145) seems to show a similar set of phonetic developments:
Syllabic ḷ, ṛ were only produced by loss of ǝ (< a, e, o). ṛ produced ar. ḷ produced il/al/ul according to the surroundings of which the preceding vowel was the strongest influence. Initial ḷ only occurred as reduced form of negative prefix la. It yielded usually a [al-]. On the special vocalic development in Q. final syllables see below (OP1: PE19/56).
Final syllables [rough notes] ... When inflexional in significance stressed[?] ending[?] in CE. weakening[?] of a, e, o > ǝ {(> nil)} after or before continuant or nasal ... after l, r: la > ḷ > il/al/ul. ra > ṛ > ar ... after l, r: la > ḷ > il/al/ul. ra > ṛ > ar ... [before] l, r: ḷ, ṛ > al/il/ul, ṛ (OP1: PE19/66).
-lǝ > ḷ > il/ul/al ... -rǝ > ṛ > ar (OP1: PE19/67, summary of the preceding according to note #173).-
Thus it seems final syllabic l, r had basically the same developments as medially: ṛ > ar and ḷ > al/il/ul depending on the preceding vowel (developments after e/o are still unclear). In one case only, initial ḷ became syllabic: in the negative prefix ᴹ✶ḷ- > ᴹQ. al- (but see Conceptual Development below). Aside from the maklă > makal example given above (OP1: PE19/39), the clearest examples of these final developments can be seen with the primitive agental suffix ✶-rŏ (WJ/371) which frequently becomes -ar in Quenya after another consonant:
+Thus it seems final syllabic l, r had basically the same developments as medially: ṛ > ar and ḷ > al/il/ul depending on the preceding vowel. The developments after e/o were not discussed, but based on examples like Q. hecil (< hek-l(a)?), probably they also developed to -il/-ul; hat-tip to Parmandil for this suggestion. There is also one example where initial ḷ became syllabic: in the negative prefix ᴹ✶ḷ- > ᴹQ. al- (but see Conceptual Development below). Aside from the maklă > makal example given above (OP1: PE19/39), the clearest examples of these final developments can be seen with the primitive agental suffix ✶-rŏ (WJ/371) which frequently becomes -ar in Quenya after another consonant:
Conceptual Development: Earlier words for “arrive” include tenya- “arrive, end (not at speaker’s[?] place)” in notes from the late 1950s or early 1960s (VT49/24; VTE/49). This verb reappeared in notes from 1968 as tene “arrive, come to, get to” from a root √TEN, but in that note the ten- forms were rejected and changed to men-. Elsewhere men- was used in the more general sense “go” or “come” (PE17/13, 16; PE22/162), whereas in the 1969 Ambidexters Sentence, the verb tenta- was used to mean “point at” (VT49/6-8).
+Neo-Quenya: Of the various options, I think anya- is the best Neo-Quenya verb for “arrive” and I further assume it is a half-strong verb with past tense ananye “arrived”. In a post on 2024-01-31 in the Vinyë Lambengolmor Discord Server (VLDS), Luinyelle suggested it might be used in the idiomatic sense “manage, succeed (in something)” when combined with the infinitive of another verb: ananyen pare Quenya “I managed to learn Quenya” = “(lit.) I arrived at learning Quenya”
]]>Conceptual Development: The earliest Qenya verb for “receive” was ᴱQ. tuvu- “receive, accept, take, require, cost” from the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s under the root ᴱ√TUVU (QL/96). In the contemporaneous Gnomish Lexicon the verb ᴱQ. tuvu- was glossed “receive” as a cognate of G. tû- “receive; take; get; become” (GL/71). In the Early Qenya Grammar of the 1920s, ᴱQ. tuv- was glossed “receive, take” along with several inflected forms (PE14/58). In Tolkien’s later writings, he instead used Q. tuv- for “find, discover” (LotR/971; PE22/155).
+Neo-Quenya: For purposes of Neo-Quenya, I prefer to retain √KAB “hold, possess, have in hand”, and as such I would use Q. cav- for “receive”, although Helge Fauskanger used cam- in his Neo-Quenya New Testament (NQNT). Following the example of ᴱQ. tuvu-, I would also use cav- for “accept”. In a Discord conversation from 2023-12-25, Raccoon suggested using cav- for “require, cost” as well, but I think that is too much semantic burden for a single verb. I prefer to use ᴺQ. maura- for “to need, require”, and would use ᴺQ. valda- “be of worth” for “to cost”, as suggested by Luinyelle in the same 2023-12-25 conversation.
]]>Conceptual Development: The Etymologies of the 1930s had ᴹQ. toron “brother” from the root ᴹ√TOR (Ety/TOR), and the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s had ᴱQ. herendo “brother” from the early root ᴱ√HESE¹ (QL/40). See those entries for discussion.
]]>Neo-Quenya: The root √KHEL remained the basis for ice words in Tolkien’s later writings, but if helin “pansy” could coexist with the earlier form of this root, I think it can coexist with the later form as well. ᴺQ. helin “pansy” is worth keeping for purposes of Neo-Sindarin since it is the basis for several words for purple flowers and colours. The word helin and its derivatives might be reconceived as being related to the 1930s root ᴹ√ƷEL “sky”, which had derived words having to do with “(pale) blue”.
]]>Neo-Quenya: The root √KHEL remained the basis for ice words in Tolkien’s later writings, but if helin “pansy” could coexist with the earlier form of this root, I think it can coexist with the later form as well. ᴺQ. helin “pansy” is worth keeping for purposes of Neo-Quenya since it is the basis for several words for purple flowers and colours. The word helin and its derivatives might be reconceived as being related to the 1930s root ᴹ√ƷEL “sky”, which had derived words having to do with “(pale) blue”.
]]>Conceptual Development: ᴱQ. hyapa “shoe” appeared in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s under the early root ᴱ√SAYAPA (QL/82) and in the contemporaneous Qenya Phonology where it was derived from ᴱ√saẏap- (PE12/26). The word hyapa “shoe” reappeared in Early Qenya Word-lists of the 1920s (PE16/144) and again in the Declension of Nouns from the early 1930s (PE21/8).
]]>Conceptual Development: In Silmarillion drafts from the 1930s, this name was used for the first tribe, with the gloss “The Fair” (LR/168). It usually appeared as a collective noun, but sometimes appeared in the singular (PE22/51). In The Etymologies, it is given as ᴹQ. “fair, beautiful (of sound)” used as a name (Ety/LIND). In later writings, the name of the first tribe became the Vanyar, and Tolkien repurposed this name as another name of the third tribe with a slightly different derivation and meaning.
]]>Conceptual Development: Early Qenya Word-lists of the 1920s had ᴱQ. panta- “to beat” (PE16/142), the Early Qenya Grammar had ᴱQ. tanga- “beat” (PE14/58), while the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s had ᴱQ. lampa- “hit, beat” (QL/51). ᴹQ. palka- “beat flat” from 1948 might be a later variant; see that entry for details.
]]>Conceptual Development: Early Qenya Word-lists of the 1920s had ᴱQ. panta- “to beat” (PE16/142), the Early Qenya Grammar had ᴱQ. tanga- “beat” (PE14/58), while the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s had ᴱQ. lampa- “hit, beat” (QL/51). ᴹQ. palka- “beat flat” from 1948 might be a later variant; see that entry for details.
+Neo-Quenya: In a post on Vinyë Lambengolmor Discord Server (VLDS) in 2023-08-20, Röandil suggested this verb might also be used for “to clap, applause” in combination with Q. paltar “palms”, as in palpa paltar = “to clap, (lit.) beat palms”. I personally think the dual would be more likely: palpa paltu. See also the extended meaning of [ᴺQ.] patahta- “clatter”.
]]>Neo-Quenya: I would salvage this word as ᴺQ. patacë “clatter” for purposes of Neo-Quenya.
]]>Neo-Quenya: I would salvage this word as ᴺQ. patahta- “to clatter” for purposes of Neo-Quenya. In a post on 2024-01-31 in the Vinyë Lambengolmor Discord Server (VLDS), Luinyelle suggested patahta- manten might mean “clap = (lit.) clatter with (both) hands”. See also the extended meaning of [ᴹQ.] palpa- “beat”.
]]>Conceptual Development: Some similar words appeared in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s under the early root ᴱ√QASA: ᴱQ. qasil “arrow-feather, arrow” and ᴱQ. qasilla “tuft, nodding spray, tassel, plume” (QL/76); quasil was only glossed “arrow” in the contemporaneous Poetic and Mythological Words of Eldarissa (PME/76). ᴹQ. qesse “feather” first appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s under the root ᴹ√KWES (Ety/KWES), already the name of tengwa #4 (EtyAC/KWES). It was also the name of this tengwa in notes on the Feanorian Alphabet from the 1930s and 1940s (PE22/22, 51, 61), and remained so into the published version of The Lord of the Rings.
]]>Conceptual Development: The name ᴱQ. first appeared in the earliest Lost Tales as the name of the tower holding the northmost lamp that lit the world (LT1/69), later as either the lamp itself (Ety/RINGI) or the sea formed after its fall (LR/32). It was first used as the name of Fingolfin’s sword in The Lays of Beleriand (LB/285). The name ᴹQ. appeared in The Etymologies from the 1930s as a derivative of the root ᴹ√, at that point still both the lamp and the sword (Ety/RINGI). In Silmarillion revisions from the 1950s-60s, the name of the lamp was changed to (MR/7), but Ringil remained the name of Fingolfin’s sword.
]]>Thus this word was sometimes applied (metaphorically) to the dome of heaven, though that last use may be limited to Sindarin.
Conceptual Development: The earliest precursor to this name seems to be ᴱQ. ronda appearing in the Early Noldorin Dictionary of the 1920s as a cognate of ᴱN. gronn “cavern” (PE13/162). ᴹQ. rondo “cavern” appeared in the Declension of Nouns from the early 1930s (PE21/8). Tolkien gave ᴹQ. rondo “roof, cave” in The Etymologies of the 1930s from the root ᴹ√ROD of the same meaning (Ety/ROD); in The Etymologies as published in The Lost Road Christopher Tolkien gave the gloss “cave” (LR/384), but in their Addenda and Corrigenda to the Etymologies, Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne corrected this to “roof, cave” (EtyAC/ROD).
Tolkien mentioned rondo “cave” in passing within rough notes on Felagund and related names from Notes on Names (NN) from 1957, but this entire block of notes was marked through (PE17/117-118). In addition to the aforementioned paragraph from the 1959-60 Quendi and Eldar essay given above, Tolkien gave rondo the gloss “vaulted hall” in a discussion of the strengthening of primitive nasals and stops (VT39/9). In this essay, Tolkien seems to have kept the basic form and meaning from The Etymologies of the 1930s, but deriving it instead from a new root √RON “arch over”.
-Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I prefer the earlier root form ᴹ√ROD as this lets us retain more of the 1930s forms.
]]> +Neo-Quenya: For purposes of Neo-Quenya, I prefer the earlier root form ᴹ√ROD as this lets us retain more of the 1930s forms. For natural formations, I would use this word only for a large vaulted “cavern”, and for a more general “cave” or “tunnel” I would use rotto.
]]>Conceptual Development: The name ᴹQ. first appeared in Lord of the Rings drafts from the 1940s within Bilbo’s poem at Rivendell (TI/97). This name was retained in the published version of this poem (LotR/235) making it canonical, but its exact cosmological significance is unclear. In Tolkien’s “Unfinished Index” of The Lord of the Rings, he described Tarmenel as the “Region of the Wind” (RC/216).
@@ -224314,6 +225509,14 @@ that rel. imp[personal] yaConceptual Development: A possible precursor ᴱQ. otto- “knock” appeared in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s under the early root ᴱ√OTO of the same meaning (QL/71). This in turn may have become ᴹQ. tam- “to tap” and ᴹQ. tamba- “to knock, keep on knocking” from The Etymologies of the 1930s under the root ᴹ√TAM “knock” (Ety/TAM). Finally there are some roots √TOK and √NOK from 1959-60 notes used of “non-resonant sounds” but with no derivatives (PE17/138).
@@ -233030,6 +234191,23 @@ that rel. imp[personal] ya-ima: Probably the best known of the verbal adjective suffixes, -ima is used to express possibility, and is roughly equivalent to English “-able, -ible”: cen- “see” → cénima “visible, able to be seen”. Tolkien discussed this suffix in several places, including the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) of the late 1940s, Common Eldarin: Verb Structures (EVS2) of the early 1950s and Late Notes on Verb Structure (LVS) written in 1969:
@@ -253163,6 +254394,16 @@ or tense-endings. So Q fărăle “hunting” < phár-alē:Conceptual Development: The name N. first appeared in Silmarillion drafts from the 1930s with the same translation “Long Wall” (LR/262). It also appeared in The Etymologies from the 1930s with the same derivation as above (Ety/ÁNAD, RAMBĀ).
]]>Conceptual Development: The name G. appeared in the earliest Lost Tales, although without translation (LT2/240). In The Etymologies from the 1930s, Tolkien designated the name as Ilkorin, a derivative of the primitive form ᴹ✶ with the meaning “successor” (Ety/NDEW), though initially the name was marked Ossiriandic (EtyAC/NDEW).
It is unclear whether this translation remained valid in Tolkien’s later writing, especially since he later added the sobriquet S. “Thingol’s Heir” to Dior’s name (S/188). Furthermore, the original etymology would not be valid for Sindarin, since primitive in Old Sindarin and then became [ȳ] in Sindarin. Tolkien never provided another translation or etymology for this name, however.
]]> + @@ -296495,6 +297807,9 @@ plural in or i- (Ety/I¹).In Sindarin words where there are repeated dental spirants, one of them tends to dissimilate away from the other. The clearest example is úthaes, which Tolkien said was the result of dissimilation in úthaeth (VT44/30). A deleted variant úsaeth indicates that dissimilation of the first spirant away from the second is also possible. Other potential examples include:
This Sindarin behavior is distinct from that of Noldorin in the 1930s and 40s, where the genitival element usually underwent soft mutation. Compare:
This means that, like indefinite na vs. definite en, juxtapositional genitive may or may not have definite articles. If we expand our scope to include plurals, the examples become numerous:
+This means that, like indefinite na vs. definite en, juxtapositional genitives may or may not have definite articles. If we expand our scope to include plurals, the examples become numerous:
Also note how these forms mostly had soft mutation, since nasal mutation was not yet a feature of the language; hints of nasal mutation can be seen in examples like Fôs na Ngalmir, however.
The preposition a(n) “of” mostly disappeared after the 1910s, aside from a couple outliers such as [N.] Rath a Chelerdain (WR/388) and (archaic?) dagnir an Glaurung (PE17/97). However, its more ancient form was the basis for S. en “of the” (< ani). The article na morphed into a preposition by the time of The Etymologies of the 1930s (Ety/NĀ¹), and this preposition continued to appear in Sindarin of the 1950s and 60s as discussed above. As for the genitive inflections -a, -n, -ion, it seems these were transferred to the Ilkorin language in the 1930s, though they survived conceptually as an archaic feature of Old Noldorin (Ety/THOR; PE21/59) and Old Sindarin (PE17/97, NM/355).
-The (definite) preposition en “of the” was not introduced until the switch to Sindarin in the 1950s.
+The (definite?) preposition en “of the” was not introduced until the switch to Sindarin in the 1950s.
Neo-Sindarin: For purposes of Neo-Sindarin, it’s probably best to treat both methods of forming genitives as more or less interchangeable, except that partitive genitives (indicating when something is a part of or the composition of something else) should be limited to prepositional genitives: megil nan-ang “swords of iron”, ram na-cheleg “wall of ice”, mâb en-adan “hand of the man”.
It is less clear how the genitive should interact with the definite article. It’s best to treat en as the definite form of na, but the conditions for when a definite article is required isn’t clear. Possibly of note is that fact that with juxtapositional genitives, a singular genitive is usually missing the article, but a plural genitive is not.
Also possibly of note is the fact that the modified noun itself is often missing an article. It may be that the genitive helps determine the preceding noun, making the article less necessary. However, it is hard to tell, since most of our examples are names. Furthermore, there are exceptions to this rule, as in i arben na megil and “[the] knight of the long sword” (PE17/147) and i chîn Húrin “the children of Húrin” (S/198).
@@ -328210,6 +329589,15 @@ In The Etymologies of the 1930s, N. gaur wasConceptual Development: There was a verb of similar meaning in the Gnomish Lexicon of the 1910s: G. {baitha- >>} baidha- “to clothe” (GL/21). This was derived from the early root ᴱ√VAẎA “enfold, wind about” as suggested by Christopher Tolkien (LT1A/Vai; QL/100).
@@ -331752,9 +333144,9 @@ In The Etymologies of the 1930s, N. gaur wasConceptual Development: The name N. also appeared in Lord of the Rings drafts from the 1940s (TI/124).
]]>Neo-Sindarin: In later Sindarin, intervocalic s > h usually vanishes, but occasionally survives if it separates otherwise awkward vowel combinations, as in ahamar “neighbor” or arahadhw “throne”. Thus I would adapt this early word as ᴺS. tehar “brick”. However, tëar is also possible; compare [N.] noen < *nusina (EtyAC/NUS).
]]>Conceptual Development: Perhaps the first precursor to this word was G. †Uril, an archaic word for the Sun in the Gnomish Lexicon of the 1910s appearing beside its modern form G. Aur (GL/75) and clearly a derivative of the early root ᴱ√URU as suggested by Christopher Tolkien (LT1A/Ûr; QL/098). In Gnomish Lexicon Slips revising this document, it became {ŷr >>} hŷr “sun” (PE13/114), and in Early Noldorin Word-lists of the 1920s it became ᴱN. {húr >>} úr “sun”, derived from primitive ᴱ✶ourū̆ (PE13/155).
This in turn became N. ûr “fire” in The Etymologies of the 1930s under ᴹ√UR “be hot”, but as noted above the meaning of this root was changed in that document (Ety/UR). Although the root √UR “heat” was later restored, it isn’t clear whether Tolkien also restored ûr “fire”, though there is some secondary evidence of it: primitive ✶ūr “a fire (on hearth)” appeared in notes from the early 1950s, as also noted above (PE21/71).
Neo-Sindarin: If S. naur is (like its Quenya cognate Q. nár) more representative of an elemental or abstract notion of fire, then ûr might be used for an individual physical fire such as one in a fireplace.
]]>Most of the differences between the various Eldarin branches in the phonetic development of [ɣ] and (weak) [x] was in the initial position only. In Noldorin/Sindarin the initial ʒ/h was lost (as noted above). In Quenya , or was simply retained as-is during the conceptual periods where h also was the primitive form. In Telerin it was either lost (as in the 2nd-to-last note) or became [h] (as in the last note), making the timing of this sound change hard to nail down: initial ʒ/h could have been lost in Old Sindarin or Ancient Telerin, depending on how Tolkien imagined the Telerin development.
Tolkien generally attributed the loss of medial ʒ/h to the Common Eldarin period of the languages, for example:
@@ -411728,9 +413242,6 @@ Quenya) > ss (PE22/103).The information presented in this section is the Sindarin language as Tolkien described it during the publication of the Lord of the Rings and afterwards (1950-1973). Words from earlier forms of the language (Noldorin, Gnomish) are not included here, even though diff --git a/content/language-pages/lang-t.html b/content/language-pages/lang-t.html index eec20b3159..82a8e98f52 100644 --- a/content/language-pages/lang-t.html +++ b/content/language-pages/lang-t.html @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
The language of the third tribe of Elves, as it was spoken in Aman (S/59). Though some loremasters considered it a dialect diff --git a/content/name-indexes/names-s.html b/content/name-indexes/names-s.html index 1c2c7012fc..43534aa2e5 100644 --- a/content/name-indexes/names-s.html +++ b/content/name-indexes/names-s.html @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@