Maybe Mára mentie PE17:13 : mentie = passage, journey
Thorsten sticks to the conceptinof 'Quendi&Eldar' where (o)mentie
is not from men + tie
, but rather has the dual marker t
in it (missing in (yo)menie
Better sam- (PE17:173)?
Cause it's a general word 'to have', 'she possesses dreams' sounds strange.
I can't see the formerly available examples invalidated or obsoleted by PE17, and as I clearly state, I give more weight to grammar actually seen in texts than to grammar being described. In addition, I think it's quite a useful distinction.
They're not invalidated. The greater picture is visible now. Until the last publications it was somewhat confusing that falma-li
was translated 'waves-many', although the plural was not called *'multiplicative' or something, but 'partitive'. So the tentative idea was that in teh article in i falmali
may give the shade of meaning 'many waves'.
But this can hardly be the case since Eldali
without article is translated both as 'some Elves' and 'a lot of Elves'. And which 'grammar actually seen in texts' supports the first view?
Well - again - why throw out a phrase which Tolkien wrote? What's actually wrong with mesta? Does it contradict anything? Is it weird in Quenya phonology? Or is it simply attested in the wrong source?
For starters - which root is it derived from?
In my view every early word bears a probability with it that it has been rejected (surely I can't prove it was if that's what you want). Especially when there are lots of later alternatives I would think the probability is high and letting it in is avoidable at the same time.
>To -n, the last possible ending, the adverb ending is appended directly: melin (dear) becomes
Or maybe *melimbe
Another general point - what about ar
taking the form al, as
before l-, s- (t-, p-, k-)
? (PE17:41, also al larmar
? (should probably agree with the rule on p.61)
p.52, 54, 76
>cene serce talamesse!
In LotR talan
seems to be quite specifically be a wooden platform on the tress of the Galadhrim ('flet', cf. PE17:52).
>i elda ohtar i ná (the elf who is a warrior)
>> i elda i ohtar (ná)
>lúme yasse Feanáro firne (the hour in which Feanor died)
>ar rimbe Noldor ifírier
>I eldali firner i ohtanen. (Many elves died in the war.)
be used for the death of an elf other than Míriel?
>pio (plum, cherry), piucca (berry), tyuru (cheese)
A lot of Qenya here, especially piucca
can imho hardly fit into the style of later Quenya..
Maybe better anna
'a thing handed, brought or sent to a person, gift' (PE17:195); antale
would rather be the 'act of giving'.
>she made it. antale Hísielwa
>> capital letter
>arlinwenya atanion (oldest among men)
>arya ohtaron (the best of the warriors)
According to PE17:57 i arya
>palan far, wide
'Adverb' should be probably added.
And 'point'. Imho it rather stands for a 'sharp end, tip', like a mountain peak (N. ment
is used that way in Mornvenniath
>Ma Hísiel mahtane mai? (Did Hísiel fight well?)
>Mathanes. ([Yes], she fought well.)
>Ua mahtane. ([No], she did not fight well.)
The question here is not whether Hísiel fought or not, but rather if she did it well or not. So I think the answer should be mai/*úmai
>A number of orcs
Or just orcoli
>Out of the irregular perfect tenses, let us mention elelie (has gone) here.
Mhm.. Since this is from LED-, the perfect tense should maybe be *elérie
and the gerund *lerie
, cf. led(e)mbasse > lerembas
It's Qenya from US- which has been changed to UR- (and there is also the question of rhotacism). Perhaps better narta-
No bold font.
>eceantie (has lain)
>3. Person ta (he, she, it) se (he, she), sa (it) *te (they)
>3. Person *ta (him, her, it) te (them)
>For the 3rd person plural, some vowel shifts take place since the nominative te represents
>older *tai. In essence, this leads to the fact that all case inflection endings have to be
>appended to tie- instead of te-.
Isn't that a mixing of conceptions? Sure, we have 3rd sg. inanimate ta
and Etym, pl. toi
presumably from #to
, leading us to suspect an inanimate pl. *tai
; but after LotR the only conception I see is that sg. sa/se
and pl. ta/te
are differentiated according to animate/inanimate wihtout any plural suffixes. Hence also khy- > khye
'other person', khya
'other thing' (VT49:14). Already in Átaremma there is avatyarilta
'we forgive them' with pl. ta
>Here, me stands for inclusive (and possible exclusive?) ’we’,
It's in any case exclusive (because of excl. -mme
). For the inclusive form one could choose from ñwe, we|ve, ñe
in a waz that wouldn't contradict the verbal suffixes.
; Perhaps one could put in mélamrimma
(PE17:109) into the text?, it fits quite well.
; or acutally -tamo
according to PE17:108
or it should be mentioned earlier in the course that pl. suffixes may be omitted in the partitive plural.
>órana- (to have mercy)
>maite (mais-) skilled
in Etym, but later ataformaiti
goes wihtout ti > si
>>better later aiqua
Instrumental -ln- > -ld-
, e.g. macil > macilden, Hísiel > Hísielden
would be worth thinking of. Also, -rn-
is permitted as well.
>á cene ancenie!
There is also always lengthening involved: ancénie
(PE17:94) etc., so it's not a gerund, but adverbial -ie