Post 4tqUkamGnmg

Александр Запрягаев Sep 30, 2017 (21:06)

My sketch of how to update the conditional sequence of QVS into post-reverse QUenya and to Sindarin (based on the introduced Noldorin hints). Starts with a transcript of QVS itself, followed by an update and a Sindarinization:

Tamas Ferencz Sep 30, 2017 (21:44)

What's "post-reverse" Quenya?

Александр Запрягаев Sep 30, 2017 (22:20)

+Tamas Ferencz What Tolkien never systematically completedL how all of this works with postposed subjects instead of preposed.

Paul Strack Sep 30, 2017 (22:24)

If I am reading this correctly, it looks like you are revising part of the text of QVS from the 1940s (PE22/120-122) by replacing pronominal prefixes with the more usual pronominal suffixes, and then making adaptations to Sindarin phonology. It's an interesting idea, though I think the Sindarin is a bit of a stretch.

The particle ai "supposing" does reappear in Tolkien's later writings, but qe "if" seems to have changed to either ce or qui. - Eldamo : Quenya : qui

Have you considered making those changes as well?

Александр Запрягаев Sep 30, 2017 (22:27)

+Paul Strack My reasoning to make the Sindarin version based on the mentions of Noldorin in the text I already explained once, when discussing aen. As for the change, I do not really wish to alter this particular set for a simple reason: all the ke/qui segments in PE22 and other do not even match every single time (and the whole text of the only normal explanation in PE22 is marked as crossed, while even the Ambidexters Sentence contradicts those).

Paul Strack Oct 01, 2017 (00:43)

+Александр Запрягаев I do like you explanation of S. aen as a derivation of ai+en. It fits rather neatly.

For you inflectional forms like S. udulaen, I think those might be too much. I strongly suspect that Tolkien mentioned ON. in the original text, rather than N., because he didn't envision this inflection surviving in later forms of the language.

Regarding qe/ce/qui, I need to go back and looking the originals. The last time I looked, I ended up favoring qui, but that was quite a while ago and I no longer remember why.

Александр Запрягаев Oct 01, 2017 (00:48)

+Paul Strack I get the exact opposite out of this: all this double ni-tūlaiyeta trouble would make no sense if that's to describe a feature of a proto-language (albeit of historical period) that leads to the fact that stuff like that survived nowhere. The reason he does not speak of EN is trivially historical: being a comparative grammar, the text only deals with archaic forms of the languages, Noldorin has mostly ON examples (except minor cases where CE coincides with ON); Beleriandic is explored extensively and all Quenya knowledge is full of archaic and poetic forms and obviously represents an earlier, PQ-rin stage of the language.