G+ LoME Archive
Oct 19, 2018 (16:04)
In the course of my Psalmic translations, I came upon an unforseen issue: what would be the future ending of a verb in
is actually attested, but not in the future. Applying the strong verb rule would give
, which seems unlikely.
On the other hand, I don't see many alternatives, other than treating it as a half-strong verb yielding
(also unlikely), or postulating a related
(grammatically sound, but
can hardly be an
-verb, both from the shape and meaning standpoints).
Oct 19, 2018 (16:18)
Oct 19, 2018 (16:32)
My guess would be
or perhaps even
Oct 19, 2018 (16:34)
I also lean towards mikúva.
Oct 19, 2018 (17:05)
I’m on the fence between
, but am leaning towards
Oct 20, 2018 (14:40)
would of course also mean "is concealing/bowing within". If Tolkien had desired to have the future tense of
be wholly distinguishable from the aforementioned present progressive, he may have first gone for
tultauva, tulyauva, ortauva, oryauva
). Yet obviously in
we might have a parallel verb model to follow; at the very least concerning the formation of the past tense.
Oct 20, 2018 (15:28)
I didn’t even think to look at u-stem verbs for inspiration. That argues more strongly for
Oct 22, 2018 (14:02)
Thanks for the tip regarding
. Based on this example it seems clear that eQ/mQ stems in
correspond to Q stems in
, which should have a plural in
, according to the rule of u-stems verbs.
I will update my translation accordingly.
Oct 22, 2018 (14:15)
Incidentally, I don't think that homophony with the present or future form of an unattested verb
"to bow within" would be a major issue.
Even if such a verb was attested, there are other examples of homophony for past declensions, which shows that this was considered tolerable.
Oct 22, 2018 (14:38)
if English can survive having contronyms, I think Quenya will be fine with some homonyms here and there :)