What is the status of edledhio-cluster, neledhi and anglenno after the DEL revolution of 'Quendi and Eldar'? They are rendered totally impossible by new phonetic rules, but still are widely used in translations. Should we try and update them, or revise derivations, or abandon altogether?
This is a tough question. I think the solution is to look at the derivation of lembas. Tolkien originally derived the initial element from primitive *ledmē < LED (PE17:51) but later gave a derivation from OS. lenn-mbas or len-bas (PM:404, RC:329). If these are not from LED, they are most likely from a root LEN (PE17:60), which might mean "way" (EtymAC:LEN).
I think other Sindarin derivatives of LED could also be transferred to LEN. This lets us preserve anglenna- and edlenn and edledhron (since OS. nr > dhr). I would guess ledh- would become lenna- so edlenna- and nelenna-.
Alternately, you could ignore Quendi and Eldar, assume that LED remains the normal root for "travel" and that DEL is a variant appearing in a few words.
+Paul Strack The question for me is also about transitivity/intransitivity and about how to express 'to send smth./smb.' in Sindarin (if *menna- to be considered Q. influence). If we wish to retain anglenna-, which fits too well into (G?)LEN-theory, then, without the intensifying prefix, (g)lenna- can only mean something like 'go, proceed in unspecified direction', close to Q. lelya- (impossible in S.; I don't like rejecting "Quendi and Eldar" at all, banishment of later texts in favour of earlier and texts with an in-universe story in favour of mere word-lists and careless jottings seems unfair to me). Hence, we'd likely produce lenna- < len-nā than len-tā — but such a word is strange to consider it underlying in edledh-cluster. Possibly, having also edlenn, edledhron and, most importantly, edledhia, the most probable scenario fells to be edlenna < et-len-tā 'to exile' (pt. part. edlennen, ancient=adj. edlenn) vs. edlenia 'to go into exile', which retains edledhron as it was. Then neledhi updates to neleni or nelenia, anglenna remains; but * lenna < len-tā 'send, make move' (cf. Q. menna, rejected lesta) and * (g)lenna < len-nā 'proceed' are homonymic. (Could the initial G be a mark of difference and possibly show S. late rendering of Q. menta in 'sending' meaning?) I have nothing against homonyms which a bring to me an additional feeling of language "reality", but all of these are definitely my own speculations. (I'd note also that [PE17:51] claims of 'LED rarely featured in Sindarin beside edlenn' can be easily reassigned as 'LEN rarely featured in Sindarin…'; furthermore, my main goal is somehow to retain anglenna, which is a very successful and well-imagined word, and it remains unchanged but in derivation).
I think your reasoning is sound if you accept LEN as a replacement for LED as the root of some Sindarin words.
This is why I said it was a "tough question". When speculating on new words outside of Tolkien's written texts, there are multiple criteria you can use. My own approach to neo-Sindarin and neo-Quenya is different. I prefer to retain as many forms created by Tolkien as possible, as long as those forms are internally consistent with each other.
Rather than inventing new words, I prefer go back all the way to Gnomish if a word is available, provided I can reconcile that word with the other words I include in Sindarin. This means that in some cases, I end up excluding certain primitive forms and phonetic rules Tolkien wrote for the later forms of his languages.
To give an unrelated example, in Noldorin, medial nth, mph became nn and mm. In Sindarin, Tolkien modified this rule, so that medial lth became ll as well (PE17:131, VT42:27). If I accept this rule, I would be forced to modify the half-dozen verbs ending in ltha- in the Etymologies to lla- (or to reject them outright).
However, I know of only two Sindarin word to which the rule lth > ll apply: (1) mallorn and (2) tollui. In the case of tollui (VT42:25), Tolkien also gave a variant form tolthui (VT42:27) that was a reformation of the original pronunciation based on the spelling. In the case of mallorn (PE17:50), maybe the word has some other derivation from the root MAL.
Furthermore, if I ignore this particular phonetic rule, I can preserve a dozen Noldorin words unmodified. So is it better to use (for example) toltha- or tolla- for the Sindarin verb for "to fetch"? I think both approaches are equally valid, and it is a matter of personal preference.
As a final note, in my personal head-canon, I do believe that mallorn originated from OS malthorn, but changed its pronunciation to mallorn perhaps under the influence of Nandorin, so that lth > ll in this case, but not as a general rule.
Paul Strack Apr 24, 2015 (14:55)
I think other Sindarin derivatives of LED could also be transferred to LEN. This lets us preserve anglenna- and edlenn and edledhron (since OS. nr > dhr). I would guess ledh- would become lenna- so edlenna- and nelenna-.
Alternately, you could ignore Quendi and Eldar, assume that LED remains the normal root for "travel" and that DEL is a variant appearing in a few words.
Александр Запрягаев Apr 24, 2015 (19:34)
Paul Strack Apr 25, 2015 (19:16)
This is why I said it was a "tough question". When speculating on new words outside of Tolkien's written texts, there are multiple criteria you can use. My own approach to neo-Sindarin and neo-Quenya is different. I prefer to retain as many forms created by Tolkien as possible, as long as those forms are internally consistent with each other.
Rather than inventing new words, I prefer go back all the way to Gnomish if a word is available, provided I can reconcile that word with the other words I include in Sindarin. This means that in some cases, I end up excluding certain primitive forms and phonetic rules Tolkien wrote for the later forms of his languages.
To give an unrelated example, in Noldorin, medial nth, mph became nn and mm. In Sindarin, Tolkien modified this rule, so that medial lth became ll as well (PE17:131, VT42:27). If I accept this rule, I would be forced to modify the half-dozen verbs ending in ltha- in the Etymologies to lla- (or to reject them outright).
However, I know of only two Sindarin word to which the rule lth > ll apply: (1) mallorn and (2) tollui. In the case of tollui (VT42:25), Tolkien also gave a variant form tolthui (VT42:27) that was a reformation of the original pronunciation based on the spelling. In the case of mallorn (PE17:50), maybe the word has some other derivation from the root MAL.
Furthermore, if I ignore this particular phonetic rule, I can preserve a dozen Noldorin words unmodified. So is it better to use (for example) toltha- or tolla- for the Sindarin verb for "to fetch"? I think both approaches are equally valid, and it is a matter of personal preference.
As a final note, in my personal head-canon, I do believe that mallorn originated from OS malthorn, but changed its pronunciation to mallorn perhaps under the influence of Nandorin, so that lth > ll in this case, but not as a general rule.
Hjalmar Holm Aug 14, 2015 (00:25)
(g)lenna- "to go, proceed"
lentha- "to send"?