G+ LoME Archive
Links to resources
Feb 27, 2015 (04:02)
I'm making a quick reference chart of Neo-Quenya and Neo-Sindarin pronouns, as well as a quick reference chart of Neo-Quenya case suffixes. Before I connect the links and make the official announcement, please look it over and let me know if you see any errors (especially with Quenya, I'm not as confident in my knowledge of Quenya).
Feb 27, 2015 (08:19)
Just eyeballing the Quenya, I noticed that the verbal dual suffix should be -t, not -r, and the singular dative suffix should be -(e)n/-na, not -a. I didn't see anything else obviously wrong, but I would need more time double checking my notes.
These are nice lists.
Feb 27, 2015 (09:33)
Is -ssa as a 3rd person pronominal suffix actually attested?
Feb 27, 2015 (09:45)
After checking my notes, 2nd plural reflexive is
. I personally would guess
for 2nd and 3rd dual reflexive based in duals like
Also, I think
is the demonstrative "that" instead of 3rd singular. Other than that I didn't see any major issues.
Feb 27, 2015 (16:01)
I have seen -s(sa) attested as a 3rd singular neuter suffix (PE17/57). It is from an older chart, though, before the switch of 1st plural inclusive from -lme to -lve.
Feb 27, 2015 (16:16)
One last comment:
as 3rd dual was rejected in favor of
, probably based on the euphonic principle of using
for duals after dental stops
Feb 28, 2015 (01:09)
Alright, I updated the pages. Are they better now? I added Demonstratives (wheeeee complex!) to the Quenya lists, which will need to be checked.
Feb 28, 2015 (19:19)
Some more suggestions:
I am think
is an adjective "this", not a pronoun, and thus would not have the plural forms you list. In general, I would recommend against putting
into your list of independent pronouns; I think they are better described in the section on demonstratives.
Since you added
, I would recommend adding
“other person, him (the other)”, which is nice construction.
Feb 28, 2015 (19:31)
I uncovered a variant 1st dual inclusive suffix
(VT49:51), which might have another attested emphatic pronoun
(VT49:51, bottom of the page) appearing in some marginal notes.
I think this might be the special
("confidential") pronoun "thou and I" mentioned on PE17:129.
It has an interesting etymological origin, as a combination of the primitive elements *
"I" and *
"(intimate) you". It has a lot of variant forms, though, so I am not sure which one is the "best" to use. I lean toward
right now, but I haven't really analyzed all the options yet.
Feb 28, 2015 (19:39)
And more suggestions (sorry for the spam, but it is easier to break these up in smaller comments).
I don't see any connection between
and the future. Etymologically, it seems to be EN + TA = "again + that". It is glossed as “that yonder” (Etym:EN) and as an adjective “another, one more” (VT47:15).
I agree that
does seem to refer to the past, however: YA + TA = "former + that"
Feb 28, 2015 (19:42)
, I can't find
in my notes, but I have found
, which has a clear etymological origin: TA + adjective suffix
Feb 28, 2015 (19:54)
appear in the earlier (c. 1921-31) and later (c. 1955+) versions of Nieninqe in PE16:90,96-7.
Feb 28, 2015 (20:00)
Regarding the demonstratives, I doubled checked and they mostly look correct. However:
with a long
2) I can't find either
attested. As pronouns, I think these are better as just
, fossilizations of the primitive allative inflection *
is attested (PE16:96) so I withdraw that objection.
3) I am not comfortable with using
as a demonstrative. I can only find it used this way in one place:
(PE17:71). Elsewhere it seems to be used for 3rd singular neuter.
In fact there is some evidence that
originated as a variant of
, originally meaning "this by me, of my concern", VT49:37 note #15.
Anyway, that is all my feedback on your latest additions. Everything else looks good.
Feb 28, 2015 (20:11)
Sorry, one last addition:
I noticed that
"other person" has a neuter variant
Feb 28, 2015 (22:59)
I haven't gotten around to including PE16 in my notes, so I was missing those references. Thanks for the pointers. The example
(PE16:96) is another late instance of
being used as a demonstrative that I didn't know about. It looks like there is an attested instance of allative
in the 1955+ poem (vs
) that I also didn't know about.
I haven't had time to analyze the poem in detail yet, but I suspect that this example of
is a remnant of the Early Quenya demonstrative root SA (PE12:81). For purposes of Neo-Quenya writing, I personally would prefer to reserve Q.
for 3rd singular neuter, since we have the better attested
to use for the demonstrative. But clearly an argument could be made the other way.
Mar 01, 2015 (00:37)
I suspect that demonstratives in
could coexist in later Quenya, with
acting like Sindarin
(said to be from
in PE17:42). Pl.
is "that" in the sense of "those, them,
the things previously mentioned.
" (my emphasis), and in PE16:96-7 the editors allude to "an unpublished discussion of Quenya demonstrative and relative pronouns (probably dating from around the 1940s)" in which "Tolkien explains that
refers 'to a time already in mind or under discussion' or 'a place already discussed,' and that
means 'that very thing (already referred to)' and is one of a group of pronouns that are adjectival in form but 'used substantivally.' In the phrase
we probably have the adjectival usage itself, with a meaning like "that very maiden" or "that same maiden", referring back to
in the previous line and further qualified by the relative clause in the next line."
is used when we already know that
is used to refer to previously-mentioned
. In other cases where "that" does not refer to something previously mentioned, I would use
. But I guess that's my own speculation.
Mar 01, 2015 (01:08)
The connection to S.
is another excellent point in favor of the
demonstrative that I had not considered. I promise to keep an open mind for when I get around to analyzing the information in PE16 (which won't be for a while, because I still have PE13-PE15 to get through).
Right now, while I agree that
might co-exist with
as a demonstrative, I am not sure it could co-exist with
as 3rd singular neuter. In VT49:37 note #46, Tolkien indicated that primitive pronominal form
"this by me of my concern" was associated with primitive
(elsewhere "this, here, now"), and was the source of the neuter pronoun
I am not sure how I would explain S.
in this scenario, though. Maybe it originally meant "this" and shifted to "that" via semantic drift? I wouldn't want to commit to any particular view until I have looked at all the available information.
Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion. I've really enjoyed the overall conversation so far.
Mar 08, 2015 (20:43)
Alright, I've updated the Quenya pronouns again.
Mar 09, 2015 (06:05)
I did another reading and didn't see any errors.
My only remaining suggestion is that you might want to add a footnote that when the 1st edition of LotR was published, -lme was 1st plural inclusive and -mme was 1st plural exclusive. It might be relevant if your student looks at Tolkien's Quenya prayers from the 1950s or Thorsten Renk's Quenya course.
Strictly speaking, the emphatic pronoun
is attested (VT43:12), but with this older 1st plural exclusive sense.
That may be more complexity than you really want to throw at beginning students, though.