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.

Is -ssa as a 3rd person pronominal suffix actually attested?

After checking my notes, 2nd plural reflexive is inde. I personally would guess indu and intu for 2nd and 3rd dual reflexive based in duals like aldu.

Also, I think ta is the demonstrative "that" instead of 3rd singular. Other than that I didn't see any major issues.

+Tamas Ferencz 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.

http://eldamo.sourceforge.net/content/words/word-2285592663.html

One last comment: tet as 3rd dual was rejected in favor of tú, probably based on the euphonic principle of using -u for duals after dental stops t, d.

http://eldamo.sourceforge.net/content/words/word-485083557.html

Alright, I updated the pages. Are they better now? I added Demonstratives (wheeeee complex!) to the Quenya lists, which will need to be checked.

Some more suggestions:

I am think sina is an adjective "this", not a pronoun, and thus would not have the plural forms you list. In general, I would recommend against putting si and ta/sa into your list of independent pronouns; I think they are better described in the section on demonstratives.

Since you added mo, I would recommend adding hye/hé “other person, him (the other)”, which is nice construction.

http://eldamo.sourceforge.net/content/words/word-2487792493.html

More suggestions:

I uncovered a variant 1st dual inclusive suffix -inque or -inke (VT49:51), which might have another attested emphatic pronoun inque or inke (VT49:51, bottom of the page) appearing in some marginal notes.

I think this might be the special oholima ("confidential") pronoun "thou and I" mentioned on PE17:129.

It has an interesting etymological origin, as a combination of the primitive elements *ni "I" and *ki "(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 inque right now, but I haven't really analyzed all the options yet.

http://eldamo.sourceforge.net/content/words/word-1935575371.html

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 enta 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 yana does seem to refer to the past, however: YA + TA = "former + that"

http://eldamo.sourceforge.net/content/words/word-2694536069.html

Regarding sana/tana/tanya, I can't find sana or tanya in my notes, but I have found tana, which has a clear etymological origin: TA + adjective suffix -na.

http://eldamo.sourceforge.net/content/words/word-2024450751.html

tanya and sana appear in the earlier (c. 1921-31) and later (c. 1955+) versions of Nieninqe in PE16:90,96-7.

Regarding the demonstratives, I doubled checked and they mostly look correct. However:

1) sitë should be síte with a long í.

2) I can't find either sinna or tanna attested. As pronouns, I think these are better as just  sir(a) and tir(a), fossilizations of the primitive allative inflection *-da.

EDIT: tanna is attested (PE16:96) so I withdraw that objection.

3) I am not comfortable with using sa- as a demonstrative. I can only find it used this way in one place: sanome (PE17:71). Elsewhere it seems to be used for 3rd singular neuter.

In fact there is some evidence that sa originated as a variant of si, originally meaning "this by me, of my concern", VT49:37 note #15.

http://eldamo.sourceforge.net/content/words/word-3974540197.html

Anyway, that is all my feedback on your latest additions. Everything else looks good.

Sorry, one last addition:

I noticed that hye "other person" has a neuter variant hya "other thing":

http://eldamo.sourceforge.net/content/words/word-3147673391.html

+Matt Dinse  I haven't gotten around to including PE16 in my notes, so I was missing those references. Thanks for the pointers. The example sana (PE16:96) is another late instance of sa- being used as a demonstrative that I didn't know about. It looks like there is an attested instance of allative tanna in the 1955+ poem (vs tar(a)) 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 sana 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. sa for 3rd singular neuter, since we have the better attested ta- to use for the demonstrative. But clearly an argument could be made the other way.

+Paul Strack  I suspect that demonstratives in sa- and ta- could coexist in later Quenya, with sa- acting like Sindarin han (said to be from san in PE17:42). Pl. hain 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 sa refers 'to a time already in mind or under discussion' or 'a place already discussed,' and that sana 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 sana wende we probably have the adjectival usage itself, with a meaning like "that very maiden" or "that same maiden", referring back to Nielikkilis in the previous line and further qualified by the relative clause in the next line."

sana is used when we already know that wende = Nielikkilis, and hain is used to refer to previously-mentioned Ennyn. In other cases where "that" does not refer to something previously mentioned, I would use tana. But I guess that's my own speculation.

+Matt Dinse  The connection to S. han is another excellent point in favor of the sa- 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 sa might co-exist with ta- as a demonstrative, I am not sure it could co-exist with sa as 3rd singular neuter. In VT49:37 note #46, Tolkien indicated that primitive pronominal form sa "this by me of my concern" was associated with primitive si (elsewhere "this, here, now"), and was the source of the neuter pronoun sa "the thing".

I am not sure how I would explain S. han "that" < san 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.

Alright, I've updated the Quenya pronouns again.

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 emme 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.