Post JknBzqR3AQN

Александр Запрягаев Jun 15, 2015 (20:09)

I propose a discussion. Is there any established etymological derivation of the future tense -tha element in Noldorin and Sindarin?

This element is obviously Noldorin in derivation, appearing as early as King's Letter. The resemblance to the normal transitive affix -tha < -tā, Q. -ta, found in many derived verbs, is obvious, with the implied causative meaning 'cause to do, make to'. Cf. Q. lenwe-ta, S. tol-tha vs. tol. In Early Noldorin, in PE13:153, this ending is even introduced as a separate verb glossed 'make, cause to be', with lots of inflected forms proposed — but no future tenses are discussed. It is derived there from *sta, but STĀ in the Etymologies is seen in an unclear second element of haust only. Still, it is hard to expect to get any occurrence ta from sta from comparison with multiple Quenya verbs. The primitive form ta is shown, for example, in PE17:093, and is readily associated with TA-demonstratives and Q. ta 'then, there', though the exact nature of similarity is unclear and can be of pure homonymy. Still, the connection to the future tense derivation is obscure; both Q. derivations like lenweta and S. like gannada demonstrate a pure causativity-affixation possible without future implied; the uniform nature of the suffix rather leads to the hypothesis of an originally separate copula which is added analytically to the bare stem of infinitive (especially clear after comparison to Early Noldorin). This presumable tha could be now derived from some form of STĀ (either from the Etymologies, reconstructed by David Salo as 'to help', — or totally unattested THĀ even?) and gets additional support from the form thor (< thar?) in VT50, which is analyzed as a possible verb 'to become'. If the word tha exists still as a separate word, I'd interpret it as a future form of the na verb, 'will be' — cf. Russian быть or French aller for the usage of different original stems for separate tenses. For some reason, I'm quite sure there are no analogical forms of 'to be' in Sindarin, but rather inflexions of different verbs combined in a paradigm. Actually, if the word for 'was' is revealed to be engin, enc, I wouldn't be surprised. And for now, I settle on Etym-STĀ — unless there are later sources providing explicitly different formation.

Tamas Ferencz Jun 15, 2015 (20:32)

Perhaps the new PE will provide some useful references through the analysis of h the Quenya verbal system

Matt Dinse Jun 16, 2015 (02:45)

There is the small chance we could get lucky with PE22: one section in the website's description explicitly mentions only discussing Quenya verbs, but others mention both Quendian/Common Eldarin, saying "the etymological background to the grammatical structure of the Quenya verb and its prehistoric connections with the verbal systems of the other Elvish languages." The later revision from c. 1950 and the late 1960s are presumably Quendian/CE as well, and not exclusively Quenya. So I'm assuming it's going to be lots of Quenya and some CE and Noldorin/Sindarin - perhaps the ratio that Noun Structure had in PE21?

Alternatively, there might be other eventually-upcoming texts: PE17:132 mentions a Dec. 1962 note containing "preliminary workings on paradigms of the Sindarin conjugations and declensions in both ink and pencil, and a couple of Sindarin phrases transcribed in tengwar and in runes." Hopefully that's tenses ... though it could very well be pronominal conjugations like cerin, cerig, cerið (etc.) on the other half.

Additionally, VT49:14 mentions a late (1968+) "essay on the future tense" containing mentions of -uva and ūva. Wynne doesn't call it "an essay on the Quenya future tense", so if we're lucky it might be both Quenya and Sindarin.

At any rate, once I finish up a few more Indexes (18, 22, 16) my next project will be going through every VT and PE in order to write up a list of all the editorial references to unpublished texts, noting where they have been published since then (or if they still remain unpublished).

Matt Dinse Jun 22, 2015 (21:04)

I am only ?halfway? through so far, but yes, PE22 explains the derivation of future -tha.

Tamas Ferencz Jun 22, 2015 (23:04)

+Matt Dinse lucky man, I won't be able to read my copy until I get home from our holiday in two weeks

Matt Dinse Jun 23, 2015 (03:14)

+Tamas Ferencz Ack! Sorry to hear that. Should I hold off on discussing some of the contents?

Tamas Ferencz Jun 23, 2015 (09:08)

+Matt Dinse no, not at all!

Matt Dinse Jun 24, 2015 (03:08)

Alright. I'm quite excited about all the new Quenya grammar/vocabulary/conjugations/etc, but confused about some of the new Sindarin material, and am hoping some of those into Sindarin have already received their copies (since context will aid discussion). Jenna Carpenter hasn't, but I don't know if Fiona Jallings and Roman Rausch have already.

On the note of confusion, does anyone know if we have attested future-tense conjugations of basic (mad-, car-, nod-, etc.) verbs in 50s-or-later Sindarin (not Noldorin)? The same goes for aorist forms using -i of verbs with U-vowel roots (telin for example). I suppose this thread can stay for discussing the N/S future tense (curiously never related to the Telerin one, which is unrelated to either Q's or N/S's), and other PE22-related discussion can go into another thread.

The paradigms and etymologies of future tense in Common Eldarin, Noldorin/Sindarin, Telerin, and Q(u)enya in 1940s, 1950, and 1969 (as well as general statements about their nuance and usage) differ. Certainly in the 1940s and 1950 I would expect medithon given statements and historical forms, but I'm wondering if the different etymology/usage given in 1969 would mean that (at that time) all Sindarin verbs form the (inflected) future tense with -atha, thus madathon? Hopefully some Sindarinists will share their opinions once they receive their issues.  Edit: See next post; seems like madatha after all.

I can share examples and derivations, but I would imagine the paragraphs providing context are necessary as well. Anyway, here's an infodump on the future tense (excluding what's said about Qenya, Quenya, and some general CE statements). +Александр Запрягаев, you might be interested in this:

In the 1940s we have "All the Eldarin languages express a simple future inflexionally, but the inflexions and patterns are different. [... stuff about the later forms of the languages abandoning/substituting older patterns for derivations of differing origin/meaning to become the "normal pattern"]
"In Old Noldorin the future was usually expressed by adding - thā to the aorist stem: matithā - 'will eat'." [defining adverb, pronominal stem √THA]
"In Telerin a suffix - is added to the base (or the aorist)."

The next paradigms/essays (later 1940s, sometimes after 1948) are fascinating but don't have material relevant to T/N/S future tense.

The one in 1950 (with some later revisions of "Noldorin" to "Sindarin") echoes earlier remarks about all Eldarin languages expressing ("or in their older periods expressed") the future tense inflexionally, but from different inflexions/patterns. It has "primitive Sindarin" having two options: one from adding thā (OS thō) to the aorist stem (i.e. matithāni) and another adding ubā to the verbal stem (i.e. matubāni), with different nuances. (When changing from "ON" to "OS", Tolkien revised earlier matithōne and matubōne). In this,  thā is again adverbial "then, next" meaning "forward" when referring to time (now from pronominal the/tha).
1950's also has Telerin forming the future with a suffix usually added to the bare base (exceptions noted), with etymology given and an example matrōni. They note √TALAT disyllabic forms in the future are formed like: OS taltathō-, Tel taltarō-.

However, the documents from 1969 have quite different statements and contradict / muck up the earlier ones nicely (I'm not speaking specifically about the future tense). In Quenya and Sindarin tense conjugations of a verb from √KJAW "taste, select, choose", we see S kjawathāni > cawathon > (? cauthon). Edit: Alongside tyave, tyavin and caw, cewin (and the other tenses) - so no more aorist + tha in 1969, it seems.

In discussions of "will, shall, and the future" a Sind. weak verb níða- is given, "applied to exertions of strong will in major purposes (am determined to do). The older strong verb niðin, pa.t. eniðen was weaker, and sometimes became no stronger than 'will' in E[nglish] (when that is used [to] imply the wish or intention of the subject): I will do it, I mean to do it, & so could operate sometimes almost as a future auxiliary: niðin mened, I have a mind to go, I intend to go."

As for the future conjugation -tha, it is here from the "'mono-consonantal reversible' þĀ̆/þA" related to helpful, willing to assist, agree, consent - and of course this gives another athelas etymology (though he ended up revising that). This notes Quenya and Telerin verbal and interjectional forms of the root, with nuances relating to agreeing/consenting/"I will", i.e. the opposite of refusal forms.

Anyway, the specifics for Sindarin:
"in S. the verb aþa, atha had become agglutinated to the verb stem, and formed a kind of 'future', expressing the intention of the subject, closely resembling in sense and uses English will (when not mere future_: I will (I'll) go, he will (he'll) go, espec. in the 1st and 3rd persons. [blah blah 2nd person stuff] [...] linnathon 'I will sing, I intend to sing'. This was a fairly late development, as is shown by the fact that aþa, aþon etc. could still be used with ellipse of the verb stem, as e.g. in linnathol? will you sing (please), answer aþon, I will. Apart from this aþon "yes, I will" (or in plur. athof, athab) the verb atha- was no longer 'free.' [Telerin aþa- stuff]

This notes that the Telerin future was not formed with a derivative of ubā as in Quenya, going on (between an original statement and a revised) about forms with the pres.cont or aorist used in conjunction with other temporal words. is no longer mentioned, and Tolkien doesn't complete a sentence starting "Where a need to express the future ..."

As for Sindarin: "S. had no pure future tense, but used the verbal √TUL as an auxiliary of the future (unrelated to personal wish or intention): see below.

[...] S. lost the stem UB altogether, and used √TUL, come, approach, for both coming in space and in time. The 'future simple' was expressed by using √TUL as an auxiliary, as in tolen cared 'I am coming, drawing near to eating, I am going to eat/shall eat'."

Gilson notes that "Tolkien deleted m before cared, presumably a false start on the Sindarin infinitive 'to eat', and in haste he used "eat" in the English glosses, which should be 'I am coming, drawing near to doing, I am going to do/shall do'."

... and that's all PE22 says on Noldorin, Sindarin, and Telerin future tenses (though I've somewhat abridged the content and omitted all the Quenya), unless I've missed anything else.

Александр Запрягаев Jun 24, 2015 (09:54)

+Matt Dinse I won't be able to join the discussion with the complete text for quite a while, so I'll comment from the abridged one. Well, we asked for it. We wanted overabundance — and got it overcontradictorily. Still, I see no really unexpected ideas in pre-1969 resourses — even the 'helping' idea of David Salo confirms itself (but funnily almost all existing Telerin compositions are invalid!). After that it becomes really strange. Did Tolkien suddenly forget he has attested linnathon (like he forgot ú-chebin when banishing û)? Should we now enrage Carl Hostetter and just choose one of the ideas we feel most fitting to our normal concepts? (I still don't believe that single-standing atha points to *tolatha etc.)
Shall we abandon all the 'problem-of-Ros' ideas as made without a clear reference and remembrance of published corpus in mind? For we quite definitely have an i-form in the 50s: ai di gerir úgerth, carefully written instead of a crossed out mistaken *garer!

Matt Dinse Jun 24, 2015 (14:45)

+Александр Запрягаев, I noticed I missed a few examples from the 1950 paradigms mentioning how to conjugate √TALAT disyllabic forms in the future: OS  taltathō-, Tel taltarō-.

At any rate, I was wrong and will have to amend my earlier post: we do have an example of -atha, staring me in the face, which I realized after brainstorming for a few hours while failing to fall asleep. cawathon, which I mention_, is a verb that uses i in the aorist conjugations given (kjawi, kjawini > tyave, tyavin and caw, cewin) and yet we still see cawathon, not cewithon. So I think -atha (instead of -tha attached to aorist) regardless is now "the thing" in 1969, i.e. madathon, madathof, madathab instead of early 50s medithon, meditham(ir), medithach(ir) (-of and -ab from √ME and √QE show up, as well as -ol and not -oð).

Tolkien doesn't seem to have forgotten linnathon - he mentions it in his 1969 notes, and seems to have worked around it to create a new system while still keeping linnathon valid. Before in the 40s and early 50s, Nold/Sind seems to have future forms (of differing nuance) with medithon and madovon (my reconstructions from the given CE), where tha is added to the aorist. This newer 1969 concept still explains linnathon, except removing the uba forms and rearranging the meanings/nuances to include nidh- + gerund, tol- + gerund, and the atha forms. I wonder if the nidh and tol forms could be used to make future pasts "was going to", since we get stuff like that (and past continuative, etc.) in the Q(u)enya forms. E.g. udulen cared "I was going to do"?

PE22's 1969 section has a good amount of the stuff we've seen quoted or alluded to elsewhere (future tense, negation, √SAB/savin, KWI/KE, etc) but in full. Included in one of the negation sections mentions úchebin: the "Negation in Quenya" article in VT42 quotes some of the fuller treatments in PE22.

However, while I defend JRRT from the claim of forgetting, instead thinking he was going along to the changes in his lámatyáve, we do come across statements like (1969) "No √ bases appear to have been devised for 'can, may' etc." where he then details a bunch of new verbs/roots completely unrelated to his can/may forms from 1959-60 (VT42), or those from the 40s and 1950 earlier in PE22. "No bases appear to have been devised" is a bit different than his statement (1969) that it was difficult to find a "suitable" base for 'have/own/possess' ( harya or sam- or whatnot weren't going to cut it, I guess).

Anyway, back on topic regarding i-forms: we do indeed have lots of forms with car- having aorist ceri-, including in 1962 (PE17:132). However, that has A as a base vowel. Our sole (confusing) 1969 example tolen is from root vowel U. We do know that Tolkien (Wanderings of Húrin - later 1950s?) considered changing present tôl to tûl, though in PE17:166 we have tôl (c. 1959, p. 46). Maybe (and I'm no Sindarin specialist, which is why I'm hoping for some outside opinions) Tolkien considered changing how Sindarin verbs with U as their root-vowel conjugated in the present tense (and only U vowel ones)?

If that was the case, we might have câr, cerin and tolen. I'm not sure if tolen would pair with tôl or tûl in that scenario. As for the derivation, it reminds me of tulina ... but why would the first person be formed with tulina and not tulini? I'd almost consider the possibility of an aorist participle like S maden, but that doesn't express the first person, and the text says nothing about putting a participle in front of the gerund. Ugh. At any rate, I'm not convinced this tolen paradigm affects anything other than U-stem verbs, but would like to hear the opinions of those more knowledgeable in Sindarin than I am. Certainly the actual derivation of it confuses me.

Александр Запрягаев Jun 24, 2015 (16:58)

+Matt Dinse tolen vs. nídhin is most peculiar. But what stumbles me even more is the mysterious strong past enídhen. Not only it does not employ the n-infixion totally expected in the 50s pattern (cf. the behaviour of final stops in PE17), but totally dismantles the idea of the reduplicated sundóma as an augment (what shall we make of agoren now?)! Does Tolkien cite the derivation of nídha (though I cannot think of a scenario where an original e is ablauted in a verbal stem) or explain the prefixation at all?

Matt Dinse Jun 24, 2015 (17:56)

+Александр Запрягаев eep, you're right! I completely overlooked the augment in eniðen. These are from √NID- "force. press(ure), thrust". As an amateur, I would have expected iníðen, though as for n-infixion, we only have it attested in PE17 for final unvoiced stops, but nothing for voiced. We do have Old Noldorin nīde in the 1930s (VT46:4, different meaning) alongside n-infixion patterns for roots ending in -D.

However, there's a typo in my post, and some carried over into yours: the weak verb is níða with long i, and the strong ones are niðin and eniðen with short i. Edit Fix one typo, create another. I accidentally wrote eniðin in this post before noticing it.

Anyway, I don't think agoren is in any danger. The 1969 √KJAW- derivation (152) has this for the Sindarin past tense: akjāwē-n (kjau̯nē > cawn) agauwen > agowen.

Александр Запрягаев Jun 24, 2015 (19:06)

+Matt Dinse My/our accepted normal patterns would expect an n-infixed past of ininnin, inind < i-ninde-ni < i-nid-nē-nyē. But as we see from sav- example, Tolkien has recently provided us with more and more sudden strengthenings for expected infixions; I wonder if any infixion rules are still valid beyond the voiced stops b, d, g (echant!). For we definitely have in the Etymologies, gwedhi > gwend (ewend rather in mature Sindarin). Still, we have only four DH-verbs (I'm compiling a lost of every single attested verb with conjugation), and nothing is demonstrated on peculiarities of nedhi, bedhi, and gledhi (Thorsten actually thinks after the attested example that all DH-verbs preferred ananalogical -ant-past tense, hence gwedhant, nedhant, bedhant, gledhant; it's reasonable but even further from 1969 text, which rather points to the pattern of sogo/melo by making a verb mimic a derived structure by appending a fictive "-a" except the present tense!).

Matt Dinse Jun 24, 2015 (22:08)

+Александр Запрягаев Regarding sogo/melo and appending "-a", there is some material like that in PE22, talking about "a frequent addition to the base of verbs of inherently durative or static sense" but by no means present in all the static/durative [examples with "grow (of plants) / hunt, pursue / look out for, watch for, await / become, come into being, turn into (another state) / love / love, be devoted to], or earlier "several verbs with an inherently continuative sense [roots for 'grow / hunt, pursue / look out for, expect, wait for' as examples] did not anciently form true aorists but were inflected from an infinitive base [... with -ā_]". Or is that not what you meant? níða as a weak derived verb may be similar to síla, aníra etc.
At any rate, the "1969 text" is actually 14 of them (21 pages in this format) all from around 1969, presented in their order of composition as far as the ET could determine.

I've actually been debating whether certain 40s and 50s material explain e and aen in the King's Letter (and I had thought I figured out epholar using ep- and a new root for maybe 5 seconds until I realized that doesn't make sense at all), but I'm not sure if you think it a good idea to save this thread for Sindarin tense discussion and split off other noteworthy PE22 stuff elsewhere?

Anyway, I have a bit of a question. Looking at the derivation for caw-'s past tense, do you think that agowen is 1st person and cawn 3rd? They're formed two different ways: one with lengthening and prefixing the sundóma, and the other by suffixing -. Because of this, we have cawn, agowen and not agow (agaw?), agowen or cawn, caunen. I'm not sure why there's a difference, and we don't see one in agor, agorech, agorer.

Александр Запрягаев Jun 25, 2015 (21:58)

+Matt Dinse As we understood before, there is a wide class of verbs (originally derived, as Quenya comparison shows), which append a fictive affix -a and start conjugating as derived ones, hence sogo, sogant, sogannen, except in present tense: segin, melin. I believe Tolkien here write generally about the same ideas, though the particular list may be different. In Noldorin the reasons seemed to be phonological, with ER and EL verbs affected mostly. I do not deny the existence of an affix -a; aníra etc. are ordinary derived verbs, and only in present show differences (or possibly not).
I believe Sindarin originally possessed a n-appended weak past for all strong verbs, which was either metathesized or changed to sundóma strengthening; so cónen; caun may still be a valid alternate (poetic?!) form for later agowen; agauw. Such as tirn is valid alongside an analogical tiriant, and expected idír (edír now?!) is not found at all. (Actually, past participles may derive from these by appending -ina: tirn-en, holn-en > hollen etc.)
I propose to move into a separate discussion thread (though I'll still be dependent on the abridged text); I wonder does PE22 claim anything about n-infixed past tenses at all? Are they still valid?

Matt Dinse Jun 27, 2015 (03:06)

(Please ignore the strikethrough effect in part of this post; I have been editing it and editing it, and for the life of me I cannot get Google+ to allow me to consistently use hyphens for purposes other than strikethrough. Sometimes it's safe, and at other times paragraphs will be stricken through. I edit to add and remove some hyphens, and then other parts are affected. I can't seem to fix it.)

+Александр Запрягаев, I see. Do we actually have the present tenses of those with in attested? (I think garant, gerin might do, though they are from different versions of the root and not the same entry). Presumably the Noldorin infinitives with -o are all from óbe. I remember there had been some disagreement and some people used melon, others melin (though I was in the latter camp, though I can no longer remember why).

You've actually touched on a topic I've been curious for a while now: why some think tirn is valid in Sindarin. idir is never attested: but tirn isn't either. Looking at Carl Hostetter's article on the past tense in Etymologies Noldorin, all basic verbs ending in root L or R form their past tense with either vowel lengthening, A-infixion-, (archaic) suffixing sundóma + -nte to the root, or suffixing -ant: haul, † daul, † trenor (trenerant), † narante, garant, melant, † oronte (erias) pp. dolen. As far as I recall, back in the day there seemed to be two prevailing opinions on the Sindarin past tense. David Salo and Helge Fauskanger championed the forms like toll, holl, anirne, garn etc., which made it onto Ardalambion and the LotR films. After PE17, Salo uses udul in the Hobbit films instead of toll.  Fauskanger has updated a small part of his article to indicate that, while he still uses toll, tirn, norn etc., the mention of agor in Q&E may suggest a revision of the conjugation. He seems to think this would imply usage for all strong verbs, including those ending in voiceless stops, so: ebid, idir, onur, avod, ohug etc. No mention is made of the still-attested echant, or that onur (among his hypotheticals) is attested, or other forms in PE17, so this revision could have been made before PE17's release (most of the articles are pre-PE17, save for wordlists, translations, and parts of the lessons).

At any rate, sites like the Council of Elrond's course use Ardalambion as Word of God, and therefore have norn, toll etc. alongside istant, mudant, eriant, though CoE plans to eventually incorporate the as forms into their lessons. SindarinLessons cites a few of the past tense forms in PE17, calling them completely irregular, so that verbs not in that small list still conjugate as in the Etymologies (thus gall is said to be the past tense for gala, danc for dag-, norn for nor-, and A-infixion with thaur from thora-). I'm not sure why some PE17 forms are cherry-picked as an irregular verb class, and others are omitted (the attested aul, onur, aðanc for example are never mentioned), or why some verbs keep their Etymologies conjugations over later Sindarin patterns. I should just write out my own theories/paradigms instead of finding parts of other people's courses that I disagree with, but as we've seen in this thread with me failing to notice eniðen being unexpected, it looks like I need more studying and dialogue before I'll reach that capability. I should, however, get back on topic.

Still off topic (heh): I wonder if the S. noun leithian has the same ending as Q turyande, mittande (-ndē, -nde is mentioned in PE22). Also, my copy of Etym. has sogennen, though Fauskanger seems to think this an error for sogannen.

At least in Etym., the past participles do seem to be formed from the past tense in prestannen and thoren (*tháurēnā). Presumably the past tense was formed, and -nā was added to that. Instead of dolen from dulina, we get dáulē-nā, and prestantē-nā, I suppose, which goes along with the alternating forms in Q(u)enya either from -ina or na (like nahtana) added to the base. We do however see tirnen with tiri, tirio (pa.t. tiriant), though, which instead shows the (later) expected -n-ina: unless in the 1930s it's formed from attaching -nā to the ON pa.t. (regardless of the more recent N pa.t.) like †_narne_, so unattested †_tirne_ > tirnēnā > tirnen. Given thoren and prestannen, I'm more inclined to believe the latter. However, that doesn't really explain why we have thoren from a strong pa.t. and tirnen from a weak one?

However, in Sindarin this participle is not formed from the past tense, but from -n-ina. N infixion is associated with the past tense (suffixing -nē as well as forms like -n-ē i.e. kwat, kwa-n-tē), and in this case Tolkien writes: "gp. -n-ĭna. mantinā > manthen, mannen. old aorist without n. matina > maden." (PE17:131) Carl Hostetter talks about this in Lambengolmor 1020, noting:

"The abbreviation "gp." that Tolkien places at the start of this figure is of unclear significance. "p" is probably for "participle"; might "g" be for "general", referring to the original aorist basis of the formation? Cf. Tolkien's reference to "the general (aorist) 'infinitive' formed by added i" (VT41:17), and to "advice in general 'aorist' terms" (VT42:34). If this is the case, it may even be that the "past participle" in Sindarin has (or originally had) no formal or felt association with past time at all, but instead denoted a general state. In this connection, note that the Quenya participial, i.e., verbal adjective, ending -ina, clearly cognate with the ending *-ina seen both in -n-ina and in the "old aorist" participial form matina here, is likewise said to be "aorist" (PE17:68) - but is nonetheless seen in forms whose English gloss uses a past participle, e.g. hastaina 'marred' < *hasta- 'mar' (X:254)."

Though I had forgotten about it until this point, I notice that back in 2008 (whew) I had suggested that perhaps "gp." stands for "general passive" (with participle implied, as with "old aorist" which doesn't mention it), noting: "this goes along with -ina being called the "general 'passive' participle" in a 1940s text on Quenya verbs (VT43:15) {now found in PE22} [...] This would correspond with Hostetter's idea of those participles being more timeless than simply for things in the past."

At any rate, I'm not sure if I still believe that, and I'm still quite rusty in regards to Eldarin (especially familiarity and retention with all the relevant documents), since I stepped away from everything Tolkienian for several years, and after coming back I haven't carefully/slowly reread and analyzed all the HoME/VT/PE enough so that they're stuck in my head. However, it doesn't seem clear anymore that hollen, tirnen are "past" participles, and not necessarily formed from the past tense like they were in 30s Noldorin. Even if "gp." means "general participle" (it could very well be), hollen could still be timeless, hence maden is the old aorist (and mannen the modern one). I think (for Sindarin, not Noldorin) we have pp. (including deleted forms) dangen, hollen, tirnen, onnen, remmen, govannen, covannen, gwanu/gwawn, gwanwen, tafnen, as well as the various dancen/dachen, and manthen/mannen/maden above. Late 40s uidavnen and fornen may also qualify. Are you aware of any other Sindarin past/passive participles?

However, let's go to what PE22 says on CE pa.t. and past and passive participles (I'll skip over active participles, perfect and imperfect participles, future participles, past imperfect tense, consuetudinal, past future, past future perfect, etc. and things not related to (i)na for this one thread or this will get even longer) as well as what I've already mentioned:

P.81 (1940s) comments on Tolkien wavering on whether -nē and n-infixion were related, or whether they were "ultimately distinct" but "already closely related in Common Eldarin".

P. 92 has something possibly related to ON óbe, -óbi, noting a distinction between the bare infinitive in CE and "a noun with a suffix comparable to [E] ing (i.e. gerund?): "[iyē, -bē, biyē, mē, miyē were among the commonest]." (compare náve, cuive, síve infinitives in PE17?) The 1950 version of that statement is p.129. óbe could also be related to the original version of part of 116 noting that -verbs with inherently continuative sense formed their Q infinitives with vḗ instead of iyē, i.e. faráve, aláve, hopáve. He also considers that for causatives on 117, though at any rate both were revised to áre.

P.95 notes that in Eldarin, the present tense was formed "in various ways. One feature was lengthening or fortification of the base: so māt-ā; tūlā or taulā": so A-infixion to form the past tense in 30s Noldorin was probably by then no longer valid for 40s Noldorin? We continue to see A-infixion as an option for pres.cont. in the 1950 document, though in PE17:99 Tolkien decides to eliminate that as part of conjugation, on a sheet gathered together with NGS (based on pre-1965 1st edition text).

P.96 notes on CE past tense formed by either suffixing -nē (mbarnē, ambarnē, "_nasalising_ the aorist (in which case the augment was usual): as manti, amanti 'ate'," or blending those (mantē, ambarni). However, "In Quenya 'past' or 'aorist past' was augmentless, and very commonly nasal-infixion or suffix -nḗ".

The next conceptions, in late 40s (1948+, and before the next conceptions in the 1950 document):

P.100: "The passive participles are hardly part of normal "conjugation." Owing to the "passive" nature of Eldarin verbal inflexion they are seldom required syntactically except as attributive adjectives." However, I wonder if this changed once he moved away from the subject pronoun being prefixed and the object one suffixed.

107: "The [Quenya] passive equivalent is ĭna. [...] karĭna, made, matina, "eaten"; istāna, known. NB. the inflexion is _ ĭna_ in which the [i] is independent of the [-i] used as aorist stem. [...] The suffix is -ina which after ā produces aina as ortaina, raised" and he talks about adjectival with - or -n-ā when "used with a past passive significance", as well as causatives and diff. between ortana and ortaina (similar to how we see forms throughout the different documents detailing the different classes of verbs, affecting whether—for instance—the Q future tense was formed with áva, uva, úva, or auva, the participles seem to operate under a class-based system as well).

110: "The verbal adjectives, not used participially: i.e. not capable of taking direct object, and not used in the compound expression of verbal notions, were numerous. Here strictly belong all the passive 'participles', which are not properly participles [...]"

111: "The general "passive" participle showed the suffix inā́: (cf. those associated with tenses): so karina 'made.' This form being outside conjugation usually neglects the base-additions: farina 'fugitive,' hunted: as in farino 'a hunted man, outlaw, fugitive.' " and then he goes on about isolated forms in nā́ and -n-ā.

115 goes on about passive imperfect participles, having istanta (revised to istaina, then revised to nahtaina 'being killed' and sulpaina), which are compared to 114's aorist-present passive participles istina, nahtina, sulpina, palkina.

This is getting long; I should probably start being more selective about what I quote. Now moving on to the 1950 document. This document now has subject pronouns suffixed instead of prefixed. We continue to see present/continuous in Eldarin with lengthening/fortification (mātā, tūlā/taulā) and the kind of verbs which make a durative present in ā̆, e.g. CE melā, galā, is-tā, that do not have an i-aorist. Stuff with amanti/ambarnē/manti/mbarnē still applies in CE (130-1). We continue to see stuff about some verbs "employing a vocalic suffix ( or u) after the base, either in the 'present' stem or throughout their conjugation" and how those changed the verbs' meanings/nuances (133).

136 talks about -nā, -nwā "usually hav[ing] an implication of past or complete process. They were thus used specially to form passive participles; though the fact that they could be applied anciently to intransitive stems shows that [they] were not in origin specifically passive. So kalinā, bright. nā was anciently added to the bare stem, or to the aorist stem (whence came the very frequent ending inā)." [...]

Moving onto the 14 different contemporary documents all from 1969. We still see mention of a verbs with a instead of i in the aorist, however 148 shows ista having a "long[?]" conjugation as well as short forms isin, isit, ise/is (and so on). A verb from √MAGA with aorist forms in mai is said to have participles maita, manna but all this stuff on √MAGA and ista were later deleted (148).

152 has aorist passive karina for kar-, "also used with intransitives" e.g. kwal-, qualina. In the next document (154-6) we start to see mentions of passive ima in contrast to the active forms, but all the sections about the ima suffix are about possibility, capability, permissibility, and property-possession with variances in nuance depending on stem vowel length as well as whether attached to transitive or intransitive verbs. There's no mention of forms in ina or na in this text, though the next one has a few with _-ina, -na _.

In a later document Tolkien suggests (157) that a Quenya past continuous (mātante, istante, oryante, ortante) could help explain the wide[?] use of -ant as past in Sindarin, though he ended up deciding to change that to the same way he conjugated past cont. decades ago, which wouldn't help explain -ant.

I don't think there is anything relevant to participles or the Sindarin pa.t. and gp. we're discussing (that I haven't already mentioned) after this (the last page is 168).

Well, that's what PE22 has on participles related to -ina. As  you can see, it's not very helpful in relation to tirnen and the like, or whether there were OS forms like † norne to go along with onur, outside of general statements on Common Eldarin pa.t. formation as well as the more Quenya-specific parts (which accounts for a large portion of it). Hopefully I didn't miss anything. Maybe others will receive and read through their copies soon; I saw on FB that someone in England has now received his. Coming from the west coast of the US, mine arrived on the east coast on the 22nd, and it's touching down on England now - so perhaps the PEs will start to arrive in continental Europe in the upcoming week or two? I'm not sure how fast/slow international shipping from the US to Europe can be. Sorry for the long and meandering post! I've been working on it yesterday and today.

I really wish I could figure out a consistent way to be able to use hyphens in posts without them forcing the strikethrough effect. Sometimes it happens, sometimes not; I've had to edit my quotations for the ones affected.

Александр Запрягаев Jun 27, 2015 (11:28)

+Matt Dinse Wow, sir, I never expected such lengthy quotations! I have only looked them through yet, without going into details, but I believe there are actually not much surprises for Sindarin scholars in the treatment of the (passive) participle. The reason for us' sticking to the Etymologies conjugations is quite simple: we very much desire to use attested forms! Oh, how easier would it be in the light of the QE treatment of LED-stem to just banish anglenno, neledhi and -edledhio! But we'd rather invent a complicated theory to retain them and mark it as 'Pengolodh, personal communication'! Indeed we are getting much and much more newer forms now; I often stick to Thorsten's files, but find them sometimes indecisive and contradictory, such as ignoring the elision of h in the s-stems under augment and proposing queer rules of making participles (tíren? hulen?). The point with tiri is that tirn is not attested. Tirnen is; versus pt. tiriant. We had no reason to believe n in n-ina to be something else but an ancient past non-infixed marker!

Normal delivery speed is 30 to 40 days; but my reasons for not receiving it yet are rather 1) my long-term absence from home until September; and 2) very unfavourable USD exchange rates, which may postpone my order quite indefinitely yet… Having a tentative promise of a friend to scan his own copy when he gets it, I get into waiting for a while…

Roman Rausch Jul 12, 2015 (17:17)

Back on the topic of the Sindarin future:

According to PE22:167-168, the -tha form is actually no future tense at all, but rather a volitive mood. Since what one wishes for would naturally happen in the future, mood and tense are a bit difficult to disentangle in this case. When the Portuguese landed in Japan and started to write a first grammar of Japanese, they actually treated the form (also a volitional one) as the future tense, influenced by Latin.

Neo-Sindarin has used *telin for quite some time now, but note that the historical form ought to be *tylin, so that *telin requires analogical levelling.
A possible explanation for tolen could be that it's actually a present progressive rather than aorist, *tula-in(i), > *tolaen > tolen, either with the same stative as CE melā, galā_ or from ordinary tūlā; and the ending as in gwaen < *wa-in(i).
A participle *tulina also comes to mind, especially after having read how participles become inflections in the Quenya part, but then the 1st person suffix is obviously missing.
Finally, it might just be another conception where the 1st person sg. ending is always -en instead of -in, but this would be very odd considering nidhin appears just a few lines above.

Александр Запрягаев Jul 12, 2015 (18:21)

+Roman Rausch Having scanned through the relevant late materials, I have found quite a corpus for both variants even in the same texts: nidhin 'I intend', cewin 'I choose', dewin 'I fail', sevin 'I own' vs. tolen 'I come' and gwaen 'I go'. The proposed idea of progressivity (or perfectiveness) is promising due to comparing with the past (which in late materials, as far as I know, never found with -in later than Noldorin); but sevin and gwaen are hard to explain then. Strangely, the verbs which use -in in the present are those which are (at least conceivably) transitive while -en ones are not. I guess I'll be satisfied with this idea for a while; the pattern could be different or even out of pure lamatyávër for particular verbs. At least, the final consonants are not in accordance with the seen scheme for past tense formations (n-infixion is seen now only after T, P, K and suddenly in gwa, as it seems!), and then it is strange, if the pattern's phonological, not to find *ewin < AW for 'I go' beside known dewin.