+ܤܡܝ ܦܠܕܢܝܘܤ Is *lertha from C.E. LER, Q lerta? And how would it be used? I didn't understand tôr at all. I don't use na- other than as no "be!" as I a) have the impression that S is supposed to function without a lot of na-, b) I feel that if any verb would be irregular, it's na-, and we don't know much of this, so, I don't have a favourite infinitive, or any infinitive at all, of na-. Also, I'm not sure which work you are reffering to.
*tôr = present tense, third singular of !tor- = Gnomish tur- "can, be able" adapted as a Sindarin root verb.
As for the infinitive of na- : Taking Q návë as guide one would assume CE *nâbê > OS *nǭbe > S *naw "to be". But I imagine some might pick *nad or even *naud instead (the latter would arise from earlier *nâta-; also cf. galOD "to grow" in PE17).
As far as I can tell, the Sindarin verb "to be" is equatable to its Russian and Hebrew counterparts, in that it only appears as omitted in the present indicative tense phrases (Engl. "X is/are Y").
ܤܡܝ ܦܠܕܢܝܘܤ Apr 06, 2015 (01:24)
Hjalmar Holm Apr 06, 2015 (12:28)
ܤܡܝ ܦܠܕܢܝܘܤ Apr 06, 2015 (13:48)
[p. 150: http://www.jrrvf.com/~glaemscrafu/texts/cartedethror-a.htm ]
*tôr = present tense, third singular of !tor- = Gnomish tur- "can, be able" adapted as a Sindarin root verb.
As for the infinitive of na- : Taking Q návë as guide one would assume CE *nâbê > OS *nǭbe > S *naw "to be". But I imagine some might pick *nad or even *naud instead (the latter would arise from earlier *nâta-; also cf. galOD "to grow" in PE17).
As far as I can tell, the Sindarin verb "to be" is equatable to its Russian and Hebrew counterparts, in that it only appears as omitted in the present indicative tense phrases (Engl. "X is/are Y").
Hjalmar Holm Apr 13, 2015 (20:14)