here's another one hehehehehe

Change Arad->Aur. And toled is a gerund, you need an active participle here, and it must come after "aur" and be lenited."i-aur dolel"

*dathon: where does this come from?

tangant? "prepared"?

OK, I've remembered dathon: it's presumably from inn ða v'im in PE22; but in that case it should rather be *ðathon shouldn't it? Provided that we accept it's indeed the copula.

Where on earth do you get the copula from existential 'there'?

+Jenna Carpenter
by wishful thinking? :)

dathon came from (na-) v. to be ( na + nathon = na dathon )( for I will be) heheheheheheh

In that case I think you're a wee bit confused about how soft mutation works, it doesn't change an N to a D like that

+Jenna Carpenter
that question is interesting one, though. Is there necessarily a difference between the existential 'to be' and the copula? There certainly isn't in my language- can we be sure that the 'there is' in the cited sentence isn't just how it is rendered in English, but Sindarin there would be no difference at all?

Inn dha v'im is glossed 'there is a mind in me', i.e. that dha = existential 'there is', separating it from locative ennas = there. That we use the same word in English for both concepts is by the by (and from experience with students, oft confusing!), it's clear that Sindarin separates the two. There's no copula in use at all, the grammar simply isn't the same; it's not the same as breaking it down like English into its constituent parts and saying AdvP [Adv] [Verb], it's just [Adv]. The adage of 'is/are are usually implied in Sindarin' can be applied here.

As people seem to love quoting Welsh (do you all really speak Welsh? the mind boggles) due to the relationship between the two languages, Welsh also uses more than one word for 'there' depending on the context of the sentence.

+Jenna Carpenter
I don't speak Welsh, I hope I have not given that impression anywhere:) You say that dha = there is, while ennas = there, but that was not my point at all, I say that dha could mean simply "is", as in 'a mind is in me', which is then rendered into proper English as 'there is...'

In the earlier version inn no v'im (PE 22:165 n 108) no can hardly be anything else than the copula 'is' (= Q ná). This strongly supports the interpretation 'a mind is in me'.

Indeed, but that was crossed out, indicating he discounted it. He clearly hadn't forgotten about No (presumed Na-), he chose to use something else, which in my opinion is replacing the verb 'to be' with existential there. (Particularly as the note says 'There is'). That's my opinion anyway, I won't be teaching Dha- as a new verb 'to be'.
I'd better make students aware though so if they come across constructions like Dhathon they can tell what it's meant to be.

"in/on the coming day" = erin aur dolol in light of SD:129 and PE17:170 (rhu-garol).