Could you please explain the neologisms?

+Ицхак Пензев
sure:
*loicen- v. 'mistake, mis-recongize'
*ap- v. 'cook' AP
*laimya adj. 'not the same, different, various' la + imya
*quíle n. 'colour' EQ qíle
*tercenima adj. lit. 'through-seeable, transparent'
*himbasáva n. 'sticky juice, resin'
*termarima adj. 'enduring'
*úrevarima adj. úre 'heat' + *varima 'able to protect' from varya-
*empanya- v. 'replace' en- 're, again' + panya- 'set, fix'

Very interesting! I had no idea they could do that with wood. I like your translation.

ap- in VT44:26 is "touch, concern"
"different" NQNT *alavéla
I like the translation, too.

+Ицхак Пензев
quite true. Perhaps *apta- is conceivable for 'cook'
*alavéla isn't that much different (pun intended) from *laimya, is it

Laimya dissatisfies me because of hiatus. And I don't want to invent neologisms, if there are some already.

+Ицхак Пензев

- we have laista attested in PE22:155 as an example of the prefix used with a hiatus
- I do not consider the use of a productive pre- or suffix as making a neologism; it's part of the normal conjugation

+Tamas Ferencz is it a true hiatus, or is there a diphthong ai in this word? We cannot prove.
And yes, I agree with you as concerns prefixes and disagree about suffixes.

+Ицхак Пензев
I don't follow your logic TBH, but maybe that's because I haven't had enough mornechui yet:)

I don't know if Hungarian works the same way, but in my observations Quenya (and Sindarin, to less extent) work like Russian as concerns affixation - that is, suffixes produce new words (=derivation) and are limited in their combinatory abilities, while prefixes (especially with movement verbs) function mostly as modifiers of meanings, attached to any verb or noun in a freeer manner.

+Ицхак Пензев
Hungarian is an agglutinating language - we have suffixes rather than cases, and as long as they follow the rules of affixation they can be freely used.
So are you saying, that, for instance, every time we use any of the main attested verbal adjectival suffixes given in PE22 - Vte, ima, Vstea etc. - with an attested Quenya verb and according to the rules, we are venturing into the murky waters of neologisms? Naturally, using suffixes like them will change the meaning - after all we are changing parts of speech - still this kind of derivation looks perfectly natural and acceptable to me.

+Tamas Ferencz you've understood me correctly. Maybe our peception is different because of different combinatory properties of suffixes in Russian and Hungarian.

+Ицхак Пензев
well strictly speaking any sort of prefixing or suffixing which produces an unattested form is neologism, isn't it, but it would really severely restrict our possibilities if we denied ourselves that.

+Tamas Ferencz we need a balanced approach, indeed. You are doing a good job, Tamas.

Let me put it this way: I regard formation of words out of attested roots using the attested formative suffixes/elements as creation of neologisms (which is not a n assessment of their legitimity [is that a word?]); on the other hand I regard formation of words out of attested stems using the attested suffixes as conjugation - especially if Tolkien himself lists them as being part of the conjugation system like he does in the several various iterations of QVS. Now, assigning a different/extended meaning to some of these conjugated forms, by extension, metaphor, or semantic shift (see my attempt at collecting verbal adjectival forms using the suffixes in QVS) is neologism - and again, this is not a judgement on their value.

It would be really good to see what otheris in this community think of this matter.

Because you asked the word is *legitimacy. I agree with your views on the creation of (and disagree with the term) neologisms with attested affixes and attested words/stems.

+Jim Coish
thanks. Nésse lambinganyasse.