Tolkien Forums

The Quenya section is good for the most part, but he (Helge) fails to mention a couple things:

1) Word order when using "to be". This is not as it appears in English; JRRT wrote that XXX na is "is XXX", but na XXX is "be (command) XXX"!

2) The possibility of verbs other than _lav-_, _anta-_, _um-_, etc. using vowel lengthening to form the past tense (we have both _káre_ and _karne_ attested for _kar-_, in independent sources... _karne_ appears once in the 1930s, but _káre_ appears both before and after that. The two may be able to coexist. But _túle_ and only that, not _*tulle_ from -ne is attested for _tul-_), though we see _wille_ for _wil-_ and not _wíle_. There's also _lúve_ from _lumna-_, though _merne_, _turne_, _tirne_, in the 30s. It seems JRRT kept changing his mind about how to pa.t. basic verbs ending in -r. However, Helge added in transitive vs. intransitive for the pa.t., i.e. _ulle_ vs. _ulyane_, which is good.

3) How some nouns ending in -e pluralize in -er, e.g. _tyeller_, _ingwer_, and gen. pl. with -e can be -eron as well as -ion. He mentions in the Q course that this may be a Vanyarin dialectal thing, though that's debatable; the Noldor were the ones who liked to pluralize in -r rather than -i.

4) The order of cases and pronominal suffixes, i.e. -sserya vs. -ryasse; different cases have different orders attested.

5) Other "special" or "irregular" (though JRRT called them regular, which means we don't know enough about them yet as to why they're regular, but there must be some sort of class) verbs in the past tense, like _kaine_ and _keante_ for _kaita-_, _sinte_ and _isinte_ for _ista-_, _farne_ AND _farinye_ for _farya-_, etc.

BUT if you use Parma Tyelpelassiva's articles as supplements for those very issues (well, 1 & 2 & 5) together with Ardalambion, it works out. Ardalambion can be a very good source — just don't use ONLY Ardalambion, as it leaves out some important stuff. And it's better to crossreference sources anyway.

-- Edited by Tyrhael at 19:55, 2007-03-06

For Parma Tyelpelassiva, see this link: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~trenk/elvish/

Not even Tolkien could speak one of his Elvish languages fluently. He once said in a TV interview: 'I should'nt want to sit around talking Elvish to chaps.. you can't anyway, because it's too complicated. I never finished it'. Tolkien in Oxford BBC 1968.

But that's a brief statement regarding a complicated matter.

http://www.elvish.org

I recommend this site and especialy the FAQ, as well as the linked article 'Elvish as She Is Spoke' for a good look at the issue, as well as what Mr. Hostetter has characterized 'the artificial, simplified, patch-work systems' (found on the web).

But I suggest reading the whole FAQ, because that quote, in context, is not as negative as it sounds here.

Galin

-- Edited by Galin at 17:31, 2007-03-12

Of course I paid for Carl's article just before he posted it on ELF...

But I got plenty of other good articles in any case...


Anyway, Mr. Hostetter has indeed tried his hand at writing Neo-elvish, and I would guess he isn't trying to discourage anyone from doing so -- he's just pointing out what one really is doing when doing so. And I would agree that there is simply not enough distinction on the web as to the sources being used, and especially not enough distinction as to unattested Neo-elvish versus actual Elvish.

I dabble in name-making at times, or the occasional short 'translation' attempt. It takes very little effort to distinguish my 'fan-elvish' (*) and something Tolkien wrote at some point in his life. *Orodnor is my construction for example, despite that all I'm doing is using Tolkien's Orodruin and Faenor and making a 'new' name (I think) with a supposed meaning in Elvish. But yet I use an asterisk (not to be confused with Tolkien's own 'hypothetical' forms however). Is it Elvish? Is it 'good' Elvish? Does it take into account what might happen in Sindarin compounds?

Maybe; but if so it isn't Tolkien's Elvish in any case (even if he would 'agree' with it as representing good Grey-elven), and I mark it so -- not that Tyrhael or anyone here doesn't make something clear -- but compared to what goes on on the web in general and often enough (in my opinion) including quoting from sites that don't even intend to represent Tolkien's Elvish, there's simply not enough distinction out there to my mind. And the amount of 'translation' one finds at various websites, sometimes of long and difficult English examples (or whatever language), really tends to give the impression that learning Quenya is like learning Italian or even Latin... but it is not so.

I'm not trying to discourage Neo-Elvish of course, and I think looking into Tolkien's invented languages is very rewarding and fun. Neo-elvish is one expression that some love it seems, just like fan-fiction; nothing wrong with it of course, as I said, I enjoy a bit of a 'dip' too, with the occasional name. But it is what it is, and I think Carl Hostetter is just setting the record straight before one 'dives in' to (trying to) write in Quenya or Sindarin. 

Just a little rant

And if one is asked quite often for a translation, it's probably a bit annoying to try and keep adding Neo- or whatever. I certainly understand that.

I makes it easier when one (like me) only tries a 'Neo-name' every now and again

I certainly don't direct this at Tyrhael (even if you don't always add Neo- or something) or anyone here; it's more of a general thing I would like to see more of all over the web. 


-- Edited by Galin at 03:04, 2007-03-14

Thanks for that Tyrhael!

Hmmm, CoE, I don't actually read there...

...yet

Are you THE Carl Hostetter? If so it is a priveledge to have you here on TF.

[rant]

Galin et al,

I sometimes wonder how hard it would be to at least try to pick a point in the external chronology and try to shape the neo-Elvish to the known vocab and grammar of that time, i.e. say "this is an attempt at translating into 1930s Noldorin" rather than homogenizing and blending. Vocabulary, (reconstructed) pronominal suffixes ...

This came from looking at Hiswelóke's wordlist and wishing for context: For example, I might want to use a word for "shield". Both _amath_ and _thand_ come up. I see that the former comes from VT45, so I _assume_ it to be a later word published from new papers, and use it over _thand_. However, looking more carefully reveals that VT45 is comprised of additions and corrections to the Etymologies, making _amath_ a word in 1930s Noldorin! Though so many words in neo-S are taken from the Etymologies, anyway. But _thand_ comes from a piece in UT probably written around 1969, so that shifts up the preference list over _amath_, as it's written after LotR. Though being internally consistent with chronology is probably more important than keeping to later forms - the earlier forms aren't "drafts" but have their own beauty and importance too.

Regarding pronominal suffixes, I remember reading that there are charts and charts and charts of unpublished ones, which makes me think that perhaps Noldorin/Sindarin may indeed have changed its suffixes more than Quenya's "we" suffixes. That would be ironically fitting.

This makes it easy to understand perhaps (not that I'm saying I have any "insider information" ... that's an infamous phrase, there) why they haven't yet been published. Trying to publish things in the proper context and chronology _is_ a good idea (for reasons I'll state).

if VT was to publish one of these chart with, say, that the 2nd person infam. sg. and pl. in that chart were *-g and *-ch, then people might start saying they were THE official suffixes for "you", and start using them in _all_ their neo-Sindarin without realizing or caring that these suffixes were only one scheme in a constantly changing Elvish! No matter that some 2nd pers. suffixes might be, say, *-l and *-dh in late 60s or early 70s Sindarin, for example!

This makes me appreciate PE's sketches of Goldogrin and Qenya - I feel more confident with the grammars and vocabulary we have for those, and only wish people would ask for translations into those languages, lovely as they are, and disregard "canon". Not that they should be regarded as LotR-style Elvish (if that exists ... First Edition version or Second Edition version?), but at least we know more about the grammar and vocab for those and could probably represent them more faithfully - if we tried, that is. I know Roman and Thorsten have done poetry in Early Qenya and Goldogrin, and Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne translated Attolma into what looks like 1930s or 40s Qenya. If only that were a more popular trend.

Time to re-read EASIS and see what I pick up.

[end rant]

-- Edited by Tyrhael at 23:57, 2007-05-01

Tyrhael, are you sure you don't want to teach the Sindarin Course? Blushes and bows to the master of the quill.

As far as I am concerned anyone who can speak Elvish at all, regardless of any small mistakes deserves my admiration. I don't think anyone would find you pompous just becuase you offered to teach people Sindarin. What about Quenya?

I will look in on the thread often. I will try to take heed in whatever is taught there.

I won't get bored I'm quite looking forward to seeing how it's done. Will it be a thread?

Tyrhael, we are only gonna get a thread if we can find 6 people who want to take the class. It would be up to The One if we have 5 and he PMed me and said we would need 6 participants. Thank you for joining Glor. You will not be disappointed.

This course is self-paced. You send in the assigned homework to me. I PMed Galin to see if he is interested. as soon as I get an answer from him, we will start.