Nyelvek és írások

Köszönöm Alcar!

Ejej, Amani, DD

Ragnarok:

users.static.freeblog.hu/a/l/c/a ... _Alcar.pdf

Ez a Quenya. A honlapomon böngészve találsz mást is.
Plusz valóban ott van a GYU függeléke.
Meg a fenti linkek (pirossal szedve).

Áúúúú... Amani...

Felagund írta: Egy elég jót ki lehet sakkozni a Gyűrűk Ura című mű Függelékéből

tünde abc = SPAR Rivendellben

Cerebrum írta: Végülis azt jutott eszembe, hogy lehet, hogy még addig örülhetünk, míg a sindarin nem kerül ilyen mértékben terítékre, hátha még abból a kevésből is csak elvesznek (ma pl. azt álmodtam, hogy az új VT érvénytelenítette a jelenleg ismert sindarin szavak felét ), és ami újat kapunk, attól a homályos részek csak még homályosabbak lesznek...

Jujjujj... meg alomnak is rossz... tessek nem keson vacsorazni es nem tul sokat
[/quote]

Egy elég jót ki lehet sakkozni a Gyűrűk Ura című mű Függelékéből

Üdv mindenkinek!
Új vagyok itt, úgyhogy nézzétek el nekem, ha netán már lett volna ilyen kérés, de egy tünde abc-re lenne szükségem Aki tud segíteni és van ilyenje azt kérem tegye meg, és küldje el a tequilaci@invitel.hu e-mail címre. Előre is köszönöm!

Felagund írta: Na, quenyások, most élvezkedhettek :tongue:

Végülis azt jutott eszembe, hogy lehet, hogy még addig örülhetünk, míg a sindarin nem kerül ilyen mértékben terítékre, hátha még abból a kevésből is csak elvesznek (ma pl. azt álmodtam, hogy az új VT érvénytelenítette a jelenleg ismert sindarin szavak felét ), és ami újat kapunk, attól a homályos részek csak még homályosabbak lesznek...

Helge unalmas tud néha már lenni az iskolásfiús nyafogásával és a generalizációkra való hajlamával ("if we set ké as 'maybe'" kiemelés tőlem; ja, if we set).

Mindegy, aki mélyebben merül el a dolgokban, ne ebből a sietős összefoglalóból tájékozódjon...

Na, quenyások, most élvezkedhettek :tongue:

Egye meg a fene... mindjárt megoldom, köszi!

Na, megoldva...bocs és kösz!

nemtom hol a bibi, Gandalf, belepiszkálnál? Nekem ráadásul szemétkedik a netem, folyton lefagy... előre is kösz!

az egy dolog, de egy rakoncátlan kacsacsőr miatt még duplaolyan hosszú

Rosseb egye, tényleg hosszú lett, remélem most már okés...

Glory and trumpets, we've had a new issue of Vinyar Tengwar!

On page 2, the editor apologizes for "the vast length of time between this issue and the last" (actually I can't say I even noticed any very unusual delay.) It turns out that the editor has been busy with various things, including writing a "a lengthy account of the first fifty years of Tolkienian Linguistics" for an upcoming volume of _Tolkien Studies_. Presumably the account of the last ten years will detail how the world of Tolkien-linguists split into two distinct groups: the good, respectable, serious scholars who write for VT and Parma Eldalamberon, and the Internet-based maniacs who spend all their time trying to figure out how to say "I am cheese" in Elvish. (Making the bold assumption that the latter group is mentioned at all.)

Luckily it gets better, very much better, once we get to the articles proper. This is definitely one of the more valuable issues of VT, touching on a wide range of subjects and providing possible solutions to quite a few problems that have long haunted many researchers. Given the fundamentally indecisive nature of Tolkien's work on the languages, we shouldn't expect definite "answers" to anything, but finally we get to know what Tolkien was thinking about certain aspects of grammar.

The Ambidexter sentence in its various incarnations, analyzed by Patrick Wynne: Finally provides a late example of an "if"-construction. The word for "if" here used, _ke_ or _ké_, is defined as "may be" elsewhere (p. 19). _Qui_ is cited by Wynne as another term for "if (perhaps a better option if we set _ké_ = "maybe"). Infinitely better than *_ai_ isolated from _aiquen_ "if anybody".

P. 8: Finally a little information about the partitive plural in -li and how it differs from the "normal" plural (the one that ends in -r or -i in the nominative). Seems to agree tolerably well with the theories I set forth in the appendices to my Quenya course. It is confirmed that _Eldali_ expresses "some Elves" as opposed to _Eldar_ "(all) Elves" and _i Eldar_ "the Elves" (the latter = not the entire "race" but rather a specific group of Elves, presumably first referred to as _Eldali_ when they were originally introduced in the text). "With _Eldali_ the article is seldom used."

We do have an example of a li-plural with article in Namárie (allative _i falmalinnar_ "upon the foaming waves"); it remains unclear why a "normal" plural isn't used here (*_i falmannar_). Could it be that Tolkien simply needed an extra syllable for metric reasons? Or does the combination of article/partitive plural express "a great multitude", since the element LI is associated with the meaning "many" at all published stages if Tolkien's conception?

A certain "bundle of three pages of late notes on demonstratives" (p. 11-12) contains quite a few words post-Tolkien writers had already extrapolated and used, such as _tanome_ = "in that place" (cf. the already attested _sinome_ "in this place")._Tá_ "then" had also already been guessed at by some; compare _sí_ "now". (The only term for "then" available previously, _san_ from early Qenya, should hardly be transplanted to later Quenya because it looks like the dative form of _sa_ "it".)

Words for "therefore", such as _etta_, are welcome.

This list indicates that the root TA "that" is back in full force in Tolkien's late conception, which creates a potential problem since TA is elsewhere suggested to be a plural pronoun, the "inanimate" equivalent of TE "they" (the latter being used of persons). Can the two coexist? Tolkien may seem to have been struggling with this problem himself; various solutions are hinted at. Maybe the best proposal is to let _tai_ be the plural inanimate "they" (p. 32, note 13), and so free up _ta_ as a singular pronoun.

P. 12 (cf. p. 23): Some valuable clarifications regarding _epe_ "before": The Eldar imagined future time (time that comes "after" the present) as being "before" them, hence the preposition that means "before" of spatial relationships means "after" when applied to time. Glossing _epe_ as "before" therefore does not contradict the translation of _epesse_ as "after-name" (nickname). "Before" of time can be _nó_, cf. _noa_ "yesterday" (but in other manuscripts, the same word is used for "tomorrow".!)

_ten_ or _téna_ = dative "to them" (p. 14). Átaremma has _tien_ instead (for te'en?), but all of these forms can easily coexist.

_Antanen_ "I gave" (p. 14). Sindarin _onen_ from Gilraen's linnod would point to *_ánen_ instead, and indeed _áne_ as the past tense "gave" is attested in the Qenya Lexicon. But quite possibly the pa.t. of _anta-_ can be both _antane_ and _áne_, just like _onta-_ "create, beget" can appear as either _ontane_ or _óne_ in the past tense (Etym, entry ONO).

_hya_ conjunction "or" (p. 14). Much better than very early Qenya _var_ (which was, for one thing, too similar to _ar_ "and").

P. 16: A full list of pronominal suffixes at last! Lists both the endings used on verbs and the corresponding possessive endings. Some of us have been waiting well over a DECADE for this!

Luckily there are no very big surprises. From information published in earlier VTs, it was not difficult to predict _-lte_ as the ending for "they" and _-lde_ as the suffix for plural "you" (I used these in my translation of Revelation, for instance). In my Quenya course I used _-nte_ for "they", based on _tiruvantes_ "they shall keep it" from UT:305, 317. According to this issue of VT, Tolkien used both _-nte_ and _-lte_ for "they" in his later writings. The notes on Cirion's Oath suggest that _-nte_ should be used with forward reference.

The ending _-ste_ for dual "you" is a funny addition to our knowledge.

Tolkien has some rather strange ideas about _-rya_ functioning both as an ending for "his, her" AND as an ending for "their" (p. 17), in the latter case it was felt to be related to the plural ending _-r_. The ending _-lta_, which is actually listed on the previous page, seems like a better option for "their".

P. 18: Wynne interprets _sin_ (from the sentence Sin Quente Quendingoldo Elendilenna) as *"thus". Quite plausible, but there seems to be at least a possibility that it is a shortened form of _sina_ "this", nominal demonstrative rather than adverb.

_ten-_ "arrive", pa.t. _tenne_ (p. 23). I believe this is the first definite attestation of the past tense of a consonant stem in _-n_? The form is like one might expect, suggesting that we were right to assume _cenne_ as the pa.t. "saw".

_nahtana ló Turin_ "slain by T." (p. 24). The example _hastaina_ "marred" from MR:254 would rather have suggested *_nahtaina_ for "slain", but very likely both are possible. _Nahta-_ "slay" is said to be a frequently occurring verb in Tolkien's late writings. Does this mean that _Morinehtar_ "Darkness-slayer" (PM:384, 385) is a misreading for MorinAhtar? Or is this yet another example of the Eldarin A/E variation which is actually mentioned in this issue of VT?

Notice _ló_ as a particle introducing the agent in a passive construction. Possibly the instrumental case can have the same function, cf. _turún' ambartanen_ "mastered by fate" in the tale of Túrin.

_Savin_ "I believe" (p. 27). A word for "believe" at last! Clumsy neologisms like *_anwata-_ can finally be scrapped.

_Savin Elessar ar i náne aran Ondóreo_ "I believe that Elessar really existed and that he was a king of Gondor" (p. 27). Here we finally have a late example of this kind of "that"-construction, but _i_ seems a less than ideal word to express this meaning, since it clashes with the article. Should "I know that the king has come" be *_istan i i aran utúlie_? And would *_istan i aran utúlie_ mean "I know that a king has come" or "I know the king has come"? Early Qenya has _ne_ for this kind of "that", whereas the Merin sentence uses _sa_ (the latter elsewhere appears as a pronoun "it").

_Aran Ondóreo_ "a king of Gondor" would be our first example of a noun that remains indefinite even though it is qualified by a following genitive. Earlier examples rather suggested that in such a construction, the noun is definite whether or not the article is prefixed. -- Here the Q for "Gondor" is_Ondóre_; the longer form _Ondonórë_ has appeared earlier (Ondonóre Nómesseron Minaţurie, "Enquiry into the Place-names of Gondor", VT42:17).

_Elesarno_ "Elessar's" (p. 28). Wynne jumps to the conclusion that this "is evidently a slip for *Elessarno". Well, maybe, but sometimes Tolkien simplifies a double consonant before an accented vowel. Thus the ship-name _Eärráme_ "Sea-wing" sometimes appears as _Eäráme_ instead, even though this is _Eär_ + _rámë_.

_Ná_ "yes", "it is so" (p. 28). So this old form from the QL was still valid many decades later. VT49 also gives _ui_ for "no" = "it is not (so)".

P. 27-31: Some information about the verb "to be". Having spent a lifetime of work on Quenya, Tolkien still had not arrived at a quite definite system even in such an elementary matter. But the form _né_ "was" that had been guessed at by many writers is finally confirmed, though _náne_ may also be used (the latter seems incredibly regular as a form of "to be"!)

Tolkien seems to briefly consider introducing special "aorist" forms of "to be", but trying to maintain a distinction between aorist "is" and a present-tense form ("is being"???) hardly seems worth the trouble.

_Anaie_ = "has been". Such a form has indeed been theorized, but never confirmed before now.

Somewhat disappointingly, nothing is said about the _infinitive_ form of "to be". That would be the only really significant gap now. Maybe *_náta_ or *_naië_, also gerunds "being"?

P. 29: Ah, so the future tense of _ea_ really is _euva_! I have used the form but was far from confident that it was correct.

P. 34: A new way of expressing "I can", with a verb _ek-_ "be open" + dative: _eke nin kare sa_, "I can do that" (p. 34), literally *"it is open for me to do that". We have various other verbs expressing "can" (_ista-_, know how to; _lerta-_, be allowed to, _pol-_, be physically able to), but sometimes it is not easy to classify "be able" as any of those three, so a more neutral way of expressing this verb is a welcome addition to our knowledge.

P. 38-58: "Five Late Quenya Volitive Inscriptions" analyzed by Carl F. Hostetter. Always nice with actual Eldarin text.

_Nai Eru lye mánata_ "God bless you" (p. 39). _Mánata_, we are told, is the present tense of a verb that would appear as *_manta_ in the aorist (p. 52): "is blessing" vs. "blesses". I guess this is the class of verbs that have lost a vowel before the ending -ta, and have past tense forms in -nte (before which ending the otherwise lost vowel is preserved). Thus primitive aorist *_manatâ-_ would produce Q *_manta_, but primitive present tense *_mânatâ_ yields Q _mánata_ (syncope does not occur following a long vowel). The lengthening of the stem-vowel in the present tense is of course a well-known phenomenon (as in _síla_ "is shining").

Past tense presumably *_manante_, for *_mana-ntę_. If this is correct, the present tense of _auta-_ "pass" ( *_awatâ_) should be _ávata_ "is passing" ( *_âwatâ_).

P. 40: The editor analyzes the sentence _nai elen siluva lyenna_ *"may a star shine upon you". Yours truly provided him with some background information and a scan of the inscription when he asked me about it (p. 53). The editor surely thinks this was the least I could do, since he informs me that I owe him hundreds and hundreds of favors. I actually was not aware of this, since I have never asked him any personal favors whatsoever. Oh well.

The most interesting thing here is of course the pronoun _lye_ for singular "you". Initial _ly_ (palatalized L) is rather unusual, but it serves to keep this pronoun distinct from _le_, plural "you".

_Siluvat_ in Arden Smith's comments (p. 40) should be _siluva_ (p. 38). But the form _siluvat_ does appear elsewhere and is even quite interesting; we'll get to it below.

_Koivierya_ "his/her life" (p. 41). Probably a better option for "life" than _kuivie_ from _kuivie-lankasse_ from VT42:8, since _kuivie_ should properly refer to "awakening" (as in Cuiviénen).

_Nai elen atta siluvat aurenna veryanwesto_ "may two stars shine upon the day of your wedding" (p. 44). Here, then, we really have the verb _siluvat_: the first good attestation of a DUAL form of a verb, with the ending -t corresponding to the well-known pl. in -r.

P. 45: Very valuable note about how nouns are constructed with numbers. They are said to FOLLOW the noun, "except _er_ [1]". (Actually _er_ also follows the noun in _Eru er_ "one God", VT44:17!) Before _atta_ "2", the noun is "singular" or actually uninflected, as in _elen atta_ "two stars" (and if this noun is the subject of a verb, the verb receives the dual ending -t, hence _elen atta siluvat_ "two stars shall shine").

From three on, according to the "later" system, the noun is fully declined but the numeral receives no endings (_elenion nelde_ "of 3 stars"). In my Quenya course, I naďvely presupposed English-style syntax with the numeral preceding, followed by a plural noun from 2 onwards. This must be changed.

P. 45: _Verya-_ intransitive "to marry" (the one you marry appears in the allative case, not as direct object: cf. English "get married TO somebody"), pa.t. in _-ne_ as in _veryanen_ "I married". This is a definite counterexample to the theory I have set forth elsewhere, that intransitive verbs in -ya drop this ending in the past tense. Attested examples include _farya_ "suffice", pa.t. _farne_, _lelya-_ "go", pa.t. _lende_ (root DEL/LED) and most instructively _ulya-_ "pour", which has the pa.t. _ulyane_ when transitive but _ulle_ when intransitive. But this is apparently not a universal pattern.

Another possible counterexample would be _ahyane_ "changed", intransitive (PM:395) -- but it is not clear whether the ending -ya is here part of the root or not. Indeed I guess the stem _khy-_ "other" cited in this VT (p. 14) could be relevant for _ahyane_ (since "to change" = "to become something other, something else").

_Verya-_ "to marry" clashes with _verya-_ "to dare" from Etym, but this is not critical, since the latter is transitive and will take a direct object (typically an infinitive phrase of some kind).

Instead of _aurenna_, some versions of the sentence have _rénna_, the allative of _ré_ (p. 45). It is surprising that the long vowel can survive before a consonant cluster. Contrast _mannar_ as the pl. allative of _má_ in Fíriel's Song.

On p. 48 (cf. note 13 on p. 54) we learn that _tengwa_ is not only a noun "letter" but also a verb "read". It behaves very much like we would expect it to: aorist _tengwa_ "reads", present tense _tengwëa_ "is reading", pa.t. _tengwane_ "read", perfect _etengwie_ "has read", verbal noun (gerund) _tengwie_ "reading". The present tense _tengwëa_ is the most interesting, confirming that A-stems may have present-tense forms in -eä. This formation was earlier only known from the verb _órëa_ (VT41:13), but in VT49 there are actually several new examples of it (p. 55).

One really wonders why the editor, since the publication of _órea_ way back in VT41, has done all he can to call into question the interpretation of this verb as a present-tense form -- despite the twin facts that 1) he himself was the first to present that interpretation, and 2) with full access to Tolkien's manuscripts he should have known all along that it was correct. Based on the noises he was making, I actually rewrote parts of my Quenya course so as to indicate that the interpretation of _-ëa_ as the present-tense form of A-stem verbs was a very uncertain theory. Seems I can change it back the way it was.

Page 48, 51: More pronoun tables. One disappointing thing is that Tolkien seems unable to come up with a good _long_ form of the ending for 3rd person sg. The endings _-n_ "I" and _-l_ "you" have long forms _-nye_ and _-lye_, but what is the long form of _-s_ "he, she, it"? The obvious option would seem to be *_-rye_ for older _*-sye, -zye_, to go with _-rya_ as the ending for "he, she". But that is a solution that never seems to cross Tolkien's mind.

On p. 51 it is said that _-se_ is a "rare" longer form of _-s_. Elsewhere in this issue we have _náse_ and _nése_ for "he is" and "he was" (p. 29), and this ending is said to be reduced from _-sse_ (on p. 30, we actually have _nasse_ for *"(s)he/it is").

A long 3rd person sg. ending is particularly needed when an object ending is to follow, and this _-sse_ seems to be the best Tolkien has to offer. Hence e.g. *_tiruvasses_ "(s)he will keep it", *_laituvasset_ "(s)he will bless them", *_utúviesses_ "(s)he has found it"? But when no second pronominal ending is to follow, the short ending _-s_ should be used so as to avoid any confusion with the locative ending _-sse_. That is, maybe the long ending should be added to prepositions (*_asesse_ "with him/her/it"?)

While it has been claimed that the only real grammars Tolkien wrote date from the pre-LotR period, the material quoted in VT49 would seem to indicate that his notes from the sixties are a goldmine of information. May we hope for fuller transcriptions of the various "bundles" and "folders" casually referred to by the editors?

Mindenesetre a héten elkezdem feltenni az új szavakat a wikire.

Most mondjam azt, hogy sajnos Quenya? Egyebkent ban benne 1, azaz egy darab uj Telerin szo, a tobbi szintiszta Quenya. (Mondanom sem kell, hogy ravetettem magam az egyetlen Sindarin szora, hogy juhhe, aztan meg kiderult, hogy a VT47-ben mar szerepel... gyakrabban kellene VT-ket olvasnom, na.)

Nem éppen, mer' lehet egyik, másik, mindkettő, vagy egyik sem. Amani ugyanis nem mondta melyik nyelvről van szó. Akár telerin is lehet.

(BTW mindenki tudja, hogy a quenyáról van szó, csak a szarkazmus szólt belőlem... )

Felagund írta:

amanibhavam írta: Megjött a VT49, benne sok-sok izgalommal, létige múltidő-paradigmák (eddig egy sem volt, most lett egyszerre három is), negációk, névmások, "ha", "holnap", stb...

Yeeeeee-haaaa

Sindarin, vagy quenya?

Hm-hm... hármat találhatsz.

Köszi

amanibhavam írta: Megjött a VT49, benne sok-sok izgalommal, létige múltidő-paradigmák (eddig egy sem volt, most lett egyszerre három is), negációk, névmások, "ha", "holnap", stb...

Yeeeeee-haaaa

Sindarin, vagy quenya?

Encsi: a sindarin (gondori) írásmódnál a szóvégi magánhangzót rövid támaszra kell írni a szó végére.

sindarin

Azt nem tudom, hogy ha a tegwa írásnál a szó végén magánhangzó van, azt hogy írjam? írjam az utolsó mássalhangzó fölé? Meg amikor mondjuk több magánhangzó van egymás után

Hmm... Ez ütött, Ninniach!

Megjött a VT49, benne sok-sok izgalommal, létige múltidő-paradigmák (eddig egy sem volt, most lett egyszerre három is), negációk, névmások, "ha", "holnap", stb...

Na megnéztem de van amit itt se találtam.