Nyelvek és írások

uhh,amani....

akartok némi csmegét olvasni a Quenya többes szám első személyű személyragok szépségeiről??

Helge Fauskanger levele az Elflingről, teljes szépségében

To: elfling@yahoogroups.com
From: "Helge K. Fauskanger" <helge.fauskanger@nor.uib.no> | This is Spam | Add to Address Book
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:07:13 +0200
Subject: [elfling] Endings for 1st pl pronouns

Carl F. Hostetter wrote (in a Lambengolmor posting forwarded to
Elfling):

> In message 17077
( groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/17077 ),
Ben Hamill rehearses at length what he terms two "differing theories"
to
explain various 1st pl. endings encountered in Tolkien's writings. In
doing
so, he (self-admittedly) relies only on what Helge Fauskanger last had
to
say on the matter, and on what he was able to glean from the Internet,
and
not on the actual evidence. He therefore regards the two "differing"
accounts as "theories" (i.e., explanations that sufficiently account
for
all the known evidence), and as having equal theoretical weight; though
in
the end he "sides" with Helge's "theory". (...) The fact is, in light
of
actual evidence published in _Vinyar Tengwar_, Helge's "theory" is
clearly
invalid, in that it does not explain _all_ the available evidence. I
think
Helge knows this, but, for whatever reason, he chooses not to point
this
fact out in Elfling, despite once having been an eager and active
participant on the list.

** (Unquote CFH.) Actually I simply allowed myself an vacation from
Elfling
during the summer, waiting for the movie-related hype to pass over.
Nothing
more sinister than that.

> Nor does he choose to update his web site (of which he is justly
proud
and upon which he is proud to see so many rely for their view of
Tolkien's
languages -- often, solely) to reflect the new knowledge.

** Right. Before I totally succumb to my boundless pride (which is of
course seductively easy if one is "justly proud" of something), I will
try
to pay some attention to the problem CFH identifies.

> Meanwhile, I have been banned from the list, and so unlike David and
Helge have no choice in the matter.

** Well, then, let me try to partly redress this cosmic injustice by
reconsidering the issue of the First Person Plural endings. But let us
remember this: When CFH was still in the position to enlighten and
encourage the Elflingers with his numerous epistles, one of his
favorite
topics was precisely the mutability of Tolkien's languages (and hence
the
absence of definite answers to the questions people would really like
to
have answered). According to CFH, the pronouns were a particularly
fluid
feature of Tolkien's conception. I seem to remember CFH referring to
thick
"stacks" of pronoun tables. Apparently one could publish entire books
containing nothing but conflicting pronoun tables (and given the
"wholesale" approach of the Transcription Team, I guess that is what
they
plan to do, eventually). So when it comes to Quenya pronouns, there are
hardly any hard Tolkienian "facts" to be uncovered by post-Tolkien
research
and scholarship. The only pronouns that are more or less "fixed" or
"canonical" are the ones occurring in the LotR itself (and even they
were
not completely safe, as is evident from the omentielmo > omentielvo
revision).

** So let us review the mutable "evidence" once again, and quite
thoroughly
(yes, this is a long posting). At least FOUR different endings seem to
be
relevant for the meaning "we". They are _-lme_, _-mme_, _-lwe_ (variant
_-lve?_) and _-ngwe_. We will concentrate on the three first endings
here.

** Tolkien apparently changed his mind (incessantly) about what precise
distinctions were to be reflected in the Elvish pronoun tables. Most of
the
time, he apparently wanted Elvish to make a distinction between
_inclusive_
"we" and _exclusive_ "we" (likewise in the corresponding endings for
"our"): When the speaker says "we", is the party addressed included in
this
"we", or is the addressee outside the "we" group? There are also clear
hints that Tolkien wanted the endings for "we" to include a distinction
between a _dual_ "we" (i.e. "the two of us") as opposed to a "we"-group
of
three or more persons. The independent dual pronoun _met_ "us two"
occurs
in Namárie, duality in this case being indicated by the dual marker
_-t_.
If there are to be distinct plural endings for dual inclusive, plural
inclusive, dual exclusive and dual inclusive "we", there would
obviously
have to be four endings in all, and (at least) four endings are indeed
attested. But I suspect that Tolkien had a hard time deciding which
ending
was to have which meaning.

** It now seems clear that when _The Lord of the Rings_ was first
published
and for at least a decade after that, the _lm_ forms were plural
inclusive
and the _mm_ forms were plural exclusive. _Omentielmo_ "of our meeting"
meant "of the meeting of us (the hobbits) and you (the Elves)", one
party
addressing the other. In the Cormallen praise, the quote _andave
laituvalmet_ "long shall we praise them" was the people of Gondor
encouraging one another to praise the Ring-bearers. The exclusive _mm_
forms do not occur in LotR, but they turn up both in the Catholic
prayers
Tolkien translated in the fifties, and in the essay _Quendi and Eldar_
of
ca. 1959-60. Just consider the very title _Átaremma_ "our Father": this
"our" is by necessity exclusive, since this is the "children" of the
divine
"Father" directly addressing him.

** Then comes the Second Edition of LotR. Tolkien now changes
_omentielmo_
to _omentielvo_, though the translation remains constant: "of our
meeting".
Why this change? There are two competing explanations, which may simply
reflect Tolkien's own indecision. A somewhat obscure note inserted by
Humphrey Carpenter in _The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_, p. 447, can only
be
read as implying that _-lv-_ is a DUAL form. Of course, Carpenter
himself
would hardly feel competent to explain the subtleties of Quenya, so
this
must be based on some Tolkien manuscript he had seen. So _omentielmo_
contained a plural inclusive "our", but Tolkien decided that this is
just
Frodo talking to Gildor, so a dual inclusive "our" is more appropriate:
Only two persons are involved. This explanation seemed to make good
sense:
Especially if we assume that -lv- is here a variant of -lw-, we could
relate the -w- to the known dual marker _-u_. Moreover, the relatively
well-attested endings -lm- (plural inclusive), -lv- (dual inclusive),
and
-mm- (plural exclusive) could be ordered into a single, coherent
system;
none of the attested forms in LotR and later sources had to be
rejected. It
is this interpretation that is currently reflected in my Ardalambion
Quenya
article and in my Quenya course. It represented precisely an attempt to
"explain _all_ the available evidence", as CFH would like.

** The other explanation of the _omentielmo/omentielvo_ revision goes
back
to the 1977 tome _An Introduction to Elvish_. One of the contributors
refers to a letter he had received from Tolkien. The letter is not
quoted,
but as understood by the recipient, it implied that -lv- is an
inclusive
form, whereas -lm- is exclusive. If so, _omentielmo_ would not be
appropriate because it would mean "of our meeting" in the sense of
"my/our
meeting with someone else (not you)", and Frodo rather refers to his
own
meeting with the party he is talking to. However, _Introduction_ gives
a
rather confused explanation of what the distinction between inclusive
and
exclusive "we/our" really consists of, so it seemed entirely possible
that
the recipient had misunderstood Tolkien completely. I dismissed this
explanation and rather went with the interpretation Carpenter seemed to
hint at. But Bill Welden (in an Elfling posting of February 8 this
year)
insists that "Carpenter's account is not canon, having simply been
lifted
without Tolkien's participation from his own notes, and so could easily
have been a passing (ill thought out) notion". Aha... (Incidentally, I
can
vividly imagine CFH's reaction if _I_ had referred to any concept of
Tolkien's linguistic work as "ill thought out", which to my ear sounds
rather worse than "immature".)

** Recently, material published in _Vinyar Tengwar_ has indeed
complicated
the issue of the first person pl. endings. In VT42, the verb _navilwe_
"we
judge/deem" was quoted in an article by Bill Welden. Here the ending
-lwe
is apparently plural inclusive "we", though the context (what little
there
is) does not allow for any definite conclusion. Then came VT44, where
the
editors claim that around 1965 there was a "shift of -lm- to -lv- as
the
marker of the 1 pl. inclusive -- the endings in -mm- became purely
dual"
(p. 6). Several obscurities remain. For one thing, if _lv_ now became
plural inclusive, why does _lw_, not _lv_, appear in Welden's article?
The
LotR appendices seem to indicate that _lv_ and _lw_ were and remained
distinct combinations; _lv_ could even be altered to _lb_ to prevent
any
possible confusion of the two clusters. And if _mm_ is now "purely
dual",
is it inclusive or exclusive? I would tend to think that it is
exclusive,
Tolkien making it connect with the dual M-form _met_ "us two" in
Namárie
(which is exclusive, Galadriel singing about Varda and herself to
Frodo) --
but I cannot be certain, of course.

** In various fora I have repeatedly asked the Transcription Team or
members thereof to clarify these matters, so that if I am to revise my
articles and courses, I can present certain information. So far, they
have
adamantly refused to provide any clarification, and we are left to
guess
how the incomplete and in some respects seemingly contradictory
information
presented in their publications should be interpreted. I am in no way
above
revising my articles and courses, but if CFH really wants me to do
this, I
should be grateful if he could at least clearly indicate what he should
like to see instead of my current interpretations.

** As I said above, when we are dealing with Quenya pronouns there are
few
hard "facts" to be uncovered, only shifting conceptions. But as for the
"we/our" endings, one late (ca. 1965) resolution conceivably looked
something like this: -lm- = plural exclusive, -lv- = plural inclusive,
-mm-
= dual exclusive (and then perhaps -ngw- = dual inclusive, to have a
complete system). _Andave laituvalmet_ "long shall we praise them" in
the
Cormallen Praise must then be re-interpreted as an exclusive form: "We,
the
people of Gondor, speaking to the universe in general, declare that we
will
long praise the Ring-bearers." (This "we" was certainly meant to be
inclusive when Tolkien first wrote it down and published the book, but
it
would not be uncharacteristic if he reinterpreted it later.)

** The reason for the variation -lv- vs. -lw- remains unclear. The
regular
change w > v in initial position would hardly occur here, but since
Tolkien
rarely felt bound by his own rules, anything is of course possible.
Alternatively, *_navilve_ "we deem" could become _navilwe_ by some kind
of
dissimilation because of the preceding _v_, but I don't really believe
in
it. Another possibility is that -lw- is the proper form (thus -lwe
"we",
*-lwa "our"), but in the form _omentielvo_ "of our meeting" the
genitive
ending -o is included, and _omentielwa + -o_ is altered from
*_omentielwo_
to _omentielvo_ because the combination _wo_ is not possible in Quenya.
The
problem with this interpretation is that VT44:6 cites -lv-, NOT -lw-,
as
the new 1 pl. inclusive. Some time ago, CFH in one Elfling post even
cited
the full ending _-lve_ "we" with no hint of an asterisk, as if it were
directly attested. When I later referred to this on another list, CFH
instantly said that it had been a mistake of him not to asterisk the
ending
_-lve_ as unattested. Of course, it remains unclear whether he means
"REALLY unattested" (not found in Tolkien's papers at all) or simply
"not
attested in published material, which is all I will discuss because of
my
Special Agreements".

** Writes CFH,

> The facts about Tolkien's languages must be determined by thorough
consultation and citation of the actual evidence. Any list that, like
Elfling, proclaims itself to be concerned with the "_scholarly_ study
of _the languages invented by J.R.R. Tolkien_" must recognize and
enforce this, or it has no claim on scholarship, and will inevitably
fall into a state of continuous argument by assertion, propagation of
error, and the creation of accepted truths by constant repetition of
"facts" that were "read somewhere" or that "Helge said" sometime,
somewhere in his more-or-less outdated web tomes.

** As I have pointed out elsewhere, I don't feel that CFH has the right
to
call Ardalambion "outdated" as long as he continues, in every issue of
VT,
to hail the pre-Silmarillion book _Introduction to Elvish_ as an
"indispensable" work in the field of Tolkien-linguistics. (I cannot
imagine
that Bill Welden, who is with us here, will really recommend his
"reconstructed" 1977 Quenya pronoun table to modern students...though
it
certainly represented an honest attempt, based on what was available
back
then). But be that as it may, I am perfectly willing to "update" my
"outdated" material -- but as I said, I should like CFH and/or his
colleagues to clearly indicate what kind of "update" they should like
to
see, and what interpretation they hold to be correct. Throwing out some
fragments of info which in some respects confuse rather than clarify
matters, then complaining that others don't instantly revise their
material
accordingly, is not the way to go. So what is it, -lw- or -lv-? If -mm-
is
by 1965 a dual form, is it inclusive or exclusive? If it is exclusive
(cf.
_met_ in Namárie), do we also have a dual inclusive form? These are
VERY
simple questions, and judging by Arden Smith's recent _glasnost_
attitude
on the Elfscript list, answering them would in no way violate whatever
agreements the TT may have with the Tolkien Estate.

** Or what?

- HKF

feanor: nagyon egyszeru, figyeld a Kozosseg kategoria Talalkozosk nevu topicjat, illetve a tobbi topicot abban a kategoriaban.

Hol lehet megtudni még időben a táborok és rendezvények időpontját, helyét stb? Segítség!!! :

itt...

Hol lehet tündéül tanulni a táboron és a talikon kívül?hálás lennék,ha valaki megírná a választ a vereswilliam@freemail.hu -ra.

Feanor: Ha eljössz a táborokra, talikra és egyéb fórumos programokra, akkor néhány igen tehetséges tanár segítségével - mint amilyen Varda, amani és Svin -, sokat és gyorsan lehet haladni a quenyában. (Persze csak addig, amíg bele nem ütközöl a korlátokba... )

Ezen kívül pedig Ancalimon Tenwar órái is nagyok szupik!

köszi!már teljesen kétségbe voltam esve hogy soha nem fogok tündéül beszélni

Aiya Feanor!

Beszélsz angolul? Mert akkor találsz részletes quenya nyelvtant az Ardalambion weblapon:

www.ardalambion.com

Onnan indulnak linkek szótárak fele is. Magyar-quenya szótárt találsz Amanibhavam weblapján is, csak kattints a hozzászólásánál lévő www. ikonra. Azon belül: Aryoni Eldaron, majd segédanyagok.

Magyar nyelvű részletes nyelvtan készül az Ardalambion weboldalon található Quenya kurzus fordításával. Ha minden jól alakul, rövidesen elérhető lesz belőle az első rész.

Addig is olvasgasd a topicot, sok jó dolog van benne !

Meg szeretnék tanulni quenyául és/vagy sindául! Nektek hogy sikerült! Hol találhatok részletes és kimerítő tünde-nyelvtant és szótárt? Van ilyen egyáltalán?

hát nem látszódnak, teljes szépségében megtekintheő a vers a www.elvish.org/gwaith oldalon a Compositions menüpont alatt

beteszem ide is, mert szép

egy nagyon ügyes ember lefordította óangolra a Pelennor-mezei csatáról szóló éneket a GyU-ból (ugye tudjuk, hogy a filmben is óangolul fognak beszélni a rohirok)

ha valakinél nem látszódnak helyesen a speciális karakterek, próbálja a böngészőjében a View -> Encoding pontban Western-Europeanra állítani a kódlapot

rohirric (anglo-saxon):


We hierdon ?ara horna on ??m hringde beorgum
??m sweorda scinde on ??m su?-cynerice.
Stedas gongdon eodon to ??m Stana-Lond
windlice ??m morgena. Wig w?s on?lde.
??r ?éoden feoll, ?engling mihtig,
to his goldselum, and grenum l?sum
on ??m Nore? feldum n?fre gecierran,
?ara hlaford heapa. Harding and Guthl?f,
Dúnhere and Déorwine, deor-mod Grimbold,
Herefara and Herubrand, Horn and Fastred,
feohtdon and ??r feollon, on feore folclande:
on ??m Mold-?rne Mundburga under moldan licge
mid hira gaderwistum Gondora leodfrumum.
Ne Hirluin se f?gra be flote to beorgum,
ne Forlong se ealde to ??m florisc denum
?fre, to Arnache, to his earde sin
gerierrdon on sigore; ne ??m sceotendas langas,
Derufin and Duilin, to hira deorce w?teras,
moras Morthonda under munta sceadum.
Dea? on ??m morgene and ?t d?ga endan
toc drihtenas and swanas. Nu sl?pia? long
under molderne on Gondore be ?a Mihtigan Ean.
Nu gr?g tearlice, gl?d seolfor,
read ?a weallde, w?ter grymetiende:
blodic brim byrnia? ?t ?fentide;
muntas lic beacen byrnia? ?t ?fene;
readfah se deaw fylde on Rammase Echore.

Translation:


[The Lord of the Rings, Book V, Chapter The Battle of the Pelennor Field]


We heard of the horns in the hills ringing,
the swords shining in the South-Kingdom.
Steeds went striding to the Stoningland
as wind in the morning. War was kindled.
There Théoden fell, Thengling mighty,
to his golden halls and green pastures
in the Northern fields never returning,
high lord of the host. Harding and Guthl?f,
Dúnhere and Déorwine, doughty Grimbold,
Herefara and Herubrand, Horn and Fastred,
fought and fell there in a far country:
in the Mounds of Mundburg under mould they lie
with their league-fellows, lords of Gondor.
Neither Hirluin the Fair to the hills by the sea,
nor Forlong the old to the flowering vales
ever, to Arnach, to his own country
returned in triumph; nor the tall bowmen,
Derufin and Duilin, to their dark waters,
meres of Morthond under mountain-shadows.
Death in the morning and at day?s ending
lords took and lowly. Long now they sleep
under grass in Gonder by the Great River.
Grey now as tears, gleaming silver,
red then it rolled, roaring water:
foam dyed with blood flamed at sunset;
as beacons mountains burned at evening;
red fell the dew in Rammas Echor.

Svindler írta:

Minerva írta: "Követlek hegyen és völgyön át, mert a szeretetem hatalmasabb a homálynál, amely minden beborít!"

Hat nagyjabol a kovetkezo ilyesmit jelent:

Hilyanyet terë oron ar unquë, ike(?) melmenya turë Huinë, ya undulávë ilya.

Magyarra forditva:
Követlek hegyen és völgyön át, mert a szeretetm uralja a Homályt, ami mindent beborít.

Hogy én hogy imádlak, Svin!

mert: an

Ancalimon: azok a szavak korántsem lettek "elfogadva" a quenyás közösségben még, úgyhogy nem hinném, hogy bekerülnek a PPQ-ba

Minerva írta: "Követlek hegyen és völgyön át, mert a szeretetem hatalmasabb a homálynál, amely minden beborít!"

Hat nagyjabol a kovetkezo ilyesmit jelent:

Hilyanyet terë oron ar unquë, ike(?) melmenya turë Huinë, ya undulávë ilya.

Magyarra forditva:
Követlek hegyen és völgyön át, mert a szeretetm uralja a Homályt, ami mindent beborít.

Valaki lefordítaná nekem quenyára azt, hogy
"Követlek hegyen és völgyön át, mert a szeretetem hatalmasabb a homálynál, amely minden beborít!"?
Előre is köszi.

öléggé...


alapvető hiba: a quenya úgy működik, mint a magyar - a cselekvő személyét az igéhez ragasztott személyraggal fejezi ki, és nem az ige elé tett személyes névmással (khm, ugye ezt a pilisi táborban elmondtam...); személyes névmást csak akkor használunk, ha hangsúlyossá akarjuk tenni azt, mint abban a híres mondatban: ar yondo, inye tye-méla
"És, fiam, én is szeretlek téged." "Normál" quenyában ez így hangzana: Ar, yondo, mélanyet.

Mindenestre kérek szépen egy fordítást mellé, hogy mit minek szántál, hogy megbeszélhessük.

Na, ahogy ígértem, itt van az én quenya próbálkozásom. Tele van hibákkal, szerintem érthetetlen néhol a szóhasználat, de azért becopyzom...

Szómagyarázatot (mikor miért mit alkalmaztam) most nme hoztam, csak a nyers szöveget.

Minye né Eru, i Minë, man Ardassë né Ilúvatar; ar so cárë i Ainur minya, i Ainar Mini, ya nér i ósanwerya autuiar(?), ar nér sonen(?) anrato ve ilya(?) carinnë(?). I so quentë ten(?), antan lindalë ten; ar te lirinner son, ar so né valin. Nan an anda lúmë lirinentë eressë ar er Ainuli(?)

Nagyon szörnyű?

az a Gyűrűvers: Ash nazg durbatulúk...

Egy kérdésem lenne Svindlerhez (is): a tolkien.hu-n a főoldalon baloldalt van egy szöveg tengwákkal. Mit jelent? Nem értek hozzá annyit hogy lefordítsam, de kíváncsi vagyok! Előre is köszi.

már megint elméláztok...

Ez attól függ, hogy mi mennyire hangsúlyos. Ha én szeretlek téged, tehát minden szó hangsúlyos, akkor: inye tye méla, ahol inye - én; tye - te (téged); méla - szeretni, ezt nem kell ragoznod ha kiteszed az önálló alanyt.

mondhatod úgy is, hogy mélanye te. Ez már kevésbé hangsúlyos, illetve inkább a szeretet tárgyát hangsúlyozza.

vagy egész egyszerűen csak mélanyet szeretlek, semmit sem kihangsúlyozva külön.

Hi all! Rég voltam itt, nem is tudom, mi most a T-ma, csak azt szeretném kérdezni, hogy akkor most hogy van ez az igeragozás? Például ha angolul I love you, akkor ugyanez quenyául= ???
Nem értem... :eek2:

Aiya!

Amani, kivágtam a fordítást, hogy olvasgathassam a hétvégén a nettől távol is.

Akkor ért a meglepetés, mikor bemásoltam wordbe és az egész szöveg tengwákkal jelent meg. Eltartott egy pár másodpercig mire rájöttem, hogy én állítottam át a betűtípust tengwar parmaite-ra.

Jól nézett ki!

Varda:
itt van:

www.tolkien-archives.com/library ... ages.shtml

Aiya!

Nem tudjátok véletlenül, hogy hol található a Gyűrűvers több nyelven?

OFF OFF

a kérdőjelek helyére képzeljetek idézőjeleket

csak az érdekesség kedvéért, lefordítottam a Cuivienyarna legendát, a tündék ébredésének történetét Quenyára, ha nem baj, becopyzom ide, elég hosszú...

Tallumesse ya hroantar ner carime hrávello Ardo, i Quendi lorner mónasse Ardo, nu i laiqua palis, ar cuivaner ve veaneri. Mal i Minye Eldar (estaina yando Ilontear var Eruontar) úmer cuiva ilye mine lusse. Eru canne sá ilya Elda caitanie ara marta vesserya. Mal Nelde Eldar cuivaner epe ilye, ar ta Eldaneri ner, an Eldaneri ner polde lá váre, mailie, ar ranyaner úmoine menessen. Sine nelde Elda-atari estaina nar yáre nyáressen Imin, Tata ar Enel. Cuivanente tana témasse, mal sinta lúme váne imbe ilye; ar entello, sin Eldar queter, quettar mine, atta, nelde carime ner: anyáre ilye notession.

Imin, Tata ar Enel cuivaner epe vessentar, ar minye engwi ya cenner i éli ner, an cuivanente tindómesse epe ára. Ar i enta engwe ya cennente marte vessentar ner i caitaner lórala i laiqua palisse ara te. Táre ente ner sie luhtaina vanessentainen sá írentar quetien tiuyaner lintave ar yestanente ?sana quettaron? yanen quetien ar lirien. Ar an nente ascare úmente pole larta nan eccuitanente vessentar. Sie, i Eldar queter, i minya engwe ilya Eldanís cenne vernorya né, ar melmerya eryen minya melmerya né; ar melmerya ar laitalerya vanessín Ardo tuller apa ta.

Sí apa lúme, íre ómarnente sinta lúmesse, ar tannente rimbe quettar, Imin ar Iminye, Tata ar Tatie, Enel ar Enelye óvantaner, ar oanter i laiqua nallo cuiviento, ar rato tuller vára alta nalenna ar hirner enque verur Quendion tanome, ar i éli ata sille tindómesse ar i Eldaneri cuivaner tallume.

Tallume Imin quente so allinyenwa né ar lávina minya cilmenen; ar eques: ? Cilin rasta sine olendonyain?. Ar i Eldaneri ómarner sintave ar nolyaner rimbe quettar ar yocarner rimbe lá sine, ar ólendente, ar rato vára nallesse núra ar palla lá enta hirnente nerte verur Quendion , ar i Eldaneri tallume cuivaner i silmesse.

Tallume Tata mapane tatya cilme ar quente: ?Cilin rasta enque sine olendonyain.? I Eldaneri tallume eccuitaner vessentar, ar omarnente ar oquentente, ar autanente rimbe vinye ómar ar ande quettar; ar tallume i nelderasta ovantaner, yallume tullente menna silwinarwa rávasse nelleo, ar tanome hirnente rasta verur Quendion, ar i Eldaneri yando tyultaner tallume, ar yétaner eleninnar ter i olwar silwinion.

Tallume Enel mapane nelya cilme ar quente: ? Cilin attarasta sine ólendonyain.? Ata i Eldaneri eccuitaner vessentar; ar rimbe auressen i lemperasta Eldar marner ara i nelle, ar rato yestanente carie lairi ar lindi lindalenna nenwa.

Yallume ilye ata etelender. Mal Imin cenne sá ilya lusse hirnente Quendi rimbe lá epe, ar sananes: ? Nin nar er rasta ólendor (ar inye allinyenwa); ciluvan telwave lá váre.? Rato tullente súcetaurenna arwa lisse holmeo ambanesse oronto, ar tanome hirnente rasta enque verur Quendion, ar ilye lorner. Lóme né ar fanyar ner ilwesse. Mal epe ára súre tulle, ar eccuitane i Eldaneri, ar cuivanente ar nente luhtaine elenínen; an ilye fanyar ner vanwe ar i eleni calime ner Rómello Númenna. Ar andave i rasta enque vinye Quendi úmer tire i váre, mal tirnente calar Menelwa. Mal yallume íre quernente cemenna cennente vessentar ar eccuivanentet yétien eleninnar, rámala ten elen! elen! Ar sie eleni estaine ner.

Sí Imin quente: ?Er úvan cile ata .?; ar Tata, sie, cille nelderasta sine ólendoryain; ar te halle ner ar arwa findesseo morna (mornaloxea?) ar tulce ve súci; ar entello allimbe Noldoron utúyier.

Ar i toltorasta Quendi sí óquenter, ar i vinyacuine autaner limbe vinye ar vanime quettar, ar limbe maisi yungwar questo; ar lalanente, ar liltanente i ambanesse, íre yallume mernente tuve vinye ólendor. Tallume etelendente ata ilye, nó tullente morna ailinna tindómesse; ar alta ollo enge i rómenya falasse, ar lantasíre lantane táriello, ar i eleni mirilyaner i wingasse. Mal i Eldanéri nentaner lantasíresse, ar eccuivier vessentar. Attarasta verur enger; mal er úmente care questa, nan lirnente lisseve ar ómantar atacúnaner ordollo, yátala ormenen lantasíreo.

Mal ata Imin úme cile, sánala: ?ento úvan tuve oromáre ólendor?. Sie Enel quente: ?I cilme inya ná, ar cilin cantarasta sine ólendonyain.? Ar i yunquerasta Quendi ómarner andave ara i ailin, nó ilye ner yátina indosse ar questasse, ar alassie ner.

Yallume Imin quente: ?Lúme ná sinome etelendielme ar roitanelme váre ólendor.? Nan allimbe enteo quante ner. Sie Imin ar Iminye ar rasta ólendonta etelender, ar vantaner andave áresse ar tindómesse i nóresse ara i ailin, ara ya ilye Quendi cuivaner ? ar sie ta estaina ner Cuiviénen. Nan úmente tuve ólendor yonta, an i quenta Minye Eldaron télina né.

Ar sie enge, sa i Quendi apa ta voro nonter rastainen, ar sa tuxa analta notessenta né andave, ar aiqua telda lambentasse úme ilsatya esta rá notesse alta lá ta. Ar sie yando enge, sá i ?Ólendor Iminwa? var i Allinyenwa Ólendosse (yallo i Vanyar utúyier) ner rasta-atta ilú ilúvesse; nan i ?Ólendor Tatáva? (yallo i Ngoldor utúyier) ner cantarasta toldo ilúvesse; nan i ?Ólendor Enelwa? yasse i Annessa Ólendosse i analta yando ner; entello i Teleri (var Lindar) utúyier, ar yessesse nente enquerasta atta ilúvesse.


Sí i Quendi meller ilya Ardallo ya ecénier, ar i laique engwi i tuiyar ar Anar lairéva alassenta né; ananta nente alluhtaine elenínen, ar lúmínen lómeva poica wilyasse, ?tindóme? ar ?undóme? ner lúmi analta alasseo. An enta lúmessen coireo minyave ucuivier Ardasse. Nan i Lindar, or ilye Quendion yessello meller líme nén, ar lirnente epe pollente quete.