Elfling

On Sun, 26 Nov 2000, Andreas Johansson wrote:

> > 4 - _hyanda_ is glossed in the Quettaparma Quenyanna as 'share', but
> > the only similar word I can find elsewhere is translated 'blade'.
> > Is _hyanda_ a useable word?
>
> It'd be derived from pq sjad 'shear through, cleave', which yields
> word for axe-blades etc. Semantically, I think it's possible; it you
> _cleave_ a cake and devides the piece to some people each gets a
> _share_.

Either that, or 'share' means a plo(w/ugh)share, the blade of the
plo(w/ugh).

Jerome Colburn



[elfling ID#3733]
[original subject: Ainulindale 1]

<<> Nan sin Iluuvatar harane ar lastane, ar andave sanwanes [1] I
nes maara, an
> But now Iluvatar sat and listened, and long he thought that it was
> good, for

I am not sure, but is should not be 'haarane'? 'I nes' - doubled
subject. I would write 'I nee' What about 'intyanes' instead of
'sanwanes'?> >

Quite right about 'haarane.'  The 'I' was a slip for what I guess
should be 'sa' ('that' as a conjunction)  'intyanes' is good as well,
thank you.


<'nauseo so' ?> >

I thought here it would be better to use the independent emphatic
pronoun - of his imagining, as opposed to Iluvatar's

<<'Sinanen' - could be 'tanen'? I would use simple infinitive: 'mernes
care', for 'mer-' is a modal verb.> >

Yes, 'tanen' is better.  Do you think 'sina', 'ta', and 'ya' are
analogous to each other in the same way as English 'this', 'that', and
'which'?  If so, inflecting them would give a whole system of
demonstrative and relative adverbs, E.G. 'yanen'='wherefor',
'tanen'='therefor', 'yallo'='whence', etc.

What is meant by a modal verb?  I didn't know any verbs formed
infinitives with other than '-ie'.

<<> son yontalta valo ar alcareo.  Melkoren Ainuron [2] anaie [3]
antaina I
> To him more great of power and splendour.  To Melkor of the Ainur
> were given
The

Just my feeling, that 'of power and splendour' should be rathe
instrumentals.> >

Actually, I think I should have done that whole phrase differently.
Closer to the original would be ' . . . an mernes tanen carie yontalta I
valo ar I alcaro tyasseo antaina son.'

<the abstract noun is 'valasse' or 'vale'. As for 'alcareo', I think the
word is 'alcar', not 'alcare'. Thus, in instrumental, 'valassenen ar
alcarnen'> >

About 'vala': I know that it came to refer to the Valar only, and was
not used as an ordinary word for 'power'; I thought, though, that using
it in the Ainulindale would be okay, as it would be the first writing on
the Valar, and would probably show the derivation.  I think you're
saying, though, that there's also a separate linguistic issue - the
difference between 'power' and 'a power', 'a thing possessing power'?
If there is such a distinction, I guess 'valasse' would be best.

< >

Do you think that 've' could be used as a comparative conjuction?  E.G.,
'tumna ve undome' = 'deep as the abyss', 'yontatumna ve undome' = 'more
deep than the abyss'?  (And I know that 'yonta-' is from the '20s or
'30s, but there's absolutely nothing else to take its place)

<>

I'd rather figure out some reasonable perfect form; it'll be necessary
at some point.  I don't think that it has to agree with 'haryane' here.
The original is 'To Melkor of the Ainur had been given the greatest
gifts of power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his
brethren.' Here, 'had been given' is pluperfect and 'had' is past.  In
the absence of a Quenya pluperfect, I thought perfect would be best.
For the perfect of 'na-' I think the reasonable possibilities are
'anaie' or 'anie' or maybe 'nie'.

<<'Of his brethren' is 'nosseryaron' 'nosse-rya-r-o-n'> >

Need 'nosseo' be pluralized?  Is it akin to 'person' or 'people'?

<<'Flame' is 'Naar'. Maybe inversion should take place: 'I Naar
Ilfirin'> >

Sometimes the English has 'Flame Imperishable', and sometimes it has
'Imperishable Flame'.  I figured the 'translator' would only do that if
the Quenya was inverted likewise.

<creating (gen), desire to (for) create (dat) or accusative as you have
it...? I would perhaps write 'onieeva', for the 'ajectival genitive'
seems to me undefinite enough not to be wrong...> >

Yes, I think I should have used a genitive here.  Why '-va' instead of
'-o', though?

<<'Tanwi' - I do not know the word, but there is 'nat' 'thing'> >

'Tanwe' is from the etymologies.

< >

Right, of course.  I've gotten to used to Latin and its lack of
articles.

< >

I think it makes sense from etym. 'Lusta' = 'empty'.  Or should it
perhaps be 'lustasse'?  The corrected form then would be either
'lusteryanen' or 'lustasseryanen'.

<<'Did not find' is 'laa tuve', 'utuuvie' is perfect.> >

I think perfect could be used here, as this action occurs before the
'present', I.E., the music.

<supposing that partitive genitive can function that way....> >

I was using 'sanweli' = partitive plural of 'sanwe'.  If this isn't a
place where it can be used, I really see very little use for it.

<>

I did not think there was a difference between Quenya infinitive and
gerund. 'Limbe' is all I could find for 'many'; it's from the Book of
Lost Tales.  I don't think 'rimbe' is quite the same, but I suppose it
does suggest that he changed the root from lim- to rim-.  Do you think
there's another word that can be used for many?


Rínon Lindalion



[elfling ID#3739]
[original subject: Ainulindale 1]

Rl: Quite right about 'haarane.'  The 'I' was a slip for what I guess
should be 'sa' ('that' as a conjunction)  'intyanes' is good as well,
thank you. Ln: I am not certain, but it seems to me right to use
simple 'I' for 'that' as conjunction of the object clause. The reason
is that the whole clause is in a nominal position, I.E. of an object,
and that the nominalizer 'I' can serve as the device to join it to the
main clause.

Ln: <so' ?> > rl: I thought here it would be better to use the independent
emphatic pronoun - of his imagining, as opposed to Iluvatar's ln: The
problem is that the genitive is does not differ from nominative.. If you
really wanted to use independent pronoun, I would go for 'nauseo erya'

Rl: If so, inflecting them (pronouns) would give a whole system of
demonstrative and relative adverbs, E.G. 'yanen'='wherefor',
'tanen'='therefor', 'yallo'='whence', etc. ln: Absolutely yes! I have
always thought it must be possible this way, but I've never really
tried to formulate the system.


Rl: What is meant by a modal verb?  I didn't know any verbs formed
infinitives with other than '-ie'.

Ln: This is a misunderstanding!
1) Modal verbs are verbs that modify other verbs, that are in infinitive
   as their direct objects (the infinitive is in the accusative case).
   These are E.G. can, may, will and so on. Thus not the modal verb, but
   its object (the other verb) is in infinitive.
2) In Quenya there are 2 infinitives and one gerund.
- Infinitive (1) is the simple stem of the verb, in case of the
  consonantal stems with added -E.
- Infinitive (2) is formed from the infinitive (1) by adding '-ta',
  while the final -e changes into -I (in fact, the original -I reappears
  that had changed to -e in final position - this is a common Quenya
  phonetical change)
- Gerund is formed by removing the (possible) final stem vowel and
  adding -ie

What are the differences between these three? We may say, that gerund
functions simply as  declined infinitive - I.E. it replaces infinitive
in the indirect cases (all except nominative and accusative) Thus in
'Elenna nooreo alcar enyalien' 'enyalien' is gerund in dative: 'in order
to recal'. It is important to know, that the gramatical relation of the
gerund to its determinatives is that of the original verb, not that of a
noun: therefore in 'alcar enyalien' 'alcar' is in accusative, for in
accusative it would be as a direct object of the verb 'to recall' - 'to
recall the glory'. If 'enyalie' were not gerund, but simple noun, there
should have been a genitive: 'recalling of the glory'

I suppose that infinitive (1) replaces the gerund in the direct cases,
because it is so in Latin, and because otherwise the infinitive would
not have any function. Unlike Latin, Quenya Gerund has its nominative
and accusative, but it has in my opinion more nominalized meaning:
'carie' is rather 'doing', 'action' than 'to do', and therefore it is
unsuitable as the object of the modal verbs - for they require fully
verbal meaning : 'I can read', not 'I can reading'. But there surely are
cases when both infinitive and gerund is possible, such as in English
you can say 'I go swimming' as well as 'I go to swim' (this in fact is
not a very good example, for here the 'swimming' I would suppose to be
in the dative case ('I go in order to swim') and so the dative gerund
would be used in Quenya).

As for the Infinitive (2), it is used instead of the Infinitive (1) in
case that other endings (E.G. an object 'it' '-s') are attached - for if
the normal infinitive were used, 'caris' could mean 'he/she/it does' as
well as 'to do it'. The correct for 'to do it' is then 'caritas'

Rl: Actually, I think I should have done that whole phrase differently.
Closer to the original would be ' . . . an mernes tanen carie yontalta I
valo ar I alcaro tyasseo antaina son.'

Ln: This seems very good, but for 'carie' which should be 'care', and
for the very, very hypothetical 'tyasse' (note that there is a noun
'tyalie' 'a play', which can be connected with it..) Maybe it would be
safer simply to say 'alcaro lindeo antaina son'....

Rl: About 'vala': I know that it came to refer to the Valar only, and
was not used as an ordinary word for 'power'; I thought, though, that
using it in the Ainulindale would be okay, as it would be the first
writing on the Valar, and would probably show the derivation.  I think
you're saying, though, that there's also a separate linguistic issue -
the difference between 'power' and 'a power', 'a thing possessing
power'?  If there is such a distinction, I guess 'valasse' would be
best. Ln: I am quite bit unsure about the meaning of the derivatives of
'vala-' - maybe somebody else can tell more. There is the verb 'pol-'
'to be able' and the epithet 'Poldoorea' 'Valiant' (if I remember well).
I have once argued that 'poldoorea' means 'with mighty heart'  'polda'+
'oore'. Mayby 'might' is 'poldasse' or 'polde' (if not 'poldoore').


Rl: Do you think that 've' could be used as a comparative conjuction?
E.G., 'tumna ve undome' = 'deep as the abyss', 'yontatumna ve undome' =
'more deep than the abyss'?  (And I know that 'yonta-' is from the '20s
or '30s, but there's absolutely nothing else to take its place)

Ln: I would rather use som 'comparative case' - in Latin it is the
ablative, in Czech it is the Genitive, but in Czech the Genitive employs
some funcions of ablative. So I would simply write 'yontatumna
undomello'. However, in Czech we sometimes (but not in the written
language) use the equivalent of 've' to form the comparative phrases in
the way you proposed.

Rl: I'd rather figure out some reasonable perfect form; it'll be
necessary at some point.  I don't think that it has to agree with
'haryane' here.  The original is 'To Melkor of the Ainur had been given
the greatest gifts of power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the
gifts of his brethren.' Here, 'had been given' is pluperfect and 'had'
is past.  In the absence of a Quenya pluperfect, I thought perfect would
be best.  For the perfect of 'na-' I think the reasonable possibilities
are 'anaie' or 'anie' or maybe 'nie'.


I do not think so, for perfect is much more present than past. It
describes a present state caused by a past event (I suppose the Quenya
perfect is more like Greek and English, than Latin). If I were forced to
use perfect of 'naa', I would use 'aanie'. But, as somebody had said
here already, who has ever heard of 'to be' to be regular?

Ln: <<'of his brethren' is 'nosseryaron' 'nosse-rya-r-o-n'> >

Rl: Need 'nosseo' be pluralized?  Is it akin to 'person' or 'people'?

Ln: My fault: 'nosse' is of course 'house' of 'family'. Thus 'nosseryo'
'of his kins' is better.... But have we not a word for 'brother'?


Rl: Sometimes the English has 'Flame Imperishable', and sometimes it has
'Imperishable Flame'.  I figured the 'translator' would only do that if
the Quenya was inverted likewise.

Ln: Yes, it seem as a right supposition, since we do not know much about
Quenya word order.

Ln: <creating (gen), desire to (for) create (dat) or accusative as you have
it...? I would perhaps write 'onieeva', for the 'ajectival genitive'
seems to me undefinite enough not to be wrong...> > rl: Yes, I think I
should have used a genitive here.  Why '-va' instead of '-o', though?

Ln: Simply because the -va genitive is more like an ajective - and you
ask 'what desire'. The -o genitive is most probably also possible, but
it somehow has a connotation of 'origin' as it seems to me...

Ln: < > rl: I think
it makes sense from etym. 'Lusta' = 'empty'.  Or should it perhaps be
'lustasse'?  The corrected form then would be either 'lusteryanen' or
'lustasseryanen'.

Ln: If I were the author of Quenya, I would prefer 'luste'. But I am
not, and I do not know what is more probable. Should we accept as a new
possible way how to form abstracts from adjectives the simple change of
-a into -e ? What is the evidence?

Ln: <<'Did not find' is 'laa tuve', 'utuuvie' is perfect.> > rl: I think
perfect could be used here, as this action occurs before the 'present',
I.E., the music. Ln:

I think one should follow the English: Both is possible in English, and
here the author wanted to say that an event did not occur in past (past
tense), not that certain state is not in being (perfect).

Rl: I don't think 'rimbe' is quite the same, but I suppose it does
suggest that he changed the root from lim- to rim-.  Do you think
there's another word that can be used for many?

Ln: There is a prefix 'lin-' 'many-', but it seems to in adjectives
only, as in 'lindornea' 'with many beeches'. 'Rimba' is 'numerous' or
'often' (adj.)

Please, note that many of my opinions may be wrong! I just try to help
by giving my view...

Lukas



[elfling ID#3747]
[original subject: Ainulindale 1]

 vanlin wrote:
>
>
> The 'quetteparma quenyanna' gives a stem of 'tele-'; it says it's
> from the War of the Jewels P. 411.  Unfortunately, I don't yet have
> WotJ.  Perhaps someone who does could check for me?

'Note 15 'a simple agental formation (like /*abaro/ >  /*abar/ from
*aba) from the stem *tele, the primary sense of which appears to have
been 'close, end, come at the end': hence in q /telda/ 'last,
final'; /tele-/ intransitive verb 'finish, end', or 'be the last
thing or person in a series or sequence of events'; /telya/ transitive
verb 'finish, wind up, conclude'; /telma/ 'a conclusion, anything
used to finish off a work or affair'. This was possibly distinct from
/*tel-u/ 'roof in, put the crown on a building', seen in q /telume/
'roof, canopy'. ...

Andrew



[elfling ID#3753]
[original subject: Ainulindale 1]

 Lukas Novak and Riinon Lindalion wrote:

> > Nan sin Iluuvatar harane ar lastane, ar andave sanwanes [1] I nes
> > maara, an But now Iluvatar sat and listened, and long he thought
> > that it was good, for
>
> I am not sure, but is should not be 'haarane'?

 **Seems a bit strange to me. Pa. T. of _har-_ would be _harne_ or ever
 maybe _haare_, but very likely not _haarane_. _Har-_ is of the same
 pattern as _car-_ and pa.T.'s of the _car-_ are given as _carne_ and
 (in an earlier source) _caare_.

> 'I nes' - doubled subject. I would write 'I nee' What about 'intyanes'
> instead of 'sanwanes'?

 **_Sanwa_ surely not. _Intya-_ is 'guess, suppose'. I think we can
 safely use _sana-_ 'think' isolated from _sanar_ 'thinker'.

> > Lindalesse ner laa raica lammar.  Nan ve lin lende, tulles in the
> > music were no wrong notes.  But as the melody proceeded, it came

 **We do not know if _laa_ can be used for 'no' (as 'no notes'), I would
 not risk it. Simply say _uumer_ '[they] were not'. Anyway, I would use
 here rather _ea_, pa.T. _Eane_ or _enge_.

> > Uulassea yo I lin Iluuvataro; an mernes sinanen carie [role] antaina
> > improper with the melody of Iluvatar; for he wished by this to make
> > the role
> Given
>
> 'Sinanen' - could be 'tanen'? I would use simple infinitive: 'mernes
> care', for 'mer-' is a modal verb. As for 'role' - we have 'tyaro'
> 'agent' if I am not mistaken, thus we may suspect a a verbal stem
> 'tya-' or 'tyar-' 'to act', which could give 'tyasse' 'action'¨- that
> maybe could be used here?

 **_Tyaro_ is derived from vb. _Tyar-_ 'cause' and this from the stem
 kyar. And I do not think that 'actor' is here meant as a role player,
 but rather as a doer, worker, sc. Someone who causes something. _Tyar_
 (gen. _Tyardo_) would be 'deed'. There is vb. _Tyal-_ 'play' and N.
 _tyalie_ 'game, play', maybe this could be used.

> > Son yontalta valo ar alcareo.  Melkoren Ainuron [2] anaie [3]
> > antaina I to him more great of power and splendour.  To Melkor of
> > the Ainur were given
> The

 **I think I sure said it before: _yonta-_ cannot be used for the
 comparatives, but you have not cared. At least it does not mean 'more',
 for this _yonta-_ was a misreading for _yanta-_ which is actually the
 verb 'enlarge, increase'!

> As for 'alcareo', I think the word is 'alcar', not 'alcare'.

 **Both forms are possible.

> 'Looking for' can be 'merila tuve' 'wanting to find'

 **There is _saka-_ 'look for' from the Qenya lexicon. It might be
 invalid, though.

> > Naree, an iire tulle ie saiwa mi so onie tanwi sova, ar Flame, for
> > desire came to be hot within him to create things of his own, and
>
> 'Flame' is 'Naar'.

 **As well as _naare_...

> Maybe inversion should take place: 'I Naar Ilfirin'

 **I wondered if _ilfirin_ is still valid. The prefix _il-_ is
 associated with 'every' (cf. _Ilqua_ 'everything', _ilquen_
 'everyone'). I think it would be quite weird if q had two indetically
 looking prefixes, the former for 'un-' and the latter for 'every-'.
 Anyway, there is the flower _alfirin_ and if it is Qunya, it might be
 'undying' (cf. _Ala-_ 'not' in _alahasta_ 'unmarred').

> > Sanwanes I Iluuvatar ante uusanwe cuuman, ar nes uusenda he thought
> > that Iluvatar gave no thought to the void, and he was not at peace

 **I would write _Iluuvatar uume anta sanwe_ 'Iluuvatar did not give any
 thought'. At least it is safer.

> > Lustenen.  Nan laa utuuvies I Naree, an nes yo Iluuvatar.  Nan nala
> > for its emptiness.  Yet he did not find the Fire, for it was with
> > Iluvatar.
> But being
>
> Is 'luste' 'emptiness' right?

 **I would use _lustasse_ instead. But we have _kuuma_ 'the void'
 well attested.

> An what about 'its'?

 **It is probably _-rya_ as well. E.G. _parmarya_ 'his/her/its book'.

> > Sanweli sii lanyane lindaleryanna ar sii rucine [5] ortane Some of
> > these thoughts now he wove into his music and now disorder rose
>
> Maybe could be 'I sanwion sii lanyane' 'some of the thoughts',
> supposing that partitive genitive can function that way.... I like
> 'rucine' better than 'rucinasse'

 **I like _rucinasse_ better...


*****

> > Minyave.  San I ruucine Melkoro palyane oi yontapalan, ar I lindi
> > yar at first.  Then the disorder of Melkor spread ever more wide,
> > and the melodies which
>
> Yesta 'first' isolated from 'yestare' (LotR) - thus rather 'yestave'
> 'firstly' than 'minyave'

 **_Yesta_ would be rather 'first' as 'beginning, opening, starting,
 preceding'. I do not say that it would be bad to use this word, but I
 think it is not necessary to use it instead of _minyave_. And I would,
 in order to avoid a confusion, use rather _(I) yessesse_ 'in the
 beginning'.


*****


> Rl: About 'vala': I know that it came to refer to the Valar only, and
> was not used as an ordinary word for 'power'; I thought, though, that
> using it in the Ainulindale would be okay, as it would be the first
> writing on the Valar, and would probably show the derivation.  I think
> you're saying, though, that there's also a separate linguistic issue
> - the difference between 'power' and 'a power', 'a thing possessing
> power'?  If there is such a distinction, I guess 'valasse' would be
> best. Ln: I am quite bit unsure about the meaning of the derivatives
> of 'vala-' - maybe somebody else can tell more.

 **_Vala_ 'Power, God', pl. _Valar_, _Vali_; _Valie_ fem. Vala _vala-_
 'rule, order' _valaina_ 'divine' _valasse_ 'divinity' _valya_ 'having
 divine authority'
+ A few names containing _Val-_ and + a few other words from earlier
  sources when _Valar_ meant something like 'the happy ones'.

> There is the verb 'pol-' 'to be able' and the epithet 'Poldoorea'
> 'Valiant' (if I remember well). I have once argued that 'poldoorea'
> means 'with mighty heart'  'polda'+ 'oore'. Mayby 'might' is
> 'poldasse' or 'polde' (if not 'poldoore').

 **It might be possible that it is just a compound of _polda_ 'heart'
 and _oore_ 'heart', but note that the entry in Etym gives _poldore_ (no
 long second o), one would expect _poldoore_. Yes, _poldore_ still may
 be a misreading for _poldoore_, but it also might contain the suffix
 _-re_ found in _almare_ 'blessedness' (_alma_ 'wealth') or _alcare_
 'brilliance' (_alca_ 'ray of light').

> But have we not a word for 'brother'?

 **_Toron_ 'brother'; _otorno_ 'sworn brother'.

> Rl: Sometimes the English has 'Flame Imperishable', and sometimes it
> has 'Imperishable Flame'.  I figured the 'translator' would only do
> that if the Quenya was inverted likewise. Ln: Yes, it seem as a right
> supposition, since we do not know much about Quenya word order.

 **'...While in Telerin and Sindarin the adjectival elements [in
 compounds] often were placed second, especially in later-formed names,
 according to the usual placing of adjectives in the ordinary speech of
 those languages [sc. The Eldarin ones: Quenya, Sindarin, Telerin,
 (Nandorin)]' (pm:346).

> Ln: <> creating (gen), desire to (for) create (dat) or accusative as you have
> it...? I would perhaps write 'onieeva', for the 'ajectival genitive'
> seems to me undefinite enough not to be wrong...> > rl: Yes, I think I
> should have used a genitive here.  Why '-va' instead of '-o', though?
>
> Ln: Simply because the -va genitive is more like an ajective - and you
> ask 'what desire'. The -o genitive is most probably also possible, but
> it somehow has a connotation of 'origin' as it seems to me...

 **If you want to use _onie_ 'creating', why not use a compound?
 _Onie-iire_ 'creating desire, desire for creating'?


Ales Bican



[elfling ID#3761]
[original subject: Ainulindale 1]

Regarding the comparative, I just had a thought: what do you think about
using _pella_ = 'beyond'?  E.G., ' . . . alta noo pella . . .' = ' great
beyond [what he was] before'.  It's certainly not perfect.  Does anyone
have any other ideas?



[elfling ID#3765]
[original subject: Ainulindale 1]

 vanlin wrote:

> > **Seems a bit strange to me. Pa. T. of _har-_ would be _harne_ or
> > ever maybe _haare_, but very likely not _haarane_. _Har-_ is of the
> > same pattern as _car-_ and pa.T.'s of the _car-_ are given as
> > _carne_ and (in an earlier source) _caare_.
>
> I thought the verb was _hara-_.  I'm not sure, though.

 **There is _haarar_ in co and Tolkien translated it as 'are sitting'.
 According to what we know _haara_ is the present continuative, the
 aorist would be *_hare_, the root _har-_. Therefore such the
 preterites.

> > **We do not know if _laa_ can be used for 'no' (as 'no notes'), I
> > would not risk it. Simply say _uumer_ '[they] were not'. Anyway, I
> > would use here rather _ea_, pa.T. _Eane_ or _enge_.
>
> I assume you meant _uuner_; I agree.

 **No, I meant _uumer_. In Etym there is the stem ugu or umu which gives
 _umin_ 'I am not, I do not' and _uume_ is its pa.T.. It is assumed that
 these words can used for negatives.

> Why use _ea_, though?  I thought this should only be used when the
> emphasis on on the thing's existence, 'it exists' as opposed to
> merely 'it is'.

 **My personal feeling. I thought it as that in the music there
 were/existed no wrong notes. But it is but my feeling and may be wrong.

> > **I think I sure said it before: _yonta-_ cannot be used for the
> > comparatives, but you have not cared. At least it does not mean
> > 'more', for this _yonta-_ was a misreading for _yanta-_ which is
> > actually the verb 'enlarge, increase'!
>
> Oh!  I wasn't aware it was a misreading for a verb; I thought it was
> merely an old word, probably no longer valid.  Unfortunately, the
> comparative is a real necessity.  I'd go so far as to say the
> Ainulindale is untranslateable without it.  Any ideas?

 **Yes, it is will be untranslatable. We absolutely do not know how to
 form the comparatives.

> > **I would write _Iluuvatar uume anta sanwe_ 'Iluuvatar did not give
> > any thought'. At least it is safer.
>
> Wouldn't this be _Iluuvatar untane sanwe_ ? Assuming, of course, that
> _u-_ assimilated the _a-_.

 **No, the same _uume_ above mentioned. Prefixing _uu-_ seems to be only
 Sindarin way of forming negatives.

> > **If you want to use _onie_ 'creating', why not use a compound?
> > _Onie-iire_ 'creating desire, desire for creating'?
>
> What would happen to the vowel cluster in the middle of this compound?
> It certainly couldn't be _onieiire_.

 **I did not mean it as a 'normal' compound, but as a so-called
 loose compound.


Ales Bican



[elfling ID#3783]
[original subject: Ainulindale 1]