Comments by Gilruin
These are the 10 posts of 226 by Gilruin.
-
Contribution “múltha-” by Sámo Collarwa
-
Contribution “mólta-” by Sámo Collarwa
-
Contribution “múlas” by Sámo Collarwa
Thanks for contributing to Parf Edhellen!
Two minor suggestions:
- How do you feel about adding “thralldom” for this word as well to mirror the Quenya version? For “bondage” we actually have primitive nazgwē and WED-/KHAP-/NUT-/RAP- attested, so you might not want to include it here.
- How about instead of a phonetic development, you just list the Elements mûl, -as? With the Development, you run into the issue that you need to opine on lost vowels that don’t matter anyway (e. g. primitive mōl has a variant mólu, not mōla attested and usually the abstarct suffix shows an e: -ssē). Since Morgoth was imprisoned in Valinor for most of Sindarin’s development, the word doesn’t need to be ancient anyway.
gilruin , Gilruin
-
Commandment Translation
I’d say the most standard way for a negative command is a construction with ava-: avo nago “do not kill!” (That does not carry the same stylistic implications, but we know for certain that it’s grammatical).
Regarding the (a)tha-future, Tolkien devised two paradigms:
-
Quendian & Common Eldarin Verbal Structure (late 1940s), similarly in Common Eldarin: Verb Structure (early 1950s):
Future. All the Eldarin languages express a simple future inflexionally, but the inflexions and patterns used are different [...] In Old Noldorin the future was usually expressed by adding -thā to the aorist stem: matithā- “will eat”. This thā is probably in origin a defining adverb = “then, next”, since with time-reference the pronominal stem √THA in Noldorin referred forward (PE22/96-97).
That’s the paradigm you are using, which gives you the i-mutation in dag → deg·i·tha-. Here this construction is a simple future, so there shouldn’t be any problems with negation.
-
Late Notes on Verb Structure (1969):
In S. the verb aþa, atha had become agglutinated to the verb stem, and formed a kind of “future”, expressing the intention of the subject, closely resembling in sense and uses English will (when not mere future): “I will (I’ll) go, he will (he’ll) go”, espec. in the 1st and 3rd persons. In the second person the implication of “will” of the subject is clearest in questions or negation. Cf. song in LR, linnathon “I will sing, I intend to sing”. This was a fairly late development, as is shown by the fact that aþa, aþon etc. could still be used with ellipse of the verb stem, as e.g. in linnathol? “will you sing (please)”, answer aþon “I will”. Apart from this athon “yes, I will” (or in plur. athof, athab) the verb atha- was no longer “free” (PE22/167).
With this etymology we get no i for stem verbs caw- → cawathon. Also the meaning has shifted to “intend to do” (there is also a simple future based on TUL-, tolen cared “I will do”), so negating it (“thou doest not intend to kill”) might not be the sense you are after. Also it is dubious if negation + atha- is even possible in this paradigm:
“to be willing, consent, agree”: positive of √ABA “refuse” but naturally less often so emphatic. It was, however, similarly constructed. The element found in Eldarin appears to have been an old one, a “mono-consonantal reversible” ÞĀ̆/AÞA. (PE22/165).
You could read that as “for ú·atha- use ava-” in the same way we know “for ú·hav- use pen-”, which again brings us back to the avo nago solution.
I don’t know which criteria you use for crafting Neo-Elvish, but if you use a “later explanations beat the earlier ones” approach you are stuck with paradigm 2.
On the soft mutation of dag-: We have its past attested as aðanc, which supports your ú·dhag-, however usually the root is attested as NDAK-, which would make dag- a special case ⁿd- mutation (that’s why I used nag- as the soft mutation result above). It could however also be the case that dag- derives from an unstrengthened variant form DAK- (such a root exists in the EtymAC).
-
-
Contribution “melaitha-” by Sámo Collarwa
Yes, reitha- is a bit of a mess:
A further complication is added by the derivatives of √RIK- *’try’ (PE17:167). At first Tolkien wrote reitha *’strive’ with the apparent past tenses rithantem *’we strived’, rithantin *’I strived’. These forms can be well understood phonologically: CE *riktā > *reχþa (a-mutation and spirantization) > reitha (vocalization of χ). The past tense stem would be *riktant- > *riχþant- > rithant-, now without a-mutation because it only operates with final -ā (PE17:152). But Tolkien then wrote raitha which would be a rare example of ei > ai also in a non-ultimate syllable (another one is deleted bainia- (PE17:149)). Still, an e written over the word seems to indicate that the alternative reitha is also possible. Since these notes were written hastily and the readings are not entirely certain (according to the editors), raitha is likely to be an experimental form.
— On the diphthongs ei, ai in Noldorin and Sindarin, Roman RauschI would rather look at ek-tā > eitha-, *LEK-tya > leithia-, *NEK-ta > neitha-, tekta > teitha-
Also, I didn’t pay attention last time, it seems, because it is also rather unusual for verbs to undergo a-mutation, cf. ista- (not ??esta-), linna- (not ??lenna-), tiria- (not ??teria-)... (probably because the real forms that undergo the development are ista-ni, ista-ke..., so most verbs don’t show it by analogy to suffixed forms), so I wouldn’t use that either. All in all I would expect:
- MILIK → milikta-
- milikta-: voiceless stops aspirated after consonants except [s]
- milixþa-: aspirates became voiceless spirants
- milīþa-, milítha-: [x], [ɸ] vocalized between a vowel and [θ]
- optionally: militha-: [ī], [ū] often shortened in polysyllables
-
Contribution “mírina” by Sámo Collarwa
Upon rethinking, I don’t think mirila works that well, it assumes a stem verb mir- from a non-verbal root MIR- “precious; esteem, value”. For your translation of A Elbereth Gilthoniel I would recommend mirilya as an adjective miril + -ya “shining-jewel-like”, which works differently from Sindarin’s míria-participle in terms of grammar, but has a similar outcome.
-
Adventuring Party Name Translation
Gwaith-i-Thamuial is certainly an option, though Sindarin doesn’t require compounding to form a proper name, cf. Amon Hen, Minas Tirith, Nîn-in-Eilph, Ost-in-Edhil, Men-i-Naugrim, Taur-e-Ndaedelos...., in my opinion Thamuial would really just be another way to represent plain Tham Uial “Hall of Twighlight” in writing (I would prefer to spell thammuial with double m like in tham + as → thammas though, it derives from thambe < stambē). Thammas Minuial would work equally well (except that Gwaith i-Thammas Minuial would get quit long), it is however not **Thamas Vinuial, because no soft mutation happens in genitive “X of Y” constructions.
One other note though, it might be that Tolkien revised Noldorin tham, thammas to Sindarin sam as in Sammath Naur. With that change one would get Gwaith i-Sammath Minuial, Gwaith i-Hammuial.
(sammath is technically plural “all the chambers, the chamber system” so it gets the plural article in + s- → i·s-, while sam with the singular article shows i + s- → i·h-)
-
Gloss “gwaew” by Aldaleon created 8 months ago
/gwaɛ̯w/ in IPA, but that’s probably not going to help you much. Check out this pronunciation guide. You can e. g. combine the ending -aew like in examples caew, raew with the initial gw- in gweith.
-
"Remember us"
“Remember” seems more like an order here, so I would use the imperative: á enyale. “Remember us” would then be either áme enyale or á enyale me. In Tengwar:
á enyale á enyale áme enyale áme enyale á enyale me á enyale me
-
Proper Name Formation
Mastering the pen is rather different from mastering doom semantically speaking, we have an attested compound Tegilbor for someone skilled in calligraphy.