Comments by Elaran

These are the 10 posts of 195 by Elaran.

  • Translation of unit names

    Rule of thumb: Whenever you see a word that ends with a vowel, think twice about whether it is Sindarin, as almost all Sindarin words end with a consonant instead. That hauda is a Telerin word, and its S. cognate is haudh.

    As my replacing your "nestor" with nathor hints, "nestad" should be nathad. The rest of the entry looks fine.

    "Workshop" would have been far clearer. Anyway, the "place" word that I used for some of those compounds is actually sad (lenited had), which can assimilate to preceding voiceless fricatives, so it only looks like "-ad" in certain situations. Now... I would use dagor for "siege" and carathad for "workshop (lit. construction-place)". So Carathad Dagor Imladris.

    I should talk about the pluralisation dilemma... The historical phonetic development rules of Sindarin dictate that "I-epenthesis" (or I-intrusion) cannot take place when a consonant cluster is in the way. This is the reason behind my giving the plural of ethast in the form ethest (rather than "ethaist") due to the final ST cluster which prevents ancient I from entering the preceding syllable (like: arani > ereni > erein > erain). And there are other such words in your list, like iant with its NT that makes the plural ient (rather than iaint). But... There are some counter examples. For example Tolkien gave two plural forms for sarn as sern and sairn. So ignore my "ethest" suggestion and go with "ethaist", because going the "right way" calls for many other changes like "saim > sem" (comes from samm<samb<sambe), "sennais > sennes" (from sennasse), and so on.

    Similarly I would suggest keeping the final D of rond (despite what the rules say), because it can be confused with the agental suffix -ron. That is what Tolkien seems to have done as well. So arrond, liphrond.

    And finally, you wrote "gondyn" for the plural of gondan. That should be "gendain". Now we are done, I think.

  • Translation of unit names

    An even longer list! I get that some of these are basically extensions of "unit names", but why "lantern" and such? Anyway, this time I will spare you (and myself) the details, after the initial bits.

    I already addressed (regarding celefben/celevben) that final "F" in the Latin orthography of Sindarin means "V" (and should be written as "V" when not final) and that this cannot be followed by "B", but in your "parfbar" the same problem is seen again. Also you seem to have skipped lenition for the following "B", even though you have "maethorvar". And yet both are mistaken. The word [m]bar is prenasalised word which undergoes a different set of rules, so that would be "maethorbar" instead. In short, I suggest parbar "book-home", and herthad "troop-place". I would also use rochad for "stable (lit. horse-place)", more stable than the other compound.

    For the remaining ones from the first paragraph:

    annondolen > dolfen
    ararond > arron(d)
    mirurond > liphron(d)
    nestor > nathor

    Now the list:

    talan "quarter" > sam "chamber" (use talan as "platform" only)
    iaun > aenas (if "temple") / caw (if "shelter")

    • tevil "forge"
    • ethast (pl. ethest) "outpost"

    sarnel > gondan
    pendrad > pendrath (or cellir)

    • rîdh "farm"

    Not sure what "siege work" is supposed to be.

    • nenand "water-gate"

    sad/echad îdh > sennas

    • tump "tent"

    That should be all.

  • Sindarin translation

    Not sure what "simplified" means but that attempt does not really work.

    Firstly, the Sindarin neologism *mas depends on the Quenya strengthening of the locative suffix from -sē to -ssē. Because "MAsē" would simply be "ma" in Sindarin, and only "MAssē" can yield *mas(s). And whether this is in tune with Sindarin is debatable at best. But there is a safer way to say "where" in Sindarin. Your phrase seems to use it in allative form like "whither", so *navan would work for you. Then again, both this word and the former come from the interrogative (rather than the relative) root. So they are to be used in questions, at least that is what Quenya does. But the relative-based forms are difficult / unknown to form in Sindarin, so some think that the interrogative forms would be used (like English "where" which acts both as interrogative and relative).

    Next, your conjugation of bertha- seems to mix both the future form and the agental noun, like "will-darer". If that "-or" was "-ar" instead, then it would work better as... "they will dare", which is still not what you want. So simply berthar "they dare" is the right form. No sign of "eagles" here however.

    I would personally paraphrase this heavily, but I am guessing that that is not wanted here, so a direct translation with the above stuff:

    Menif/Menib navan Theryn berthar.

    That "-f" means "we (excluding you)" & "-b" means "we (including you)". In other words, "-f" is "I and others, not you", and "-b" is "you and I (and others)". Choose according to that.

    View thread

  • -ia and i-affection

    You seem to have missed a crucial detail. Raising is triggered by final I only. Thus, if the word had further sounds after I, this rule did not take place. Hence "nutja- > [see below] notja- > [no raising] notia- > [just fronting] nœtia- > nœdia- > nedia-" and so on.

    That change from "nutja-" to "notja" is not caused by A-affection (u>o can happen without it, cf. tul->tol-). Because like the raising rule, A-affection is also triggered by final A only. And the A in "A-verbs" is not considered final, because it is rarely so in actual usage. For example in nedion -N makes it non-final and it is not even an A but O (due to ā>ǭ>au>ō/o). Hence the "counterexample" tiria-... and dilia-, and thilia-, and siria-, and ista-, and mista-, and tinna-, and thinna-, and... so on.

    The rules are fine as they are.

  • Translation

    Here:

    Gin anírof. "We(ex.) long for you(inf.)." Tengwar (Ignore the warning. And don't change anything.)

    Achovathab. "We(inc.) will meet again." [lit. "re-meet-will-we(inc.)"] Tengwar

    View thread

  • Translation of unit names

    1. What you have in the new list is good enough.

    2. Looks like you went for "Riders of Glorfindel" which sounds special enough to me.

    3. This one is not that straightforward but I can suggest tolchollon & telchellyn for "banner-carrier".

    4. Yes, the same with any genitive formation.

    Further corrections:

    • Plural of rochben is indeed rochbin, but you got the other one wrong; it reads "eithrochbYn".
    • I should have warned you about the plurals of hadiod and dringod. An "o" that comes from "au" does not become "y" in the final position when pluralised, it becomes "oe". So they should be hadioed & dringoed. (And it does not change at all when not final: raud+on = Rodon & Rodyn.)

    Unless I'm missing something, everything else seems fine.

  • Translation of unit names

    There are a lot of issues here, it will be quite the wall of text...

    Using -tir as "guard(ian)" is debatable, though good enough. But "glanir" is definitely not how it would be compounded with glan. A late compound would be glandir (which can also be viewed as "border-man"), but since you are not talking about the guards and rather the swordsmen (etc.) of the guards, you should rather use glandirith (using tirith, the act of watching, guarding).

    Genitive formations are implied with word order (cf. Aran Moria = "King of Moria"), not with the preposition o which actually means "from" and does not make sense if the soldiers are still in Lórien. There is a word for "of the" (not just "of" though), but its usage depends on the following word, rather needlessly complex for what you need, since "the" is not always required. So, just use Magor Glandirith Lórien "Swordsman of (the) Border-watch of Lórien" = "Lórien Border-watch Swordsman". And you only need to pluralise magor in that formation.

    Next issue is "îthron". Sindarin does not allow overlong vowels (i.e. the ones with circumflexes like "î") in polysyllabic words (with very specific exceptions). Only long vowels are allowed ("í"), and not even them in the last syllable (except old names) or if they precede a consonant cluster like "thr" which is the case here. But no, the plural of eithron is not "ithryn", because "ei" does not change when pluralised. So its plural should be eithryn, though I would personally use eithor & eithyr.

    I was asked about the singular form of Galadhrim not long ago, and I offered (m.) galadhron & (f.) galadhril. I guess, the word got around. However, it is not what you should use there. It would be the same as in English, only reverted. Thus Maethor Galadhrim "Warrior of (the) Treefolk". You can use galadh[ron/ril] only by itself (without "warrior" etc.) if you want to address a single Elf of the Galadhrim.

    And now "tir" is not even a suffix. This is even more unsafe than the using the suffixed form as "guard(ian)". I would suggest tirron & tirryn. And again, drop the o "from".

    A female minstrel would be pethril.

    I would replace Taur e-Ndaedelos with Taur-nu-Fuin. Because Tolkien wrote the latter later (so it is more of "final decision" than the other), and because the word [n]daedelos is slightly problematic, long story. Also the forest was not always called "Mirkwood". Before the influence of Dol Guldur, it was Eryn Galen "Greendwood", and after the War of the Ring, it was Eryn Lasgalen "Greenwood the Great (lit. Forest of Green-leaves)".

    A "palace" would be orbar(dh) like the Quenya word oromar(d-) "lofty hall, high-mansion, high (lofty) dwelling". The initial element shares its root with orod "mountain, hill", similar to the etymology of English "palace" which comes from Ceaser's house on "the Palatine Hill".

    Well Avari is a Quenya word, and one should not mix languages. It is Avar & Evair in Sindarin. But you can be sure that no warrior in Mirkwood would be called an Avar, so maybe you should drop this altogether.

    You can use glandir by itself here. Its plural is not "glendir" though. What causes Sindarin words to change form when plural is an ancient final "i" which disappears after affecting the words. But here there is already an "i", so the preceding "a" should have become "e" already. Meaning that it would be "glendir" both in singular and plural form. But, there is also a reformation rule with which recognisable elements in compounds are restored, hence glandir, and another "i" would not really change that. So "sg. glandir & pl. glandir", but the difference can be marked with the help of tirron in the form glandirron & glandirryn

    The "elk riding" thing is a (rather unrealistic) invention of the Hobbit films, so it is not really a thing unless you want to go for it. The word is phonetically off however with that "...v+b...". And by that "v" I mean: Tolkien used final "-f" in the Latin orthography as "v" instead, so it is actually "celev" and should be written like that when that V is not the final letter. More importantly, "-ben" is not really what you need there. I assume, you were copying rochben "(horse)rider" (because I also saw "wind rider" in your list as "gwaeben" which... you will see...), but this "-ben" does not mean "rider", it is simply the word pen "person" in a compound. So the sense "rider" comes from the fact that "horse+person" can only mean "rider". Meanwhile a "deer+person" would arguably mean "hunter" instead (and "gwaeben" would mean... "?weatherman", basically nonsense). Anyway, celef is a neologism with an existing attested alternative aras, so it would be better to use that. You can use it alongside northor & nerthyr "rider(s)" as northor aras "rider (of) deer = deer rider".

    That "ecthelorn" is a neologism whose justification for that non-final "c" (not allowed) does not really work in Sindarin. This would be better as eithorn. While we are at it, "soros" is an early draft word that does not really mean anything in Sindarin, I would replace it with feren. And again, the formation should be "Onod Feren" etc. Though I should say, Ents were not really trees...

    The form "ionath" is attested so it is fine, but "ionnath" is also attested, and it is arguably more plausible so you may want to change it.

    I guess "hatholir" is like "glanir" where the initial sound of the second element disappeared for no reason, so "hathol+chir", which has other phonetic issues. I would rather offer maechir or megilchir with identical plurals.

    Not sure how to approach "lancer", I suppose "spear-rider" will need to suffice. So Eithrochben with plural "-bin".

    Loremaster would rather be angollon & engellyn (cf. Q. ingolmo "loremaster", Q. ingolë = S. angol & Q. -mo = S. -(r)on).

    Again, not sure how to approach "catapult", maybe hadiod from had- "throw" and gaud "device". The phonetic development makes it rather obscure, but there is not much of a choice. The words like sling with "rope" in it have uncertainties around them, so I would not bother.

    I would use Borvaethor as "veteran", since the root of the initial element has other derivatives like "old, endured", thus an etymological match for the English word. There are multiple ways to translate the "Last Alliance", I would translate it as Gwennas Dell.

    Not sure what to do with "Glorfindel's Wind Rider", I don't get what it is. I can only say that Sindarin word means "wind-person" instead.

    As usual, revert the Dúnedain formations, it should come after the troop word. As for "ranger", I would not use that "stealthy" word, it is a very stretched neologism... Now, it can be argued that the use of "ranger" in the works of Tolkien has two different meanings. When speaking of the "Rangers of the North", it refers to the wandering folk of the Dúnedain as a whole (including women and children). And they were called "rangers" (i.e. "wanderers") by the Men of Bree, so it is doubtful that they would refer to themselves with the same word instead of saying "I am a Dúnadan". Meanwhile the "Rangers of the South" were Gondorian special forces from Ithilien, and here the word more or less meant "soldier", which does not quite apply to the Dúnedain in the north. In other words, you may want to change this.

    And finally, poll is the animal "ram", so the final entry is basically "the ram-animal of the Dúnedain", it does not hint at anything else. And it would arguably be an Anglicism to use the word for "ram (animal)" (even with "battering" alongside it) for the siege weapon. So I will instead suggest dringod "beating/hammering-device".

    That took a while... But looks like we are done.

  • My name in Quenya?

    None of those Sindarin "Eru-" names actually work in Sindarin. The one with "-iel" exceeds the limit of four syllables, and they all show a possessive pronoun (with implied copula!) which is unheard-of in Sindarin.

    Names with meanings like "my God is gracious" should be translated like "(The [son/daughter] of the) Grace of God" or literally "God-grace(m/f)". In this case both "abundance" and "oath" encounter issues (long story). So I think that "grace" can be used instead, since it is somewhat related to abundance, as in God's being gracious and granting gifts. Eruanwen "God-grace-maiden" would work in both Quenya and Sindarin.

    Also, arphen is a common noun, and these cannot be used as names without further modification. Rodwen "Noble Maiden" does work, having already been used by Tolkien as a feminine name.

    View thread

  • Elvish Grammar

    @Felix R. M.: That link predates numerous publications of Tolkien's notes and essays on his languages. In other words, since it was written before works like PE22 (2015), it shares more theories than attested information (e.g. the link gives "-ch" as the 2nd person suffix for Sindarin, whereas Tolkien gives "-g" in PE17). Then again, Tolkien's later works not only debunks theories, but it also replaces some of his own older works (e.g. Sindarin "we(ex.) will come" should now be "tolathof" and not "telitham"). So I recommend avoiding older works like that. More importantly, please avoid sharing them.

  • Neologism for "to forget"?

    Creative ways to say things can work well in poems, but for general use one should be more cautious. And not only with the sense, but also with the rules in mind. That is to say, I disagree with the idea of using "over-time" as a verb, but even if I liked it, the root of lúmë is LU, not "lum", so it would not work in that form.

    Now... Tolkien's earliest drafts of Sindarin (i.e. Goldogrin/Gnomish at the time) already had the verb "to forget" in the form "laitha-", but this cannot be used in Sindarin directly due to a few reasons: The simple reason is that it does not fit the phonetics of Sindarin, as it has a non-final "ai" (which should be either "ei" or "ae" depending on etymology). And the complex reason is that the primitive root of this verb *LITH (from 1920~, possibly *LEKH as well) was updated to LETH (1930~) and finally LEK (1940~). Also the sense seem to have shifted from "lose, forget" to "loose, release", although some argue that the earlier senses can still apply.

    As for that "laisa-" which you saw, it does not come from Tolkien. The neologisms Q. *laisa- (laiþa-) & S. *laetha- are simply phonetic updates of the draft word itself , thus creating a root rather than a derivation. And this "neo-root", LAYATH, does not quite agree with the attested roots like LAY "flourish" & LAYAK "fresh" (compare BAR "raise, uplift" & BARATH "height"). Hence I rather suggest extending the sense of the attested verb leitha- "to loose, release" to include "to lose, forget" as well. But if one wishes to avoid overburdening that verb, a direct derivation from LEK as *leg- which can already be found on this website. And a Quenya cognate of that neologism would be *lec-.

    TL;DR: I recommend using Q. *lec- & S. *leg- (or extending the meaning of Q. lehta- & S. leitha-) for the sense "to forget".

    View thread