Comments by Paul Strack
These are the 10 posts of 80 by Paul Strack.
-
Gloss “sarno” by Ardalambion (Helge Fauskanger)
I personally would use paluhta for “table” (an updated version of EQ. palukta) because its root PAL survives in later forms of Quenya and is still associated with “flatness”.
-
Gloss “har” by Ardalambion (Helge Fauskanger)
The word har(e) is Early Quenya from the 1910s, and I personally wouldn’t use it at all. I would use either am(be)na “nearer to” or ar(a) “beside, next [to]”, which might also be used as “near”.
For all of these, I see no reason why the modified noun would be declined into any special cases.
I’m not sure what you mean be “nominative-object.” The Quenya “nominative” is the noun form without any special inflection, and is generally the form used with prepositions (with some exceptions, such as ú “without” which is used with the genitive).
Quenya used to have a distinct accusative (direct object) form, but it was lost by the Third Age.
-
Gloss “anna” by Eldamo Import
Those suffixes can be used to form male names, but to every male name uses one of those suffixes.
Just look at the names of the kings of Gondor and Numenor, many of which have no special masculine suffix.
The masculine suffixes are often added to simple names such as Finwe or Curumo. Compound names such as Elessar “Elf-stone” rarely use these suffixes.
-
Gloss “ana-” by Eldamo Import
Short answer: no.
The ablative and allative cases in noun declension are always suffixes: -nna and -llo.
The prefix ana- is a more general purpose prefix that can be added nouns or verbs. I imagine it is used more often with verbs, as is the case with the prefix et- “out”. For example, perhaps anamen- might mean something like “to go to(wards), venture forth”.
-
Trouble to "Begin"
I happened to notice this post. The neologism yesta- is inspired by the (rejected) verb esta- “to precede”. I believe it would either be a TALAT-stem verb or an adaption of the noun yesta “beginning” as a weak verb.
To adapt it to Neo-Sindarin, I’d keep it simple and just use iesta-, conjugated like other a-stem verbs.
-
Rule for creation of frequentative/iterative (Quenya)
A “frequentative” verb is a special variation of a Quenya verb that indicate ongoing or repeated action. For example the verb ul “pour” has the frequentative variant ululla “to keep on pouring”. Sometimes the frequentative form can, over time, gain additional meanings. For example, the frequentative form of mat “to eat” has come to be mammata “to gobble up, gorge, devour”
-
New Eldamo data available
Aldaleon, about 6 months ago I recommended you stop importing Eldamo data because I was working on rearranging the data model to better support my Neo-Eldarin work. I’ve finished sorting out the data model changes. If you want to discuss how/whether to start importing Eldamo data again, let me know. You can ping me here, on G+ or on the Discord server.
-
Rule for creation of frequentative/iterative (Quenya)
According to the rules on PE22/100, the frequentative form applies only to basic verbs of the from CVC (car) or VC (ul). Tolkien often called these “strong” verbs.
Derived verbs that end in a vowel like (caita) or (tolu) cannot have a frequentative form, as far as I know.
-
Rule for creation of frequentative/iterative (Quenya)
There is another frequentative that you are missing: sisilla- “to glitter or twinkle”. It is an example of your “missing variant”.
There is another clue you are missing in determining the rules for frequentative formation: the source. Most of your examples, including all those of the form cacarra-, come from PE22 (Parma Eldalamberon issue #22), while two (sisíla and fifíru) come from MC (The Monsters and the Critics) and the last two (tamba and lapsa) are from Ety (the Etymologies). Notice how similar forms are from distinct sources.
The sisíla vs. sisilla represent two different ways of forming the frequentative from different periods in Tolkien’s life. Those from PE22 of the form sisilla are (mostly) from the 1940s, while the examples of the form sisíla are from the late 1960s. Within a given source, Tolkien is generally consistent, but he would often changed his mind over time.
So which of these ways of forming the frequentative is “right”? We don’t know.
We do know that the sisíla forms are later, so it might be that Tolkien changed the rules for frequentative formation in the two decades between these examples. Perhaps cacarra should be updated to cacára. Or it could be that both ways of forming the frequentative are valid, and either could be used, depending on circumstances or taste.
That said, you did a pretty good job of detecting and extracting the basic pattern. It helps if you notice and can look at the original sources for particular words, because they often provide additional context. For example, in PE22/100 Tolkien discussed his own rules for frequentative formation in some detail, at least as he imagined them at that point in time (the 1940s).
-
Account “Reuben Vanhinsbergh”
Aldaleon brought your question to the Vinye Lambengolmor Discord server: discord.gg
There isn’t a simple answer. The etymology of Reuben is from ancient Hebrew reu + ben “to see (imperative) a son”. The equivalent ancient Elvish phrase would be elā yondō, which in Sindarin might have developed as follows elāyondō > elaiondo > elaeond > eleon. So in Sindarin, my best guess is Elëon, based mostly on the phonological development of Fëanor < Phayanāro.
I am more confident of the Quenya form, which would be Elëondo.
But none of that is anything a beginner would be reasonably able to figure out.