These are the 10 posts of 114 by Tom Bombadil.

  • Gloss “nai” by Eldamo Import

    I deleted it because at last I understood that "may (...) be" can have two meanings.

    Firstly: "(...) shall become/happen",

    Secondly: "maybe (...) is".

    In the second case, maybe is a synonym of perhaps, and we have enough Quenya words for that.

    The may-be-phrase of the Swarm has the second meaning and not a unique third one. I thought so, when I asked this first.


  • Gloss “nai” by Eldamo Import

    You are quick. Actually I wanted to delete my question, and I did so, but I still have a copy. So, for other readers, this was my question:

    "Does that just mean "may" and has always to be combined with another verb? What about the phrase may be (not the word maybe (which is like perhaps), but the phrase, for instance in "may it be good")? Is the one word "nai" also that phrase?

    At least the phrase "nai (...) nauva" sounds pretty unusual to me. By the way, I would rather prefer "nai (...) ná", for that is "may (...) be", while the other one is basically "may (...) become".

    Anywhay, "nai (...) ná" sounds even more weird.

    I'm asking because a sentence from the novel "The Swarm", by Frank Schätzing. Quoted from memory, Jack Greywolf sayed: "Leon, my live may be ridiculous, but you ... you are already dead."

    I tried to translate this, and of course I could just use maybe or perhaps, as if he sayed "perhaps my live is (...)", but he did not, so I would like to have words which express may be."


  • Quenya subject-tautologies; possible or necessary?

    I am pretty confused by verb conjugation. I thought that it is not always necessary to add an ending to a verb, which already has it's stem and tense. I thought that it is just necessary to add the subject-suffix if the subject will not be mentioned anywhere else in the sentence.

    For example "nai hiruvalye valimar!" and "nai elye hiruva!". "You" is the subject. It is either a suffix (-lye) or a word (elye), but it does not appear as both, like in the theoretical sentence "nai elye hiruvalye!". If that sentence was allowed, I could also create rubbish like "nai elye hiruvalyes valimar!" or "Yé! utúvienyes Tuima!"

    Apparently such seemingly redundant tautologies can indeed appear in Quenya, like in "esse úpa nas." That sentence confuses me, for I would either say "esse ná úpa." or "nás úpa." (to say nothing of the weird usage of "he". Why esse, why not erye?)

    The outcome of this is the question: Is it just allowed or even obligatory to use the subject as both, word and suffix?

    Secondly: There are examples and counterexamples. How can they coexist? Of course one answer might be that the use or double use of the subject is optional. Might there be other reasons? Maybe the subject must be mentioned in the verb (no matter whether it is later mentioned again or not), but this rule can be broken in poetic language?

    PS. At times I thought that the verb only needs the pronoun-suffix when there is either no other subject (as a word) or when the other subject is a noun and not a pronoun. Apparently that is wrong for esse is a pronoun (at least in this context) and the verb still has it's suffix.


  • What/Who Else?

    That sounds logical. Thanks.


  • What/Who Else?

    Alatulya maquetienyasse. Which word can be used for "else" in the contexts of "who else" and "what else"? Can exa and hyana also be used in this context? If so: Is the phrase/sentence "Man hyana?" right? It just sounds pretty wrong to use the word for "other" in this context, but what is the alternative?


  • -u dual (Quenya)

    I guess, -u is just the number suffix of one case: nominative. What about the others? I never read anything about them. Wherever I read, there were just examples of the -t forms. Are there known precedents of the -u forms too (except nominative of course)?

    If I had to guess, I would say that it is like this:

    Nominative: -u

    Accusative: -ú (old) / -u (modern)

    Ablative: -ullo

    Genitive: -uron/-uo (?)

    Allative: -unna

    Dative: -un

    Locative: -usse

    Respective: -us

    Instrumental: -unen

    Possessive sg: -uva

    Possessive pl: -uve

    But that's just a modest guess. What do you think?


  • Gloss “fëanturi” by Eldamo Import

    Why are Mandos and Lórien described by a noun in plural form? They are two and that should require the dual ending, shouldn't it?

    By the way: What would the dual form look like? Or in general: How do we decline a noun, which results in a consonant?

    In some cases it's clear (like singular genitive and most plural cases), but what about those forms, which require suffixes, which start with a consonant too (collective, dual and most singular cases)?

    I have read in one source that the connecting vowel between the word's end and the (dual) suffix (-t/-lto/-to/...) always has to be -e-. In this case, the dual form would be "feanturet". Is that true?

    In another source I have read that we have to duplicate the last vowel of the word, so that it would be "feanturut". What is right?

    PS. I forgot the other dual ending: -u. Probably it should be feanturu, especially if we consider that Mandos and Lórien are brothers. Therefore I specify my question about nouns, which result in a consonant: What vowels are required in front of the -t dual variant/all the other case-suffixes which start with a consonant?


  • Gloss “carrëa” by Eldamo Import

    What does tressure mean? I never heard that word and I can't find it in dictionaries and the internet too. Is it a hairnet?


  • Gloss “ve” by Eldamo Import

    Can the prefix form of that be used as a similative? If so, vē̆- might be an alternative of -ndon. By the way: How should vē̆- be spelled? Is it like vé-?


  • Gloss “nírë” by Eldamo Import

    Is that force in the way of "compulsion" (like the noun of the verb "to force someone"),

    or is it force in the way of "power" (the abstract property of mighty persons, like kings or emperors)?