Thank you! This is very helpful :)
Theryn is the plural of
ló- negates the verb. Wouldn't
úvedir work as well?
mad- is the stem.
medir (present, 3rd plural) is soft-mutated to
vedir in negative form.
4) sounds like I risk making the sentence sound weird to people knowing Sindarin, as
lhûg could also refer to Dragon. I can't find other insect names other than
gwilwileth. Maybe I can try with grass,
thâr, or fungi
Thanks again for your patience
2 - "ú-vedir" would rather mean "(they) cannot eat", as Tolkien says (after stating his dislike towards using √U for negation and choosing √LA) here:
The nuance will remain important. úchebin will mean not 'I do not keep', but 'I cannot keep'.
4 - lhûg does not necessarily mean "dragon". That meaning was only given in 1940 drafts, whereas all Post-LotR works gloss it as "reptile, snake, serpent, worm". The root of this word, which is √LOK, simply means "bend, loop", so arguably lhûg can be used with any thin and long creature (without limbs). It even applies to hair: loch "ringlet" < LOKko, also Q. lócë "curl of hair" & Q. locin[a?] "bent".
4.1 - The plural of hwand should not be "hwaind" because its final consonant cluster (i.e. -nd) would prevent I-intrusion. So the plural should be hwend (cf. parf > perf [not "pairf"], cam(m) > cem(m) [not "caim"], anfang > enfeng [not "enfaing"]).
This has been very educational. Thank you Elaran.
Regarding hwaind, the entry in Parf Edhellen should be fixed I imagine.
I can (as I have administrative powers), and I would (since it is indeed problematic). But that is what "Parviphith" (i.e. H. K. Fauskanger's wordlist) offers, and Parf Edhellen's owner (aka Aldalëon) is against changing the original entries from external documents. So I will leave it to him.
Thank you, Elaran! Is this Noldorin leaking into Sindarin? We could reclassify the entry as Noldorin if that is the case. I do not want erroroneous glosses in the dictionary, regardless of their source.
No, Noldorin also had "parf > perf". It is more of a case of overlooked evidence, I think. Although one can offer counter examples, "aCCi > eCC" outnumbers them. We could just mark the entries as unsafe or add a note at the end.
We could just mark the entries as unsafe or add a note at the end.
That sounds like a great idea. Especially considering Parviphith made some early assumptions in their suggested mutations.