Quenya 

-lmë

we

-lmë 1st person pl. pronominal ending: "we" (VT49:38; 51 carilmë *"we do", VT49:16). It was originally intended to be inclusive "we" (VT49:48), including the person(s) spoken to, but by 1965 Tolkien made this the ending for exclusive "we" instead (cf. the changed definition of the corresponding possessive ending -lma, see above). _(VT49:38) Exemplified in laituvalmet "we shall bless them" (lait-uva-lme-t "bless-shall-we-them") (the meaning apparently changed from inclusive to exclusive "we", VT49:55), see also nalmë under # 1. (LotR3:VI ch. 4, translated in Letters:308_)

-lmë

suffix. we (exclusive)

Derivations

  • me “1st-pl-exclusive pronoun” ✧ VT49/50

Phonetic Developments

DevelopmentStagesSources
me > -lme[-lme]✧ VT49/50

Variations

  • -lme ✧ PE17/013; PE17/075; PE17/075; PE17/129; VT49/16; VT49/51
  • l+me ✧ PE17/014
  • lme ✧ PE17/130
Quenya [PE17/013; PE17/014; PE17/075; PE17/129; PE17/130; VT49/16; VT49/51] Group: Eldamo. Published by

-lmë

suffix. we (inclusive)

Variations

  • -lme ✧ PE17/057; PE17/190; VT49/38; VT49/48
  • -lbe ✧ PE17/129 (-lbe)
Quenya [PE17/057; PE17/129; PE17/190; VT49/38; VT49/48] Group: Eldamo. Published by

-lvë

suffix. we (inclusive)

The suffix -lvë is the first person plural inclusive inflection: “we (including you)” (PE17/130; VT49/16, 51). The corresponding possessive form -lva “our (inclusive)” appears in its genitive form -lvo in the famous phrase elen síla lúmenn’ omentielvo.

Possible Etymology: Tolkien indicated that this inflection was ultimately derived from the primitive pronoun ✶we, with the same plural marker l as other plural inflections such as -l(yë) and -ltë, and that its oldest form was ✶-lwe (PE17/130; VT49/50-51). At one point Tolkien indicated that the change of lw > lv was the normal phonetic development in Quenya (PE17/129). There little evidence that Tolkien carried through with the phonetic rule, however, and there are plenty of examples of unmodified lw in later Quenya. A better explanation might be that -lwe changed to -lve under the influence of the independent pronoun ve. These ideas came out of a discussion with Shihali on the Vinyë Lambengolmor Discord Server (VLDS) on Jan 28, 2018.

Conceptual Development: @@@

Derivations

  • -lwe ✧ PE17/130
  • we “we, us (inclusive)” ✧ VT49/50
    • ñwe “1 pl. inclusive base” ✧ VT48/10; VT48/10
    • me “1st-pl-exclusive pronoun” ✧ VT48/10

Phonetic Developments

DevelopmentStagesSources
-lwe > -lve[-lwe] > [-lve]✧ PE17/130
we > -lwe > -lve[-lwe] > [-lve]✧ VT49/50

Variations

  • -lve ✧ PE17/130; VT49/51
  • -lwe ✧ VT49/16
Quenya [PE17/130; VT49/16; VT49/51] Group: Eldamo. Published by

-lwë

we

-lwë, later -lvë, pronominal ending "we" (VT49:51), 1st person pl. inclusive ending, occurring in the verbs carilwë "we do" (VT49:16) and navilwë (see #nav-). The ending became -lvë in later, Exilic Quenya (VT49:51). See -lv-.

-lwë

suffix. we (inclusive)

-mmë

we

-mmë "we", 1st person dual exclusive pronominal ending: "I and one other" (compare the inclusive dual form -ngwë or -nquë). First written -immë in one source (VT49:57). Carimmë, "the two of us do" (VT49:16, cf. VT43:6). At an earlier conceptual stage, the ending was already exclusive, but plural rather than dual: vammë "we won't" (WJ:371), firuvammë "we will die" (VT43:34), etemmë ?"out of us" (VT43:36); see also VT49:48, 49, 55. Also compare the corresponding emphatic pronoun emmë (q.v.). The ending -lmë replaced -mmë in its former (plural exclusive) sense. In some early material, -mmë was apparently used as an ending for plural inclusive "we" (VT49:55).

-mmë

suffix. we (exclusive)

Variations

  • -mme ✧ PE17/057; PE17/075; PE17/075; PE17/190; VT49/38; VT49/48
Quenya [PE17/057; PE17/075; PE17/190; VT49/38; VT49/48] Group: Eldamo. Published by

me

we, us

me (1) 1st person pl. exclusive pronoun "we, us" (VT49:51; VT43:23, VT44:9). This pronoun preserves the original stem-form (VT49:50). Stressed (VT49:51). Cf. also mel-lumna "us-is-heavy", sc. *"is heavy for us" (LR:47, mel- is evidently an assimilated form of men "for us", dative of me; the form men is attested by itself, VT43:21). For me as object, cf. ála** "do not [do something to] us", negative imperative particle with object pronoun suffixed (VT43:19: álamë tulya, "do not lead us"), ámen** "do [something for] us", imperative particle with dative pronoun suffixed (ámen apsenë "forgive us", VT43:12, 18). Dual exclusive met "we/us (two)" (Nam, VT49:51), "you and me" (VT47:11; the latter translation would make met an inclusive pronoun, though it is elsewhere suggested that it is rather exclusive: "him/her and me", corresponding to wet [q.v.] as the true inclusive dual form). Rá men or rámen "for us/on our behalf", see . Locative messë "on us", VT44:12 (also with prefix o, ó- ?"with" in the same source). See also ménë, ómë.

nalmë

we are

nalmë (1) "we are", see #1, -lmë

emmë

we

emmë (2) pron. "we", emphatic pronoun; dative emmen (VT43:12, 20). In the source this pronoun is intended as the 1st person plural exclusive; later Tolkien changed the corresponding pronominal ending from -mmë to -lmë, and the plural emphatic pronoun would likewise change from emmë to *elmë. Since the ending -mmë was redefined as a dualexclusive pronoun, the form emmë may still be valid as such, as a dual emphatic pronoun "we" = "(s)he and I".

-ngwë

we

-ngwë "we", 1st person dual inclusive pronominal ending: "thou and I" (compare the exclusive dual form -mmë). Caringwë, "the two of us do" (VT49:16). One source lists the ending as "-inke > -inque" instead (VT49:51, 53, 57; "inke" was apparently Old Quenya). In an earlier pronoun table reproduced in VT49:48, the ending -ngwë is listed as an alternative to -lmë, which Tolkien at the time used as the plural inclusive ending (a later revision made it plural exclusive).

ve

we

ve (2) pron. "we", 1st person pl. inclusive (corresponding to exclusive me), derived from an original stem-form we (VT49:50, PE17:130). Variant vi, q.v. Stressed , later (VT49:51). Dative (*wéna >) véna, VT49:14. Dual wet*, later vet "the two of us" (inclusive; cf. exclusive met) (VT49:51). Also compare the dative form ngwin or ngwen (q.v.), but this would apparently be wen > ven** according to Tolkiens later ideas.

vi

we

vi pron. "we", 1st person inclusive (PE17:130), variant of ve #2.

we

we

we, , see ve #2