Spelling has been normalized to be consistent with the conventions Tolkien used in The Lord of the Rings: k → c, q → qu, ks → x, with a diaeresis over vowels (like final ë) to indicate that they are pronounced. The original spellings may be found in the entries for individual words.
Words spanning multiple periods may have several language markers. Later (“Post Tolkien”) inventions or derivations by fans are marked as Neo-Quenya: ᴺQ. If these are directly based on some word of Tolkien’s, the period of the original word is marked in brackets, for example: ᴺQ. [ᴱQ.] otsola “(seven-day) week”. Some of the neologisms presented here have gone through an external vetting process of some kind: the creator and vetting process (if available) of each neologism is listed below.
Excluded words (those that I personally recommended against using and do not appear in the vocabulary) are marked with the warning sign: ⚠️. There is considerable variation among Neo-Quenya authors as to which words should be accepted as legitimate, however, and not every other author would agree with my recommendations. There are additional “reliability markers” that can be used as guide for the level of quality of each word:
Glosses (English translations) may also have language and reliability markers indicating which periods various translations come from and how reliable they might be. For example Q., ᴹQ. mól “slave, [ᴹQ.] thrall” indicates a (Late) Quenya word with one translation that appears only in the Middle Quenya period.
For simplicity, these reliability and language markers have been omitted from the vocabulary lists. For more exact lists of additions or exclusions, you can look at the following word lists:
At this point in time, this arrangement of added and excluded words is very much a work in progress, and I am always open to feedback. Nothing here should in any way be considered “final” (if such a conclusion is even possible).
]]>This section includes words drawn from multiple periods throughout Tolkien’s life, as well as later inventions by fans (neologisms); Tolkien actually used different names for earlier versions of the Sindarin language: Noldorin (1920-1950) and Gnomish (1910-1920). Since this list of words does not precisely match Tolkien’s conception of these languages at any particular time, this section uses the “Neo-Sindarin” designation, since it is in effect “Post Tolkien”. For information about Sindarin and its precursor languages as Tolkien conceived them at various periods of his life, see:
Words spanning multiple periods may have several language markers. Later (“Post Tolkien”) inventions or derivations by fans are marked as Neo-Sindarin: ᴺS. If these are directly based on some word of Tolkien’s, the period of the original word is marked in brackets, for example: ᴺS. [N.] adlanna- “to slope, slant”. Some of the neologisms presented here have gone through an external vetting process of some kind: the creator and vetting process (if available) of each neologism is listed below.
Excluded words (those that I personally recommended against using and do not appear in the vocabulary) are marked with the warning sign: ⚠️. There is considerable variation among Neo-Sindarin authors as to which words should be accepted as legitimate, however, and not every other author would agree with my recommendations. There are additional “reliability markers” that can be used as guide for the level of quality of each word:
Glosses (English translations) may also have language and reliability markers indicating which periods various translations come from and how reliable they might be. For example S., N. enedh “centre, middle; [N.] core” indicates a Sindarin word with one translation that appears only among Noldorin words from the 1930s or 40s.
For simplicity, these reliability and language markers have been omitted from the vocabulary lists. For more exact lists of additions or exclusions, you can look at the following word lists:
At this point in time, this arrangement of added and excluded words is very much a work in progress, and I am always open to feedback. Nothing here should in any way be considered “final” (if such a conclusion is even possible).
]]>In Tolkien’s writing, he distinguished two phases of development for Primitive Elvish: Primitive Quenderin and Common Eldarin. Primitive Quenderin (also called Common Quenderin) was the language as it was spoken at Cuiviénen, while Common Eldarin was the form of the language spoken by the Eldar as they marched to Aman, distinct from the languages of the Avari (PE18/72). Since very little is known of the Avari languages, it can be difficult to determine which linguistic features developed in the Common Eldarin phase and which belong to Primitive Quenderin. For simplicity, this lexicon groups both phases of development under “Primitive Elvish”.
]]>My analysis of Sindarin phonology draws heavily on David Salo’s work in A Gateway to Sindarin (GS/31-72), but there are quite a few places where my analysis differs from his, mostly because a lot of material has been published in the time between when he wrote his book (2004) and when I did my research (mainly 2018-2019). I also consulted a number of other articles by Bertrand Bellet (NPE, VASN) and Thorsten Renk (ENPP), and relied very heavily on the work of Roman Rausch (HPG, HPITN) for comparisons with the Gnomish and Early Noldorin conceptual stages of the language.
I consider this analysis more or less “complete”, in that I’ve explored the majority of the etymologies of published Sindarin words, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is correct in all places, since frequently the evidence is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations. There are also a couple areas, notably Sandhi sound changes at morpheme boundaries, that I only barely cover. For Sandhi changes in particular I recommend consulting A Gateway to Sindarin (GS/51-59), which despite its age is the only thorough exploration of this topic that has been published.
]]>I have taken a first pass at working out the basic phonetic rules for the development from Primitive Elvish through Old Noldorin to Noldorin, but I not yet compared it to the phonology of later Sindarin or earlier Gnomish, nor to its real-world counterpart Welsh. It is also known that there is a discussion of Noldorin phonology in an unpublished Noldorin grammar (PE13/120 note #1), so any analysis here must be considered preliminary until that document becomes available.
]]>Both of these discussions described only some of the phonetic developments of Ilkorin: mostly sounds in isolation, independent of context except for their position in the word (initial, medial or final), as well as a couple of other specialized cases. Additional rules can be deduced by examining the phonetic developments in The Etymologies of the 1930s (LR/341-400), which are largely but not completely compatible with the changes described in the Comparative Tables.
In the Comparative Tables, Tolkien first said that Ilkorin was of a “Germanic type” (PE19/22 note #54) as was the case for the phonology of Early Ilkorin, but Tolkien later rejected this description, presumably after he revised the tables. He then said that “Doriath[rin] etc. = Noldorin (viz. as it used to be)”, which Christopher Gilson suggested meant that it adopted the Welsh-like phonology of earlier Gnomish and Early Noldorin (PE19/22 note #56). Thus, comparison to Welsh can provide additional clues to Ilkorin phonology.
For my analysis of the phonology of Ilkorin and Doriathrin, I frequently consulted Helge Fauskanger’s work on these languages from his Ardalambion web site (AL-Ilkorin, AL-Doriathrin). Most of the Ilkorin phonetic rules in this lexicon agreed with Mr. Fauskanger’s analysis, but his work predates the publication of the Comparative Tables and TQ2. There are few cases where I was able to describe certain sound changes in more detail because I had access to more information, but in almost all cases I found Mr. Fauskanger’s analysis remains valid.
]]>One important clue from the Comparative Tables was that the Danian languages were of a “Germanic type”, and that more specifically Ossiriandic phonetically resembled Old English and East Danian resembled Old Norse (PE19/22). Some of the more mysterious sound changes in The Etymologies can be explained by comparison to the real-world Proto-Germanic, Old English and Old Norse languages, such as the apparent phenomenon of vowel breaking. Such comparisons must be done carefully, however. For example, Danian show little evidence of the famous sound changes from Grimm’s Law: the only parallel is the change of initial [p] to [f]. Compare this to the phonology of Early Ilkorin where the operation of Grimm’s Law is clear.
As I did with Ilkorin and Doriathrin, I consulted Helge Fauskanger’s work on the Danian and Nandorin languages from his Ardalambion web site (AL-Nandorin), which as far as I know is the only other attempt to analyze Danian. Unfortunately, Mr. Fauskanger’s analysis predates the publication of the Comparative Tables in PE19, and he was missing the all-important clue that Danian/Ossiriandic was inspired by Old English. As such, while he able to recognize such phenomenon as vowel-breaking, his analysis was limited because he did not know which real-world languages to compare it to. Using that additional piece of information, I was able to deduce a number of patterns of sound change not appearing in Mr. Fauskanger’s article. Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence, my work here can only be described as slightly-better-informed educated guesses on the development of Danian.
@@@ For comparison to Proto-Germanic, Old English and Old Norse, I mostly used the information from articles related to those languages in Wikipedia. Given the mutable nature of those articles, I haven't cite any references to them, since any references I make could easily be out-of-date by the time someone else consults them. Instead, I left placeholder references as (ref/@@@). When I have time, I hope to fill in proper citations to those deductions, hopefully from sources from the same time period as when Tolkien created the Danian language.
]]>The website includes a number of separate articles, often generically named. References to individual articles are prefixed by the abbreviation “AL” followed by the article’s name, as given on the site’s home page. For example, AL-Adûnaic refers to Mr. Fauskanger’s article on the Adûnaic language. Articles that are referenced extensively in this lexicon are given their own reference section under the appropriate language.
Mr. Fauskanger’s Quenya Wordlist, Quettaparma Quenyallo, is cited separated as its own reference.
]]>The URL given above was the original location of this document. It can still be found on the Internet Archive.
]]>At this stage, Tolkien still conceived of the language that would become Sindarin as the native language of the Noldor, and it is labeled Noldorin (N) in The Etymologies. Tolkien referred to the older version of this languages as Old Noldorin (ON). He sometimes referred to the contemporary language as Exilic Noldorin (EN) or simply Exilic. For simplicity, the references in this lexicon use the abbreviation N in all such cases. The native language of the elves of Beleriand is called Ilkorin (Ilk) at this stage, with various dialects such as Doriathrin (Dor).
The Etymologies were transcribed in LR by Christopher Tolkien. They were revisited by Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne in VT45-46, in a pair of articles titled “Addenda and Corrigenda to The Etymologies”, referred to in this lexicon as EtymAC. The EtymAC articles indicates several places where Christopher Tolkien’s interpretations of his father’s difficult handwriting probably needs to be corrected. These corrections are indicated by the symbol “»»”.
Being primarily a linguistic work, The Etymologies used phonetic spellings for words. It includes the etymology (roots and primitive forms) of most words. The “>” symbol is in most cases used to indicate etymological derivation, but in a few case Christopher Tolkien used it to indicate changes Tolkien made in the text. Textual changes are always indicated by “>>” in this lexicon. Where Tolkien lists multiple forms of the same word, the first instance is often a more primitive form while the second is the newer form. This is especially common of N. (Noldorin) and ON. (Old Noldorin) entries.
References are by the root element of words, as listed in LR.
]]>In Vinyar Tengwar #45 and Vinyar Tengwar #46, Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne published a set of Addenda and Corrigenda to The Etymologies including this missing material. It also corrected some errors in the original text, as indicated by the symbol “»»”.
References are by the root element of words, as listed in The Etymologies. These references include relationships to items from The Etymologies as published in The Lost Road where such relations are clear from context.
Needs review.
]]>References are by the page numbering in PE11.
Needs review.
]]>References are by the page numbering in PE11.
Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>References are by word entry, for example: HSD/anu.
]]>The URL given above was the original location of this site. It can still be found on the Internet Archive.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>The URL given above was the original location of this document. It can still be found on the Internet Archive.
]]>Individual words that appear repeatedly (such as lembas or palantír) are generally cited only once in this lexicon, either for their first appearance or the one that is more linguistically relevant. Words appearing in phrases, however are referenced for every appearance, except where words are repeated within the same phrase. Proper names in the main text are only cited if they include linguistically relevant information; other names are cited from the Lord of the Ring Index.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs Review
]]>Its appendix of names (LT1A) is referenced separately.
Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Its appendix of names (LT2A) is referenced separately.
Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Much of this material was written as Tolkien was transitioning between linguistic scenarios: Noldorin and (Middle) Qenya to Sindarin and (Late) Quenya. In the terminology of this lexicon, it falls into Tolkien’s Late Period, and words appearing in these references are generally treated as Sindarin and Quenya, except where they are earlier forms from the Middle Period prior to their revision into their forms of the Late Period. Tolkien still labeled some of “Sindarin” elements as Noldorin, however.
Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Only original references are listed in this lexicon; references in editorial comments to other documents are not included.
Needs review.
]]>The second version of the Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ2) still predates Tolkien’s reorganization of the Elvish languages into Quenya and Sindarin, though early evidence of this change appear in the document, such as the name Sindarin for the Elves of Beleriand. The two main languages are still Quenya (Q.) spoken only by the Vanyar and Noldorin (N.) spoken by the Noldor, as it was in The Etymologies. The “Sindarin” of this document remains in the same continuum with the Beleriandic languages of The Etymologies (Ilkorin and Doriathrin), and is labeled “Bel.” (Beleriandic) in this lexicon.
The TQ2 document is problematic for this lexicon’s divisions of Tolkien’s conceptual development, since it lies on the cusp between the Middle (1930-1950, pre-Sindarin) and Late (after 1950, post-Sindarin) Periods. To simplify comparison with later Quenya and Sindarin words, this lexicon labels the Noldorin words in TQ2 as Late Noldorin (ᴸN) or Late Old Noldorin (ᴸON), but groups them with Sindarin and Old Sindarin. This makes it easier to compare the information in TQ2 to earlier phonology documents, including TQ1 and OP1 (PE19/29-67). This also appropriately puts TQ2 in the same period as the second Outline of Phonology document (OP2) from PE19/68-107.
Needs review.
]]>The first two documents are roughly contemporaneous with the first version of the Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ1) from PE18, while the “Outline of Phonology” was begun shortly after the second version of the Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ2). Unlike the second Tengwesta Qenderinwa, Tolkien had already finished the transition from Qenya/Noldorin to Quenya/Sindarin as the two main Elvish languages when writing the “Outline of Phonology”.
Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>References are by line number in the chart.
]]>The drafts of the Lord of the Rings appendices are problematic within the chronological scheme used in this lexicon, lying in the transition between Tolkien’s Middle (1930-1950) and Late Periods (after 1950). These drafts ascribe some words to the Noldorin language (Middle Period) that, by the time The Lord of the Rings was published, have become Sindarin words (Late Period). This lexicon mostly labels these words as Late Noldorin (ᴸN) but groups them with Sindarin. In some cases, where there is a transition between older and later forms, the lexicon treats these words as Noldorin (N) and groups them with that language.
Needs review.
]]>References are by the page numbering in PE12.
Needs review.
]]>References are by the page numbering in PE12.
Needs review.
]]>References are by word entry.
]]>The “Unfinished Index” was intended to be an annotated index of names from The Lord of the Rings, but Tolkien was unable to complete the work before the Return of the King was published, and in any case there was not room to include it (RC/xxxiv, lxxxi). Christopher Tolkien often used the translations appearing in this Unfinished Index for his own indexes of The Silmarillion and The Unfinished Tales, though without explanation of the source. Where Hammond and Scull explicitly refer to linguistic items in this Unfinished Index, the reference is included in this lexicon.
The Nomenclature of the Lord of the Rings was a document prepared by Tolkien to aid in the translation of The Lord of the Rings into non-English languages. It includes a number of references to Elvish words. The finished document is published in full in the Reader’s Companion (RC/750-782), and there are also references to the manuscript version of the Nomenclature. This lexicon omits references to the finished Nomenclature that appear elsewhere in the guide, but references to the manuscript are included where they appear.
The Reader’s Companion also refers to a number of other unpublished or obscure works. Finally, the guide includes linguistic references from 1st edition of The Lord of the Rings and the 1966 index from the 2nd edition; these are now difficult to find elsewhere. Such references from the guide are included in this lexicon for the sake of convenience.
See also Addenda and Corrigenda to The Lord of the Rings: A Reader’s Companion for corrections to the guide.
Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Its appendix (SA) of linguistic elements is cited separately.
]]>References are by alphabetical entry.
]]>The assignment of languages in this volume is somewhat problematic. Most of the material was composed before Tolkien introduced Sindarin as a replacement for Noldorin, which in the terminology of this lexicon puts it into Tolkien’s Middle Period. Therefore, most of the references from the book have been assigned to Noldorin (N) and Middle Quenya (ᴹQ). Christopher Tolkien occasionally referred to later typescripts and notes in the final proofs, however, and these are assigned to Sindarin (S) and Late Quenya (Q). I also assume that the second version of the Epilogue (p. 121-135) belongs in the Late Period, mostly because Tolkien made the phonetic change of (Noldorin) ai to (Sindarin) ae (SD/135, note #18).
Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>This issue also has articles on “”, a Sindarin translation of the Lord’s Prayer from the same period (VT44/21-30), and “”, a translation of the first two lines of Gloria in Excelsis Deo from the 1960s (VT44/31-37). This lexicon references individual phrases from the prayers where they appear, but to avoid repetition, it references individual words from the editorial commentary that follows each prayer.
Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Both articles include several tables of pronominal suffixes, dating from 1964 and 1968, indicating the late evolutionary stages of the Quenya pronominal system. This makes the issue a good resource for information on Quenya pronouns and their primitive forms.
Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs Review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Needs review.
]]>Towards the end of the Classical Adûnaic period, a short final [a] was often omitted in speech before another vowel or at the end of a phrase, but this did not apply to written Adûnaic (SD/434).
]]>Tolkien represented this sound with the symbol “2” in the typescript of Lowdham’s Report, probably because he was working on a typewriter. This sound rarely appeared in Tolkien’s languages, so it isn’t clear what symbol he would have used were he writing by hand. The discussion of Adûnaic here uses the IPA symbol “ç” orthographically to represent the sound [ç], but there are no attested words in which it appears. The only attested word in which it may have appeared was the primitive ancestor of , not explicitly given by Tolkien.
]]>When [ɣ] appeared initially, finally, between vowels or before another consonant, it vanished. Between vowels, the removal of this sound often resulted in a diphthong or a combined (lengthened) vowel: ✶[aɣa] > [ā] (SD/420). When final or before a consonant, the preceding adjacent vowel was lengthened after [ɣ] vanished: ✶[-aɣ] > [-ā] or ✶[aɣda] > [āda]. As an exception to these rules, instead of vanishing (SD/420).
When [ɣ] appeared after another consonant, it changed its sound instead of vanishing. When appearing after voiced consonants, resulting in a double consonant, whereas (SD/422).
It is not clear what would have happened to double ✶[ɣɣ] from the phonetic rules given by Tolkien. This is unfortunate, because it would be a useful clue in figuring out the ordering of various phonetic changes. The assumption here is that the first [ɣ] vanished while lengthening the preceding vowel, then the second [ɣ] also vanished, though it is conceivable that the second .
Tolkien represented this sound with the symbol “3” in the typescript of Lowdham’s Report, but elsewhere he usually used the symbol “ʒ” for this sound. He probably only used a “3” because he was working on a typewriter. This discussion of Adûnaic here uses the symbol “ʒ” to represent [ɣ] orthographically.
]]>The complete list of primitive voiced consonants is [b], [d], [g], [w], [l], [r], [z], [j], [m], [n], [ŋ] (excluding palatals and [ʔ], which changed or disappeared early). Of these, this rule definitely did not apply to [n], because , so that ✶[nɣ] would have already become [ŋɣ]. This rule may or may not have applied to [w] and [j], depending on when w/y-vocalization (where ) occurred. If w/y-vocalization happened first, then this ɣ-assimilation rule applies only to [b], [d], [g], [l], [r], [z], [m], [ŋ].
]]>In English, [ŋ] is an allophone with [n], and the two sounds may have been allophones in Primitive Adûnaic as well. However, the two sounds were not allophones in either Primitive Elvish or classical Quenya, both of which heavily influenced Adûnaic. When the Númenóreans first adopted Elvish writing, they might have used both letters for these sounds, tengwa #17 (númen) for [n] and tengwa #19 (ñoldo) for [ŋ], or they could have used tengwa #17 for both.
As noted above ✶[ŋ] could only appear before another velar. The only combination that survived into Classical Adûnaic was [ŋg] (SD/433 note #5). Before ✶[k] or [kʰ], ✶[ŋ] became [k] (SD/420). Before ✶[x], ✶[ŋ] became [x] (SD/420), producing the double-spirant [xx] (“kkh”). Both ✶[ŋg] and ✶[ŋɣ] become [ŋg] (SD/421-2).
Tolkien represented this sound with the symbol “9” in the typescript of Lowdham’s Report, but elsewhere he usually used the symbol “ñ” for this sound. He probably only used a “9” because he was working on a typewriter. The discussion of Adûnaic here uses the symbol “ñ” to represent [ŋ] orthographically.
]]>Note that labial [m] did not assimilate to following consonants (SD/421). Such assimilation was not possible for velar [ŋ] because it could only appear before other velars, never consonants of other series (SD/432). Therefore, this nasal assimilation rule only applied to [n].
As this rule preceded other changes (further nasal assimilations), it likely happened early.
]]>Since Tolkien wrote the result as “HH” (as spelled in primitive Adunanic) instead of “KKH” (as spelled in Classical Adûnaic), this was likely an early change. This change could have happened either before or after , since the combination [xx] remained spirantal, but given his use of the primitive-Adûnaic spelling “HH”, was probably before.
]]>There is some ambiguity of whether this w/y-vocalization happened before or after . Either way, the net result would have been the same. In the first case, ✶[wɣV/yɣV] would have become [uɣV/iɣV] and thereafter [uwV/uyV] when . In the second case, the [ɣ] in ✶[wɣV/yɣV] would have assimilated to [wwV/yyV] before the vocalization could apply, and thereafter became [uwV/uyV]. The discussion here assumes w/y-vocalization happened first, since it simplifies some other rules. See the word ✶ for more evidence that this vocalization was early.
]]>In most positions [x] weakened to a “breath h” [h] in Classical Adûnaic, but when doubled or before an [s] it retained its spirantal sound and merged with the development of the primitive aspirate ✶[kʰ], which was spirantialized to [x] in Classical Adûnaic (SD/418-9). Also, [b], [d] and [g], thereafter developing as [ɣ]: disappearing while lengthening the following vowel (SD/422).
Note that Tolkien represented this sound differently in Primitive and Classical Adûnaic: “h” in primitive words and “kh” in classical words.
]]>This changed occurred before [ɣ] vanished, and was therefore probably early. Since it did not apply to the palatal voiced stop, it likely occurred after .
]]>Tolkien represented this sound by the symbol “?” in the typescript of Lowdham’s Report. Since this could be confused with a mark of uncertainty, the discussion here uses the IPA symbol “ʔ” to represent the sound orthographically as well as phonetically, though the only attested root in which this sound appears is (SD/432).
]]>Conceptual Development: This word also appeared in earlier Adûnaic names and (both glossed “Land of Gift”), where it apparently had the meaning “gift”. These names were eventually replaced by in which the element means “gift”, freeing abâr to have the meaning: “strength, endurance, fidelity”.
]]>In the situations where this is agreement, (dulgî, lôkhî), the adjective is the predicate of a copula (“to be” statement).
Perhaps plural agreement only occurs where the adjective is separated from the noun, as suggested by Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne (/23). As they point out, the rules may have been different in the draft version of Adûnaic, since it has an example of a plural adjective directly modifying a noun: kathī batānī “all ways” (SD/312).
There are a couple of examples where adjectives are declined into the case, indicating that adjectives might sometimes be declined into other .
]]>Some authors have suggested that the suffix -ak in “far away” is an intensive suffix “very” for adjectives (, /32), similar in function to the Quenya prefix , but I think it is more likely a prepositional suffix “away”. See the entry on for further discussion.
]]>Conceptual Development: In the drafts of the Lord of the Rings appendices, Tolkien listed Adrahil as a Lemberin (Nandorin) name, along with Imrahil (PM/36). Probably when Imrahil became Adûnaic, Adrahil switched languages as well.
]]>The fourth word is an adverb “once, then”. The verb form yadda seems to be the tense of # “to go”, functioning here as a pluperfect (see SD/439). This makes sense in the narrative, since this sentence describes the previous state (the road west going straight to Valinor) while the next sentence uses the aorist tense to describe the current state (all roads being bent around the now-round world).
Tolkien’s glosses match the word order of the Adûnaic sentence: “west straight road once went”. This might be rendered in more ordinary English as “[the] road west once went straight”.
The previous (second draft) version of this sentence had more differences from the final version than any other sentence in the second draft (SD/312). It had a different word order, with the adjective “straight” appearing directly before the verb, perhaps functioning as an adverb. It has ēluk instead of and the verb form yadda is missing the pronominal prefix a-. Unfortunately, Christopher Tolkien did not publish the English glosses for this sentence, so it is hard to decipher the meaning (if any) of these differences.
]]>The first two words adūn “west” and batān “road” are the same as in the final version. The verb form akhaini “lay” seems to be the tense of the verb # “to lie”. The word ezendi “straight” (instead of later ) appears at the end, perhaps functioning as an adverb.
]]>In the previous (second draft) version of this sentence, the spelling of some words were slightly different: buruda (as it was in the first draft) instead of the final form burôda and nēnu instead of the final form nēnud (SD/312). The first draft of this sentence uses the same words but is grammatically different.
]]>| “wright, *builder” | ⇒ | “Shipwright” (PM/151) |
| phazgân “?ruler” | ⇒ | “conqueror, ?all-ruler” (SD/429) |
This agental suffix appears in standalone words, such as “wise man”, so perhaps it is used to create agental forms as independent nouns, which can sometimes be used in compounds. This suffix may also be related to the suffix used to form participles (adjectives from verbs). See the entry on for further discussion.
Andreas Moehn suggested (/ZIM’R) that the element appearing in the names “Golden” and may be a variant of this agental suffix.
]]>Other Interpretations: Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/36) that the prefix a- is probably some kind of emphatic suffix rather than evidence of another verb tense. Thorsten Renk proposes (/39) that the a- is a relative pronoun “that”, analogous to Q. , which is an interesting possibility.
]]>Conceptual Development: The first Adûnaic name for Manwë was (SD/55).
]]>Conceptual Development: The first Adûnaic name for the Blessed Realm was (SD/385).
]]>Tolkien used a dash to separate an- from the noun to which it is prefixed but omitted the dash when the prefix was elided. Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/10) that Ad. an- may be related to the Sindarin genitive marker S. “with, by”.
]]>Unlike other Adûnaic , these participle forms appear after the noun they modify instead of before. See the entry on the for further discussion.
]]>It is not clear how this suffix related to the similar suffix used for form adjectives from verbs. See the entry on for further discussion. Andreas Moehn suggested (/TAN) that -ân as an agental formation may be related to “human being”.
]]>The placement of the adjective “beloved” after the noun is curious, since according to Tolkien adjectives normally precede the nouns they modify (SD/428). Perhaps in this instance the adjective is used as a noun. Its manuscript gloss “the beloved” instead of simply “beloved” (as in the typescript) supports this possibility. Alternately, it could be in an abnormal position because it is a (verbal adjective).
The verbs in the typescript and manuscript versions are slightly different: kallaba “fell down” (SD/247) and kalba “fell” (VT24/12), the and tenses of the verb “to fall (down)”. Tolkien also vacillated between these two forms in the second draft version of the sentence before settling on the aorist. Since the fall of Númenor had already come to pass in the fictional context of the Lament, the past tense here could be functioning here as a pluperfect (SD/439), but the aorist tense would also work if the sentence describes the fall of Númenor at that point in the narrative. Tolkien’s vacillation is therefore understandable: either verb form could work albeit with slightly different meanings. The Quenya translation of this sentence, ᴹQ. (SD/247), uses the simple past instead of the perfect, matching the Adûnaic manuscript version rather than typescript.
]]>The removal of the vowel in triconsonantal verbs is consistent with the ordinary Adûnaic . There are no attested biconsonantal or derived verbs with a similar pattern, so the above rules for those two verb classes are speculative.
Rationale: The unambiguous syncopated forms appearing in the are all glossed in the past tense: yurahtam “(they) broke/rent”, hikalba “she fell”, dubdam “[they] fell”. Since the Lament describes events in the past, this is consistent with the aorist being used as the past tense in a narrative. Examples of this verb form outside of the Lament are more ambiguous. One example is glossed in the past tense: usaphda “he understood” (SD/421). Another example is glossed in the present, but as part of an imperative statement tabda “touch” (SD/250).
Going by glosses alone, these syncopated verb forms could be either the aorist or past tense, as suggested by Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne in their analysis (/29-30). However, if you assume that the syncopated and geminate (double-consonant) forms are the past and aorist tenses, then the geminate forms in the Lament work better as the past tense functioning as the pluperfect. That leaves the syncopated form to be the aorist, which is the tentative conclusion of several other authors (, /Adûnaic, /18). See the entry on the tense for further discussion.
An Irregular Aorist (Infinitive?) Form
There is one irregular aorist-like form in the Lament, the verb phursâ in the sentence , glossed “to-gush” in the final typescript and “gush” in the final manuscript. Based on its forms in the draft version of the lament, the base verb seems to be a triconsonantal verb “to gush, flow”, whose ordinary aorist form would be phursa. The attested from phursâ differs from other aorist examples in two ways: (1) it has long final â and (2) it does not have the verb plural suffix to agree with its plural subject azrîya “seas”.
This suggests phursâ may be a special formation, likely due to its use with the or prefix “so-as, might, should” appearing before the verb. The gloss “to-gush” suggests it might be an infinitive form. In Quenya, the and forms are likewise very similar to each other.
Other Theories
As noted above, Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/29-30) that syncopated forms like kalba could be either the past or the aorist tense, based on their theory that the geminate forms like kallaba are the . See the entry on the tense for further discussion.
Thorsten Renk’s analysis generally agrees with the aorist conjugations above, but his guess is that the aorist form of a derived verb would be identical to the stem (/18). My belief is that the long final â is a sign of a special (infinitive?) form like phursâ (see above), so I suggest shortening the final a for derived-verb stem when conjugating them into the aorist tense. Given the lack of evidence, both Renk’s and my own suggested conjugations are speculative.
Draft Verb Conjugations
There is only one attested draft verb conjugation that resembles the later aorist: phurusam “flow” (plural), as suggested by Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne (/36). It was rejected and replaced with the geminate (double-consonant) form phurrusim, which is identified as the tense in the theories used here. Given the lack of evidence, it is hard to guess how the aorist was formed in the draft version of Adûnaic.
]]>Conceptual Development: The first Adûnaic name given to this character was (SD/365).
]]>Conceptual Development: This prefix was introduced in the earliest versions of Adûnaic from the 1940s (SD/311, SD/248), and survived in the later Adûnaic names of The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion.
]]>The subject Ar-Pharazônun is the form of the name Ar-. The verb azaggara “was warring” is a form of “to wage war”, either the past tense or continuative-past tense (see the entry for that tense for further discussion). The last word Avalôiyada “against the Powers” is the plural form of “Power, God” with the prepositional suffix “toward, against” separated from the i of the plural by the usual y.
The previous (second draft) version of this sentence differs from the final version in two ways (SD/312). First, the subject is in the instead of the case, perhaps because Tolkien had not finalized the rules for the subjective case. Second, its verb form was azagrāra, although the final verb form azaggara was written nearby as an alternative. See the verb for possible interpretations.
]]>In Primitive Adûnaic, stops remained where they preceded aspirates, but when these aspirates later became spirantal, in some cases they influenced preceding voiceless stops into become spirants as well, as discussed under the related rules: and .
]]>| mp, mph | > | pp, pph |
| nt, nth | > | tt, tth |
| nk, nkh | > | kk, kkh |
These assimilations are an echo of the older phonetic rule that . Tolkien only explicitly listed the combinations mp, nt, nk as subject to assimilation (SD/420), but the example he gave of + = combines a nasal and a spirant, so it logical to assume that this assimilation rule applies to spirants as well. Perhaps Tolkien described the assimilations as an orthographic rule instead of a phonetic rule, since spirants were represented by the digraphs ph, th, kh.
Tolkien also mentioned some assimilations that appeared in spoken Adûnaic but were not represented in their writing. In particular, voiceless stops and spirants tend to be voiced before voiced stops (SD/421): “sd” pronounced [zd], “pd” pronounced [bd], though the voicing was less pronounced than similar assimilations in English. Other spoken assimilations are mentioned in the phonetics section of Adûnaic. Since these assimilations only affect pronunciation and serve no grammatic function, they are not discussed further here.
]]>Conceptual Development: An earlier form of this name, Avallondē may have been a mixed name, containing the Quenya element ᴹQ. (SD/344).
]]>Conceptual Development: In early drafts of Adûnaic its plural was Avalâi with a long â instead of ô, perhaps indicating an earlier singular form Avalâ closer to Vala. Earlier still this word was given as plural Balāi, a more direct derivative of the Elvish root form ᴹ√.
]]>This verb appears in slightly different forms in each version of the , changing as follows: azgaranādu (SD/311) >> azagrāra (SD/312) >> azaggara (SD/247). All three versions have similar glosses, “was waging war” or “was warring”, which seems to imply these are all instances of the tense. As they are the only clear instances of this tense, it is difficult to decipher the conceptual development of this verb.
The first form azgaranādu belongs to the draft Adûnaic period and is probably grammatically distinct from the later forms. Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne thoroughly analyzed this draft form (/35). The two later forms appeared in very similar versions of the Lament. Rather than representing a revision of the grammar, they could represent distinct verb tenses, as for example Tolkien’s vacillation between the forms hikalba and hikallaba in the sentence . The question is, to which tense does each form belong?
Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne (/28) concluded that the azaggara represents the without analyzing azagrāra. Andreas Moehn agreed with them in his grammatical article on Adûnaic () but changed his mind in his etymological analysis (/ZAG’R), concluding it is the past tense instead. I also believe azaggara is more likely to be a simple past tense.
The double-g of the form azaggara resembles other verb forms identified as the tense in the theories used here, and it seems likelier to me that Tolkien changed the verb from the continuative-past to the simple past without revising the gloss. The second a in azaggara is likely inserted in the verb stem to break up the consonant cluster in az-ggara, since Adûnaic allows at most two consecutive (SD/418).
If the above reasoning is correct, this would make the form azagrāra the best candidate for the continuative-past. Perhaps the repetition of the final suffix -ra is used to mark the continuous nature of the action. All of this is highly speculative, however, since we are working only from a single example.
]]>The gloss of the manuscript version was “that seas should gush into Chasm” (VT24/12). This gloss seems to indicate that this sentence might actually be a subordinate phrase of the preceding sentence “Lords of the West, they broke the Earth with assent from Eru”. This would fit well with its use of the optative/subjunctive mood, so that this phrase gives reason why the Valar broke the Earth (to sink Númenor). However, both the manuscript and typescript versions separated the two sentences with an ellipsis “...”, indicating that they are separate sentences.
]]>The draft version has several other grammatical differences from later versions. The subject azrē “seas” seems to be a simple rather than plural. Tolkien initially wrote phurusam for the verb and then changed to phurrusim “flow”, perhaps and tenses of the verb , respectively. Both conjugations have the plural verb suffix . The last phrase akhās-ada “into Chasm” is essentially identical to the final version, however.
]]>Conceptual Development: The first Adûnaic name given to this character was (SD/305).
]]>The first word, balîk “ships” is the normal plural of # “ship”. It is in a composition with the number “seven”, a construction discussed on SD/428, literally meaning “*seven of ships”. This is modified by the phrase an-Nimruzîr “of Elendil” consisting of the genitive prefix “of” and the name (Q. ). The final word, azûlada “eastward(s)” is a composition of “east” and the suffix “(to)wards”.
The final typescript and manuscript versions differ only in that the manuscript is missing the dash “-” in the genitive an-Nimruzîr “of Elendil” (VT24/12). The previous (second draft) version of the phrase is missing the entire prefix an- (SD/312). The first draft had a rather different sentence.
]]>Conceptual Development: In earlier writings the rejected name “Lord” (SD/376) indicates a possible earlier form of this noun; Kherû itself was changed to . A similar form reappears in later writings in the name “Lord of the West”: either akhôr or “lord”. Whether or not this later word replaced bâr is unknown.
]]>The subject Bârim of this sentence is the plural of “lord”. It is modified by the adjectival phrase an-Adûn “of the West”, with the genitive prefix “of” added to the noun . The verb has the 3rd-plural suffix yu- “they”. In the grammatical rules of Lowdham’s Report this makes the subject emphatic, with a meaning more like “It was the Lords of the West who broke the Earth...” (SD/429).
The verb form rahtam is the tense of “to break” with the verb plural suffix . The object of the sentence, “Earth”, is in the .
The base sentence is modified by the prepositional phrase sâibêth-mâ Êruvô “with assent from Eru”. The combination sâibêth-mâ is the word “assent” and the prepositional suffix “with”. The final word Êruvô is the name and the prepositional suffix “of”, with the usual (which was sometimes written “v” as mentioned on SD/434) between the u and the following suffix.
]]>This sentence did not appear at all in the first draft. In the second draft of the Lament, it was simply the noun phrase dulgu bawīb “*black wind” rather than a full sentence (SD/312). Curiously, the adjective in the second draft did not agree in number with the noun it modified.
]]>This root also contradicts statements by Tolkien elsewhere that Primitive Adûnaic only had the vowels a, i and u. Perhaps it should be *BIL, as with ✶Ad. √ “say” the primitive root of Ad. “expression, saying, word”.
]]>This verb seems to have a sense similar to that of “to love, desire”. Perhap it is distinct from zîr- in that it has more to do with friendship than desire, so that the verb means “*to befriend” or “*to love (as a friend)”.
]]>This name violates the original phonetic rules of Adûnaic, which said that the vowels and could only be long in Adûnaic (SD/423). See the discuss of for more information.
]]>With , words derived from biconsonantal bases could take the form ✶zir(i), ✶izri (SD/418) or ✶izir (SD/422). In the first pattern, the second vowel can be omitted or it could be different from the (SD/423): ✶zir, ✶zira, ✶ziru. In the second and third patterns, both vowels are required and must match the characteristic vowel (SD/434). From these three basic patterns, the root could undergo further .
]]>The only unambiguous biconsonantal verbs with inflections are , , and in the draft Adûnaic grammar and nek- (an earlier form of ). Based on these forms, my best guess for the conjugations of biconsonantal verbs is as follows:
There are no attested examples of the aorist form of a biconsonantal verb and the rules above are an educated guess based on formations for the . There isn’t enough information on the continuative past to make even a wild guess as to its formation. See the entries for the individual verb tenses for further discussion.
]]>Conceptual Development: It appeared as buruda in early Adûnaic writings (SD/312).
]]>The characteristic vowel of a root was always one of the three basic primitive vowels [a], [i] or [u] (SD/422). In derived words, the normal position of the characteristic vowel was between the first and second consonants (SD/422). It could also appear a second time in some other position, but rarely appeared more than twice (SD/422). With , it could be removed from its normal position, though in such cases it always appeared elsewhere in the word.
There were no gradiations of vowels in Primitive Adûnaic that stood in etymological relationships, but the common could produce effects that resembled gradiation (SD/415,425).
]]>The collective nouns could only be declined in the singular, whereas their singular equivalents could be declined normally. The plural of the singular forms would be used for a specific group instead of all members of the class: gimli “a star” → gimlî “some stars” vs. gimil “all stars” (SD/427).
These collective nouns were not a formal inflection by the time of Classical Adûnaic, but may have been a fossilized form of some archaic inflection from Primitive Adûnaic.
]]>According to Tolkien, common nouns have the same general form as (SD/427). This means that they favor a as their last vowel, cannot have long î or û as their last vowel and cannot have a final long -ô or -ê. There are a number of seemingly common nouns that contradict this statement, however: “crow”, “spirit”, (or nîph) “fool”. Perhaps such formations were merely rare with common nouns rather than completely forbidden as with neuter nouns.
]]>In Lowdham’s Report, Tolkien said that the vowels and could only be long in Adûnaic (SD/423). There are a number of later examples in which short e and o appear, however: (UT/224), (UT/222) and roth with its derivatives , , (PM/376). The last of these words appeared in earlier writings with a long ô, Rôthinzil (SD/403), which is a strong indication Tolkien changed his mind about short vowels in Adûnaic.
Another phonetic difference appears in the later name (UT/263). The sound “sh” [ʃ] is not a phoneme used in Adûnaic according to Lowdham’s Report (SD/418). From The Lord of the Rings appendices, we know that this sound appears in the daughter language of Adûnaic, Westron (LotR/1120), along with “ch” [tʃ]. Elsewhere, there is a note (PE19/75) indicating that “ch” was used for the Númenórean pronunciation of Quenya ty [tʲ], so perhaps Tolkien introduced these two sounds into Adûnaic.
The words “hind-track” and “fore-cutting” appear to have prepositional elements as prefixes. In Lowdham’s Report, were usually suffixed elements (SD/435). Finally, the case was quite prevalent in compound names in Lowdham’s Report, but is largely absent in later names. The only counter-example, (PM/151), was coined in the early 1950s.
There isn’t enough information to know what, if any, concrete changes Tolkien made to Adûnaic in his later writings. The only way to construct a remotely consistent Adûnaic grammar is to use the rules outlined for the Middle Adûnaic in Lowdham’s Report. This requires us to ignore or explain away the changes in Late Adûnaic. Here are some (entirely invented) explanations for these inconsistencies:
These inventions could be used to reconcile later Adûnaic words with the phonetics and grammar of Lowdham’s Report, though it is extremely unlikely that they represent Tolkien’s actual thinking on the subject.
]]>As suggested by Andreas Moehn (), Adunaic went through three phases of conceptual development, which he labeled k-Adûnaic, d-Adûnaic and a-Adûnaic (after three distinct words for “Earth” in each phase: , and ). The discussion here labels the phases: Draft Adûnaic, Middle Adûnaic and Late Adûnaic.
The first phase, Draft Adûnaic, is reflected in the drafts of the three works mentioned above. In this phase, Adûnaic was a European-like inflected language with five noun cases (Normal, Subjective, Genitive, Dative and Instrumental). Christopher Tolkien published some fragments of grammar from this phase (SD/438-439), and more information can be gleaned from Adûnaic words and phrases appearing in the drafts of the two stories.
As J.R.R. Tolkien revised the stories, he made dramatic changes to its grammar. The final versions of the 1940s stories reflect this Middle Adûnaic phase, in which the “Semitic” character of the language emerged (SD/415). This was likely due to the influence of Dwarvish on Adûnaic (SD/414), which Tolkien also described as “Semitic” in nature (PE17/85). The noun case system was simplified (to Normal, Subjective and Objective cases) and made rather non-European in its use. Changes to the verb system are harder to analyze, since verb conjugation was not fully described.
The bulk of the information on Middle Adunaic grammar comes from Lowdham’s Report, which details the phonetic development of Adûnaic and most of its noun declensions. It was abandoned before Tolkien described other parts of speech, with only a few notes on verbs remaining (SD/439). In “The Notion Club Papers”, there is a lengthy text (SD/246-7) referred to here as the . Draft versions of the Lament also exist (SD/311-2), and comparing the draft to finished forms of the Lament gives useful insights to the conceptual changes from Draft to Middle Adûnaic. Andreas Moehn wrote a detailed analysis of these changes ().
Christopher Tolkien stated that his father did no further work on Adûnaic after setting aside Lowdham’s Report (SD/439). However, (as pointed out by Andreas Moehn, ), J.R.R. Tolkien’s later Adûnaic examples are not entirely consistent with Adûnaic as described in Lowdham’s Report. There are enough differences in later Adûnaic names and words in the published Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion to believe there was some further conceptual development in Adûnaic, which the discussion here collectively labels Late Adûnaic.
Draft and Middle Adûnaic were contemporaneous with Middle Quenya and Noldorin, while Late Adûnaic was contemporaneous with Late Quenya and Sindarin. We have so few examples of Late Adûnaic that it is difficult to say much meaningful about this conceptual phase. See the entry on for the details.
Rather than separating the conceptual phases into different languages like the various periods of Quenya and Sindarin, the discussion here lumps all of them together as “Adûnaic”. Furthermore, almost everything we can say about Adûnaic grammar is from the Middle Adûnaic as described in Lowdham’s Report. This was not Tolkien final vision of the language, but it is the best we can do with the information available. Since Christopher Tolkien said that his father abandoned work on Adûnaic at that point, it is unlikely that there is some major new work on that language that remains unpublished.
]]>Where this consonant-doubling was applied finally, the result was a consonant cluster. Since clusters could not appear as in Primitive Adûnaic, an additional vowel was suffixed to the word: ✶Ad. √KALAB > ✶kalabbi, ✶kalabbu (SD/425). Where the other two vowels were s, this added vowel must necessarily be non-characteristic. Otherwise, the suffixed vowel could be characteristic or non-characteristic: ✶kalib → ✶kalibba, ✶kalibbi, ✶kalibbu (SD/425).
According to Tolkien, consonant doubling was originally in competition with for various grammatical functions in Primitive Adûnaic (SD/417). However, later phonetic developments meant that many infixed nasals became voiceless stops, making it unlikely that nasal-infixion was used grammatically by the time of Classical Adûnaic. Consonant doubling was used in the formation of the Classical Adûnaic tense, though.
]]>When these modifications were applied to the final consonant of a word without a suffixed vowel, the result was a consonant cluster, which was not allowed for the of a Primitive Adûnaic word, such as: ✶Ad. √KULUB > **kulumb or **kulubb. In such cases, a vowel suffix was needed to produce a valid word. Since there were already two instances of the in such words, the third vowel needed to be a different basic vowel, as per the rules of , for example: ✶kulumba, ✶kulumbi or ✶kulubba, ✶kulubbi.
]]>Unfortunately, this verb’s form changed in each version of the : azgaranādu (first draft) >> azagrāra (second draft) >> azaggara (final draft). Each of these forms seem to be some conjugation of the derived verb (SD/439), but there is so much variation that it is hard to tell the purpose of the changes. Even worse, there are no other attested conjugations of derived verbs, making comparisons to other verb tenses impossible.
Most authors note the similarity of the form azaggara to other double-consonant (geminate) forms in the Lament. Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne went so far as to conclude that all of such forms are the continuative past (/27-29). Most other authors have suggested (/Adûnaic, , /26) the other geminate forms are more likely to be the Adûnaic tense, something with which I agree. Thorsten Renk furthermore suggested (/14) that the final verb form azaggara may actually be the ordinary past tense of azgarâ-. This also seems plausible to me, though it is hard to explain why Tolkien didn’t change the gloss from “was warring”.
If this reasoning is correct, the second draft form azagrāra may be the only true example of the continuative past, but this is all so speculative that I wouldn’t try to make a rule out of it. The fact of the matter is that there isn’t enough evidence for the Adûnaic continuative past to figure out how it was formed or how it was used.
]]>The attested example in the draft of the Lament, azgaranādu, bears little resemblence to any other attested Adûnaic verb conjugations, making it very difficult to analyze. Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne very tentatively suggested (/35) that the -d- might have been the marker of continuity at this stage, but admit that this pure speculation.
]]>After removing the pronominal prefix ya- and the plural verb suffix , the base verb forms seem to be → nâkhi (biconsonantal) and → kalubi (triconsonantal). Based on this pattern, I would suggest the following conjugations for the continuative present tense:
There is only one continuative-present example each for biconsonantal and triconsonantal verbs, and none at all for derived verbs. Given the lack of examples, the above rules are quite speculative.
]]>Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/27) that biconsonantal verbs form their continuative present with vowel-lengthening. Helge Fauskanger suggested (/Adûnaic) that it is formed by instead: a → â, i → ê, u → ô, an idea also adopted in Thorsten Renk’s Adûnaic course (/14). Our only example is a verb with the stem-vowel a, which would have the same result either way. I picked vowel-lengthening simply because it was an easier rule to apply and resembles present-tense formation in Quenya.
Andreas Moehn () was doubtful that kalubi is a conjugation of “to fall”. He suggested instead that it is a conjugation of a verb *kalub- “to lean”, and that the continuative present for triconsonantal verbs is marked simply by adding an -i to the stem. Again, given the lack of evidence, it is hard to say what the correct conjugation is.
Draft Verb Conjugations
There are no examples that are good candidates for the continuative-present in the earlier Adûnaic materials, so it is hard to guess how this tense might have been formed in the draft Adûnaic grammar.
]]>Conceptual Development: In the , this noun appeared as (SD/311).
]]>| First draft | azgaranādu | “was waging war‽” | SD/311 |
| Second draft | azagrāra | SD/312 | |
| Final draft | azaggara | “was warring” | SD/249 |
Given the glosses, these appear to be examples the tense, but this is the only unambiguous instance of this tense. It isn’t clear whether the different forms are due to changes to the verb stem, changing grammatical rules or changing verb tenses (or some combination of these). This makes the formations almost impossible to analyze.
My best guess is that the first two examples are, in fact, in the continuative past, with changing rules between the draft and later Adûnaic grammars. I think that the final form is instead a simple past tense, and that Tolkien neglected to change the gloss. Based on this (extremely speculative) analysis, I would use the follow rules to conjugate Adûnaic derived verbs:
As with biconsonantal verbs, the aorist formation is a guess based on the aorist form of the . There isn’t enough information on the continuative present to guess how it might be formed. See the entries for the individual verb tenses for further discussion.
]]>These two traits resemble how the Quenya tense is formed: with a vowel augment and with a final -ië suffix (e.g. Q. → utúvië). I believe all three of these examples belong to the similar verb tense, which I label the “draft-perfect”. I believe that the past and draft-perfect tenses serve the same role in the draft of the Lament that the and tenses do in the final version of the Lament.
]]>| First draft | Second draft | Verb Development | |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | Kadō zigūrun zabathān unekkū | Kadō zigūrun zabathān unakkha | past >> past |
| S2 | ēruhīn udūbanim dalad ugrus | ēruhīnim dubbudam ugru-dalad | perfect >> past |
| S4 | bārun-adūnō rakkhatū kamāt sōbēthumā eruvō | bārun an-adūn {urahhata >>} urahta dāira sāibēth-mā ēruvō | past >> past >> aorist |
| S5 | azrē nai phurrusim akhās-ada | azrīya du-phursā akhāsada | past >> aorist |
| S6 | anadūni akallabi | anadūnē zīrān {hikallaba >>} hikalba | perfect >> past >> aorist |
| S11 | adūn batān akhaini ezendi | adūn batān ēluk izindi yadda | perfect >> past |
This pattern of changes is not entirely consistent. The first sentence remained in the past tense. The fourth sentence also initially remained in the past in the second draft before changing to the aorist. The sixth sentence changed all the way from the perfect to the past to the aorist (and Tolkien continued to vacillate between the past and aorist tenses in later versions). There is enough of a pattern, though, to indicate that all three draft “perfect” forms served a similar grammatical function as the later use of the past tense.
Other Theories
I haven’t seen anyone present a theory for these verb forms quite like mine, but Andreas Moehn did note () that the initial a- values in akhaini and akallabi might mark the completion of a process. Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested something similar but only for akallabi (/37). All these authors generally analyse the vowel prefixes in these first draft verbs as singular pronouns: neuter in the case of a- and masculine in the case of u-.
It is clear that draft Adûnaic used pronominal prefixes: the initial u- in the verb unekkū “he-came” appearing in the first sentence is certainly the pronoun “he”. I think, however, that it is the only instance of a pronoun in the first draft of the Lament, as it is the only verb with an explicit pronominal gloss. The a- in akhaini could possibly be a neuter singular pronoun “it” matching its subject “road”, but the u- in udūbanim should be plural yu- or ya- “they” to match “Númenóreans” and the a- in akallabi should be feminine hi- “she” to match its subject anadūni “Númenor” (the names of Númenor were elsewhere consistently feminine).
For this reason, I don’t thinks the theory that “all verbal prefixes were pronouns” fits the first draft of the Lament very well, even though such prefixes consistently function as pronouns in later versions. Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne do make some interesting suggestions (/34) about the possible past-tense function of the -n- appearing in akhaini, udūbanim and azgaranādu, but these ideas are not incompatible with my theory that “verbal prefixes can be augments of a perfect tense”.
All these arguments are quite pedantic and extremely speculative (including my own), since they apply only to the rejected draft form of the Adûnaic language, for which very little information is available. I only discussed them at such length because they have interesting correlations to the functions of the aorist and past tenses in later versions of Adûnaic grammar.
]]>Dual Formation
Nouns ending in a consonant: For nouns ending in a consonant (Class I):
Nouns ending in a vowel: For nouns ending in a vowel (Class II), the dual suffix -at combines with this vowel according to the standard Adûnaic rules for :
Subjective duals: The dual may also be inflected for the case. Since the dual generally has a short vowel in its final syllable, the strong subjective inflection is used. This means the subjective inflection lengthens the last a via a-fortification: “house” → zadnat “pair of houses” → zadnât “pair of houses (subjective)” (SD/430), “moon” → nîluwat “pair of moons” → nîluwât “pair of moons (subjective)” (SD/431).
Where the last vowel of the dual is already long, there is no change for the subjective: “sweetheart” → izrêt “pair of sweethearts” → izrêt “pair of sweethearts (subjective)” (SD/438).
Archaic duals: Archaic Adûnaic had different dual formations in a few cases:
By the time of Classical Adûnaic, these formations had been replaced by the rules above.
Later duals: Duals of nouns ending in -a (azra → azrât) were so common that the dual suffix eventually was perceived to be -ât instead of -at. The duals of all nouns were formed with this new suffix, incidentally making the subjective dual indistinguishable from the normal dual (SD/431).
Tolkien stated that “in all nouns the N[ormal] and S[ubjective] of Duals was only distinguished in earlier texts” and that this change occurred “before the Exilic periods”, but it is unclear how soon the change occurred before the fall of Númenor and whether it applied to Classical Adûnaic. Most of Tolkien’s examples in Lowdham’s Report do not use this rule, so the discussion here assume this change occurred soon before Exile, in either Late Classical and Exilic Adûnaic.
Irregular duals: There are two curious dual forms that appear on SD/438: nardū̆wā̆t as the dual of “soldier” and zōrī̆yā̆t as the dual of “nurse”. The short-or-long ā̆ appears in several examples, and seems to be shorthand for the two variations of the dual: normal (-at) and subjective (-ât). The short-or-long ū̆ and ī̆ are more difficult to explain. Given the base nouns, these vowels should always be long. Perhaps under some conditions, the dual suffix can cause a long final vowel to shorten, though what those conditions might be is unclear.
Another example of an irregular dual form is nuphrât as the dual form of “parent” (SD/434). This is a (Weak I), but its dual seems to undergo the Adûnaic despite have a long vowel in its lasts syllable. This could be some kind of archaic or irregular strong declension of the dual. Alternately, it could be a slip or a misreading for the regular dual *nuphârat.
Dual Usage
Like Quenya, Adûnaic uses the dual for natural pairs, such as two hands (pât) or two pillars supporting a single object (târikat). Where the two objects are unrelated, Adûnaic instead uses the number “two”: (SD/428). Two soldiers that are part of special unit might be nardûwat “soldier-pair”, but two unrelated soldiers would be nardû satta “two soldier[s]” (Adûnaic follow the noun).
Unlike Quenya, the Adûnaic dual can also be used for two unlike nouns that were “contrasted or opposed” (SD/428): sun and moon ( and ), heaven and earth ( and ), Manwë and Varda ( and ). Such duals can be expressed in two ways (SD/428):
In the second cases, an otherwise unique item in the dual would be understood to be pair with its natural counterpart. Since “pair of heavens” makes no senses as the meaning of minalat, it must be paired with the Earth. Similarly, ûriyat makes no sense as “two suns”. Where unclear, the second noun could be added in the singular: minalat dâira (SD/428).
[The discussion above assumes that does not undergo the Adûnaic so that its dual form is minalat instead of minlat. Neither dual is attested, however, so either is possible.]
]]>Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/23) that dubud- may be related to the Elvish root ᴹ√ “loom, hang over oppressively”, which would fit well with the sense “to fall under the cover of”.
Conceptual Development: The draft form of the verb was udūbanim, which is difficult to analyze. It is missing a second d, so the draft verb may be a dū̆b- or perhaps a dūban-. Patrick Wynne and Carl Hostetter suggested (/35-36) that the initial u- may be a 3rd-person pronominal prefix, but I think it may instead be the vowel augment of a tense; see that entry for further discussion.
]]>The typescript version (and all earlier versions) had īdōn “now (is)” instead of īdō “now”. See the entry for for further discussion.
]]>The typescript version (and all earlier versions) had īdōn “now (is)” instead of īdō “now” (SD/247, 312). See the entry for for further discussion.
]]>Conceptual Development: This name first appeared as Eruhil(di) (SD/341, 399), probably incorporating ᴹQ. “men”. In these early appearances Tolkien may have conceived of this as a Quenya word before introducing its Adûnaic form Êruhîn. In its early appearances the latter name sometimes had a short initial E: Eruhîn (SD/358), possibly another transitional form resembling later Sindarin . In still later writings, Tolkien coined a Quenya word Q. of the similar meaning, encompassing both Men and Elves.
]]>The subject Êruhînim of the sentence is the plural form of #. The verb dubdam seems to be in the form of # “to fall”, glossed in past tense because it is in a narrative occurring in the past. The verb has the plural marker in agreement with the number of the subject. The word “under, beneath” is suffixed to the noun it modifies, as is usual of Adûnaic .
The previous (second draft) version of this sentence (SD/312) differs only in its use of the verb form dubbudam ( tense) instead of the final version’s form dubdam (). The first draft version used all the same words but differed in its grammar.
]]>The word “under” comes before the noun rather than as a suffix as is usual of later Adûnaic . The word it modifies seems to be the case of the word “shadow”, indicating that the objects of prepositions could be declined into various cases in the draft grammar.
]]>Where feminine nouns are produced by , they end in either the long vowels -î, -ê or one of the “feminine” consonants th, l, s or z (SD/427). Most feminine nouns are produced by some kind of suffixion from a masculine or common noun (SD/426, 432).
Some feminine nouns are produced from common nouns with the addition of the feminine suffix or its variant -ê.
]]>The full form can be considered the simplest form of words derived from the root. Other patterns of word derivation can move, alter or suppress the vowels of the full form.
]]>Other than in noun declension, there is no grammatical effect of gender. For example, there is no gender agreement for adjectives or verbs (SD/425).
]]>Gendered nouns have different declensions from . Gendered nouns mostly share the same declensions with each other except for in the singular case, where they use three different suffixes if the nouns ends in a consonant (SD/432, 436): (common), (feminine) and (masculine). If the noun ends in a vowel, the subjective singular suffix reduces to -n for all genders (SD/437-8). By the time of Classical Adûnaic, feminine nouns sometimes use -i- in the case instead of the usual inflection , owing to the association of u with masculinity (SD/432).
In much of Adûnaic grammar, the long and short vowels i and u are used as markers of femininity and masculinity (SD/435). For example, the feminine pronoun is “she” while the masculine pronoun is “he”. The final vowels -ê and -ô (from Primitive Adûnaic ✶-ai and ✶-au respectively) also serve as feminine and masculine markers, especially in the feminine where a final -î would look like a plural noun (SD/438).
Masculine and feminine nouns are mainly weak-nouns, since they typically have long vowels in their final syllable (SD/436). This is especially true of feminine nouns, which are usually produced from masculine or common nouns by adding a suffixal -î or -ê (SD/426).
]]>Númenor was destroyed when Ar- tried to invade Valinor, and the Classical Adûnaic language perished with it. Though Adûnaic was still spoken in the surviving Númenórean colonies, many of them were dominated by the Faithful who had little incentive to preserve the language. This Exilic Adûnaic blended with the native languages of Northeastern Middle-earth, becoming Westron. It may have survived longer in the Black Númenórean colonies allied with Sauron, most notably Umbar, but even there it was probably blended with or replaced by the native languages of the Haradrim. It was a dead language by the time of the War of the Ring.
Adûnaic (or Adunaic) is an Anglicanized form of the language’s name. The actual term is .
]]>Like English, Adûnaic has several ways of expressing genitive relationships (SD/428-9, 435). It can put the modifying noun before the noun it modifies: “city-folk”, Anadûnê-ârû “Númenor-king”. It can also use the genitive prefix “of”. The modifying noun receives this prefix, and the resulting phrase is placed after the noun it modifies: ârû an-Anadûnê “king of Númenor”. Frequently the genitive prefix is elided so that the vowel a is lost: ârû ’nAnadûnê “king of Númenor” (SD/429). This happens, for example, when the preceding noun ends in a vowel.
In many situations, the two ways of forming the Adûnaic genitive are interchangeable, in much the same way that English can use either apostrophe-s (’s) or “of”. Where the modifying noun is plural, however, the genitive prefix must be used, as in ârû ’nAdûnâi “king of the Númenóreans”. A construction like **Adûnâi-ârû “Númenóreans-king” is not possible, since a plural noun in this position has considered to be in an relationship with the following noun. Tolkien described it thus (SD/429):
Such object-constructions with plural nouns are rare. Adûnaic generally uses a singular noun in the , with the plurality understood: “Ship-builder” and “Elf-friend” instead of **Balîkmagân “Ships-builder” and **Nimîrzîr “Elves-friend”. This is similar to most such English constructions.
Also like English, Adûnaic could put two nouns in apposition, as two words or titles describing the same thing: Gimilzôr Ârû “Gimilzor the king” or Pharazôn kathuphazgân “Pharazôn the conqueror”. This appositional usage can be distinguished from genitive relationships by stress and tone (SD/428).
In writing, a genitive noun was connected to the noun it modified with a dash (-), whereas in speech the genitive noun had greater stress and higher tone (SD/435): compare Gimilzôr-Ârû “Gimilzor’s king” (stress on Gimilzor) versus Gimilzôr Ârû “Gimilzor the king” (stress on Ârû). Such genitive constructions often became actual compounds: = + = “Aman’s Land, Land of Aman”.
]]>Andreas Moehn suggested (/KH-B-L) that if the later name means “Silver-fire”, its initial element gimil could instead mean “silver”, perhaps as a cognate of Dwarvish . If so, this alternate meaning could either be a homonym of gimil “stars”, or a new meaning for gimil in Tolkien’s later works.
]]>In later writings, Gimilzôr is the son of Ar- and the 23rd ruler of Númenor, whose Quenya name was Tar- (S/268). It is unclear whether this instance of Gimilzôr retains the same meaning as the earlier version of the name. It is possible that the later version has the same meaning as Telemnar (translated by most authors as “Silver-fire”), in which case Tolkien may also have revised the Adûnaic name of Elros (the word for “foam” was elsewhere given as Ad. roth). Alternately, it could be that the Adûnaic and Quenya names are unrelated, and Tar-Telemnar simply adopted the Adûnaic name of his illustrious ancestor.
Andreas Moehn suggested (/KH-B-L) that if Gimilzôr means “Silver-fire”, its initial element gimil “silver” could be a cognate of Dwarvish . Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/11) that his Quenya name Telemnar contains adjective ᴹQ. “of silver”, and does not involve “fire” at all.
Conceptual Development: As a name for Eärendil, this name first appeared as (SD/363).
]]>The technical linguistic term for such addition of consonants is “excrescence”, while the term “glide consonant” is simply another term for semi-vowel. The primary form of excrescence in Adûnaic is such an addition of a glide consonant, so the discussion here uses this less technical term to describe the process.
Examples of both glide-consonants appear in the (SD/247). In the phrase , the final word Avalôiyada “against the Powers” is a combination of the plural Avalôi of “Power, God” and the suffix “toward, against”, with a glide consonant “y” between them. In the phrase , the final word Êruvô “from Eru” is a combination of and the suffix “of, from” with the glide consonant “v” (pronounced ), where the w-sound is represented orthographically by “v” as sometimes happened (SD/434).
Glide-consonants also appear in various example noun declensions. For example, when the dual suffix was added to the nouns “star” and “moon”, the result was gimliyat and nîluwat (SD/431).
Archaic Glide Consonants with -ê and -ô
It seems that archaically a final -ê or -ô could produced something like a glide consonant, decomposing into -ay- or -aw- when followed by an a or u (in the case of ê) or an a or i (in the case of ô). More accurately, the primitive ✶ai and ✶au were preserved in these case, the second vowel becoming the semi-vowels y and w between the a and the following (distinct) vowel:
| ✶ai-a | > | †aya | ✶au-a | > | †awa | |
| ✶ai-u | > | †ayu | ✶au-i | > | †awi |
If the last vowel was not distinct, the development would be:
| ✶ai-i | > | †êi | > | ê |
| ✶au-u | > | †ôu | > | ô |
As evidence for these formations, there are archaic inflections for “sweetheart, beloved” (SD/438): †izrâyu (objective singular) and †izrayat (normal dual) [it is not clear why the a is long in izrâyu; perhaps it is a slip or a misreading]. Similarly, there is an archaic dual form †manawat of “spirit” (but no variant objective, since ✶au-u > ô). Tolkien indicates these are all archaic forms, however, so it is more likely that in Classical Adûnaic the vowels were simply absorbed as described under .
]]>Andreas Moehn suggested () that -hin might have been replaced by the suffix appearing in the later name “?Shore-son”. However, the suffixes -hin and -thôr (along with “daughter”) could have co-existed in the same way that Quenya suffixes Q. “-son” and Q. “-daughter” co-existed with the use of Q. “child” as a patronymic in names like Q. .
As suggested by several authors (/15, /KHÍN), -hin is almost certainly related to Q. , S. “child”, either a direct loan or derived from the same root √. Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/16) that the variant -hil in Zimrahil actually means “heir”, related to S. , Q. , and that this element also appears in Ad. .
]]>In the first stage, the prehistoric ancestors of the Edain encountered some of the Avari and adopted elements of their language, perhaps even deriving the majority of their speech from the Dark Elves (S/141). This early Elvish influence is disguised by millenia of linguistic evolution, first as the Avari languages separated from those of the Eldar, and then further as the prehistoric Mannish languages changed while men migrated westward.
Tolkien’s main example of such an early borrowing was the word Ad. “heavens, sky” (SD/414), which superficially resembles Q. and S. only because the isolated phonetic elements [m], [n] and [l] happened to undergo little change in any of the languages in question (in the case of Sindarin, the word was borrowed from Quenya). Other resemblances, such as Ad. “expression, saying, word” and S. “word”, may have been due to coincidental convergent evolution.
At some later point in their wandering, the ancestors of the Edain met the Dwarves, who also influenced prehistoric Mannish languages (SD/414, WJ/317). Tolkien stated that “Khazadian [Dwarvish] ... resembles Adunaic phonetically and ... it is precisely at the points where Adunaic most differs from Avallonian [Elvish] that it approaches nearest Khazadian” (SD/414). This hints that the Dwarvish influence was later than that of the Avari, but we don’t have enough information about either Adûnaic or Khuzdul to examine this relationship in detail. One major point of influence, though, was the Adûnaic preference for words, a feature of Khuzdul as well (SD/415).
When the Edain reached Beleriand, they entered into a long period of contact with the best known Elvish languages, Sindarin and Quenya. These were the sources of the “late resemblances between the two tongues” described by Tolkien (SD/414), though they seem mostly to consist of borrowed vocabulary and some phonetic influences. Many of the Edain learned Sindarin, and it was commonly spoken in Númenor as well (LotR/1128). Therefore, the majority of the loan words were probably from Sindarin, though there is evidence of Quenya loan words as well, such as Ad. from Q. (SD/414).
The Adûnaic language of Númenor developed from the languages of the Edain (WR/159), most specifically from the language of the folk of Hador (S/147-8, PE17/18), since they were the most numerous of those peoples after the fall of Beleriand. In “Lowdham’s Report on Adunaic” (SD/413-440), Tolkien discussed two main periods in the development of Adûnaic: Primitive Adûnaic and Classical Adûnaic. Primitive Adûnaic is the language as it was spoken during the founding of Númenor, while Classical Adûnaic was the language as it was spoken just before Númenor’s fall. Primitive Adûnaic may have been almost the same as the Hadorian language spoken in the First Age, but we don’t have enough evidence to know for sure.
Adûnaic underwent some changes in the millenia of Númenor’s existence, though less than might be expected of a human language over that length of time. Perhaps its development was slowed by the conservative nature and long lives of the Númenóreans. The historical development from Primitive to Classical Adûnaic is discussed in the phonetics sections of these respective languages. After the fall of Númenor, Adûnaic became extinct, but some of its colonial dialects survived and developed into Westron (LotR/1128-9, WR/159, Let/425). These later developments are discussed in the entry for Westron.
]]>Some authors have suggested this variation occurs when îdô appears before words beginning in a vowel or semi-vowel (/Adûnaic, /12), but this seems unlikely to me. Carl Hostetter, Patrick Wynne and Andreas Moehn instead suggested (/18, /16, , /DAW) that îdôn is a inflection of the word îdô, being used as a noun. The key evidence supporting this second theory is that where the form îdon appears, its gloss is always “now (is)” rather than simply “now”. As discussed elsewhere (SD/429), the inflection can function as the verb “to be”.
I tend to agree with this theory of Hostetter, Wynne and Moehn, but I think the actually development is somewhat more complex. In the first draft version of the Lament of Akallabêth, this form of the word appears twice as īdōn “lo! now is”. As noted by Mr. Moehn (), this version of the Lament used a predicate suffix “is” in several places: burodan “heavy-is”, rōkhī-nam “bent-are”. It seems likely that draft form īdōn “lo! now is” is another variation of this earlier syntax.
The draft predicate suffix differed from the later case in that it applied to the predicate of a clause instead of the subject. Compare these changes from the draft to final versions:
In both draft sentences, the subject is uninflected and the predicate has the predicate suffix -n/-nam. Conversely, in the later sentences the subject is inflected into the subjective case while the predicate is uninflected. This demonstrates the functional shift in the use of the predicate suffix -n in these drafts to the later use of the subjective inflection.
In both the second draft and final typescript versions of the Lament, the form îdôn was retained in all the sentences where it appeared in the first draft. This means that it could have been a remnant of this earlier syntax. The form îdôn could be reinterpreted as the sentence’s subject, but this is also problematic, since îdô is certainly neuter and its subjective form should be *îdôwa, not îdôn.
It is my belief that Tolkien eventually decided that the suffix -n could no longer be used in this context and removed it, switching to an uninflected îdô “now” everywhere in the text as is the case in the final manuscript version of the Lament. On the basis of this deduction, I also believe that the manuscript version was written after than the typescript version.
]]>The subject batîna “roads” is the plural form of the noun “road, path, way”. There is no verb, so the subjective form functions as the “to be” verb (SD/429). The final word lôkhî seems to be a pluralized adjective, perhaps #.
The typescipt version has kātha instead of katha, but is otherwise identical to the manuscript except some minor differences in translation (SD/247).
]]>Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/25) that this sentence is more likely a “negative wish” and is an example of the mood. This sounds more plausible to me, and it is possible that Adûnaic generally uses the optative for commands; see the entry on the mood for further discussion.
]]>Conceptual Development: This name first appeared as Imrahil (WR/363), but Tolkien briefly changed it to Ildramir while he was concocting the name of , who at one point was similarly named Emrahil (SD/66). Once Tolkien settle on the name Arwen, the name of Imrahil was restored. In the drafts of the Lord of the Rings appendices, Tolkien initially listed Imrahil as a Lemberin (Nandorin) name (PM/36) before deciding it was Adûnaic.
]]>Primitive Elvish words often began with of velars [k,kʰ,g,ŋ] + semi-vowels [w,y] (PE18/42, 91). Early Elvish loan words must have changed these clusters to single consonants. The y-groups probably became Primitive Adûnaic palatals (). There is such an example on SD/419, where the Primitive Elvish ᴹ✶ “mast” likely became ✶Ad. *culum(a) and then Classical Adûnaic .
It is less clear what happened to w-groups, but Ad. “expression, saying, word” is very similar to Sindarin “word”, especially in its lenited form beth. The ancient development of this word may have been similar to Sindarin, with Primitive Elvish root √ > *√PET > ✶Ad. √, as suggested by Helge Fauskanger (/Adûnaic). If so, the (very common) Primitive Elvish ✶kw- may become ✶Ad. b-. From the root ✶Ad. √BITH, the development was almost certainly to *baith > bêth.
]]>As pointed out by Andreas Moehn (/JIL), the ordering of the elements in this name are inconsistent with the rules outlined in Lowdham’s Report, which indicate that the adjectival element “West” should come before the noun “Flower” that it modifies (SD/428), so that the name properly should be *Adûninzil, similar to “Lord of the West”. The name as written would mean “West of the Flower”. Perhaps Tolkien relaxed or altered those rules in his later writings.
]]>Conceptual Development: In its first appearance (SD/312), the form of this adjective was ezendi, an impossible form in the later phonetic rules of Lowdham’s Report, since Adûnaic only allowed the long vowel (SD/423).
]]>The subject Zigûrun of the sentence is the form of the name . The verb unakkha has the 3rd-person singular masculine inflection u- “he”. In the grammatical rules of Lowdham’s Report, the subject would be emphasized with this syntax (SD/429), so the sense might be more like “and it was Sauron who came humbled”. It could be that the “so” of the English gloss is a representation of this emphasis, and that the initial word is simply the conjugation “and”.
The verb form nakkha is the tense of “to come”. Since the majority of the text seems to be in the , this use of the past tense would function as a pluperfect according to the grammatical rules of Lowdham’s Report (SD/439). If so, the sense would be more like “Sauron had come” rather than “Sauron came”. Finally, the position of the adjective “humbled” is difficult to explain, since Tolkien stated that “adjectives normally preceded nouns” (SD/428). Perhaps it follows because it is used as a predicate of the subjective subject Zigûrun (a construction discussed on SD/429), so that the literal interpretation of the full phrase would be “*and so Sauron [was] humbled, he had come [to Númenor]”. Alternately, zabathân could appear in this abnormal position because it is a (verbal adjective).
]]>Various verbal prefixes and suffixes can be extracted by comparison to other forms: the pronominal prefixes u- “he”, hi- “she” and ya- “they (neuter)”, as well as the plural verb suffix . Removing these elements, we have three distinct forms: kallaba “fell”, kalba “fell” and kalubi “lean over”. These likely represent distinct verb tenses. The question is: which ones?
Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/26-27) that kalubi is most likely the with the literal sense “*are falling over”, a conclusion with which most other authors agree (/Adûnaic, /14). Andreas Moehn agreed on this verb tense (, /KAL’B), but suggested that it is from the verb kalub- “to lean” instead.
The two remaining forms kalba and kallaba both have the gloss “fell”. This ambiguity is because the Adûnaic tense could used to describe the past in a narrative (SD/439). Most authors agree that these forms are the Adûnaic and tenses respectively, though Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested that kallaba is the instead (/27-28). See the entry on the Adûnaic tense for further discussion.
Finally, there is form appearing only in the draft versions of the Lament: akallabi “fell in ruin”. I believe this is an example of tense; see that entry for further discussion.
]]>Contradicting this conjecture is the fact that khaw, as an animal name, should be declined as a common-noun, using the common subjective suffix . Elsewhere, though, Tolkien declined some animal names as if they were neuter nouns, for example narîka as the subjective plural of # (SD/251). Perhaps not all animals were common nouns, or perhaps Tolkien’s ideas for the subjective tense were not fully formed when these examples were written.
]]>This verb is only attested in the form akhaina “lay” and like all the draft verbs is difficult to analyze. Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne analyze its initial element as the 3rd-singular pronominal suffix a- and its final element -ni as a past tense marker (/34, 37), also suggesting it may be derived from the Elvish root √ “lie (down)” (/10). This Elvish derivation seems likely to me, but I think the form of the verb may instead be the .
Thorsten Renk suggested (/35) the verb stem may instead be khain-. While he could be right about its use in the draft Adûnaic language, this doesn’t fit the later phonetic rules of Lowdham’s Report, which allow only long in Classical Adûnaic (SD/423).
]]>This line of reasoning is quite speculative. Nevertheless, it is probably easier to use the form khô over khâu, since the inflections of khô would be more regular: plural khôi, dual *khôwat, objective *khôwu, etc.
]]>This possible relationship has been suggested by various authors (/Adûnaic, /KHUR). Andreas Moehn rejected the relationship, pointing out that Primitive Elvish ✶khēru “lord” would have developed phonetically into Ad. **khîru (). However, khôr may be derived from some more ancient Avari loan word, which underwent different phonetic developments than those of the Eldarin languages, perhaps ✶kher- > khar > khaur > Ad. khôr.
]]>There are three known versions of the text:
Christopher Tolkien was uncertain which of the typescipt or manuscript was the true final revision of the text (SD/289). Andreas Moehn () and Aleš Bičan () both suggested that the typescipt is the later of the two, but I believe it is the manuscript, based on its cleaner glosses and the development of “now” in the sentences and (see the entries for and the draft predicate suffix for further details). Both texts are extremely close, however, and can be collectively called the “final version”.
The version given here is the final manuscript version, with spelling normalized to use the circumflex (â) for long vowels instead of the macron (ā). In the original version, English glosses appeared underneath words to indicate their literal meaning. The English translation given here is a combination of the manuscript and transcript translations, modified to use more natural English with some editorial additions in [brackets] where Tolkien omitted names and definite articles from his English translation. Original glosses and textual variations are discussed in the entries for individual phrases. The entire first draft is given its own entry below as a specimen of the draft version of the Adûnaic grammar.
Another analysis of this text can be found in “Lalaith’s Guide to Adûnaic Grammar” by Andreas Moehn (). A less formal analysis can be found in the “Verbs, Syntax, Hooray!” article (VT24/14-38) by Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne, which analyzes much of text as part of their general discussion of Adûnaic grammar.
]]>Tolkien provides no examples of such a linking consonant for feminine nouns ending -î. Such nouns also have identical singular and plural forms, though, so perhaps they could also use the linking consonant n. Elsewhere Tolkien said that feminine nouns were frequently made to end in -ê instead of -î to better distinguish them from plural forms (SD/438), so perhaps such a change was preferred to linking consonsants.
]]>Conceptual Development: In its first appearance, this adjective had the plural form rōkhī, suggesting an earlier singular form *rôkhi (SD/312).
]]>Conceptual Development: At an earlier conceptual stage, it was the grammatical inflection used for the (SD/438).
]]>Where masculine nouns are produced by , they end in either the long vowels -û, -ô or one of the “masculine” consonants k, r, n or d (SD/427).
Some masculine nouns are produced from common nouns with the addition of the masculine suffix or its variant -ô.
]]>When the preceding vowel was the same as the following, this would result in a long vowel. Otherwise if the preceding vowel was an [a], the result would be one of the two primitive [au] or [ai]. When the combinations were [ui] or [iu], however, the result was not a diphthong and the [w] or [j] was restored when the .
]]>Although most combinations were allowed, pairs of were rare. Consonant clusters tended to arise from the combination of the second and third consonants of a like KALAB, and such bases tended to have in at least one of those positions (SD/417).
Clusters of three or more consonants did not appear, because words and affixes always began and ended with either a vowel or a single consonant (SD/418). Thus, no combination of word elements could produce a cluster of more than two consonants.
]]>Conceptual Development: The first Adûnaic name for this mountain was Menel-tūbil or (SD/305, SD/363).
]]>Conceptual Development: The first Adûnaic name for Morgoth, Mēlekō, was more clearly based on ᴹQ. , which was the Quenya name for Melkor in that stage of Tolkien’s writing.
]]>Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/36) that -nam maybe related to Q. “to be”, but they fail to analyze the singular forms of the suffix. Andreas Moehn () does connect the singular instances of the suffix -n to the plural -nam, but without connecting it to Q. ná-. I think both authors got part of the story right: the suffixal form -na is most likely derived from the same Elvish root √ as Q. ná-, losing its final a in the singular form but preserving it in the plural form when the plural suffix -m is added.
In its first two appearances in the draft version of the Lament, this suffix is attached to the predicate of a copula (a linguistic term for a “to be” expression). For that reason, the discussion here uses the term “predicate suffix” for this use of the -n suffix:
The suffix’s second two appearances in the draft version of the Lament are more ambiguous.
Going by word order alone, it seems that the -n is attached to the predicate in both of these sentences as well. However, as Andreas Moehn points out (), īdō could be the subject of both sentences if the predicates are the final word of each sentence, which is more consistent with the later subjective inflection.
In the later version of Adûnaic described in Lowdham’s Report, the suffix -n has a new function, namely as the common subjective suffix: -an/-n. This new use differs from the older one in that it applies to the subject of a copula instead of the predicate. Despite this grammatical change from draft-Adûnaic, the word form īdōn appears in all later versions of the except the final manuscript version.
These later appearances of īdōn still have the gloss “now (is)”, so it seems possible that these they are remnants of the predicate suffix from draft Adûnaic. Moehn, Hostetter and Wynne all suggested (, /16) that these later appearances of īdōn can be reinterpreted as a inflection. However, this interpretation is still problematic, since îdô would surely be a neuter instead of a common noun, whose subjective form would therefore be *îdôwa.
The suffix -n did not appear after īdō in the final manuscript version of the Lament, and the gloss “is” was removed as well:
It is my belief that Tolkien eventually decided that the suffix -n could no longer be used in this context and removed it.
]]>It is attested in two forms, unakkha “he-came” and yanākhim “are at hand”. The initial elements in these forms are the 3rd-sg masculine pronominal prefix u- and the 3rd-pl neuter pronominal prefix ya-, respectively, while the latter form has the plural verbal suffix . Removing these elements leaves the conjugated forms nakkha and nākhi, which are the and tenses according to the theories used here. If the second form is the continuative-present, its literal meaning may be “are coming”.
Conceptual Development: In the draft version of the Lament of Akallabêth, this verb stem was apparently nek-, with past forms hunekkū >> unekkū “he-came”, with Tolkien vacillating on the proper form of the 3rd-sg masculine pronominal prefix u-.
]]>Conceptual Development: In early writings, the compound was (non-subjective) agannūlo, so that the apparent draft form of this noun was nūlo. A similar form nūlu appears on SD/306, described only as “a word with the evil sense of ‘night’ or ‘dark’”. It could be a separate word or another variation of this word, with the development nūlo >> nūlu >> nālu. Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/21) that the earlier forms may be related to ᴹQ. “dark, dusky, obscure”.
]]>The first word, Narîka “Eagles” seems to be the plural of # “eagle”, but is unusual in that it is declined as if it were a neuter noun. The names of animals are generally (SD/426). Perhaps when this sentence was written, Tolkien had not yet fleshed out the Adûnaic rules.
Narîka is modified by the noun phrase ’nBâri “of the Lords”, which is a combination of the genitive prefix “of” (elided) and the plural of the noun “lord”. This is also unusual in that it uses the short i rather than the long î for the plural, another sign that this may be an early sentence (the Adûnaic often used a short i).
The phrase is further modified by ’nAdûn “of the West”, another instance of an elided genitive prefixed to the noun “west”.
The verb yanâkhim is glossed “are at hand”. Its initial element ya- is likely the third neuter person plural pronominal suffix “they” and it ends with the normal plural verb suffix . This leaves the verb form nâkhi, which seems to be an inflection of the verb “come”. A literal interpretation might be “*The Eagles of the Lords of the West are coming”, as supported by the second translation mentioned above, so that this is an example of the Adûnaic tense. This analysis of yanâkhim was suggested by Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne (/27).
]]>The only basic consonant to which the nasal could be infixed were stops or [z] (SD/434). In the case of [z], this was likely a remnant of earlier infixion to the palatal stop before it developed into [z] (SD/417). By the time of Classical Adûnaic, after , the only surviving nasal-infixions would have been those before [z] and voiced stops, that is: [mb], [nd], [nz] and [ŋg] (“ng”).
When the nasal infixions was applied to a final consonant, the result was an illegal consonant cluster (see ). To resolve this problem, an additional vowel was suffixed to the word, such as: √KALAB > ✶kalambu, ✶aklambu (SD/425). Where the preceding vowel was a (as was usually the case), the new final vowel was required to be a different vowel.
Although nasal infixion could occur after any vowel, it was usually found after a of the root, so that forms like ✶Ad. √KALAB > ✶kalambu where more common than ✶kalimbu, ✶kalumbu (SD/425).
]]>The m-combinations given by Tolkien are MP, MPh (SD/420) and MT, MTh, MK, MKh, MS (SD/421) which is a complete list all possible combinations. The n-combinations given are NT, NTh (SD/420) and NS (SD/421), which are all the possible combinations after . The ŋ-combinations were not given directly by Tolkien, but he did describe the development of NK, NKh, both of which would have become [ŋk], [ŋkʰ]. These are the only way in which [ŋ] could appear before a voiceless stop or aspirate ([ŋ] could not appear before [s]).
This change happened around the same time as . Since the change in [ŋx] was probably early, these other nasal changes were likely early as well. This change seems to have had a lasting influence, however, remaining functional in most cases with the later rules of Classical Adûnaic.
For the remaining primitive voiceless consonant ✶[x], the combination [ŋx] became [xx], as noted above. The combinations [mx] and [nx] developed into [mh] and [nh] when . The final result written as “mh” and “nh” but pronounced as a voiceless double [m̥m̥] and [n̥n̥] “with breath off-glide” (SD/421).
]]>Neuter nouns do not end in the long vowels -ê, -î, -ô, -û, and do not have a long î or û in their final syllable (SD/427), though monosyllables seem to be an exception to the second rule: see “breath” and “shout” (SD/426). These vowels are considered markers of femininity or masculinity (SD/435), and are therefore not applicable to neuter (or common) nouns. There is one attested exception to this rule, “Elvish” (SD/414), but the in this case seems to be a suffix. Most neuter nouns have a short vowel in their last syllable (that is, they are a ). If they have a long vowel in the last syllable, it is usually â, such as “road” or “chasm”. In the case of a final long vowel, it must be -â, such as “hand”.
]]>Conceptual Development: In its earliest appearances from the 1940s, this noun had the plural form Nimrî (SD/358, 388) as opposed to later plural Nimîr (SD/388, 436), which could indicate either an earlier singular form Nimri or a variant syntax for formation. The word also appears in Tolkien’s Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60 (WJ/386), indicating that this word survived in Tolkien’s later conception of Adûnaic.
]]>Conceptual Development: The first Adûnaic version of this name, Nimruzân, shares the same suffix as the first Adûnaic version of his father’s Adûnaic name .
]]>Conceptual Development: An earlier name for the faithful Númenóreans was (SD/347).
]]>1) As the direct object of a verb:
2) As the object of preposition (which are suffixal in Adûnaic):
3) Before another noun in an adjectival or possessive relationship:
4) As a predicate in a copula (whose subject would be in the subjective case):
5) The subject of a sentence was usually in the subjective case, but could be in the normal case if the verb was inflected with the proper pronominal prefix. Compare:
The subjective formation puts more emphasis on the subject. This is especially true if it was combined with a verb using a pronominal prefix:
The normal and subjective cases could be declined for all numbers (singular, dual and plural), but the objective case could only be used in the singular.
]]>In addition to the strong and weak classification, Adûnaic noun declensions differ for nouns ending in a consonant (Class I) versus those ending in a vowel (Class II). For Class I nouns, there is at most one final consonant, since clusters are not allowed as in Adûnaic. In combination with the strong and weak classifications, this gives us four groups:
| Classes of Adûnaic Nouns | ||
|---|---|---|
| Strong I | Ending in a single consonant preceded by a short vowel | ✧ SD/430, 436-7 |
| Strong II | Ending in a short vowel | ✧ SD/431, 437 |
| Weak I | Ending in a single consonant preceded by a long vowel or diphthong | ✧ SD/431-2, 437-8 |
| Weak II | Ending in a long vowel or diphthong | ✧ SD/438 |
Tolkien labeled the weak classes Weak (a) and Weak (b) (SD/437-8), but the discussion here uses Weak I and Weak II for consistency with the Strong class names. Also remember that monosyllables are always weak, though all attested Adûnaic monosyllables have a long vowel or diphthong making them weak in any case.
There is a small group of nouns (Strong Ib and Strong IIb) that used strong declensions despite having a long vowel in their last syllable (SD/437). These declensions are archaic, however, and the weak declensions can be used for such nouns by the time of Classical Adûnaic.
Noun declensions also vary depending on the of the noun. These three factors combine to determine how a noun is declined: gender, strong versus weak, class I versus class II.
]]>Tolkien indicated that such basic noun forms are uncommon except in , though they are quite common in neuters (SD/426). Basic nouns are particularly rare for , the only commonly-used example being “girl” (SD/426-7). Such basic nouns are generally the only way an Adûnaic noun can end in a consonant without suffixion.
Primitive Adûnaic nouns always had at least two consonants (SD/416). Classical Adûnaic nouns that seem to be exceptions to this rule have all undergone some kind of consonant loss from its primitive form, either because a primitive consonant vanished, as with “God” < √ (SD/432), or because a primitive consonant became a vowel, as with “hand” < ✶ and “crow” < khau < ✶ (SD/426).
]]>The word nûph is a common-noun but it has some example inflections with masculine and feminine suffixes: nûphun (masculine subjective), nûphin (feminine subjective), nûphi (feminine objective). This seems to be another way that an individual’s gender be indicated (“male fool”, “female fool”) instead of using explicit masucline and feminine suffixes like or .
]]>Conceptual Development: At an earlier conceptual stage, this suffix was a grammatical inflection, the (SD/438).
]]>Objective Usage
Despite its name, the objective case is not used for the direct object of a verb. Such direct objects are left in the normal case (SD/428):
The objective case is only used for the initial elements of compounds, when the element is the object of a second verbal element (SD/429). It appears mainly in Adûnaic names:
The objective is often combined with a verb used in an , in which case it is the object of that verb (SD/429):
Other times the objective is used with a noun that is perceived to have a verbal function (SD/429):
When nouns are combined without using the objective, the initial noun generally functions as an adjectival or possessive modifier of the second (SD/429):
The objective form is only used for singular nouns. When plural nouns (or ) are in the same position, they are always considered to be in an object-relationship and therefore do not need to be declined into the objective (SD/429):
Where a plural noun needs to be in an adjectival or possessive relationship with another noun, it must be used in conjunction with the genitival prefix (SD/429).
Note the change in word order, as such phrases appear after the noun, as opposed to the objective or adjectival formations which appear before.
Objective Formation
The objective is formed with the objective inflection (SD/430). This inflection changes the last vowel of a (those with a short vowel in the last syllable) and is added as a suffix to a (those with a long vowel or diphthong in the last syllable).
In the last example, the suffix -u is absorbed by the final vowel -ô according to the standard Adûnaic rules for . The same would happen with a final vowel -û, so that the normal and objective forms would be identical in these cases. Masculine nouns often end in these two vowels, and such nouns do not have distinct objective forms.
Owing to the association of the vowel u with the masculine gender (SD/427), the objective forms of often use the vowel i in the objective case by the time of Classical Adûnaic (SD/432). For the numerous feminine nouns ending in -ê and -î, this variant objective suffix is absorbed by the final vowel so that (like masculine nouns) their normal and objective forms are the same.
Objective With Syncope (Strong I nouns)
Nouns ending in a consonant preceded by a short vowel (Strong I nouns) often use a variant form of the objective with the Adûnaic and the objective inflection added as a suffixal -u (SD/435). Originally, such Strong I nouns with the short vowel u would have identical normal and subjective forms.
To better distinguish the normal and objective forms, such nouns could have an alternate objective inflection that suppresses the last vowel and adds the suffix -u. This followed the normal pattern for the Adûnaic syncope, and the discussion here use the term “objective with syncope” to refer to this formation.
Later, this formation spread to nouns that had the other short vowels as well. In the case of feminine nouns, the suffixal addition could be -i instead of -u, as noted above.
Both the “objective with syncope” and “feminine i-suffix” rules for the objective were optional, sometimes seen and sometimes not. Where the Adûnaic was prohibited (such as for nouns with two different vowels), the objective with syncope was probably prohibited as well.
Archaic and Irregular Objective Forms
There are several objective forms that do not comply with the rules above, but Tolkien indicated that most of these formations were archaic.
Archaic Strong Objectives: Some weak-nouns could have a strong objective declension, replacing their last vowel with u instead of adding the -u as a suffix. This was because either (a) the noun was originally a strong noun, later becoming weak when its final vowel was lengthened or (b) it belonged to the small class of nouns (Strong Ib and Strong IIb) that were strong despite having a long vowel in the final syllable:
Archaic Objectives with Glide Consonants: Archaically, ending in -ê or -î would using the glide consonant y before the objective suffix -u. In the case of -ê, this long vowel would decompose into -ây (or perhaps -ay), as discussed in the section on “Archaic Glide Consonants with -ê and -ô” in the entry on the :
Archaic Feminine Objectives with -u: All of the archaic objectives of feminine nouns used the objective -u instead of the variant feminine suffix -i discussed above. This -u would not be absorbed by final feminine vowels. It is not clear whether the u-suffix has been entirely replaced by the i-suffix by the time of Classical Adûnaic, or whether u could still be used with some feminine nouns.
Adjectives in the Objective Case: There are a couple of examples of adjectives declined into the objective case as part of compounds:
It isn’t clear whether adjectives could generally be declined as objectives, or whether these two particular adjectives could also be used as nouns (as is the case with “all” in English).
]]>For this reason, I think both of these sentences may be examples of the optative mood, but most other authors have suggested it may be the instead. Many languages use the subjunctive for the expression of a wish as well as hypotheticals, so it is hard to say how Adûnaic may have used these verbal moods.
There is another sentence that may be an example of a “negative optative”: “Don’t [you] touch me!”, with the negative element “do not”. This sentence was translated as an English imperative command, but Tolkien did not list the imperative as one of the verbal moods of Adûnaic. Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/25) that the sentence might be an optative, so that its literal meaning might be “May it be you not touch me”. This sounds plausible to me; it is possible the Adûnaic generally expresses commands with the optative mood.
Thorsten Renk suggested instead that this sentence it is a true imperative, with the imperative marker . See the entry for further discussion.
]]>Tolkien said these vowels were recognized “in the older language” but did not specify how they applied to speech by the time of Classical Adûnaic. It seems likely that over-long vowels would have been reduced to ordinary long vowels by the time of Classical Adûnaic. In his later writings, Tolkien used the circumflex for ordinary long vowels in Adûnaic, as he did for all of his non-Elvish languages.
The discussions uses the macron for ordinary long vowels in Primitive Adûnaic and the circumflex for ordinary long vowels in Classical Adûnaic. The primitive over-long vowels are frequently omitted, since these would eventually reduce back to ordinary long vowels.
]]>The participle suffix seems to be , as suggested by most authors (/30, , /Adûnaic, /31). There is something peculiar about these adjectives, however. First, unlike normal adjectives (SD/425), they appear after rather than before the noun they modify: Zigûrun zabathân “Sauron humbled”, Anadûnê zîrân “Númenor beloved”. Second, there is a similar suffix used to create agental nouns from verbs:
It is unlikely that the same suffix would be used for two very different grammatical functions, noun formation and adjective formation, both from verbs. Perhaps all of these cases are actually nouns, “*humbler”, “*lover”. The apparent use of these nouns as adjectives could be a specialized adjectival construction:
In such cases, this construct might function as a kind of subclause in the passive voice: “Sauron who is humbled”, “Númenor who is loved”. This would resolve the ambiguity between used as a participle suffix and for , but introduces a new problem however: how would Adûnaic distinguish between sentences like “Sauron who is humbled came ...” and “the humbler of Sauron came ...”?
Perhaps the location of the inflection is used to make this distinction. In the first example below, Sauron is the subject, and in the second, the humbler is the subject:
In the case of Anadûnê zîrân, which does not use the subjective inflection, it may be the verb’s pronominal-prefix which indicates the subject:
Alternately, this sentence may simply have two nouns in apposition, as indicated by the gloss of the final manuscript version:
This is all quite speculative, but if true, the suffix -ân might always be used to form an agental noun, which can in some instances be used as if it were a participle adjective: when it follows another noun marked as the subject of the sentence.
]]>Tolkien also cryptically indicated the passive voice had “the subject in accusative” (SD/439), but Adûnaic has no accusative case. Perhaps he meant the “subject” of the English construction (really the object of the verb) was put into the object position in Adûnaic. If so, the sentence “the pillar was broken” might be rendered in Adûnaic as the subject-less sentence rahhata târik “[...] did break the pillar”.
]]>Several authors identify the geminate (double consonant) verb forms as the past tense (/Adûnaic, , /26), such as: → kallaba. Based on this pattern, I would suggest the following conjugations for the past tense:
There are attested geminate forms for all three verb classes (biconsonantal, triconsonantal and derived), but it is not clear that the attested example of a derived-verb (azaggara) is actually the past tense, so that conjugation is somewhat speculative.
]]>The consistent syncopated forms are:
The consistent geminate forms are:
There are several instances Tolkien vacillated between two forms:
The Lament can be divided into two stanzas, stanza one (S1-S6) describing the fall of Númenor and stanza two (S7-S13) describing the fate of the exiles after the fall. In the narrative frame of the first stanza, the geminate forms describe events that had already happened before the fall: Sauron had already come to Númenor (S1), Ar-Pharazôn had already begun his war against the Valar (S3). Similarly the syncopated forms describe events occurring at the moment of the fall: the Valar breaking the world (S4) and the seas filling the chasm left by the destruction (S5). In this context, the geminate forms make more sense as pluperfects.
In the second stanza, the geminate form describes the world’s state before the fall of Númenor: there was (once) a straight road to Valinor (S11). It is followed immediately by sentence describing the world’s state after the exile: “now all ways (are) bent” [around the now-round Earth] (S12). Again, the geminate form works better as the pluperfect.
The sentences where Tolkien vacillated between forms (S2, S6) could make sense as either a pluperfect or not. The Númenóreans’ fall under shadow (S2) could be a pluperfect with respect to fall of Númenor, or it could be within the same time frame if it is considered the proximate cause of Númenor’s destruction. The fall of Númenor itself (S6) lies between the first and second stanza: it could be a pluperfect from the perspective of the second stanza (happening before the exile) or within the same time frame if it is part of the first stanza. I treat the change of azagrāra >> azaggara (S3) as a special case, discussed separately in the entry on the .
If the roles of the aorist and past verb forms are reversed, the narrative flow breaks down. Therefore, it makes more sense that the geminate form is the past tense, used as a pluperfect throughout the Lament.
Other Theories
Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/27-29) that the geminate forms are the . They base their argument on the gloss of azaggara “was warring” in the final version of the Lament. This gloss indicates this particular verb was in the continuative past, and they conclude that similar geminate forms belong to the same tense. As further evidence for their idea, they point out that Primitive Elvish sometimes used geminate forms to indicate a frequentative function (for example ᴹ✶, Ety/BAT).
While this works for azaggara, it doesn’t work well for the other geminate forms, which all glossed with the past tense. I personally believe the opposite happened: when Tolkien changed azagrāra (second draft) >> azaggara (final draft) he changed it from the continuative-past to the ordinary past tense functioning as a pluperfect, but for some reason neglected to revise its gloss. Omitting the special case of azaggara, the remaining geminate forms in the Lament work better as pluperfects, as argued above.
As a final wrinkle on this issue, Dr. Clyde Kilby suggested the geminate forms are actually intensive: Akallabeth = “The Greatly Fallen” (Tolkien & The Silmarillion, 1976); this idea is apparently based on direct communication with Tolkien. See the letter in VT25, p. 4 for further details. In this letter Eli Bar-Yahalom suggests azaggara might also be intensive, meaning “*made a great war”.
Aside from Hostetter and Wynne, there is a general consensus in the literature that the geminate forms most likely the Adûnaic past tense (/Adûnaic, , /26), although there is considerable disagreement on the exact status of azaggara.
Draft Verb Conjugations
There are several geminate (double-consonant) forms in the first draft version of the Lament of Akallabêth: unekkū “he-came”, rakkhatū “broke asunder” and phurrusim “flow” (plural). These might be early versions of the Adûnaic past tense. My theory is that the role of the aorist and past tenses in the final version of the lament were instead played by the past and tenses in the first draft of the Lament; see the entry on the draft-perfect for further discussion.
In the draft Lament, there are two singular past tense forms nekkū and rakkhatū, both ending in long ū, while the geminate form phurrusim has a different (plural?) suffix -im. It may be that in the draft past tense, the singular vowel suffix was -ū instead of the later -a. Andreas Moehn points out () that the final -ū might instead be connected to the masculine subjects, whereas Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/38) that it may be connected to the fact that the subject is in the case. There isn’t really enough information available to know for sure.
There is yet another geminate form akallabi “fell in ruin”, which is the according to the theories used here; see that entry for further discussion.
]]>Adûnaic can also have masculine and feminine proper names for natural objects and even abstract concepts, which coexisted with the ordinary neuter words for such things: masculine “Death” beside “death”, feminine “Sun” beside "sun" and masculine “Moon” beside “moon” (SD/426). The Númenóreans regarded such personified names as actual entities. Tolkien glossed Nîlû as the “Man in the Moon” and Ûrî as the “Lady of the Sun”, so these may simply be the Adûnaic names for and (and perhaps Agân is ).
]]>Conceptual Development: This noun also appears in “Lowdham’s Report on the Adunaic Language” from the 1940s (SD/426).
]]>The first element in his name is the noun “gold”. Since Pharazôn is glossed “Golden”, the second element may be an adjectival suffix. Andreas Moehn instead suggested (/PHAR’Z) that the name means “*Golden One”, closer to its Quenya equivalent, and that the suffix -ôn is a masculine variant of the agental suffix . Either way, the name is also notable in that it does not undergo the Adûnaic when its suffix is added.
Conceptual Development: The name also appeared in “The Notion Club Papers” from the 1940s (SD/311), in some examples inflected into the case (SD/247, 428-9).
]]>Phonetically, this element does not fit the earlier Adûnaic phonetic rules of Lowdham’s Report, which state that only a long was allowed in Adûnaic (SD/423). When Tolkien wrote Lowdham’s Report, Zimraphel’s Adûnaic name was instead Zimrahil, so perhaps -hil was an earlier form of this suffix. If the suffix -phel were to be used in the phonetic context of the Adûnaic of Lowdham’s Report (Middle Adûnaic) it might have the form *-phêl. See the entry on for further discussion.
]]>Andreas Moehn instead suggested (/PHUR) the verb stem may be phursâ- instead of phurus, so that it is a . This isn’t consistent with earlier forms, but it is possible that Tolkien changed his mind about the basic verb form.
]]>Plural Formation
The plural form of a noun depends largely on whether you are declining a (whose last vowel is short) or a (whose last vowel is long or a diphthong).
These plural formations are fairly consistent. There are only a few variations.
Weak nouns ending in -ê (and -î?): In the standard Adûnaic rules for , a final long -ê absorbs the plural suffix î, making the plural form identical to the singular: “sweetheart” → izrê “sweethearts” (SD/438). To distinguish these forms, you can insert a n after the final -ê: “sweetheart” → izrênî “sweethearts” (SD/438). It is possible that the same thing can be done for weak nouns ending in -î, but Tolkien gave no such examples.
Weak nouns with archaic strong plurals: Sometimes a weak noun can use a strong plural (SD/435), especially in archaic writing. This can happen for several reasons:
All of the above examples could also use the ordinary weak plural, so these exceptions can be safely ignored by the time of Classical Adûnaic except for their use in poetry.
Subjective Plurals
In the plural, Adûnaic distinguishes not only between the strong and weak nouns, but also between (which use the subjective declension ) and (which use the gendered plural subjective suffix ).
Neuter Subjective Plurals: Neuter plurals in the subjective simply add the subjective inflection -a as a suffix to the plural form. If the plural suffix -î appears at the end of the word, it is separated from the subjective suffix with the usual y.
Gendered Subjective Plurals: Gendered plurals in the subjective add the gendered plural subjective suffix -im to the plural form.
By the time of Classical Adûnaic, most of these plurals ends in a vowel, and the suffix -im combines with the final vowel according to the Adûnaic rules for . In all such cases, the i in the suffix is absorbed by the preceding long vowel or diphthong, effectively reducing the suffix to -m:
The last example (izrê) has another plural form. As noted above, plurals of nouns ending in -ê (and perhaps also those ending in -î) can use a n to help distinguish the singular and plural forms. In such cases, the gendered plural subjective suffix -im is added to this variant plural form with the linking n:
Gendered Subjective Plurals with Syncope: The gendered strong-I nouns (those ending in a consonant preceded by a short vowel) are an exception to the above rules. Such nouns first undergo the Adûnaic before the subjective suffix -im is added, so that the last short vowel of the noun is lost instead of being replaced by the plural inflection î:
Where the syncope cannot occur, the subjective suffix -im is added to the normal plural form, as above:
Irregular Plurals
There are several attested Adûnaic plurals that do not fit the plural formation rules described above.
Strong plurals with medial y: For strong nouns that have an isolated medial y, this y disappears when the last vowel is replaced by the plural inflection -î-, so that the plural inflection forms a diphthong with the second-to-last vowel:
This irregularity can be explained by the ancient phonetic development of Adûnaic, in which .
Variant plurals with short i: In a few places, Tolkien has plurals with a short i where a long î would be expected from the rules above:
In Lowdham’s Report, these examples appear as regular plurals with a long î:
These variations may be remnants of Tolkien’s older conception of the Adûnaic plural, which frequently used a short i instead of a long one (see the entry on the ).
]]>It is possible that Tolkien was referring to the process of extending primitive . Primitive Eldarin extended roots by adding suffixal elements, such as the Elvish root √ “light; shine” which was extended to √ “glory, radiance” (PE18/87). Perhaps Primitive Adûnaic extended roots by adding prefixes. If so, this word formation rule may refer instead to Primitive Adûnaic word formation, but we have no example of such extensions, either prefixal or suffixal.
]]>The noun modified by the prepositional suffix is always in the normal case (SD/429). Furthermore, if the noun ends in -u or -i and the prepositional suffix begins in a vowel, the usual w or y is inserted between the two vowels:
In the second example, the letter “v” is properly pronounced when Adûnaic is represented with English letters (SD/434). Although not discussed by Tolkien, other vowel combinations in prepositions probably follow the usual rules for Adûnaic .
The known prepositional suffixes appearing in the (SD/247) and “Lowdham’s Report on the Adunaic Language” (SD/429) from the 1940s are:
A few more prepositional elements appear in Tolkien’s later writings (PM/376), but these were used as prefixes:
Draft Adûnaic: In Tolkien’s early Adûnaic drafts, most these prepositional suffixes were instead examples of the , with further modifications for the number and gender of the noun. In later Adûnaic grammar, Tolkien abandoned this case syntax and switched to simple, immutable prepositional suffixes, as discussed above.
]]>There appear to be several circumstances in which a pronominal-prefix can be used with verbs.
1) The pronominal-prefix could be the only subject:
2) There can be a separate subject noun in the . When the subject is in the normal case, the pronominal-prefix is always required (SD/429):
3) There can be a separate subject noun in the case. When the subjective case is used in combination with a pronominal-prefix, the subject is emphatic (SD/429):
The pronominal-prefix is optional if the subject noun is declined into the case. Where omitted, the subject is not emphatic:
Apart from the subjective case, the only other known situation where the pronominal prefix can be omitted is with , which have no subject.
]]>| Person | Singular | Plural |
|---|---|---|
| 1st person | “me” | “us” |
| 2nd person | “you” | ? |
| 3rd person neuter | “it” | “they” |
| 3rd person masculine | “he” | “they” |
| 3rd person feminine | “she” | * “they” |
The first person pronouns are only attested as objects: kitabdahê “[you] touch me” (SD/250), nênud “on us” (SD/247); it isn’t clear whether they can be used as subjects. The other pronouns are only attested as subjects and it is not clear whether they can be used as objects. The 3rd person feminine plural pronoun is not attested, but generalizing from the neuter and masculine plural pronouns, the form *yi seems likely.
The second person pronoun is attested only in the phrase bâ kitabdahê “Don’t [you] touch me”. It is not glossed, but many authors have suggested it is probably the second person pronoun (/Adûnaic, , /18). It resembles the Primitive Elvish 2nd person familiar pronoun ✶, to which it might be related. If so, it is probably a singular pronoun; whether it can also be used for the plural is unclear. None of the other Adûnaic pronouns have clear Elvish cognates, so the resemblance could just be a coincidence.
Finally, Thorsten Renk suggested (/18) that may instead be a marker for the imperative. He suggested an invented word !ni for “I, me” to use for the 1st persons singular pronoun instead (/18), as a cognate of Q. .
]]>In the previous (second draft) version of the Lament, the verb form was urahta with the 3rd persons masculine singular suffix u- “he”, and no plural suffix -m. This is consistent with the subject in this version, which was the singular Bârun “Lord”.
Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/22) that this verb may be related to Q. “to break” (MC/223). It could also be related to the contemporaneous ᴹQ. “to break asunder” (Ety/SKAT).
Conceptual Development: In the first draft of the Lament, the form was rakkhatū, indicating the earliest form of the verb may have had the verb stem rakhat- instead of later rahat-.
]]>Tolkien states that “any given derivative never shows two of the one [i.e. same] kind of variation at the same time” (SD/424), where the vowel modifications were one kind of process and the consonant modifications another. Thus, any given word would have at most two modifications: one vowel modification and one consonant modification. Tolkien does list a few examples where both kinds of modifications occur, such as ✶kullūb < √KULUB (SD/425) with both consonant doubling and vowel lengthening.
Starting from the basic biconsonantal patterns (✶zir(i), ✶izri, ✶izir) and triconsonantal patterns (✶kal(a)b, ✶kalb(a), ✶aklab, ✶akalb(u) and ✶daw’r), there were a large number of possible words could be produced through these further modifications, especially when was included. For any given root, only a few of the possible variations were realized as actual words, however (SD/425).
]]>Words could be formed from roots using various rules describing the possible word patterns. There were probably grammatical rules underlying these patterns, but they can no longer be discerned. A common pattern was to have the characteristic vowel after the first and second consonants; such words were called the of the root (SD/422), for example ✶ziri or ✶kalab. Other patterns were variations on the full form.
]]>Despite all this, the related Adûnaic word Ad. roth “foam” survived in The Silmarillion in the Adûnaic name “Foam-flower” of Earendil’s ship. Therefore, perhaps this root remains valid. According to Tolkien, this root originally had to do with ploughs and ploughing, and was later used for the white crest of waves by analogy with the churning dirt of a furrow (PM/376).
]]>Conceptual Development: In the draft versions of the Lament of Akallabêth, the form of this word was sōbēth (SD/311).
]]>The interpretation of the second element is less certain than the first. For example, Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/11) that is Quenya name Falassion is actually a genitive plural meaning “of the Coasts” and does not involve “-son” at all. They suggested the final -thôr may instead mean “one” or “lord” (/23).
]]>The case for single-vowel words derived from s is more complex. A word like **kal’b from the root ✶Ad. √KALAB is not possible, since clusters are not allowed as the of Primitive Adûnaic words. There is, however, one example of a primitive triconsontal word with a single vowel: ✶Ad. √ > ✶ > Ad. “gloom”. It seems likely that such primitive single-vowel triconsonantal words were only possible when the semi-vowels [w] or [j] were the middle consonant, since these would develop into vowels when .
]]>Elsewhere Tolkien indicated that the changes in [ɣ] happened in “parallel with the softening of the voiceless equivalent H [x] to the breath-H” (SD/420), putting all of these change roughly at the same stage of development.
]]>Tolkien noted that combinations of stops were rare (SD/421), most likely because consonants pairs usually included at least one continuant, as discussed under . The only example he gave of this development was the word , phonetically [safθān].
Furthermore, he stated that where this development was the result of verbal or noun inflection, the change was often reverted for consistency with other noun or verb forms. The example he gave was the verb * whose aorist tense would have become saphda > saptha under normal phonetic development, but was reformed back to saphda (SD/421), presumably by comparison to other forms such as the past tense *sapphada.
This change preceded other changes (aspirates to spirants) and was therefore probably early. Note that aspirates in ancient Quenya caused a similar change, except that the preceding aspirate lost its aspiration and became a voiceless stop (PE19/87).
]]>The strong nouns could be further subdivided into two groups (SD/430), those ending in a single consonant preceded by a short vowel (Strong I) and those ending in a short vowel preceded by one or more consonants (Strong II), for example: “mast” (Strong I), “night” (Strong II), “jewel” (Strong II). Often the second-to-last syllable of a Strong I noun has the same short vowel as the last syllable, so that it undergoes the Adûnaic when a suffix is added, losing its final vowel.
Neuter Nouns
With neuter strong nouns, the variable vowel changes when declined in the and cases, as well as for (SD/430-1). Since the vowels and are always long in Adûnaic, the only possible variable vowels are a, i and u.
For the dual form of strong nouns, the usual dual suffix is added. For most Strong I nouns, the Adûnaic also applies so that the variable vowel is lost. For Strong II nouns ending in -i or -u, the appropriate is inserted between the variable vowel and the suffix, y or w respectively. If the dual noun is used in the subjective case, the a in the dual suffixed is lengthened to -ât, as if it were a singular strong noun being declined into the subjective.
The full set of declensions is:
| Neuter Nouns | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Strong I | Strong II (-i/-u) | Strong II (-a) |
| Normal | sulum | lômi | zimra |
| sulôm | lômê | zimrâ | |
| sulum (sulmu) [1] | lômu | zimru | |
| Dual | sulmat [2] | lômiyat [3] | zimrât [4] |
| Dual Subjective | sulmât | lômiyât | zimrât |
| Plural | sulîm | lômî | zimrî |
| Plural Subjective | sulîma | lômîya [5] | zimrîya [5] |
Some notes:
[1] For Strong I nouns where the variable vowel is a u, there is no change in the objective case. Alternately, Strong I nouns with a final vowel u sometimes form the objective with a syncope (if they allow it) and a suffixal -u: sulum → sulmu (SD/435). This formation can also occur with Strong I nouns that have the vowels a or i, but less commonly.
[2] For Strong I nouns where the second-to-last vowel is either long () or followed by a consonant cluster (), the Adûnaic syncope is not allowed and the variable vowel is retained in the dual (SD/430). This is probably also true when the second-to-last and last vowels are different (e.g. ), but there are no clear examples.
[3] For Strong II nouns ending in -u instead of -i, the is w instead of y, as usual: ugru → ugruwat. In archaic writing, the dual suffix would replace the final -i/-u instead of using a glide consonant. At a later (Exilic?) stage, the dual suffix came to be regarded as -ât, so that the a was long in both the normal and subjective duals (SD/431).
[4] Strong II nouns whose final vowel is -a do not use a glide consonant. The dual suffix merges with the final -a to produce -ât, so that the normal and subjective duals are identical (though they were distinct in archaic writings, at the time when the dual suffix replaced the final vowel). Such nouns were so common that at later (Exilic?) stage, the dual suffix came to be regarded as -ât for all nouns (SD/431), as previously mentioned in note [3].
[5] For Strong II nouns, the final vowel in plurals became the plural affix -î. In the subjective case, the subjective inflection was suffixed to this -î, with the usual glide consonant y after the î.
Gendered Nouns
Gendered nouns were usually weak, because most gendered nouns had a long vowel in their final syllable (SD/436). This less true of common nouns, more true of masculine nouns and almost always true of feminine nouns. However, there are a few gendered nouns with short final vowels that are declined as strong nouns, for example: “girl” (Strong I), †naru “male” (Strong II, an archaic form of ), “dog” (Strong II).
The strong gendered nouns are declined in the same way as the strong neuter nouns except for in the subjective case:
The full set of declensions for gendered strong nouns is:
| Gendered Nouns | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Strong I | Strong II (-i/-u) | Strong II (-a) |
| Normal | nithil | naru | raba |
| nithlin [1] | narun | raban | |
| nithul (nithlu/nithli) [2] | naru | rabu | |
| Dual | nithlat [1] | *naruwat (†narat) [3] | rabât |
| Dual Subjective | nithlât [1] | *naruwât (†narât) | rabât |
| Plural | nithîl | narî | rabî |
| Plural Subjective | nithlim [1] | narîm [4] | rabîm |
Some notes:
[1] The gendered Strong I nouns can undergo the Adûnaic in the subjective, dual and plural subjective cases.
[2] The objective inflection could either replace the variable vowel (nithul) or suppress it and be added as a suffix instead (nithlu) (SD/436). In the case of feminine nouns, the u of the objective inflection was sometimes replaced by i, because u was considered masculine, so that nithil → (objective) nithli instead of nithlu (SD/432).
[3] In his inflection charts on SD/437, Tolkien only listed the archaic dual forms for gendered Strong II nouns, such as †narat and subjective dual †narât where the dual suffix replaced the final vowel. It seems likely, though, that the gendered Strong II nouns went through the same development as the neuter Strong II nouns (SD/431): the final vowel came to be regarded as invariant and a w or y was used. These hypothetical forms marked with an asterisk (*) in the chart above.
[4] In the plural subjective, the gendered Strong II nouns replace the final vowel with a long version of the gendered plural subjective suffix : -îm. It seems that in this case (in fact all cases other than gendered Strong I), the suffix -im is added directly to the plural form, so that -î + -im ⇒ -îm.
Archaic Strong Ib and IIb nouns
There were some gendered nouns (and perhaps some neuter nouns as well) that were archaically declined as strong nouns despite having a long last vowel: “prince”, “wife”, “wizard”, “human being” (SD/437). Tolkien called these declensions the Strong Ib and Strong IIb classes. These were declined as the Strong I and Strong II nouns, except that (1) the Adûnaic syncope could not occur and (2) the objective inflection -u- was inserted as a long û, since it was replacing a long vowel.
By the time of Classical Adûnaic, however, such nouns could use the regular declensions for , and it is probably simpler to do this than to remember the details for these separate noun classes. If you are curious about the full declensions for the Strong Ib and Strong IIb nouns, see SD/437 for discussion.
]]>A summary of these inflection rules is given here, with further details in the sections below. Discussion of any irregular subjective forms is deferred until the last section.
Subjective Usage
For the most part, the subjective form is used for the subject of a phrase:
The subjective inflection is optional if the verb is inflected with the appropriate pronominal prefix:
If both the subjective inflection and the pronominal prefix is used, the result is emphatic. Compare the following, in increasing degrees of emphasis (SD/429):
The subjective inflection is also used in place of the English verb “to be” when joining a subject and predicate in a copula (SD/429). Such phrases have no explicit verb:
If the subject is a noun phrase consisting of several adjacent nouns, only the final noun is declined into the subjective (see the entry for the for possible exceptions to this rule):
If the subject noun is modified by an adjective or a prepositional phrase, only the subject-noun is declined into the subjective:
Weak and Strong Subjective Inflections
The basic subjective inflection is , which is applied in different ways depending on whether you are making a weak or a strong inflection (SD/430). If the form being declined has a long vowel or diphthong in its last syllable, you use the weak inflection, adding the subjective inflection as a suffix -a. If the form being declined has a short vowel in its last syllable, you use the strong inflection, which modifies this short vowel via :
| Strong Inflections | ||
|---|---|---|
| a | ⇒ | â |
| i | ⇒ | ê |
| o | ⇒ | ô |
The most common situation where this basic rule applies are with strong nouns versus weak nouns, but there are other cases as well. The dual form of a noun almost always has a short a in its last syllable, so it uses the strong inflection when declined into the subjective. The plural form of a noun almost always has a diphthong or a long vowel in its last syllable (typically the plural inflection ), so it uses the weak inflection when declined into the subjective (but only for neuter nouns).
There are numerous special cases and exceptions, but it is worth remembering this basic rule when you consider the different forms of the subjective.
Subjective for Neuter Nouns
The neuter singular subjective form depends entirely on whether you are declining a (with a short vowel in its last syllable) or (with a long vowel or diphthong in its last syllable). If a strong noun, it uses the strong inflection, changing its last short vowel as above. If a weak noun, it adds the subjective inflection as a suffix.
There are no attested subjective inflections for Weak II neuter nouns (which end in a long vowel). The only possibly final vowel for nouns in this class is a long -â, as discussed in the entry on . Presumably this final vowel would absorb the subjective inflection, according to the standard Adûnaic rules of .
This means the normal and subjective singular forms are the same for such nouns.
Subjective for Gendered Nouns
In addition to neuter nouns, Adûnaic has three more genders: masculine, feminine and common, the last of which applies to creatures for which the male or female sex is unspecified. These gendered nouns do not use the subjective inflection -a- in the singular. Rather, they use one of three distinct subjective suffixes (SD/430): (common), (feminine) and (masculine). The application of these suffixes depends on whether the noun ends in a consonant (Strong I and Weak I) or a vowel (Strong II and Weak II).
Nouns ending in a consonant simply add the suffix to the noun. Any short vowel in its last syllable is lost via the Adûnaic , unless the form of the noun prevents the syncope:
For common nouns, the masculine and feminine suffixes can be used when the subject is known to be male or female (SD/438):
For gendered nouns ending in a vowel, the subjective suffix is reduced to -n (SD/437-8). Most likely this reduction was originally because the vowels of the common, feminine or masculine suffixes replaced the short final vowel of the noun (the typical declension of strong-nouns ending in a short vowel) or were themselves absorbed by the long final vowel of the noun according to the standard Adûnaic rules for (in the case of weak-nouns ending in a long vowel). In practice, the end results are the same:
Subjective Duals
The formation for the subjective dual is quite simple. It is independent of both noun class (strong or weak) and gender. First take the normal dual, whose formation is discussed under . If there is a short a in the last syllable of the dual form, lengthen it to accomodate the subjective inflection. If there is no short a in the dual form, the subjective dual is the same as the normal dual (SD/430).
Tolkien gave no explicit examples of the case where normal and subjective duals are identical. In such cases, he simply listed the same dual form which served for both. Instances of such identical dual forms include:
For the cases where the normal and subjective duals are distinct, the attested examples include:
For many words with differing normal and subjective duals, Tolkien used the suffix -ā̆t to indicate both cases:
In later (Exilic?) Adûnaic, the process became even simpler, since the dual inflection became -ât in all cases, both normal and subjective (SD/431). See the discussion under for more details.
Neuter Subjective Plurals
The plural form of the subjective depends on whether the noun is neuter or gendered. For neuter nouns, the formation is straightforward. First, take the plural form, which in all cases will have a long vowel or diphthong in its final syllable, then add the subjective inflection -a as a suffix (SD/430-2). If the plural ends in a long or short i, insert the usual y between the end of the plural and the suffix:
There are no attested subjective plurals for neuter Weak II nouns (those ending in a long vowel), but presumably they follow the same pattern.
Gendered Subjective Plurals
The subjective plural of gendered nouns uses a special gendered subjective plural suffix (SD/430), which is usually added to the plural form (SD/437-8). If there is a final vowel in the plural form, it invariably absorbs the i according to the standard Adûnaic rules for :
This inflectional rule applies to all gendered weak nouns (Weak I and II) and Strong II nouns.
Gendered Strong I Subjective Plurals: Gendered nouns that end in a consonant preceded by a short vowel (Strong I nouns) are an exception to the rule given above. If possible, such a noun undergoes the Adûnaic before adding the suffix -im, so that the short vowel in its last syllable is lost before becoming the plural form î:
If the syncope is prevented (because the two vowels are different, the second-to-last vowel is long or the vowel loss would result in a cluster of more than two consonant), the suffix -im is added directly to the plural form, as above:
Irregular Subjectives
There are a few peculiar Adûnaic subjective forms that deserve additional discussion.
Archaic Strong Subjectives (SD/437): A number of nouns that are weak in form (with long vowels in their final syllable) used to undergo strong inflections in archaic (or poetic) Adûnaic. These archaic forms follow the regular rules for strong subjective inflections rather than weak subjective inflections.
Narîka (SD/251): Attested in the phrase “The Eagles of the Lords of the West are at hand”, this is apparently the subjective plural of an otherwise unattested word # “eagle”. It is declined as if it were a neuter noun, but animals and people are generally declined as gendered nouns, so that the expected form should be *narkim.
Bârim (SD/247): Attested in the phrase “Lords of the West, they broke the Earth with assent from Eru”, this is apparently the subjective plural of “lord”. Its regular subjective plural should have a long î, bârîm, as attested on SD/438. Perhaps this was a holdover from Tolkien’s draft of Adûnaic, which often had a short i in its plural forms, as discussed in the entry on the .
Khâu, Khâwî(m) (SD/247): It is highly speculative whether these forms are even subjective to begin with. See the entry on the word “crow” for further details.
Full List of Examples
For reference, here is the full list of attested Adûnaic subjective forms.
]]>Such subordinate vowel variation could only occur when the characteristic vowel appeared in its normal position between the first and second consonants. Where this was not the case due to , all of the word’s vowels had to be the characteristic vowel. Therefore, primitive forms such as **izru < √ZIR or **aklub < √KALAB were not permitted (SD/434). Furthermore, any prefixed vowel was always the characteristic vowel (SD/423).
In forms where the characteristic vowel already appeared twice, the third vowel was required to be a different vowel, so that ✶akalbu < √KALAB was possible but **akalba was not (SD/422). In all cases, the variant subordinate vowel (if any) was the final vowel.
]]>According to Tolkien (SD/426), Adûnaic suffixes generally end in either a vowel, a dental consonant (t, d, th) or a continuant (s, z, l, r, n, m). Other consonants are less common, though k is not unusual and was apparently a suffix indicating masculinity, as in Ad. “*baby boy”. All of the known Adûnaic suffixes are consistent with this rule.
]]>| “horse” | “feminine suffix” | → | karbî “mare” | ✧ SD/434 |
| “horse” | “masculine suffix” | → | karbû “stallion” | ✧ SD/434 |
| “Elf” | * “language suffix” | → | “Elvish” | ✧ SD/414 |
| “bear” | “feminine suffix” | → | urgî “she-bear” | ✧ SD/435 |
| “star” | -ad/ “toward” | → | “Starwards” | ✧ SD/378 |
| “to understand” | “agental suffix” | → | “wise man” | ✧ SD/378 |
| “?to rule” | “agental suffix” | → | phazgân “?ruler” | ✧ SD/378 |
The linguistic term for such a vowel loss is “syncope”. Almost all of the example where the syncope occurs are with nouns of the form CVCVC or VCVC, with two identical short vowels each followed by a single consonant. These nouns are classified as strong-nouns (Strong I) and nouns of this form are quite common in Adûnaic. The Adûnaic syncope rule sometimes applies to case declensions of strong nouns, when those declensions are themselves suffixes that begin with a vowel:
The Adûnaic syncope plays no role in the strong declensions for other cases, where the second vowel is replaced rather than lost. For example: khibil “spring”, subjective khibêl, objective khibul, plural khibîl (SD/430).
Preventing the Syncope
The syncope does not always occur when noun with a short vowel receives a suffix. Tolkien indicates that the syncope would be prevented if it would result in a cluster of more than two consonants, or if a long vowel would precede the cluster (SD/430). The example he gives is târikat, the syncope-free dual of “pillar”. This rule would also apply to nouns of the form VCCVC or suffixes beginning with a consonant instead of a vowel, such as “at” or “with”:
It is less clear what would happen if the second short vowel is different from the first, but there is one example which indicates that the syncope would not occur. The word Êruhîn “Children of God” seems to be the strong plural of a noun # “Child of God” (SD/311), which ends with VCVC but has two different short vowels. The subjective plural form of this noun is Êruhînim (SD/247). If such nouns underwent the syncope, it would be **Êruhnim, as uruk → urkim above.
The only other attested word with two short-but-different vowels is “the heavens, sky”. It seems likely that its dual form would be minalat instead of **minlat.
Possible Counterexamples
There are several possible counter examples to the rules for the Adûnaic syncope given above:
Conceptual Development: In the second draft of the , this word was ēluk (SD/312).
]]>Conceptual Development: In earlier drafts of “The Notion Club Papers” stories, this word appeared (SD/363), tūbil (SD/305) and (Quenya?) tyūlā (SD/346).
]]>The word forms of triconsonantal roots are tricky to puzzle out. On SD/418, Tolkien listed AK(A)LAB(A) and (A)KALBA, but elsewhere he said that “a basic form does not usually have the CV [characteristic vowel] repeated more than twice” (SD/422). Going by the examples he gave for vowel suffixion, prefixion, and suppression, we get the possible forms ✶kal(a)b, ✶kalb(a), ✶aklab and ✶akalb(u). In the first two patterns, the parenthetical vowel may differ from the characteric vowel by the rules of , such as: ✶kalib, ✶kalub, ✶kalbi, ✶kalbu. In the fourth pattern ✶akalb(u), the last vowel was required to be different from the CV: ✶akalbi, ✶akalbu but not **akalba. See the discussion of the different for more information.
The form ✶akalb(u) was the only clear pattern with three vowels. Tolkien listed some additional three-vowel patterns on SD/425, of the form ✶kulubba and ✶kulumba, but these examples all involved or , and seem to be part of those formations. These patterns as well as ✶akalb(u) both had a suffixed non-characteristic vowel to avoid final consonant cluster, something that was not allowed with in Primitive Adûnaic.
Though not explicity discussed by Tolkien, it appears that single-vowel triconsonantal forms were sometime possible, such as the example ✶. See the discussion under the for more information.
This gives us five basic patterns: ✶kal(a)b, ✶kalb(a), ✶aklab, ✶akalb(u) and ✶daw’r, the last of which was probably only possible when the middle consonant was one of the semi-vowels [w] or [j]. From these basic patterns, the root could undergo further .
Tolkien was somewhat inconsistent in the ways he represented unmodified triconsonantal roots. In some cases, he wrote these forms as LAW’M (SD/415) and GIM’L (SD/434), with the characteric vowel only in its normal position between the first and second consonant. In most cases, though, he used forms such as KALAB or GIMIL with the characteristic vowel after both the first and second consonant. The discussions here adopts the two-vowel form for its representation of these roots.
]]>There isn’t enough information on the continuative past to guess how it might be formed. See the entries for the individual verb tenses for further discussion.
]]>There are a few Classical Adûnaic nouns and verbs that appear to be uniconsonantal, but these can be traced to biconsonantal forms in which an ancient consonant had disappeared, for example: Ad. “hand” < ✶ < ✶Ad. √ (SD/416, 426). This is similar to (and possibly inspired by) the development of Q. “hand”.
]]>This analysis of yakalubim was suggested by Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne (/27).
]]>To analyze Adûnaic verbs, most authors (/27-29, /Adûnaic, ) have noted two common patterns to Adûnaic verb conjugations after you remove the pronominal prefixes and the plural suffix -m:
The general assumption is that similar verb forms belong to the same tense, but there is no general consensus in the literature as to which patterns belong to each tense, or even which examples fall under each pattern. The following entries discuss my best guesses for how Adûnaic verbs are conjugated, with additional notes on the alternate theories of other authors.
]]>For brevity, the discussions here generally refer to “voiceless aspirated stops” as simply “aspirates”.
]]>1) When like vowels a, i or u come into the contact, they contract into a single long vowel: a + a ⇒ â, i + i ⇒ î, u + u ⇒ û (SD/424).
2) When a short a is combined with a following short i or u, the result is a long ê or ô: ai ⇒ ê, au ⇒ ô (SD/423).
These first two rules are important in the declension of a in the case. This declension involves an before the last (short) vowel of the word, which then transforms as follows: a ⇒ aa ⇒ â, i ⇒ ai ⇒ ê, u ⇒ au ⇒ ô (SD/430). For example, the a-fortified subjective form of “spring” is khibêl (SD/430).
3) When a long â, ô, ê is combined with a following i or u, and when a short a is combined with long î or û, the result is one of the long (SD/423-4). In the resulting diphthong, the first vowel is long and the second short: a + î ⇒ âi. For example, “Power, God” with the plural inflection becomes Avalôi (SD/247).
4) As an exception to the previous rule, when a long ô is followed by a u or when a long ê is followed by an i, the second vowel is absorbed instead of forming a diphthong: êi ⇒ ê, ôu ⇒ ô (SD/424). The diphthongs êi and ôu existed archaically, but were modified in this way by the time of Classical Adûnaic. For example, “sweetheart, beloved” with the plural inflection becomes izrê and “spirit” with the objective inflection becomes manô (SD/438).
5) There is some evidence that long ô and ê absorb a following a as well. When the dual suffix is added to “spirit” and “sweetheart, beloved”, the result is mânôt and izrêt (SD/438). In archaic language, though, it seems such formations used a .
6) When an i or u is followed by a different vowel, it is separated from that vowel by a y or w, respectively (SD/434). This applies to the Adûnaic long as well, because they all end in an i or u.
7) It is unclear what would happen with combinations of ê and ô, but my guess is that they would also use glided consonants y or w: *êyô, *êyê; *ôwô, *ôwê. This is consistent with the phonetic developments from the primitive forms of these combinations: ✶[ai] + ✶[au] > [aiyau] > [ēyō].
It is possible, though, that pairs of ê and ô follow the vowel contraction rule #1 above: ê + ê ⇒ ê; ô + ô ⇒ ô. It depends on whether the Númenóreans perceived and as a single sound or as a combination of vowels, similar to how the long English “e” and “o” are sometimes written with two vowels: “ea” as in “read”, “oa” as in “road”. My guess is they are perceived as a combination of sounds and therefore use the glide consonant.
8) It is also unclear what would happen if a long or short a were combined with a following ê or ô, but I would guess these combinations would develop into the long diphthongs âi and âu. Though not explicitly discussed by Tolkien, these combinations do appear in the chart of apparent gradiations on SD/425 as variations of long ê or ô. This change is consistent with the likely phonetic developments from the primitive forms of these combinations, for example ✶[ā̆] + ✶[au] > [āu]. A long or short a in combination with the diphthongs êu and ôi would therefore produced *âiyu and *âuwi.
| Table of Adûnaic Vowel Combinations | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ā̆ + ā̆ ⇒ â | ī̆ + ī̆ ⇒ î | ū̆ + ū̆ ⇒ û | ✧ SD/424 |
| 2 | a + i ⇒ ê | a + u ⇒ ô | ✧ SD/423 | |
| 3 | â + ī̆ ⇒ âi | a + î ⇒ âi | ô + ī̆ ⇒ ôi | ✧ SD/423-4 |
| â + ū̆ ⇒ âu | a + û ⇒ âu | ê + ū̆ ⇒ êu | ||
| 1+3 | âi + ī̆ ⇒ âi | ôi + ī̆ ⇒ ôi | [1] | |
| âu + ū̆ ⇒ âu | êu + ū̆ ⇒ êu | |||
| 4 | ê + ī̆ ⇒ ê | ô + ū̆ ⇒ ô | ✧ SD/424 | |
| 5* | ê + ā̆ ⇒ ê | ô + ā̆ ⇒ ô | [2] | |
| 6 | ī̆ + ā̆ ⇒ ī̆yā̆ | ī̆ + ū̆ ⇒ ī̆yū̆ | ✧ SD/434 [3] | |
| ī̆ + ê ⇒ ī̆yê | ī̆ + ô ⇒ ī̆yô | |||
| ū̆ + ā̆ ⇒ ū̆wā̆ | ū̆ + ī̆ ⇒ ū̆wī̆ | |||
| ū̆ + ê ⇒ ū̆wê | ū̆ + ô ⇒ ū̆wô | |||
| 7? | ê + ê ⇒ *êyê | ê + ô ⇒ *êyô | [4] | |
| ô + ê ⇒ *ôwê | ô + ô ⇒ *ôwô | |||
| 8? | ā̆ + ê ⇒ *âi | ā̆ + ô ⇒ *âu | [4] | |
| ā̆ + êu ⇒ *âiyu | ā̆ + ôi ⇒ *âuwi | |||
In the table above, vowels with a circumflex are long (â), unmarked vowels are short (a), and vowels with both a breve and a macron can be either short or long (ā̆), with their length preserved if they also appear in the result. Since [e] and [o] only occur in Adunâic as long vowels and , the above rules describe all possibly vowel combinations.
Some further notes:
[1] These combinations can be readily deduced from the application of rules #1 and #3.
[2] These combinations are deduced from the dual forms appearing in the charts on SD/438. It is possible, though, that these particular examples apply only to this dual formation, and that some other rule would apply more generally.
[3] These combinations also apply when the preceding i or u happens to be the second part of a diphthong.
[4] These combinations are speculative, deduced from the likely phonetic developments from primitive forms (see above).
The full grid of combinations is as follows, though combinations involving diphthongs are rare, especially with a second diphthongal element. Those marked with a “*” are speculative:
| First Vowel | Second vowel | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | i | u | â | ê | î | ô | û | âi | âu | ôi | êu | |
| a | â | ê | ô | â | *âi | âi | *âu | âu | âi | âu | *âuwi | *âiyu |
| i | iya | î | iyu | iyâ | iyê | î | iyô | iyû | iyâi | iyâu | iyôi | iyêu |
| u | uwa | uwi | û | uwâ | uwê | uwî | uwô | û | uwâi | uwâu | uwôi | uwêu |
| â | â | âi | âu | â | *âi | âi | *âu | âu | âi | âu | *âuwi | *âiyu |
| ê | *ê | ê | êu | *ê | *êyê | ê | *êyô | êu | *ê | *êu | *êyôi | *êyêu |
| î | îya | î | îyu | îyâ | îyê | î | îyô | îyû | îyâi | îyâu | îyôi | îyêu |
| ô | *ô | ôi | ô | *ô | *ôwê | ôi | *ôwô | ô | *ôi | *ô | *ôwôi | *ôwêu |
| û | ûwa | ûwi | û | ûwâ | ûwê | ûwî | ûwô | û | ûwâi | ûwâu | ûwôi | ûwêu |
| âi | âiya | âi | âiyu | âiyâ | âiyê | âi | âiyô | âiyû | âiyâi | âiyâu | âiyôi | âiyêu |
| âu | âuwa | âuwi | âu | âuwâ | âuwê | âuwî | âuwô | âu | âuwâi | âuwâu | âuwôi | âuwêu |
| ôi | ôiya | ôi | ôiyu | ôiyâ | ôiyê | ôi | ôiyô | ôiyû | ôiyâi | ôiyâu | ôiyôi | ôiyêu |
| êu | êuwa | êuwi | êu | êuwâ | êuwê | êuwî | êuwô | êu | êuwâi | êuwâu | êuwôi | êuwêu |
See the section on the entry on the for further details on that process.
]]>This vowel modification did not change the identity of the characteristic vowel. For example, a word such as ✶gaimal < √GIMIL was possible, with a variant vowel a in the second syllable and an a-fortified characteristic vowel i in the first syllable (SD/434). In particular, subordinate vowel variations were not considered a vowel modification, so that both a variant vowel and a modified vowel could occur in the same word. In fact, the variant vowel could be the vowel that was modified, as in the example ✶kulīb < √KULUB (SD/425), with a lengthened variant i in the second syllable.
]]>Except for words like ✶akalb-, could not be used with Primitive Adûnaic words that had a prefixed vowel. This is because (a) variant vowels could not appear as a prefix or in the normal position between the first and second consonant (as with ✶izir and ✶akalb-) and (b) variant vowels could not appear when the characteristic vowel is suppressed from its normal position (as with ✶aklab).
In theory, prefixed triconsonantal forms such as ✶akalib or ✶akalub were possible, but Tolkien gave no such examples. Most likely, this was because basic primitive word forms were limited at most two vowels (as implied but not explicitly stated on SD/422), with the sole exception of words like ✶akalbu.
]]>Where there was a suffixed vowel, there was never a vowel between the second and third consonant. Therefore, primitive words of the form **kalaba were not possible (SD/422).
This rule did not apply to biconsonantal roots, because their full forms already had a suffixed vowel, such as ✶ziri < √ZIR.
]]>The most common suffix was another instance of the chararactistic vowel: ✶izri, ✶aklab. More rarely, some other formative prefix could be substituted, as ✶da-zri, ✶da-klab (SD/422). This second (rare) case was the only situation in which the first vowel of a primitive word could be something other than the characteristic vowel of the root.
]]>The extra vowel could appear in places other than its full-form position, however, so that it was prefixed or suffixed instead. Furthemore, the characteristic vowel could be suppressed from its normal position between the first and second consonant, appearing elsewhere instead (SD/422).
It is rare for such variations to include both a prefix and suffix, and the characteristic vowel rarely appears more than twice (SD/422). In addition, since Primitive Adûnaic words are not allowed to end in consonant clusters, a prefixed forms like **akalb is not possible without a final vowel. Such a form requires a suffixed subordinate vowel different from the characteristic vowel, such as ✶akalbu or ✶akalbi (SD/422). This is the only basic primitive word pattern in which three vowels appear.
Because of , even full-form words could show some variation by replacing the second characteristic vowel with a different vowel, for example: ✶zira, ✶ziru, ✶kalib, ✶kalub. Once the positioning of the vowels was determined, the word could undergo further as part of its derivational process.
]]>Tolkien labeled these groubs Weak (a) and Weak (b), but the discussions here uses Weak I and Weak II for consistency with the subgroups Strong I and Strong II of strong-nouns. The majority of Weak II nouns were masculine and feminine, since these nouns often ended in long -ê, -î (feminine) or -ô, -û (masculine). Tolkien did not explicitly describe the full set of declensions of neuter Weak II nouns, but they can be deduced from other examples.
Neuter Nouns
Weak I nouns add an inflectional suffix to their final consonant, whereas Weak II nouns add them to their final long vowel, often forming . The few Weak II must all end in -â, since neuter nouns cannot end in any other long vowel. The Weak I declensions below are derived from the chart on SD/430-1, while the Weak II declensions are mostly speculative.
The full set of declensions is:
| Neuter Nouns | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Weak I | Weak II (-â) | |
| Normal | akhâs | pâ [1] | |
| akhâsa | *pâ [2] | ||
| akhâsu | *pâu | ||
| Dual | akhâsat | *pât | |
| Dual Subjective | akhâsât | *pât | |
| Plural | akhâsî [3] | pâi | |
| Plural Subjective | akhâsîya | *pâiya | |
Some notes:
[1] The only attested declension for Weak II neuter nouns is the plural (SD/426). The others can be deduced from the suffixes of the Weak I noun declensions and the rules for Adûnaic . These speculative declensions are marked with an asterisk (*) in the table above.
[2] The subjective singular of a neuter Weak II noun would, according to the rules of Adûnaic vowel-combination, have the same form as the normal singular, since the subjective suffix -a would be absorbed into the final -â of the noun.
[3] According to Tolkien, Weak I nouns with an â as their last vowel could sometimes have a strong plural by changing this vowel to î: akhâs → akhîs (SD/435, note 16). This was especially true in older texts. It seems that such formations were archaic by the time of Classical Adûnaic, but were sometimes used poetically, as plural batîn “roads” ← in the (SD/247).
Gendered Nouns
The are often weak, since they frequently have a long vowel in their final syllable (SD/436). In particular, the Weak II class consists mostly of gendered nouns. Weak gendered nouns are declined mostly like their neuter counterparts, differing only in the subjective and (for feminine nouns) sometimes in the objective and the plural.
Gendered nouns can end in any long vowel, not just â, so there are many more possible vowel combinations when case suffixes are added. The full set of declensions appear in the charts on SD/438. Most of the apparent complexity is actually the result of the standard rules of Adûnaic :
| Gendered Nouns | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Weak I | Weak II (-â) | Weak II (-ê) | Weak II (-î) | Weak II (-ô) | Weak II (-û) |
| Normal | “parent” | [1] “Númenórean” | “Goddess” | karbî [2] “mare” | “father” | “king” |
| nuphâran [3] | *Adûnân [4] | Avalên [4] | karbîn [4] | attôn [4] | ârûn [4] | |
| nuphâru [5] | *Adûnâu | Avalê [6] (†Avalayu) | karbî [6] (†karbîyu) | attô [7] | ârû [7] | |
| Dual | nuphârat | *Adûnât [8] | Avalêt [8] (†Avalayat) | karbîyat [9] | attôt [8] (†attawat) | ârûwat [9] |
| Dual Subjective | nuphârât [10] | *Adûnât | Avalêt (†Avalayât) [10] | karbîyât [10] | attôt (†attawât) [10] | ârûwât [10] |
| Plural | nuphârî | Adûnâi [11] | Avalê [12] later Avalênî | karbî [12] (?karbînî) | attôi [11] | ârûwî [11] |
| Plural Subjective | nuphârîm [13] | Adûnâim [13] | Avalêm [13] later Avalênîm | karbîm [13] (?karbînîm) | attôim [13] | ârûwîm [13] |
Some notes which, unless otherwise specified, are derived from the declension charts on SD/438:
[1] Only the attested declensions for Weak II nouns ending in -â are the plural and subjective plural forms. The remaining declensions can be deduced from the suffixes of the Weak I noun declensions and the rules for Adûnaic . These speculative declensions are marked with an asterisk (*) in the table above.
[2] The word karbî “mare” is the feminine form of “horse” (SD/434).
[3] As noted above, gendered Weak I nouns use the appropriate gendered subjective suffix: (common), (feminine) and : “conqueror” (masculine) → kathuphazgânun (SD/429), “wife” (feminine) → banâthin (SD/437). The subjective suffix can also be used to indicate the gender of an otherwise common noun: “fool” → nûphan (unspecified), nûphin (feminine), nûphun (masculine) (SD/438).
[4] Gendered Weak II nouns reduce the subjective suffix to -n in all cases.
[5] In Classical Adûnaic, feminine nouns often replace the usual objective inflection with the vowel i instead (SD/432). For Weak I nouns, the result is: “baby girl” → (objective) mîthi instead of mîthu.
[6] The feminine objective inflection -i- is absorbed into Weak II nouns ending in -ê and -î, so that the objective and normal singular forms are identical in such cases. Archaically, the objective was formed with the general objective suffix -u and a y: -ê → †-ayu (or -âyu?) and -î → †-îyu.
[7] The objective inflection -u- is absorbed into masculine Weak II nouns ending in -ô and -û, so that the objective and normal singular forms are identical in such cases. Unlike the feminine Weak II nouns, there was no archaic glide-consonant form, since the primitive suffixal ✶-u was the same as the final vowel of the primitive endings ✶-au or ✶-ū and was thus absorbed even archaically.
[8] For duals of Weak II nouns ending in -â, -ê or -ô, the vowel of the dual suffix is absorbed, leaving only -t. Archaically, however, the final -ê and -ô instead decomposed into †-ay and †-aw before the dual -at, as discussed in the entry on the .
[9] For duals of Weak II nouns ending in -î or -û, the vowel of the dual suffix is separated from the noun’s final vowel by the usual , y or w.
[10] For subjective duals, wherever the normal dual form has a short a, it is lengthened to long â in the subjective case via the usual a-fortification process.
[11] For plurals of Weak II nouns ending in -â, -ô or -û, the plural inflection either forms a long diphthong (with â, ô) or is separated from the final vowel (with û) by the usual w. This is entirely consistent with the standard rules for Adûnaic .
[12] For plurals of Weak II nouns ending in -ê or -î (which were feminine), the plural inflection is absorbed according to the standard rules for Adûnaic , so that the normal singular and plural forms are identical: “sweetheart” (singular) and izrê “sweethearts” (plural) (SD/438). Sometimes, though, a n is inserted between the final vowel and the plural suffix -î, to distinguish the singular and plural forms: izrênî “sweethearts” (plural) (SD/438). In the examples given by Tolkien, this only happened with nouns ending in -ê, but the process may have applied to nouns ending in -î as well.
[13] For all gendered weak nouns, the gendered subjective plural suffix is added to the plural form. In all cases, the vowel i of the suffix is absorbed according to the standard rules for Adûnaic , leaving only -m.
]]>Conceptual Development: It appeared in the form yadda in the first draft version of the Lament, and this form was also briefly considered as a replacement for unakkha “he-came” in the first sentence of the Lament (SD/312).
]]>Conceptual Development: Tolkien experimented with many variations on this name before settling on Yôzâyan. The development seems to have been >> >> >> >> Yôzâyan, all of which were glossed “Land of Gift”.
]]>This words seems to be a violation of the rules for , under which a root never undergoes two changes from the same kind of process (SD/424). This word seems to have both kinds of vowel modification, and , from its root √.
]]>This sentence did not appear at all in the first draft of the Lament.
]]>Conceptual Development: In earlier names this word appeared as (SD/378, 385).
]]>Conceptual Development: In her earliest appearance in the Tolkien’s stories, this character was called ᴹQ. (Tar-) (LR/27, SD/335, SD/351). Tolkien gave her the name Ad. Ar-Zimrahil after he invented the Adûnaic language (SD/373). The suffix -hil in this version of the name might be a feminine form of the patronymic . In later material appearing in the published version of The Silmarillion, her Adûnaic name was changed to Zimraphel. This final version of the name is inconsistent with the phonetic rules laid out by Tolkien in Lowdham’s Report, which said that the vowels and could only be long in Adûnaic (SD/423).
]]>Andreas Moehn instead suggested (/ZIM’R) that the final element may be the same as the final element of and that the entire name is an of an unattested verb *zimrathâ- “gather jewels”. This makes the literal meaning “*Jewel-gatherer”, which fits if you assume (as Mr. Moehn suggested) that the initial element of Quenya name is actually the verb Q. “to gather” so that = “*Gather-jewels”.
]]>Several authors have suggested (/ZIR, /20) that the verb stem is zir- with a short vowel. However, the vowel is long in the participle form “beloved”, and there are tentative examples where a verb with a short vowel would retain that short vowel in the agental/participle form: “*builder”. I therefore think that the verb stem is likelier to be zîr-.
Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne suggested (/25) that it may be related to the Middle-Period Elvish root ᴹ√.
]]>Conceptual Development: In the earliest Lost Tales, this character was named G. (LT2/89). At this stage she had the Gnomish sobriquet G. “Long-tressed” (LT2/93), implying that this early name was Gnomish. She remained (Noldorin?) in the Silmarillion drafts from the 1930s (SM/30, LR/316). This form of the name persisted in the initial Silmarillion revisions from the 1950s-60s, but was eventually changed to Aerin (WJ/90, 145 notes §294).
Possible Etymology: The language and meaning of the later form of her name is unclear, though it seems likely that it is Hadorian. It is possible that it is Sindarin instead; if so it may have undergone conceptual development similar to that of N. >> S. .
]]>Conceptual Development: The name (ᴱN.?) first appeared in the Lays of Beleriand from the 1920s (LB/187). The name remained N. in Silmarillion drafts from the 1930s (LR/274) and was explicitly marked Noldorin in The Etymologies, where it was simply “follower, vassal” used as a name (Ety/BEW). The name fit poorly even with the phonology of the earlier Noldorin language (as discussed in the entry for ), and so in later writings Tolkien reconceived the name as being in the Bëorian language (WJ/218).
]]>Conceptual Development: Her name was ᴱN. when it first appeared in the Lays of Beleriand from the 1920s (LB/162) and remained N. in Silmarillion drafts from the 1930s (LR/297), but at no point did Tolkien translate her name.
]]>Conceptual Development: This character was named (Early Noldorin?) in the Lays of Beleriand from the 1920s (LB/22), but was renamed (Noldorin?) in Silmarillion drafts from the 1930s (LR/151) and so remained in Tolkien’s later writings. The meaning and language of these names is unclear.
]]>Conceptual Development: This character was already named ᴱN. was he first appeared in the Lays of Beleriand from the 1920s (LB/162), and remained N. in Silmarillion drafts from the 1930s (SM/300, LR/282).
]]>Conceptual Development: In the earliest Lost Tales, this character was first named (Gnomish?) , revised to in the Lays of Beleriand from the 1920s (LB/119). The character was renamed (Noldorin?) in Silmarillion drafts from the 1930s (LR/151), and again to Grithnir in Tolkien’s final versions of Túrin’s tale. The meaning and language of all these names is unclear.
]]>Conceptual Development: In the Silmarillion drafts from the 1930s, this name was applied to various male characters described as “hunters” (SM/108 note #11, LR/130), and in The Etymologies was tentatively given as a Noldorin name derived from the roots ᴹ√SKAL “skin, fur” or ᴹ√ “uplift” (Ety/KHAL), but both these derivations were rejected. The leader of the Haladin was stil described as male in Lord of the Rings drafts from the 1940s (WR/157). The male Haleth the Hunter still appeared in the Grey Annals from the early 1950s (WJ/48), but in later Silmarillion revisions from the 1950s-60s, the leader of the Haladin was described as female (WJ/221). She appeared in a genealogy chart from this period (WJ/237), where a note indicates the derivation given above.
]]>Conceptual Development: This name appeared as Handir in Silmarillion drafts from the 1930s (SM/129, LR/139), and in The Etymologies of the 1930s was a Noldorin name, a combination of “intelligent” and “man” (Ety/KHAN).
]]>Conceptual Development: N. was the son of (male) the Hunter and father of in Silmarillion drafts from the 1930s (SM/297, LR/275). In The Etymologies, the name Hûndor was given as a combination of “heart” and the suffix “lord” (Ety/KHŌ-N, EtyAC/KHŌ-N).
The character Hundor continued to appear in Silmarillion revisions from the 1950s-60s (WJ/49), but when the character of became a lady, the genealogy of this house was rearranged so that became the father of , and the similarly named Hundar became instead his brother (WJ/237).
]]>Conceptual Development: In the earliest Lost Tales, the father of Tuor was first named G. “axe” (LT2/88, LT2A/Peleg). The name was revised to ᴱN. in Lays of Beleriand from the 1920s (LB/145). The name only became N. in the Silmarillion drafts from the 1930s (SM/24, LR/275), and in The Etymologies was given as a Noldorin name meaning “heart-vigour, courage”, derived from primitive ᴹ✶ (Ety/KHŌ-N, GOR). In notes for the Silmarillion revisions from the 1950s-60s Tolkien decided his name was adapted from his native language, as noted above.
]]>Conceptual Development: This character was named G. when he first appeared in the earliest Lost Tales (LT1/48), and kept this name thereafter, though sometimes it appeared in variant forms such as Tûr (LT2/202) or Turlin (SM/5). Christopher Tolkien suggested the earliest version of this name was probably associated with the root ᴱ√ “be strong” (LT1A/Tuor). In The Etymologies from the 1930s, N. was given the meaning “strength-vigour” and derived from primitive ᴹ✶ (Ety/TUG, GOR). In notes for the Silmarillion revisions from the 1950s-60s Tolkien decided his name was adapted from his native language, as noted above.
]]>A more complex example is Dor. , whose cognates N. and ᴹQ. imply a primitive form of [ɣarda] or [garda] (Ety/ƷAR). This means that the [d] would first have become [ð] after the [r], and then after the vowel was lost the (= “th”). This change is more clearly indicated by the deleted Doriathrin form: garth (dh) (EtyAC/ƷARA). Helge Fauskanger originally suggested this development (AL-Doriathrin/garth).
In Noldorin, all [l] and [r], but that does not seem to be the case in Ilkorin. Except for [rd], there are plenty of examples of voiced stops followed a liquid: [rg] in , [lg] in , [ld] in and [lb] in .
]]>Sound changes without a-affection: It is unclear whether the [i], [u] are restored by this rule, or are simply prevented from undergoing a-affection in the first place. There is at least one example of this change that does not involve a-affection, however: ᴹ✶ > Dor. had an original primitive [e] that developed into [i] before [nd] (Ety/KWET). This lends weight to the idea that this rule was a restoration of the sound rather than a preservation. Another possible example of a pure vowel change is Dor. < [niŋgwe < neŋgwe <] ᴹ✶. Both these examples were suggested by Helge Fauskanger (AL-Doriathrin/cwindor, nîw).
The vowel change did not occur with ᴹ✶ > Dor. and ᴹ✶ > Ilk. , so probably this phonetic change occurred before the Ilkorin syncope and before .
Developments before other nasals: For the combination [mb], it appears that this restoration did not occur: consider ᴹ✶ > Ilk. (Ety/DEM). It seems that Tolkien was also not entirely sure of this development: an earlier version of the entry for the root ᴹ√ had ᴹ✶dembē > Ilk. dim (EtyAC/DEM), where it seems that [-emb-] did become [-imb-]. Variations in the adjective suffix vs. -in (from ᴹ✶-inā) may indicate that Tolkien also considered applying this rule for simply nasal [n] instead of just [nn] and [nd].
]]>The combination [sk] only developed into [sg] after [e]. It remained for other vowels, such as: ᴹ✶ > Ilk. (Ety/USUK) or ᴹ✶ > Ilk. (Ety/SKAR). It is unclear whether or not this development occurred for non-initial [esk], however.
]]>In the dialect, this change also seems to have occurred for [g] between [r] and a vowel: compare Ilk. to Fal. (Ety/GATH(H), AR²).
]]>The last of these developments makes it difficult to determine when this vocalization occurred. Since primitive [ɣ] fell together with [g] before nasals, the vocalization of [g] could have occurred earlier, before . Phonetically, though, it makes more sense for the vocalization to have occurred after spirantalization so that [Vg{mn}] > [Vɣ{mn}] > [Vu{mn}]. However, it is simpler to describe this rule as direct vocalization of [g], which is how the phonetic development is presented here.
The vowel that developed seems to have been [u], such as: ᴹ✶ > Ilk. (Ety/TAK). Where the result was [ou], this further developed into [au]: ᴹ✶ > kogna > coun > Ilk. (Ety/KUƷ). Tolkien seems to have been uncertain about the development of [ug{mn}]. At first he seems to have decided that [g] developed into [i]: ᴹ✶ > Dor. luin (Ety/LUG²), but then he revised this word to Dor. , making it consistent with the other developments of [g] into [u] (EtyAC/LUG²).
Unlike what happened in Noldorin, there are no examples of this vocalization of [g] occurring in Ilkorin before [l] or [r]. One possible counter-example indicates that such changes did not occur: which may have developed from primitive [leklā] (Ety/LEK). If the vocalization rule applied, it could be expected to develop into [legla >] **leul. The evidence is thin enough, though, that it is hard to make a conclusion one way or another.
]]>This development is described in some of Tolkien’s late notes on the development of Beleriandic [Ilkorin] ʒ and ñ, where he stated that “ʒt > ´t > ´d” (PE18/104). Those same notes indicate similar changes could occur in other circumstances (ʒm > ´m), and he said that as a general rule “medially ʒ, g fell together in ʒ (gh) or vocalic derivatives of this”. There are, however, no other attested examples of the vocalization of primitive [ɣ] or [h].
]]>It is likely that the medial [ɣ] developed into a vowel in some cases, as part of the process whereby or , but there is not enough evidence to determine the exact process.
]]>It seems that the combination [ŋg] could also appear initially in the Doriathrin dialect, where it might have reduced to a simple nasal [ŋ], allowing this phoneme to appear again as an isolated sound.
]]>A second possible example is ᴹ✶ > Dor. (Ety/NEÑ-WI), also suggested by Helge Fauskanger (AL-Doriathrin/nîw). The development of this example is less obvious, but if the rule that [e] became [i] before [ŋg] also applied, then its medial development could have been [-eŋw-] > [-eŋgw-] > [-iŋgw-] > [-īw-].
A possible counter-example to this rule is Dor. from the root ᴹ√ (Ety/RINGI). Its cognate ᴹQ. implies a primitive form [riŋgwi], which should have become **rîw if its development was consistent with the rule above. However, it is possible that this Ilkorin word was not a direct cognate the Quenya, developing instead for the simple root form [riŋgi].
On the other hand, in earlier (deleted) entries for the root ᴹ√, the development was ᴹ✶lingwi > Dor. ling “fish” (EtyAC/LIW) instead of líw. This matches the development described in the Comparative Tables: ᴹ✶-ŋw- > [-ŋgw- >] Ilk. -ŋg- (PE19/23). This indicates that Tolkien was uncertain of the development of [-ŋgw-] in Ilkorin, vacillating between having it become [-ŋg-] or having it follow the rule above.
]]>The change precedes the consonant [m] in both examples, so it is logical to assume that this is the situation leading [ō] to become [ū]. There are other phonetic rules in Ilkorin that associate [u] and [m]: in the development of vowels from syllabic final [l], [r], [n], [m], the vowel that developed was usually [o] (-Cl > -Col; -Cr > -Cor; -Cn > -Con) but in the case of [m] was [u] (-Cm > -Cum).
This change must have occurred before [ā] became [ō], because the change of [ō] to [ū] did not apply to ᴹ✶kwāme > Ilk. (Ety/KWAM). It is possible this development occurred with short [ŭ], but there are no attested examples. Helge Fauskanger suggested that may also have occurred before other nasals such as [n] (AL-Ilkorin/thôn).
]]>It seems this change did not occur for certain favored combinations, where which retained. There are several examples in which final [-rn] did not develop a vowel, such as Dor. or Ilk. (Ety/DÓRON, YAR). There is one case in which final [-lm] did not develop a vowel: Ilk. (Ety/ÁLAM), but another where it did: Ilk. (Ety/TAL). The two examples are very similar, so they may represent some uncertainly on Tolkien’s part on the development of final [-lm] in Ilkorin.
]]>Another way that [θ] could develop was from the spirantalization of [t] after liquids and voiceless stops, and thus [θ] could appear non-finally in clusters such as [rθ] or [lθ] (“rth” or “lth”). In the case of pairs of primitive voiceless stops, these often reduced to a single [θ] because . In addition, in the Doriathrin dialect at least, a final [ð] was again devoiced to [θ], giving another way for a [θ] to appear non-initially.
]]>According to the Comparative Tables, the development for intervocalic [-xw-] was slightly different. Here, the labialized spirant developed into [-h-], probably first becoming ƕ [hʷ]. This change did not occur if the [-xw-] was preceded by a consonant, in which case the [w] was simply lost, as described above: ᴹ✶ > [alxwa >] Ilk. [alx] (Ety/ÁLAK).
]]>Another way that [x] could develop was from the spirantalization of [k] after liquids and voiceless stops. Thus [x] could appear non-finally in clusters such as [rx] or [lx] (“rch” or “lch”). In the case of pairs of primitive voiceless stops [kk], these these reduced to a single [x] because . All attested instances of [x] in Ilkorin were of this origin.
]]>The vocalization after [e] are less clear. There are two examples: ᴹ✶ > Ilk. (EtyAC/EZDĒ) and ᴹ✶ > [mezda >] Dor. , where the second example would have developed a medial [-e-] due to Ilkorin a-affection. In these examples, it is possible that the [z] became [e] or simply lengthened the preceding vowel, so that the development was [-ezd-] > [-ēd-]. However, the [z] could also have vocalized into [i] as it did after [a] and [i] if the resulting diphthong [ei] became [ē] afterwards: [-ezd-] > [-eid-] > [-ēd-]. This second development is the theory used here.
There are no attested examples of the vocalization of [z] after [o] and [u] or before [b], but presumably the developments would have been similar, probably resulting in [oi] > [ui] and [ui], respectively.
]]>Conceptual Development: In the Gnomish Lexicon from the 1910s, ᴱIlk. or Ariador was also said to be a dialectical word, from (early) Ilkorin (GL/20), possibly with a similar phonetic development.
]]>Conceptual Development: This word was initially marked as Noldorin.
]]>Conceptual Development: This word is nearly identical to earlier Gnomish “disease, illness” before Tolkien revised the phonological history of the Noldorin language so that [kw] became [p].
]]>In the Lhammas of the 1930s, Tolkien made a point to group the Ilkorins with the other Eldar, distinct from the Lembi who refused to go to Valinor (LR/171). At this stage the term specifically referred to the languages of the Elves of Beleriand, and these languages were closely related, more like dialects of the same language (LR/175).
Later, Tolkien reformed the Noldorin language into Sindarin, designating it as the language of the Elves of Beleriand (WJ/5). At this point he seems to have abandoned the Ilkorin language, but as suggested by Edward Kloczko (Tyalië Tyelelliéva #9), Tolkien seems to have recycled some of its phonetic characteristics in the North Sindarin dialect. This let Tolkien retain some of his earlier Ilkorin-based names in his later writings by recasting them as North Sindarin, for example NS. .
]]>Conceptual Development: This word is nearly identical to earlier Gnomish “Elf” before Tolkien revised the phonological history of the Noldorin language so that [kw] became [p].
]]>Conceptual Development: In Silmarillion drafts from the 1930s, this name first appeared in forms resembling the Doriathrin name: Denilos or Denithor (SM/271). Later in these drafts, it was change to its Danian form Denethor (LR/119, 145). It kept that form thereafter.
]]>Tolkien designated quite a few words as simply Ilkorin (Ilk.). It is unclear whether these represented a third dialect spoken by Beleriandic Elves outside the two regions mentioned, or whether it was simply a term for words common among all dialects. If it was a distinct dialect, it probably belonged to the “other scattered companies of the Ilkorindi that wandered in the land, but these have all perished” (LR/175), so that only the Falathrin and Doriathrin dialects survived the fall of Beleriand (LR/178). For purposes of discussion, generic “Ilkorin” is treated as its own dialect here.
]]>Despite the lack of evidence, the examples in The Etymologies do hint at several possible differences between the two dialects:
Like Falathrin, the Doriathrin dialect influenced the common language of the survivors of the wars of Beleriand spoken at the mouth of the Sirion river (LR/178).
]]>Conceptual Development: There is a rejected form dûghol in this entry of The Etymologies that may represent Tolkien’s first attempt to formulate a native Ilkorin word for “sorcery” (EtyAC/ÑGOL). Similar forms appear among the precursors to S. in Lord of the Rings drafts from the 1940s: Dol Dúgol or (TI/178; WR/122). The entry also has a deleted variant form of gûl of Ilk. , so it may be Tolkien originally envisioned a different phonological history of [o] in Ilkorin allowing the production of words like durgul. Perhaps he added the Noldorin form durgul in the margin because he abandoned [o] > [u] in Ilkorin.
]]>Alternately, -in could be a Doriathrin-specific variant, since the forms where it appears are all Doriathrin, while the forms where -en appear are marked Ilkorin, excepting only lómen which was itself revised from lómin.
]]>A more complex example is Dor. , whose cognates N. and ᴹQ. imply a primitive form of [ɣarda] or [garda] (Ety/ƷAR). This means that first the , and then developed into [θ] when it became final after the loss of the vowel. This change is more clearly indicated by the deleted Doriathrin form: garth (dh) (EtyAC/ƷARA). Helge Fauskanger also suggested this development (AL-Doriathrin/garth).
There are a few examples where this change did not occur: Ilk. and Ilk. . It may be that this change only occurred in the Doriathrin dialect.
]]>There are a several examples where this change did not occur in the case of [-u]: Dor. , Dor. and Dor. . All of these examples were marked Doriathrin in The Etymologies, so perhaps this development did not occur in that dialect of Ilkorin, though it does seem to have occurred with Dor. “magic, lore” (Ety/ÑGOL).
]]>Possible Etymology: Its Quenya cognate ᴹQ. indicates a primitive form *✶ʒanū [ɣanū], but ordinarily a primitive final vowel was lost in Ilkorin. Helge Fauskanger suggested that this Ilkorin word was instead derived for adjective form *✶ʒanwā [ɣanwā], which would have produced final -u after the loss of the [-ā] because final [w] became [u]. This derivation is indicated in the Phonetic Developments given below.
An alternate possibility, though, is that [u] was an exception to the rule that final vowels were lost in Ilkorin. The Noldorin development ᴹ√ƷAN > ON. > N. hints at a similar process. This uncertainly in its etymology makes it difficult to determine the part of speech (noun and/or adjective) that this word belongs to.
]]>Conceptual Development: An earlier version of this entry had the root ᴹ√ƷARAM, but this produced the same form Dor. garm in Doriathrin [Ilkorin] since initial [ɣ] became [g].
]]>Conceptual Development: An earlier version of this entry had Dor. garan, which likely had a short [a] in the second syllable which was preserved. Since it did not undergo the Ilkorin Syncope, the primitive form likely either had no final vowel or ended in a short [a], so the second [a] was in the final syllable, which seems to have prevented the syncope; this theory is supported by its Quenya cognate ᴹQ. .
]]>The genitive inflection itself is attested as (Ety/NAUK). According to that entry, the genitive generally preceded the modified noun in the Doriathrin dialect. This rule may have only applied to that dialect, since there are several counter-examples in general Ilkorin: Ilk. and Ilk. . The form -a(n) hints that the genitive might sometimes be expressed with the suffix -n, perhaps after nouns ending in a vowel. If so, this would make the Ilkorin genitive inflection almost the same as the earlier Gnomish , which used -a/-ion after nouns ending in consonants and -n/-thon after nouns ending in vowels (GG/10).
]]>Conceptual Development: In the Addenda and Corrigenda to The Etymologies, Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne indicated the Tolkien revised this form to gwelm at the same time as he change its primitive to ᴹ✶wilmā and the Quenya form to ᴹQ. Wilma (EtyAC/WIL). This entry keeps the earlier Ilkorin form gwelo because Tolkien never revised ᴹQ. Wilwa in the narratives of this period.
]]>In most other Doriathrin words, a final [u] from [w] further developed into [o]; it is unclear why this change did not occur here.
]]>Conceptual Development: This preposition may be a restoration of the Gnomish patronymic G. . In Tolkien’s later writings, Common Eldarin: Noun Structure (EVS2) from around 1950 mentioned a similar Beleriandic preposition ho “from” derived from ✶ʒō̆ which influenced a patronymic hon based on {✶jond- >>} ✶ʒond- “son”. This late appearance was shortly before he abandoned Ilkorin/Beleriandic entirely.
]]>Conceptual Development: This suffix is the same as the most common Gnomish plural suffix (GG/10).
]]>Conceptual Development: In later notes on the development of Beleriandic [Ilkorin] ʒ and ñ written around 1950, Tolkien first described the same changes as above, but then revised the development of initial [ɣ-] to become [h-] (PE18/103-4, note #148). There are no attested examples of this revised development, however, and Tolkien abandoned the Ilkorin/Beleriandic language soon after these notes were written.
]]>This change did not occur where the initial [s] became syllabic: compare ᴹ√SPÁLAS > Ilk. (Ety/PHAL).
]]>Conceptual Development: In later linguistic notes from around 1950, the “Beleriandic” development seems to have been initial [s-] to [θ-] instead: “sr > thr (þr)” (PE18/94), whereas simple initial y, w, l, r always became unvoiced (PE18/105). Both these developments were similar to the rules of Old Noldorin and Noldorin, so perhaps Tolkien switched the phonetic rules between the two languages; the later Sindarin language had the same development as the Ilkorin of the 1930s. This revision occurred shortly before Tolkien abandoned the Ilkorin language entirely.
]]>Most likely this development occurred after , ([kʰ-] > [x-]), and was part of the general trend whereby . This development did not occur for [j] (“y”), since either [j] was lost after initial velars or ; Tolkien vacillated on the exact development of [j] after initial velars.
]]>However, the actual development in the Comparative Tables shows ✶mb > Ilk. b, mb; ✶nd > Ilk. d, nd; ✶ng > Ilk. g, ng. This indicates that while the normal development was to simple stops, in some case the development could be different. There are a number of examples of such alternate development in The Etymologies. The Doriathrin derivatives of the root ᴹ√ all show variations beginning with both g- and ng-, while the Doriathrin derivatives ᴹ√ all begin with ng-. Similarly, ᴹ√ > Dor. , with a simple nasal instead of a simple stop.
All the examples of this variation are Doriathrin and occur before the vowel [o]. There is an example of a Doriathrin noun with ✶[ŋg-] > [g-] before [a], however: ᴹ√ > Dor. . Furthermore, there are no examples of this variation for [nd-], whereas ᴹ✶ > Dor. . Therefore the conditions of this variant development may be where [mb-] and [ŋg-] precede the vowel be [o] (and perhaps [u]) and the variation may be limited to the Doriathrin dialect.
In the case of [mb-], it seems the variation leads to the simple nasal [m-]. It may be that ng- is an orthographic representation of the simple velar nasal [ŋ-], so that in both cases the nasal-stop cluster reduced to a simple nasal for the variation.
]]>Conceptual Development: This rule contradicts the initial developments described in the Comparative Tables, where [j] was lost after initial velars (PE19/18-20). It seems that Tolkien changed his mind between writing the tables and beginning work on The Etymologies. In some later tables on “Belariandric”, it seems Tolkien toyed with restoring this development (PE18/105): gy > g (not d), but he soon after abandoned the Ilkorin language completely.
]]>Conceptual Development: This word first appeared as rejected ling (EtyAC/LIW), probably reflecting Tolkien’s uncertainty on the development of [-ŋgw-] in Ilkorin.
]]>In the Comparative Tables, the medial development for the aspirate [kʰ] is somewhat obscure, given as “kh > h > -” (PE19/23). Since medial [h] did not disappear when it developed from khw, I think the likeliest explanation is that the velar [x] that developed from [kʰ] first voiced to [ɣ], after which the .
There are numerous examples of final unvoiced spirants in Ilkorin, such as < ᴹ✶. This implies that the medial voicing occurred after primitive final vowels vanished. It cannot be the case that final spirants later lost their voicing, since there are also examples of final voiced spirants, such as < ᴹ✶.
There are a number of names that are possible counter-examples to this rule: Ilk. , Dor. , Dor. and Ilk. . Most of these can be explained as later compounds, but the last is given an explicit primitive form ᴹ✶ [ndanitʰārō] and cognates in other languages (LR/188). This name does not appear in The Etymologies, so perhaps Tolkien was thinking of another phonetic scenario when this name was coined.
Helge Fauskanger (writing before the Comparative Tables were published) suggested an alternate theory: that the medial voicing did not occur between vowels, but only before certain consonants (AL-Doriathrin/hedhu). The two clear examples of this change showed this development only before [w] and [m], so perhaps in between writing the Comparative Tables and The Etymologies, Tolkien decided that the medial voicing only occurred before labials or some similar scenario.
]]>Its form naugla appears as an element in Dor. “Necklace of the Dwarves” (Ety/NAUK).
]]>The plural suffix : With two exceptions (see below), all the attested plurals in both Doriathrin and Ilkorin use the suffix -in. This seems to be the basic mechanism of plural formation for nouns. It is likely this suffix was inspired by the Gnomish plural suffix .
The i-affection of [a] and [o]: The plurals of Ilkorin nouns containing short vowels [a] and [o] have these vowels shift to [e] and [u] according to the normal rules of Ilkorin i-affection. The clearest examples of this change are Ilk. → pl. lelmin (Ety/ÁLAM) and Ilk. → pl. thurnin (Ety/THOR). This change did not occur for long vowels, such as Ilk. → pl. tórin (Ety/BAL); long [ā] did not normally occur in Ilkorin.
This i-affection does not seem to occur for plurals in the Doriathrin dialect: Dor. roth → pl. rodhin (Ety/ROD) and Dor. than → gen. pl. thanion (LR/405). In fact, there is one noun that has plurals in both Ilkorin and Doriathrin, with Ilk. pl. urthin (EtyAC/WATH) versus Dor. pl. orthin (Ety/ÓROT). This lack of i-affection seems only to be true of the noun plural and not the general phonological history of Doriathrin: consider Dor. and Dor. , in which an older [a] became [e] before an [i].
Syncope of vowels in final syllables: In polysyllabic Ilkorin nouns, the vowel in the final syllable is lost when the plural suffix is added: Ilk. → pl. edrin (Ety/ATA) and Ilk. → pl. telmin (Ety/TAL). The i-affection of [a] and [o] noted above also applied in these cases. This change did not occur when the result would be an invalid cluster of vowels: Ilk. → pl. Balthorin (Ety/BAL), but could occur where the cluster was acceptable: Ilk. → pl. genglin (Ety/ÑGAN).
Note that there are no attested examples of plurals for polysyllabic Doriathrin nouns, so it is unclear whether this rule would apply to that dialect. However, based on the syncope in the genitive inflection Dor. → naugla (Ety/NAUK), it seems likely that this rule would apply to Doriathrin as well.
Preservation of stem forms: In some nouns, older stem forms were preserved in the plural. For example, in Doriathrin a , such as ᴹ✶roda > [roð >] Dor. roth (Ety/ROD, EtyAC/ROD). The older form [roð] is preserved in its plural form rodhin. Similarly, the word Dor. “holly-tree” still uses its simpler form “holly” in its plurals: Dor. pl. regin and gen. pl. region (Ety/ERÉK).
Plural using only i-affection: There is one Ilkorin plural produced exclusively by i-affection without the suffix -in: Ilk. → pl. tel (Ety/TAL). Without further examples, however, it is unclear when this variant plural would or would not occur.
]]>Helge Fauskanger originally suggested these developments (AL-Ilkorin/saum).
]]>There are a couple of counter-examples to this rule. First, the syncope did not occur when the result would be a cluster of three consonants: ᴹ✶ > Ilk. (Ety/TUB), although it seems that if the third consonant was the semi-vowel [w], the syncope could still occur (see salch above). Second, it seems that the syncope did not occur when the second vowel was in the final syllable: ᴹ✶bóron- > Ilk. (Ety/BOR); this exception may apply to Ilk. as well (Ety/AM¹). In these last two examples, the syncope did apply to the plurals: burnin and emnin, where the lost vowel would no longer be in the last syllable.
It seems likely that the syncope occurred before , since ᴹ✶gálad[ā] > Ilk. (Ety/GALAD) and ᴹ✶ñgólod[ō] > Ilk. (Ety/ÑGOLOD) rather than **galdh [galð] or **goldh [golð]. However, it is possible the syncope occurred afterwards, and voiced spirants were re-stopped in these positions.
]]>Like the Noldorin rule, it appears that this sound change did not occur for long vowels: consider “queen” (Ety/TĀ), “king” → (plural) tôrin (Ety/BAL) and “pine” → (genitive plural) thonion (Ety/THŌN). It is unclear whether the Ilkorin i-affection carried through to syllables further forward in the word, as was the case for Noldorin.
Special cases: One peculiar example is Ilk. “nightingale”, which appears beside the form murilind (Ety/MOR, TIN). The form murilind seems to have been produced by regular i-affection from primitive *✶morilind(e), but development of [y] is difficult to explain. Since the initial element of the primitive form was ᴹ✶, perhaps the [o] was more fronted, resulting in i-affection into [y] instead of [u]. As further evidence of this, the word was adapted into Noldorin as the front-vowel [œ]: mœrilind > (Ety/TIN, EtyAC/TIN). Since this is the only instance of the vowel [y] appearing in Ilkorin, it is hard to figure out what Tolkien intended here.
An i-affection of [e] to [i] also seems logical when comparing to the sound changes of Noldorin, but there is little evidence of such a change. The only attested example is the (hypothetical) name from the root ᴹ√ (Ety/GYEL), which may have undergone this change when developing from the (even more speculative) primitive form *Gyelion. However, the change did not occur in the plural forms regin from (Ety/ERÉK) or Eldin from (Ety/ELED), so it is probably better to assume Dilion is a special case, perhaps a side effect of the change of initial [gj-] to [d-].
]]>In Ilkorin, this sound change seems to be prevented or reverted in some cases: see the rule that for further discussion. Variations in the adjective suffix vs. -in (from ᴹ✶-inā) may also indicate some uncertainty on Tolkien’s part on the exact functioning of this rule.
]]>Final [-o] became [-a] after [g] and [ɣ]: One possible counter-example to this rule is ᴹ✶ > Ilk. (Ety/MORÓK). Here the final [-go] seems to have developed into [-ga] instead losing its final vowel, as suggested by Helge Fauskanger (AL-Ilkorin/broga). Another example (also suggested by Helge Fauskanger, AL-Ilkorin/-a) is the genitive suffix , which might have developed from primitive ᴹ✶ [ɣō]; this example hints that this development occurred after [ɣ] as well. A third possible example is “daddy” (from ?✶attō), again suggested by Helge Fauskanger (AL-Ilkorin/adda). I find this last example less compelling, however, since this child’s word may simply be a late invention rather than a derivation from a primitive form. The theory presented here assumes that [-o] became [-a] after [g] and [ɣ] but not otherwise.
Final [-u] sometimes was preserved? Another possible preservation of a final vowel might be Ilk. , whose Quenya cognate ᴹQ. “a male” implies the survival of a primitive final [-u] (Ety/ƷAN). One possible explanation is that it was not a true cognate, but instead developed from a primitive adjective [ɣanwā], and thus had its final [u] develop from the [w], as suggested by Helge Fauskanger (AL-Doriathrin/ganu). The Noldorin development ᴹ√ > ON. > N. seems to contradict this scenario however, so perhaps the final -u was preserved by comparing the noun and adjective forms in both Ilkorin and Noldorin.
There are no clear examples of final [-u] being lost in Ilkorin. The only possible example is ᴹ✶ [?urku] > (Ety/ÓROK), but in this case the short final [u] would have become [o] primitively, as indicated by its cognates ON. and ᴹQ. .
]]>Conceptual Development: In notes elsewhere this word was given the form Dor. than with genitive plural form thanion (LR/405), probably associated with the earlier name Dorthanion versus later (LR/145). It is also possible these are Doriathrin and Ilkorin variations of the same word.
]]>Conceptual Development: Tolkien seems to have coined this word to explain “Twilight Meres”, a remnant of earlier G. “Pools of Twilight”. The meaning of the Ilkorin elements is reversed from the earlier name: in Gnomish the word G. meant “twilight” (GL/75). In later writings, Tolkien replaced this name with S. “Meres of Twilight”.
]]>In the examples of this change, the words in question had either stress marker or a long vowel in the second syllable, indicating that the first syllable was unstressed (see below). Furthermore, there are some counter-examples where the first syllable is marked as stressed and the vowel loss does not occur: ᴹ✶bóron- > Ilk. (Ety/BOR), ᴹ✶DÓRON > Ilk. (Ety/DÓRON). Finally, in all the attested examples, the lost vowel is followed by another of the same quality.
It is possible that this change occurred with other initial combinations such as pr- or kr- that are simply missing in the small list of available Ilkorin words. It is also possible that this change occurred in Common Eldarin rather than Ilkorin, since these combinations are listed as Later Combinations in the Comparative Tables (PE19/21). These tables also list combinations involving [l], such as bl- or gl-, but there are no such attested examples in Ilkorin. It is unclear whether this is because such changes did not occur, or because such examples are simply missing from the available Ilkorin word list.
]]>It seems likely that this change occurred before , since the presence of a primitive [z] in this position meant that a primitive voiced stop was preserved, for example: ᴹ✶ > Ilk. (Ety/MIZD) or ᴹ✶ > Ilk. (Ety/MASAG).
]]>In the case of pairs of stops, it seems likely that both stops developed into spirants, but this change is obscured because the resulting . In the case of [kt], it seems the development was to [xθ] and then [θ], for example: ᴹ✶ > [oxθa >] Ilk. (Ety/OKTĀ).
Based on the examples Ilk. and Ilk. , it seems that this change did not occur after nasals, unlike Old Noldorin. Another aberrant form is < ᴹ✶, where the [lt] became [ld] instead of [lθ], though there is no clear reason why this happened. Helge Fauskanger suggested that perhaps [lt] became [ld] very early, and [l] + [t] only became [lθ] in later compounds like (AL-Ilkorin/tolda).
]]>A less obvious example is ᴹ✶ > Ilk. (Ety/TAK). Here it seems that the [k] became [g], which then vocalized to [u]. The evidence in this case (as well as similar developments for Ilk. ) is not as strong, since this change could conceivably be explained by the rule that .
There are no examples of this rule for [p] > [b] (then > [v]), but it seems likely the rule would apply in this case as well.
]]>In the Ossiriandic dialect, [a] can only be short, since long (PE19/25-6). It could appear in the East Danian dialect, since (PE19/25). Note that a possible counter-example is the name Dân (LR/215), but in most places Tolkien wrote this name with a short [ă]: .
]]>In his analysis of Danian, Helge Fauskanger also suggested that vowel-breaking may occur before liquids (AL-Nandorin/ealc) but was unable to specify any details since he was unaware of the connection between Danian and Old English phonology (since PE19 was published after his analysis).
This kind of vowel-breaking did not occur before double [ll]: , not **sceolla (Ety/SKAL¹). It also did not occur in Dan. “elm-tree” < ᴹ√ (Ety/ÁLAM). In this second example, the simplest explanation is that the vowel-breaking occurred before the Danian syncope, so that at the time of vowel-breaking this word was *alama and did not have an appropriate consonant cluster.
]]>There are, however, examples of primitive [a] becoming [e] via i-mutation, such as from “precipice” (Ety/KHARÁS). There are also other examples of [a] developing into [e] in the words and , but the exact mechanism is unclear.
This is one note indicating that “in East Danian & Taliska e became normally i” (PE19/26), but this change probably refers to an earlier conception when both East Danian and Taliska said to resemble Gothic (PE19/22 note #55). After East Danian was reassigned to the “Old Norse” type, this change probably only referred to Taliska.
]]>According to the Comparative Tables, the diphthong [eo] later became [io] (PE19/25). This later diphthong does not appear in The Etymologies, while [eo] does, so perhaps the version of Ossiriandic described in The Etymologies was the earlier stage with [eo] and .
]]>Primitive long [ō] survived in both Danian dialects, and could developed by other means as well: the diphthong , both original and as a development from primitive diphthong [oi] (PE19/25), while , both original and a development from primitive long [ā] (PE19/25).
]]>My rationale is that this word did not go through the vowel-breaking before a cluster starting with liquid [l] or [r] seen in other words like . This can be explained if, at the time of vowel-breaking, this word had the form alamā̆, and thus had no applicable cluster of consonants. The middle [a] would then be lost later through the Danian syncope.
]]>Neo-Sindarin: For purposes of Neo-Sindarin, I would use this word principally in the sense “city”, and would assume its meaning “earthwall, bulwark” was archaic.
]]>In the Comparative Tables, Tolkien first grouped Danian with Ilkorin, declaring that they were both languages of “Germanic” type (PE19/22 note #54). Tolkien changed his mind, deciding that Ilkorin was more Welsh-like, as Noldorin “used to be”, that is more like the Gnomish of Tolkien’s earlier writings. The Ilkorin columns were the relabeled Danian and new Ilkorin columns were added (PE19/18 note #2, PE19/19 note #11). The Early Ilkorin words attested in Early Noldorin notes from the 1920s also had a Germanic character, as suggested by Roman Rausch and Helios Martínez (HPITN, EIP), and thus was more of a conceptual pre-cursor to Danian than of later Ilkorin of the 1930s.
Later still Tolkien referred to this group of Elves as the Nandor, and their language as Nandorin. See the discussion of the Nandorin language for further details.
]]>The Danian form most closely resembles Ilk. , and may have had a similar development. In particular, the long [ā] likely became [ǭ], perhaps shortening later when it became the vowel of the final syllable. The [a] in the first syllable was probably mutated to [e] by the following [i], though it is unclear why the [i] would then become [e]. Finally, the initial [nd] would simplify to [d].
Note that, according to the Comparative Tables (PE19/23), the medial [θ] (“th”) in this name should have voiced to [ð] (“dh”). Perhaps this name was archaic in this one aspect, or perhaps the name was partly Ilkorinized.
]]>In The Etymologies, Tolkien marked most words as simply Danian (Dan.), only a few as Ossiriandic (Oss.), and none as East Danian. Based on phonetic evidence, however, many of these “Danian” words were actually Ossiriandic. For example, Dan. had a long [ǣ], which became [ā] in East Danian (PE19/25). Further, Dan. < ᴹ✶ shows evidence of [w] vanishing after medial velars [k], something that only occurred in Ossiriandic (PE19/23). Examples of vowel-breaking such as Dan. and Dan. more strongly resemble Old English than Old Norse. Finally, the Danian examples used “c” to represent [k] orthographically, which in the Comparative Tables was true of Ossiriandic but not East Danian.
The only attested word that might be from the East Danian dialect is that people’s name for themselves: . It shows a [v] after velar [k], and the change [kw] > [kv] is known to have occurred in East Danian (PE19/23).
]]>Conceptual Development: In an earlier version of this entry, the Danian word for Elf was given as Elda (Ety/ELED).
]]>Two waves of vanishing: There is some evidence that the loss of final vowels occurred in at least two waves in Danian. The word Dan. < ᴹ✶ probably ended in a short vowel (Ety/ELED), but it did not undergo the Danian syncope. However, Dan. < ᴹ✶ÁLAM (Ety/ÁLAM) did undergo the syncope. One possibly explanation is that the primitive form of alm ended in a long vowel that was not fully lost until after the syncope, which is why the syncope occurred for one word but not the other.
Transformation to final [a]: There are also examples of primitive long final vowels becoming [a] instead of vanishing. Most of these examples likely had a long final [ā] that survived as short [a], but there are at least two examples where a different long vowel developed into a short final [a]: ᴹ✶ > Dan. and ᴹ✶ñgolodō > Dan. . In the case of long final [ō], it may be that the final vowel first shortened to [ŏ], and then changed to [a] as part of the general rule that .
The case for long final [ē] is less clear. There are no examples of [e] becoming [a] in other positions in Danian words. In fact there are only examples of the opposite change: short [a] becoming [e], perhaps after initial clusters of [s] with a voiceless stop. It seems that the change of long [ē] to short [a] was unique to final vowels. There was a similar change of long final [ē] to short [ă] in Western dialects of Proto-Germanic (ref/@@@).
Preservation final [a]: Assuming that long final [ē] and [ō] merged with long final [ā] in a short final [ă], the result was sometimes lost and sometimes preserved. The [a] was preserved after the clusters [ld], [nd], [nn], [ll], [ss] and [rm], though the last of these examples was in the rejected word Dan. . The preservation of the final [a] could also be related to patterns of stress in Primitive Elvish words. Given the small number of examples, it is difficult to guess what the pattern might be. The developments of final [a] in the Germanic languages that inspired Danian are sufficiently different that they do not provide any clear hints.
]]>The language of the Green Elves was influenced by the speech of the Ilkorins and became distinct from their kin who remained east of the Blue Mountains (LR/176). Their dialect came to be called Ossiriandic, while those of their kin was called East Danian (PE19/18) or Leikvian (LR/188). A version of this eastern dialect was adopted by the western tribes of Men later known as the Elf-friends (LR/194), becoming the language Taliska (LR/179, 196). After the fall of Beleriand, the Ossiriandic language was lost, and the language of their eastern kin faded and merged with the Lembi of the Hither Lands (LR/176).
]]>Medial [x] (“ch”) was preserved before a consonant in the name , so it is likely that [x] was only lost between vowels.
]]>There are two names that might provide examples of Danian plurals or class-plurals: “Danians” and (East Danian) . Absent further information, however, nothing conclusive can be said about these examples.
]]>Since the resulting [ŏ] did not change further, this means the Danian a-mutation must have occurred after the change of short primitive [ŏ] became [a]. This also means that, where short [o] appeared in Danian, it was the result of the a-mutation of [ŭ], which was true of Proto-Germanic as well.
There is one example, Dan. , where a-mutation is expected but does not occur. Perhaps like Ilkorin, the a-mutation was prevented or reverted before certain nasal combinations. The same was true of a-mutation in Proto-Germanic as well (ref/@@@).
]]>In the real-world analog of Danian, Proto-Germanic unstressed [ĕ] became [i], so perhaps Tolkien imagined a similar change to unstressed or final short [ĕ] in Primitive Danian. There is some evidence that this is the case. The Danian word for “blue”, < ᴹ✶ (Ety/LUG²), shows signs of i-mutation, something that it is not true of any of its cognates in other Eldarin languages. It is known that short final [i] became [e] in Common Eldarin, so that ᴹ✶lugni became ᴹ✶lugne before the divergence of these languages, making it difficult to explain this Danian i-mutation (as noted by Helge Fauskanger, AL-Nandorin/lygn).
If, however, this short [ĕ] reverted back to [i] (or perhaps never changed in the first place, because Danian diverged before the Common Eldarin changes), this would explain the i-mutation in Dan. lygn. Given the lack of examples, however, these developments remain quite speculative. It is also possible that Tolkien’s statements above regarding West Danian were reapplied to Taliska, since that language was said to be of “Gothic” type (PE19/22) and short [ĕ] and [ĭ] merged in that real-world language.
]]>but in Quendian ŋŋ > ŋg (TQ1, PE18/41).
In Eldarin ŋŋ > ŋg (TQ1, PE18/64).
in Quendian ŋŋ > ŋg phonetically (TQ2, PE18/91).
ññ > ñg as in all Eldarin (TQ2, PE18/104).
Tolkien elaborated on this development in some detail in the (Quenya) Outline of Phonetic Development from the 1940s (OP1), and even more in the (Quenya) Outline of Phonology from the 1950s (OP2):
[ññ] could only occur as a dynamic lengthening, since [ñ] was not used in suffixion: this [ññ] > ñg in CE (OP1, PE19/47).
The long dynamic mm, nn, ññ. ... This is the only source of ññ (since ñ was not used as a suffixal consonant and did not occur as the third consonant of KALAT-bases or kalta-stems) except ññ by nasal-infixion in the rare cases of bases with medial ñ ... These even when ancient remained as long nasals in PQ (mm, nn) except ññ which became ñg. ññ was or became rare, because after the loss of medial simple ñ the relationship of (nil) to ñg became etymologically obscure. A probable example is Q eñge “ago, in the past”, most likely in origin a past formation from √EÑ “be”, though no longer used in PQ (OP2, PE19/96).
Based on these notes, it seems the combination ŋŋ was rare even in Common Eldarin. It only arose (a) as a of ŋ or (b) as the result of a nasal-infix (e.g. in past tenses) before ŋ. The former was rare because the strengthened form of ŋ was more commonly ŋg (which may have aided ŋŋ > ŋg). The latter was rare because roots ending in ŋ were themselves rare.
In notes from the 1930s, Tolkien indicated that primitive ŋʒ [ŋɣ] likewise became ŋg, passing first through ŋŋ:
There are no certain examples of [ʒ] following after other consonants save the nasal infix. Here the phonetic result of ñʒ was ñg > Q. ng. A case is probably seen in Q enge “ago, once (in past)”, originally pa.t. (“it was”) of the √EƷ “be” from which ea is derived, though the pa.t. né is from a different stem (OP1, PE19/48).
while ŋŋ, ŋʒ became [ŋg] ... In early formation [mv] > [mb], as [ŋʒ] > [ŋg] ... mv > mb; ŋʒ > ŋg; ŋŋ > ŋg (TQ1, PE18/41).
In the second note, Tolkien indicated that both primitive voiced labial and velar spirants strengthened to stops after a nasal, but the change mv > mb became irrelevant when Tolkien decided v [β] was not a sound in Primitive Elvish. There are, however, notes from the 1950s indicating that the sound change ŋʒ > ŋg remained valid for some time:
Before k, g, ñ remained unchanged. ñʒ > ññ > ñg (OP2, PE19/95 note #131).
There is no certain example of the occurrence of CE ʒ after any nasal save the naturally homorganic nasal infix. In CE ñʒ > ññ > ñg (OP2, PE19/98 note #146).
As noted above there are no examples in Q of [ʒ] following after other consonants, save the nasal infix (homorganic): this ñʒ > CE ññ, ñg (OP2, PE19/101 note #154).
Tolkien ultimately revised all of these notes and removed the sound change ŋʒ > ŋg, probably because he decided the primitive form of this sound was a weak voiceless spirant h rather than the voiced velar spirant ʒ (OP1, PE19/69 note #3). It is not clear, however, how ŋh would have developed (assuming it occurred at all).
]]>In the case of e- and i-, the examples were dero, dise → ᴹ✶Endero, ᴹ✶Indise “groom, bride”; these examples indicate that other kinds of consonant fortifications were possible, in this case nasalization of stops, which often replaced consonant-doubling for voiced stops in Primitive Elvish.
Specifically in the case of a-, however, it seems it could be used as a general intensive that “was distinct in origin, though similar in function, to the prefixed basic vowel”. Why this was true of a- alone is not clear, but there seems to have been some complex interplay between the vocalic intensives and the intensives derived from syllabic initial ṇ-, with the net result that the intensive prefix in Q. became an-, am-, añ-, depending on the initial consonant.
See the entry on the Quenya comparative for a more detailed discussion of the conceptual development of intensives in Eldarin.
]]>The existence of this root is one of reasons that Tolkien decided to abandon la-negation around 1959, saying “AL, LA have too much to do”. Tolkien’s vacillations on the nature of la-negation might therefore have pushed this root in and out of favor, but it is difficult to tell for certain.
]]>The 1930s root also had an unaugmented variant ᴹ√LAK with derivatives ᴹQ. (a)larka, N. lhagr “swift, rapid” (Ety/LAK²). Whether this unaugmented variant remained valid is unclear, but there is nothing in Tolkien’s later writing contradicting it either.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Quenya writing, I personally prefer to ignore this late change to the root for “mother” and stick with the √AM-forms Tolkien used for most of his life. However, the √AM-forms were less stable in the Sindarin branch of the languages, so I’d use √EM-forms like S. emel and emig, and would assume √AM and √EM were variants of the root, as they were on VT48/19 (see above).
]]>But there existed a “base” that was intrinsically “comparative”, √AMA. This signified addition, increase, plus (PE17/91).
Tolkien did not explicitly connect this to √AM “up”, but it seems likely the two were related. See the discussion of √AMA for further details.
]]>But there existed a “base” that was intrinsically “comparative”, √AMA. This signified addition, increase, plus (PE17/91).
Very likely this was a variant or extended meaning for the root √AM “up”, perhaps with the basic sense “more”, as in the derived words Q. ambë (adverb) and amba (adjective) of that meaning (PE17/91). Tolkien seems to have introduced this additional meaning to the root √AM as part of a new etymology for the Q. intensive prefix an-. With this new derivation, the intensive prefix became am(a)-. See the entry on the Q. comparative for a discussion of the conceptual development of this intensive/comparative prefix.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is preferable to retain the older derivation of the intensive prefix an-, especially for compatibility with possible Sindarin intensives like S. anfaug “gasping” and S. einior “elder” (though the latter could be derived from *amyāra). Intensive an- also helps avoid confusion with the prefix am- “up”. But I would retain some of the very useful derivatives of the root √AMA, notably Q. ambe/amba “more” given above, perhaps with new etymologies from *an-bē and *an-bā.
]]>There is a later mention of the root √ANAD in a 1959 note, but in that note Tolkien considered transferring the sense “long” to a new root √ƷAN as a variant of √YAN, so that he could use √ANAD < √ANA- as the basis for words meaning “gate” (PE17/40). This new use of √ANAD would be a replacement for the 1930s root ᴹ√AD “gate” (Ety/AD). In another set of 1959 etymological notes, Tolkien did indeed give primitive forms ✶ʒandā “long” vs. yanā/yandā “wide” as derivatives of √ƷAN and √YAN respectively (PE17/155).
Later still, in 1967 notes on comparison, Tolkien gave a new root √NDA as the basis for and(a) “long”, though he said “S †ann- [long] only preserved in certain compounds, owing to competition with ann (< annā) gift, and ann(on) gate, of different origin” (PE17/90). Thus it seems Tolkien had abandoned √ƷAN > ✶ʒandā > Q./S. and(a), and in notes from 1968 Tolkien glossed √ƷAN as “adorn”, and at this later stage √ƷAN was probably connected to or a variant of the 1970 root √HAN “add to, increase, enhance, honour (espec. by gift)” (VT47/26-27).
The ultimate fate of 1967 √NDA “long” is itself unclear. In the notes where it appeared, Tolkien was also considering it as the basis for the intensive prefix Q. an-. But Tolkien abandoned this idea and decide the intensive prefix was actually am- derived from √AMA “addition, increase, plus” (PE17/91). However, this change in the intensive does not necessarily invalidate the use of √(A)NDA for “long”, and that is the last word we have in the published corpus on this topic.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, it’s probably best to assume the meaning “long” came from √ANAD or √ANDA or some similar root, much like it did in the 1930s.
]]>Of the derivations that remained under √AR, the most notable were ᴱQ. are “beside, along” and the conjunction ᴱQ. ar(a) “but” (QL/32). The latter changed in meaning to ar “and” by the end of the 1920s, for example in the Oilima Markirya poem. This carried into the 1930s paradigm for the root ᴹ√AR, as seen by its entry in The Etymologies with its derivatives ᴹQ. ara “outside, beside” (the basic sense of the root) and ᴹQ. ar “and” (Ety/AR²). The most common Noldorin word for “and” in this period was likewise ar (TAI/150; SD/128-129), and in prefixal form ar- “outside, beside” sometimes developed a privative sense “without”, most notably in arnediad (†arnoediad) “without reckoning, numberless” as in N. Nirnaith Arnediad “(Battle of) Unnumbered Tears” (Ety/AR², NOT) which in Sindarin became Nirnaeth Arnoediad.
In some etymological notes from the 1950s Tolkien retained the root form ara “alongside” (VT43/33), but there were already cracks forming in this system, forced by Tolkien’s decision that the Sindarin word for “and” was a rather than ar, a change that first appeared Lord of the Rings drafts from the 1940s (TI/182). By the late 1950s Tolkien was experimenting with new roots √AD(A) and √AS for the meaning “beside” and the derivation of Q. ar, S. a “and”; see those entries for later developments in this semantic space of “beside”.
As for the root √AR itself, it shifted in meaning to “beyond, further than” in Quenya Notes (QN) from 1957, becoming the basis for “royal” roots like √ARAN “king” or √ARAT “noble” (PE17/147). In this revised meaning, it might still be able to retain a “privative” sense in Sindarin words like †arnoediad “unnumbered” (perhaps = “*beyond numbering”), though it is also possible Tolkien simply never revisited the etymology of this Sindarin word.
]]>From this point forward Tolkien toyed with two possible roots for “beside; and”, either √AD and √AS, with another option √ÑAR considered and rejected in 1957 (PE17/169). It seems Tolkien vacillated between the √AD and √AS, so an exact timeline is hard to nail down. Their primary difference would be in the prevocalic form of Sindarin “and”: either edhil adh edain [ada > aða] or edhil ah edain [asa > aha] for “elves and men”. The most detailed breakdown of these two possibilities appeared in Tolkien’s notes on words in The Lord of the Rings, probably written in the late 1950s (PE17/41). In these notes he kept flipping back and forth between ancient asa and ada, though ultimately settling on ada.
However, ah appeared in the title of the document Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth “The Debate of Finrod and Andreth” most likely written in 1959 (MR/329), and in a 1968 note Tolkien said the primitive form was as with S. ah “and” before vowels and a before consonants (VT43/30). So either Tolkien reversed himself again and adopted √AS, or he continued to vacillate. For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume the root was √AS.
One result of the change of √AR >> √AS/√AD is that the Sindarin prefix ar- could no longer mean “beside” as it did in Noldorin. Indeed, in notes on The Rivers and Beacon-hills of Gondor written in 1967-69 he said “Arnen originally was intended to mean ‘beside the water’, sc. Anduin, but ar- in this sense is Quenya, not Sindarin” (VT43/17). This leaves us with no good word for “beside” in Sindarin; at one point I coined a neologism sa for this purpose, but it is a real stretch.
As a final note, these 1950s and 1960s roots were not the first time Tolkien used √AS for something like “beside”. All the way back in the 1910s, Tolkien had the root √AS(A) in both the Quenya and Gnomish Lexicons (QL/33; GL/48) with derived forms like ᴱQ. ar “to, against, next, on (wall)” (QL/33), G. hath- “close to, by, beside, touching” (GL/48), and [maybe] G. art “beside, alongside of” (GL/20), though the last form may be unconnected given the unlikeliness of s > r in Gnomish.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s this root appeared as ᴹ√AT(AT) (Ety/AT(AT)) with variants ᴹ√ATTA which became the basis for Quenya atta “two” (Ety/ATTA) and ᴹ√TATA which became the basis for Noldorin tâd “two” (Ety/TATA); these numerals retained this form thereafter into the Quenya and Sindarin of the 1950s and 60s (VT42/24-26). In the 1930s, the ᴹ√TATA variant took on the sense “double” in Quenya, and the ᴹ√ATTA variant took on the sense “across” in Noldorin. The base root ᴹ√AT had the sense “again, back”, as seen in both Quenya and Noldorin prefixes ᴹQ. at(a)-, N. ad- “back, again, re-” (Ety/AT(AT)).
This root continued to appear in the 1950s and 1960s, retaining its various meanings of “two” (VT42/27), “back, again” (PE17/148) and “across” (VT43/33). Tolkien explored the origin and development of this root at some length in his essays on Elvish numerals from the late 1960s, connecting it to √AT(AR) “father” via various Elvish finger names (VT48/19).
]]>The evolution ᴱN. aiglir >> N. oeglir >> S. aeglir “mountain peaks” indicate this root’s continued validity in Tolkien’s later conception of the language, as seen in S. Hithaeglir “Misty Mountains” (Let/180; RC/11; S/54). The element S. aeg “sharp” (<< N. oeg) appears in a variety of other late names such as S. Aeglos “Snow-point” (S/294) and S. Aegnor “Sharp Flame” (MR/323). Tolkien gave an alternate etymology for the last name as a phonetic adaptation of Q. Aicanáro “Fell Fire” (PM/346-347), but that variant was based on a different root √GAYA “awe” > ✶gayakā “fell, terrible” (PM/363), so it did not necessarily invalidate √AYAK “sharp, pointed”.
]]>The Etymologies of the 1930s gave this root as ᴹ√AYAN with very similar derivatives ᴹQ. Ainu, Aini and aina (Ety/AYAN), except Ainu/Aini was translated “holy one, angelic spirit (m./f.)” reflecting Tolkien’s evolving conception of his legendarium. In this period there was an unaugmented variant ᴹ√YAN with the derivatives ᴹQ. yána/N. iaun “holy place” (Ety/YAN). It is not clear whether the short form √AYA was valid in this period; there is nothing like aira “holy”, for example.
The root √AYA and √AYA-N reappeared in Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN) from 1959, variously glossed “blessed” or “treat with awe/reverence” (PE17/147, 149). The (re)appearance of Q. airë “holy, holiness”, Q. aira “holy”, and S. aer “holy” in later writing beside Ainu/Aini further supports the reintroduction of the short form of this root. However, in the 1968 Shibboleth of Fëanor, Tolkien said the root for aira and aire was √GAY, gaining the sense “holy” due to the influence of Valarin ayanūz from which Ainu was derived (PM/363). In this scenario, √AYA would only have the sense “holy” in the Quenya language branch, and Sindarin words like aer (if they exist) would be loans from Quenya.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I prefer to assume √AYA is a Common Eldarin root, perhaps a very early loan from Valarin, to allow the existence of (Neo) Sindarin words based on that root. The continued use of the root √AYA in Tolkien’s later writing might also justify the restoration of a number of religious words derived from the early root ᴱ√AYA in the 1910s.
]]>Tolkien wrote about this root at great length in the 1959 when he decided that √BA was part of the Eldarin system of negation, distinguishing negation of volition (I will not) from negative of fact (it is not so). Tolkien seems to have introduced this notion at the same time he decided to abandon la-negation, so the corresponding negation of fact was the root √Ū (PE17/143). Even when Tolkien considered restoring la-negation in the late 1960s, √BA still retained a role as the negation of volition (PE22/161).
One peculiar feature of √BA is that it represented refusal from the perspective of the speaker. Thus in 1st person, √BA meant “I will not” (refusal), but in 2nd person or 3rd person it meant “do not” (forbiddance). Tolkien discussed this topic at some length in the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60 (WJ/370-2). In 1st person this was Q. ván(ye)/S. avon “I won’t” and Q. vamme/S. avam “we won’t” [using the circa-1960 pronominal suffix -mme; with later pronouns this would be valve and avof]. In 2nd person this used the interjection Q. vá/S. baw “don’t”, or the negative imperative particle Q. áva/S. avo, as in Q. áva care/S. avo garo “don’t do [it]”.
When Tolkien revisited his ideas for negation in 1969, he still kept this notion of 1st person refusal vs. 2nd/3rd person forbiddance (PE22/161-3), so that the system of √BA negation remained more or less the same (barring changes like new pronouns).
]]>The earliest forms of this root were VALA in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s (QL/99) and GWAL in the contemporaneous Gnomish Lexicon (GL/44), so very likely the true early form of this root was *ᴱ√WALA. The Quenya form of this root VALA was unglossed, but the Gnomish form GWAL had the glosses “fortune, happiness”. At this early stage the root had additional derivatives like ᴱQ. valin “happy” and G. gwaltha “fortunate, happy” (QL/99; GL/44).
By the time of The Etymologies of the 1930s, these “happy” derivatives had fallen away, and the new form of this root was ᴹ√BAL with new Noldorin forms like N. Balan “Power, God” (Ety/BAL). The root √BAL reappeared in the 1950s and 60s with various glosses like “powerful, mighty” or “have power” (PE17/48, 154). One relatively late development was the transfer of the word S. Balrog “mighty demon” to this root (PE17/48; S/31); in earlier conceptions this word was tied to “torture” roots like ᴹ√ÑGWAL “torment” or ᴱ√MBALA “hurt, pain” (Ety/ÑGWAL; QL/63).
]]>In the published corpus, the first clear mention of this root is in a discussion of the Quenya future suffix -(u)va from the late 1940s where it was given as √BĀ, BANA “go, proceed” with Q. vanwa “gone, over” as one of its derivatives (PE22/97). It appeared again in a discussion of the Sindarin greeting mae govannen “well met” from the late 1950s, where Tolkien hypothesized that the verb “meet” might be go- “together” + ban- “go” or “meet”, which he again connected to Q. vanwa “gone” (PE17/16). Phonetic complications prompted Tolkien to coin a new verb covad- “assemble, gather together” from a root √KOB, but he was unwilling to commit at this time to the new verb because of the obvious similarity of govannen to √BAN “go” (PE17/16-17).
However, in 1959 when he was overhauling the Eldarin system of negation, it seems Tolkien finally rejected √BA(N) “go” because of the conflict with √BĀ/ABA “refuse”, and he transferred the sense “go” to the root √MEN (PE17/143). In etymological notes contemporaneous with the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60, Tolkien restored √KOB “gather” (PE17/150) though he seems to have eventually settled on the form √KOM for this root along with a restored verb S. covad- “bring together, make meet” (PE17/157-158). Q. vanwa “gone” was also transferred to √WĀ/AWA by the time of the Quendi and Eldar essay (WJ/366). Meanwhile, the Quenya future had been transferred from √BA to the root √UB in the early 1950s (PE22/132).
This left no remaining functions for √BA(N) “go”, and there is no further sign of it starting in the 1960s.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien gave this root as ᴹ√BAN and it seems at this stage it was associated exclusively with beauty, given derivatives like ᴹQ. vanya and N. bein “beautiful, fair” (Ety/BAN). These words survived into later iterations of the languages as Q. vanya and S. bain (PE17/150). The root √BAN reappeared with these derivatives in several etymological notes written around 1959 (PE17/149-150, 165).
In these 1959 notes, Tolkien first connected √BAN to “fair” as it was in the 1930s (PE17/149), but reversed himself, noting “VAN cannot only = fair (blonde), since vanima is applied in LR to Arwen who was like Lúthien dark” (PE17/165). This prompted Tolkien to reintroduce the root √(G)WAN “fair”, as noted above, limiting √BAN to “beauty” only. He then refined its meaning, saying “√BAN ... appears originally to have referred simply to ‘beauty’, but with implication that it was due to lack of fault or blemish” (PE17/150). The root applied to Vána because she was perfect and unmarred in her beauty.
]]>Tolkien mentioned this set of extended roots in later writings (date unclear, but probably the late 1950s or early 1960s) along with a fourth extension √BARAS, all having to do with “great height combined with strength, size, majesty” (PE17/22-23). √BARAT was still the basis for S. barad “tower”. The roots √BARAD and √BARATH were respectively the basis for Q. Varda and S. Elbereth (< Elen-barathī) as they had been in the 1930s. The new root √BARAS had derivatives tied to cliffs, as opposed to the 1930s where ᴹ√BARAS was an (unrelated) root having to do with heat (Ety/BARAS).
There was no mention of the base root √BAR in later writings, so it is unclear whether it retained the meaning “save”. In addition, there were certain phonological problems in the derivation of Elbereth from √BARATH in Sindarin that were not present in Noldorin (where frequently ei > e in polysyllables), and this word may have been transferred to the root √BER “marry”; see the entry on Elbereth for further details.
]]>Tolkien introduced a new root √BARAS in the late 1950s associated with “height” and other roots like √BARAD and √BARAT; the derivatives of this new root had to do with cliffs. It is possible the new √BARAS invalidated the old one, but none of its derived words appeared in the narratives, so it could also have been a transient idea. It’s hard to say for certain since S. Barahir was not translated in later writings.
]]>In later notes Tolkien proposed a variety of primitive origins for Q. ve “as, like”: ✶wē (we’e) in 1957 Quenya Notes (VT49/10; PE17/189), ✶bē from notes from the late 1950s or early 1960s (VT49/32 note #10), and ✶vai as a relative of suffixal -va in notes from 1968 (VT49/32 note #10). As there are not any definite Sindarin cognates for Q. ve in Tolkien’s published writings, it is hard to know which of these is more likely.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would go with primitive ✶bē as the most widely excepted option, producing S. *be “as, like”.
]]>The root ᴹ√BEL appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s with the gloss “strong” and a number of Noldorin, Telerin and Ilkorin derivatives starting with bel- and having to do with strength (Ety/BEL). In the 1930s this root had no Quenya derivatives. The root √BEL reappeared in a list of “large & small” roots from around 1968, where it had the variant √MBEL and was also used in its extended form √MBELEK as the basis for the Quenya name Q. Melkor (PE17/115). This extended form was also given as the basis for S. beleg in these notes, which was given the glosses “large, great” implying the root had as much to do with size as strength.
This note indicates that S. beleg began with an ancient nasalized stop, but various mutations elsewhere in the corpus imply this was not the case, such as the soft mutation in S. Cûl Veleg “Bigload” (RC/536) and the nasal mutation in S. Taur-i-Melegyrn “Forest of the Great Trees” (WJ/185). I suspect the ancient strengthening of initial b- to mb- must have been limited to the Quenya branch of the language; see the √MBELEK for further discussion.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: I think it is worth positing a Neo-Root ᴺ√ to salvage these early words. However, in The Etymologies from the 1930s, Tolkien glossed the Quenya verb ᴹQ. as “to unfurl, spread out, open”, so it is possible the sense “unfurl” moved to the root ᴹ√ (unglossed), though most of this root’s other derivatives are closer in sense to “open” (Ety/PAT).
]]>One of the 1930s derivatives of this root was N. Dagor Vregedúr “Battle of Sudden Fire [bregedur]”, which in the published Silmarillion became S. Dagor Bragollach “Battle of Sudden Flame” (S/151). This hints at a possible revision of this root, perhaps to *√BARAK, though whether it was a transient or lasting change is unclear.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin writing, I think it’s best to stick with ᴹ√BEREK and the forms from The Etymologies.
]]>The earliest form of this root appeared as √VEŘE in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s (QL/101), where the Ř indicated the actual primitive form was VEÐE (or ɃEÐE), as confirmed by its Gnomish equivalent Bedh- (QL/101; GL/22). This early root was unglossed, but its derivatives all had to do with marriage, including ᴱQ. veru/G. †benn/G. bedhron “husband”, ᴱQ. †veri/ᴱQ. vesse/G. bess “wife” and ᴱQ. vesta-/G. benna- “to wed”.
There are indications this root may have initially been ᴹ√BED in The Etymologies of the 1930s, based on primitive forms like ᴹ✶bedū “spouses” (Ety/LEP). But the main “marriage” entry in The Etymologies was ᴹ√BES “wed”, with derivatives like ᴹQ. vesta- “to wed”, ᴹQ. venno/N. benn “husband” and ᴹQ. vesse/N. bess “wife”. One interesting feature about this conceptual stage is that the Noldorin words for “husband” and “wife” drifted in meaning to become simply “man” and “woman”, and new words N. herven and herves were coined for “husband” and “wife”.
In various etymological notes from the late 1960s, Tolkien introduced a new root √BER for marriage. His longest description of it was in a 1969 note:
√BER “to mate, be mated, joined in marriage”: Q. verya (intr.) “to marry (of husband and wife), be joined to” (veryanen senna); verta (tr.) “to give in marriage (a) to (b), or to take as husband or wife (to oneself)”; verū > veru “husband”; verī > veri “wife” (VT49/45).
The forms Q. veru/veri “husband/wife” were restorations of the Early Qenya forms from the 1910s.
It is not entirely clear when Tolkien made this change to the root, but in The Road Goes Ever On published in 1967, he said that “[S.] bereth actually meant ‘spouse’, and is used of one who is ‘queen’ as spouse of a king” (RGEO/66), strongly hinting that this word was derived from √BER “wed” at that conceptual stage. Earlier on, N./S. bereth “queen” was derived from primitive ✶barathī, an etymology Tolkien was still using in notes from the late 1950s or early 1960s (PE17/22-23). As discussed in the entry on Elbereth, this etymology presented some phonological difficulties in Sindarin, which may have motivated Tolkien to introduce a new etymology for S. bereth, switching to the root √BER for marriage in the process. My best guess is that this switch happened sometime in the mid-1960s, but it could have been earlier.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin writing, I think it is best to ignore the introduction of the root √BER “wed”, and keep using ᴹ√BES “wed” from The Etymologies. As a root for marriage, √BER presents a number of problems:
The main disadvantage of ignoring √BER “wed” is that it leaves us with no good etymology for the name S. Elbereth. It is quite possible to solve the above problems with √BER by coining new words, but I prefer to keep using the older words as they are quite popular in Neo-Sindarin. It would be relatively easy to coin a new etymology for Elbereth instead, perhaps from *elen-baratthī with the longer cluster inhibiting i-intrusion. See the entry on S. bereth for further discussion.
]]>Similar forms like Q. voronda or vórima “faithful” continued to appear in Tolkien’s later writing (UT/317). The well established names Q. Voronwë or S. Bronwe(g) “Steadfast, Faithful” retained the same basic form and meaning throughout Tolkien’s life, testifying to the enduring nature of the Elvish root for “endurance”.
]]>One notable derivative from the 1930s was N. dalath “plain” which appeared in the name N. Dalath Dirnen “Guarded Plain” in Silmarillion drafts from the 1930s (LR/299). But in the second note mentioned above, Tolkien said “X Dalath Dirnen. dalath won't do = plain ... TALAT = ground (bottom), hence TALAT = fall down” (PE17/150). Indeed, in later Silmarillion drafts, Tolkien changes this name to S. Talath Dirnen (WJ/140). This may mean that Tolkien ultimately rejected this root, but the variant √LAD probably survived: see that entry for details.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s, however, Tolkien gave the root as ᴹ√DAT “fall down” (Ety/DAT), replacing a deleted root ᴹ√LANTA (Ety/TALÁT; EtyAC/LANTA). Tolkien coined a new Noldorin verb for “to fall”, as N. dant- with passive participle N. dannen “fallen”. The Noldorin verb form dant- was probably archaic or incomplete, and with the proper form most likely matching its later Sindarin form, S. danna- (PE17/62).
The root √DAT “fall” appeared pretty regularly in later notes (VT47/29; VT48/24, 30). In some notes associated with words in The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien gave a new derivation of Q. lanta- and S. danna- from a root DAN-TA (PE17/62), but I suspect this was just the nasal-infixed form of √DAT, as with the similar form ᴹ√DANT from the 1930s (Ety/DAT).
However, in notes from 1968, Tolkien gave √LAT as a variant of √DAT via ancient d/l interchange:
d and l interchanged frequently in early Common Eldarin, as exemplified by Dat/Lat “fall (to the ground)” (VT47/29).
Detecting this variant in Quenya would be nearly impossible, but it is probably evident in the Sindarin word for “waterfall”: S. lanthir (S/235; PM/349), perhaps < *lant-sirē “fall-river”. This variant might be a partial restoration of the early root ᴱ√LṆTṆ, but there are no clear signs of it outside this 1968 note and the Sindarin word for “waterfall”.
]]>I suspect that the “dreadful” meaning applied only to the strengthened form √NDAY, since the unstrengthened form √DAY is the basis for the adjective ✶daira > S. daer “great, large”, where Tolkien reiterates that the root √DAY was not used in Quenya (VT42/11). In the sense “great”, √DAY may have been a restoration of the rejected root ᴹ√DAƷ “great” from The Etymologies of the 1930s (EtyAC/DAƷ).
Whether √DAY meant “great” or “dreadful”, it seems to have replaced another root from The Etymologies of the 1930s: ᴹ√DAY “shadow” (Ety/DAY). The Noldorin word N. dae “shadow” was an element in the 1930s names Daedhelos “Shadow of Fear” and Dor-Daideloth “Land of the Shadow of Dread” (LR/405). But in the aforementioned 1959 note, Tolkien derived S. daedelos from √NDAY and translated it as “horrible fear” (PE17/151), consistent with the Sindarin name for Mirkwood: Taur e-Ndaedelos “Forest of the Great Fear” (LotR/1134). Likewise in later versions of the Silmarillion, S. Dor Daedeloth was translated “Land of Great Dread” (WJ/183) with no mention of “shadow”. Thus it seems ᴹ√DAY “shadow” was abandoned.
]]>Many of Quenya derivatives of this root actually derive from an inversion √LED of the original √DEL. According to the Quendi and Eldar essay, this inversion only occurred in Quenya (WJ/363). In earlier writings like The Etymologies, however, ᴹ√LED “go, fare, travel” was the basic root in all languages. It seems that Tolkien revised ᴹ√LED >> √DEL, preserving √LED only as a Quenya variant. The strongest sign of this change was Tolkien’s consistent alteration of N. Eledh >> S. Edhel.
This leaves open the question of what happened to the other non-Quenya derivatives of ᴹ√LED, such as S. edlen(n) “exile”. It is possible that they were transferred to a new root √LEN, which was the basis for S. lembas “way bread” (PE17/60). For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I prefer to assume the verb [N.] †ledh- “go, fare, travel” did exist, but was archaic and survived only as an element in other verbs like [ᴺS.] edledhia- “go into exile” and [N.] neledh- “enter”.
]]>The “shadow” meaning of this early root seems to have transferred to ᴹ√LUM from The Etymologies of the 1930s, which served as the new basis for N. Hithlum (Ety/LUM), as opposed contemporaneous N. Dor-lómen which was redefined as “Land of Echoes (< ᴹ√LAM via Ilkorin or in later writings, via North Sindarin). The “dusk” sense was transferred to a new root ᴹ√DOM “faint, dim”, which (along with ᴹ√DOƷ) was the basis for the pair words ᴹQ. lóme/N. dû “night” (Ety/DOMO).
These two words for “night” survived in Tolkien’s later writing in both Quenya and Sindarin (Let/308; SA/dú). In notes from the 1940s Tolkien clarified that it “has no evil connotations; it is a word of peace and beauty and has none of the associations of fear or groping that, say, ‘dark’ has for us” (SD/306). The Elves were quite comfortable being under the night sky, dating back to the time when the Elves lived under the stars before the rising of the Sun and the Moon. The root √DOM reappeared in etymologies for star-words from the late 1950s or early 1960s (PE17/152). It appeared again in some very late notes from 1969 where it was glossed “dark” and served as the basis for words meaning “blind” as well as “night”, though this paragraph was rejected (PE22/153, note #50).
]]>n ... also appears occasionally as product of [initial] d, instead of l, by assimilation to succeeding nasals, as in dorno > norno (PE19/80).
In etymological notes from the later 1950s or early 1960s, Tolkien gave the root √DOR “hard, tough”, that in Quenya was preserved only in the word “oak” and in ndŏr > nŏr “land” (PE17/181). Its connection to “oak” indicates this is a later iteration of ᴹ√DORON, though the connection to √NDOR “land” was new. A similar root √DORO “dried up, hard, unyielding” appeared in the contemporaneous Quendi and Eldar essay from around 1959-1960, again connected to √NDOR but without mention of “oak” (WJ/413).
In both sets of notes, √DOR has the Sindarin derivative dorn “tough, stiff, thrawn, obdurate”, also used as another name for the dwarves. However, Tolkien sometimes used norn “Dwarf” instead (PE23/139; WJ/209), reflecting some vacillation on this root.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: I think it is worthwhile to salvage this root as ᴺ√DOT in the more limited sense “drop” for purposes of Neo-Sindarin, so we can salvage Gnomish words such as dod- “to drop” and dod “berry”. This hypothetical ᴺ√DOT could be a variant of √DAT “fall”.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is worth positing a Neo-Root ᴺ√(D)RAP “toil” to salvage Gnomish drab- words.
]]>In a message to the Elfling mailing list from July 2012 (/362.96), David Salo suggested there might be a later root *√DU serving as the basis for Q. lúna “dark” and Q. lúmë “darkness”, though the latter might instead be from √LUM. Such a root *√DU is not attested in Tolkien’s writings, but if it existed, it could be a later iteration of ᴹ√DOƷ. Another possible example of the root *√DU is primitive ✶durnŭ “dark of hue”.
]]>It appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s as ᴹ√DUI̯, mostly with Ilkorin derivatives though Tolkien noted it was also used in Noldorin (Ety/DUI; EtyAC/DUI). The root dui- appeared again in Tolkien’s 1967 notes on the Nomenclature of the Lord of the Rings, again as the basis for S. duin; in these notes he specified that its Quenya equivalent Q. luine was not used (RC/766).
Tolkien mentioned this root again in some 1968 etymological notes, where he said that other Quenya derivatives like Q. luimë “flood” and luita- “to flood” did survive (VT48/23). When Tolkien first wrote this note, he considered but rejected having a Q. form nuine “river” (VT48/30), perhaps by assimilation of the initial d- to the following n. Despite the repeated rejection of the Quenya cognate of S. duin, it does appear in a couple Quenya river names, such as Q. Anduinë and Nunduinë, so perhaps it survived in compounds as suggested by Patrick Wynne (VT48/30-31, note #6) or was restored as a late borrowing from Sindarin.
]]>This root probably replaced ᴱ√DYELE from the Qenya Lexicon whose derivatives had to do with “winter” and “cold” (QL/106). This early root was tied to a similarly early conception of Melkor as a terrible being of heat and cold.
]]>By the 1930s, the sword-words had fallen away, transferred to ᴹ√MAK. The root ᴹ√EK appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s with the gloss “spear”, but I believe that gloss applied only to its extended form ᴹ√EKTE/EKTI; in rough notes from the 1940s ᴹ√EK was glossed “point, sharp point, thorn” (PE22/127). The primitive form eke appeared in the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-1960 with the gloss “sharp point”, and √EK appeared again in etymological notes from 1968 with this same gloss (VT48/25). Thus this root seems to have been very well established in Tolkien’s mind as the basis for pointy things.
]]>In the Quendi and Eldar essay, the words for “Elf” were recontextualized as a blend of the senses “star” and “departure”, referring to Elves both as the people of the stars and the specific group of the Eldar as those Elves who left for Aman (WJ/362-3). In these same notes Tolkien said that ele originated first as an interjection meaning “lo!, behold!”, as uttered when the Elves first beheld the stars (WJ/360). In this sense, it might have been a partial restoration of a (hypothetical) early root *ᴱ√ELE² used for various words of wonderment and “otherness” in the 1910s and 20s; see that entry for details.
]]>These Gnomish forms were all eventually deleted and replaced by G. eltha- “to alter, change” and G. elt “a change”. These replacements are sufficiently distinct in meaning that I think they represent the introduction of a new root *ᴱ√ELE² connected to “wonder” and “otherness”; see that entry for details. Meanwhile, it seems the Gnomish “thrust” words were transferred to the root ᴱ√ḶTḶ, as in G. ilta- “to stick in, prod, prick” (GL/51).
]]>Some of this sense of wonderment may have resurfaced in the root √EL in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60, where Tolkien said of ELE that “according to Elvish legend this was a primitive exclamation, ‘lo! behold!’ made by the Elves when they first saw the stars” (WJ/360). On this basis, I think it worth concocting an extended Neo-Eldarin root ᴺ√ELEM “wonder, marvel” to salvage the “wonder” words from the 1920s. It might also be worthwhile to concoct an extended root ᴺ√ELEK “different, strange; other” to salvage Gnomish “other” words from the 1910s, but that one is more of a stretch and I no longer recommend its use. Neologisms based on later roots serve better for that purpose.
]]>In notes from the late 1940s and early 1950s, Q. en was connected to the future (PE22/120, 131; PE23/97), and in Common Eldarin: Noun Structure from the early 1950s, Tolkien revised the gloss of primitive ✶en from “yonder” to “next, further, again” (PE21/70, note #4). In later notes Tolkien primarily emphasized the sense “again” with the glosses like “go on doing” in notes from the late 1950s or early 1960s (PE17/167), and the glosses “again, once more” in a couple of different documents written in 1968 (VT47/15; VT48/25), though in one of these it was given the form √HEN “again”, probably a transient idea (VT41/16). This new meaning for √EN reflects the use of the prefix Q. en- for repetition, such as in enquantuva “shall refill” in the Q. Namárië poem (LotR/377).
It is not clear whether √EN retained the sense “yonder” in Tolkien’s later conception of it. In the aforementioned note where it was glossed “go on doing”, one of its derivatives was Q. en(a) “still” as in Q. quetir en “they still say” (PE17/167), referring to the past rather than the future. On the other hand, in rough notes written around 1968, Tolkien said “en- ‘again’ as [in] enquantuva is prob[ably] [?] ‘further, beyond’ [?in respect of time influenced by ? only in] Q. enta, only with verbs. [?root] ēn” (VT41/16). The words in brackets were added by Carl Hostetter as editorial additions or to indicate unclear text in the original, but the relatively clear glosses “further, beyond” show that at least in that moment, something like the 1930s meaning “yonder” of this root may have remained valid.
]]>The earliest version of the existential root was ᴱ√Ō “be, exist” from the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s (QL/69). By the 1920s it seems this root has changed to ᴱ√Ī as it appeared in Early Qenya words lists from that period (PE16/140), and the verb for “to be” in the contemporaneous Early Qenya Grammar was ᴱQ. e- or i (PE14/51, 57).
A similar root ᴹ√YĒ or ᴹ√I appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s, albeit with no derivatives (EtyAC/YE). It was most likely the basis for the so-called “stative” suffix ᴹQ. -ie seen in the contemporaneous Fíriel’s Song (LR/72). The root ᴹ√YE was also mentioned in both the first and second versions of the Tengwesta Qenderinwa from 1937 (TQ1: PE18/60) and around 1950 (TQ2: PE18/84), though in the latter it was rejected (PE18/84 note #69). This root is reflected in the use of ᴹQ. ye- in the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948 (PE22/107, 115, 117, 119-120), but this verb was rejected and replaced towards the end of that document by a new verb ᴹQ. ea- (PE22/122-124 and PE22/123 note #130). The rejection of ye- “to be” may be due to the introduction of Q. yén for the Elvish long year, as suggested by Christopher Gilson (PE22/86).
In QVS, the new verb ea- was derived from a primitive *eʒe or *eñe (PE22/122); the root ᴹ√EƷ “be” had already been mentioned in Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s, indicating Tolkien had been considering this form for some time. In 1948 QVS, Tolkien said:
The primary sense of this verb was “to exist, to have being, to be found, extant, in the real world”. But it was often weakened to the copula, in statements of identity or predication. This however in classical Quenya was limited mainly to the past and future (PE22/123).
Thus in 1948 Tolkien started the process of establishing ea- as primarily an existential verb. A few years later, Tolkien mentioned the root √EÑ “be” in the Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the early 1950s (PE19/96) and he described √EÑ more fully in verbal notes from 1969 where he said:
Stem of verb “exist” (have being in primary world of history) was √EŊE, distinct from √NA joining adjs./nouns/pronouns in statements (or wishes) asserting (or desiring) a thing to have a certain quality, or to be the same as another (PE22/147).
Thus the conceptual development of this root seems to have roughly been √Ō (1910s) >> √YĒ/Ī (1920s) >> √EƷ (late 1940s) >> √EÑ (early 1950s). This is an oversimplification however, in that √EƷ appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s and Tolkien may have been considering it much earlier. Furthermore, the role of √EÑ as primarily as existential root (vs. copula √NĀ) was only firmly established in Tolkien’s later writings. When the root was √YĒ/Ī in the 1920s through 1940s, it seems the verbs ᴱQ. e- and ᴹQ. ye- were used for both existential statements and as a copula, and in this period √NĀ (though mentioned) was rarely used and may have been out of favor.
]]>One complication in the later iterations of the root was the appearance of the word S. Enedwaith “Middle-region” in The Lord of the Rings maps and appendices (LotR/1089). I suspect this form dates from the period in Lord of the Rings drafts of the 1940s where Tolkien decided to represent [ð] as d: compare N. Fanuidol (TI/306) vs. S. Fanuidhol (LotR/283) and N. Galadrim (TI/239) vs. S. Galadhrim (LotR/341). For whatever reason, Enedwaith was never corrected, and in some places Tolkien said this was a mistake and the proper form should be Enedhwaith (PM/328; VT42/20) while in other places he considered revising the root for “middle” to √ENET or √HEN(ET) (VT41/16).
In his notes on numbers and fingers from 1968, Tolkien said the primitive form was ened with variant form enel (VT47/16, 29; VT48/9-10, 24-25), as the result of frequent d/l interchange in Common Eldarin (VT47/29). In these notes this “middle” root was likewise connected to √ENEK “three” as represented by the “middle” finger (VT48/10). In this set of 1968 notes Tolkien also said √ENET was connected to the distinct root √EN “again” and had the sense “one more” (VT47/15; VT48/25). As for the enel “middle” variant, it seems it was used more in Nandorin (VT47/29), but was a factor in some Quenya words such as Q. enelmo “go-between, intervener, intermediary, mediator” (VT47/14).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume the root for “middle” was mainly √ENED, and that Tolkien’s flirtations with √(H)ENET “middle” was a transient idea. I think it is also worth retaining the unaugmented prefix nedh- “mid-” for Neo-Sindarin words, though originating from a lost original vowel rather than a lack of augmentation.
]]>Tolkien spent a fair amount of time analyzing the origin of this root and the basis for the Q. addition of w in various notes on Elvish numbering systems written in 1968 (VT41, VT42, VT47, VT48). One connection Tolkien regularly made was between √ENEK “six” and √ENED “middle”, as “six” was the “middle” of the duodecimal system of numbering (VT41/16; VT48/9); in this respect it was probably an elaboration of the root √NEK² “divide, separate, part” by analogy with √ENED (VT47/16; VT48/9). The Quenya -we may have been either a dual suffix based on “six” as twice three (VT48/10) or it might have been by analogy with other important duodecimal numbers like Q. minquë “eleven” and Q. yunquë “twelve” (48/7). Personally I find the second theory more compelling.
]]>The contemporaneous Gnomish Lexicon also had a variety of words derived from this root, such as G. er “one” and G. ereth “solitude” (GL/32). This root appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s as ᴹ√ERE “be alone, deprived” with both Quenya and Noldorin derivatives (Ety/ERE). The root continued to appear in Tolkien’s later writings, variously glossed as “one”, “single”, “alone”, or “only”.
One interesting feature of this root was the limitations of its use as a number. In some 1968 notes on river names Tolkien said:
[S.] Erui. Though this was the first of the Rivers of Gondor it cannot be used for “first”. In Eldarin er was not used in counting in series: it meant “one, single, alone” (VT42/10).
In accompanying notes, Tolkien gave:
1 “single” (non-serial) ER; “one, first of a series” MIN (VT42/24).
Thus the root for “one” when counting the first of a series was √MIN, whereas √ER could only be used of things that were isolated or unique.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, the “ivy” words might be salvageable as derivatives of √ET in the sense of “a thing clinging to the outside”.
]]>The first explicit appearance of the root ᴹ√GAL¹ “shine” was in The Etymologies of the 1930s (Ety/GAL), where it was given along with an extended root ᴹ√GALAN “bright” (EtyAC/GAL¹). Tolkien considered but rejected having some Quenya derivatives of these roots: ᴹQ. ala “day” and ᴹQ. alan “daytime” (EtyAC/GAL¹), but he seems to have decided that ᴹ√GAL was a Noldorin-only root, as described in the ᴹ√KAL entry from the same set of documents (Ety/KAL).
The root √GAL reappeared in various etymological notes from the 1950s and 60s, where Tolkien again iterated it was not used in Quenya, and was a root specific to Sindarin (PE17/59) and possibly also Nandorin (PE17/50). The root was potentially problematic in the name Gil-galad, however, in that it was not mutated to Gil-’alad. It seems likely that when Tolkien first coined this name, the second element was from N. calad “light” from the root ᴹ√KAL. This root and word survived into Sindarin (UT/65), and Tolkien sometimes still considered it the basis for Gil-galad (PE17/50).
However, at one point he decided the elements in the names Galadriel and Gil-galad were the same; to explain the lack of mutation in Gil-galad, he posited that the root was actually strengthened to √ÑGAL (PE17/59). Galadriel’s name in The Shibboleth of Fëanor from 1968 was based on the root √ÑAL “shine by reflection” (PM/347), so it seems this was the path Tolkien eventually followed. This makes the ultimate status of √GAL “shine” rather unclear, especially since some of its other derivatives like S. uial twilight (PE17/153) were sometimes derived from √ÑAL (PE17/169).
]]>The root ᴹ√GALA first appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s with various glosses, the last being “thrive” (Ety/GALA). The relevant entries went through considerable revision. For example, the meaning of this root was first given as “grow”, but this meaning was rejected and Tolkien said the verb for “grow” was ol- (EtyAC/GAL(AS)). This new verb seems to be based on a variant root *ᴹ√GOL, as indicated by ᴹQ. ola- “grow” < ᴹ✶golā- “grow” appearing in the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948 as a replacement for ᴹQ. ala- < ᴹ✶galā- (PE22/113, note #80), though the new root might also have been ᴹ√OL “grow” as indicated earlier in the same document (PE22/103). Since ᴹ√GALA was retained in The Etymologies, most likely the meaning of this root was changed from “grow” to “thrive” in the 1930s and 40s.
It seems ᴹ√OL “grow” survived into the 1950s (NM/84, 119-120), often with the sense “become” as well (PE22/134); see the entry on √OL for discussion. However, the sense “grow” as also restored to √GAL, but limited mainly to plants. For example, Common Eldarin: Verb Structure from the early 1950s had the primitive verbs ✶galā- “grow (of plants)” vs. ✶olā- “become, come into being, turn into (another state)” (PE22/134). This definition of √GAL as “growth” (along with “flourish” and “be healthy”) appeared regularly in Tolkien’s later writings, though it was often limited primarily to plants, especially in its connection to ✶galadā, the basis for tree words (PE17/25, 135, 153).
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, derivatives of this root are among the best attested words for “hole”, so it’s probably best to retain ᴹ√GAS and its derivatives in Neo-Eldarin writing.
]]>The word ᴹQ. ailin “pool, lake” reappeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s derived from the root ᴹ√AY, with its Noldorin form N. oel reflecting Noldorin rather than Gnomish phonology (Ety/AY). This root had an extended form ᴹ√AYAR “sea” from which Tolkien derived ᴹQ. ear and N. oer of the same meaning; among other things this extended root was the basis for a new etymology for the name ᴹQ. Earendil as “Friend of the Sea” used from the 1940s and forward (SD/241, 305); in earlier writings ᴱQ. Earendel was connected to ᴱQ. earen “(young) eagle” (QL/34).
The root √AY(AR) “sea” continued to appear in Tolkien’s later writings, for example in the second version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa from around 1950 (TQ2: PE18/97). However, Tolkien also considered alternate derivations of “sea” words from a new root √GAY(AR), for example changing √AY(AR) >> √GAY(AR) in etymological notes written between the 1st and 2nd editions of The Lord of the Rings (PE17/27). As opposed to √AY(AR) which meant simply “sea”, Tolkien also glossed √GAY(AR) as “astound, make aghast” (WJ/400) or “awe, dread” (PM/363) and it was the basis for other words such as S. gaer “awful, fearful” (WJ/400) as well as S. goe “terror, great fear”, Q. aica “fell, terrible, dire” and Q. aira “holy, sanctified” (PM/363). In this sense √GAYA may have been a replacement or a variant of √AYA(N) “blessed”.
Tolkien seems to have been unable to make up his mind between these two derivations, as reflected in an ongoing vacillation between S. gaear (PE17/27; PM/363; WJ/400) and aear (Let/386; RGEO/65) as the Sindarin word for “sea”. This word appeared in The Lord of the Rings in the phrase nef aear, sí nef aearon “here beyond the Sea, beyond the wide and sundering Sea”, but that does not resolve the question as the word in this phrase seems to be lenited, and hence would lose its initial g (if any). This vacillation continued late into Tolkien’s life: in the published corpus Tolkien derived “sea” words from √AYAR “sea” in a letter from 1967 (Let/386) and √GAYA “awe, dread” in The Shibboleth of Fëanor written in 1968 (PE/363).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin writing, I think it is best to use √GAY(AR) as the form for this root, though admittedly this does create problems for the etymologies of Q. ailin and S. ael “lake” (these would need to lean more heavily on their second ancient element: √LIN “pool”). It is not clear whether Tolkien always intended √GAY(AR) “awe, dread” and √AYA(N) “blessed” to coexist, though he did at least some of the time (for example on PE17/149). For purposes of Neo-Eldarin writing, I think it is best to assume they did coexist, with √AYA serving as the basis for “holy” words like Q. aira/S. aer “holy” and Q. Ainu, whereas √GAYA could serve as the basis for “awe, dread” words like Q. aica “fell, terrible, dire” and S. goe “terror, great fear”. Q. ëar/S. gaear “sea” would fall into the second group as a thing inspiring awe.
]]>The word S. glam “din, uproar, the confused yelling and bellowing of beasts” reappeared in the Quendi and Eldar essay written in 1959-60, where it was an element (as it was earlier) in the collective name for orcs: S. Glamhoth “Din-horde” (WJ/391). This strongly indicates that the “confused sounds” aspect of this root survived into Tolkien’s later conception of the language. However, the “echo” portion seemed to have been transferred to the unstrengthened form of this root √LAM as with (West) Sindarin loven “echoing” vs. North Sindarin lómin, which remained an element in Dor-lómin “Land of Echoes”, albeit reconceived of as a North Sindarin name (PE17/133).
]]>The Sindarin and Telerin derivatives of this root have an initial gl-, with the sole exception of S. lanc/T. lanca “sharp edge, sudden end”. According to Tolkien: “It is debated whether gl- was an initial group in Common Eldarin or was a Telerin-Sindarin innovation (much extended in Sindarin)”. For the purpose of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is probably best to assume the gl- is from Common Eldarin, to keep this root distinct from √LAN which in earlier writing was the basis for various words having to do with threads and weaving (PE17/60; Ety/LAN).
]]>Tolkien’s first primitive root for these words was ᴱ√LOU̯RI in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s (QL/51). This reflected the Early Qenya sound change whereby [ei], [ou] became [ai], [au]; later on these ancient diphthongs usually became [ī], [ū]. In this earliest conception, the root and its derivatives referred to the physical substance of “gold”, though not quite its mundane nature: Tolkien said that ᴱQ. laure was the “mystical” or “magic” name of gold as opposed to its more mundane name ᴱQ. kulu (QL/42; LT1/100).
Tolkien introduced a new root ᴹ√GLAWAR or ᴹ√LAWAR for these words in The Etymologies of the 1930s, along with the modified form for its Noldorin derivative N. glaur (Ety/GLAW(-R), LÁWAR). Tolkien said that ᴹ✶laurē referred to the “light of the golden tree Laurelin” (Ety/LÁWAR), indicating a conceptual shift in the meaning of the root to “golden light or colour” rather than “mystical gold”. Indeed, in etymological notes Tolkien wrote sometime around 1960, Tolkien said of √LAWAR: “The application to gold of this stem was poetic and referred to colour primarily ... not to material (malta)” (PE17/159).
Tolkien’s representation of this root as both √GLAWAR and √LAWAR indicates some uncertainty on whether the initial gl- was from Common Eldarin or was only a later Ancient Telerin innovation. However, in later writings Tolkien typically represented the primitive word as ✶glawar(e) (PE17/17; PE21/80; VT41/10), and in the Outline of Phonology from the early 1950s Tolkien gave the Ancient Quenya word AQ. alaurē “sheen of gold” whose vowel augment arose from an abnormal vocalization of the ancient spirantalized initial g-: *glawarē > glaurē > ʒlaurē > alaurē (PE19/79). This strongly indicates the primitive root was √GLAWAR.
]]>A pair of forms ᴱQ. kinka- “to hang (intr.)” and ᴱQ. kinkata- “hang (tr.)” in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s imply the existence of a root ᴱ√KINIKI, which may be a precursor to ᴹ√(G)LINGI.
]]>The first clear mention of this root is in The Etymologies of the 1930s where ᴹ√GOLOS is given as the basis for ᴹQ. olos(se) and N. gloss “snow, fallen snow” (Ety/GOLÓS). In later writings the root √LOS appears several times as the basis for snow words (PE17/26, 69, 160-161; RGEO/61). The last mention of this root is in notes on The Rivers and Beacon-hills of Gondor from 1967-69, where Tolkien gave the root as √(G)LOS with the underlying meaning “white”, with two distinct Sindarin derivatives S. loss “snow” [noun] and S. gloss “snow white” [adj.] (VT42/18). Given this l/gl variation in Sindarin, likely the strengthened form √GLOS was a sporadic, Sindarin-only innovation.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien gave the root as ᴹ√GONOD or √GONDO “stone” with essentially the same Elvish forms: ᴹQ. ondo and N. gonn (Ety/GOND). The root itself did not appear in later writings, but Tolkien continued to state, with great frequency, that the primitive form of the word was ✶gondō (Let/410; PE17/28; PE18/106; PE21/81; PM/374; RC/347).
]]>Nearest to the original sense is “warn”, but (a) it did not refer only to dangers, evils, or difficulties ahead; and (b) though it could be used of the influence of one person upon another by visible or audible means (words or signs) - in which case “counsel” was nearer to its sense - this was not its chief use. This can best be explained by consideration of its principal derivative. This was in Common Eldarin *gōrē: Quenya óre, Telerin ōre, Sindarin gûr (NM/219).
Tolkien went on to explain Q. órë as the source of deep emotions, that “advises, but is never represented as commanding”, roughly analogous to one’s conscience; see the entry on Q. órë for further details. Note that when this essay on órë was first published in Vinyar Tengwar 41 in the year 2000, Carl Hostetter gave the root and the primitive form as √ƷOR and *ʒōrē (VT41/11), but in his book The Nature of Middle-earth (NM) from 2021, he corrected them to √GOR and *gōrē (NM/219).
In rough notes after the main essay, Tolkien altered the root to √HOR with glosses “urge, impel, move” specifically limited to “mental impulses” (VT41/13; NM/221). This revised form might be a later iteration of ᴹ√KHOR “set going, put in motion, urge on” from The Etymologies (Ety/KHOR) as suggested by Carl Hostetter (VT41/17 note #9). Tolkien gave the Quenya derivative of this revised form as (h)óre but did not specify its Sindarin derivative (VT41/13; NM/222). In another rough note in the same bundle he gave [primitive?] hor- “warn” as the basis for T. hŏra or ora and Q. óre (VT41/15).
Neo-Eldarin: The root √HOR is problematic and difficult to reconcile with either Q. óre and S. gûr, since typically primitive h- survived in Quenya but vanished in Sindarin. I think it is preferable to assume the root remained √GOR. As for its meaning, I would assume the basic sense was “warn, council” as well as “mental impulse”, with ✶gorē serving as the source of deep-seated thoughts and emotions. This interpretation would allow the continued use of the majority of the root’s attested derivatives from both the 1930s and 1960s, including various 1930s words having to do with “haste” and “impetousness”.
]]>In Tolkien’s later writings, many of these names were given new forms or etymologies: Q. Mandos “Castle of Custody” = mando + osto (MR/350); Q. Ossë as an adaptation of his Valarin name Oš(o)šai (WJ/400); S. Tauron “Forester” (PM/358). This calls into question whether ᴹ√GOS or ᴹ√GOTH survived as a root. It does have a few useful derivatives for the purposes of Neo-Eldarin, however, such as N. gosta- “fear exceedingly”.
]]>It is possible the root ᴱ√REÞE reemerged as √REK “recover, get out/away, save from ruin/peril/loss” given in Tolkien’s later writings as the basis for S. edraith “rescue, saving” (PE17/38).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin I think it is worth positing a (Sindarin only) Neo-Root ᴺ√(G)RETH to salvage some of these Gnomish words.
]]>Thus it seems as a prefix, this root took on a distinctly negative tone in Sindarin, though some of its other derivatives were more neutral, as in S. gordh “difficult, laborious” and S. gorn “hard, stiff, thrawn”. The last of these was given as a word used for the Dwarves (PE17/46), although there were several other competing forms such as S. dern and S. dorn of similar meaning, all coined around 1959-60.
]]>This root appeared as √GWAN, √WAN and √GWAY, though the note where the last of these appeared was marked through (PE17/154). With √GWAN the root would merge with √BAN in both Quenya and Sindarin: Q. vanya and S. bain “fair and beautiful” (PE17/154). But with √WAN the two would remain distinct in Sindarin, as in bain “beautiful” vs. gwain “fair haired” (PE17/150). I find the second paradigm more interesting, and thus recommend assuming the ancient root was √WAN for the purposes of Neo-Eldarin.
This root might be a restoration of an earlier separation of ᴱ√ɃANA versus ᴱ√WANA in the Elvish languages as Tolkien conceived of them in the 1910s, though the semantic divisions in the earlier conception were not the same. See the entry on √BAN for further discussion.
]]>This connection between “fresh” and “maiden” reappeared in notes from 1959, where √GWEN was given with gloss “fair, beautiful (probably originally fresh, fair, unblemished especially of beauty of youth)” as this basis for “maiden” words (PE17/191). But Tolkien soon rejected this notion and reverted back to √WEN(ED); this may be a reflection of Tolkien’s ongoing vacillation between Q. wende versus vende as the proper Quenya word for “maiden”; wende (which seems to be his preference) would be better supported by an ancient root beginning with gw-, but that would also invalidate the Sindarin form gwend “maiden” (not **bend).
Tolkien seems to have given up on √GWEN for maiden words, and the sense “fresh” seems to have been reassigned to the root √KEW in later notes (VT48/7), so √GWEN may have been abandoned completely.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: In a 2024-08-17 post in the Vinyë Lambengolmor Discord Server (VLDS), Luinyelle suggested restoring ᴺQ. yeren “pig iron” with the added meaning “*ore”, which also implies the preservation of ᴺS. [G.] ger “ore, [unrefined] metal”. Presumably these words would be derived from a Neo-Root ᴺ√GYEREN of similar meaning.
]]>The root √ƷAN reappeared in 1968 notes with the gloss “adorn” serving as the basis for Q. antil, a word for the middle finger, perhaps being the place where rings were usually worn (VT47/26). As pointed out by Patrick Wynne this use of √ƷAN indicates it was from the period in the late 1960s where Tolkien was playing around with the form and phonetic developments of the ancient velar spirant [h] or [ɣ] (ʒ); see the discussion in the entry on how initial [ɣ] became [h] in Ancient Quenya; this was one of the more common phonetic developments Tolkien used, but he vacillated a great deal on the subject.
√ƷAN reappeared again in 1969 notes on Quenya verbs with the gloss “give”, but here it was revised to √HAN (PE22/163). Tolkien then elaborated on the meaning of √HAN, saying that its actual sense was “enhance, enrich, add to”. In this note h- was preserved in Quenya and Telerin but lost in Sindarin, and the Quenya verb anta- “give” was influenced by but not directly derived from √HAN; in Sindarin the influence was more direct. We know that √HAN reappeared at least one more time in some notes from 1970 with the gloss “add to, increase, enhance, honour (espec. by gift)” (VT43/14) but this note remains unpublished so we don’t have the full context.
Sorting through all these variations is quite difficult, especially since they are intertwined with Tolkien’s shifting notions of the initial developments of ancient ʒ- and h-, but I think the basic conceptual development is (1959) √ƷAN “extend” >> (1968) √ƷAN “adorn” >> (1969) √ƷAN “give” >> (1969-70) √HAN “add to, increase, enhance, enrich, honour”.
Outside of its influence on “give” and “gift”, √HAN has no real attested derivatives, but it has long been theorized that it is basis for the Q. hantalë “thanksgiving” in Q. Eruhantalë (UT/214). This in turn serves as the basis for the most common Neo-Eldarin words for “thanks” and “to thank”, a pretty important word for polite conversation. These words, and their role in Neo-Eldarin, have been exceptionally contentious, giving this otherwise obscure root an outsized role in debates about Tolkien’s languages.
]]>This needs correction. √ATHA = be willing, agree, consent, grant - assist, join with others[?]. It is HATHA, Q haþa- that meant treat kindly/make easy, (help to) cure (PE22/165-166, note #109).
On the back of the page Tolkien then explored various possible derivatives of the new root √HATHA, among them Q. {asea} >> aþea but also Q./T. haþa- “treat (medically)”, various Quenya words for “doctor” (aþumo >> aþar(o); aþarta) and several Sindarin forms including {gathra} >> athra, which seems to be another verb meaning “to treat medically” (PE22/166 note #110). The presence and absence of initial h- in the Quenya forms and the presence and absence of initial g- in the Sindarin forms are probably a reflection of Tolkien’s indecision in the late 1960s on the proper phonetic development of initial velar spirants in the Elvish languages; see the entry on how initial [ɣ] became [h] in Ancient Quenya for further discussion.
For the most part, Tolkien had initial primitive h- survive in Quenya, making the derivation of Q. asea “healing herb” directly from √HATHA problematic. But perhaps Tolkien intended that √HATHA was blended with √ATHA to produce asea; something similar happened with the root √HAN “add to, enhance” in these same 1969 verbal notes, which influenced Q. anta- “give” (PE22/163). In any case, √HATHA is our best source for Elvish “doctor” words, and it provides a useful semantic distinction from √ATHA which has more varied roles, serving among other things as the basis for the Sindarin future suffix -atha (PE22/167).
]]>Although there are no obvious precursors to √HEK itself in the sense “apart, separate”, Egla was long among the words Tolkien used for the Elves, along with related names like Eglamar, originally “Elfhome” and later “Home of the Eglain”. It appeared as G. Egla “being from outside” in the Gnomish Lexicon of the 1910s, based on G. eg “far away” < ᴱ√EIKA (GL/32). In the 1930s this became Ilk. Egla “Star-folk, Elf” < ᴹ√ed(e)la with the Ilkorin sound change whereby [dl] became [gl] (Ety/ELED). Thus it seems √HEK was Tolkien’s latest attempt to preserve Elga(n) as a word for Elves, though with a different meaning than its earlier incarnations.
]]>After the conceptual shift of the primitive velar spirant from ʒ to h, this root became √HO (WJ/361), and Tolkien discussed its function at length in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60. He said it “was evidently an ancient adverbial element, occurring principally as a proclitic or enclitic: proclitic, as a prefix to verb stems; and enclitic, as attached to noun stems” (WJ/368). As proclitic it formed the verbal prefix Q. hó- “away, from, from among”, as an enclitic it formed the basis of the noun inflectional suffix -o used for genitives in Quenya of the 1950s and 60s. Its role in Sindarin is less clear, given Tolkien’s later vacillations on whether or not suffixal genitives were even a part of Sindarin.
]]>There are no signs of this root in Tolkien’s later writing, and both “men” and “world” were generally derived from other roots, the latter from √MBAR “dwell”, the likeliest replacement for this root.
]]>Thus the conceptual development seems to be 1910s ᴱ√INI “tiny” >> 1930s ᴹ√ING “foremost” >> 1960s √ING “*highest”.
]]>Tolkien introduced a new derivation of indo from √IN(ID) in Quenya Notes written in 1957 (PE17/145, 189):
IN-I-D, mind, inner thought. These refer to the movements or activities of the fëa or “spirit” (rational soul). indo, inner thought, in fea as exhibited in character or [?personality]. indóme, settled character, also used of the “will” of Eru (PE17/189).
The root √IN- “inmost heart, thought, mind” with extended forms √INID and √INIS also appeared in contemporaneous Notes on Names (NN), again as the basis for indo (PE17/155).
Tolkien coined yet another etymology of Q. indo in notes written in 1969, deriving it from √NID “force, press(ure), thrust” (PE22/165). This new derivation doesn’t necessarily invalidate √INID, but rather gives a new basis for the root itself as an vocalic augment of √NID rather than an extended form of √IN-.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s there was a root ᴹ√ĪR “desirable, beautiful”, but it had no derivatives (EtyAC/ĪR). Elsewhere in the document ᴹQ. íre “desire” was derived from the root ᴹ√ID (Ety/ID), perhaps a new iteration of the (hypothetical) early root *ᴱ√ITI “precious”. This second root ᴹ√ID had various derivatives having to do with both thoughts and desires, such as ᴹQ. indo “heart, mood”, N. ind “inner thought, meaning, heart”, ᴹQ. írima “lovely, desirable”, and N. idhren “pondering, wise, thoughtful”. Among its derivatives Tolkien also gave N. Idhril, untranslated but probably meaning “*Desirable One”.
The problem with this last derivation is that in the contemporaneous narratives, Tolkien generally gave her name as Idril (SM/36, LR/141), which was the form of her name dating all the way in The Lost Tales of the 1910s (LT2/164). When writing the appendices to The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien again used Idril (LotR/1034).
This form of the name could not be derived from √ID, and Tolkien wrestled with this question in his Notes on Names (NN) written in 1957 (PE17/112). Acknowledging the problem, Tolkien first considered introducing a new root √IT “(great) enhancement” to serve as the basic of Idril, but he reversed himself, giving √ID “desire, long for” as a better basis for the name, saying: “Decision: [S.] íđril, Q Írilde”. But then he crossed all this through, and considered reintroducing √IT with a modified meaning “repeat, multiply” (PE17/112).
Based on The Shibboleth of Fëanor written 1968, it seems Tolkien stuck with the notion of basing Idril on a √IT, though he revised the meaning of the root again to “glitter” or “sparkle” (PM/363). As for √ID, the meaning “desire” seems to have been transferred back to √IR, which Tolkien gave with the gloss “desire” in notes on roots having to do with “beautiful” written in 1959-60 (PE17/155). Also, around 1957 Tolkien introduced a new root √IN-I-D to serve as the basis for Q. indo “mind” (PE17/155). The various words having to do with “thoughts” derived from 1930s ᴹ√ID may have been transferred to √IN-ID, a possibility suggested by Elaran in a Discord chat on January 26, 2018. If so, Tolkien may have abandon √ID, using only √IR and √INID going forward.
Assuming the above reasoning is correct, the conceptual development would be 1910s *ᴱ√IRI “wish, intend” >> 1930s ᴹ√ID “desire, thoughts” >> 1957 √ID “desire” >> 1959 √IR “desire”, with thought words transferred to √IN-ID (later √I-NID) and the name Idril transferred to √IT “glitter”.
]]>Tolkien seems to have abandoned this Noldorin variant, giving the root only as ᴹ√IS in The Etymologies of the 1930s (Ety/IS). In this form it continued to appear in Tolkien’s later writings (PE17/155; PE22/129; VT41/6; VT48/25). In one place Tolkien gave the root in inverted form √SI (PE22/134), and such an inversion appeared in some of its derivatives, such as Q. síma “imagination, mind” (VT49/16) and sinte the irregular past tense of Q. ista-. However, the majority of its derivatives are from √IS.
]]>The root √IT was basically a reversion to the original basis for the name G. Idril, which in the 1910s seems to have been based on a (hypothetical) root *ᴱ√ITI meaning something like “precious”. For the effects of these revisions on other roots, see the discussion in the entry for √IR “desire”.
]]>A later addition to these notes then made the rather surprising claim that “kamba is from KAM not KAB”. This seems to be supported by a Quenya verb form camnelyes “you received it” (VT47/21), where the past form camne must be from √KAM. However, the form cambelyes was written below this, possibly indicating a restoration of √KAB, as suggested by Patrick Wynne.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin I think it is best to continue to assume the existence of √KAB.
]]>This G/K variation became explicit in The Etymologies of the 1930s, where ᴹ√KAL “shine” had a Noldorin-only variant ᴹ√GAL (Ety/GAL, KAL). Tolkien did consider having a few Quenya derivatives of ᴹ√GAL, but they were all rejected (EtyAC/GAL¹). In the 1930s, it also seems the “daytime” derivatives were transferred to ᴹ√AR¹ “day” (Ety/AR¹). The root √KAL continued to appear in Tolkien’s later writings, variously glossed “shine”, “light” and “be bright”, with such frequency that it is impractical to list all the references. Likewise Tolkien continued to refer to the Sindarin-only variant √GAL on a regular basis; see that entry for details.
The root √KAL had a couple of extended forms of note, in particular √KALAR glossed “be radiant” in the 1930s (PE18/62), also appearing in the vowel-suppressed variant ᴹ√AKLA(R) “radiance, splendour” which served as the basis for Q. alcar/S. aglar “glory, brilliance, splendour, radiance” (PE17/105, 124; PE18/36, 87; VT47/13; Ety/AKLA-R, KALAR); in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s this variant root was given as ᴱ√ḶKḶ instead (QL/30). Tolkien frequently used the extension √KALAT as the representation of triconsontal roots (PE18/33, 86; WJ/392), though the only derivative he ever gave for it was ✶kalatta “a light, lamp” (PE21/80).
]]>There is another unglossed early root ᴱ√KAMA² from the Qenya Lexicon whose derivatives are mostly different types of red flowers, but there are no signs of √KAM being used for this purpose in Tolkien’s later writing.
The next published appearance of ᴹ√KAM was in the 1930s with the gloss “bind, join” to serve as the basis for ᴹQ. okamna “diphthong” (VT44/13), which replaced (o)samna “diphthong” (< ᴹ√SAM) from The Etymologies, only to be replaced again in the 1960s by Q. ohlon (VT39/9; VT48/29). Thus the meaning “bind, join” for √KAM may have been abandoned as well.
The final published appearances of √KAM as a root were in various etymological notes from the late 1960s. In a couple notes it appeared with glosses “fit, suit, agree” and “suit, fit, be agreeable” and a derived (probably primitive) verb ✶kamta- “to (make) fit, suit, accomodate, adapt” (VT44/14). In notes associated with hands and finger written in 1968, Tolkien proposed √KAM as a replacement for √KAB “hold, contain, retain” from which the words Q. camba/S. cam “(cupped) hand” were derived (VT47/20). It also had a derived verb form camnelyes “you received it” (*cam- “receive”), with nasal-suffixed past form camne- (VT47/21). The verb form was replaced by cambelyes, which might indicate a restoration of √KAB with nasal-infixed past form cambe- (*cav- “receive”), as suggested by Patrick Wynne.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume that √KAM as a replacement for √KAB was a transient idea, allowing us to use √KAM with the sense “fit, suit, be agreeable” instead.
]]>It appeared again in Notes on Names (NN) from 1957 with the gloss {“govern, manage” >>} “lead” (PE17/113), but in this document it was ultimately replaced by √KON which could serve as the basis for both -gon in Fingon/Turgon as well -gond [<< -gund] in the name Felegond [<< Felagund] (PE17/118). This √KON (and Felegond) seems to have been transient, and the root √KAN reappeared with the sense “ruler” in a 1967 notes on the derivation of Q. Incánus “Mind Master”, where Tolkien again mentioned in passing its use in deriving -gon in Fingon/Turgon (UT/400).
A new interpretation for this root appeared in The Shibboleth of Fëanor written in 1968. Tolkien there stated that √KAN originally meant “cry, call aloud”, and was used only for this purpose in Sindarin (PM/361-362, note #36). In Quenya, however, it shifted to primarily have the sense “command” which served as the basis for Q. cáno “commander, chief” as an element in the names Q. Findecáno and Q. Turucáno (PM/345). These were adapted phonetically into Sindarin as Fingon/Turgon, and the suffix -gon was perhaps interpreted as “-lord” in other names, such as Felagon “Fair-minded Lord”: a Sindarization of Felagund which in 1959 notes had been redefined as a loan word from Khuzdul (PM/352).
Thus, while √KAN was generally the basis for -gon, it went through many different interpretations in Tolkien’s life: 1930s “dare” >> 1957 “lead” >> 1967 “ruler” >> 1968 “cry, call aloud” with the Quenya-only sense “command”. This conceptual evolution makes a hash of other derivatives of the root, particularly those appearing in The Etymologies of the 1930s which have mainly to do with boldness and daring. √KAN is also one of the better candidates for the derivation of S. caun “prince”, but that’s incompatible with the 1968 notion that the root meant only “cry, call aloud” in Sindarin, and indeed those notes gave another meaning to caun: “outcry, clamour” (PM/362).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think the 1930s derivatives from ᴹ√KAN “dare” are probably best avoided, and using derivatives of ᴹ√BER “valiant” is preferable.
]]>The root ᴹ√KARPA appeared unglossed in the first version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ1) from the 1930s as an example of a KALTA-stem root, but whether it was related to earlier √KṚPṚ is unclear. Possibly also related is N. carab “hat”, appearing in N. Amon Carab which was an earlier name of S. Amon Rûdh.
Finally, the root √KARAP appeared in notes probably dating to the early 1960s, serving as the basis for various “speech” words such as Q. carpa-/S. carfa- “talk, speak, use tongue”, but that root was probably replaced by √PAKAT (PE17/126). Given the muddled history of this root, I would mostly avoid its use for purposes of Neo-Eldarin, though it is needed to justify N. carab “hat”.
]]>The root ᴹ√KAS “head” reappeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s, still with the form ᴹQ. kár (kas-) “head” (Ety/KAS), but Tolkien eventually abandoned the Early Qenya phonology and the Quenya form became Q. kas after some vacillation (PE19/103). The root √KAS “head” continued to appear frequently in Tolkien’s later writing (PE17/114; PE21/70; VT42/12).
]]>The only published root with form similar to √KAWA prior to 1950 is ᴱ√KAẆA “stoop” from the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s (QL/45), also appearing as kava- or cava- in the contemporaneous Gnomish Lexicon (GL/25, 27). The Ẇ is Tolkien’s usual representation of derivatives of ancient labialized velar spirants [ɣʷ] or [xʷ] (PE12/15-16). The derivatives of this root included words like ᴱQ. kauko/G. caug “humpback” and ᴱQ. kawa-/G. cam(m)a- “bow”, so it seems to have no connection to later √KAW other than its similarity in form.
]]>The root √KAWAK is probably a later iteration of the root ᴱ√QAHA or ᴱ√QAQA from the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s, unglossed but with derivatives likes ᴱQ. qá “duck” and ᴱQ. qaqa- “quack, squawk, cackle” (QL/76). This root is probably also the basis for ᴱQ. qaine “wailing” from the phrase ᴱQ. ve maiwin qaine “like gulls wailing” in the ᴱQ. Oilima Markirya poem written around 1930 (MC/213), and so perhaps actually meaning something more like “*squawking”.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think the 1910s derivatives of ᴱ√QA(QA) could be salvaged as derivatives of √KAWAK > ✶k(a)wa(k), but I think the 1959-60 Q. quáco “crow” is too close in form to late 1960s quácë “frog”, so I recommend using 1930s ᴹQ. korko for “crow” instead. I suspect √K(A)WAK is a Quenya-only root, since phonetic changes (kwa- > pa-) would have ruined the onomatopoeic nature of the root in Sindarin.
]]>The root ᴹ√KAY “lie down” reappeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s (Ety/KAY), and it appeared again in the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948 as the basis for the verb ᴹQ. kaita- “to lie (down)” (PE22/126). The root and associated Quenya verb continued to appear in Tolkien’s later writings all the way up through the late 1960s, always with the sense “lie” (PE17/72; PE22/156).
]]>In notes written in 1967, Tolkien gave what was apparently an inverted form of this root, √ek “it is open”, from which the impersonal Quenya verb ec- “may, can” in the sense “have the opportunity to” is derived (VT49/20). This inverted form is almost certainly related to √KE, as suggested by Patrick Wynne.
]]>The root ᴹ√KEL reappeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s where it seems to have an added connotation of “flow downwards”, given its gloss “go, run (especially of water), flow away downhill” (Ety/KEL). This more specific meaning to the root continued to appear in later writings, with glosses such as 1930s “flow, flow away, run (of rivers)” (PE18/58), 1940s “run away especially downwards or at end” (PE22/114), 1950s “go away, flow away or flow down (of water)” (PE18/103), and 1960s “flow (down)” (PE17/157). The u-extension ✶kelu with the (continuative?) sense “flow, well up” remained common throughout all these periods as well (PE18/86; PE22/98, 133, 135).
Starting with The Etymologies of the 1930s, Tolkien compared this root with etymological variants √KWEL “fade (away), die away, grow faint” and √KYEL “come to an end, cease, run out” (Ety/KWEL, KYEL; PE18/58, 103), and indeed Tolkien used it as one of his basic examples of such etymological variations:
There existed in Quenderin 1. √KEL “flow, flow away, run (of rivers)”. Of this simple base, since the initial variation is possible, while the sundóma is the same 2. √KJEL “cease, come to an end”, and 3. √KWEL “fade, die away, grow faint” may be regarded as differentiated variants (second version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa, TQ2, circa 1950, PE18/103).
A similar note appeared in the first version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ1) from the 1930s (PE18/58). Likewise ✶kelu was one of his main examples of variant vocalic extensions:
This “variant extension” always had the form i or u. It appears in many cases where its original function is no longer discoverable, if indeed that was more than to serve as a euphonic connecting link to affixes. But the added element [u] often appears as a differentiator as in kel¹-u beside kel², and some old verbs have a fixed u as the end of their base (TQ2, PE18/86).
In the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60, it seems that √KYEL “end” was replaced by √TEL “close, end, come to an end” (WJ/411) as indicated by the replacement of 1930s ᴹQ. tyelma “ending” (LR/72) by later Q. telma “conclusion” (WJ/411). In a 1967 note the etymological variant √KYEL seems to have been assigned a new meaning “go down slowly”, which served as the basis for Q. tyellë “grade, a step in a stairway or ladder” (PE17/157).
To summarize, the base root √KEL meant “flow (down)” for pretty much all of Tolkien’s life, usually used with a variant vocalic extension √KELU, and starting in the 1930s it had etymological variants √KWEL and √KYEL, with √KWEL always meaning “fade (away), die” and √KYEL meaning “cease, end” from the 1930s to 40s, but changing to “go down slowly” sometime between the 1950 and 1967 (but probably before the 1st edition of LotR), with “end” being reassigned to √TEL by 1960. See the entry on √TEL for further discussion of those developments.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s there is a later root ᴹ√PIW “spit” which may have supplanted ᴱ√K(E)REKE, but the derivatives of ᴹ√PIW are only verbal and I think it worth positing the existence of a Neo-Eldarin noun root ᴺ√K(E)REK “spittle” to salvage the Gnomish words, especially those having to do with contempt.
]]>Tolkien’s revision of √KHAG “pile up” > √KHAB may have been motivated by changing conceptions of the vocalization of voiced spirants in Noldorin vs. Sindarin: see the entry on how the first in pair of voiced stops vocalized for further discussion. Compare the earlier development khagda > *khāda > N. hauð “mound” from The Etymologies of the 1930s to the newer development khagda > *khaida > haeð “fenced enclosure” derived from the newly defined root √KHAG¹ “stake”, also appearing in these post-1959 revisions of OP2 (PE19/91). As for the roots themselves, it seems 1930s ᴹ√KHAG “pile up” >> post-1959 √KHAB “pile up”, whereas √KHAG was given the new meaning “stake”. Also note that in all of these derivations from the 1930s up through the late 1950s of S./N. haudh “(funeral) mound”, the Sindarin/Noldorin word was influenced by the root √KHAW(AD) of various meanings; see that entry for details.
As for √KHAB, it also appears to be the basis for some 1968 primitive words: ✶khābā “unleavened bread” (originally from any vegetable, later just bread from grains) and ✶khabar “a loaf or cake of bread” (NM/295), perhaps referring to the stockpiling of grains as suggested by Röandil in a Discord chat from 2021.
]]>As for √KHAD and √KHAM, their clearest antecedents in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s were ᴱ√HAÐA “cleave, remain” and ᴱ√HAM (QL/39), the latter without gloss but with derivatives having to do with the ground such as ᴱQ. hamba “on the ground” and G. ham “ground” (QL/39; GL/48). Some variant of ᴱ√HAÐA seems to have drifted in the direction of “sit” based on ᴱN. haud “seat” from Early Noldorin word lists of the 1920s (PE13/147, 155).
Tolkien initially used the root ᴹ√KHAD for words having to do with “sit” and “seat” in The Etymologies of the 1930s (EtyAC/KHAM), but it was replaced by ᴹ√KHAM “sit” (Ety/KHAM) and this root seems to have survived for some time, since ᴹ√KHAM “sit down” appeared in the Quenya Verbal System from 1948 (PE22/103). However, at some point Tolkien added a new root ᴹ√KHAM² “call to, summon, name by name” to The Etymologies, and in this new entry he said “KHAM sit (replacing KHAD, cancelled)” indicating ᴹ√KHAD was restored (EtyAC/KHAM²). This seems to represent an ongoing vacillation between √KHAD and √KHAM in the 1930s and 40s.
However, √KHAD “sit” appeared in the second version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa written around 1950 (PE18/95), Q. hárar “sit” (not **hámar) appears in Cirion’s Oath (UT/305), and in late notes on verbs from 1969 Tolkien had ✶khadmā “seat” as the basis for Q. hanw̃a S. haðw (PE22/148). There are no signs of √KHAM “sit” in this period, so it seems Tolkien chose √KHAD for “sit” in the 1950s and 60s.
Neo-Eldarin: I think √KHAD “sit” is the best choice for Neo-Eldarin, since it also lets us use ᴹ√KHAM² “call to, summon, name by name” more freely.
]]>It is a useful root for purposes of Neo-Eldarin, however, and I think it is worth retaining.
]]>It is unlikely that all these uses of √KHAN coexisted, but I think at a minimum both √KHAN “brother” and ᴹ√KHAN “understand, comprehend” should be retained for the purposes of Neo-Eldarin, as the latter has no good replacements in Tolkien’s later writing. As for hanquenta “answer”, it might be reinterpreted as “a saying providing understanding”, and so be derived from ᴹ√KHAN “understand”.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is useful to retain the 1930s sense “enfold”, since it is the basis for various Noldorin words having to do with “clothing” for which we have no clear replacements. I would assume the base meaning was “bind, enfold”, with “retain, keep, detain” only by extension and confusion with √KHEP. I would ignore the strongest sense “deprive of liberty”.
]]>The root reappeared again in revisions made to the Outline of Phonology (OP2) around 1959 with a new gloss “cover up, hide away, lay in store”, along with an extended root √KHAWAD “store, hoard” that continued to influence S. haudh “(funeral) mound” (PE19/91). The root √KHAW² >> √KHAWA also appeared in a page of roots having to do with “large and small” probably from around 1968 (VT47/26 note #26), with the derivatives Q. höa “big, large” and Q. haura “huge” (PE17/115).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think the 1930s meaning “rest, lie at ease” is probably most useful, and I would limit the meaning “lay in store” to its extended root √KHAWAD. As for the meaning “big”, I would limit it to (Quenya-only) Q. höa.
]]>The root reappeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s as ᴹ√KHEL “freeze” and extended root ᴹ√KHELEK “ice”, with the reappearance of many derived forms as well such as ᴹQ. helke/N. heleg “ice” and ᴹQ. helka/N. helch “ice-cold” (Ety/KHEL). Tolkien’s continued use of words like Q. Helcaraxë “Grinding Ice” indicate the ongoing validity of the extended root √KHELEK (S/134), and the shorter root √KHEL “ice” appeared in later notes of the origin of S. Forochel (PE17/116).
]]>The derived forms arose earlier, with ᴱQ. hen “eye” appearing in The Qenya Phonology of the 1910s, but there it was a derivative of ᴱ√þeχe > þχe-ndǝ > hen (PE12/21). Indeed, the majority of the derivatives of this early root show s- in Qenya, and the root was given as ᴱ√SEHE or ᴱ√SE’E in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s (QL/82). Contemporaneous forms in the Gnomish Lexicon such as G. thê- “see” and G. thest “sight” (GL/72), but G. sî¹ “bead, small gem or pearl” may also be related, perhaps indicate a blending between ᴱ√SEHE and ᴱ√ÞEHE [þeχe].
The word G. hen “eye” also appeared in the Gnomish Lexicon (GL/48), probably with an origin similar to ᴱQ. hen, and these two words reappeared in Early Noldorin word lists from the 1920s, but as a derivative of ✶ske-ndá (PE13/147). Thus it seems the initial combination evolved from the 1910s þχ- >> 1920s sk- >> 1930s kh-. In the 1930s, the base root ᴹ√KHEN meant “see”, but Tolkien established a distinct root √KEN “see” by the 1940s (PE22/103), and in notes from 1955 Tolkien described √KHEN as “base of eyewords” without mentioning sight (PE17/187).
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, some derivatives of this 1910s root might be salvaged as derivatives of later √KHEP.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s these last two Gnomish words became N. hîr “master” and N. hiril “lady” as derivatives of ᴹ√KHER “rule, govern, possess”; the words ᴹQ. heru/ᴹQ. heri reappeared as well (Ety/KHER). All four of these words reappeared frequently in Tolkien’s later writing, though S. hîr was more typically glossed “lord” (PM/210; SD/129; VT41/9; Let/382; UT/318). The root √KHER itself reappeared in a 1954 letter to Naomi Mitchison with the gloss “possess” (Let/178).
]]>Neo-Eldarin: I would adapt this as a Neo-Root ᴺ√KHETH “sibling, consanguinity” to serve as the basis for gender-neutral “sibling” words.
]]>The root reappeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s as ᴹ√KHIL “follow”, its most notable derivative being ᴹQ. Hildi “followers, mortal men” as the second (following) race that were the children of Eru (Ety/KHIL). In later writings this name for Men became Q. Hildor “Followers” (S/103). The root √KHIL “follow” continued to appear in Tolkien’s later writings (PE17/18, 101, 157; WJ/387).
In The Etymologies ᴹ√KHIL had no Noldorin derivatives, and in the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60 Tolkien said “the stem *KHILI ‘follow’ was not current in Sindarin” (WJ/387). Elsewhere, however, it is clearly evident as the basis for several Sindarin words, such as echil “follower(s)” (WJ/219) and Eluchíl “Thingol’s Heir” (S/188). It was also used with the sense “heir” in the phrase: Q. sinomë maruvan ar Hildinyar tenn’ Ambar-metta “in this place will I abide, and my heirs (hildë 1st-person-possessive plural), unto the ending of the world” (LotR/967), connecting back to its earliest meaning.
]]>The sense “haze” and “mist” for ᴱQ. híse first appeared in drafts of the Oilima Markirya poem (PE16/62, 75). In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien gave this root as ᴹ√KHITH with variant ᴹ√KHIS and the gloss “mist, fog”; ᴹ√KHIS was listed first but all the actual derivatives were from ᴹ√KHITH (Ety/KHIS). The root appeared again in Notes on Galadriel’s Song from the late 1950s or early 1960s as √KHIΘ “mist” (NGS, PE17/73).
Tolkien’s continued use of Q. Hísilómë and (Northern) S. Hithlum throughout his life testifies to the enduring nature of this root, though it seems to have shifted in sense from 1910s “*shadow” to 1930s “mist”, and from s to th.
]]>In the Declension of Nouns from the early 1930s, Tolkien gave the words as ᴹQ. hōn “heart” with stem-form hom-, indicating that the final consonant of the primitive form was revised to -m. However, in The Etymologies of the mid-to-late 1930s the root was ᴹ√KHŌ-N “heart (physical)” (Ety/KHŌ-N), and in Primitive Quendian Structure from 1936 it was ᴹ✶khōn “heart”, and likewise in Primitive Quendian Structure: Final Consonants (PE22/64) and Notes for Quenya Declensions (PE22/66) from the 1940s, though in the last it was revised to ᴹ✶hōn (PE22/66 note #4).
The form ✶khō-n “heart” reappeared in Common Eldarin: Noun Structure from 1951-2 (PE21/71), but in Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the early 1950s Tolkien wrote CE ✶khōm “heart” (PE19/102). In notes from 1968 he again gave ✶khom as the basis for the physical heart, though in another note written at the same time, it was ✶khōn or ✶khond (NM/176 and note #2).
In a green-ink marginal note to the Outline of Phonology (OP2), Tolkien wrote:
Cf. holmo > khomlo “from the heart” us[ed] as adverb, sincerely, (?heartily). N.B. CE khō̆m, heart, is not the physical heart, but “the interior” used of the whole range of emotions or feelings. [It] is distinct from indo (?applied) to interior reflection[?] or mind (PE19/97).
These green-ink revisions were circa 1970, so this may be the last thing Tolkien wrote on the topic. It seems the conceptual history for the forms of this root was 1910s √HON >> early 1930s √HOM >> mid 1930s-early 50s √KHON >> mid 1950s-1970 √KHOM, with a (brief?) flirtation with √KHON in 1968. The switch from physical to metaphorical heart seems to be a very late idea (1970), and I would ignore it for purposes of Neo-Eldarin.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is preferable to retain ᴹ√KHOR and its derivatives from the 1930s, since they are fairly distinct in meaning and the later root √HOR presents a number of phonological difficulties, and I prefer its earlier form √GOR.
]]>The verb form ᴱQ. hosta- “gather” appeared in the Early Qenya Grammar of the 1920s (PE14/33-34), and the root ᴹ√KHOTH “gather” appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s with derivatives similar to its earlier iteration: ᴹQ. hosto “crowd, assembly”, N. hoth “host, crowd” and ᴹQ. hosta- “to collect” (Ety/KHOTH). The root √KHOT “gather, together in confusion, jumble” appeared in etymological notes from the late 1950s or early 1960s where it was the basis for S. hoth “host” and Q. hosta- “gather hastily together, pile up” (PE17/39). The Quenya verb reappeared with the gloss “gather” in the Markirya poem from the late 1960s (MC/222), indicating the continued validity of the root. The various derivatives of the root could be from either √KHOT or √KHOTH, so the actual primitive form is mostly academic.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s, Tolkien derived N. Huan and a number of other dog-words, first from an (unglossed) extended root ᴹ√KHUGAN, and then from ᴹ√KHUG “bark, bay” (Ety/KHUGAN). In their Reader’s Companion to the Lord of the Rings, Wayne Hammond and Christina Scull said:
The first element of Huorn could be derived from the base KHUG- “bark, bay”, which appears to be supported by unpublished etymological notes by Tolkien (RC/425).
Hammond and Scull did not further describe these notes so we don’t know whether it actually contained √KHUG, but I think it is likely that these “unpublished notes” refer to the etymology of Huorn on PE17/86, which does not contain √KHUG but does have Q. hú “hound” (the word’s gloss is unclear and might be “heart” according to Christopher Gilson).
]]>In the Early Qenya Grammar, the “other” words were based on ᴱQ. etya (comparative) and ᴱQ. nyanya (general), but these words were on a page of demonstratives and their primitive basis isn’t clear (PE14/55). The first version of Quenya Personal Pronouns (QPP1) from the late 1940s had ᴹ√ETHE “other” as the basis for the “other person” pronoun ᴹQ. the, along with a rarer “[yet another] person” pronoun he (PE23/91), but there are no signs of the past 1948. The next published “or” word was S. egor from the King’s Letter in the omitted epilogue to The Lord of the Rings, written in 1948-1951 (SD/129).
The next set of “or/other” words do not appear until the 1960s. The primitive form ✶khē̆ appears in notes on reflexives from 1965 as the basis for Q. hé “him, the other” (VT49/15), probably a holdover from the 1948 pronoun he mentioned above (PE23/91). In rough notes on numbers written in the late 1960s, Tolkien gave the possibly-related root √KES “other”, with derivatives Q. exa “other” and Q. exe “the other”, apparently adjective and noun (VT47/40). Finally in some notes written in 1968 or later, Tolkien gave the primitive element √KHY- “other”, with derivatives Q. hye “other person”, Q. hya “other thing”, and Q. hyana “other [adjective]” (VT49/14).
These primitive forms also seem to be connected to various words Tolkien considered for “or” in the Ambidexters Sentence composed in 1969: khe >> hela >> hya (VT49/14). Patrick Wynne suggested the first two of these might be connected to 1965 ✶khē̆, and the last one to 1968+ √KHY-. This last root may also be connected to Q. ahya- “change” (circa 1960); if so Tolkien may have been vacillating among various possible forms throughout the 1960s.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is better to use √KHY- and its derivatives, since they are a more comprehensive paradigm including the best available Quenya word for “or”.
]]>In etymological notes from 1969 Tolkien gave √KIL “choose, select” vs. √KIM “edge, brink of”, along with various derivatives of √KIL having to do with choices (PE22/149). One of these, Q. cilmë, appeared as an element in words from several essays on Elvish names from the 1950s and 60s: Q. Essecilmë “[Ceremony of] Name-choosing” (MR/214; PE21/84) and Q. kilmessi “self-names, names of personal choice” (PM/339). But it seems even in the 1969 note mentioned above that Tolkien was considering the earlier senses of the root, since he first gave √KIL/√KILIM as the basis for edge words before revising them to √KIM (PE22/149 note #26).
The difference in sense is not that great between 1910s ᴱ√KILI “edge” >> 1930s ᴹ√KIL “separate” >> 1960s √KIL “choose”, so Tolkien’s conceptual shifts on the meaning of this root seem to be gradual, with him still considering the earlier meanings into the late 1960s.
]]>Finally in notes from 1969 Tolkien gave √KIM “edge, brink of”, replacing deleted forms √KIL and √KILIM, with the root √KIL being reassigned the meaning “choose, select” (which seems to be the normal meaning of √KIL throughout the 1950s and 60s). Note that the early root ᴱ√KILI the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s also meant “edge”, but somewhat interestly there is a Gnomish word G. cim “blade”, perhaps indicating that this vacillation between √KIM vs. √KIL for “edge” had a longer history in Tolkien’s conceptual development of the languages.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would recommend using √KIM = “edge” and √KIL = “choose”.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root became ᴹ√KIR “cleave” with extended forms ᴹ√KIRIK (unglossed but probably meaning “*reap”) and ᴹ√KIRIS “cut”, the latter by way of combination with ᴹ√RIS “slash, rip” (Ety/KIR, KIRIK, KIRIS, RIS). One of the notable derivatives of this root was ᴹQ. kirya “ship” (Ety/KIR), a word that appeared as far back as the Early Qenya Grammar of the 1920s (PE14/46). Noldorin and Sindarin cognates of this word also appeared, varying from N. ceir “ship” to S. cair due to shifts in Tolkien’s conception of the phonetic development of diphthongs in the Sindarin branch of Elvish.
√KIR “cut” appeared regularly in Tolkien’s later writings (PE17/73, 87; VT42/13; WJ/392), and the validity of the extended forms √KIRIK and √KIRIS is indicated by Tolkien’s continued use of words like Q. Valacirca “Sickle of the Valar” (S/48) and S. Orcrist “Orc-cleaver” (LotR/280). One later derivative of interest was S. certh “rune” (LotR/1123), which in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60 Tolkien said was derived from √KIR, the vowel change being the result of a-affection, and the Quenya form Q. certa being a loan from Sindarin (WJ/396). Rather cryptically in this essay Tolkien gave the primitive form as ✶kirtē “cutting”, so perhaps the Sindarin word was derived from an adjectival variant.
Tolkien revisited the question of the origin of S. certh in notes from 1969:
certar, LR III 395, could be emended in text to cirtar, and Certhas be held a late formation as it was. ... Phonology cannot be altered, since we have elenī > elin not ilin.
KIR. rather a mess here. LR has certar = cirth, and we have Angerthas, therefore √KER is indicated, & comparison with kirya is not in point of fact likely! Easy to say √KER = cut with tool/weapon, but √KIR = ? shave; skim (surface), slip along, glide quickly, and kirya is really an adj. = swift gliding. But what of Cirith. {Here we could say -itt.} e > i only before vanishing ī/j (PE22/150 and note #37).
Here Tolkien seems to be troubled again by the fact that Q. certa and S. certh are not direct cognates, and considered reorganizing the roots as √KER “cut” and √KIR “glide” (to allow the continued use of cirya “ship”), but then immediately recognized a problem with S. cirith “cleft, ravine” as in Cirith Ungol. Thus he seems to have abandoned this line of reasoning, leaving the 1959-60 notion that Q. certa is a loan from Sindarin as the most likely explanation. It is rather shocking to see how far he thought about going to “resolve” this problem, even considering a change in the basic rules of Sindarin phonology to allow i-affection of e > i in syllables other than those immediately before final i, which would have made keritt(e) > cirith possible.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I recommend against using the Quenya derivative of this root, as there are other better-known Quenya words for “small”. In Sindarin, however, we have fewer options, and I think it is worth retaining this root for that branch of the Eldarin languages.
]]>I think it is worth preserving this root for purposes of Neo-Eldarin, but the only way I see to preserve a similar k/t variation in the phonetic systems of later Quenya and Sindarin is to posit a root inversion to √TIK in the Sindarin branch, as in the inversion of the CE root √LED’s to √DEL in Quenya (WJ/363).
]]>The root ᴹ√KOP appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s, but Tolkien seems to have abandoned it in favor of ᴹ√KHOP, changing ᴹQ. kópa “harbour, bay” to ᴹQ. hópa/N. hûb “haven, harbour, small landlocked bay” (Ety/KHOP, KOP). In draft maps for Gondor from the 1940s, however, Tolkien gave N. Cobas “Haven” (TI/312, WR/434). Finally, in notes from the late 1960s Tolkien had S. côf “bay” in Côf Belfalas, the Sindarin name for the “Bay of Belfalas”, though the paragraph where it appeared was struck through (VT42/15). As suggested by Carl Hostetter, côf was probably derived from a variant of earlier ᴹ√KOP (VT42/29 note #36), perhaps *√KOB.
Thus it seems the conceptual evolution of this root was 1910s *ᴱ√GOPO >> 1920s ᴱ√KOPO >> 1930s ᴹ√KHOP >> 1940s *ᴹ√KOP >> 1960s *√KOB. Given Tolkien’s extreme vacillations on the form of this root, it is probably best avoided for purposes of Neo-Eldarin, but if you do use it I recommend sticking with the derivatives of 1930s ᴹ√KHOP, since those are likely most recognizable to readers of Elvish.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think these early words may be reimagined as derivatives of √KOL “bear”.
]]>The root √KOL appeared regularly in Tolkien’s writing in the 1950s and 60s with glosses like “bear, carry” and derivatives of similar meaning (PE17/145, 158; PE22/152, 155; VT39/10). This new meaning of the root was anchored in the words Q. colindo “bearer” as in Q. Cormacolindor “Ring-bearers” (LotR/953), as well as S. coll “cloak” in S. Thingol “Grey-cloak” (PE17/72). In notes from 1969, Tolkien clarified that the root referred “to the ability to support weight or a burden, physical or mental, not necessarily to transporting it” (PE22/155).
]]>There is another primitive form ✶k(a)wāk used as the basis for “crow” in the Quendi and Eldar of 1959-60 (WJ/395), but even later this primitive form was the basis for Q. quácë “frog” (VT47/36); see the entry on √KAWAK for discussion. As a result, I think earlier ᴹ√KORKA is probably the best choice for “crow” words for the purpose of Neo-Eldarin.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root became ᴹ√KOT “strive, quarrel”, soon revised to ᴹ√KOTH, with derivatives in both Quenya and Noldorin (Ety/KOT). One important new derivative of this root was N. Morgoth “Black Foe”, the first time this name was given a clear etymology, though the name G. Morgoth itself dates back to the earliest Lost Tales (LT2/67). In the first version of the Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ1), also written in the 1930s, Tolkien gave ᴹ√KHOT “be wroth, quarrel” as the basis for ᴹQ. ohta “war” (PE18/62). The root form √KHOT also appeared in the second version of the Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ2) written around 1950, in one place as revision of a deleted form √KOT; the gloss likewise was changed from “be wroth, quarrel” to “hate” (PE18/85 note #72, PE18/87 and note #77).
In the Outline of Phonology (OP2), Tolkien described a new etymology for the name of Morgoth, basing it on ancient ✶Moriñgotho “Black Foe” = ✶mori + ✶ñgothō; in “modern” Quenya this came to be Q. Morños/t [þ], pronounced morgos/t (PE19/81). Although Tolkien began composing OP2 in the early 1950s, this particular section was a revision written in red ink and thus was later, and it had some additional changes in green ink which Tolkien used to revise OP2 in 1970 (PE19/81 note #65). As Christopher Gilson suggested, the new etymology was certainly connected to the following passage in the later drafts of the Silmarillion:
Then suddenly Feanor rose, and lifting up his hand before Manwë he cursed Melkor, naming him Morgoth, the Black Foe of the world. [In an author’s footnote] By that name only was he known to the Eldar ever after. (In the ancient form used by Feanor it was Moriñgotho.) (MR/295).
This new etymology might reflect a change of this root to *√ÑGOT(H), but it seems Tolkien was not fully committed to this change in the 1950s and 60s. In the Ambidexters Sentence from 1969 Tolkien switched Q. Moringotto to Morikotto before settling on Melkor (VT49/6). There is also the name S. Thuringud “Hidden Foe” from late Silmarillion drafts (WJ/256) whose final element -gud “foe” may well be derived from √KOT (*kōt(e)) as suggested by Patrick Wynne (VT49/25). Thus Tolkien seems to have vacillated on the exact form of this root frequently over his lifetime.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume this root is √KOT, as this preserves the largest number of attested words as Tolkien wrote them, the only major exception being Moringotto. Likewise, I believe the ancient sense “strife, quarrel” is more compatible with attested words than “hate”.
]]>Rather than eliminate all of these derivatives, this entry uses the unattested form ✶kottō as the primitive word for "foe".
]]>There is confusion between QIV-, QIPI-, KOI̯-(VI) or perhaps original connection. They are more confused in Qenya. Note Qenya confusion between koiva (lively, living), Qîva (awake) and similarly koivie, qîvie, liveliness, awakening, respectively (GL/29).
There are no direct signs of ᴱ√QIVI or ᴱ√QIPI in the Qenya Lexicon, so Tolkien may have introduced or refined this notion in the Gnomish Lexicon.
In The Etymologies of the 1930s, Tolkien gave only the root ᴹ√KUY “come to life, awake”, which had both Quenya and Noldorin derivatives connected to both senses “life” and “awakeness” (Ety/KUY). However, in the Quenya Verbal System Tolkien gave ᴹ√KOY [√KOJ] as the basis for “life” words (PE22/125). In the 1940s, 50s and early 60s there were quite a few Quenya “life” words that must have been derived from √KOY:
In this same period, Tolkien continued to use derivatives of √KUY for words having to do with being “awake”, most notably in Q. Cuiviénen “Water of Awakening” (<< ᴱQ. Koivie-néni). In Common Eldarin: Verb Structure from the early 1950s he gave √KOJ as the root for “life” versus √KUJ as the root for “awake” (PE22/135). In notes from 1957 Tolkien said √KUY meant “awake not live” (NM/274).
Later, however, he seems to have changed his mind, and Quenya “life” words again started to show cui-, such as kuivie “life” in notes on The Rivers and Beacon-hills of Gondor from 1967-69 (VT42/8). In Late Notes on Verbs from 1969, Tolkien again gave the root √KUY and the verb Q. kuita- for “live” (PE22/154, 156), and Q. cuima “animal” from these same notes was probably also based on √KUY “life”. To summarize, the conceptual development seems to be 1910s ᴱ√KOẎO “have life” (blended with ᴱ√QIVI and ᴱ√QIPI “awake”) >> 1930s ᴹ√KUY “life, awake” >> 1940s through early 1960s √KOY “life” vs. √KUY “awake” >> late 1960s √KUY “life” (and probably also “awake”).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to retain the distinct √KOY “life” and √KUY “awake”, especially given the appearance of coirë “stirring” in The Lord of the Rings, which must be from √KOY. These late vacillations makes almost no difference in Sindarin, since the roots √KOY and √KUY would have blended in cui- because [oi] became [ui] in Sindarin as it did in Gnomish.
]]>These roots were the basis of G. Cûm a Gumlaith “Mound of the First Sorrow” which later became N. Cûm-na-Dengin “Mound of Slain” (SM/312, LR/147). Eventually this name became Haudh-en-Ndengin “Mound of the Slain”, indicating that ᴹ√KUB was abandoned for this purpose. Indeed, in later writings Tolkien instead gave √KUB as “hide, secrete” instead (PE22/155).
]]>The probably-related root ᴹ√KUB “bow” appeared in the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948 (PE22/102); ᴹQ. nukumna “humbled (?under-bowed)” from this period may also be related (SD/246). In notes from the late 1950s or early 1960s Tolkien gave ✶kūma, Q. cúma and S. cû(f) next to Q. lúva “bow, bight (not for shooting)” < √LUB “bend”, so presumably cúma/cû was “bow (for shooting)” (PE17/122). Finally Q. cúna “bent, curved” appeared in notes associated with the version of the Q. Markirya poem from the late 1960s, along with a verb form cúna- “to bend” (MC/222-223).
These variations make it difficult to determine what Tolkien intended the root to mean, but for purposes of Neo-Eldarin I would assume a base root of √KU(Ʒ) or √KU(H) with perhaps a verbal variant √KUB based on its use in the 1940s, and with the primitive sense “bow, bend”.
]]>Tolkien’s continued use of names like Q. Culúrien (S/38) and Q. culumalda “tree with hanging yellow blossoms (prob[ably] a laburnum)” (RC/626) indicate the continued validity of this root, though I suspect in later writings it primarily referred to a golden-red or orangish colour.
]]>However, in still later writings (PM/345), Tolkien established that the element “lord” in S. and was ultimately derived from Q. “commander”. In the same text, he revised the etymology of S. so that it was derived from a Khuzdul name Kh. “Cave-hewer” (PM/352), as described in The Silmarillion index (SI/Felagund). These revisions make it likely that Tolkien abandoned the form √KON.
The later status of earlier √KUN is unclear, however. √KUN might have been rejected along with √KON, or Tolkien may have restored it. As evidence of its restoration, † remained as an element in two older (Sindarin?) names: and . Furthermore, its Quenya derivative Q. appears as an element in the later name Q. , albeit with a new gloss “guardian”.
If we accept the restoration of √KUN, its Quenya derivative “prince, lord, guardian” could be considered valid, possibly along with the verb “to rule”. Its Sindarin derivative † “prince” should probably be considered archaic, however, replaced by the time of the Third Age with .
]]>“can” = have power, strength, ability inherent physically or mentally. √KURU. Cf. *kurwē “power, ability”, S curu in curunír “wizard”, us[ually] applied to exceptional powers espec. of mind, ability to make one’s will effective. It thus approaches some uses of our “magic”, esp. when applied to powers not understood by the speaker, but it does not even then (except perhaps when the word was used by Men) connote any alteration or disturbance of the “natural order”, which to the Eldar were either “miracles” performed by agents of the One or counterfeits by delusion (or by means other than miraculous which impressed the uninstructed as supernatural) (PE22/151).
This last note reconciles the connection between this root and “magic”, in that some powers of the mind that Elves perceive as natural skill would seem to Men to be magical, and in this sense it is the basis for words like S. curunír “wizard”.
]]>√KWA reappeared in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60 glossed “completion” (WJ/392) or “full” (WJ/412), with extended form √KWAN and the verbal variant √KWAT “fill”. It appeared again in various notes from the late 1960s on numbering systems, glossed “full, complete, all, every” (VT42/24), “whole, complete, all” (VT47/7), or “complete, full, all, the whole” (VT47/17). In these notes it was connected to Tolkien’s latest word for “ten” from this period: ✶kwayam > Q. quean or S. pae. Since the root √IL was usually used for “all, every” in Tolkien’s later writings, I think it is more accurate to attribute the sense “complete(ness)”, “whole(ness)”, or “full(ness)” to √KWA.
]]>The root appeared in both versions of the Tengwesta Qenderinwa from the 1930s (TQ1) and circa 1950 (TQ2) with the glosses “die” (TQ1: PE18/42, 58, 65; TQ2: PE18/103) and “pain” (TQ2: PE18/91). In TQ2 Tolkien connected it to similar roots √GWAL “suffer torment” and √KWEL “fade, die away, grow faint” (PE18/103). Somewhat interestingly, Tolkien gave almost no Sindarin or Noldorin derivatives of this root, indicating it probably fell out of use, most likely crowded out by derivatives of √PAL.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root appeared as ᴹ√KWAT, mostly with nasal-infixed derivatives like ᴹQ. qanta/N. pant “full”, but with others that were not like N. pathra- “fill” and N. pathred “fullness” (Ety/KWAT). Quenya Personal Pronouns (QPP1) from the late 1940s also had ᴹ√KWAT “fill”, and he said it was possibly related to kwā- “all” (PE23/101). The root appeared in Tolkiens later writings (PE17/68), and in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60 Tolkien again said it was an extension of the root √KWA (WJ/412), a notion he repeated in notes on numbers from the late 1960s (VT42/24).
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is useful to salvage these early words by positing a Neo-Eldarin root ᴺ√KWATH.
]]>In his earliest writings Tolkien also used ᴱQ. Qen (Qend-) plural Qendi (LT1/235, QL/92) and G. Cwenn plural Cwennin (GL/28) as the general name of Elves, as well as ᴱQ. Qenya as the name for their highest language. It is not clear that these words were directly connected to ᴱ√QETE “speak” in this earliest conceptual stage, however. In fact Tolkien’s use of the clearly unrelated ᴱN. Gwenn as an Early Noldorin word for “Elf” in the 1920s (PE13/146) hints that they were not connected.
The same was true in The Etymologies of the 1930s where Tolkien gave both ᴹ√KWET “say” and ᴹ√KWEN(ED) “Elf” without an explicit connection between the two (Ety/KWEN(ED), KWET). Both roots were also mentioned in the first and second versions of Tengwesta Qenderinwa from the 1930s (TQ1) and around 1950 (TQ2) as √KWET “say” (TQ1: PE18/50; TQ2: PE18/100) and √KWENED among roots for Elf-kindreds (TQ1: PE18/34; TQ2: PE18/84). The first clear connection between √KWENED and “speech” (as opposed to just the language of the Elves) was in the Outline of Phonology from the early 1950s where Tolkien said:
It must therefore originally have been made direct from the simple base of √KWEN, of which the word *kwened, Q quend- is itself only a derived stem, and its original significance was thus “spoken, articulate” rather than “elvish”, though indeed at the time of its making the Quendi were the only people or creatures possessing articulate vocal speech (PE19/92).
After the point Tolkien regularly connected √KWEN(ED) to speech, but it is possible he came up with the idea in the 1930s or 40s and we simply don’t have a record of it.
The first clear mention of shorter √KWE as the basis for both √KWEN and √KWET was in the Quendi and Eldar (Q&E) essay of 1959-60 (WJ/392) and associated draft notes (PE17/138). In Q&E, the only survival of this most primal form was ✶ekwē > Q. equë meaning “quothe” and Q. eques “quotation, saying, dictum” (WJ/392). All other derivations were from √KWEN and √KWET, though (with the exception of the language name Quenya) the derivatives of √KWEN had more to do with Elves and persons than with speech explicitly. Tolkien’s commitment to this paradigm wasn’t entirely firm, since in OP2 he added a marginal note in green pen (which he used for ammendations to this document in 1970) that read:
There is however in no Elvish tongue any √KWEN having reference to voice/speech and this seems to be a guess of the Loremasters, perhaps affected by √KWET “say” (PE19/93 note #114).
This note was struck through, however.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s, the meaning of the root ᴹ√KWEL seems to have softened somewhat to “fade (away), wither” with more of a sense of waning rather than outright death, though ᴹQ. qelet “corpse” remained among its derivatives (Ety/KEL, KWEL). In the 1930s it still was related to words for “autumn”, notably N. lhasbelin (Ety/LAS¹) “leaf-fall, autumn” and ᴹQ. Narqelion “Fire-fading, Autumn” (Ety/NAR¹). The latter seems to have been modified to Q. Narquelië (and S. Narbeleth) as the Elvish word for October, literally “Sun-fading”, in the Lord of the Ring appendixes (LotR/1107). The root was also the basis for Q. quellë “autumn” (LotR/1111), though its Sindarin equivalent (firith) was based on a different root.
Starting in the 1930s Tolkien indicated this root had an etymological relationship with √KEL “flow (down)”; see that entry for details.
]]>The earliest precursor to this root was ᴱ√KERE “turn” from the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s, though this root’s derivatives mostly had to with earthenware and pottery (QL/46). In the Early Quenya Grammar of the 1920s Tolkien introduced several variants of this root: ku̯ere, ki̯ere and elaboration ᴱ√kereke “turn round and round, send to and fro”, the latter said to be the basis of words having to do with “weave” in a syncopated form √kreke (PE14/65). In this document, none of these variants had any derivatives, but it seems the first of these ku̯ere survived in Tolkien’s later conception of the languages.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would mostly use √KWER for “revolve, *turn”, and avoid the variant √KWEL which (a) has no derivatives and (b) conflicts with √KWEL “fade”. However, √KWEL is useful for preserving Noldorin words having to do with rotation from the earlier sense of the root ᴹ√PEL “revolve on fixed point” from the 1930s, so I would keep it as Sindarin-only variant to allow the retention of words like N. pelthaes “pivot”; this may also have been Tolkien’s motive for having such a variant of √KWER “revolve”.
]]>The roots √KWI and √KE were in competition in the late 1960s as the basis for “if” words in hypthotheticals; see the entry on √KE/EKE for these alternatives.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin I think it is best to use √KWI for “if” and √KE for “maybe”; I also think √KWI(S) “inquire” can be used to justify the restoration of some of the derivatives of early ᴱ√IQI, via a hypothetical Neo-Eldarin root ᴺ√IKWI(S) “request, ask for”.
]]>Given the above, it is possible that Tolkien abandoned ᴹ√KWIG. However, I think it is useful to retain for purposes of Neo-Eldarin as the basis for words having to do with “shoot”, especially since there are still some later derivatives of √KU(Ʒ) that have nothing to do with “shooting”, such as Q. cúna “bent, curved”.
]]>However, in a table of primitive forms elsewhere in the Gnomish Lexicon, primitive qḷd was deleted (GL/23) and in yet another section Tolkien gave a distinct base form gwil-² with derivatives like G. gwîl “cessation, quiescence, leaving off” and G. gwilthi “peace”, with a possible primitive form ᴱ√u̯il marked by Tolkien with a “?” (GL/45). Tolkien compared G. gwil-² to Q. qil-, so perhaps in this instance he imagined primitive initial gʷ > kʷ in Qenya, following the pattern whereby initial voiced stops were unvoiced.
Some form of this root seems to have survived in the Declension of Nouns from the early 1930s to serve as the basis for ᴹQ. qilir “quiet” < ᴹ✶ku̯ilẹz (PE21/34).
Neo-Eldarin: I think it is worth positing a Neo-Eldarin root ᴺ√KWILID “quiet” to preserve these earlier Quenya words.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: I think it worth positing a Neo-Eldarin root ᴺ√KWILIT “belt, girdle” to preserve some of these Early Qenya words.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: I think it worth positing a Neo-Eldarin root ᴺ√KWIN “squeak” to preserve these Early Qenya words, though it conflicts with √KWIN “crest, salient or top edge”.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: I think it worth positing a Neo-Eldarin root ᴺ√KWIR “stir, spin” to preserve these Early Qenya words, perhaps as a variant of √KWER “revolve”.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: I think it worth positing a Neo-Eldarin root ᴺ√KWIT “knit” to preserve these Early Qenya words.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: I think it worth positing a Neo-Eldarin root ᴺ√KWOD to preserve some of these Early Qenya words, but bear in mind there is strong evidence that the combination quo- was not possible in Tolkien later iterations of Quenya, as discussed in the entry for how [wo] became [o] in Quenya.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: I think it worth positing a Neo-Eldarin root ᴺ√KWOL to preserve some of these Early Qenya words, but bear in mind there is strong evidence that the combination quo- was not possible in Tolkien later iterations of Quenya, as discussed in the entry for how [wo] became [o] in Quenya.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root became ᴹ√KYAB “taste” with a derivative ᴹQ. tyav- of the same meaning (Ety/KYAB). This root and verb also appeared in the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948 (PE22/102). The root appeared again in Late Notes on Verbs from 1969, first as √KJABA “taste”, then as √KJAW “taste, select, choose”, the latter with derivatives Q. tyav- and S. caw- “taste” (PE22/151, 152).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I recommend assuming the root was √KYAW, since some of the later derivatives like S. caw- can only be derived from this version of the root.
]]>Elsewhere in the Elvish languages of the 1910s there seem to be etymological variations of [k] vs. [t], such as ᴱQ. kitya- vs. G. tisca- “tickle” (QL/47; GL/70) and ᴱQ. talqe vs. G. celc “glass” (QL/88; GL/25), so perhaps ᴱQ. telpe vs. G. celeb “silver” is another example of this. Another explanation appeared in Early Noldorin word lists from the 1920s, where the primitive form was ᴱ✶kelekwé which produced ᴱN. celeb as usual but the Qenya form was ᴱQ. telqe with “k = t by dissimilation” (PE13/140), presumably away from q.
In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien had the root ᴹ√KYELEP with variant ᴹ√TELEP, producing N. celeb but ᴹQ. tyelpe or ᴹQ. telpe (Ety/KYELEP). But Tolkien revised this entry, marking ᴹ√TELEP as questionable and introducing the Telerin form ᴹT. telpe < ᴹ√KYELEP, concluding that ᴹQ. telpe must be a loan from Telerin. This finally put N. celeb vs. ᴹQ. telpe (borrowed from Telerin) on a solid phonological foundation. Tolkien seems to have stuck with this explanation, mentioning this borrowing from Telerin to Quenya several times in his later writings, with the proper but now archaic Quenya form being Q. †tyelpë (Let/426; PM/356; UT/266).
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is worth positing a root ᴺ√KYUR “curdle” to preserve these early “cheese” words.
]]>The root was mentioned in the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948 with the gloss “lie flat, be flat”, distinct from the root ᴹ√LAT glossed “be extended, stretch, be situated (of an area)” (PE22/126). √LAD was mentioned again as Quenya-only variant of √DAL “bottom, ground” in a list of roots from the late 1950s or early 1960s (PE17/150). However, it clearly survived in Sindarin as an element in the names Landroval “Broad Winged” (LotR/948; PE17/63) and Lothlann “Wide and Empty” (S/123), not to mention úlan(n) “not broad, narrow” (PE17/144).
One tricky thing about this root was that Tolkien seems to have abandoned √DAL on which it was originally based, given the change of S. dalath “plain” to S. talath “plain”. However, I think it is likely that √LAD survived, perhaps as a variant of √LAT.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume √LAT refers to openness, where √LAD refers to flat or wide things.
]]>In The Etymologies, the words for “throat” were ᴹQ. lanko and N. lhanc from the root ᴹ√LAK¹ with nasal-infixion (Ety/LAK, Ety/TARAG). The Noldorin form also appeared as an element in the adjective N. tarlanc “stiff-necked, obstinate”. In The Lord of the Rings, it seems that this last word had shifted to S. tarlang, as in the place name Tarlang (LotR/790). The earlier words reappeared as S. lang and Q. lango “neck, passage”, whose roots were either √LAG (PE17/65) or √LAƷA (PE17/91-92).
Tolkien also established the word Q. lá as the Quenya element meaning “beyond”, most notably in the preposition pella (the Namárië poem, LotR/377), whose literal meaning was “beyond the border”. There is an early hint of this sense in The Etymologies in the root ᴹ√LĀ, unglossed but said to be related to the “ablative element” ᴹ√LŌ (EtyAC/LŌ). Other possible precursors are ᴱ√ALA² “spread” and related ᴱ√LAHA or ᴱ√LĀ from the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s (QL/29, 32, 50).
In notes from 1965, Tolkien stated that the root of lá “beyond” was √LAŊ, distinct from the root √LAG of lango (PE17/65). But in notes from 1967, Tolkien briefly considered using the root √ALA/LA for lá “beyond” (PE17/90), but quickly changed it to √LAƷA “cross, pass over, go beyond” (PE17/91-92), the same as the root of Q. lango “neck” as noted above. This leaves us with two scenarios: that lango “neck” and lá “beyond” had distinct origins from the roots √LAG and √LAÑ respectively (1965: PE17/65), or that lango “neck” and lá “beyond” had the same origin in the root √LAƷ “cross, pass over, go beyond” (1967: PE17/91-92).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin I prefer the 1967 scenario with the root √LAƷA “cross, pass over, go beyond”, and would assume “neck” is based on the sense “passage”, since it frees up the root √LAG to retain its meaning from The Etymologies: ᴹ√LAG “*cut” (Ety/LAG). There are quite a few Quenya neologisms dependent the existence of √LAÑ “across”, however, so I would assume this exists as a variant of √LAƷ. For “throat” words, see the discusssion in the entry for ᴹ√LAK¹.
]]>In later writings, Q. lango/S. lang meant “neck” rather than “throat”, so it is tempting to retain ᴹ√LAK for “throat” and other swallow-words. But it would be very confusing to have such similar but unrelated words for “neck” and “throat”, so I recommend using the root ᴹ√SLUK for “swallow” instead, and Q. lango, S. lang for both “neck” and “throat”.
]]>Tolkien gave a different primitive form ✶glada- as the basis for “laugh” words in The Shibboleth of Fëanor from the late 1960s; this produced S. glað- but still resulted in Q. lala- (PM/359). This new primitive had two problems (1) it is not compatible with S. Lalaith and (2) it shows a rather unusual assimilation of primitive d to preceding l in Quenya rather than the normal change to r: ✶(g)lada- > laða- > Q. lala- instead of **lara-. Elsewhere such assimilation did not occur, for example Q. lerembas < ✶led(e)mbasse (PE17/52).
Thus for purposes of Neo-Eldarin I think it is preferable to assume √LAL was the root for “laugh” words. However, I also think it is worth retaining √GLAD as a Sindarin-only root for similar concepts, perhaps “guffaw” and “joke”, given the limited semantic space we have in Elvish roots.
]]>In fact, Tolkien’s earliest use of this root was as the basis for animal words, appearing as unglossed ᴱ√LAMA in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s with derivatives like ᴱQ. lama “a head of cattle or sheep; an animal, beast” and ᴱQ. lamáre “flock” (QL/50). In the Early Qenya Grammar of the 1920s, animal words were instead derived from ᴱ✶labna (PE14/70).
The first clear connection of ᴹ√LAM to “sound” was in The Etymologies of the 1930s where it was the basis of words like ᴹQ. láma “ringing sound, echo”, ᴹQ. lamma “sound” and ᴹQ. lámina “echo” (Ety/LAM). In this document, the Noldorin word N. glamor for “echo” was based on the strengthened root ᴹ√GLAM along with words like N. glamm “shouting, confused noise; barbarous speech” (Ety/GLAM); the latter sense survived in words like S. Glamhoth “din-horde” (UT/39), but later Sindarin “echo” word were transferred back to √LAM, as in S. Lammoth “Great Echo” (S/106). In the 1930s and 40s the root was also still connected to animals (PE21/28; PPE22/116).
The root √LAM appeared regularly in Tolkien’s later writings, variously glossed “sound” (VT39/15), “inarticulate voiced sounds” (PE17/138), or “sounds, especially ... vocal sounds, but [it] was applied only to those that were confused or inarticulate” (WJ/416). It remained connected to sound-words (VT39/20), echo-words (PE17/133) and animal-words (WJ/416).
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume the root remained primarily the basis for weaving words.
]]>The root reappeared (unglossed) in The Etymologies of the 1930s, but there its derivatives were ᴹQ. lapse/N. lhaes “babe” (Ety/LAP). It is possible the meaning of the root shifted, but another likely possibility is that sense of these words were “babe” = “enfolded one”, as in swaddled in cloth; hat tip to Lokyt for suggesting this. The root √LAP appeared again in notes from the late 1960s with the glosses “fold, bend” (VT47/35), so it seems its early meaning was (more or less) retained.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would stick with the sense “(en)fold” for √LAP.
]]>lasse “leaf” (S las); pl. lassi (S lais). It is only applied to certain kinds of leaves, especially those of trees, and would not e.g. be used of leaf of a hyacinth (linque). It is thus possibly related to √LAS “listen”, and S-LAS stem of Elvish words for “ear”: Q hlas, dual hlaru. Sindarin dual lhaw, singular lheweg (PE17/62).
A similar notion appeared in The Etymologies: “Some think this [ᴹ√LAS¹ ‘leaf’] is related to the next [ᴹ√LAS² ‘listen’] and *lassē ‘ear’. The Quendian ears were more pointed and leaf-shaped than [?human]” (Ety/LAS¹).
]]>Its development seems to have begun in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s with unglossed ᴱ√LAHA which had derivatives like ᴱQ. lá¹ “moor, heath, open space” and ᴱQ. lāta- “spread, extend, lie (of country)” (QL/50). This root was compared to a variety of other roots: ᴱ√ALA, ᴱ√AŘA, ᴱ√ṆŘṆ, ᴱ√LAŘA and ᴱ√LATA, but the last of these was a later addition, both to the list and as an entry in the lexicon (QL/51). This newer entry had derivatives like ᴱQ. latwa “smooth, glossy” and ᴱQ. latsin(a) “level, smooth”, the latter transferred from ᴱ√LAHA. This new root also had Gnomish derivatives such as G. lad “a level, a flat; fair dealing” and G. ladin “level, smooth; fair, equitable” (GL/52).
After the 1910s it seems ᴱ√LAHA “*open” faded out of use (though it may have remerged much later as √LAƷ “cross, pass over, go beyond”: PE17/91), but ᴱ√LATA “*level, smooth” reappeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s as ᴹ√LAT “lie open” with derivatives like ᴹQ. latin(a) “open, free, cleared (of land)” and N. lhand “open space, level” (Ety/LAT). It is also evident in N. -lad “plain” from names like N. Lithlad “Plain of Ash” and N. Dagorlad “Battle Plain” from Lord of the Rings drafts (TI/208, 389), both of which reappeared in the published version (LotR/243, 636).
The root appeared again in the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948 with the gloss “be extended, stretch, be situated (of an area)” and a Quenya verb ᴹQ. lat- of similar meaning (PE22/126). In this document it was compared to ᴹ√LAD “lie flat, be flat”, and Tolkien said the two roots were confused in Noldorin as a way of explaining N. laden “flat (and wide)”.
The next appearance of √LAT is in etymological notes from 1959-60 with the gloss “open, unenclosed, free to entry” and contrasted with √PAK “shut” (VT41/5-6). In these notes the derivative Q. latina also reappeared with a meaning similar to the one it had in The Etymologies: “free (of movement), not encumbered with obstacles”. The last appearance of √LAT in currently published materials is in 1968 notes on D/L variations in Common Eldarin, where it was glossed “at ground level, low; lowlying” and compared to √DAT “fall down” (VT48/24); in this document it had no derivatives.
All this amounts to considerable conceptual variation in the meaning of this root. To summarize:
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume this root has the sense “(lie) open, be extended, unenclosed”, as this is consistent with the largest number of derivatives of the root.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s it was glossed “warm” with derivatives ᴹQ. lauka and N. lhaug of the same meaning (Ety/LAW). In the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948 it was glossed “abound” with a Quenya verb ᴹQ. lauta- of the same meaning (PE22/103).
The root √LAW appeared in notes from the late 1950s serving as the basis for Q. loa “sun-year”, originally with the sense ✶lawā “growing, blooming”; it was also explicitly connected to its extended form √LAWAR with the sense “golden colour” (PE17/159). Its final appearance in currently published materials was in some Late Notes on Verbs from 1969, where it was given as √LAW “flourish (green), grow” with derivative Q. lauya- of the same meaning (PE22/156).
Despite all these minor variations, the general meaning of the root was fairly stable, having mainly to do with life and flourishing (especially of plants), and also connected to warmth and sunlight, probably by association with its extended form √(G)LAWAR “golden colour or light”, which applied to sunshine among other things.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s ᴹ√LAYA was unglossed with a single derivative ᴹQ. laire “summer”, appearing in a marginal note next to more detailed ᴹ√LAYAK (EtyAC/LAYA). In this document, Tolkien gave the derivatives of ᴹ√LAYAK as ᴹQ. laiqa “green” vs. N. lhoeb “fresh” (Ety/LAYAK). The Ilkorin form laig “fresh, lively; keen, sharp” was said to be blended with ᴹ√LAIK “keen, sharp, acute” (Ety/LAIK), so “*fresh” was probably the original meaning of ᴹ√LAYAK.
The root √LAY appeared quite regularly in Tolkien’s later writings, but was never glossed. It was mentioned in the second version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa from around 1950 as an example of a bi-consonantal root (PE18/97). It appeared in 1957 etymological notes as the basis for “summer” and “green”: the former still Q. lairë but the latter now Q. laika (PE17/145, 159). It was mentioned again in a 1958 letter to Rhona Beare as the basis for “summer” and ”green”, with the Sindarin form S. laeg having largely been replaced by S. calen “green” (Let/282).
Most likely this root retained the same basic sense as it had in the Qenya Lexicon, connected as it was to words having to do with freshness and liveliness.
]]>A possible precursor to this root is ᴹ√LĒ “go, fare” in the Declension of Nouns (DN) from the early 1930s with derivative ᴹQ. lesto “journey” (PE21/12). This is turn is probably a later iteration of ᴱ√LEHE¹ “come, be sent, approach” from the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s, given as a variant of ᴱ√ELE¹ (QL/52). It is probably the basis for contemporaneous G. len “come, arrived” and G. lentha- “come towards speaker, approach, draw near” (GL/53) and possibly ᴱQ. lehe- or ᴱQ. lehta- “ride” from the English-Qenya Dictionary of the 1920s (PE15/76).
For a discussion of other parallel roots, see √LED and √DEL¹.
]]>But adverbial forms were available especially for when far separated from verb or subject. The chief was -le. This is probably from √LEŊ, cf. fortified form in Q lenge, gesture, characteristic look, gesture or trait etc., weak verb lenga, behave.
lé as noun also is used in sense of “way”, sc. method, manner, as in “that is not A’s way”. Thus oia, everlasting, oiale, everlastingly. Cf. talle, like that, sille, like this, so, yalle, as (in the same way as).
Tolkien then crossed through the first of these paragraphs, saying: “This won’t do, since le is a pronominal element. It should be ve, oiave”. However, he eventually let the word Q. oialë “forever” stand in the Namarië poem, so perhaps he changed his mind again. Despite their rejection, √LEÑ and its derivatives are extremely useful, and I would treat them as valid for purposes of Neo-Eldarin.
]]>There are a number of words in the Gnomish Lexicon that seem to be derived from this root, including G. len¹ “wherewith, far, long, away” and G. lenwi “length, distance”, but these were rejected, and Tolkien replaced them with G. lenc “far, distant” derived from ᴱ√leŋe (which was followed by other similar Gnomish derivatives), possibly representing a conceptual shift in this root (GL/53). In any case, there are no clear signs of this root in Tolkien’s later writing, unless perhaps it remanifested as ᴹ√LEN “way, (?road)” from The Etymologies of the 1930s (EtyAC/LEN).
]]>In Tolkien’s later writings, √LEPEN “five” continued to appear regularly, along with the base root √LEP that was glossed either “finger” (VT42/24) or “pick up (with fingers)” (VT47/10, 24, 27). Despite the stability of the root, the Elvish words for “finger” themselves when through many revisions; see Q. leper and S. leber for discussion.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root appeared as ᴹ√LEPEN “five” with variant ᴹ√LEPEK, but ᴹ√LEPEK had no derivatives (Ety/LEP). √LEPEN appeared again in a list of numbers from the late 1950s or early 1960s beside a variant √LENEP; again the variant had no clear derivatives (PE17/95). √LEPEN reappeared in numeric discussions from the late 1960s (VT42/24; VT47/10). In these late discussions Tolkien said that “five” most likely originally from *lepem as an ancient plural of √LEP, but it seems this became √LEPEN already in Common Eldarin (CE), given that the Sindarin word for “five” remained S. leben; Tolkien gave varying explanations for this CE sound change, either as dissimilation from p (VT47/26 note 2) or with final -m > -n being the regular phonetic development (VT47/24).
]]>The base root ᴹ√LI “many” did reappear in The Etymologies of the 1930s, however (Ety/LI), and √LI “many” appeared again in etymological notes from the late 1960s (VT48/25). The long-standing connection between this root and the Quenya (partitive) plural suffixes indicates its stability in Tolkien’s mind.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s it was connected to ᴹ√LINKWI with derivatives ᴹQ. linqe/N. lhimp “wet” and N. lhimmid “moisten” (Ety/LINKWI; EtyAC/LINKWI). This is turn was probably a later iteration of the early root ᴱ√LIQI “flow, water; clear, transparent” with derivatives like ᴱQ. linqe “water”, ᴱQ. liqin(a) “wet” and ᴱQ. liqis(tea) “transparence (transparent)” (QL/54). For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume the “wetness” senses were transferred to ᴹ√LINKWI, but I think it is worth positing a Neo-Eldarin root *ᴺ√LIKWIS “clear, transparent” to preserve words associated with tranparency.
This root may be associated with √LIN² “make a musical sound”; see that entry for details.
]]>Indeed, in The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien reorganized the two roots into ᴹ√LIN² “sing” and ᴹ√LIR¹ “sing, trill”, the former taking on music words beginning with lind- and the latter musical words beginning with lir- (Ety/LIN², LIR¹). Both these had strengthened forms ᴹ√GLIN and ᴹ√GLIR used in Noldorin words like N. glinn “song, poem, lay” and N. glaer “long lay, narrative poem”, but entry for the root ᴹ√GLIN was struck through and its Noldorin words adapted to unstrengthened ᴹ√LIN, as in N. lhinn “air, tune” (Ety/GLIN, GLIR). The Etymologies also had another strengthened root ᴹ√LINDĀ “fair (especially of voice)”, with a line indicating it was derived from ᴹ√LIN (Ety/LIND; EtyAC/LIND); this strengthened root in turn was blended with ᴹ√SLIN, unglossed but apparently meaning something like “*fine, delicate” (Ety/SLIN).
Both root √LIN “sing” (PE17/27, UT/253) and √LIR “sing, warble” (PE17/27, 67) continued to appear in Tolkien’s later writings, along with derivatives like Q. lindalë “music” and Q. lírë “song”. Tolkien discussed the root √LIN at length in the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60, where he said:
The name *Lindā is therefore clearly a derivative of the primitive stem *LIN (showing reinforcement of the medial N and adjectival -ā). This stem was possibly one of the contributions of the Nelyar [Teleri] to Primitive Quendian, for it reflects their predilections and associations, and produces more derivatives in Lindarin [Telerin] tongues than in others. Its primary reference was to melodious or pleasing sound, but it also refers (especially in Lindarin) to water, the motions of which were always by the Lindar associated with vocal (Elvish) sound. The reinforcements, either medial lind- or initial glin-, glind-, were however almost solely used of musical, especially vocal, sounds produced with intent to please (WJ/382).
Tolkien’s statement that it “also refers (especially in Lindarin) to water” is probably an allusion to √LIN¹ “pool, mere, lake” (Ety/LIN¹; PE17/160). In a footnote in Quendi and Eldar essay Tolkien added: “Though this clan-name [S. Glinnel] has *glind- in Sindarin, the g- does not appear in Amanya Telerin, nor in Nandorin, so that in this case it may be an addition in Sindarin, which favoured and much increased initial groups of this kind” (WJ/411 note #13). Despite this statement, Sindarin had several derivatives from the base root √LIN(D)-, such as S. linna- “sing, chant” (LotR/238; RGEO/64; PE17/27). The sense “gentle” from the 1910s root ᴱ√LINI also seems to have survived in Tolkien’s later writings, since the adjective Q. linda “soft, gentle, light” appears in notes associated with the 1955 version of the poem Nieninquë (PE16/96).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume √LIN referred to melodious sounds, as well as pools of water (√LIN¹) by way of the pleasant sounds that water makes, and gentleness (Q. linda) by way of the affect such sounds have on one’s mood. However, I think √LIR more directly referred to vocal music (song) and other rhythmic vocal sounds (chanting) such as poetry, as in Q. [ᴹQ.] laire/S. glaer “poem”.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s, the root for “drip” was ᴹ√LIB¹. ᴹ√LIP appeared, but it was unglossed and its only derivative was ᴹQ. limpe “wine” (Ety/LIB¹, LIP). Thus it seems Tolkien split up the root from the 1910s, though exactly how isn’t clear. The last known mention of this root is as √LIP “oil” (without any derivatives) in a currently unpublished set of notes from 1968 (VT44/15). Wynne, Smith, and Hostetter suggested this might be connect to a (rejected) name for Christ: Q. Elpino, perhaps meaning “*anointed” (VT44/15). It is unclear whether this √LIP “oil” was connect to its earlier iterations from which limpe “wine” was derived, or if it is was a reemergence of a different root such as ᴱ√ILI¹ “shine oily” as suggested by Wynne, Smith, and Hostetter (VT44/20 note #7).
]]>This root appeared as ᴹ√LIS “honey” in The Etymologies of the 1930s, with Noldorin derivatives still beginning with gl-: ᴹQ. lis vs. N. glî “honey” (Ety/LIS). It appeared as √(G)LIS in “Definitive Linguistic Notes” (DLN) from 1959, still serving as the basis for words for honey and sweetness (PE17/154), though some of the Sindarin “sweet” words began with l- in this document, such as: S. laich “sweet” (PE17/148).
]]>Lô was derived from Common Eldarin base LOG “wet (and soft), soaked, swampy, etc.” The form *loga produced S. lô and T. loga; and also, from *logna, S. loen, T. logna “soaking wet, swamped”. But the stem in Quenya, owing to sound-changes which caused its derivatives to clash with other words, was little represented except in the intensive formation oloiya- “to inundate, flood”; oloire “a great flood” (VT42/10).
I prefer this last explanation, as it explains a wider variety of words. As for S. Lhûn, in notes from 1968 Tolkien explained it as a loan word from Khuzdul (VT48/24).
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s, however, ᴹ√LOK was glossed “great serpent, dragon”, and all its derivatives were dragon words based on ᴹQ. lóke and N. lhûg (Ety/LOK). In this period the “curl” words might have been allocated to the unglossed root ᴹ√LOKH which had derivatives like N. lhoch “ringlet” as well as ᴹQ. lokse and N. lhaws “hair”, so perhaps meaning “*curl (of hair)” (Ety/LOKH). In notes from the late 1950s, Tolkien again generalized the meaning of the root √LOK to “bend, loop”, with additional non-serpent derivatives like Q. lokin “bent” and Q. lōke “bight, bend, curl of hair” (PE17/160); thus √LOK may have (re)absorbed the meanings of ᴹ√LOKH.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s these new words for “haven” were derived from ᴹ√LOD, unglossed but with primitive form ᴹ✶londē “narrow path, strait, pass” and N. lhonn of the same meaning (Ety/LOD). The sense “pass” is seen in the name N. Aglon “*Narrow Pass” (Ety/AK, LOD). It seems there was some semantic drift in Quenya, since the Quenya derivative ᴹQ. londe was glossed “road (in sea), fairway, entrance to harbour” (Ety/LOD). The root ᴹ√LON [LONO] also appears in The Etymologies, but its only derivative was ᴹQ. lóna “island, remote land difficult to reach”, as in ᴹQ. Avalóna “Outer Isle”, one of the names of Tol Eressea (Ety/LONO).
In The Etymologies, ᴹ√LOD had some competition for haven-words, since there was also the root ᴹ√LUR “be quiet, still, calm” with derivative N. lhorn “quiet water, anchorage, haven, harbour”; a false beginning indicates Tolkien first considered using the root ᴹ√LOR for this purpose (EtyAC/LUR). This Noldorin haven-word appears in some 1942 notes on names from Lord of the Rings drafts: “Lorn = haven [vs.] Londe = gulf” (TI/423), and in early Lord of the Ring maps from 1943, the north and south havens were N. Forlorn and N. Harlorn, as opposed to the name of the gulf which was N. Mithlond (TI/301-302).
However, Tolkien eventually changed the north and south havens to S. Forlond and S. Harlond (LotR/1050), and S. Mithlond became “Grey Havens” rather than “*Grey Gulf” (LotR/1030). Thus Quenya and Sindarin haven-word were ultimately considered cognates, and in notes from 1967-69 having to do with The Rivers and Beacon-hills of Gondor both were derived from √LON (unglossed) along with Q. lóna “pool, mere” (VT42/10).
Remnants of earlier ideas remained in Tolkien’s later writings, however, which muddy the picture: Aglon still appeared in the Silmarillion narratives in the 1950s and 60s (S/123; WJ/38, 77), as did the name Q. Avallónë for Tol Eressea (S/260; MR/175). The root √(S)LON was also connected to some of Tolkien’s later ideas for possible origins of S. Lhûn; see the entry on √LOG for discussion. The instability of all these ideas makes me think that Tolkien never did quite sort out how (or whether) any of them were connected to √LON or √LOD and haven-words.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root ᴹ√LOP was glossed “horse”, and its derivatives ᴹQ. olombo and N. lobor had only that sense (EtyAC/LOP), but horse words were usually derived from ᴹ√ROK from the 1930s and later. The word Q. lopoldi “rabbits” appeared in some 1965 notes on Númenor, so it seems likely √LOP remained valid in some form. Another possibly related late word is S. *laba- “hop” as in S. Labadal “Hopafoot” (UT/60).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is worth retaining ᴹ√LOP with a verbal sense “*run (of animals), gallop, lope”. In this way, it can remain the basis for rabbit words based on their loping run. The horse words from this root might be specialized for heavier loping horses like destriers, since ᴹQ. rokko was more specifically referred to a “swift horse” (EtyAC/ROK).
]]>This confusion of √LOT(H) and √LOS carried forward into Tolkien’s later writings. In The Etymologies of the 1930s ᴹ√LOT(H) was given as the root for “flower” (Ety/LOT(H)), but this entry originally included a variant ᴹ√LOS (EtyAC/LOT(H)). Tolkien then said ᴹQ. losse “blossom” (< ᴹ√LOT(H)) was “usually, owing to association with olosse snow, only used of white blossom” (Ety/LOT(H)), where ᴹQ. olosse was derived from ᴹ√GOLOS “*snow, white” (Ety/GOLÓS). This intermingling carried forward into etymological notes from the late 1950s or early 1960s, where Tolkien said (PE17/26):
The stems √LŎS, √LOTH, √LOT are much entangled both for formal reasons, and because of actual associations of meaning (probably from beginning of Primitive Quendian and explaining the approach of the forms). Quenya word for “flower, a single bloom” is lóte, but S loth (< lotho/a), but Quenya also has lōs. Q. for snow is losse (S los).
These associations were also mentioned in etymological notes on roots for flowers from this same period, where Tolkien clarified that √LOT, √LOTH were the roots for “flower” and √LOS for “snow” (PE17/160-161). These roots were mentioned again in notes associated with The Rivers and Beacon-hills of Gondor from 1967-69 (VT42/18):
S. loss is a derivative of (G)LOS “white”; but loth is from LOT. Sindarin used loss as a noun, but the strengthened form gloss as an adjective “(dazzling) white”. loth was the only derivative of LOT that it retained, probably because other forms of the stem assumed a phonetic shape that seemed inappropriate, or were confusible with other stems (such as LUT “float”), e.g. *lod, *lûd. loth is from a diminutive lotse and probably also from derivative lotta-.
In this last note, Tolkien seems to have abandoned √LOTH, explaining S. loth “flower” as derived from √LOT via *lotse. In any case, starting in the 1930s Tolkien was consistent that the roots for “flower” and “snow” were distinct but often confused, and that snow-words were derived from roots like √(G)LOS and flower words from roots like √LOT(H), though he waffled a bit on the exact details.
]]>The Etymologies had a distinct root ᴹ√ULU “pour, flow” (Ety/ULU). It was not explicity connected to ᴹ√LU in this 1930s document, but in notes from around 1959 Tolkien said lūmē “time” was derived from √ULU “flow” (PE17/168), so it is likely that √LU is an inversion of this more basic root.
]]>The derivatives of this root in the 1910s seem to connect more specifically to dark weather, but in The Etymologies of the 1930s the root reappeared as ᴹ√LUM with derivatives having to do mainly with shadow, such as ᴹQ. lumbe “gloom, shadow” and N. lhum “shade” (Ety/LUM). These in turn served as the basis for N. Hithlum and ᴹQ. †Hísilumbe >> ᴹQ. Hisilóme interpreted in this period as “Mist-and-Dusk” (LR/406). In earlier writing the second element of ᴱQ. Hisilóme “Misty-gloom” was derived from ᴱ√LOMO (QL/55), whereas in 1964 notes Hithlum was designated “North Sindarin” and given a new etymology as a direct loan from its Quenya equivalent, and thus no longer connected to √LUM (PE17/133).
The last appearance of the root in currently published material was as √LUM or √LUB “shadow, darkness” with derivatives Q. lumbo “dark, shade” and Q. lumbule “shadow” (PE17/168). Q. Luvailin “Shadowmere” (RC/217) is probably related and must derived from √LUB. For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume that √LUB is the form as the root, as the various lumb- forms can likewise be derived from √LUB by way of strengthened *lu(m)b-.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root ᴹ√LUK “magic, enchantment” appeared with derivatives like ᴹQ. lúke “enchantment” and N. lhûth, and the root served as the basis for the name Ilk. Lúthien, translated as “Enchantress” (Ety/LUK). However, in later writings the name S. Lúthien was given a new etymology as a feminization of S. lûth “blossom, inflorescence” (PE17/15).
The root √LUK itself reappeared in notes from around 1968 with the gloss “haul, drag”, serving as the basis for Q. lunka “heavy transport wain (wagon)” (PE17/28; VT43/19). This sense of the root might have an earlier origin, since the verb ᴱQ. luk- “pull” in Early Qenya word lists from the 1920s has a similar meaning (PE16/134).
Another set of possibly related forms are Q. lucassemmar, Q. luciemmar, or Q. luhtammar “*our debts, our trespasses” from Quenya prayers of the 1950s, as suggested by Wynne, Smith, and Hostetter (VT43/19). These appear to be derived from √LUK, but don’t seem to be connected to any of the attested meanings of this root. In any case, these words for “trespasses” were replaced in later versions of the prayers, becoming Q. rohtammar >> Q. úcaremmar (VT43/19).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, √LUK “haul, drag, *pull” is probably the most enduring meaning of this otherwise variable root, but the sense ᴹ√LUK “magic, enchantment” is also very popular, being the basis for some of the better known Elvish words for “magic”. I personally retain both senses, with “magic” by way of analogy for “pulling” on the physical world to affect change. There is a similar analogy to “breath” for the “emission of power (of will or desire)” by analogy with breath fogging a cold surface; see the entry on Q. súlë for discussion. However, this interpretation of √LUK is pure invention on my part to justify retaining the 1930s words for magic.
]]>The root may be related to earlier ᴱQ. ulumpe “camel”: although its root was given as ᴱ√ULUN(T) in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s, Tolkien gave ulumpe- in parenthesis beside the root, indicating it was probably an elaboration on unattested *ᴱ√LUPU (QL/97). It might also be connected to G. lub “fat, fat flesh” < ᴱ✶lūpe as well as G. lubi “corpulent” (GL/55), especially given primitive ✶slūbŭ “greasy, fat” from Common Eldarin: Noun Structure of the early 1950s (PE22/82).
Neo-Eldarin: I think it is worth positing a variant root ᴺ√LUP “hump” for Neo-Eldarin in order to salvage Early Qenya camel words.
]]>Meanwhile, the root ᴹ√LUY appeared in The Etymologies with derivatives ᴹQ. luina and Dor. luin “pale” (EtyAC/LUY), probably connected to ᴱN. Draugluin “Werewolf Pale” from the Lays of Beleriand of the 1920s (LB/205). But in The Etymologies the root ᴹ√LUY was rejected, and Dor. luin “pale” was reassigned to ᴹ√LUG² and then revised in form to Dor. lūn (Ety/LUG²; EtyAC/LUG²).
In addition, there was already evidence of a conceptual shift in the Noldorin words for blue in the 1930s, with the name N. Eredluin “Blue Mountains” being given as an alternative to N. Lhúnorodrim and N. Lhúndirien “Blue Towers” (Ety/LUG²), the latter appearing as N. Luindirien in contemporaneous Silmarillion narratives (LR/267). By the 1950s and 60s, the Sindarin and Quenya words for “blue” had firmly become S. luin (Let/448; S/54; UT/390) and Q. luinë (LotR/377; PE17/66, 71). The root √LUY “blue” appeared in notes from the late 1960s serving as the new basis for these “blue” words (VT48/23-24, 26).
All this made a mess for the river name S. Lhûn (LotR/1134) from The Lord of the Rings which was a remnant of Tolkien’s earlier ideas, and he struggled to find a new basis for that name as discussed by Patrick Wynne in his article on The Problem of Lhûn (VT48/26-29).
]]>By the time Tolkien wrote the ᴱQ. Oilima Markirya poem around 1930, Quenya question words also generally began with ma-: ᴱQ. man kiluva kirya ninqe? “Who shall see a white ship?” (MC/213). This remained true thereafter, and the same seems to be true of Sindarin as well, though we have far fewer examples: S. ar·phent Rían Tuor·na: man agorech?, untranslated but apparently: “*and said Rían to Tuor: what have we done?” (VT50/5). The “interrogative base” √MA is mentioned in Quenya Notes from 1957 (QN: PE17/162) and again in notes from around 1968 (VT47/19).
√MA was not completely divorced from indefinites in Tolkien’s later writings, however, given late 1940s indefinite suffix -(u)ma (PE23/99, 105) and his use of Q. ma for an indefinite neuter pronoun “(some)thing” as opposed to the indefinite personal pronoun Q. mo “(some)one” (PE22/154; VT42/34). The exact relationship of interrogative √MA with these indefinite forms is not entirely clear, however.
]]>In later writings, however, the sense of this root shifted more towards “good”. In etymological notes from the late 1950s Tolkien still gave both √MAG or √MAƷ as the basis for hand words (PE17/161-2), but in Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN) from 1959, Tolkien gave √MAGA the gloss “good (physically)” (PE17/149) or “to thrive, be in a good state” (PE17/162). In notes on Eldarin Hands, Fingers and Numerals from the late 1960s, Tolkien said the root for “hand” was √MAƷA, and there was a distinct (but possibly related) root √MAG, described as follows:
MAGA, a stem meaning “good” - but without moral reference, except by implication: sc. it was not the opposite of “evil, wicked” but of “bad (damaged, imperfect, unfit, useless)”, and the adjectival stem derived, *magrā, meant “good for a purpose or function, as required or desired, useful, proper, fit” (VT47/6).
A similar distinction between √MAƷA “hand” and √MAGA “good, useful” appeared in 1968 notes (VT47/19). In Late Notes on Verb Structure (LVS) from 1969, Tolkien gave √MAGA the gloss “have, possess” to serve as the basis for the irregular verb Q. mai-, but this note was crossed through and I suspect it was a transient idea (PE22/148 and note #24). Thus, “good, useful” seems to be the best interpretation for the root √MAG.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s it appeared as ᴹ√MAƷ “hand” along with a related root ᴹ√MAG “use, handle”, with ᴹQ. mára “useful, fit, good (of things)” derived from the latter (Ety/MAƷ). In Tolkien’s later writings, the root √MAG was further differentiated from √MAƷ, becoming the basis for “good, useful”; see the entry on √MAG for further details. As for ᴹ√MAƷ “hand”, it was also mentioned in the Outline of Phonetic Development from the 1940s (OP1: PE19/48) and Outline of Phonology from the early 1950s (OP2: PE19/100 note #154).
In revisions to OP2, Tolkien decided the primitive velar spirant was unvoiced, a weak χ [x] rather than voiced ʒ [ɣ] (PE19/69 note #3; 72-73 note #22; 74 note #33). From this point forward, Tolkien sometimes rendered this root as √MAH (PE21/70; VT39/11), but it continued to appear often as √MAƷ even into the late 1960s (VT47/18-19) reflecting ongoing vacillation on the nature of the primitive velar spirant. As for its meaning in later writings, in Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN) from 1959 Tolkien said it meant “serve, be of use” as opposed to words for “well” and “good” derived from √MAY or √MAG (PE17/162), and in another section of the same notes it was defined as “handle, manage, control, wield” (PE17/163).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think the last meaning is best for √MAH or √MAƷ. I think words for “good” and “useful” are better assigned to √MAG, and “excellence” to √MAY, though Tolkien often intermingled the meanings and derivatives of these three roots.
]]>The root ᴹ√MAK appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s, but the entry went through quite a few revisions. The gloss apparently was “cleave” >> “kill, cleave with sword” >> “sword, or verbal [stem] fight with sword, cleave” >> “sword, or as verb-stem: fight (with sword), cleave” (EtyAC/MAK; Ety/MAK). Thus the 1930s root was more directly connected with swords and wielding swords, and its derivatives included ᴹQ. makil/N. magol “sword” and ᴹQ. mahta-/N. maetha- “fight” (Ety/MAK).
In Tolkien’s later writings, the words for “sword” remained nearly the same: Q. macil and S. megil (PE17/130, 147), but the gloss of the root √MAK varied considerably based on whatever linguistic puzzle Tolkien was trying to solve at that particular moment. In notes associated with the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60, its gloss was very similar to that from The Etymologies: “cut, hew with a sharp edge” (VT39/11). In notes associated with The Shibboleth of Fëanor from 1968 Tolkien glossed {m(b)aka- >>} maka- as “forge metal” as part of a new etymology of the name S. Maglor as an adaptation Q. Makalaure “Forging Gold” (PM/353; VT41/10).
In notes on Eldarin Hands, Fingers and Numerals from the late 1960s Tolkien gave √MAK “strike” as the basis for ✶makwā > S. mâb “hand”, but this idea was rejected immediately (VT47/19). The same gloss “strike” appeared in a document on the Common Eldarin Article, deleted there with a reference back to the “Hands, Fingers and Numerals” document (PE23/144). This was part of Tolkien’s rather surprising decision to abandon the long-standing root √MAP (VT47/20 note #13); elsewhere in these notes he said √MAK meant “kill, slay” as it did in the 1910s (VT47/20).
Lokyt suggested in a Discord chat from 2018 that there may be a common underlying meaning for all these glosses, referring to “the movement one does when chopping with a tool”, as supported by the late 1960s gloss “strike”. Assuming this is true, the other associations of the root (“sword; slay; fight; forge”) may be the result of a narrowing of the meaning of the root in more specific contexts. I assume the based meaning of this root is something like “strike” purposes of Neo-Eldarin, as it allows us to retain the largest set of derivatives of the root.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s it seems Tolkien first gave this root as ᴹ√MAL (EtyAC/MAL) but rejected this and replaced it with ᴹ√SMAL “yellow” (Ety/SMAL). It had derivatives like ᴹQ. malina/N. malen “yellow”, ᴹQ. malta/N. malt “gold (as metal)” and ᴹQ. malo/N. hmâl “pollen, yellow powder” (< ᴹ✶smalu), with some revisions in Noldorin forms as Tolkien vacillated on whether or not primitive sm- resulted in voiceless nasal hm- or a voiced nasal m-.
This √SMAL vs. √MAL variation seems to have continued into Tolkien’s later writings, as seen in Common Eldarin: Noun Structure from the early 1950s where ✶malu >> ✶smalu “dust, grit” (PE21/80), probably a later iteration of ᴹ✶smalu “pollen, yellow powder” from The Etymologies. But it seems Tolkien settled on √MAL as evidenced by the extended root √MALAT “gold” from The Shibboleth of Fëanor from 1968 (PM/366).
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s ᴹ√MAN “holy spirit” appeared with derivatives like ᴹQ. manu/N. mân “departed spirit” (Ety/MAN). Earlier versions of the entry had the gloss “holy” (EtyAC/MAN), and an earlier version of the entry for ᴹ√MBAD has MAN- “blessed” (EtyAC/MBAD).
The senses “good, blessed, holy” were retained in Tolkien’s later writings, though sometimes the root was given in its augmented form √AMAN. In Quenya Notes (QN) from 1957, √MAN was contrasted with √ARA which also meant “good”, but with the nuance of one specimen that is “good of its kind” and hence “excels, without necessarily implying that others are bad or marred” (PE17/147). Elsewhere in QN Tolkien elaborated on the meaning of √MAN in more detail:
√MAN “good”. This implies that a person/thing is (relatively or absolutely) “unmarred”: that is in Elvish thought unaffected by the disorders introduced into Arda by Morgoth: and therefore is true to its nature & function. If applied to mind/spirit it is more or less equivalent to morally good; but applied to bodies it naturally refers to health and to absence of distortions, damages, blemishes, &c (PE17/162).
In Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN) from 1959, √AMAN “good (morally), holy, blessed, free from evil” was contrasted with √AYA(N) “treat with awe/reverence” and √MAGA “good (physically)” (PE17/149). In The Shibboleth of Fëanor from 1968, Tolkien said the root meant “blessed, holy” and was adapted from Valarin (PM/357 note #18), which is consistent with the fact that its derivatives were almost entirely limited to Quenya and not Sindarin; where derivatives do appear in Sindarin, such as S. Avon the equivalent of Q. Aman (PE17/162), they were probably loan words from Quenya.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is worth positing a root ᴺ√MANGYA to salvage early “butter” words.
]]>The root reappeared as ᴹ√MAP “lay hold of with hand, seize” in The Etymologies of the 1930s with a similar set of derivatives (Ety/MAP). √MAP was mentioned again in the late 1960s in notes on Eldarin Hands, Fingers and Numerals, with glosses like “take hold of, grasp” (VT47/7) and “take away” (VT47/20). But in these same notes Tolkien made the somewhat shocking decision to abandon this root, proposing instead that S. mâb was derived from CE ✶makwā “handful” (VT47/6).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would ignore this very late idea, since √MAP appears so regularly in Tolkien’s earlier writings.
]]>Two notable derivatives of √MAY were S. mae “well” (PE17/17, 163) and Q. Maia (PE17/163; VT47/18), but elsewhere these two words were derived from the root √MAG “good (useful)” (PE17/16, 162; PE19/46, 62, 75, 94). In the aforementioned notes from the late 1960s, however, Tolkien said “maga was distinct from maʒa and maya” (VT48/18). For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume the root √MAY was distinct from √MAG, having the meaning “excellent, admirable, beautiful” and by extension the creation of beautiful things such as art, to allow the retention of 1957 words like Q. maitar “artist” (PE17/163).
A possible precursor to this root is unglossed ᴱ√MAẎA from the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s with derivatives like ᴱQ. mai “too much” and ᴱQ. maira “excessive, strong” (QL/60); perhaps a more extreme version of its later sense “excellent”. The entry also included ᴱQ. mairu “(horse ?); mane, flowing hair”, but Tolkien marked this word with a “?”, perhaps indicating he was unsure it was from this root (QL/60).
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root appeared as ᴹ√BAD along with a strengthened form ᴹ√MBAD glossed “duress, prison, doom, hell” (Ety/BAD, MBAD). Earlier entries for the strengthened root ᴹ√MBAD had glosses “hell” >> “doom” (EtyAC/MBAD). The strengthened root had derivatives like N. bann “duress, prison” and cognate ᴹQ. manda as in ᴹQ. Angamanda “Hell, Iron Prison” (Ety/MBAD). Tolkien said the unstrengthened root ᴹ√BAD was “not in Q” and it had derivatives like primitive verb ᴹ✶bad- “judge”, N. bauð “judgement”, and N. badhron “judge” (Ety/BAD), the Noldorin words having been transferred from ᴹ√MBAD (EtyAC/MBAD).
Thus it seems the unstrengthened root meant ᴹ√BAD “judge” and the strengthened root ᴹ√MBAD meant “duress, prison”. Tolkien’s continued use of names like Q. Mandos “Castle of Custody” and S. Angband “Iron Prison” indicate the ongoing validity of strengthened √MBAD, but there are other later root for “judge” such as *√NAM or √NDAB (PE22/154; VT42/34). These roots served as the basis for the true name of Mandos: Q. Námo or Návo (S/28; PE21/85; PE22/154).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume √BAD survived as a Sindarin-only root for “judge”, since the Sindar had no direct encounter with the Vala and would be less likely to use this true name for Mandos.
]]>The Qenya Lexicon also has an unstrengthened root ᴱ√MALA¹ “crush, squeeze, pulp” to which ᴱ√MBALA may (QL/63) or may not (QL/58) be related, whose derivatives include ᴱQ. mal- “to crush”, ᴱQ. malle “street” and G. mal “paved way, road” (QL/58; GL/56). There was another variant root ᴱ√MLŘL [MḶÐḶ] “crush, pound”, also connected to ᴱ√MALA¹ and with Gnomish variant blid[h]-, though it had no obvious derivatives in the contemporaneous Gnomish Lexicon (QL/62-63). In The Etymologies of the 1930s, it seems the “torment” words were transferred to ᴹ√(Ñ)GWAL: in the 1910s it seems in initial element of G. Balrog was from ᴱ√MBALA (GL/21; LT1A/Balrog) but in the 1930s it was from N. baul “torment” < ᴹ√(Ñ)GWAL (Ety/ÑGWAL). Thus 1930s ᴹ√MBAL was probably limited to meanings like “*crush, pound”.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root appeared as ᴹ√MBAR “dwell, inhabit” (Ety/MBAR); an earlier version of this entry had the extra gloss “build” (EtyAC/MBAR). In The Etymologies, it seems this root was a strengthened form of ᴹ√BAR “raise” (Ety/BAR), but the root ᴹ√MBARAT “fate” seems to be unrelated at this point (Ety/MBARAT). The root mbar- was mentioned in the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s (PE19/36) and again as √MBAR “{house >>} dwell” in the second version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ2) from around 1950 (PE18/92).
The root √MBAR still had the basic sense “dwell” in Notes on Galadriel’s Song (NGS) from the late 1950s or early 1960s (PE17/64); in those notes it seems it was distinct from both √BAR “raise” and √MAR(AT) or √MBART “doom, fate” (PE17/66). But in notes on Fate from 1968 (NM/226-231; PE17/104-109), Tolkien shifted the meaning of the root:
English “settle” in its various branches of meaning closely resembles the development of the meanings of √MBAR: thus settlement can mean the act of colonizing or taking up an abode, or the area or place so occupied (by a family or community); or (the terms of) an agreement fixed after debate. The development was not, however, the same: the senses of settle proceed from a sense “place in or take up” a firm position, especially in a place that seems suitable; from which the sense of settling affairs that were in confusion or doubt arose. √MBAR meant basically to make a decision, and the meanings relating to dwelling or occupying land proceeded from that (PE17/105).
This new definition for √MBAR was to support a more direct connection between this root and words like Q. umbar “fate”, hence establishing an etymological relationship to extended √MBARAT for the first time, for example with √MBAR > ✶mbartā- “to define, decree, destine” (PE17/104).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think this late 1960s meaning “settle, decide, establish; (by extension) dwell” is probably the best.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root appeared as ᴹ√MBARAT “fate” (Ety/MBARAT); this replaced an earlier unstrengthened version ᴹ√MAR-TA, as reflected in the change of the Noldorin form from N. marth >> N. barth (EtyAC/MBARAT), later still N. ammarth >> S. amarth (Ety/MBARAT; SA/amarth). In Notes on Galadriel’s Song (NGS) from the late 1950s or early 1960s Tolkien explicitly said that the root √MAR(AT) or √MBART “doom, fate” was not connected to √MBAR “dwell” (PE17/66), but in notes from the late 1960s he changed his mind and made an etymological connection between the two roots: see √MBAR for details.
]]>The root appeared as ᴹ√MBAS in The Etymologies of the 1930s with the derivatives like ᴹQ. masta/N. bast “bread” and ᴹQ. masta- “bake” (Ety/MBAS). When this root was first written it had the gloss “knead” and an unstrengthened form ᴹ√MAS, but both of these were crossed through (EtyAC/MBAS). The sense “knead” was transferred to the root ᴹ√MASAG, which still shows signs of unstrengthened ᴹ√MAS (Ety/MASAG). The root √MBAS “bake” appeared again in notes from the 1960s discussing the origin of S. lembas (PE17/51).
]]>There is no evidence of this root in The Etymologies of the 1930s; in this period ᴹQ. Melko was derived from ᴹ√MIL(IK) “*greed, lust” (Ety/MIL-IK). The root appears a number of times in Tolkien’s later writings, always as the basis for Q. Melkor. The root melk- was mentioned in notes associated with the essay Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth from around 1959, where Tolkien said it “means ‘power’ as force and strength” (MR/350). The root √MBELEK is implied by Tolkien’s etymology of Q. Melkor in the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60, being derived from ✶Mbelekōre “He who arises in Might” (WJ/402). The root appears as √MELEK “great, mighty, powerful, strong” (rejected) or mbelek “large, great” in notes from around 1968, connected to both S. beleg and Q. Melkor (PE17/115).
It seems Tolkien vacillated on whether Q. Melkor and S. beleg were related. The root may have been √MELEK, unrelated to √BEL. Alternately, it may have been √MBELEK, but the various mutations of S. beleg “great” show no signs of primitive initial mb-. Thus, it seems the strengthening to mb- either occurred only in Quenya, or it enhanced the meaning of the root from “large, great” to “powerful, mighty”.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I prefer the last of these theories.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I prefer to assume the comparative is based instead on an-, but √MBON “*lump, mass” may be worth retaining as an additional influence for hill words.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien specified that ᴹ√MEL meant “love (as friend)”, and for the first time it included the derivative N. mellon “friend” (Ety/MEL); Gnomish “friend” words from the 1910s were mostly based on G. ged (GL/38). However, the same entry included ᴹQ. melindo/ᴹQ. melisse “lover” (male and female), so it seems even in the 1930s it could refer to romantic love (Ety/MEL). The root continued to appear in Tolkien’s later writings associated with “love” (PE18/46, 96; PE17/41; VT39/10).
In notes from 1959, Tolkien elaborated on the precise sense of √MEL and its role in romantic and non-romantic love:
Love, which Men might call “friendship” (but for the greater strength and warmth and permanency with which it was felt by the Quendi) was represented by √mel. This was primarily a motion or inclination of the fëa [“spirit”], and therefore could occur between persons of the same sex or different sexes. It included no sexual or procreative desire, though naturally in Incarnates the difference of sex altered the emotion, since “sex” is held by the Eldar to belong also to the fëa and not solely to the hröa [“body”], and is therefore not wholly included in procreation ... The “desire” for marriage and bodily union was represented by √yer; but this never in the uncorrupted occurred without “love” √mel, nor without the desire for children. This element was therefore seldom used except to describe occasions of its dominance in the process of courting and marriage. The feelings of lovers desiring marriage, and of husband and wife, were usually described by √mel. This “love” remained, of course, permanent after the satisfaction of √yer in the “Time of the Children”; but was strengthened by this satisfaction and the memory of it to a normally unbreakable bond (NM/20).
Thus √MEL was close in sense to Greek “philia”, used of friendship, whereas √YER was used of “eros” or sexual desire. But in Elvish thinking, √MEL was essential for romantic love, and √YER only arose from that. Furthermore, √YER was not the most important element in the love between romantic partners, as the period of procreation and child-rearing took up a relatively small portion of Elvish lives. It was the more enduring feeling of friendship between lovers that really mattered, and thus √MEL was used of both non-romantic and romantic love, though it had not particular sexual connotation.
]]>In the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948, Tolkien first gave ᴹ√MEN the gloss “aim at, intend, purpose” with the more specific sense “make for, proceed towards” when used with the allative, but then crossed this out and simply made the gloss “go, proceed” (PE22/103 and note #21). In Common Eldarin: Noun Structure of the early 1950s, Tolkien first gave √MEN the gloss as “place, situation, site”, then revised it to “direction, object, point moved toward” (PE21/79 and note #39).
Thereafter Tolkien mostly gave this root the basic sense “go” (PE17/93, 143, 165; VT39/11; VT42/32). Tolkien gave a somewhat lengthy description of the root in Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN) from 1959:
√MEN go, move, proceed in any direction (irrespective of speaker’s position, or assumed point of thought). mēn- a way, a going, a mov[ement] (PE17/165).
Thus in the 1950s and 1960s, Q. formen likely meant “*north way” rather than “*north place”. However, in a footnote in The Road Goes Ever On from 1967, Tolkien did say that men had the meaning “direction, region” as part of an explanation of √MENEL “heavens” = men + el (“region of stars”), so it seems Tolkien did not entirely abandon the use of this element as a name for places.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Quenya, I sometimes see √MEN use for movement in general (as in motion picture) rather than movement in a direction. I personally recommend using ᴱQ. lev- “(intr.) move” from Qenya Wordlists of the 1920s for that purpose (PE16/132) since I think it is important to distinguish “move” from “go”, but if you prefer to use only later words you might be more comfortable expanding the semantic scope of √MEN to movement in general.
@@@ 1950s mendë “will” = “*intent” and 1964 menta-² “have as object, (in)tend”]]>In the 1940s conception, √MENEL was ancient enough that it was able to influence the Adûnaic language indirectly via Avari, producing Ad. minal or minil (SD/414). However, in the 1950s Tolkien said “thus it is reported that √MENEL ‘heavens, firmament’ was devised by Quennar of Túna in ancient days while both Noldor and Vanyar dwelt in Tirion, and so is part of the Vanyarin (Quenya) speech and of Noldorin, but not of Telerin” (PE21/84). In notes from The Road Goes Ever On published in 1967 Tolkien said of menel: “The word was a Q. invention from men (direction, region) + el (the basis of many star words)” (RGEO/64). Thus it seems his later idea was that it is was originally a Quenya-only word, later borrowed into Sindarin.
Note, though, that Ad. minal remained in later writings as well, as an element in the city name Arminalêth (PM/145). These two competing conceptions can be reconciled if Ad. minil is likewise a loan word from Quenya in the First Age, adapted in a period where ancient Adûnaic did not have short e, and then later altered to minal. This was, in fact, an alternate scenario that Tolkien considered in the 1940s, though in that period he considered it more likely that √Ad. MINIL was more ancient than that (SD/414).
]]>In both earlier and contemporaneous Silmarillion drafts of the 1930s, however, Tolkien used N. Mereth Aderthad for “Feast of Reuniting” (SM/329; LR/126, 253) and continued to use S. Mereth Aderthad in the Silmarillion narratives of the 1950s and 60s (S/113; WJ/34). Possibly also related was the revision of the name Beril “Rose” to S. Meril in the unpublished epilogue to The Lord of the Ring written from the end of the 1940s (SD/117; SD/126). Conversely, {√MED >>} √MER “wish for, want” appeared in the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948 (PE22/102; 103 note #23) and Q. mer- “hope” appeared in the so-called “Merin Sentence”: Q. merin sa haryalyë alassë nó vanyalyë Ambarello “I hope that you have happiness before you pass from the world”, of unknown date but certainly written after the 1st edition of The Lord of the Rings (MS).
Thus it seems Tolkien merged ᴹ√MBER back into ᴹ√MER, though the meaning of the combined root isn’t clear given its various derivatives with senses like “feast”, “rose” and “wish, hope”. The last of these probably remained the core meaning, perhaps with “festive” extrapolated from “hopeful”.
]]>Both ᴹ√MI “inside” and its inversion ᴹ√IMI “in” appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s (Ety/MI; EtyAC/IMI), though the only derivative of the inversion was ᴹ√IMBE “dell, deep vale” (EtyAC/IMI, IMBE). The root or its inversion appeared a number of times in Tolkien’s later writings as well, up into the 1960s (PE17/41, 92; VT47/11, 30).
This root probably has an extension √MIT as implied by words like mitta “inwards”, mitta- “insert”, and mitya “interior”. Hat-tip to Vyacheslav Stepanov for this suggestion.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is worth positing a Neo-Eldarin root √MILIG to salvage derivatives of 1920s ᴱ✶mḷgo.
]]>Conceptual Development: The root ᴱ√MḶKḶ “possess” appeared in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s (QL/62) as part of a list of roots at the end of the M-section (QL/63). It had derivatives like ᴱQ. malke “rich”, ᴱQ. malko “lord”, and ᴱQ. milk- “have, keep, possess” (QL/62). In the contemporaneous Gnomish Lexicon is also had derivatives like G. malc “rich, powerful” and G. malcos “lordship” (GL/56).
]]>The Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s had a distinct root ᴱ√MINI² from which “tower” words were derived, such as ᴱQ. mindon/G. mindon (QL/61; GL/57). In The Etymologies of the 1930s these roots were merged together into a single root ᴹ√MINI “stand alone, stick out”, whose derivatives included both ᴹQ. min/N. min “one” as well as ᴹQ. mindo and N. mindon/minnas “tower” (Ety/MIN).
In Tolkien’s later writings √MIN was mostly mentioned in the context of Elvish numbering systems, and given glosses like “one” or “first of a series” (VT42/24; VT47/16-17), but in notes written in 1967-69 Tolkien indicated it was still the basis for “tower” words, most likely from the sense “prominent” (VT42/24). In these later notes Tolkien was careful to distinguish √MIN “one” used in counting vs. √ER “one” used for individual things: √MIN was for the first of a series of things, whereas √ER was for a single thing that was unique, alone or in isolation. The distinct senses of these two roots dates back at least as far as The Etymologies of the 1930s (Ety/ER, MIN).
]]>Note that in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s there was a root ᴱ√MISI “mingere [Latin = urinate]” with a derivative ᴱQ. mis “urine” (QL/62); this might have been a precursor to 1930s ᴹ√MIS² “*wet”.
]]>In notes on “large vs. small” from 1968 Tolkien had (root or verb?) mol- “labour” and (noun?) mōle, followed by MBOL/BOL with derivative Q. molda “big, large”, but this note was crossed through and √(M)BOL “*large” did not appear in the next list of the large/small roots (PE17/115). Thus I think √MO(L) reverted back to the meaning “labour”.
]]>In the Gnomish of the 1910s, the first element of G. Umboth-muilin “Pools of Twilight” was derived from ᴱ√mbaþ-, a strengthened form of ᴱ√MAÞA “dusk”, with the second element muilin meaning “pools”, the plural G. muil (LT2/225; GL/58, 75). Later still this name became S. Aelin-uial, and it seems √M(B)OT was repurposed for swamp words.
]]>The root √NĀ was often contrasted with other roots of similar meanings. For example:
Stem of verb “exist” (have being in primary world of history) was √EŊE, distinct from √NA joining adjs./nouns/pronouns in statements (or wishes) asserting (or desiring) a thing to have a certain quality, or to be the same as another (PE22/147).
There were also periods when roots other than √NĀ were the basis for “to be” statement in Elvish. See the entry on √EÑ “exist” for a conceptual history of these alternate roots and their derivatives.
]]>This same example of inversion was used in the second version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa from around 1950 (TQ2: PE18/88), and this invertible root appeared regularly in Tolkien’s later writings almost always with glosses like “to, towards, motion to”. There were a few instances in which Tolkien explored some alternate meanings for the root, however. In Common Eldarin: Noun Structure from the early 1950s Tolkien said that:
It is true that in Q. na appears with sense “to”, but this at nearest means “towards, to a position near, alongside” ... The original sense of Eldarin ana was plainly “at side of, alongside, besides”, hence also “moreover, in addition, plus” (seen in use of an- as an intensive prefix), and so an or na in some languages has the sense “along with, with, accompanied by, provided with, associated with” and the like (PE21/79).
Likewise in Quenya Notes from 1957 (QN) Tolkien said:
√ANA/NĀ, to, towards - added to, plu-. Quenya verbal prefix ana, na-, as in napan-, add. an “plu-”, intensive prefix, arcalima, preeminently bright, ancalima, very bright ... S an, dative chiefly with pronouns or persons. < ana, hence vocalic mutation, but takes form m before m, b. * to, for (PE17/146-7).
In this note Tolkien went on to explore various non-allative meanings associated with the root such as the conjugation/adverb Q. an “for, then, or, but” and prepositions S. na(n) “with” vs. S. na “to, towards”, differing mainly in the mutations they cause (nasal versus soft). It seems the association of this root with both the intensive an- and words like Q. an “for; moreover” and S. na(n) “with” motivated Tolkien to find a more nuanced meaning for the root. This likewise probably motivated Tolkien to explore an alternate basis for the intensive prefix in 1967, deriving it from √AMA rather than √AN (PE17/90-94).
Neo-Eldarin: For Neo-Eldarin, I prefer to retain an- as the basis for intensives in both Quenya and Sindarin, and thus I think it is best to retain the extended meanings of √AN from the 1950s to include senses like “add to, more” and “up to the side of”, hence by extension “alongside” becoming (in S.) “with, accompanying, possessing, having the trait of” as in S. na(n) “of, with”.
]]>The unglossed root ᴹ√NAD appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s with derivatives like ᴹQ. nanda “water-mead, watered plain”, N. nadhor “pasture”, and N. nann “wide grassland” and so probably meaning something like “*plain” (Ety/NAD); it had a rejected variant ᴹ√NÁNAD as well (EtyAC/NAD). √NAD appeared in notes from 1968 with the gloss “hollow (of structures or natural features more or less concave with rising sides)” and derivatives like Q. nanwa “a (large) bowl” and S. nand “valley” (NM/351). In these notes, primitive ✶nandē was described as meaning:
*nandē “a valley, bottom”, originally used only of not very large areas the sides of which were part of their own configuration. Vales or valleys of great extent, plains at the feet of mountains, etc. had other names.
The most notable names in the early legendarium using this root are ᴱQ. Tasarinan and G. Nan Tathrin “Land of Willows”, names that retained the same basic form and meaning in Tolkien’s later writings, except that the Sindarin form became S. Nan-tathren, and that Tolkien sometimes translated the name as “Valley of Willows” instead of “Land”. Indeed, the elements S. nan(d) and Q. nan(do) or nandë appeared regularly in names in Tolkien’s later writings, but almost always translated as “valley” or “vale”.
Neo-Eldarin: Since primitive ✶nandē referred as much to the plain at the bottom of the valley than the valley itself, I would assume Noldorin (and Neo-Sindarin) words having to doing with pastures could be extrapolate from that sense. For Neo-Quenya pasture words, however, I would use derivatives of ᴺ√NES; see that entry for discussion.
]]>One interesting derivative of this root from the 1930s was N. naeth “biting, gnashing of teeth” from which N. nírnaeth “lamentation = *tear[ful]-gnashing” was derived, serving as an element in N. Nírnaeth Arnediad “[Battle of] Unnumbered Tears” (Ety/NAY; LR/310), replacing earlier Nirnaith of unclear etymology. In later writings Tolkien said S. naeth simply meant “woe” in the name S. Sigil Elu-naeth “Necklace of the Woe of Thingol” (WJ/258), but this may just be a generalization of its 1930s meaning “gnashing of teeth”. As for the root √NAK “bite”, it reappeared in the second version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ2), serving again as example of an abnormal vocalization leading to the derivative ✶ankā “jaws” (PE18/87).
]]>In notes from 1969 Tolkien seems to have changed his mind of the root for “judge”, writing Q. nemin >> Q. hamin >> Q. navin for “I judge”, and giving a new root √NDAB “to judge” in a marginal note along with a revised name Návo to replace Námo (PE22/154, notes #53 and #55). This new root conflicts with √NDAB “endeavor, try” from earlier in the same bundle of documents (PE22/151).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would ignore the late change of *√NAM >> √NDAB “judge”, since *√NAM has more attested derivatives and Námo appears in the published Silmarillion. Also, all of the derivatives of this root are Quenya, and its possible use in the name Rithil-Anamo (coined in Valinor) imply that it might be a root invented after the Elves arrived in Aman. Thus I think it is best to treat it as Quenya-only root, and used ᴹ√BAD “judge” as the basis for (Neo) Sindarin words for judgement by retaining Noldorin words with these meanings from the 1930s (Ety/BAD).
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is preferable to retain the root √MAP “take hold, seize”, but √NAP can co-exist with it as a variant of similar meaning, both allowing its 1960s derivatives (mostly thumb words) and salvaging some of its Gnomish derivatives.
]]>The derivation of N. naith from ᴹ√SNAS/SNAT is unclear, however, and later on Tolkien gave a new etymology of this word from the root √NEK¹ “narrow” (PE17/55; UT/282). This may mean Tolkien abandoned ᴹ√(S)NAS, but I think it is worth retaining ᴹ√NAS for purposes of Neo-Eldarin for words like nasta- “to prick”.
]]>The primitive assimilation of nasals was an idea that dates back to Tolkien’s earliest conception of the Elvish languages. Tolkien mentioned this assimilation in the Qenya Phonology from the 1910s:
There certainly existed a nasal in all positions but {it is not >>} most are not found “free” in a vocalic state whereas prehistorically all nasals were assimilated to the timbre and articul[atory] position of the succeeding consonsant whether semi-vocalic or vocalic (PE12/11).
Tolkien mentioned these assimilations in both versions of Tengwesta Qenderinwa, from the 1930s (TQ1) and the 1950s (TQ2):
[ŋ] tended very early to become denasalized to [ʒ]. But before this tendency operated it became assimilated to following stops: thus suffixal ŋt, ŋth, ŋd > nt, nth, nd ... it was assimilated to [m] before p, ph, b; but ŋv probably became ŋgw though no certain cases are known. ... [n] became assimilated also to all stops (p, ph, b, k, kh, g), but originally remained before continuants y, w, {(v)}, m. ... [m] originally remained unchanged in contact, though examples of m + k, kh, g are rare, and of m + ŋ, ʒ there are no examples (TQ1, PE18/54).
Nasal consonants tended to be assimilated to the place of articulation of the following consonant - if a stop or [s]. The nasal [ŋ] became n before t, th, d, s; m before p, ph, b ... The nasal [n] became ŋ̃ before k, kh, g, ʒ (which did not occur as suffixal combinations but only in talta-forms of ³√TALAT-bases) ... n was also assimilated to m, before p, ph, b (non-suffixal), but not before m in suffixal combinations. The nasal [m] was originally not assimilated to following consonants, though it was early assimilated to [ŋ] before k, kh, g in talta-forms (TQ2, PE18/102).
Tolkien also discussed these assimilations in the Outline of Phonetic Development from the 1940s (OP1) and from the Outline of Phonology from the 1950s (OP2):
In CE [ñ] became [ʒ] (originally probably via nasalization of the neighbouring vowels, the nasality of the whole group being then later abandoned), except where it had become assimilated to some other nasal: as ñt > nt ... m, n as a rule remained unchanged [in CE] ... The nasals were frequently assimilated to dentals: [ñ] always; m always except in mn which was preserved. m, ñ + t, d > nt, nd (OP1, PE19/46-47).
Before stops and aspirates. Assimilation [of nasals] was regularly carried out and maintained in Quenya. The oldest assimilation was probably that of ñ to labials and dentals; ñ thus becoming m or n in CE was preserved as a nasal. But also of CE age was the assimilation of dental n to m before labials and ñ before k, kh, g. The assimilation of m was probably not accomplished in CE. It did not occur in Telerin, where e.g. mt > md, mpt (OP2, PE19/102).
According to editor’s note #144 on PE19/102, the last Telerin note was added in the margin in green pen and probably dates to around 1970, and might be better interpreted as mt/md > mpt. This is the only text I’ve found that indicates nasal assimilations might not have occurred in all Eldarin languages, and it seems to be a very late (and possibly transient) idea.
The quotes above indicate Tolkien was not entirely certain about the timing of these changes; he seems consistent in that ŋ-assimilation occurred first followed by [n] and then [m], but while ŋ-assimilation must have occurred in CE (otherwise ŋ would have become ʒ), m-assimilation properly belongs to the history of the child languages (and he may sometimes have imagined this was true of n-assimilation as well). The exact timing of the changes may have depended on whether the combinations were the result of suffixion or from the vowel variations that produced TALTA forms.
Nasal assimilations remained an active sound change in Quenya probably for its entire history up through modern Quenya, given the extreme constraints on Quenya phonotactics. For example, it still occurred after Quenya-only sound changes like the Quenya syncope and stop/nasal metathesis, for example:
In cases like [n] > [ŋ] before k, g, the sound change was obscured because Tolkien generally wrote nk (nc), ng for [ŋk], [ŋg], since this was phonetically unambiguous. In Sindarin, however, at least the assimilation of labial [m] before by a dentals ceased to be an active sound change at some point in the language’s history, since combinations like md were possible in late compounds: S. “hope” (MR/320); S. “Wall’s End” (S/122), N. (Ety/TAL, LR/262). Examples like S. “not pronouncable” and [deleted] S. “answer” hint that this may have been true of [n] + labial combinations as well, but there the evidence is more ambiguous. There are definitely cases where such assimilations occur in Old Sindarin/Old Noldorin, however:
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, it is easiest to model this phonetic development as occurring in Primitive Elvish. This has barely any effect on the child languages if one assumes it remained an active sound change up through Tarquesta and (at least) Old Sindarin.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s, the root form was given as ᴹ√NAY “lament” with a dental nasal rather than a velar (Ety/NAY). Its derivatives had more to do with sadness, such as ᴹQ. naire “lament, sorrow” and N. noer “sad, lamentable”. However, it had what appeared to be an extended form ᴹ√NAYAK “pain” retaining some of its meanings from the 1910s, such as ᴹQ. naike “sharp pain”, though Tolkien did suggested this root might instead be an elaboration ᴹ√NAYKA of the root ᴹ√NAK “bite” (Ety/NÁYAK).
The root reappeared in Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN) written around 1959 as √NAY “cause bitter grief or pain” with derivatives like Q. naica “bitterly painful or grievous” and Q. naira/S. naer “dreadful, horrible, unendurable” (PE17/151). In this same note Tolkien said √NAY influenced the meaning of √(N)DAY “dreadful, abominable, detestable” in Sindarin; see the entry on √DAY for further details.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would ignore this root since it conflicts with the much better established √NAY¹ “grief, pain”, and would stick with the well established etymology of Q. nai “maybe, be it that” = Q. ná- + Q. i.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think √NDAB is problematic in that it collides with other forms like √NDAB “judge” (VT42/34; PE22/154), but √NDEB “try” might still be useful, perhaps with the nuance “*make an attempt, expirement” as opposed to √RIK “strive, *work towards, put forth effort”.
]]>The root was given as ᴹ√NDAG “slay” in the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948 (PE22/102, 115), but unglossed ᴹ√NDAK appeared in the same document (PE22/112), and verb ᴹQ. nak- was sometimes glossed “kill” as well (PE22/120). The root appeared as √NDAK “hew, slay” in the Outline of Phonology from the 1950s (OP2: PE19/91) and again as √NDAK “hew” in Late Notes on Verb Structure (LVS) from 1969 (LVS: PE22/156). This introduction of the sense “hew” in the 1950s and 60s may be a partial restoration of the senses of the 1920s root ᴱ√dag-, which meant more that just “slay”. If so, √NDAK may be compared with √MAK which had a similar variety of meanings (“cleave, sword, slay, fight, forge”); see that entry for details.
]]>The root √(N)DAN appeared several times in Tolkien’s later writings. It appeared among a list of roots having to do with “back” probably composed around 1959 (PE17/166). In this list, Tolkien clarified that in Quenya, √NDAN specifically meant “back” as an action by the same agent revising a previous action, as opposed to an action by a different agent, for which Tolkien coined the root {√TŌ/OTO >>} √KHAN; the example Tolkien gave was Q. nanwen-/S. dadwen- “return, go back [by same agent]” < √NDAN vs. {{Q. tóquet- >>} Q. hanquenta “answer [by a different agent]”. This distinction was lost in Sindarin, however, and √NDAN came to be used for both same and differing agents. Tolkien also said that √NDAN could be used “of return (in same path), retracing, and so employable as un- as in undo”.
The root was mentioned again in the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60, where Tolkien said:
The name Nandor was a derivative of the element *dan, *ndan- indicating the reversal of an action, so as to undo or nullify its effect, as in “undo, go back (the same way), unsay, give back (the same gift: not another in return)”. The original word *ndandō, therefore, probably only implied “one who goes back on his word or decision”.
Finally, the root appeared in some notes from the late 1960s where √dan- was glossed “retreat, go back, give way (as one advances), revert” serving as the basis for {✶danmi >>} ✶ndanmē > Q. nanwë/S. dannen “ebb-tide”, apparently originally meaning “retreat” (VT48/26 author’s note #2, VT48/32 editor’s note #18). In the same document Tolkien again mentioned the connection of this root to the name of the Nandor.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it would be worth salvaging this root in this strengthened form ᴺ√NDEL “thick, dense”, since I know of no other good options for words meaning “dense”.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s, the base root was ᴹ√DER “adult male, man (of any race)” with strengthened variant ᴹ√NDER “bridegroom”, but with the Quenya root becoming ᴹ√NĒR “man” under the influence of ᴹ√NĪ “woman” (Ety/DER, NDER, NĒR, NĪ); from this point forward Noldorin/Sindarin derivatives began with d-, such as S./N. dîr “man”. Likewise in Quendian & Common Eldarin Verbal Structure, also from the late 1930s, the root was given as ᴹ√(N)DER “man, male”, again as a strengthening of ᴹ√DER (EVS1: PE22/98). However, in the first version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa from the 1940s, the primitive root is given as ᴹ√NER “man” (TQ1: PE18/35) and likewise from the first version of Quenya Personal Pronouns from the late 1940s (QPP1: PE23/87).
Starting in the 1950s, Tolkien was more consistent in making the base root √NER with strengthened form √NDER. Tolkien gave √NDER/NER “male person” in Common Eldarin: Verb Structure (EVS2: PE22/133) and Common Eldarin: Noun Structure (PE21/70), both from the early 1950s. In the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60 the base root was √NERE, though Tolkien clarified that the base root as referred more specifically to “physical strength and valour” (WJ/393). The root is given as √NER “man, male” in notes from the late 1960s (VT47/33).
]]>The unstrengthened form √NIL appeared in a letter to David Masson from 1955, where Tolkien said “√NIL means to love as a friend or equal”, as opposed to √(N)DUR which meant “to show special interest in things such as trees, astronomy, gems, medicine, sea, etc.” (PE17/152). Tolkien went on to say that, properly speaking, -(n)dil could apply only to persons and -(n)dur should be used of things, with names like Meneldil and Anardil being “Mannish” misuses of the suffix.
The root appeared again as √(N)DIL “to love, be devoted to” in the draft of a letter to Mr. Rang from 1967, where Tolkien clarified that it described “the attitude of one to a person, thing, course or occupation to which one is devoted for its own sake” (Let/386). This seems to be the only place where Tolkien clearly indicates the unstrengthened form is √DIL. Tolkien again clarified the distinction with √(N)DUR in a footnote:
This provides the key to a large number of other Elvish Q. names, such as Elendil “Elf-friend” (eled+ndil), Valandil, Mardil the Good Steward (devoted to the House, sc. of the Kings) Meneldil “astronomer” etc. Of similar significance in names is -(n)dur, though properly this means “to serve”, as one serves a legitimate master: cf. Q. arandil “king’s friend, royalist”, beside arandur “king’s servant, minister”. But these often coincide: e.g. Sam’s relation to Frodo can be viewed either as in status -ndur, in spirit -ndil. Compare among the variant names: Eärendur “(professional) mariner” (Let/386).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin I would leave the unstrengthened form of this root as √NIL to retain the use of ᴹ√DIL “stop up, fill up hole” from the 1930s. I would also assume that √N(D)IL mainly refers to “devotion”, as opposed to √(N)DUR which mainly refers to “service”. Hence Elendil = “Elf friend” but Valandur = “Servant of the Vala”.
]]>The two roots were separated again in The Etymologies of the 1930s where the root ᴹ√NDOR “dwell, stay, rest, abide” was the proper basis for “land” words, but in Quenya was blended with nóre “clan, race” from the root ᴹ√NŌ “beget” (Ety/NDOR, NŌ). This derivation allowed Tolkien to retain his preferred suffixes Q. -nóre/-nor vs. N./S. -dor for “-land”, and he mentioned this parallel derivation several times in later writings (PE17/26, 106-107; WJ/413 note #25). The only later change was in the gradual refinement of the meaning of NDOR as more properly referring to (dry) land as opposed to water, seas and swamps (PE17/106, 181), properly a strengthened form of √DOR “hard, tough” (PE17/181; WJ/413).
]]>Or so its name [Hidden Rock] was afterwards known and interpreted; but its ancient form and meaning are in doubt. It is said that the name was given first in Quenya (for that language was spoken in Turgon’s house), and was Ondolindë, the Rock of the Music of Water, for there were fountains upon the hill. But the people (who spoke only the Sindarin tongue) altered this name to Gondolin and interpreted [it] to mean Hidden Rock: Gond dolen in their own speech (WJ/201).]]>
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to keep the connection between √NDUR “bow down = serve” and √NDU “descend”. As for the semantic distinctions between -(n)dil and -(n)dur, see the entry on the root √N(D)IL for details.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is worth retaining this (Noldorin and Sindarin-only?) prefix ne- “in”.
]]>The root ᴹ√NEG reappeared unglossed in The Etymologies of the 1930s with derivatives like ᴹQ. nehte and N. nîdh “honeycomb” (EtyAC/NEG). It appeared in the Outline of Phonology from the early 1950s with the gloss “ooze, drip” (marked by Tolkien with a “?”) and derivatives Q. nehtë/T. nettë “honey” and S. nîdh “juice” (PE19/91).
]]>The root √NEK also appeared in Quenya Notes (QN) from 1957 with the gloss “deprive”, serving among other things as the basis for S. neithan “one deprived” (PE17/167), which was the name adopted by Túrin after he became an outlaw (S/200). The root appeared again in notes on Elvish numbers from the late 1960s glossed as either “divide, part, separate” (VT47/16) or “divide, separate” (VT48/9), where it served as the basis for √ENEK “six” as the dividing point between the lower and upper set of numbers in the Elvish duodecimal system.
It is not clear whether Tolkien intended all these various meanings for the root √NEK to be connected. For purposes of analysis, I’ve split √NEK¹ “narrow” from √NEK² “separate; deprive”, but conceivably the sense “narrow” could be a semantic extension of “separate” or vice-versa.
]]>In the first layer of The Etymologies of the 1930s, this root was glossed “point, triangle” (EtyAC/NEL), but Tolkien changed the gloss of ᴹ√NEL to “three” and gave it two extended roots ᴹ√NELED (also “three”) and ᴹ√NELEK “tooth” (Ety/NEL, NELEK). In this revised paradigm, probably “tooth” was derived from the sense “triangle”. In The Etymologies of the 1930s, Ilk. neldor “beech” was still derived from this root, but was said to refer to the “three trunks” of Hirilorn.
In later writings from the 1950s and 60s, the gloss of √NEL was consistently “three” (WJ/421; VT42/24; VT47/10-11), and the extended form √NELED “three” appeared regularly as well (VT42/24; VT47/11). √NELEK “tooth” also appeared in several documents from the 1940s and 50s (PE19/58; PE21/56, 71).
]]>In the Quenya Verbal System from 1948 Tolkien used nem- (PE22/99-100, 105, 111), and in Common Eldarin: Verb Structure (EVS2) from the early 1950s had Q. {nemeste} nemesta “appearance, seeming” (PE22/137). Eldarin Pronouns (EP1) also from the early 1950s had the root √NEM as the basis for ✶nemi-ne “it appears to me, me seems” (PE23/123). The forms Q. níma/nimulë and S. nîf/nivol appeared in 1957 notes, all glossed “phantom” or “seeming”, which indicate Tolkien may have restored *√NIM “seem”. I prefer to stick with better attested √NEM for purposes of Neo-Eldarin.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien had unglossed ᴹ√NEN with derivatives like ᴹQ. nén/N. nen “water” and ᴹQ. nelle “brook” (Ety/NEN), whereas ᴱ√NERE² and ᴱ√NEÐE from the 1910s seems to have been abandoned. The primitive form √NEN or nē̆n “water” continued to appear regularly in Tolkien’s writings from the 1940s, 50s and 60s (PE17/52, 167; PE19/102; PE21/64, 79).
]]>Neo-Eldarin: I think this may be used as a Neo-Root ᴺ√NES in order to salvage various early words for “feed” and “pasture”. In earlier versions of this lexicon, I used to recommend √NAD for pasture words as suggested by Boris Shapiro in PPQ, but The Nature of Middle-earth published in 2021 revealed that the gloss for this root was “hollow” (NM/351), making it less suitable for pasture words.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is worth retaining the “pretty, dainty” sense of this root, though not necessarily connecting it to “nine”, which can simply be from unrelated √NETER.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is easiest to assume √NETER its own root without any deeper etymology, and the other relations are speculative (false) etymologies.
]]>In notes on Eldarin Hands, Fingers and Numerals from the late 1960s, Tolkien again redefined √NETH, this time as the basis for Elvish “sister” words, either specifically meaning “sister” (VT47/12, 26, 34), meaning “(young) woman” (VT47/15, 32, 39) or perhaps “fresh, lively, merry” (VT47/32), the last of these probably a callback to its 1930s meaning “young”. In notes from 1959-60, however, the name Q. Nessa was disconnected from the root √NETH, derived instead from ✶Neresā meaning “she that has manlike valour or strength” (WJ/416).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best for √NETH to retain its essential 1930s meaning “young, fresh, lively”, but with an association to young women as described in Tolkien’s notes from the 1960s, and thus by extension “sister” as named from the perspective of the parents.
]]>The root reappeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s as ᴹ√NEI̯ “tear” (Ety/NEI), though Tolkien considered and rejected alternate roots ᴹ√NEÑ (EtyAC/NEI) and ᴹ√NEI̯(ET) “moist” (NEI̯(ET)), the latter becoming the primitive word ᴹ✶neiti > ᴹQ. níte “moist, dewy” and N. nîd “damp, wet; tearful”. Other derivatives include ᴹQ. nie “tear”/N. nîn “tear” (same as the forms from the 1910s) as well as N. nírnaeth “lamentation” (Ety/NEI). Tolkien’s continued use of Q. Nienna (S/28) and S. nirnaeth (S/192) in later versions of the Silmarillion indicate this root’s ongoing validity.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think some of the Quenya nye- forms from the 1910s might be salvaged as abnormal vocalization from n(e)ye- < √NEY.
]]>The introduction of the root ÑGAL “gleem, sheen” resolved this problem, as ✶Ñ(g)alatā-rigelle would become Galadriel in Sindarin, but the intermediate nasal would be lost in *Gil-(ñ)galatā (PE17/59-60). Tolkien mentioned this new etymology in a few other places, with slightly different glosses for the root such as √Ŋ(G)AL “shine clear” (PE17/169), √ÑAL “shine, glitter (applied to light reflected from water, metal, glass, gems, etc.)” (NM/353), and √ÑAL “shine by reflection” (PM/347), the last of these from The Shibboleth of Fëanor from 1968, one of the last detailed discussion of the etymologies of these names.
]]>The later Quenya words Q. tanta- “to harp” and tant(il)a “harp” (VT41/10) might indicate its replacement by another root (?√TANAT or ?√KYANAT). ᴱQ. kantl “large harp” (< ᴱ√KᴬNTᴬN) might have developed conceptually into the later Q. tant(il)a “harp”, which might be an indirect derivative of an unattested root *√KYANAT (<< ᴱ√KᴬNTᴬN) via Telerin in the same way that Q. telpë “silver” developed from √KYELEP under influence of T. telpe. We have no cognates of Q. tant(il)a in other languages, so there is no clear way to determine the actual later root.
Neo-Eldarin: For Neo-Eldarin purposes, I would suggest using ᴹ√ÑGAN(AD) and its larger set of derivatives over hypothetical √TANAT or √KYANAT, which has only Quenya derivatives. For example, nande was used in NQNT (Neo-Quenya New Testament) over tant(il)a.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I recommend sticking with the sense “howl” for this root.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: As the only attested Quenya word for “get”, the word net- “to get” is popular in Neo-Quenya despite its early creation. I think it worth positing a strengthened Neo-Eldarin root ᴺ√Ñ(G)ET to retain this word.
]]>This root appeared as ᴹ√GIL “shine (white or pale)” in The Etymologies of the 1930s with derivatives like N. geil “star” and ᴹQ. Ilma “Starlight” (Ety/GIL). The root regularly appeared in this unstrengthened form in Tolkien’s later writing, for example as √GIL “shine (white)” in a 1955 letter to David Masson (PE17/152) or as gil “white or silver light” in a 1958 letter to Rhona Beare (Let/278). In one place Tolkien considered giving it a kil- variant, analogous to √GAL vs. √KAL for “(golden) light” (PE17/50), but that seems to have been a transient idea. In other notes dating to the late 1950s Tolkien gave the root in strengthened form as √NGIL “silver glint” (MR/388; PE17/22) and also √GIL >> √ÑGIL as the basis for the initial element of the name S. Gil-galad (PE17/23).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume the root was originally unstrengthened √GIL, but was sometimes strengthened to √ÑGIL to produce words like Q. ñille “silver glint”.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root appeared as ᴹ√ÑGOL “wise, wisdom, be wise” along with an extended form ᴹ√ÑGOLOD serving as the basis for ᴹQ. Noldo/N. Golodh (Ety/ÑGOL; ÑGOLOD). This root and its extended form were mentioned regularly in Tolkien’s later writings, with glosses like “knowledge” (PE17/79) and “knowledge, wisdom, lore” (WJ/383), and in one place Tolkien clarified that it was “deep knowledge not ‘occult’ in modern sense, but applied to the deeper knowledge of the ‘wise’ or skilled persons, not kept secret ... but [also] not attainable by all” (PE17/79).
]]>Delete all references of Noldo to “wisdom, lore”! This characteristic only clearly seen later - the Tribal names must be early formations ... √ÑGOL = dark-hued, dark-brown ... The predominant colour of Ñoldorin hair was very dark brown (PE17/125).
The problem with this scenario is that elsewhere the root √ÑGOL is deeply associated with wisdom. Although Tolkien did not explicitly reject √ÑGOL “dark-hued, dark-brown”, this scenario is mentioned nowhere else. Nevertheless, it is possible that the Primitive Quenderin sense of ÑGOL was originally “dark-hued, dark-brown” and the root later developed the meaning “knowledge, wisdom” by association with the Noldor, replacing the older meaning. If so, perhaps the only survival of the original meaning is the word Q. ñolya “dark-haired”. Alternately, ñolya might mean “hair like the Noldor (dark)”.
]]>A variant root √NGUR “horror” was mentioned in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60 (WJ/415), but elsewhere √ÑGUR was generally given the sense “death”; see that entry for detail.
]]>In S[indarin] the word gûl (equivalent of Q ñóle) had less laudatory associations, being used mostly of secret knowledge, especially such as possessed by artificers who made wonderful things; and the word became further darkened by its frequent use in the compound morgul “black arts”, applied to the delusory or perilous arts and knowledge derived from Morgoth (WJ/383).
Neo-Eldarin: I personally find this derivation of S. gûl from √ÑGOL “wisdom” to be more interesting etymologically, and prefer it over the root √ÑGUL. However, I think the Quenya words ñúla and ñúlë might be retained as loan words from Sindarin after the Noldor directly encountered the dark magic of Morgoth in Beleriand.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s this root became ᴹ√ÑGUR with derivatives like ᴹQ. ñuru/N. guru “death” (Ety/ÑGUR), apparently as a state or abstract concept (Ety/WAN). This new root √ÑGUR “death” or “to die” continued to appear in Tolkien’s later writings as well (PE17/95, 154).
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I prefer to use this root only its strengthened form, reserving √GWAL for the less dire sense “be stirred, excited; emotion, movement of feelings” (PE17/154, 189).
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is worth retaining this root as a (Quenya only?) elaboration of √(G)LAM to salvage ᴹQ. indyalme “clamour”.
]]>However, in both the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s and Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the early 1950s Tolkien indicated the primitive form of the Quenya verb was ñgyar- (OP1: PE19/36, OP2: PE19/76). This may have been in keeping with Tolkien’s later decision that initial palatalized dentals were not a feature of Primitive Elvish at all; see the entry on how [j] was lost after initial dentals in the Welsh-like branch of the Elvish languages for discussion of this transition. Despite this decision, Tolkien continued to use S. narn “tale” regularly in his later writings, despite there being no way it could be derived from ñ(g)yar-.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to ignore Tolkien’s decision to remove initial palatalized dentals from Primitive Elvish, and I recommend retaining √NYAR as the root for “tell” and “tale” in Elvish, this being the only reasonable option for retaining both Q. nyar- and S. narn.
]]>The basic stem NID- ... meant press, thrust, force (in a given direction) and though applicable to the pressure of a person on others, by mind and “will” as well as by physical strength, could also be used of physical pressures exerted by inanimates ... In T. and S. NID became used exclusively of “rational” purpose and will (PE22/165).
In this sense its derivatives included Q. indo “mind in its purposing faculty, the will”, whose Sindarin equivalent S. inn meant “some particular purpose or intention of an individual”. In Quenya the verb form Q. nir- retained the general meaning of “urge, press, force” for both physical and mental pressure, but in Sindarin the verb forms nídha- and nidh- both had to do with intent, the former very strong in meaning (“I am determined to do it”) but the latter somewhat weaker (“I will do it”).
A different precursor to √NID “press, thrust, force” appeared in a list of roots composed in 1959-60: √NIR “will, intention, conscious resolve to move or do” with derivatives Q. níra “will” and Q. nirmë “act of will”. The first of these words could also be a derivative of √NID, since intervocalic [d] usually became [r] in Quenya. Thus it seems Tolkien decided that Q. nir- was associated with “will” at least a decade before he wrote the note on √NID “press, thrust, force”.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would stick with the meaning of the root described in LVS from 1969, but the words for “cushion” might be salvaged in the sense of a thing that resists pressure. The derivatives of √NIR may likewise be based on √NID.
]]>In the Qenya Lexicon, Tolkien connected ᴱ√INI “small” to the root ᴱ√MINI of similar meaning (QL/42, 61). There are no signs of ᴱ√MINI “small” in the contemporaneous Gnomish Lexicon, but the word G. migin “little” (GL/57) hints at a (hypothetical) variant root *ᴱ√MIKI. Further support for *ᴱ√MIKI can be found in other diminutive forms in the Early Qenya Grammar of the 1920s such as prefixal diminutive ᴱQ. mike- along adverbial ᴱQ. mike “little” (QL/48, 81), the latter appearing with the gloss “a bit” in the English-Qenya Dictionary from this period (PE15/70) along with other similar words in both the dictionary and the grammar. This *ᴱ√MIKI might be another precursor to √NIK. An early hint at √NIK itself might appear in the word ᴹQ. nikse “minnow, little fish” from the Declension of Nouns from the early 1930s (PE21/27).
In Noldorin and Sindarin, the primary diminutive suffix became -eg¹, which was connected to the Common Eldarin suffix -iki elsewhere in notes on hands and fingers (VT47/14 note #21). In the notes where √NIK “small” appeared in the late 1960s, Tolkien gave the primitive diminutive as -inkĭ along with variants ikki, -iksi, -si, -ensi, -ki.
One of the main competing roots for “small” was ᴹ√PIK [see the entry for √PI(N)], itself with a lengthy conceptual history. The shift of pitya >> nitya “little” in the father name of Amrod from the late 1960s may represent a replacement of √PIK by √NIK (PM/365), but I think it is likelier the two roots coexisted with slightly different meanings, as was the case for their earlier precursors. In the notes from the late 1960s, √NIK was also contrasted with √NIP “small (usually with connotation of weakness)” (VT48/18), from which the word S. niben “petty” was derived, as in S. Nogoth Niben (WJ/388).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume √NIK meant “small” in a neutral sense, √PIK “tiny” (along with variants √PĪ and √PIN) and √NIP “small and weak”. I would use these as the major Eldarin roots for “small” words, along with a number of other more specialized roots.
]]>The root appeared as unglossed ᴹ√NIK-W in The Etymologies, again with ᴹQ. ninqe “white” and N. nimp “pale” and other similar words, including ᴹQ. niqe “snow” (Ety/NIK-W). The root was mentioned again in Tolkien’s later writing as √NIK-W (PE17/160) or √NIK (PE17/168) as a basis for “snow” words. In Sindarin Tolkien felt it was influenced by other roots, such as √(N)DIP/B “bending and drooping” (PE17/168) or √NIP “small with a connotation of weakness” (VT48/18) so that S. nimp also took on a connotation of weakness and frailty, and hence was used for “pale, pallid” rather than simply “white”.
]]>In Tolkien’s later writings, both short Q. nís and longer nissë appeared as words for “woman” (MR/213; VT47/33) and Q. indis reappeared as well, though glossed “wife” (UT/8). As primitive forms, both unstrengthened √nis (VT47/33) and strengthened ✶ndī̆s “woman” also appeared in later writings, the latter given as the feminine equivalent of ✶n[d]ēr “man” (PE19/102).
]]>Another possibly related form is ✶nes- “sweet smelling” < √NE “scent” serving as the basis for Q. alanessë and S. galanes > galenas “tobacco” = “*sweet smelling growth” in notes on the words and phrases in The Lord of the Rings from the late 1950s or early 1960s (PE17/100).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I’d recommend sticking with *√NITH for sweet smelling, as this form has been known for longer and produces clearer results in derived words.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien gave ᴹ√NŌ/ONO “beget” as an invertible root, with derivatives of the inverted form including ᴹQ. onta- “beget, create” and N. odhron “parent” (Ety/NŌ, ONO). The invertible root appeared regularly in Tolkien’s later writings, usually with the sense “beget” but in one place also glossed “be born” (PE17/170). In one place Tolkien stated that that ᴹ√ONO/NŌ “beget” was specifically masculine vs. feminine ᴹ√ERE/RÉ “bear, produce”, but these notes were rejected and this seems to have been a transient idea (PE23/87 note #85).
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I’d retain both senses “run” and “roll” for this root, but limit the latter to the rolling of wheels as an extrapolation from the movement of legs.
]]>The root reappeared as ᴹ√NOT “count, reckon” in The Etymologies of the 1930s with a number of derivatives of similar meaning, the most notable being N. arnœdiad or arnediad “innumerable, countless, endless” (Ety/NOT) as in Nirnaeth Arnoediad “[Battle of] Tears Unnumbered”, a name Tolkien introduced in the 1930s and retained thereafter with minor variations: Nirnaith vs. Nirnaeth, Arnediad vs. Arnoediad. The root √NOT itself appeared several times in Tolkien’s later writings (PE17/62; PE19/86), most notably as the basis for Q. únótima “numberless” from the Q. Namárië poem (LotR/377).
]]>Indeed, by the Markiya poem of the late 1920s, Tolkien was using ᴱQ. nu for “under” (MC/214), though in the drafts he initially used no (PE16/62, 72). In The Etymologies of the 1930s he had the unglossed invertible root ᴹ√NU/UNU with derivatives like ᴹQ. nu/N. no “under” (Ety/NU). The only notable derivative of its inverted form was ᴹQ. undu “down, under, beneath” (Ety/UNU), which reemerged in the Q. Namárië poem in Q. undulav- “swallow, (lit.) down-licked” (LotR/377; PE17/72; RGEO/58).
In The Etymologies Tolkien also gave a new strengthened form of this root ᴹ√NDŪ “go down, sink, set (of Sun, etc.)”, now serving as the basis for words for “west” like ᴹQ. númen, N. dûn or N. annûn, though strictly speaking the latter was the cognate of ᴹQ. andúne “sunset” (Ety/NDŪ), a Quenya word that was also frequently used for “The West”. All these Quenya and Noldorin words reappeared in Tolkien’s later writings, with the caveat that in Sindarin Tolkien used S. nu for “under” as in S. Taur-nu-Fuin “Forest under Nightshade” (S/155). The root √NU, its inversion √UNU and its strengthened form √NDU appeared regularly in Tolkien’s later writing, consistently with senses like “under, (go) down, sink”.
]]>In later writings Tolkien generally gave the root as √NUK (PE17/45; VT39/7; WJ/392), which he glossed “dwarf, stunted” in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60, clarifying that this specifically was used for things “not reaching full growth or achievement, failing of some mark or standard” and (prior to their application to Dwarves) “S naug, Q nauka, especially applied to things that though in themselves full-grown were smaller or shorter than their kind, and were hard, twisted or ill-shapen” (WJ/413). So this use as the name for Dwarves remained fairly insulting.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume this root means “growl, grumble, mumble” to allow the salvaging of early words derived from ᴱ√NURU.
]]>Derivatives of ᴱ√ŊWAÐA are easier to find in the contemporaneous Gnomish Lexicon, as they begin with gwa-: Tolkien indicated that G. gwast “dwelling”, G. gwadhra “habitable”, and G. gwadhron “inhabitant” were all derived from ŋwa- (GL/47), though on another page a deleted noted gave the primitive form as gu̯ađ (GL/46), probably the Gnomish result of ᴱ√ẆAÐA. Indeed, in the Qenya Lexicon Tolkien indicated that Gnomish gwadh- forms were also blended with waða (QL/63). In Tolkien’s later writing, he abandoned this confusing muddle with ᴱ√ŊWAÐA and ᴱ√ẆAÐA in favor of just using √MBAR.
]]>Conceptual Development: The verb [ᴹQ.] ñwara- “gnaw, erode, wear away” may reflect a shift in this root, perhaps to *√ÑGWAD; it appeared in the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s without a specified primitive form and its gloss was a red-ink revision to that document (PE19/36 and note #41). By the Outline of Phonology (OP2) of the 1950s, the gloss of the verb Q. ñware became “frets, wears away” and its primitive form was explicitly ✶ñgwar- (PE19/76).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I prefer to retain ᴹ√NYAD “gnaw”. However, see the entry on how y was lost after dentals in [1930s] Telerin and Noldorin for a discussion of Tolkien’s abandonment of initial labialized dentals in Primitive Elvish.
]]>In the second version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa from the early 1930s (TQ2), he gave the variants as √ŊYEL/√ŊYOL “ring”, in keeping with his decision to remove initial palatalized dentals from Primitive Elvish. A similar set of variants √(Ñ)GYEL/√(Ñ)GYOL “ringing” appeared in a list of sound roots from around 1959-60 (PE17/138).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to ignore Tolkien’s decision to remove initial palatalized dentals from Primitive Elvish, and I recommend retaining √NYEL as the root for “bell” words.
]]>The sense “become” for the verb form was mentioned again in Common Eldarin: Verb Structure from the early 1950s (PE22/133-134). There are several more documents from around 1959 that have derivatives connected to the sense “growth”, such as Q. olmen “growth-year”, Q. olmië “growth” and Q. quantolië “maturity” (NM/84, 119-120). However, in The Shibboleth of Fëanor from the late 1960s Tolkien said: “OL as a simple stem seems not to have occurred in Eldarin, though it appears in certain ‘extended’ stems, such as olos/r ‘dream’, olob ‘branch’ (PM/341)”. This lack of ancient meaning was despite the fact that OL was an element in the ancient name Q. Olwë.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume √OL meant “grow, *become”, which could easily contribute to the extended forms √OLOS “dream” and √OLOB “branch”. As a root, I think it primarily refers to the growth of people or animals, as opposed to √GAL used for the growth of plants. I think √OL can also be used for more abstract senses of “growth”, include “grow into” and hence “become”.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume √GOLOB is a Sindarin-only variant of √OLOB, perhaps influenced by √GAL “grow”. This would allow us to retain golf = “branch”, though the one name where it appeared, N. Gurtholf “Wand of Death” (Ety/ÑGUR; LR/147), became S. Gurthang “Iron of Death” in later versions of The Silmarillion (S/210).
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien first gave the root ᴹ√LOS, revised it to ᴹ√LOR, and then back to ᴹ√LOS (EtyAC/LOS). Tolkien also gave an augmented variant ᴹ√OLOR, which was likewise altered to ᴹ√OLOS (EtyAC/ÓLOS). The unaugmented root was glossed “sleep”, and the augmented root “dream”. The unaugmented root had derivatives like ᴹQ. lóre “slumber” and ᴹQ. lorna “sleep” (Ety/LOS), with Noldorin cognates N. lhûr “slumber” and N. lhorn “asleep” rejected after ᴹ√LOR >> ᴹ√LOS (EtyAC/LOS). The augmented root had derivatives ᴹQ. olor “dream”, N. ôl “dream”, and N. oltha- “to dream” (Ety/ÓLOS). The Quenya form ᴹQ. olor may reflect Tolkien indecision in this period on the development of final -s: compare ᴹQ. kár (kas-) “head” (Ety/KAS). Ultimately he would decide that final -s survived, and intervocalic -s- > -r-, making the derivation of ᴹQ. olor from ᴹ√OLOS somewhat dubious.
In both the 1910s and 1930s, lor- forms were more closely associated with “sleep” and ol- forms with “dreams”. In writings from the 1950s and 60s, the only attested associations for these roots were with “dreams” and “visions”. Tolkien gave √OLOR “vision (of mind)” (PE17/88), olo-s “vision, fantasy” (UT/396) and √OLOS/R “dream” (PM/341). This last mention of the root was from The Shibboleth of Fëanor from the late 1960s, which indicated the root was an extension √OL, but Tolkien continued to use Q. lórë for “dream” in this period (PE17/80; Let/308), and the unaugmented root √LOR was mentioned in passing (without gloss) in a discussion of the root √DOR (PE17/181).
In later writings, Tolkien also used √OLOR or √OLOS as the basis for the true name of Gandalf: Q. Olórin (PE17/88; UT/396). In connection to that name Tolkien wrote:
olo-s: vision, “phantasy”: Common Elvish name for “construction of the mind” not actually (pre)existing in Eä apart from the construction, but by the Eldar capable of being by Art (Karmë) made visible and sensible. Olos is usually applied to fair constructions having solely an artistic object, i.e. not having the object of deception, or of acquiring power (UT/396).
And also:
Olor is a word often translated “dream”, but that does not refer to (most) human “dreams”, certainly not the dreams of sleep. To the Eldar it included the vivid contents of their memory, as of their imagination: it referred in fact to clear vision, in the mind, of things not physically present at the body’s situation. But not only to an idea, but to a full clothing of this in particular form and detail (UT/396).
Thus in Tolkien’s later conception, perhaps the most accurate translation of the root would be “(mental) vision”, not properly connected to “sleep” or “(sleeping) dreams” at all. However, the translation of the root as “vision of the mind” seems to have been intertwined with Galdalf’s Quenya name, and remnants of early ideas continued to appear, most especially the long-lived name Q. Lórien “*Dream Lands” (S/28) as well as S. Lothlórien “Dream Flower” (LotR/467).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, using this root only for “vision of the mind” is problematic, in that it leaves us no good words for “sleep” or “(ordinary) dream”, nor any good explanation for the name (Loth)lórien. I think it is better to hearken back to earlier notions, and assume two distinct roots that influenced each other: √LOR “sleep” and √OLOS “dream, vision”. In Sindarin their derivatives would remain distinct, but in Quenya the two produce similar results, so that Q. lórë came to meaning “dreaming sleep”, usable for either dreams or sleep or both, where Q. olos properly meant “vision of the mind”, but sometimes took the form olor under the influence of √LOR.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: Tolkien’s treatment of “before” and “after” words was wildly inconsistent, but I generally prefer ✶epe for “after (of time); before (of space)” and ✶nō for its opposite. However, I think √APA and √OPO can serve as variants of √EPE, with √OPO more specifically referring to the front of things, especially given Tolkien’s use of √OP as a root referring to the front of the (open) mouth (PE17/126).
]]>In the Early Noldorin of the 1920s, Tolkien gave the root as {boto >>} *bot- (PE13/139), possibly indicating a conceptual shift despite the continued presence of Qenya derivatives beginning with p-. However, ᴹQ. opto “back” from the 1940s points to *ᴹ√POT (PE22/50). This root was likely the conceptual precursor to various later directional roots like √OPO or √APA.
]]>In the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60, Q. osto and S. ost were instead derived from the root √SOT “shelter, protect, defend”, but this root has no other derivatives.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, ᴹ√OS “round, about” is too useful to discard, and I prefer it over the later root √SOT, though √(O)S-OT might be salvaged as an extension of √OS.
]]>The “knock” sense may have lived on in roots like ᴹ√TON, ᴹ√TAM and √TOM (PE22/103; Ety/TAM; PE17/138), but in The Etymologies of the 1930s, words for “seven” were derived from the root ᴹ√OT with two distinct extensions ᴹ√OTOS and ᴹ√OTOK, producing respectively ᴹQ. otso and N. odog “seven” (Ety/OT). This primitive otos/otok variation reappeared in Tolkien’s writings on Elvish Hands, Fingers and Numerals from the late 1960s (VT47/42; VT48/6), though at various points Tolkien considered deriving the Quenya word from ✶otok (VT47/42) and the Sindarin word from ✶otos (RC/384; VT42/25). In his later writings, Tolkien seems to have favored ✶otos as the “true” ancient root for seven, explaining S. odog as variant produced by analogy with other forms like eneg “six” after the final s was lost (VT42/25, 31 note #61).
]]>√apa “touch” (not with fingers but of the contact of surfaces, esp. vertical surface). So prep. apa, pa “touching, against”. In Q. this, espec. in form pā̆ is used as prep. = touching, as regards, concerning. Also the verb ape is used fig. as to touch one, concern, affect. In literal sense [touch] the strengthened weak verb appa is mostly used (VT44/26).
In another note from this period Tolkien glossed apa as “above but touching” (VT44/26).
At various points in the 1950s and 60s, apa- was given the temporal sense “after”, most notably in Q. Apanónar/S. Abonnen “After-born” (WJ/386-387), the former appearing in the published version of The Silmarillion (S/103). It was also used temporally in Q. apacenyë “of foresight” (MR/216). In a table of spatial and temporal roots from 1969, Tolkien gave √PĀ/PATA “after, behind of place” (PE22/147) and in another 1969 note Tolkien glossed apa, pā as both “before of time” and “after (later than)”, with both being deleted (VT44/36). Other similar roots in the semantic space of “after” include √EPE and √OPO.
Neo-Eldarin: As indicated by the discussion above, Tolkien’s treatment spatial and temporal prepositional elements was wildly inconsistent. √APA was one of the elements Tolkien used for “before” and “after”, but also as “on” or “touching”. For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, the most useful definition of √PĀ/APA is “touch”, for which we have no other good late roots, so I would assume this was its primary meaning. I generally prefer ✶epe for “after (of time); before (of space)” and ✶nō for its opposite. However, I think apa- might be a euphonic variant of epe-, perhaps limited to “after” of time, to justify Q. Apanónar/S. Abonnen “After-born”.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s this root appeared as ᴹ√PAL¹ “wide (open)”, still serving as the basis for the name ᴹQ. Palúrien along with other derivatives like ᴹQ. palar “flat field, ‘wang’, plain” and ᴹQ. palme/N. palath “surface” (Ety/PAL). A later addition to the entry was ᴹQ. palan “far” and ᴹQ. palantir “far-seeing stone”. The root √PAL remained the basis for Q. palan “far” in Tolkien’s later writings, and appeared with the glosses “broad, wide” (PE17/65) and “wide, extended” (VT47/8). The latter gloss appeared in notes from the late 1960s having to do with Eldarin Hands, Fingers and Numerals, where Tolkien indicated the root had two extended forms palat- and palan, and that its meaning was “originally also with the implication that the area was more or less flat and even, without hindrance to movement, or view”, and so serving as the basis for the words Q. palta/S. plad “palm, flat of the hand” (VT47/8-9). Thus even in Tolkien’s later writings, it seems the root retained the sense “flatness”.
]]>The short form ᴹ√PAL may also have been the basis for some words in the earlier Gnomish Lexicon of the 1910s: G. palta- “beat” [sic., rather than expected paltha-], G. paltha “blade (of swords, knives, oars, etc.); wide flat leaf; page of book” and G. plados “oar” (GL/63-64), though these words might be blended with root ᴱ√PALA “flatness” from the contemporaneous Qenya Lexicon (QL/71); see that entry for discussion.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s it appeared as ᴹ√PAN “place, set, fix in place (especially of wood)”, with derivatives like ᴹQ. panya-/N. penia- “fix, set”, ᴹQ. pano “piece of shaped wood”, and N. pân “plank, fixed board (especially in a floor)” (Ety/PAN). √PAN appeared unglossed in the second version of the Tengwesta Qenderinwa from around 1950 (TQ2: PE18/89) and the root √PAN “arrange, set in order” was mentioned in passing in etymological notes from the late 1960s (PE17/108).
]]>The root ᴹ√PAR reappeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s with a completely different meaning “compose, put together”, though still with the derivative ᴹQ. parma/N. parf “book” along with ON. partha- “arrange, compose” (Ety/PAR). The root ᴹ√PAR “compose, arrange” also appeared in the first version of the Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ1) also from the 1930s, again as the basis for ᴹQ. parma “book” (PE18/51). The root √PAR¹ “arrange” > Q. parma “writing, composition, book” appeared again in the second version of the Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ2) from around 1950 (PE18/101).
In notes from around 1959 Tolkien reverted to the earlier meaning of the root. In etymological notes from 1959 Tolkien wrote “√PAR-, peel (hence bark, book). [S.] paran, Q. parne, bald, bare” (PE17/171). In a list of Sindarin words from the same period he wrote:
S paran, naked, bare. Cf. Dol Baran. √PAR “peel”. Cf. Q parna, bare. (Q parma, peel, applied to bark or skin, hence “book”). Q. parca, naked, of persons. S parch (PE17/86).
In another note from this period he gave a very similar derivation with √PAR > Q. parma = [originally] “bark” [later] “parchment, book” noting that the first Elvish writing materials were bark, but he then rejected this etymology (PE17/171).
In notes from the 1960s Tolkien gave:
√PAR- “learn, to acquire information, not by experience or observation, but by communication”, by the instruction, or accounts of others in words or writing: parma, a book (or written document of some size). To read a book in Elvish was often expressed so: paranye (apārien) parmanen, I am learning (have learnt) by means of a book (PE17/180).
This last meaning of the root is further supported by the phrase Q. cuita’r parë “live and learn” from Late Notes on Verbs composed in 1969 (PE22/154).
Thus the semantic evolution of root seems to be 1910s “*peel” >> 1930s-1950 “arrange, compose” >> 1959 “peel” >> 1960s “learn”.
Neo-Eldarin: Tolkien’s shifting definitions of the root √PAR make it tricky to use in the context of Neo-Eldarin. While it was the source of Q. parma “book” for all of Tolkien’s life, the exact mechanism of how √PAR was connected to “book” underwent a number of changes. Of these, I think the use of √PAR = “peel” is the one that can be most easily discarded. While this does leave S. paran “bare” from the name S. Dol Baran with no etymology, that word might be salvaged by assuming it was derived instead of an unrelated (hypothetical) root *√PARAN.
The other two meanings of the root, “compose” (1930s-1950) and “learn” (1960s) are both popular parts of Neo-Eldarin. The verb Q. par- has become the basis verb for “learn” verbs in Neo-Eldarin since its publication in PE17 in 2007. However, the sense “compose, arrange” is also well established. I think it is best to assume this root means both “compose, put together” in general as well as “compose (information)” = “learn”, to retain both these senses. As for “arrange”, that seems to be better covered by √PAN.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: Despite the later shift in meaning for √PAT, I think this earlier sense “open (wide)” can be salvaged by assuming that form of the root is actually *√PANAT or *√PANTA, which is consistent with most of its derivatives. For the non-verbal senses of “open”, I think √LAT¹ is generally better.
]]>The root ᴹ√PAT did appear in its own entry in The Etymologies of the 1930s, but it had derivatives like ᴹQ. panta-/N. panna- “to open” (Ety/PAT), making it more likely a continuation of ᴱ√PATA² or ᴱ√PṆTṆ “open, spread out, show” from the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s, which coexisted with ᴱ√PATA¹ “*tap” (QL/72). See the entry on ᴹ√PAT for further discussion.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think this root might be salvaged as ᴺ√PAY “punish, take vengeance on, requite” to serve as the basis for Neo-Quenya words for vengeance and punishment.
]]>In later writings, Tolkien generally gave the base root as √PED, a change Tolkien seems to have introduced to avoid conflict with a new root √PEN “lack, not have” (PE17/171, 173). The root √PED was variously glossed “incline, slope” (PE17/171), “fall in steep slant, incline, slope” (PE17/173) or “slope, slant down” (WJ/375); all these notes date to 1959-60. Tolkien went to say that “strong forms [were] lost in Quenya owing to similarity to √PER half” (PE17/173). Indeed, in this period like in the 1930s, all the actual derivatives (in both Quenya and Sindarin) seem to be based on √PEND-, so it may be easier to assume that this was the true form of the root.
]]>Indeed, in Quenya the “leg” word was also shifted to a new root by The Etymologies of the 1930s: ᴹ√TELEK > ᴹQ. telko “leg” (Ety/TÉLEK). As for the root ᴹ√PEL, it was given the gloss “revolve on fixed point” in The Etymologies and seems to be a blending of 1910s ᴱ√PELE¹ and ᴱ√PELE², with derivatives like ᴹQ. pel- “go round, revolve, return” and ᴹQ. peltas/N. pelthaes “pivot” (Ety/PEL) but also ᴹQ. peler/N. pêl “fenced field” and ᴹQ. opele/N. gobel “walled house or village, town” by way of extended root ᴹ√PEL(ES) (Ety/PEL(ES)).
The root √PEL appeared a number of times in Tolkien’s later writings with glosses like “edge, bound, fence, limit” (PE17/65), “fence, border” (PE17/90) and “go round, encircle” (SA/pel). Tolkien declared that:
The basic sense should not be “revolve”; but “edge, bound, fence, limit”. Thus [S.] pelennor = fenced land; ephel, Sindarin < eppel < etpel = “outer wall or fence”; [Q.] peltakse- (peltas) should mean a fence of fixed stakes etc., or a “pale” and fencing stakes; and pelma a border, fringe, edge, limiting device (PE17/65).
Tolkien reassigned the sense “revolve” to the root √KWER. The most notable derivative of the new sense “boundary” for √PEL was Q. pella “beyond”, more literally “beyond the boundary” (PE17/65, 80); this word was likely Tolkien’s motivation for removing the sense “revolve” from √PEL.
]]>In Common Eldarin: Noun Structure from the early 1950s the root is given as unglossed √PEÑ (PE21/71), and in notes associated with the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60 the primitive form is given as peñe (VT39/11). In both cases it was an example of a primitive form that resulted in ancient monosyllabic nouns from weak consonant loss: √PEÑ > ✶pē. In notes from the late 1960s Tolkien again gave ✶pē in a list of primitive monosyllabic nouns, but said “of these all except pe, su had probably lost a consonant in Common Eldarin”, implying the original form was actually √PĒ. But in green-note revisions made in 1970 to Outline of Phonology Tolkien had:
ñ disappeared prehistorically, so that words such as peñ were for Quenya long monosyllabic nouns with only an initial consonant: pē (PE19/102 and note #168).
Thus it seems the lost ñ in √PEÑ was restored, though it could also be a remnant of the earlier version of this sentence from the 1950s that gave both peñ and maʒ as examples of consonant-loss.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume the root is √PEÑ.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root appeared as ᴹ√PHAL “foam” with extended form ᴹ√PHÁLAS and derivatives like ᴹQ. falasse/N. falas “beach” and ᴹQ. falma/N. falf “(crested) wave, breaker” (Ety/PHAL). The root appeared a couple of times in Tolkien’s later writings with glosses like “foam” (PE17/62) and “splash” (PE17/73).
]]>√PHAN appeared quite a few times in Tolkien’s later writings, however, mostly in connection to Q. fanya “cloud” from the Namárië poem and S. Fanuilos as a name for Elbereth in the Sindarin prayer A Elbereth Gilthoniel. In connection to Fanuilos Tolkien said: “√FAN ‘white’, but especially applied to reflected light as of clouds, snow, frost, mist. Cf. fanya, Quenya, (white) cloud” (PE17/26). In a more extensive note he wrote:
The element FAN- (Q fana, S fân) is “elvish” and not easy to translate. It may be said to mean “shape”, but with the added notion of light and whiteness; it is thus often used where we might use “a vision” - of something beautiful or sublime. Yet being elvish, though it may be used of things remote, it has no implication either of uncertainty or unreality. The Fân here is the vision of the majesty of Elbereth upon the mountain where she dwelt. So that Fanuilos really means in full: Figure (bright and majestic) upon Uilos (PE17/26).
Tolkien also wrote a lengthy essay discussing this root in several versions (PE17/173-180). The second version of this essay began:
√PHAN-. The basic sense of this was “cover, screen, veil”, but it had a special development in the Eldarin tongues. This was largely due to what appears to have been its very ancient application to clouds, especially to separate floating clouds as (partial) veils over the blue sky, or over the sun, moon, or stars. This application of the most primitive derivative *phanā (Q fana, S fân) was so ancient that when *phanā (or other derivatives) was applied to lesser, handmade, things this was felt to be a transference from the sense “cloud”, and words of this group were mainly applied to things of soft textures, veils, mantles, curtains and the like, of white or pale colours (PE17/174).
Finally, in The Road Goes Ever On (RGEO) from 1967, Tolkien wrote:
Fana- is an Elvish element, with primary meaning “veil”. The S. form fân, fan- was usually applied to clouds, floating as veils over the blue sky or the sun or moon or resting on hills. In Quenya, however, the simple word fana acquired a special sense. Owing to the close association of the High-Elves with the Valar, it was applied to the “veils” or “raiment” in which the Valar presented themselves to physical eyes ... The High-Elves said these forms were always to some degree radiant, as if suffused from a light within. In Quenya, fana thus came to signify the radiant and majestic figure of one of the great Valar. In Sindarin, especially as used by the High-Elves, the originally identical word fân “cloud” was also given the same sense (RGEO/66).
This discussion in RGEO is essentially a summary of the much lengthier essay on √PHAN noted above. Thus it seems Tolkien’s latest notion of the root was that it originally mean “cover, screen, veil”, and was applied to clouds as veiling the sun, and from this application the root came to refer to white, radiant and soft things. In the Quenya of Valinor the word Q. fana was then applied to the radiant materialized bodies of the Valar, and when the Noldor again encountered the Sindar this sense influenced S. fân (originally just “cloud”) as well.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: 1950s √PHAR(AN) and 1930s ᴹ√PHER(EN) probably did not coexist in Tolkien’s conception of Elvish, but for purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it better to treat them as etymological variants, to retain both Q. farnë/S. faran “rowan, ash” and ᴹQ. feren “beech”, with archaic N. †fêr being replaced in modern Sindarin by S. neldor “beech” and S. brethil/S. whinn “birch”.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s, however, there was the root ᴹ√PHAU̯ “gape” with derivatives ᴹQ. fauka/N. faug “thirsty” (Ety/PHAU; EtyAC/PHAU). The Noldorin derivative was used in the names N. Anfauglin “Jaws of Thirst” (SM/115) and N. Fauglith “Thirsty Sand; Gasping Dust” (LR/132) from contemporaneous Silmarillion drafts. Sindarin variants of these names S. Anfauglir “Jaws of Thirst” (S/180) and S. Anfauglith “Gasping Dust” (S/150) continued to appear in later versions of The Silmarillion.
In Quenya Notes (QN) from 1957 Tolkien gave a new gloss for the root √PHAW as “emit (foul breath etc.)” serving as the basis for Q. foalóke, unglossed but perhaps “*breath-dragon” (PE17/181). The root √PHAW reappeared again in 1964 notes on Dalath Dirnen (DD) as the basis for Q. foa and S. faw, all unglossed (PE17/181). Finally ✶phā appeared in some notes from 1968 as an example of a primitive monosyllablic noun, with glosses “puff, (?blow)” or “breath, puff of breath” and probably-related forms fawa and foa (VT47/34-35). All these hints at a possible restoration of the sense of early ᴱ√FAGA from the 1910s: “emit (breath), puff, blow”.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume √PHAW had its 1950s-60s meaning “emit (breath), puff, blow”, but that ᴹQ. fauka and N. faug “thirsty” were derived from another root *√PHAWAK or *√PHAUKA, either an extension or unrelated.
]]>The earlier sense “radiate” probably also survived in Tolkien’s later conception, however. On MR/250, the word Q. “spirit” is said to originally have had the sense “radiance”, which is precisely the meaning that ᴹQ. faire had in The Etymologies. There is also a primitive monosyllable ✶ “flame, ray of light” in the Outline of Phonology from the early 1950s (OP2: PE19/102). If the root meaning “radiate” remains valid, then the word S. * “gleam of the sun”, an element of S. “gleam of the sun on the pools of Ivrin” (the second name of Finduilas), might be a derivative of this root.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin I would posit a Neo-Root ᴺ√PHEK “*destroy, ruin” to salvage early words having to do with destruction. The “bad” words may have shifted to the later root ᴹ√SPAY, with derivatives N. foeg “mean, poor, bad” and ᴹQ. faika “contemptible, mean” (Ety/SPAY).
]]>In Notes on Names (NN) from 1957, Tolkien first gave ✶phelgā > Q. felya/S. fela “mine, boring, tunnel, underground dwel[ling]” matching the entries from the earlier The Etymologies, but then revised these forms to Q. felco and S. feleg “cave, mine, underground dwelling” based on new forms of the root: √PHELEK and √PHELES (PE17/118). In The Shibboleth of Fëanor from 1968 Tolkien explained S. Felagund as an adaptation of the Khuzdul title Kh. Felakgundu “Cave-hewer” (PM/352). However, in notes from 1969 Tolkien gave a primitive form philig- and as the basis for S. fela, derived from primitive ✶philga or ✶phelga, but later in the same note he gave the ancient plural form as ✶phelgai so he seems to have come full circle back to *√PHELEG (NM/304).
In this 1969 note he described the meaning of a phelga as follows:
It was used of minor excavations made by wild animals as dens or lairs, and also as temporary dwellings by wandering folk, Dwarvish or Elvish; it was usually distinguished from the larger caves of geological formation used and extended by stone-workers. It was thus naturally used of the “setts” of badgers (which seem to have existed in great numbers in parts of Beleriand).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I’d use √PHELEG as the form of the root and thus use the 1930s forms of its derivatives which were restored in 1969, though it does seem that it may have been Sindarin-only in its later iteration. I’d allow Q. felya/S. fela to mean any of “den”, “underground dwelling” or “mine”, but limit it to intentional diggings rather than natural caves. I would also retain S. feleg “cave” as a Sindarin loan word from Khuzdul (but not Q. felco, as it is too far removed).
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume the root √PHILIK = “small bird”, with ᴹQ. filit/N. fileg = “sparrow” and Q. filincë/S. flinc = “finch”.
]]>The root appeared a number of times in Tolkien’s later writings, as √PHIN- “skilful, neat, clever (especially applied to hands and fingers)” (PE17/17), √PHĪ/PHINI “skill, dexterity” (PE17/119), and √PHĬN “clever, fine, delicate” (PE17/119). In both The Etymologies and in later writings Tolkien made a point that this root was distinct from √SPIN from which various “hair” words were derived (Ety/PHIN; PE17/17), though in one place Tolkien gave that root also as √PHIN- (PM/340).
]]>The root appeared as unglossed ᴹ√PHUY in The Etymologies of the 1930s with derivatives having to do with “darkness” such as ᴹQ. huine “deep shadow, nightshade” and N. fuin “night, dead of night” (Ety/PHUY). The 1930s forms likewise had a hu-/fu- variation between Quenya and Noldorin, because phu- > ꝑu- [ɸu] > hu- in Quenya. The root √PHUY appeared again in notes from the late 1960s having to do with night, twilight and day. In one of these notes Tolkien gave the gloss “(prob.) fog, mists”, but then struck this out (NM/284 note #2). In a marginal note he gave it the gloss “breathe out” in connection to the notion that Q. huinë/S. fuin represented an ethereal substance that quenched light (NM/285 note #5). For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I’d assume this root simply meant “*darkness”.
]]>The root reappeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s as unglossed {ᴹ√PEK >>} ᴹ√PIK with derivatives like N. pigen “tiny” and N. peg “small spot, dot” (Ety/PIK; EtyAC/PIK). Further evidence for this root can be seen in later words like Q. piki- or pitya “petty” (WJ/389) and Q. pic- “lessen, dwindle” (MC/223). A variant root √PEY appeared in a list of roots having to do with “large and small” from the late 1960s with a single derivative Q. pia “little” [< *peya], but it was immediately followed by the forms pikina, pinke, pitya which point back to √PIK (PE/117).
Further evidence of early forms ᴱ√PINI and ᴱ√PĪ can also be seen in Tolkien’s later writings. There is S. *pîn “little” in S. Cûl Bîn “Little Load” (RC/536), ✶pī {“small bird” >>} “small insect” (VT47/35), and T. pinke “little-one, baby” (VT48/6), though the last of these might be from √PIK. In any case it seems Tolkien continued to use all of √PI, √PIK and √PIN to form words for little things into the late 1960s.
In The Shibboleth of Fëanor from the late 1960s, Tolkien changed pitya to Q. nitya in the name Q. Nityafinwë “Little Finwë” (PM/353, 365 note #59), which may indicate a replacement of √PIK by √NIK, another root used regularly in Tolkien’s later writings for “small”. But I believe √PIK and √NIK may coexist with slightly different meanings: “tiny” vs. “small”; see the entry on √NIK for further discussion.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think the gloss “blink, wink” for √PIR is not a great fit, since it is a contrived etymology Tolkien invented for a word he clearly meant to be something different originally. Q. tihta- is probably a better known verb for “blink”. For “spin”, I prefer a Neo-Eldarin root ᴺ√KWIR adapted from early ᴱ√QIŘI. However, I think ᴺ√PIR might be retained as a Neo-Root with the sense “*cylinder”; I think this works as an explanation of Q. pirë “toe”, and allows the retention of early words like ᴱQ. pirin “thin rod, pin” and ᴱQ. pirinumbe “cylinder”.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume this root refers mainly to syrup and tree sap, as opposed to fruit juice which would be derived from ᴹ√SAB.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would stick with the better-known root ᴹ√PIW from The Etymologies of the 1930s for verbs meaning “spit”, as it has derivatives in both Quenya and Noldorin. For nouns meaning “spit”, I personally adapt the early root ᴱ√KEREKE as a Neo-Eldarin root ᴺ√K(E)REK to salvage early Quenya and Gnomish words for spittle; see those entries for details.
]]>√POL appeared in a list of roots from around 1959-60 with a minor shift in meaning:
√pol can, have physical power and ability [as in] “I can jump that”. polin quete means I can speak (because mouth and tongue are free)” (VT41/6).
In another note from around 1965, Tolkien wrote:
√POL. This cannot refer to strength. (Too obvious a reminiscence of [Latin] pollens); also it does not account for poli- “meal”, grist. √POL- should have senses “pound up”, break up small, reduced to powder etc. Poldórea, as adjective applied to Tulkas, should be derived from the Elvish nickname of Tulkas (not being derived from Valarin), Poldor, Poldorno: “breaker up of the hard/tough”, √DOR- “hard, tough” (PE17/181).
The mention of poli- “meal” seems to be a reference to a different early root ᴱ√POL-I from the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s with derivatives like ᴱQ. pole “oats, grain; flour” and ᴱQ. polu “kernel” (QL/75), whereas in The Etymologies of the 1930s the word for “flour, meal” was ᴹQ. pore derived from ᴹ√POR (Ety/POR). This shift in sense to “pound up” seems to be motivated by the similarity of √POL “strength” to Latin “pollens” (able, strong).
However, in another later-still note Tolkien wrote the phrase Q. á rike empollie that seems to mean “try harder” (PE17/167), likely a rough contemporary of other notes from around 1967 exploring the same phrase (PE17/94). This later use of empollie seems to be connected to physical effort, and thus is in line with the 1959-60 note with √POL “can, have physical power and ability” mentioned above.
Finally in a note from around 1968, Tolkien wrote:
Q. pol, large, big (strong). polda, big. DELETE pole “meal”! Make it mule (PE17/115).
This is explanation appears in a set of notes having to do with “large and small”, probably from around 1968, the date given for an apparently related root-list with similar information (VT47/26 note #26). It seems to firmly discard the connection of √POL to “pound, meal” and restored its connection to “strength” along with a new connection to “largeness”.
Assuming this analysis is correct, the conceptual evolution seems to be:
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin I think it is best to assume √POL has to do with “physical ability” and its extended form √POLOD has to do with “strength”. I think it better to assume the connection of the root to √POL “meal, flour” was abandoned, and use *√MUL and possibly ᴹ√POR for that purpose instead.
]]>These words for “meal” collided with the root √POL in notes probably from the early 1960s, where Tolkien said:
√POL. This cannot refer to strength. (Too obvious a reminiscence of [Latin] pollens); also it does not account for poli- “meal”, grist. √POL- should have senses “pound up”, break up small, reduced to powder etc. (PE17/181).
This changes to the root √POL seems to be transient, however, since in another note from around 1968 Tolkien said:
Q. pol, large, big (strong). polda, big. DELETE pole “meal”! Make it mule (PE17/115).
This indicates that the word for “meal” was transferred to the root *√MUL, itself probably a restoration of the early root ᴱ√MULU “grind (fine)” (QL/63). See that entry, and the entry for √POL, for a more detailed discussion of those roots. As for “meal, flour” roots, it seems the development was: 1910s ᴱ√POL-I >> mid-1930s ᴹ√POR >> early 1960s ᴹ√POL(I) >> 1968 √MUL.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think √POL(I) can no longer be used for “meal”, with √MUL being more suitable for that purpose, but I think 1930s ᴹ√POR might be salvageable for use as “flour”.
]]>There were similar forms in the Early Qenya Grammar of the 1920s such as ᴱQ. puita- “beget” and dual form puyandui “parents” (PE14/77), the latter also appearing in its singular form ᴱQ. puyando “parent” in the contemporaneous English-Qenya Dictionary (PE15/76). Finally, in the Noldorin Dictionary of the 1920s there were primitive forms ᴱ✶pukku- and ᴱ✶pukse serving as the basis for ᴱN. huch “cunnus” (Latin = “vagina”) and ᴱN. huis “coire (trans.), futuere” (Latin = “copulate”), appearing near similar forms such such as ᴱN. hoith “coitus (one act)” (Latin = “sexual intercourse”) (PE13/163).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think this root is worth retaining as ᴺ√PUK to serve as the basis for Elvish words for sexual organs and intercourse, for which we have no other roots.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: In Tolkien’s later writings, “swell” and “fat” seems to have been transferred to the root ᴹ√TIW, but I think it is worth retaining ᴺ√PUL as a Neo-Eldarin root to serve as the basis for Elvish words for “trunk” and “torso”. Helge Fauskanger also used this root in connection to the rising of yeast in NQNT (Neo-Quenya New Testament).
]]>S raud “tall, high, lofty, eminent”. √ARA, RĀ. Cf. Q aran “king”. Q arta “high” < árată. S raud < form (a)rā́tă (PE17/118).
Earlier in The Etymologies of the 1930s, the second element of N. Finrod was N. rhaud “metal” (Ety/RAUTĀ), whereas ᴹQ. haran/N. aran “king” was derived from ᴹ√ƷAR “have, hold” (Ety/ƷAR). As for the later root √ARA/RĀ, Tolkien gave a lengthier explanation in QN:
√AR. ARI-, ARA/RĀ, ARAT/ARAN. Original sense probably seen in adverb/preposition *ara/ar/ra, beyond, further than. The stems ARI/ARAN/ARAT mean “good, excellent, noble” - differing from √MAN in stating that any one specimen is “good of its kind”, excels, without necessarily implying that others are bad or marred. Hence ari-, good as prefix, ar/ara/aran as prefixes of excellence especially in royal names, aran king. Q arta noble, arato a “noble”, ráta- excel, surpass. S aran, arod (arāta); or raud excellent, noble, eminent (PE17/147).
Thus all these roots, including the extensions √ARAN and √ARAT, were elaborations on the sense “beyond” from base root √AR. The simple root √AR itself had a lengthy conceptual history; see that entry for details. As for ARA/RĀ, the connection between these forms and nobility seems to be firmly established by the late 1950s and afterwards, with primitive element Ara- “noble” mentioned in The Shibboleth of Fëanor from 1968 (PM/344, 363 note #43), and numerous other mentions of derived forms in documents from this period.
]]>The root √RAB reappeared in Tolkien’s later writings with the gloss “astray, wandering, unsettled”; Tolkien contrasted it with √RAN by saying “it differed from √RAN in that it referred to absence of direction or purpose, whereas √RAN meant to ‘err’, go aside from a course (commanded or self-chosen)” (PE17/78). In Sindarin, however, initial r-, l- were no longer unvoiced, so Tolkien coined a new intensified variant √S-RAB “wild in senses ‘not tamed, domesticated’, and hence often ‘fierce, savage, hostile’ (to Elves and Men)”. This intensified variant served as a new basis for S. Rhovanion “Wilderland”, and also had other derivatives like Q. hráva “wild” and Q. hravan “wild beast”.
In another place Tolkien defined this root as √S)ROB with variant √D)ROB as the basis for Rhovanion (PE17/99), also explaining the element Drû in Drúadan, the Sindarin name for the Woses. These roots produced different Quenya derivatives like hróva.
Neo-Eldarin: Since the Quenya form (h)ráva “wild” is better known, I think it is best to ignore the √S)ROB and √D)ROB variants of this root for purposes of Neo-Eldarin. The Sindarin name for the Woses can be easily explain as a loan word from that people’s name for themselves: Drughu (UT/385).
]]>This word yunquë dates back to Early Quenya, first appearing as ᴱQ. yunqe in the Early Qenya Grammar from the 1920s (PE14/82), so it is likely that the √RASAT “twelve” co-existed with ✶yūnekē when that root was introduced in the 1930s. In currently published materials, rasta only appears as a suffix in yurasta “twenty four” (twice-twelve) in a discussion of the Elvish duodecimal (base twelve) counting system, also probably from the 1930s (PE14/17). It may be that ✶yūnekē was used for the general word for “twelve”, while √RASAT was used for “groups of twelve” as part of this duodecimal system. If so, it may have only been used as a suffix in grouping words in this counting system.
]]>ᴹ√RATA reappeared on a rejected page of roots in the Quenya Verbal System from the 1940s with the gloss “go in a line (as a road)” (PE22/127). Above it Tolkien wrote “usually of animals/or two feet is {SRATA}”, perhaps indicating Tolkien was divorcing this root from the sense “walk”, which in later writings seems to be attributed to the root *√PAT (PE17/34).
In notes from the late 1960s Tolkien glossed √RAT as “find a way”, saying it “applied to persons journeying in the wild; to travel in roadless land; and also to streams and rivers and their courses” (NM/363). In this document it was the basis for S. rant “course” in S. Celebrant “Silverlode”, as well as Q. ratta “track” and S. rath “(climbing) street”, the latter also influenced by √RATH “climb” that was itself a more emphatic variant of √RAT (NM/354).
]]>The root √RATH “climb” appeared in a 1968-69 explanation of the name S. Amroth as “upclimber, high climber” along with other words like Q. rasillo “squirrel” and Q. rantala “ladder” (UT/245; NM/363, 367). In these same notes Tolkien said S. rath “street” was influenced by this root, as it “applied to all the longer roadways and streets of Minas Tirith, nearly all of which were on an incline” (UT/255 note #16); he also said Sindarin had no other clear derivatives of the root (NM/363). Tolkien briefly mentioned √RAP “climb” in these same notes as a root that Sindarin did have, but this section was rejected (NM/367). Finally √RATH appeared in 1970 green-ink revisions to the Outline of Phonology, but there the root was unglossed (PE19/89 and note #101).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think √RAP “climb” is best abandoned, but I think it is worth retaining √RET as well as √RATH (verb vs. noun?), especially since √RATH seems to be unused in Sindarin, with the exception of its influence on S. rath.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I’d use Q. tinco (LotR/1122) and its cognate [N.] tinc (Ety/TINKŌ) for “metal” words. For “copper” I'd use derivatives of √(U)RUS (VT41/10).
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien gave only the root ᴹ√RAW (unglossed) with derivatives like ᴹQ. rá/N. rhaw “lion” (Ety/RAW). Hints of this root are also seen in later words like S. Rauros “Roaring Spray” (RC/327) and Q. rávë “roaring noise” (MC/223), indicating that the root meaning might be “*roar”. As for “lion”, in the Outline of Phonology of the early 1950s (OP2) Tolkien gave two distinct primitive forms: ✶rāw “lion” and ✶raurō “roarer” (PE19/99, 102, 104).
]]>These notes probably replaced another etymology of the name S. Gilraen in notes from the late 1950s where √RAY² was glossed “smile” and “show pleasure or favour in facial expression” with derivatives like Q. raina/S. raen “smiling” and contrasted with the root √LALA “laugh” (PE17/182; VT44/35). This in turn might have been connected to Q. rainë “*peace, good will” in Quenya prayers from the 1950s (VT44/34).
Neo-Eldarin: It is very unlikely Tolkien ever considered both √RAY “knit” and √RAY “smile” to be part of Elvish at the same time. Unfortunately, the latter is the most popular source of “smile” words in Neo-Eldarin; the only other option is the very early root ᴱ√MIRI or ᴱ√MṚT͡YṚ “smile”, whose derivatives clashes with the later and very well-known root √MIR “precious” used for jewels. It is therefore difficult to eliminate √RAY “smile” in favor of √RAY “knit”, itself with a large number of useful derivatives. For now, I recommend keeping both as part of Neo-Eldarin, even though they were probably incompatible in Tolkien’s mind.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is worth positing a Neo-Root ᴺ√RE(N)D to preserve these early kinship and cousin words, for which we have no later alternatives. It might be considered a variant of later root √RED “scatter, sow” (Ety/RED; PE19/91) and thus applied only to more distant kin.
]]>The root √RIG appeared a number of times in Tolkien’s writings from the 1950s and 60s, variously glossed “wreath, garland, crown” (PE17/59), “twine” (PE17/182), and “twine, wreathe” (PM/347), but √RIƷ “wind about, wreathe” also appeared in notes on the names of Galadriel and Celeborn from 1968 (NM/349, 353). Thus it seems Tolkien vacillated between √RIG and √RIƷ with a brief aside to √RIK in the early 1950s.
]]>Note that √RIK “strive” is also identical in form to √RIK² or ᴹ√RIK(H) “twist”, a root that had a long history in Tolkien’s writings. For purposes of Neo-Sindarin, I assume the two roots co-exist.
]]>The root ᴹ√RIK reappeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s (EtyAC/RIK(H)) but it was revised to ᴹ√RIK(H) “jerk, sudden move, flirt” with derivatives like ᴹQ. rinke “flourish, quick stroke” and ᴹQ. rihta-/N. rhitha- “jerk, twitch” (Ety/RIK(H)). In notes from 1959-60 the root appeared again as √RIK “twist” with a derivative Q. raika “crooked” (VT39/7), a word that in The Etymologies of the 1930s was derived from ᴹ√RAYAK. This 1959-60 appearance seems to be harkening back to its meaning in the 1910s.
]]>The root ᴹ√RIM appeared in Primitive Quendian Structure: Final Consonants from 1936, glossed “host, large number” >> “number, plenty” (PE21/57). It also appeared in The Etymologies written around 1937, with gloss “abound” and derivatives such as ᴹQ. rimbe/N. rhim “crowd, host” (Ety/RIM). The roots ᴹ√SRĪ, SRĬMĬ, and SRIMBI “abound” appeared in Demonstrative, Relative, and Correlative Stems (DRC) from the late 1940s, quickly revised to ᴹ√RĪ, RĬMĬ, and RIMBI (PE23/100 note #34). Quenya and Sindarin forms Q. rimbë and S. rim continued to appear in Tolkien’s later writing (Let/382; PE17/50; UT/318), so it is likely the root √RIM remained valid, especially given the prevalence of suffix -rim in Sindarin collective names.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin I think it is worth positing a Neo-Root ᴺ√RIP to salvage early “strip” and “stripe” words, even though it would conflict with the later root ᴹ√RIP “rush, fly, fling”.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is better to use the better-known root ᴹ√KHAT for “hurl, fling”, which derivatives like Q. hatal “spear” as late as the 1960s. If ᴹ√RIP is used, it is probably best to give it the meaning of its derivatives from The Etymologies: “rush, fly”.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: In later writings, ᴹ√RED seems to be the basis for “scatter, sow” (PE19/91, Ety/RED), but I think it might be worth retaining the root √RIY as the basis for random scattering as opposed to intentionally scattering for purposes of planting = √RED. In theory ᴹ√RIY would conflict with ᴹ√RĪ “*edge” (Ety/RĪ), but Tolkien revised that root to ᴹ√SRI.
]]>The root reappeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s as ᴹ√ORO “up, rise, high” and ᴹ√RŌ “rise” (Ety/ORO, RŌ). The root was mentioned very frequently in his writings from the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s, generally glossed “rise” or “up(wards)”. Thus √RŌ/ORO “rise” was very well established in Tolkien’s mind, but distinct ᴱ√OŘO “*dawn” seems to have been abandoned very early.
]]>The root √ROM was mentioned several times in Tolkien’s later writings with glosses like “horn noise” (PE17/138), “noise of horn” (PE17/153), and “used of the sound of trumpets and horns” (WJ/400). Starting in the 1930s, the name Q. Oromë was derived from this root, as opposed to the 1910s where ᴱQ. Orome was initially connected to the root ᴱ√OŘO having to do with “dawn” (QL/70-71).
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume this root was √ROD, because some of its early forms (rosta-) can be derived from this root but not later RON(D)-.
]]>Regarding S. grond: in The Etymologies of the 1930s this word was derived instead from the unglossed root ᴹ√RUD, which had derivatives ᴹQ. runda “rough piece of wood” and ON. runda > N. grond “club” (Ety/RUD); it also had strengthened variant ᴹ√G-RUD (EtyAC/G-RUD).
Neo-Eldarin: Despite the change of Q. hrondo >> Q. hröa, I think √SRON might be retained in the more limited sense “matter” rather than “flesh”, along with related root √(G)RON “solid” from 1957. As for ᴹ√RUD, it might also be retained, with S. grond [N. grond] “weighty; club” being a blending of ᴹ√RUD and √(G)RON.
]]>Tolkien discussed this root at length in a 1968 essay labeled The Problem of Ros (PM/367-371). He indicated that by this point, the intended meaning of the root √ROS was “spindrift, spray”, but he felt this meaning was problematic due to its conflict in Sindarin with S. ross “red haired” and the similarity of the root to Latin “rōs” = “dew” (PM/368). He then launched into a lengthy discussion formulating a new theory whereby the element -ros was actually Beorian to explain its use in various Beleriandic names, only to remember at the last minute that he had also used this element in the Third Age place name S. Cair Andros “Ship of Long Foam”, rendering his alternate theories unviable (PM/371). Presumably at this point the original meaning of the root was restored.
]]>The root appeared as √ROT “cave” in notes on Words, Phrases and Passages in the Lord of the Rings from the late 1950s or early 1960s (PE17/49), as *groto “dig, excavate, tunnel” in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60 (WJ/414), as unglossed (g)roto in other notes associated with that document (VT39/9) and as rot, s-rot “delve underground, excavate, tunnel” in notes associated with The Shibboleth of Fëanor from 1968 (PM/365 note #56). Thus in later writings the root √ROT had variants √GROT and √SROT.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin I would ignore the gloss “cave” which seems to be a loose translation, and stick with the meaning “excavate, tunnel, bore” for the root √ROT; I’d also retain the meaning “hollow” from the 1910s to allow salvaging similar early words from the Qenya and Gnomish Lexicon.
]]>The Etymologies of the 1930s instead had the root ᴹ√RUN “flat of hand or sole of foot” with derivatives like ᴹQ. runya/N. rhein “footprint”, and also as the basis for the final element of ᴹQ. tallune/N. tellen “sole of foot” (Ety/RUN). It’s conceivable the two iterations of the root are related based on the “smoothness” of the hand or foot.
]]>Common Eldarin (u)rus [was] used of a varying brownish red from what we should call brick-red to auburn. Hence Quenya, Telerin urus (stem urust-), Sindarin rust “copper”, rustui adj.; Quenya {ruska “red-brown”} rusko “a fox” (rusku-, pl. rusqui; ruskuite “foxy”). (calarus(t)- polished copper, lairus(t) verdigris). russe a head or pelt of red hair, russa red-haired. S. rusc fox, ross ([primitive] russā) red-haired, copper coloured, especially used of animals, as fox, red deer, and [?similar kind] (VT41/10).
This use of √(U)RUS as brownish-red is not entirely without precedent: in The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien gave the “root” (more likely just a primitive form) ᴹ√RUSKĀ with derivative N. rhosc “brown” (Ety/RUSKĀ), the basis for the name N. Rhosgobel “Brownhay” from Lord of the Ring drafts from the 1940s (TI/164), later translated as “russet village or ‘town’ (enclosure)” (RC/241). However in notes also associated with The Shibboleth of Fëanor, Tolkien gave the root √URUN = “copper” apparently as an extension of √RUN “red, glowing”, part of an explanation of the sobriquet of Nerdanel’s father: Q. Urundil “Copper-lover” (PM/366).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume 1930s ᴹ√RUS “flash, glitter of metal” was discarded in favor of 1968 √RUS “brownish red”. I’d also use √RUS as the basis for copper words rather than √URUN.
]]>It’s conceivable this late root is a reemergence of a (hypothetical) root *ᴱ√(G)RUYU that would explain words in the Gnomish Lexicon of the 1910s such as G. grui “ferocity, horror”, G. gru(i)m “fierce”, and G. gruith “deed of horror, angry or violent act, vengeance” (GL/42), but it is hard to be sure.
]]>A similar root √RUYU “blaze (red)” appeared in 1964 notes on Dalath Dirnen (DD), with derivatives like Q. ruinë “fire, blaze” and Q. ruimen/S. ruist “fireplace, hearth”. In this note Tolkien contrasted Q. ruine “fire, blaze” with nār- “fire as an element”. The note seems to be inspired by a proposed alternate name S. Angruin “Iron Fire” for S. Glaurung; this alternate name was rejected with an “X”, but the rest of the note was allowed to stand. It’s probable the element -ruin is the same one seen in S. Orodruin “Mountain of Fire” (LotR/899), a name that dates back to Lord of the Rings drafts from the 1940s.
The word ruin in turn was connected to the root √RUN “red, glowing” in notes associated with The Shibboleth of Fëanor from 1968, having derivatives Q. runya/S. ruin “fiery red” (PM/365-6 note #61). Thus we tentatively have the conceptual development: 1930s ᴹ√ROY² “ruddy, red” >> 1964 √RUY “blaze (red)” >> 1968 √RUN “red, glowing”.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I’d stick with 1964 √RUY “blaze (red)” as the version of the root having the largest and must useful set of derivatives.
]]>Keep this part so far as it affects SKAL [“cover, veil, cloak, conceal”]. SKAL & KHAL were both probably primitively related, being differentiated from a √KAL, made to distinguish this from KAL which became applied to “light”. s- was primarily “privative” [in] meaning. Cf. √STIN-, grey, compared with √TIN-, sparkling; √SKOR-, rough, marred, unequal or unsymmetrical in shape, to KOR, round (PE17/184).
As interesting as this is, Tolkien mentioned this function nowhere else, and there are plenty of s-prefixed roots that have nothing to do with privation. Furthermore, while √SKAL is mentioned several times in Tolkien’s writings, √SKOR “unsymmetrical” appears nowhere else, and the usual root for “grey” is √THIN, not √STIN.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume this root refers mainly fruit juice and pulp, as opposed to syrup and tree sap which would be derived from ᴹ√PIS.
]]>The root appeared as √SAK “draw, pull” in notes associated with Quenya prayers from the 1950s as part of an alternate derivation of Q. úsahtië “inducement to do wrong, *temptation” (VT43/23); elsewhere this word was given as a derivative of √THAG “press” (VT43/22). The Sindarin cognate úthaes (VT44/30) is hard to explain as a derivative of √SAK, so it is likely that this was only a transient idea, especially since Tolkien indicates that the older form of the verb sahta- “to induce” was †þahta- (VT43/23).
Neo-Eldarin: For Neo-Eldarin writing, it is probably better to ignore the 1950s form of this root and assume its derivatives are from √THAG. For the senses “draw” and “pull” I mostly recommend using the roots √LUK or ᴹ√TUK instead, though I do accepted Hialmr’s neologism ᴺS. thag- “draw, pull”; see that entry for discussion. In place of ᴱ√SAKA “*search”, it is probably better to use derivatives of √KETH “examine, *seek”. This leaves ᴹ√SAK to be the basis of “hurt, mar” words.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s, the root reappeared as ᴹ√SALAP “lick up” with derivatives ᴹQ. salpa- “lick up, sup, sip” and N. salff “broth” (Ety/SÁLAP; EtyAC/SÁLAP). But in the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948 Tolkien had the TALAT-stem verb ᴹQ. sulpa- “to lap up, drink greedily” (PE22/114), hinting at a root *ᴹ√SULUP. Assuming ᴹ√SALAP and ᴹ√SULUP coexisted, they must have been etymological variants, since the vowel variations that resulted from primitive syllabic ḷ were no longer a feature of Elvish.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I’d use √SALAP = “sip” and √SULUP = “lap”.
]]>In notes grouped with Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN) from 1959, Tolkien gave √SAM as the basis for Elvish verbs for “to have”, with Q. samin and S. sevin “*I have” (PE17/173). Whether this was connected to 1930s ᴹ√SAM “unite, join” is unclear. In notes associated with the 1959-60 essay Ósanwe-kenta, Tolkien gave the root √SAM with the gloss “mind, think, reflect, be aware” (VT41/5), but in later writings he used √SAN for “think, use mind” instead (PE22/158); see that entry for discussion.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I’d use √SAM = “have”.
]]>√SAM mind, think, reflect, be aware. sāma a mind. sanwe an act of thinking, a thought (*sam-we). ósanwe interchange of thought (between 2 samat). sanwekenda thought-inspection, thought-reading. sanwe-menta thought-sending, mental message (VT41/5).
However, in notes associated with óre that were contemporaneous with The Shibboleth of Feanor from 1968, Tolkien gave Q. sanar = “mind, reflector, thinker” (VT41/13), and in Late Notes on Verb Structure (LVS) from 1969 (LVS) Tolkien gave the root √SAN “think, use mind; ponder, consider (in thought)” with derivative Q. sanwë “(act or process of) thinking, thought” (PE22/158). Thus 1959-60 √SAM “think” >> 1968-69 √SAN “think”, perhaps a restoration of the Gnomish root from the 1910s.
]]>The root √SAP reappeared in a list of roots from the Outline of Phonology (OP2) of the early 1950s with the derivative ✶sapnā > Q. samna “delved hole, pit” (PE19/86). This list was rejected but only because Tolkien revised his thinking on the demonstrated phonetic developments, not the roots themselves. Indeed, the appearance of S. -habar (soft-mutated *sabar) “delving” in various late words like S. Anghabar “Iron-delvings” (S/138) and S. Nornhabar “Dwarrowdelf” (WJ/209) indicate Tolkien probably never really abandoned √SAP “dig”.
]]>However, in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60, Tolkien gave a different meaning for this root as √SAR “score, incise”, from which it developed the extended sense “write” and became the basis for the name of the first alphabet of the Elves, the Q. sarati (WJ/396). This use ᴱQ. sar- as “write” dates back to Early Qenya Word-lists of the 1920s (PE16/133). Despite the difference in meaning, I think two root could still be essentially the same, with √SAR = “stone” as a noun and √SAR = “score (stone)” as a verb, and from there eventually developing the sense “write” to serve as the basis for sarati. In one place in the Quendi and Eldar Tolkien revised √SAR >> √SYAR, perhaps indicating he considered making √SYAR an etymological variant of √SAR (WJ/419 note #24).
]]>The same root appeared in notes on fractions from 1968 with the gloss “divide, apportion”. It was likely also connected to the primitive suffix ✶-stā (PE18/35; PE21/57, 82) that was the basis for the Sindarin/Noldorin collective suffix -ath, as well as the Quenya suffix Q. -sta often seen in place names like the regions of Númenor, and apparently meaning “any particular arrangement, grouping or collection [of things]” (VT39/16, 20 note #27).
A possible early precursor is the (hypothetical) root ᴱ√SATA needed to explain words in Gnomish Lexicon of the 1910s such as G. sad- “reck, care, value, esteem, show respect for, consider” and G. sâd “riches, wealth” (GL/66), but the apparent meaning “*value” is far removed from the later meaning of the root √SAT = “apportion; space”. There was, however, another root √SAT(AR) Quenya Notes (QN) from 1957 with the gloss “faithful, trust, loyal, rely, steadfast” and derivatives like Q. astar/S. astor “faith, loyalty” and Q. satar/S. sadron “trusty follower, loyal companion” (PE17/183), the last appearing as an element in the name S. Echad i Sedryn “Camp of the Faithful” (UT/153). This 1957 root is a bit closer in meaning to ᴱ√SATA “*value”, though still not an exact match.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume √SAT = “apportion; space” and unrelated √SATAR = “faithful, loyal”.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is worth positing an Neo-Root ᴺ√SAYAK “hunger” to salvage these early words.
]]>This root appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s as unglossed ᴹ√SKYAP with extended form ᴹ✶skyapat- “shoe” and derivatives ᴹQ. hyapat/N. habad of the same meaning (Ety/SKYAP). This extended form was incorrectly glossed “shore” by Christopher Tolkien in The Etymologies as published in The Lost Road (LR/386), but Carl Hostetter and Patrick Wynne corrected this to “shoe” in their Addenda and Corrigenda to the Etymologies (VT46/14).
In red-ink revisions to the Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the 1950s Tolkien decided that the initial combination sky- was not possible (PE19/78 and note #51). For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, this root might be salvaged by assuming its actual form was ᴺ√S(A)YAP, which would also allow the restoration of the 1910s words for “boot”.
]]>The root √SED “rest” was mentioned a couple times in the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948 as the basis for the verb ᴹQ. ser- “rest, repose” (PE22/102, 125) and again (unglossed) in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60 as the basis for Este (WJ/403). In the sense “peace” this root had some competition, however. In the first version of the Gloria in Excelsis Deo prayer from the mid-1960s, Tolkien used Q. sívë for “peace”, revised to Q. sérë in the second version and then Q. rainë (VT44/32). The word Q. sívë “peace” reappeared in unpublished etymological notes from 1969 derived from the root √SIB “rest, quiet” (VT44/35).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would use √SED for the act of resting and so Q. sérë “peace” = “restfulness (personal peace)”, and would use √SIB = “quiet, *stillness, absence of activity” and so Q. sívë “peace” = “absence of activity or violence (environmental peace)”. I would use Q. rainë as “good will” in connection to √RAY “smile”.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I prefer √YEL for “daughter” as a variant of ᴹ√SEL(D) under the influence of √YON “son”, mostly so I can still use the 1930s “child” words for other genders, at least in the Quenya branch. I would still use Q. seldë and S. sell for “daughter”, however, with a bit of semantic drift, with “girl” words becoming Q. nettë and S. neth.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: I would retain this root for purposes of Neo-Eldarin, but would assume it applies to a less intense form of love and friendship than √MEL, more “like” than “love”.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I’d stick to √SEREK = “blood”.
]]>In The Etymologies Tolkien gave the root ᴹ√SI “this, here, now” with derivatives like ᴹQ. sí or sin “now” and ᴹQ. sinya/N. sein “new” (Ety/SI). The root √SI was mentioned a couple times in Tolkien’s later writings, usually glossed “this” (PE17/67; VT48/25; VT49/18) and in one place with the variant √SIN (PE17/67). This root was not entirely without competition in Tolkien’s later notes, however: in one place he gave primitive ✶khĭn- as the possible basis for Q. hí “here” and S. hí “now” in 1968 notes on demonstratives, though it appeared beside primitive ✶si- forms (VT49/34 note #21).
]]>By The Etymologies of the 1930s, the variants ᴹ√SIL “shine silver” and ᴹ√THIL were better established (Ety/SIL, THIL). The variant ᴹ√SIL had derivatives like ᴹQ. silme/N. silif “moonlight, light of Silpion” and the extended form ᴹ√SÍLIP from which ᴹQ. Silpion was derived (Ety/SIL), and its most notable use from the 1930s forward was as the basis for the initial element of Q. Silmaril vs. S./N. silef as in N. Silevril (Ety/SIL; PE17/23; Let/425). The variant ᴹ√THIL had derivatives like ᴹQ. Isil/N. Ithil “Moon, (lit.) the Sheen” (Ety/THIL), forms Tolkien also retained from the 1930s forward. Tolkien mentioned both root variants √SIL and √THIL with the glosses like “shine (white or silver)” regularly in his later writings (Let/425; PE17/66; PE22/136; SA/sil).
]]>Neo-Eldarin: I think it is worth positing a Neo-Root ᴺ√SILIT “sift” to salvage some of these early words.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin I think it is worth positing a Neo-Root ᴺ√SISTI to salvage some of these early words.
]]>The root reappeared as √SKAL “cover, veil, cloak, conceal” with a “privative” √S- prefix added to √KAL “light”, again as the basis for S. esgal “a cast shadow” in S. Esgalduin “River under Shade” (PE17/184). In this note, Tolkien contrasted √SKAL with √SPAN of similar meaning, saying that “√SKAL was applied to more opaque things that cut off light and cast shadows over other things ... √SPAN was applied to things of lighter texture, and corresponds closer to our veil” and also:
SKAL was primitively verbal [whereas] SPAN was primitively nominal. Thus the most primitive derivative of SKAL was skalā and this meant the action or effect of overshadowing ... But spanā meant a thing that veiled, a veil (PE17/184).
Elsewhere the derivatives of √SPAN were more frequently attributed to √PHAN; see those entries for further discussion.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: The note where it appeared does not provide enough information to determine whether this root was √KHOL or √SKOL, but elsewhere √KHOL appeared with the gloss “crow, cry aloud” (PE21/82), so for purposes of Neo-Eldarin I think it’s better to assume this root was √SKOL “shut, close”.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root was given as ᴹ√SUK with derivatives like ᴹQ. suhto/N. sûth “draught” and ᴹQ. suk-/N. sog- “drink”, along with a variant root ᴹ√SUG with derivatives ᴹQ. súlo/N. sûl “goblet” (Ety/SUK). The root appeared with vocalic variants √SUK and √SOK “drain, drink” in both the first and second versions of Tengwesta Qenderinwa from the 1930s (TQ1: PE18/45) and circa 1950 (TQ2: PE18/94). Finally the root √SOK “gulp, quaff, drink” appeared in notes associated with the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60 where it had a single derivative: Q. soika “thirsty” (VT39/11).
In Tolkien’s later writings, the roots √SUK and √SOK had competition from √YUL “drink”; see that entry for details. Since both √SOK and √YUL coexisted in the Quendi and Eldar essay, I am of the opinion that √SUK/SOK may not have been abandoned.
]]>The etymology of the 1930s ᴹQ. solor “surf” < ᴹ✶solos is problematic, in that it shows final -s > -r, a remnant of ideas from Early Qenya. Tolkien’s use of Q. Falmari “Wave-folk” in later writings as the primary alternate name for the Teleri (S/53; PM/386) calls into question the continued validity of ᴹ√SOL. Nevertheless, I think it is useful to retain this root in Neo-Eldarin to salvage some early words like ᴱQ. sóla “tide”.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: I think it is worth positing an Neo-Root ᴺ√SOW “wash, *bath” (and verbal variant ᴺ√SOB “*bathe”) to salvage various early nouns having to do with baths, but would use the later root √SWAL for the verb “wash”.
]]>In general, however, Tolkien used √PHAL (earlier ᴱ√FALA²) much more regularly as the basis for wave/beach/foam words.
]]>Starting in the late 1950s, Tolkien began using √FAN or √PHAN “white” as the basis for cloud words (PE17/26, 36). √SPAN “cover, veil, cloak, conceal” was restored in a 1967 discussion of the root √SKAL of similar meaning where Tolkien said “√SKAL was applied to more opaque things that cut off light and cast shadows over other things ... √SPAN was applied to things of lighter texture, and corresponds closer to our veil” and “SKAL was primitively verbal [whereas] SPAN was primitively nominal” (PE17/184). However, towards the end of this note Tolkien wrote “Keep this part so far as it affects SKAL”, hinting that √SPAN was discarded; this rejection may have been tied to his introduction of a privative sense to prefixal √S- which worked for √S-KAL (“without light”) but not √SPAN. He wrote several other lengthy essays in 1967 with √PHAN = “veil”; see that entry for discussion.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien had unglossed ᴹ√SPIN with derivatives like ᴹQ. finde “tress, braid of hair” and N. finnel “(braided) hair” (Ety/SPIN). He made a point that this root was distinct from ᴹ√PHIN “nimbleness, skill” (Ety/PHIN), a distinction he reemphasized in later writings as well (PE17/17, 119). The additional form ᴹQ. fine “larch” (a species of tree with needle-like leaves) indicates the 1930s root was not limited exclusively to “hair” (Ety/SPIN). The root √SPIN appeared a number of times in Tolkien’s later writings, variously glossed “single hair, filament” >> “fine thread, filament” (PE17/17), “lock, tress of human/elvish hair” as extended √SPIN-ID (PE17/119), or “single hair” (PE17/185). However, in The Shibboleth of Feanor from 1968 Tolkien gave the root as √PHIN “hair” (PM/340).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would ignore this 1968 change of √SPIN >> √PHIN. Furthermore, I would assume √SPIN referred to a single hair or other kind of filament, and extended √SPINID referred to a tress of hair.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would transferred 1930s N. rhaen “crooked” to √SRAG “awkward, difficult”.
]]>Regardless, the connection to “flesh“ survived in later writings: primitive ✶srawā > Q. hröa “body” reappeared in notes discussing Q. órë from 1968 (VT41/14), the form ✶srā “flesh” > S. rhaw appeared as an example of a primitive monosyllabic noun in notes associated with Eldarin Hands, Fingers and Numerals from the late 1960s where Tolkien said it had probably lost a final -w in ancient times (VT47/12), and ✶srā “body” appeared in a list of monosyllabic nouns from 1968 again with signs of lost -w via the extended form ✶srawa (VT47/35).
√SRAW “flesh, body” may itself be a reemergence of some similar early roots. In the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s Tolkien had ᴱ√SṚKṚ “fat” with derivatives like ᴱQ. sarko “flesh, living flesh, body” and ᴱQ. sarqa “fleshy” (QL/86). The words ᴱQ. hara “flesh-meat” and ᴱQ. haranwa “fleshly, carnal” were given without a root (QL/39) and were probably connected to words like G. hara “flesh meat, meat” and G. harc “flesh (on a living body)” from contemporaneous Gnomish Lexicon (GL/48). These might somehow be connected to ᴱ√SṚKṚ or could instead represent an otherwise unattested root like *ᴱ√HARA.
]]>The basic sense being probably one of craft: “to complete a work or design, to add the final details and finishing touches”, hence to decorate, qualify, modify, variegate etc. Hence *raitē was used of all those details and special characteristics belonging to an individual of a sort; or to a subdivision of a kind. It could thus be translated often “peculiar hue”, (special) fashion - but it was only applied to details and characteristics that were fair (PE17/185).
The only derivatives of this root Tolkien gave were S. {raed >>} rhaed apparently also meaning “peculiar hue, (special) fashion” which in suffixal form -r(h)ed applied to colours and shapes, as well as the word rhîd of unclear meaning. Given the possible association with colours, it is conceivable this root is a later iteration of ᴹQ. laite “colour” from the early 1930s (PE21/7), but that’s a pretty big stretch.
]]>The root √STAL “strong” was mentioned in passing as the basis for the adjective Q. astalda in a rejected page associated with roots having to do with “large & small” words, probably from the late 1960s (PE17/115; VT47/26 note #26). The name Q. Astaldo “Valiant” appeared as a sobriquet of Tulkas in later versions of The Silmarillion (S/28), replacing the earlier name Q. Poldórëa of similar meaning (MR/146, 149; LR/206). For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume √STAL (and its derivatives) means “*valiant” rather than “strong”.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume this root is √STOR to avoid conflict with ᴹ√THOR(ON), the basis for “eagle” words.
]]>In Primitive Elvish the combination wo was fairly rare, so there aren’t many clear examples of this phonetic change, the best being the Sindarin prefix go-/gwa- noted above. However, Tolkien did explicitly describe this change a number of times:
The last note from 1969 is associated with a Quenya example of this sound change, where the verbal adjective suffix -oiti became -aiti when it appeared after w (PE22/155). A second Quenya example seems to indicate the opposite development), however ✶ > Q. olos “inflorescence” (PE17/160), where ñwa- > ñwo- and then later the and ultimately [@@@ discuss possible unstressed wa > wo]. A third potential example appears in The Etymologies of the 1930s:
Since we have final -wō > -wa in both Quenya and Noldorin [pre-Sindarin], this might be an example of this phonetic rule. However, the rule specifically applied to primitive short stressed wŏ, and this example is long wō (and quite possibly unstressed). Thus this last example could easily be some distinct phonetic development, as theorized by David Salo, who proposed that final -wō > -wā in the Common Eldarin period as a separate sound change (GS/§4.15).
As a final note, Tolkien mentioned that later S. gwa- became gwo- and then go- after stress shifted in Sindarin (WJ/368), indicating that wŏ́ > wa (or at least gwa- > gwo-) remained an active phonetic rule in Sindarin for some time. David Salo also recorded this later application of the phonetic rule (GS/§4.103).
Conceptual Development: The prefixal variation gwa-/go- dates all the way back to Gnomish, but as suggested in Roman Rausch’s Historical Phonology of Goldogrin (HPG/§1.4), in the earliest period this sound change seems to be reversed, in that unstressed wa > wo rather than stressed wo > wa:
[G.] go unaccented form < gwa-. [primitive] *ŋu̯a. cp. Q. ma- together, in one, etc. (GL/40)
This also seems to be true of the Early Noldorin of the 1920s:
[ᴱN.] go-. Originally unaccented form < gwá- = together, etc. (Q, T va-) (PE13/162)
Based on the Early Quenya and Early Telerin forms ma- and va-, this change to unstressed wo seems to apply only in Gnomish/Early Noldorin, not to the other languages.
By the 1930s, Tolkien revised the sound change to stressed wŏ́ > wa, and designated it as a Common Eldarin sound change that applied to both Quenya and Noldorin (Ety/WŌ, PE19/53). Base on notes appearing in the Outline of Phonology (OP2) given above, this seems to still be a Common Eldarin sound change in the 1950s (PE19/106).
]]>Neo-Eldarin: I think it is worth retaining ᴺ√SUB “sink” as a Neo-Root.
]]>Neo-Quenya: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would use this root as the basis for “wash” as a verb, but retain ᴱ√SOVO >> Neo-Root ᴺ√SOW as the basis for “bath” nouns.
]]>However, in the first version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ1), also from the 1930s, Tolkien gave ᴹ√SYAD the gloss “compress” (PE18/51), and in the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s {ᴹ√KHYAD >>} ᴹ√SYAD had the derivative ᴹQ. hyarna “compact, compressed” (PE19/45). Similar forms appeared in the second version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ2) and Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the early 1950s (PE18/101; PE19/92). However, in between these two sets of documents, in the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948, Tolkien gave ᴹ√SYAD the gloss “cleave through” as the basis for the verb ᴹQ. hyar- “cleave” (PE22/102).
The other element Sanga- of the name Sangahyando was derived from the roots √THAG or ᴹ√STAG, which Tolkien only ever gave glosses like “(com)press”. Thus I think it is best to assume the glosses in TQ1, OP1, TQ2 and OP2 were aberrations, and that √SYAD generally meant “cleave”.
]]>By The Etymologies of the 1930s, ᴹ√TA had switch from “this” to “that”, with derivatives like ᴹQ. tana “that (anaphoric)” and ᴹQ. tar/ON. tō “thither” (Ety/TA). √TA continued to appear regularly in Tolkien’s later writings with senses like “that, there, then”.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien gave this root as ᴹ√TĀ/TAƷ “high, lofty; noble” with derivatives like ᴹQ. tára “lofty, high”, ᴹQ. tári “queen” and N. taen “height, summit of high mountain” (Ety/TĀ). In Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN) from 1959 Tolkien gave the root as √TAG or Tā- “high”, and in notes from around 1967 Tolkien gave √TAƷ as the explanation of the initial element of Q. Taniquetil and contrasted it with √TĂR “stand” (PE17/186). In 1970 green-ink revisions to the Outline of Phonology (OP2), Tolkien wrote a marginal note giving √TAƷ > TĀ “high”, but this note was rejected with a statement “transfer to Gen. Structure. No [ʒ] existed in Eldarin” (PE19/72-73 note #22).
This last rejection seems to be part of Tolkien’s general vacillation on the nature and phonetic evolution of velar spirants in Primitive Elvish in 1968-70. For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume the root form was √TAH or √TAƷ > √TĀ as the basis for “high” words, much like √MAH or √MAƷ > ✶mā was the basis for “hand” words.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien gave the root ᴹ√TAK “fix, make fast” with derivatives like ᴹQ. tak-/N. taetha- “fasten”, ᴹQ. tanka/N. tanc “firm” and ᴹQ. tankil/N. tachol “pin, brooch” (Ety/TAK). The root also appeared in the first version of the Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ1) from the 1930s with the glosses “fix” (PE18/50) and “make” (PE18/54). √TAK reappeared in the second version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ2) from around 1950 with the gloss “fasten, fix” (PE18/100), and again (unglossed) in the Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the early 1950s as part of the derivation of ✶tankla > Q. tañkal “brooch” (PE19/83). Derivatives of this root appeared regularly in Tolkien’s later writings, making this a particularly stable root in Tolkien’s conception of Elvish.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s, the root ᴹ√DAL “flat” seems unrelated to any of its meanings from the 1910s, but ᴹ√TAL “foot” was clearly a continuation of the 1910s root, with derivatives like ᴹQ. tál/N. tâl “foot” and an extended root ᴹ√TALAM “floor, base, ground” with derivatives like ᴹQ. talan (talam-)/N. talaf “floor, ground” (Ety/TAL). Both the root ᴹ√TAL “foot” and its extension ᴹ√TALAM “base, root, foundation” were mentioned in the contemporaneous Primitive Quendian Structure: Final Consonants (PE21/56), whereas ᴹ√TAL “foot” was mentioned in Common Eldarin: Noun Structure from the early 1950s (PE21/70). The extended form √talam- “flat space” appeared again in notes on Words, Phrases and Passages from the Lord of the Rings written in the late 1950s or early 1960s (PE17/52), and both Q. tál and S. tâl “foot” appeared regularly in Tolkien’s later writings.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root appeared as ᴹ√TALAT “to slope, lean, tip” with derivatives like ᴹQ. talta-/N. atlanna- “to slope” and ᴹQ. talta/N. talad “an incline” (Ety/TALÁT). The root was mentioned regularly thereafter, mostly in a verbal sense with glosses like “incline, slope, slide down” (PE18/38), “slip (downwards)” (PE18/61), “topple over, slip down” (SD/249), “slip (down)” (PE18/85) and “collapse, fall in ruin” (PM/158). In notes from the late 1950s or early 1960s, Tolkien gave the root a noun sense “ground (bottom)” alongside “fall down” (PE17/150) and in a 1964 letter to Christopher Bretherton gave it the sense “slipping, sliding, falling down” (Let/347).
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the early root reappeared as ᴹ√TAM “knock” with derivatives like ᴹQ. tamba-/N. tamma- “knock” and ᴹQ. tambaro/N. tavor “woodpecker, knocker” (Ety/TAM; EtyAC/TAM). However, for “construction” words Tolkien introduced a new root ᴹ√TAN “make, fashion” with derivatives like ᴹQ. tano “craftsman, smith”, ᴹQ. tanwe “craft, thing made, device, construction” and ᴹQ. kentano/N. cennan “potter” (Ety/TAN). The root ᴹ√TAN was the basis for several names: ᴹQ. Martan(o) “Earth-smith”, ᴹQ. Tintánie “Star-maker”, and ᴹQ. Cirdan “Shipbuilder” (Ety/TAN).
The root √TAN appeared several times in Tolkien’s later writings with the glosses “make with tools” (PE17/96) and “construct” (PE17/106). But the names ᴹQ. Martan(o) and ᴹQ. Tintánie became Q. Martamo (LT1A/Talka Marda) and Q. Tintallë (PE21/85; LotR/377), and in notes from 1968 or 1969 Tolkien had {√TAN >>} √TAM “construct” with derivatives like Q. taman/S. tavn “a thing made by handicraft” and Q. tamo “smith” (PE17/107-108). However, in this same note Tolkien said “in Sindarin the base appeared mostly in form √TAN owing to contact with √PAN arrange, set in order”, most likely because he wanted to retain names like S. Círdan.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume the root √TAM originally had the sense “beat, knock”, from there becoming the basis for “forge” words and then a general root for tool and handicraft words, but with a Sindarin-only variant √TAN as noted above. I would use the root √TAN for “indicate, show”, see that entry for details.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: I prefer 1930s ᴹ√ÑGAN(AD) as the basis for “harp” words, so I’d update early ᴱ√TṆTṆ to ᴺ√TANAT “bounce” to salvage early “bounce” words, but I’d use later ᴹ√LILT for “dance” words.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I’d stick with the better-known earlier form of this root: ᴹ√TARAG.
]]>The root ᴹ√TARAK “horn (of animals)” appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s with derivatives ᴹQ. tarka/N. tarag of the same meaning, but the Noldorin word was also used of mountains, as seen in the name N. Taragaer “Ruddihorn” (Ety/TARÁK). The latter was an early precursor to the name S. Caradhras “Redhorn” in Lord of the Rings drafts of the 1940s; Taragaer was eventually abandoned (RS/419, 433).
]]>The root ᴹ√TAS reappeared in revisions to The Feanorian Alphabet from the early 1940s, where it served as the basis for ᴹQ. atsa {“claw” >>} “tassel, fryse, fringe” (PE22/50). However, as the basis for ᴹQ. tasar(e) “willow” the root ᴹ√TAS was problematic, because starting in the 1930s intervocalic s > z > r in Quenya (PE19/49), as opposed to Early Qenya of the 1910s where this transition happened only before nasals, liquids and voiced spirants (PE12/15-16, 19). Thus in The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien introduced a new root ᴹ√TATHAR as the basis for ᴹQ. tasar(e)/N. tathor “willow-tree” and N. tathren “of willow” (Ety/TATHAR). The root {√TASĀR >>} √TATHAR reappeared in Words, Phrases and Passages in the Lord of the Rings from the late 1950s or early 1960s as the basis for Q. tasar/S. tathar “willow” (PE17/81).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would posit the existence of a Neo-Root ᴺ√TATH as a replacement for early ᴱ√TASA to salvage early “fringe” words as well as being the basis for √TATHAR, reserving for √TAS the sense “point(er)” it had in the late 1960s.
]]>ᴱQ. taure “forest” did not appear as an independent word until drafts of the Oilima Markirya from around 1930 (PE16/62; MC/213). Thereafter Tolkien mostly stuck with Q. taurë and N./S. taur for “forest”. In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien gave the root ᴹ√TAWAR “wood, forest” (Ety/TÁWAR), though in one place it was ᴹ√TAR (EtyAC/TUR). In notes associated with the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60 Tolkien gave √TAWA “wood”, and in notes on “large & small” roots from 1968 Tolkien had √TAW “wood” (PE17/115).
]]>The root √TAJA “stretch” appeared in notes associated with the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60 (VT39/7), and √TAY “stretch” appeared in a list of sound roots from around this same time (PE17/138). However, in notes on the origin of the river name S. Taeglin “*Boundary Singer”, Tolkien glossed √taya “mark, line, limit” with extension tayak as the basis for ✶taika “boundary, limit, boundary line” > S. taeg (WJ/309). Perhaps it was Tolkien’s intent that the sense “mark, line, limit” only applied to the extended form tayak.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root appeared as {ᴹ√TEƷ >>} ᴹ√TEÑ “line, direction” with derivatives like ᴹQ. tie/N. tê “line, way” and ᴹQ. téra/N. tîr “straight, right” (Ety/TEƷ, TEÑ). In the Outline of Phonology Tolkien gave √TEG “line”, whereas √TEÑ was given as the basis for Q. tenna “a thought, notion, idea” and thus clearly with a different meaning; see the entry √TEÑ for further discussion. In any case it is clear that Tolkien considered various ancient velar consonants for the second consonant of this root, all ultimately vanishing in the child languages with similar vocalic effects: 1910s teχ-, 1920s teg-, 1930s {teʒ- >>} teñ- and 1950s teg-.
]]>The root √TEK continued to appear in Tolkien’s writings of the 1950s and 60s with glosses like “make a written mark” (PE17/43), “sign” (PE17/44) or “write” (PE22/149). However, one of its major derivatives, Q. tengwa “letter” (originally < ᴹ✶tekmā), was transferred to the root √TEÑ after Tolkien decide that km > kw rather than ngw in Quenya phonology, as noted by Christopher Gilson (PE17/44; PE19/85-86 note #79); see the entry on √TEÑ for further discussion.
]]>In the Early Qenya Word Lists of the 1920s, however, Tolkien gave the words ᴱQ. talle “ended” and ᴱQ. talma “end” (PE16/143, 144) versus ᴱQ. telu- “cover, roof” and ᴱQ. telume “firmament” and (QL/134, 142). Indeed, in The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien had unglossed ᴹ√TEL with the vocalic extension ᴹ√TELU having derivatives like ᴹQ. telme “hood, covering” and ᴹQ. telume/N. telu “roof (of heaven)” (Ety/TEL). The primitive verb form ✶telu- “roof in” appeared in Quendian & Common Eldarin Verbal Structure (EVS1: PE22/98) from the 1930s and again in Common Eldarin: Verb Structure from the early 1950s (EVS2: PE22/135), and finally one more time with the gloss “roof in, put the crown on a building” in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60 (WJ/411).
The “end” words went down a different route. In The Etymologies Tolkien gave ᴹ√KYEL “run out, come to an end” as an etymological variant of ᴹ√KEL “go, run (especially of water), *flow”; ᴹ√KYEL had derivatives like ᴹQ. tyel- “to end, cease” and ᴹQ. tyelima “final” (Ety/KEL, KYEL). Tolkien mentioned this etymological variation of √KEL “flow” vs. √KYEL “cease, come to an end” in both the first and second version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa from the 1930s and around 1950 respectively (TQ1: PE18/58; TQ2: PE18/103), and the two variants were also mentioned in the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948 (PE22/114). However, in Common Eldarin: Verb Structure of the early 1950s Tolkien gave √TEL “close, end, complete” with vocalic extension telu “roof in” (PE22/135), a paradigm repeated in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60, though with a bit less certainty:
The stem *TELE, the primary sense of which appears to have been “close, end, come at the end” ... This was possibly distinct from *tel-u “roof in, put the crown on a building”, seen in Q telume “roof, canopy” ... But *telu may be simply a differentiated form of *TELE, since the roof was the final work of a building (WJ/411).
The conceptual development seems to be 1910s ᴱ√TELE “cover” vs. ᴱ√TEL-U “end” >> 1920s *ᴱ√TALA “end” vs. ᴱ√TELU “cover” >> 1930s-1950 ᴹ√KYEL “end” vs. ᴹ√TEL(U) “*cover” >> early 1950s √TEL “end” vs. √TELU “roof in”. Thus Tolkien ultimately came full circle back to his original root forms, but with reversed meanings.
See also the root √TELES for discussion of the conceptual shifts in the derivation of Q. Teleri “Hindmost”.
]]>In the first version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa from the 1930s Tolkien initially gave the root ᴹ√TELED for the third Elven kindred (PE18/34), but later in the same document he gave ᴹ√TELES (PE18/61), which is the form he used in The Etymologies of the 1930s with the gloss “hindmost, tarrier” (Ety/TELES). In The Etymologies he explicitly contrasted ᴹ√TELES with ᴹ√KYEL “come to an end” (> ᴹQ. tyel-) with which it was sometimes blended in Quenya (Ety/KYEL, TELES). However, in the second version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa from around 1950 Tolkien gave {√TELES >>} √KYELES as the basis for the name of the third tribe, with Teler- being the Telerin variant.
In Common Eldarin: Verb Structure from the early 1950s Tolkien reversed himself, deciding √TEL meant “close, end, complete” at which point primitive teles “come at rear, end a line or series” was restored (PE22/135). In rough notes associated with Notes on Names (NN) from 1957, he switched to primitive Teler- as the basis for the tribe-name, as supported by Sindarin forms like S. †teleir (PE17/139), and in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60 he said Q. Teler was based on the old agental suffix ✶-rŏ (WJ/371), again pointing to primitive *teler-.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume that the tribal name Teleri was based on ancient *tele-rŏ as noted above, but I would also assume √TELES “hindmost, last in a series” remained valid to preserve relevant derivatives from The Etymologies.
]]>The root √TEN “direction” eventually reappeared in Quenya Notes (QN) from 1957 with a single derivative, adverb or preposition Q. tenna “to the object; up to, to (reach), as far as”, as in the phrase Q. tenn’ Ambar-metta “unto the ending of the world” (LotR/967). The root √TEN also appeared with gloss “end in sense of point aimed at” (vs. √MET = “finally”) along with derivatives Q. tenna “to the point, until” and Q. †tenya- “arrive, end (not at speaker’s[?] place)” in notes from the late 1950s or early 1960s (VT49/24).
In notes from 1968, √TEN was at first used for “to, arrive (at), reach” along with derivatives Q. tenna “right up to a point (of time/place); go as far as” and a verb Q. ten- “arrive, come to”, but then Tolkien changed {√TEN >>} √MEN and revised all the verb forms of {Q. ten- >>} men- (VT49/23-24). He then gave a new gloss “point” to √TEN and updated derivatives: Q. tenna “to the point” and Q. tenta- “point to, [point] out, indicate” (VT49/24). In another note associated with 1968 drafts of the Ambidexters Sentence, the root √TEN was glossed “toward” (VT49/24).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I’d ignore Tolkien’s brief interpretation of this root as “arrive”, and stick with the meaning “(up to the) point”, consistent with its non-deleted derivatives. For “arrive”, I’d use Q. anya- from Late Notes on Verbs written in 1969, reserving √MEN for “go” (LVS).
]]>In another entry in The Etymologies of the 1930s, Tolkien derived ᴹQ. tengwa from ᴹ✶tekmā = ᴹ√TEK “write” + the instrumental suffix ᴹ✶-mā (Ety/TEK). The foundation of this derivation is the sound change whereby voiceless stops were voiced before nasals in Ancient Quenya, thereafter nasalizing so that ᴹ✶tekmā > tegmā > teñmā > teñgwā (PE19/43). This sound change was still in effect when Tolkien wrote the initial draft of Outline of Phonology (OP2) in the early 1950s (PE19/85-66 note #79), but at some later point Tolkien revised this rule so that the nasal instead unvoiced, so that km > kʰm̌ > kƕ > kw (PE19/85), making the derivation of tengwa from the root √TEK invalid.
As pointed out by Christopher Gilson (ibid., note #79), earlier signs of this new phonetic rule can be seen Tolkien’s notes on Words, Phrases and Passages in the Lord of the Rings from the late 1950s, where he gave √TEÑ “show, sign, indicate” instead of √TEK “[written] sign” as the new root for Q. tengwa, now derived from ✶teñwā or ✶teñmā, though Tolkien briefly considered √TEWE as a possible root in drafts to these notes (PE17/44). From this point forward, Tolkien regularly mentioned √TEÑ with glosses like “indicate, signify” (WJ/394), “represent, betoken, indicate (by sign)” (VT39/15) and “indicate, mark, signify” (PE22/149). Finally, in green-ink revisions to OP2 from 1970, Tolkien added tengwa as another derivative of √TEÑ alongside Q. tenna “thought, notion, idea” as mentioned above (PE19/97 and note #139).
See the entries on √TEG “line” and √TEK “write” for parallel developments in similar roots.
]]>Indeed, in The Etymologies of the 1930s the root was given as ᴹ√TER “pierce” with derivatives like ᴹQ. ter/N. trî “through” and ᴹQ. tereva/N. trîw “fine, acute, [N.] very slender” (Ety/TER). As originally written, the root was ᴹ√TERÉW, but Tolkien changed this to ᴹ√TER and added an extended form ᴹ√TERES that was the basis for ᴹQ. terra/N. tess “fine pierced hole” (EtyAC/TER). The root √TER “pierce” appeared again in notes from 1957 on the origin of Q. Vairë “Weaver” as a variant of √THER “sew” (PE17/33). This specific note was marked through, but given Tolkien’s ongoing use of Q. ter “though”, the root √TER probably survived.
]]>In notes on Words, Phrases and Passages in the Lord of the Rings from the late 1950s or early 1960s, Tolkien assigned a disinct meaning for √ATH as “ease, comfort, heal”, forming the basis for the name of the healing plant S. athelas or Q. asëa aranion (PE17/49). In Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN) from 1959 Tolkien gave √ATHA as the basis for a number of words such as verb Q. asya-/S. eitha- “to ease, assist” and prefix Q. as(a)-/S. ath- “easily” (PE17/148).
In Late Notes on Verb Structure (LVS) from 1969, Tolkien connected √THA and √ATHA as a “mono-consonantal reversible” root ÞĀ̆/AÞA combining these two senses. As Tolkien described it:
Its basic sense was probably “be helpful”, be willing to assist, in any work etc., agree, consent ... this sense is obscured in the uses of aþa- with other verbs, it may be supposed to be the earliest sense, because of derivatives made from it, such as Q aþea (< apaya) name (as = “beneficial” ?) of a herb (PE22/165).
From this, Tolkien described a variety of derivatives, such as Q. aþumo “good companion”, S. natha- (< an-aþa-) “bring help to, save, rescue” and Q. þá or aþa “I agree”, or in longer form aþanye “I will (do so)”. In Sindarin, this verb developed into a sort of future inflection:
In S. the verb aþa, atha had become agglutinated to the verb stem, and formed a kind of “future”, expressing the intention of the subject, closely resembling in sense and uses English will (when not mere future): I will (I’ll) go, he will (he’ll) go, espec. in the 1st and 3rd persons. In the second person the implication of “will” of the subject is clearest in questions or negation (PE22/167).
As described in this document, the Sindarin verbal suffix -atha was not a true future, but was rather an expression of intent. Nevertheless, this document connected both prior senses of the roots √THA “future” and √ATHA “ease, assist, comfort” via a more basic sense of “be helpful”, with atha- “agree” > “I will” > (in Sindarin only) a future sense resembling English “I will [I intend to] go”. In this same document, however, Tolkien considered splitting out the medical senses of √ATHA into a distinct root √HATHA “treat kindly/make easy, (help to) cure”; see that entry for details.
]]>The Etymologies of the 1930s had the root ᴹ√STAG “press, compress” with derivatives like ᴹQ. sanga “crowd, throng, press” and N. thang “compulsion, duress, need, oppression” (Ety/STAG). In etymological notes associated with Quenya prayers from the 1950s, Tolkien gave √THAG “oppress, crush, press” (along with a deleted fourth gloss “force”) with the derivatives Q. sahtië “pressure or force (to do something against one’s will or conscience)” (VT43/22). Tolkien’s continued use of Q. sanga “press, throng” and S. thang “pressure, oppression” indicate the ongoing validity of the root √THAG or √STAG.
]]>The root √THAN from the 1950s might be a restoration of the unglossed root ᴱ√tan- from the Gnomish Lexicon of the 1910s with derivatives like G. tan “firewood” and G. tantha- “set light to, kindle” (GL/69), along with other forms like G. tôn “fire (on a hearth)” and G. tortha- “scorch” (GL/71). This may be reflected in the deleted forms in the aforementioned note: {√TON >> √TÁN >>} √THĂN/THĀN.
]]>There was another unglossed root in the Qenya Lexicon: {ᴱ√SAŘA >>} ᴱ√SARA with derivatives like ᴱQ. sara- “saw”, ᴱQ. sarat “plank”, and ᴱQ. sarno “table” (QL/82). Gnomish forms G. sard “table” vs. G. thar- “saw (up)” may represent a blending with another root *ᴱ√ÞARA (GL/67, 71). However, Tolkien compared G. sard to G. thrad [< *s(a)rat-?] (GL/67), whereas G. thrad “a board, shelf” was deleted from underneath G. thar- (GL/71). Perhaps this means there was a conceptual shift of {ᴱ√SARA >>} *ᴱ√ÞARA, though G. thrad “plank, board, shelf” was retained undeleted elsewhere in the document (GL/73).
As a later entry to The Etymologies of the 1930s, Tolkien gave the root ᴹ√THAR “across, beyond” serving as the basis for the names N. Thar-gelion (“Land beyond Gelion”) and N. Thar-bad with an unclear gloss, probably “Crossway” (Ety/THAR). The root √ÞAR appeared in a list of Sindarin words associated with Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN) from 1959, where it served as the basis for words like S. athrad “crossing” and prefix S. athra- in words like S. athrabeth “conversation (interchange of words)” (PE17/14); in this note Tolkien specified that the root √ÞAR was not found in Quenya, but the root does appear to be an element in later Quenya words like 1972 Q. Mondósar “Oxford” (DTS/70).
Note that the root √THAR appeared a few other times in Tolkien’s later writings with a different meaning: ᴹ√THAR “stand” in the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948 (PE22/126) and √THAR “vigour” (another Sindarin-only root) in an explanation of the name S. Thranduil in a list of roots from 1959 (D59: PE17/187).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume “across” is the main meaning of this root. However, I would ignore Tolkien’s 1959 statement that the root was not found in Quenya in order to salvage early words from *ᴱ√ÞARA, with the verbal sense “saw” = “(cut) across” and from this sense deriving words like “plank” and “table”.
]]>In 1957 Tolkien considered some less negatitive connations for √THUS and its derivatives. In various notes exploring the derivation of words for “spirit”, Tolkien considered using S. Thû as a name for Manwë (PE17/124; NM/236), and in other notes on this topic √THUS was given as variant of √THŪ “blow, cause an air movement” with derivatives like Q. sussë/S. thos “puff (of air)” and the verbs Q. susta-/surya- “blow”, transitive and intrasative respectively (NM/237, 239).
In Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN) from 1959, however, the root √THUS was given the gloss “evil mist, fog, darkness”, still the basis for S. Thû as well as S. Gorthaur “Mist of Fear”, but in this note Q. Sauron was based on √SAW “disgusting, foul, vile” (PE17/183); Tolkien then rejected this derivation of Sauron, saying instead it came from √THAW “cruel”, as did Gorthaur (PE17/184).
The root √SAWA also appeared in the first page of DLN with the gloss “bad, unhealthy, ill, wretched”, but that page was rejected (PE17/172). √SAW appeared again in notes from March of 1967, but there {√SAW >>} √ÞAW “stink”, again as the basis for Q. Sauron, and it apparently had an even earlier form √ÞOWO that was the basis for S. Thû (PE17/68). The primitive form ✶thowō was also mentioned in earlier notes as the basis for S. Thû on a page accompanying Notes on Galdriel’s Song (NGS) written between the 1st and 2nd edition of The Lord of the Rings (PE17/99).
Probably the best known of the etymologies for the name of Sauron appeared in a draft letter to Mr. Rang from August of 1967, where Tolkien gave √THAW > ✶θaurā “detestable” (Let/380), which is essentially the etymology Christopher Tolkien gave in The Silmarillion appendix, where both Q. Sauron and S. Gorthaur were connected to Sindarin element S. thaur “abominable, horrible” (SA/thaur).
To summarize, the main conceptuals shifts seem to be:
The last of these is the best match for the base forms used by Christopher Tolkien in the published version of The Silmarillion, though the exact source of Christopher’s etymology remains unpublished.
Neo-Eldarin: The result of all this vacillation is a confusing muddle that makes it hard to know which roots to use in Neo-Eldarin. For √THAW I would stick with the sense “cruel” but I would assume some blending with √SAW “disgusting, foul, vile” to preserve words from this root. I would assume √THUS has a sense similar to that of The Etymologies and the 1957 notes on spirit (“blow, *smell”) with more neutral meanings in Sindarin, but more unpleasant meanings in Quenya due to the influence of √SAW. Retaining √THAW “cruel”, √SAW “foul” and √THUS “blow, *smell” would let us keep most of the interesting derivatives of these roots.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin I think it is worth positing a Neo-Root ᴺ√THIP to salvage early “pipe” and “flute” words.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: I think it is worth positing a Neo-Root ᴺ√THIRIP “stalk” to salvage some of these early words. I prefer ᴺ√THIRIP over just keeping ᴱ√SIRIP unchanged because (a) it better preserves the forms of more Gnomish words and (b) helps differentiate the Neo-Root from 1930s ᴹ√SRIP “scratch” (Ety/SRIP).
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin I think it is worth positing a Neo-Root ᴺ√THITH to salvage some of these early words; ᴺ√THITH is better than *ᴺ√THIS if we wish retain Early Qenya forms, as otherwise they would become sir- rather than sis-.
]]>In a 1955 letter to David Masson, Tolkien derived S. thôn “pine” from ✶stŏna (PE17/82). However, in Words, Phrases and Passages from the Lord of the Rings written in the late 1950s or early 1960s Tolkien derived this element of S. Dorthonion from {stāna >> thānĭ >>} thŏno, apparently coming full circle back to the 1930s root √THON (PE17/81).
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien instead had ᴹ√THŪ “puff, blow” with derivatives like ᴹQ. súle/N. thûl “breath” and ᴹQ. súya-/N. thuia- “breathe” (Ety/THŪ). A document grouped with Quenya Notes (QN) from 1957 had an extensive discussion of Q. súlë “spirit; breath” where he gave the root as √THŪ with variant √SŪ (PE17/124). In notes on spirit from 1957, however, Tolkien indicated that √THŪ and √SŪ were similar but distinct roots, the former being “blow, cause an air movement” and the latter “blow, move with audible sound (of air)” (NM/237), that is the distinction being the absence or presense of sound. This document also noted various extensions to these base roots such as √THUS and √SUR of similar meaning (NM/237).
The root √SŪ was mentioned in Notes on Galdriel’s Song (NGS) from the late 1950s or early 1960s, along with extended form √SUR(U) serving as the basis for Q. súrë “wind” (PE17/62). In notes from the late 1960s, ✶sū was mentioned a couple times as an example of an ancient monosyllabic noun with the meaning “(noise of) wind” (VT47/12, 35). In one of these documents Tolkien clarified that base form ✶sū was “used only of the sound of wind; as noun [for actual ‘wind’] + r/l: suli, sur(i)” (VT47/12). Compare Q. súrë above as well as S. sûl “wind” (PE17/15; RC/778).
Thus it seems clear that Tolkien’s later writings, he had two distinct but related roots having to do with the movement of air: √THŪ “blow without sound, breath” and √SŪ “blow with sound, (noise of) wind”.
]]>The earliest precursor to Garthurian was G. Gar Furion “Secret Place” from the 1910s (PE13/102; PE15/24), which was based on the unglossed root ᴱ√FURU or ᴱ√HURU from the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s with derivatives like ᴱQ. furin/G. furion “secret, hidden, concealed” and Q. furu/G. fûr “a lie” (QL/39; GL/36). In the Lost Tales of this period, Tolkien changed {G. Gar Furion >>} G. Gar Thurion (LT2/202), so it seems the shift from ᴱ√FURU >> *√ÞURU was very early.
]]>The Etymologies of the 1930s had ᴹ√TIL “point, horn” with derivatives like ᴹQ. tilde/N. till “spike, horn” and ᴹQ. neltil/N. nelthil (Ety/TIL). The root √TIL “point” was mentioned a couple times in notes from the late 1960s in connection to finger-names (VT47/26, 28).
]]>ᴹ√TINKŌ may have replaced the root ᴱ√SINI “pale blue” from the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s with derivatives like ᴱQ. sink “mineral, gem, metal” and G. sinc “metal” (QL/83; GL/67); these early mineral words were originally attributed to ᴱ√SṆT͡YṆ “twinkle” before they were transferred to ᴱ√SINI, leaving only derivatives like ᴱQ. sintl “crystal” and ᴱQ. sinty- “sparkle” under ᴱ√SṆT͡YṆ (QL/85). However, in notes from the late 1960s Tolkien had primitive ✶sinki as an element ✶sinkitamo, the basis for Q. sintamo “smith” (PE17/108). Likewise there is evidence of the earlier root in Q. sinca “flint” as in Q. sincahonda “flint-hearted” (LotR/979), initially given as ᴹQ. tingahondo in Lord of the Rings drafts (SD/68).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would definitely use ✶tink- = “metal”, but I think it is worth keeping ✶sinki = “*mineral = any inorganic solid including both stone and metal” as a variant.
]]>In the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) of the 1940s, Tolkien instead gave ᴹ√KIWIK as the basis for ᴹQ. ciuca “thigh” (PE19/54). A similar etymology for Q. kiuka or kyūka “thigh” appeared in Outline of Phonology (OP2) of the early 1950s (PE19/107). Thus there was considerable variation in form for these roots.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I’d stick with ᴹ√TIW “fat, thick” as the base root, as it has the largest collection of derivatives.
]]>mostly applied to things that were, relatively to those that they were contrasted with, also larger and thicker: e.g. mountain-tops, very tall trees, or a tall strong man (VT47/10).
In this last respected it was the basis for various words for “thumb” and “big toe”, and could be contrasted with √TIL used for the tips of smaller things, including the smaller fingers and toes. √TOL also had extended form √TOLOB with derivative ✶tolbā “a protuberance, esp. one designed for a purpose: a knob or rounded tool-handle” (VT47/11), and in these 1960s documents (unlike in the 1930s) it was the basis for the root √TOLOD “eight” due to the prominence of the middle finger (finger 3 and 8) in counting (VT47/11).
]]>In documents on Elvish numbers from the late 1960s, Tolkien vacillated between √TOLOTH (VT42/30 note #52), √TOLOT (VT42/24; VT47/31) and √TOLOD (VT47/11) for the form of this root, but in the more polished versions of these documents he seems to have settled on √TOLOD > Q. toldo, S. toloð (VT48/6). In this last iteration, Tolkien connected the root √TOLOD to the root √TOL “stick up” due to the prominence of the middle fingers (3 and 8) in counting (VT47/11); see the entry on √TOL for discussion.
]]>The root ᴹ√TUB appeared unglossed in The Etymologies of the 1930s with derivatives like ᴹQ. tumbo/N. tum “deep valley” and ᴹQ. tumna/N. tofn “lowlying, deep, low”, as well as ᴹQ. Utumno/N. Udūn (Ety/TUB; EtyAC/TUB). The root reappeared in a rejected page of roots from the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) written in 1948, where it had the verbal sense “to fall low[?], go down, below normal ground-level, esp. to go down (sink, dive) into water” (PE22/147). In this 1940s document the root had derivatives similar to those in The Etymologies, as well as a verbal derivative ᴹQ. tumba- “to cast down (into a pit[?])”. One indication that this verbal sense was not a new idea was the verb ᴱQ. tum- “dive” from Early Qenya Word-lists of the 1920s.
Tolkien’s continued use of both Q. tumbo and S. tum for “valley” indicate the ongoing validity of ᴹ√TUB, but in drafts of The Silmarillion from the 1950s Tolkien derived Q. Utumno from ✶Utupnŭ and the root √TUI, probably a malformed √TUP (MR/69); see the entry on √TUP for a discussion of that root.
]]>Many years later Tolkien gave a hypothetical root √TUD in contrasted to √TUL to illustrate certain principles of etymological variations (VT48/25). It is not clear whether this √TUD is related to earlier ᴱ√TUÐU “kindle”. Nevertheless, I think it is worth positing a Neo-Root ᴺ√TUD “firewood, kindling” to salvage Early Qenya and Gnomish words of similar meaning.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root ᴹ√TUL had the gloss “come, approach, move towards (point of speaker)” with derivatives like ᴹQ. tul-/N. tol- “come” and ᴹQ. tulta-/N. toltha- “send for, fetch, summon” = “(orig.) make come” (Ety/TUL); in the 1930s the “support” words seem to have been transferred to (probably unrelated) ᴹ√TULUK. √TUL “come” was mentioned regularly in Tolkien’s later writings (PE22/103; PE17/188; PE22/156), in one 1969 note with the extra gloss “approach” (PE22/168), so the 1930s senses for the root seem to have been retained thereafter.
]]>However, the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s had a distinct root ᴱ√TḶPḶ with derivatives like ᴱQ. talpa/G. talp “support, prop”, ᴱQ. tulpu-/G. talpa- “prop up”, and G. clib- “uphold, support” (QL/93; GL/26, 69). This ᴱ√TḶPḶ may have been related to ᴱ√TULU as presented in the Qenya Lexicon, which in this document had the more ancient sense “uphold, support” (QL/95). Thus I think the 1930s derivatives of ᴹ√TULUK having to do with “support” may have been transferred from 1910s ᴱ√TḶPḶ.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root ᴹ√TUP was given as a variant of ᴹ√TOP “cover, roof” with derivatives like ᴹQ. tupse/N. taus “thatch” (Ety/TUP; EtyAC/TOP). In Tolkien’s later writings its most notable derivative was Q. untup- “cover (over)” as in Q. ar hísië untúpa Calaciryo míri oialë “and mist covers the jewels of Calacirya forever” (PE17/73; LotR/377). The root √TUP “cover over” itself was mentioned a couple times in Tolkien’s later writings (PE17/73). In one place of those places it was given as √TUI “cover over, hide”, but since in that note it was the basis for primitive ✶Utupnu, this √TUI is clearly a malformed *√TUP (MR/69).
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s it appeared as ᴹ√TUR “power, control, mastery, victory” with derivatives like ᴹQ. taura/N. taur “mighty”, ᴹQ. tur-/N. tortha- “wield, control”, and ᴹQ. túre/N. tûr “mastery, victory” (Ety/TUR). The root √TUR was mentioned regularly in Tolkien’s later writings with glosses like “dominate, master, conquer” (PE17/104), “power” (PE17/113), “strong, mighty (in power)” (PE17/115), and “power of domination or dominion, control of other wills, legitimate or illegitimate mastery” (PE22/151).
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien gave ᴹ√TYAL “play” with derivatives like ᴹQ. tyal-/N. telia- “to play” and ᴹQ. tyalie/N. telien “sport, play, game” (Ety/TYAL). Tolkien continued to use Q. tyalië “mirth” in later writings (PE21/80; PE17/64), but at some point in the 1950s decided that initial palatalized dentals were no longer a feature of Primitive Elvish (PE18/93-94), making the ongoing validity of √TYAL as a CE root doubtful: see the entry on how [j] was lost after initial dentals in the Welsh-like branch of the Elvish languages for further details. For example, in the second version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ2) from around 1950, Tolkien indicated √TYAL was a Quenya-only root, an elaboration of √TAL:
In Quenya initial groups ty, ny, ps, ks appeared as developments of ky, ñy, sp, sk. But being established they were used in new formations. Thus Q tyal- “play” as a variation on tal- (not kal!) (PE18/84).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to ignore Tolkien’s decision to remove initial palatalized dentals from Primitive Elvish in order to retain roots like √TYAL for both Quenya and (Neo) Sindarin.
]]>In notes from the 1940s and 50s Tolkien gave new primitives forms for one of these words: ᴹ✶kyul(u)mā “mast” (SD/419; PE21/65, 74), indicating a change from ᴹ√TYUL >> *ᴹ√KYUL. This was probably in keeping with Tolkien’s decision in the 1950s to remove initial palatalized dentals as a feature of Primitive Elvish; see the entry on how [j] was lost after initial dentals in the Welsh-like branch of the Elvish languages for further details.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I prefer to ignore Tolkien’s decision to remove initial palatalized dentals from Primitive Elvish. As such, I prefer √TYUL over √KYUL in order to retain attested Noldorin words from the 1930s form of the root.
]]>The root ᴹ√UB was not the only proposed explanation for the Quenya future in this period: in Quendian & Common Eldarin Verbal Structure (EVS1) from the late 1940s he gave ᴹ√BĀ/BANA “go, proceed” as the basis for the future suffix ᴹQ. -va (PE22/97), and a similar scenario appeared in the Quenya Verbal System from this same period (PE22/112). In these notes, -va was the basic future suffix, with -uva a vocalic elaboration when used with basic verbs as in kar-u-va “will make, (originally) going to make”.
Tolkien firmly rejected √BA(N) “go” in 1959, however (PE17/149). The root √UB “ponder, have in mind” was again given as the basis for the future suffix in Common Eldarin: Verb Structure (EVS2) in the early 1950s, with a scenario similar to the 1940s note mentioned above, but with a slightly different archaic future-past construction: AQ. †umbeste mate “he was going to eat” (PE22/132). The root √UB “consider, have in mind” was mentioned in passing in notes from 1968 (VT48/25). In Late Notes on Verb Structure (LVS) from 1969, Tolkien again described the origin of the Quenya future:
Q. developed a pure future of fact or eventuality, with a stem ubā suffixed to the bare base (without ómataima): as *karubā- “will do, is going to do”. This base UB provided a verbal stem (an a-verb) uba- in original sense: impend, be imminent, approach, draw near. In this form it was at an early date affixed to the simple verbal stem, but with a weakened and generalized sense: as e.g. *kar|ubā|ni = “I draw near to doing, I am about to do (it)” > CQ [Classical Quenya] caruvan(ye) “I am going to do/shall do (it)” (PE22/167).
The independent (and impersonal) verb Q. ūva “impend, be imminent” took on the sense “threaten (to come)” due to the “bad” sense of the ū-prefix, and likewise for the noun form Q. umbë “imminence, threat” (PE22/167, 168). In this note Tolkien said derivatives of this root did not survive at all in Sindarin.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would retain the basic sense “ponder, have in mind” for the root √UB that Tolkien used from the 1940s up to 1968, and would assume the 1969 meaning “impend, be imminent” was an extension of that sense, as a thing being pondered. As such, I’d allow the “ponder” meaning to survive in Sindarin.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I prefer Q. ulca for “evil”, but I think √OKO “wicked” might coexist with it as variant to salvage other words from that root.
]]>The Etymologies of the 1930s had negative stems ᴹ√UMU and ᴹ√UGU with derivatives like the negative verb ᴹQ. um- as well as ᴹQ. úmea “evil” (Ety/UGU; UMU). This document also had inverted forms ᴹ√MŪ and ᴹ√GŪ, the latter the basis for the negative prefix ᴹQ. ú- with a bad or evil connotation (Ety/GŪ; MŪ). Finally both √UMU and √UGU were mentioned a number of times in later writings in connection to negation (PE17/143, 172; VT49/29). See the entry on negative √Ū and the entry on Quenya negation for further information.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s, unglossed ᴹ√UÑG had derivatives like ᴹQ. ungwe “gloom” and ᴹQ. ungo “cloud, dark shadow” (Ety/UÑG), and it was the second element ᴹQ. liante in ᴹQ. Ungoliante that meant “spider” (Ety/SLIG). However, in notes from 1969 Tolkien gave *ungu- as the basis for “spider” words (PE22/160), as reflected in Q. ungwë “spider’s web” (LotR/1122) and S. ungol “spider” in his later writings (Let/180; RC/490, 767).
]]>*ᴱ√ƷUÐU seems to have been abandoned in Tolkien’s later writings, but ᴹ√UR “be hot” appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s with derivatives like ᴹQ. úr/N. ûr “fire” and ᴹQ. urya- “blaze” (Ety/UR). This entry was deleted and replaced by ᴹ√UR “wide, large, great”. This was likely a transient change, however, as ᴹQ. Úrin as a name of the Sun remained in contemporaneous Silmarillion drafts (LR/240). Indeed primitive √UR appeared several times in later writings as the basis for words for “sunlight”, “fire” and “heat” (PE17/120, 148; PE21/71; PE22/160).
]]>The voiced stops b, d, g, and the voiced spirant ʒ, were unvoiced before suffixal t, th, s (TQ1, PE18/54).
The voiced stops b, d, g and the (spirantal) continuant ʒ became unvoiced before suffixal th, t, s (TQ2, PE18/102).
This sound change was also mentioned in the Outline of Phonetic Development from the 1940s (OP1) and from the Outline of Phonology from the 1950s (OP2):
The voiced stops: b, d, g. On their prehistoric unvoicing, and consequent merging with p, t, k, before other voiceless consonants, especially t, s, see General Account (OP1, PE19/45).
The voiced stops: b, d, g. On their prehistoric unvoicing (and consequent merging with p, t, k) before voiceless consonants, chiefly the suffixal consonants t, th, s, see the General Account of Eldarin (OP2, PE19/90).
There is one statement in OP2 indicating this sound change took place in Common Eldarin (CE), and thus may not have applied to all Avarin languages:
Before s. In this position the primitive CE development, while b, d, g were still stops, was the unvoicing to p, t, k (OP2, PE19/95).
In Sindarin this phonetic development was obscured by the vocalization of spirants. It is more obvious in Quenya:
Because this phonetic development could obscure relationships between verb forms after voiced stops became spirants in Quenya, in some cases these forms were altered by grammatical analogy. This was discussed in OP2 in the 1950s:
The ancient forms were in current grammatical derivatives, made by devices still actively used or well-recognized, often set aside by analogy, since they frequently obscured the etymological relationships. New formations were produced, many even in early PQ, by the introduction of the medial forms of the consonants, as produced in normal intervocalic position, to stand before the suffix.
Thus: √ABA/BA: ab-ta > apta > aꝑþa > apta. This occurs, but became dissociated from the original past tense: avante “refused, denied, said nay”. For aꝑþa a new past tense aptane was made in TQ, and for avante a new present stem auta, in which b > ƀ > u̯ shows the same development as b before voiced medial consonants (such as r, l) (OP2, PE19/90).
A very similar quote appears in OP1 (PE19/45), with the added twist that in the 1940s, [pt] became [ps], so that verb was ᴹQ. .
Note that there is some evidence this sound change also applied to voice spirants, of which there was only one in CE: ʒ [ɣ]. Consider √WE’E > we’kā [weɣka?] > wekka > Q. vecca (PE17/190). Such combinations would be very rare, and Tolkien vacillated on whether ʒ [ɣ] was a phoneme in CE.
Conceptual Development: There is at least one example that hints that similar phonetic developments were in play in Tolkien’s earliest conception of the Elvish languages:
Given the lack of examples, it’s hard to figure out the details of these developments in Early Period Elvish.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien gave the root as ᴹ√WĀ “blow” with extended variants ᴹ√WAIWA and ᴹ√WAWA and derivatives like ᴹQ. vaiwa/N. gwaew “wind” (Ety/WĀ). ᴹQ. ván/N. gwaun “goose” < ᴹ√WĀ-N also seem to be related (Ety/WA-N; EtyAC/WA-N), perhaps based on the noise the goose makes. The root √WĀ appeared a number of times in Tolkien’s later writings with glosses like “blow” (PE17/33), “[used?] of noise of wind” (PE17/34), “echoic representation of sound of wind” (NM/237), and in the variant form √WAY “blow, or be disturbed” (PE17/33) or √WAY “blow (as of wind)” (PE17/154, 189). √WAY was its most common variant form, but it had many others such as √WAW, √WIW, √SWA, √SWAW and √SWAR.
]]>The root √AWA was mentioned many times in Tolkien’s later writings, along with its inverted variant √WĀ, usually with the sense “away (from)” or a verbal sense “go (away), depart, pass away”. Its most detailed description appeared in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60, where Tolkien said:
The element *AWA ... referred to movement away, viewed from the point of view of the thing, person, or place left. As a prefix it had probably already developed in CE the form *au-. The form *awa was originally an independent adverbial form, but appears to have been also used as a prefix (as an intensive form of *awa-, *au-). The form *wā- was probably originally used as a verbal stem, and possibly also in composition with verbal stems (WJ/361).
In this same document Tolkien said of Sindarin that:
The only normal derivative [of √AWA] is the preposition o, the usual word for “from, of”. None of the forms of the element *awa are found as a prefix in S, probably because they became like or the same as the products of *wō, *wo (WJ/366).
Indeed, most of the attested derivatives of this root are in Quenya, but there are a couple in Sindarin, such as the aforementioned S. o from AWA, as well S. gwanwen “departed” (WJ/378) and the verb S. gwae- “go”, probably only in the limited sense “depart” (PE17/148), both from WĀ.
In late notes from 1969 Tolkien gave the root √AWA the sense “before or ago (of time)” (PE22/167 note #117; PE22/168), but I suspect this was a transient idea.
]]>In later writings, Q. vanwa was derived from the invertible root √WĀ/AWA; in the 1930s there is no indication that ᴹ√AWA “away” was invertible, so perhaps inversion √WĀ (WJ/366) can be considered the conceptual descendant of ᴹ√WAN and ᴱ√VAHA. For a time in the 1940s and 1950s, Q. vanwa was derived instead from √BA(N) “go, proceed” (PE22/97; PE17/16), but this root was abandoned in 1959. Thus, perhaps the full evolution was 1910s ᴱ√VAHA >> 1930s ᴹ√WAN >> ᴹ√VAN >> 1940s-50s √BA(N) >> 1960s √WĀ.
]]>The most notable derivative of this root was G. gwareth “watch, guard, ward” as in G. Amon Gwareth “Hill of Watch” (LT2/158), a name that retained this form and meaning into Silmarillion drafts of the early 1930s (SM/137). In the mid-1930s, Tolkien considered changing the name to N. Amon Thoros (LR/56), but ultimately retained this name as S. Amon Gwareth into the 1950s, though without translation (WJ/200; S/126). It is thus possible this early root ᴱ√(G)WARA “guard” survived, but it just as likely that the name Amon Gwareth survived without being given a proper etymology in the Elvish languages as Tolkien imagined them in the 1950s and 60s.
]]>In The Etymologies from the 1930s the root appeared as ᴹ√WAY “enfold” with derivatives like ᴹQ. vaita-/N. gwaeda- “enfold” and N. ui² “envelope” (Ety/WAY; EtyAC/WAY). In this entry the form was revised to ᴹ√VAY (Ety/WAY). Tolkien also indicated that it was “confused in later Q with BAYA”, perhaps an attempt to salvage the bai- forms of Gnomish and Early Noldorin, but this sentence was struck out and there is no other sign of ᴹ√BAY in The Etymologies.
Neo-Eldarin: In The Etymologies, the Noldorin words for “clothing” seem to have moved to a new root, ᴹ√KHAP “enfold”, but this root had no Quenya derivatives. I think it is best to reconceive of the Early Qenya derivatives of ᴱ√VAẎA related to “clothing” as derivatives of ᴹ√WAY instead. The Gnomish derivatives of ᴱ√VAẎA can’t be easily salvaged, however, since the later root’s changes make it difficult produce their initial b.
]]>The suffix -we was sometimes specifically masculine in some later notes as well (circa 1959), where Tolkien said “√WEG, WEƷ, √NES, NETH- referred to masculinity and femininity apart from sex and so could refer to the Valar and Maiar” (PE17/190), but this etymology was rejected and in its place Tolkien wrote: “√WE ? WEƷ ‘person’, individual (only used of Elves and Men), thus origin of -we in Quenya names as Manwe, Voronwe” (PE17/189). In Quenya Notes (QN) from 1957 Tolkien wrote:
-we in Quenya names (Manwe, etc.). This is in origin a separate word √WĒ (WE’E ?), from its form an ancient element of Eldarin vocabulary. Probably related to Q ve “as, like”; vëa “seeming, apparent”; vávea, ovéa “(con)similar, alike”. In Sindarin adoption of Quenya names (as Voronwe > Bronweg) -we was sometimes used to represent -we, which historically had become w or u (as in Elu = Elwe). But this S -we is of distinct origin, √WEG- “live, be active”. Hence *wego(n) “living creature”: Q weo, vëo, S gwê (PE17/189).
In these Quenya Notes, √WĒ as a name element was distinct from √WEG “active”, and neither were distinctly masculine. The initial version of this note glossed √WE as “a person or being” (PE17/190), but in revision Tolkien connected it to Q. ve “as, like” (PE17/189). The interpretation of the suffix -we as gender-neutral was mentioned again in The Shibboleth of Fëanor from 1968 where Tolkien said it was derived from √EWE “person” (PM/340). However, the only feminine name where this element appeared was Q. Elenwë the wife of Turgon (S/90, PM/345), and most of the names with this element were both masculine and ancient.
See the entry on √WEG for more on the evolution of earlier, largely masculine, forms.
]]>In the Early Noldorin Dictionary of the 1920s Tolkien gave ᴱ✶wikā > ᴱN. gweg “man” vs. ᴱQ. vika “valiant”; the Qenya form indicates this 1920s primitive was not specifically masculine, and it also had a primitive feminine variant ᴱ✶wiktā (PE13/162). It was nonetheless related to other words likes ᴱ✶wiqē > ᴱN. gwib “teors”, which is Old English = “penis” (PE13/162). Some similar forms like ᴱQ. via “male” and ᴱQ. vie “teors” appeared in Early Qenya Word-list of the 1920s as well (PE16/135). These 1920s forms seem to be based on primitive *ᴱ√WI instead of ᴱ√(g)weg.
In the Declension of Nouns from the early 1930s Tolkien gave primitive weʒ- as the basis for N. gwe, ᴹQ. †wé “man, warrior” and the masculine suffix ᴹQ. -we common in names (PE21/1). In The Etymologies of the 1930s this masculine suffix was derived from ᴹ√WEG “(manly) vigour” along with other derivatives like ᴹQ. vea “adult, manly, vigorous”, ᴹQ. vie “manhood, vigour” and N. gweith “manhood; man-power, troop of able bodied men, host, regiment” (Ety/WEG; EtyAC/WEG).
In some notes from the late 1950s Tolkien again gave the suffix Q. -wë as masculine and derived it from √WEG or √WEƷ, but then changed his mind and decided it was derived from √WĒ or √WEƷ “person” (PE17/189-190), an idea he seems to have stuck with thereafter; see the entry on √WĒ/EWE for further discussion. In Quenya Notes (QN) from 1957 Tolkien gave {√WEK >>} √WEG as distinct from √WĒ, giving it the gloss “live, be active” where it served as the basis for words like Q. vëo/S. gwê “living creature” and Q. vehtë “life”, though he clarified that this last word was “not Life in general or as a principle, but (a period of) individual activity, as in vehtequentalë ‘biography’ (PE17/189)”. This use for “active” can also be seen in the primitive name ✶ “Light-and-active” in the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60 (WJ/412).
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume this root had to do with vigour and activeness, characteristics that were generally (but not absolutely) attributed as masculine. This allows us to retain the largest array of derivatives of this root from various periods. I also think it is best to assume it remains distinct from √WĒ/EWE “person”, though the two roots may originally have been related.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: There are no signs of this root in Tolkien’s later writing, but I think it is worth retaining this root for the purposes of Neo-Eldarin, since there are no other good candidates for “boil” words elsewhere in the published corpus. I’d update the form to ᴺ√WEL, since otherwise the (Neo) Sindarin forms would begin with b-.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien gave the root as ᴹ√WEN “maiden” with extension ᴹ√WENED and derivatives like ᴹQ. venesse/N. gweneth “virginity” and ᴹQ. vende/N. gwenn “maiden” (Ety/WEN). In this entry Tolkien later wrote “transfer to GWEN”, indicating a relationship to ᴹ√GWEN, a root in The Etymologies with derivatives having to do with youth and freshness (Ety/GWEN). The root √WEN mostly retained the sense “maiden” in Tolkien’s later writings, though occasionally Tolkien said it was originally a more general feminine root before developing the more limit sense “young woman” (PE23/87; VT48/18).
The root √WEN(ED) appeared a number of times in Tolkien’s later writings, mostly as the basis for Q. wendë/S. gwen(d) “maiden” (PE17/191; VT47/17; VT48/18). The frequency with which Tolkien used Q. wendë over Q. vendë indicates the primitive root may have been strengthened to *√GWEN(ED), since w derived from primitive gw survived longer in Quenya than ancient primitive w; see the entry on Q. vendë for further discussion.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien gave the root as ᴹ√WIG with derivatives ᴹQ. winge and N. gwing, all of the same basic meaning. The continued appearance Q. wingë and S. gwing in Tolkien’s later writings indicates the continued validity of this root, but the related verb Q. winta- “scatter, blow about” (PM/376 note #6) hints the root may have become √WIÑ, or at least had such a variant. In notes from 1968 Tolkien’s considered having gwing along with ross “spray” be loan words from Beorian (PM/368, 371), but he ultimately abandoned this idea (PM/376 note #6); see the entry on √ROS for further discussion.
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s Tolkien gave the root as ᴹ√WIL “fly, float in air” with derivatives like ᴹQ. vilwa {>> wilma} “(lower) air”, N. gwelw “air”, and ᴹQ. wilwarin/N. gwilwileth “butterfly” (Ety/WIL). Tolkien introduced an alternate root ᴹ√WIS in The Etymologies as the basis for ᴹQ. vista “air as substance” (Ety/WIS), though there are no clear signs of ᴹ√WIS in later writings. However, Tolkien’s continued use of words like Q. vilya “air, sky” and Q. wilwarin “butterfly” (MC/222) indicate the ongoing validity of the root ᴹ√WIL.
Tolkien’s vacillation between w- and v- in Quenya derivatives of this root may indicate a variant strengthened root *√GWIL. Tolkien use of vilya/wilya as the name of tengwa #24 [n] (LotR/1123) is a strong indication that the root had an ancient form *√GWIL, as this sign is in the quessetéma series of labialized velars. However, it is also possible Tolkien was simply unwilling to abandon well-established forms like wilwarin “butterfly”, and continued to write them with an (archaic) w- rather than the expected v-.
]]>Q. vinya appeared in quite a few later names with the gloss “young” or “new”, but the Sindarin form became S. gwain as in S. Narwain “January, *(lit.) New Fire” (LotR/1110) and S. Iarwain “Old-young” (LotR/1114; RC/128). In Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN) from 1959, both were given as derivatives of √WIN “young” along with Q. víne/S. gwîn “youth”, though the Sindarin word for “young” was given as (archaic?) gwein (PE17/191). Also related are various words for “baby” from 1968 notes such Q. †wine/S. gwinig “little-one, baby” (VT48/6). In these notes primitive wini was glossed “little” but this was deleted (VT47/26), making it likely that the earlier senses “young, new” were restored for √WIN.
As for the 1930s root ᴹ√WIR, it might have survived as an element in the month names Q. Víressë/S. Gwirith “April” (LotR/1110), perhaps meaning “*freshness”.
]]>Nothing of this blended paradigm remained in The Etymologies of the 1930s, where Tolkien instead had ᴹ√WEY “wind, weave” as the basis for ᴹQ. Vaire/N. Gwîr “Weaver”, and in this document the root was blended with ᴹ√WAY “enfold” in Quenya because wei > wai (Ety/WEY). Tolkien seems to have abandoned this phonetic rule by the time he wrote his Quenya Notes (QN) from 1957, where he instead said:
Owing to the use of gwae / gwaew “wind” as in Gwaehir, we must have √WAYA = blow, or be disturbed. √WAYA cannot therefore be used = “weave”, and Vairë has no connexion with winds or stories. EITHER Vairë must become name of Osse’s wife: Q váya is used of sea (as waters, motion). OR Vairë’s name be changed: sc. to Vérë, √WER- “twine, weave”, were-, weave (PE17/33).
Ultimately Tolkien made neither of these changes to Vairë, and this section was rejected. In a set of roots from December 1959 (D59) Tolkien said “√WIRI, weave; hence Vaire (literally ‘weaving’), not from WAY” (PE17/191). The name Q. Vairë “Ever-weaving” was also derived from √WIR in notes associated with the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60 (VT39/10). However, in notes from the late 1960s Tolkien said “weaving with cross-threads or withes was represented by the distinct base {WAY >>} WIG, often in strengthened form waig-” (VT42/10 and VT42/29 note #27). So it seems Tolkien continued to vacillate on the weaving roots.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think the 1959-60 root form √WIR lets us salvage the largest number of words.
]]>In The Etymologies Tolkien explained the go-/gwa- variation in Noldorin as the result of the sound change whereby stressed wŏ became wa in Common Eldarin (Ety/WŌ); Tolkien gave a similar explanation for Sindarin in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60 (WJ/367). Despite stressed wŏ > wa being an ancient change, the wa variant did not survive in Quenya. Tolkien explained the sound change whereby wo became o in Quenya several times: in the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s, in the Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the early 1950s, and in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60 (PE19/53, 106; WJ/367). The root √WO itself also appeared several times in Tolkien’s later writings (PE17/16, 191; WJ/361), in one place with the variant √WONO (PE17/191).
]]>The root √WOR reappeared in Words, Phrases and Passages in the Lord of the Rings from the late 1950s, with the gloss “express, cause to exude (by pressure)”, again as the basis for the second element of Q. miruvórë: ✶wōri “juice (esp. of fruit)” (PE17/37-38). But Tolkien went on to say “This is false etymology. High Elvish. There was not in fact any word wor- in Elvish, Quenya or Sindarin.” He then concocted a new etymology for miruvórë as a loan word from Valarin mirubhōze (PE17/38). This Valarin origin of the word was repeated in the Quendi and Eldar essay of 1959-60 (WJ/399). In notes from 1967 Tolkien admitted that the actual inspiration of the word was Germanic među “mead” + wōþi “sweet” (PE17/65).
]]>In The Etymologies of the 1930s, Tolkien gave the root as ᴹ√YA “there, over there; (of time) back, ago” with derivatives like ᴹQ. yá/N. io “ago”, ᴹQ. yana “that (the former)”, and ᴹQ. yára/N. iaur “ancient, old(en)” (Ety/YA; EtyAC/YA). Tolkien continued to use Q. yára/S. iaur “old” in later writings (RC/579; UT/384; WJ/192), but the only clear reference to the primitive form yā- in later writings (as currently published in 2021) was as the basis for extended roots √YAG “gap” and √YANA “wide” (PE17/42).
Tolkien continued to use Q. ya as a relative pronoun as well, most notably in the draft and final versions of the Q. Namárië poem (VT28/11; LotR/377), in Quenya prayers from the 1950s (VT43/27), and in the 1955 version of the Q. Nieninquë poem. Tolkien also had a personal variant of the relative pronoun: Q. ye in notes from the late 1960s (VT47/21). It is not clear whether the personal/impersonal relative pronouns ye/ya were directly derived from √YA, or if they were independent developments.
]]>The root appeared as ᴹ√YAB “fruit” in The Etymologies of the 1930s with derivatives like ᴹQ. yáve “fruit” and N. iau “corn” (Ety/YAB). Tolkien’s continued use of Q. yávë for “fruit” (VT43/31) and the names Q. Yavanna/S. Ivann “Fruit-giver” (S/27; LotR/1110) indicate the ongoing validity of this root.
]]>The endings -ion, -ien, -ian(d) in place names. These have various origins. In Sindarin -ion is usually from -ı̯aun. This in origin is from yānā, √YANA-, extension of yā- (cf. YAGA, gap) “wide, large, extensive”. S iaun “roomy, wide, extensive” ... -iand (-ian) is from yandē “a wide region, or country” ... This was often used in plural of a single country (especially if it contained a varied topographical apsect) > iend, ien (PE17/42).
Thus all three suffixes -ian(d), -ien(d), -ion originate in the root √YAN. The suffix -ian(d) “land” (Beleriand) is the simplest, just a reduction of ancient -yandē. The suffix -ien(d) “lands” (Anórien) is a plural variant of -ian(d). The suffix -ion (Eregion) is S. iaun “wide, extension” used as a suffix (so perhaps = “*extent”), becoming -ion because of the usual sound change whereby au become o in polysyllables.
In this same document, Tolkien also considered introducing a root √YŎNO “wide, extensive”, going so far as (temporarily) rejected the very well established word Q. yondo “son”. This √YON was blended with √YOD “fence, enclose”, and served as the basis for the suffix -ion, but Tolkien ultimately marked these notes with an “X” to reject them, perhaps because they only explained the suffix -ion, whereas √YAN could explain all three suffixes.
√YAN was mentioned in passing in other documents from this period, variously glossed “vast, huge” (PE17/99), “wide” (PE17/115), and “extend” (PE17/155), and in one place given a variant √YAD (PE17/115). In notes from December 1959 (D59) √YAN was contrasted with √ƷAN, the former meaning “wide” and the latter meaning “long”, both with the basic sense “extend” (PE17/115); see the entry on √HAN for further discussion.
]]>In later writings, Q. yanta and S. iant were used for “bridge” (LotR/1123; SD/129). The word Q. yanwë reappeared with the gloss “joining” in notes from 1969, initially derived from ✶yadme but this was deleted and replaced by √YAN (VT49/45-56). Carl Hostetter suggested that rejected ✶yadme probably reflected the earlier phonological developments seen in The Etymologies whereby tm became dm, then nm, and ultimately nw. However, sometime in the late 1950s or early 1960s Tolkien abandoned tm > dm > nm > nw, deciding instead that tm > tw, which may have motivated him to change the root ᴹ√YAT to √YAN. A similar revision can be seen in change of ᴹ√TEK to √TEÑ in the derivation of Q. tengwa “letter”.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I prefer to retain the phonological developments of the 1930s to 1950s whereby km, tm > gm, dm > ñm, nm > ngw, nw. As such, I think it is better to retain the 1930s form of the root ᴹ√YAT “join”, which also helps avoid conflict with √YAN¹ “wide, extensive, large”. As the above discussion indicates, Tolkien seems to have been vacillating on tm > tw vs. tm > nw as late as 1969.
]]>The picture in later writings is also rather muddled. In Notes on Names (NN) from 1957 Tolkien gave sel-de “daughter” (PE17/170), while S. sel(l) = “daughter” appeared in both the King’s Letter from the late 1940s (SD/129) as well as the Túrin Wrapper from the 1950s (VT50/5). The diminutive form for “daughter” appeared as Q. selyë in notes from the late 1960s (VT47/10). In several places Tolkien gave Q. Tindómerel “Daughter of Twilight” as the Quenya equivalent of S. Tinúviel, with the final element being derived from primitive ✶-sel(dĕ) > -rel (Ety/SEL-D; PE19/33, 73; VT47/37).
In this period, however, the more common suffix for “daughter” was Q. -iel as in Q. Elerondiel (S. Elrenniel) “*Daughter of Elrond” as applied to Arwen (PE17/56) and Q. Uinéniel “Daughter of Uinen” (UT/182). Furthermore, in a list of masculine and feminine suffixes written around 1959, Tolkien gave (primitive?) yē, yel and (Quenya?) yelde for “daughter”, though in that note the feminine patronymic suffixes were revised from {-yel, iel, -yelde >>} -well-, -uell-, -wend-, -wel, and yen was given as another variant (PE17/190). In other notes from the late 1950s associated with “Changes affecting Silmarillion nomenclature”, Tolkien had feminine patronymic suffixes -en, -ien, but said that Quenya used -ielde, -iel (PE17/170).
Neo-Eldarin: All of the above indicates considerable vacillation between √SEL, √YEL, and √YEN for “daughter” words and suffixes in the 1930s to 1960s: of the three Tolkien seem to favor sel- for “daughter” words but -iel for “daughter” suffixes. For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would assume ᴹ√SEL(D) originally meant “child”, with √YEL an early variant meaning “daughter” under the influence of √YON “son”, especially used as a suffix. However, due to reverse influence Q. seldë and S. sell were early on used to mean “daughter”, with female child = “girl” words becoming Q. nettë and S. neth.
]]>Neo-Eldarin: Despite it’s probable replacement by √YUL “drink”, I’d still recommend using some derivatives of ᴹ√YUL “smoulder” for purposes of Neo-Eldarin. Noldorin forms like iolf and iûl are not viable as derivatives in Sindarin, since initial yu- became the (vowel) y, for example: ýneg < ✶yūneke (VT47/41). But the Noldorin forms could be adapted into (Neo) Sindarin if they were derived from a Neo-Root ᴺ√YOL. Quenya forms could likewise be transferred to this root, or retained unmodified if we assume an occasional √YOL/YUL variation, similar to vowel variations like √SOK/SUK (PE18/45, 94). Assuming the existence of such a ᴺ√YOL/YUL Neo-Root would allow many of these 1930s forms to be salvaged without directly conflicting with √YUL “drink”.
]]>In Early Noldorin Word-lists from the 1920s, ᴱN. gó “son” reappeared along with ᴱQ. ion and yondi (PE13/144). In The Etymologies of the 1930s the root appeared as ᴹ√YŌ or ᴹ√YON “son” with derivatives like ᴹQ. yondo/N. ionn “son” and patronymic -ion (Ety/YŌ). The root reappeared in notes from the late 1940s with the sense “son or young man”, though more anciently a general masculine suffix (PE23/87).
However, in notes labeled “Changes affecting Silmarillion nomenclature” from the late 1950s, Tolkien wrote “Delete entirely yondo = ‘son’! Very unsuitable” (PE17/43). This particular note was rejected when Tolkien changed √YON² “wide, extensive” to √YAN¹ (PE17/42). Other notes in the same bundle indicate Tolkien was still seeking a new word for son, saying “Q wanted: son, daughter”, though yon(do) remained among the forms he was considering (PE17/170, 190). It seems Tolkien eventually stopped vacillating and restored √YON, since the patronymic -ion was never discarded, and yon- was the basis for “son” words in notes from the late 1960s (VT47/26).
]]>This is because -aō > -ō > -o. Tolkien discussed these phonetic developments in the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s:
In case of ae, ao contraction occurred: quality depending on length. ā + ĕ, ā + ŏ > ā; ā + ē, ă + ē̆ > ē; ā + ō, ă + ō̆ > ō (PE19/63).
Thus, ae, ao > ē, ō unless (a) the ā was long and (b) the ĕ, ŏ was short, in which case: āĕ, āŏ > ā. This sound change took place after (PE19/63) and thus applied to all cases where a was or came to be in hiatus with e/o.
Conceptual Development: Tolkien described a similar set of sound changes in the Qenya Phonology of the 1910s:
ā̆ē̆ gave ā (aḗ); ... ăō gave ō; ā̆ŏ gave ā (PE12/14).
At this earlier stage, the default was ae, ao > ā with the exceptions ăō > o and apparently ăḗ > ăḗ. However, the only clear example of this sound change in the 1910s shows ăŏ > o (with presumably long ō > ŏ before the consonant cluster):
Thus, Tolkien may have flipped the default developments for ao early on. In the 1930s Tolkien first wrote: “Also ae > ā, ao > ō” (PE19/63 note #165) before deleting this and replacing it with the rules given above. Thus in the first draft of OP1 the combination ae still showed the Early Qenya development to ā before Tolkien revised this development to ē. There are no published examples of Quenya words containing ae at any conceptual stage, so analyzing Tolkien’s thoughts on this combination is difficult.
]]>final -ai in plural of adjectives > e (PE17/76).
These notes indicates this sound shift occurred in or shortly before the Tarquesta [TQ] period. The Plotz Letter also mentions this as a late phonetic development: “the diphthong ai was reduced to ǣ > ē > e” (VT6/14), here referring to sound changes for the PQ accusative plural ciryai. This development can be seen in other words that are not adjectives:
There are, however, a fair number of Quenya words ending in ai, many of them monosyllables: Q. ai “alas” (LotR/377), hrai “awkward, difficult” (PE17/185), “well” (VT47/6). Other are compounds: Q. “maybe, be it that” = ná + i (RGEO/60), “consequently” = epe + ta + i (VT49/8), “if it be that” = cé + ná + i (VT49/19). Thus, it seems likely this sound change only occurred when the final -ai was unstressed, as it would be in final syllables of non-compounds and possibly the unstressed preposition ve (though this word had other derivations).
]]>In TQ, based on Lindarin pronunciation, ty was pronounced [tš]. dy in ndy, ldy, rdy was pronounced [dž]. Thus kwendya was pronounced quenja [kwendža]. But the sound [dž], which did not occur in N. or T., and in Q. only occurred in these not very common combinations, presented difficulties, and ... (OP1: PE19/46 note #98).
He never finished this sentence, immediately revising the phonetic developments to the one described above:
But dy in ndy, ldy, rdy (none of them very frequent) did not develop to the corresponding [dž] in Lindarin. In consequence ndy, ldy, rdy tended to be confused with ny, ly, ry already in late PQ; and this pronunciation (and also the simplified spelling) is normal in TQ. Hence TQ Quenya for early PQ kwendya (OP1: PE19/46).
In the 1950s he used both scenarios, but with [ndj, ldj, rdj] > [ndʒ, ldʒ, rdʒ] in Vanyarin and > [nj, lj, rj] in Ñoldorin, as discussed in the Outline of Phonology (OP2):
In Vanyarin, parallel to the pronunciation of ty as [tš], dy was pronounced [dž], as English “j”, and ndy and ny consequently remained quite distinct. In Noldorin, however, ndy > nny > ny became, in normally pronounced colloquial uninfluenced by the PQ spelling, identical with original ny. Similarly with ldy, rdy and ly, ry (OP2: PE19/98).
In the 1930s, the word ᴹQ. Quenya was the primary example of this sound change, but a few other appeared in The Etymologies:
In the OP2 notes mentioned above, Tolkien said that Q. was not actually an example of this sound change, because the pronunciation was Quenya in Vanyarin as well. But in linquistic notes from the late 1950s or early 1960s Tolkien said this word was derived from ✶kwend(i)ja (PE17/138), and in the Quendi and Eldar essay written around 1960 he said:
This is historically correct, whatever may be the ultimate etymology of Quenya before the Eldar came to Aman. The view taken above (p. 360) is that it is derived from an adjective *kwendjā formed upon the stem *kwende (of which *kwendi was the plural), meaning “belonging to the Quendi or Elves” (WJ/393).
In this same document he said the Vanyarin form remained Quendya but he did not indicate its exact pronunciation (WJ/361). Thus it seems Tolkien vacillated on the primitive form of the word Quenya and often had ✶kwendyā > (Ñ.) Quenya.
Conceptual Development: Based on the examples ᴱ✶ > ᴱQ. ’yenye(n) “yesterday” (QL/105) and ᴱ✶ > ᴱQ. ninya “blue” (PE13/164), this sound change dates back to the Early Quenya of the 1910s and 1920s. In the earliest period, this analysis is complicated by the presence of primitive voiced palatal stop [ɟ] that Tolkien usually represented as dy, so it is hard to tell if there were distinct developments for [ndj] and [nɟ] (I suspected not). As a general rule, [ɟ] (dy) > [j] (y) so the reduction of ndy > ny is not especially surprising.
]]>In Q *del- seems to have become *led, by dissimilation. The past form [lende] clearly shows *led, while lelya may also be derived from *ledja, since dj became ly medially in Quenya (Quendi and Eldar, circa 1960, WJ/363).
Phonetically medial dy > ly (not ry), though this phon[etic] development [is] often set aside (OP2: PE19/70).
Phonetically [medial] dy > ly (owing to greater tensity[?] of d + y), cf. initial ly < dy or < gy (OP2: PE19/94).
The dentalization of k-series before (initial) y was early: it was also shared by Telerin. Thus gy > dy or đy (if the development was after the spirantalization of the voiced stops). The result was in any case ly. Cf. ly (not ry) as the true phonetic development of medial dy. Medial gy became ı̯y, which coallesced with preceding vowels or formed diphthongs: thus CE magyā > maiya, maia. This was because the opening of the medial stops was much earlier than in case of the initials; so that gy already to ʒy > ı̯y before dentalization (OP2: PE19/75).
The last of these quotes provides quite a few clues to the ordering of this and other sound changes. Initially, this sound change could only result from gy- > dy- after the dentalization of palatalized velars; this is because dy- was not a valid initial combination in the Primitive Elvish of the 1950s and 60s, as noted in the second version of the Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ2: PE18/91). However, medially, the change gy > dy did not occur, because medially spirantalization of voiced stops occurred before dentalization. Thus it seems that the order of sound changes was:
The exact order of the last two sound changes was not specified by Tolkien. The initial development to ly was probably tied to the rule that . Tolkien did list ly among the valid initial combinations in Quenya in the 1950s:
ly was derived from gy; and in case only of lye “you (sg.)” by analogy from le (after nye) (OP2: PE19/70).
However, ly as an initial consonant was a later insertion, in red ball point pen (PE19/80 note #54) and not part of the original composition; see the discussion of Conceptual Development below.
Conceptual Development: In Tolkien’s earliest conception of the languages, the Primitive Elvish of the 1910s and 1920s had only a single voiced palatal stop, which Tolkien represented as j or d͡y as shown in the Qenya Phonology of the 1910s (PE12/15); this was probably a pure voiced palatal stop [ɟ]. The form DY- was used to represent this sound initially in roots in the Qenya Lexicon (QL/105-6). Its initial development was generally to y-, but in a few cases to di-: ᴱQ. vs. ᴱQ. “yesterday”, both from the root ᴱ√ (QL/105). The Qenya Phonology indicates its medial development was to ẏ (PE12/16). Ẏ appears often medially in the Qenya Lexicon and consistently produces -y-, though this sound might also have been derived medially from a primitive voiced palatal spirant [ʝ], represented by ʒ̑ or zy (PE12/15-16).
Note that the corresponding Gnomish phonetic development was to g-; compare: ᴱQ. /ᴱQ. vs. G. “yesterday” (QL/105, GL/38) and ᴱ√ > ᴱQ. vs. G. “winter” (QL/106, GL/38). Since primitive initial y also became g in Gnomish, the exact correspondences are hard to work out. Regardless, the phonetic development of primitive voiced palatal stop [ɟ] from the 1910s seems to most closely resemble the sound changes for gy- in the 1930s.
In the 1930s, there is no evidence of dy > ly. Forms with initial gy and dy (which were both valid primitive initial combination in The Etymologies of the 1930s) all developed into initial y-:
In addition, Tolkien’s description of these analogous initial developments in the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s indicated that spirantalization of voiced stops occurred before dentalization initially as well as medially, so that gy- > ʒy- > y-:
Initial groups ... gy became a spirantal y, but this fell in PQ with original y (OP1: PE19/34).
The combination ly was not listed among initial consonant clusters in the 1940s (OP1: PE19/37-38). Likewise, Tolkien’s description of the medial development of dy in OP1 resulted in ry:
[d] became [r] as between vowels before y, w (OP1: PE19/46).
This medial development is consistent with examples in The Etymologies: ᴹ√ > ᴹQ. “pale” (Ety/MAD).
In the 1950s, the first layer of composition for OP2 shows the same developments as in OP1: gy > y initially (PE19/75 note #37) and dy > ry medially (PE19/94 note #123). Furthermore, ly was a later addition (in red ball point) to the list of valid initial consonants in OP2 (PE19/80 note #54). However, the development of dy > ly was well established by 1960 (at least medially) because it is mentioned in the Quendi and Eldar essay (WJ/363, see quote above).
Neo-Quenya: In prior versions of the lexicon, I advocated replacing earlier form derived from primitive initial gy- to show ly- in Neo-Quenya, but now I am less happy with these modifications. The initial combination ly- is incredibly rare in Quenya, appear only in the pronoun: Q. . As noted above, the pronoun itself did not develop from gy- > dy-; it was produced by analogy with (PE19/80). The texts that I’ve seen that make more extensive use of ly- in Neo-Quenya frankly that look strange and wrong.
I now recommend ignoring Tolkien’s late-50s innovation of initial gy- > dy- > ly-, and assume that spirantalization preceded dentalization both initially and medially so that gy- > y-; this allows the preservation of more of Tolkien’s forms without revision. However, I do advocate using medial -dy- > -ly- since (a) it is better attested and (b) affects far fewer words; the occasional ry-variants can be more easily explained as reformation by analogy with other words. This does mean that is a weird isolate in Quenya, but I think that’s tolerable.
]]>In the Early Qenya of the 1910s and 20s the common phonetic development was ei, ou > ai, au, such as:
One exception is ᴱ✶ > ᴱQ. “wax” (GL/60); this is the only appearance of ei in an Early Qenya word, and the diphthong may have been preserved because it was derived from a long ēi.
In the Compative Tables of phonetic developments from the 1930s, Tolkien introduced ī, ū as alternate developments for ei, ou, so that ei > ī or ai and ou > ū or au (PE19/25), but Tolkien did not describe the conditions under which the various sound changes occurred. Looking at contemporaneous examples in The Etymologies, we see the following phonetic developments for (undeleted) entries:
ᴹQ. “invention” might be another example of ow > au, since it seems it could be derived from either ᴹ√GAWA or ᴹ√GOWO (Ety/GAWA). A possible later example is Q. which in one place seems to have been derived from *þowson > þauson (PE17/68).
Deleted entries show both ei > ī (Ety/GEY) and ei > ai (Ety/EY). For weı̯rē > Vaire Tolkien said this sound change was “owing to wei > wai”. Likewise, in the somewhat earlier Declension of Nouns [Version 4] from the early 1930s, Tolkien said that “ei > ai after ı̯”, giving the instrumental plural form of nie as niainen [nie + inen] to illustrate this phonetic development (PE21/6). These two examples seem to show yei, wei > yai, wai, but that does not explain ᴹ√NOWO > nause.
In the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s Tolkien introduced a new paradigm:
ei remained in AQ, but became in PQt. ē when it bore the PQ stress. But in unstressed syllables (according to PQt. accent), and in final syllables other than monosyllabic words it became [ī̆] ... Similarly ou remained in AQ; but became in PQt. where still stressed ō. Otherwise it became ū̆ (OP1: PE19/53).
A similar development is described in a deleted note associated with the first version of Quenya Personal Pronouns (QPP1) from the late 1940s:
stress[ed] ei in most syll[able]s > é. unstress[ed] > ī - ou > ó / ū (PE23/87 note #85).
According to these rules, ei, ou > ī, ū when unstressed and > ē, ō when stressed, and these sound changes occurred in Parmaquesta [PQ]. Probable examples of this would be monosyllabic ᴹQ. tō “wool” < ᴹ√TOW (Ety/TOW) and ᴹQ. réte “female” [< *reiti-] derived from ᴹ√RĒ/ERE (PE23/87 note #85), with the second example revised from ríte. Tolkien described similar rules in the Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the 1950s:
ei remained in AQ, but became ē in PQ. This development occurred only in stressed syllables (according to the accentual system observable in Parmaquesta). In final syllables other than stressed monosyllables, and in unstressed medial syllables it became ī ... ou similarly remained in AQ, but became ō in PQ. Similarly ou > ū in unstressed (PQ) syllables (OP2: PE19/106).
However, actual examples from the 1950s and 60s show ei, ou > ī, ū pretty consistently, even in positions where the diphthong would be stressed:
In a table of diphthongal developments from the late 1960s, Tolkien said:
CE: ei > Q. í (ē) ... [CE] ou > [Q.] ū (ō) ... ē after ı̯, y; ō after u̯, w (VT48/7).
Thus it seems that by the late 1960s (like the early 1930s), the special developments for ei, ou are once again conditioned for those diphthongs appearing after the semi-vowels y, w. These specialized developments were also mentioned in OP1 (PE19/53), as discussed in the entry on how . This alternate pattern can be seen in a 1969 discussion of the phonetic developments for the suffix :
íte (from iti, eiti), éte (from eiti after i, y) (PE22/155).
As an example of this alternate development Tolkien gave √ [> *skeyeite] > Q. xiéte “passing, impermanent”, though this development could also be the result of eye > ie. To summarize the typical developments in each conceptual period:
Note that it is possible that the rules whereby “ei, ou > ē, ō when stressed” and “ei, ou > ē, ō when after y, w” were simultaneously valid at various points (as they seem to be in OP1), but lack of examples make this difficult to determine.
]]>Between vowels g > ʒ > y before ē̆ (ei), with the later development as original y (OP1: PE19/32).
After ē̆, ei, ī̆ a development g > ʒ > [ı̯] occurs before a following vowel. But this only produces results of importance in ē̆gē̆ > eı̯e > i(ı̯)e, as tege “line, road” > tie (OP2: PE19/70).
It seems in the 1930s, this sound change was triggered by following e or ei, but in the 1950s, this change was triggered by a preceding e, ei or i. In practice, all the actual examples show both a preceding and following e:
Furthermore, examples involving vowels other than e seem not to demonstrate this sound change:
There is a deleted note in OP2 that indicates a similar change of ʒ to w might have occurred between two o’s as well:
Between vowels and ē̆, ei a development g > ʒ > y often occurs; less frequently a development g > ʒ > w before ō̆, ou (OP2: PE19/71 note #15).
One example from The Etymologies of the 1930s seems to demonstrate oʒo > owo > uo:
In later conceptual periods the name was taken from an Atani language, not Elvish (PM/348, 364 note #49), so the above derivation was no longer relevant. The sound change oʒo > owo seems to have been abandoned, though given the lack of examples it is hard to say this for sure.
Conceptual Development: Lack of examples makes it hard to tell if this sound change applied to the Early Qenya of the 1910s and 1920s.
]]>while lg, rg > lʒ, rʒ > ll, rr; but lgē̆, rgē̆ > lye, rye (OP1: PE19/46)
The products of rg, lg; rgw, lgw were in (N.) TQ rr, ll (but rgē̆, lgē̆ > rye, lye); rw, lw (OP2: PE19/93).
This sound change was similar to how . The quotes above indicate this sound change only occurred before the vowel e, but all the attested examples show the same development before the vowel a:
There are examples before other vowels where lg followed its more usual development to ll:
Note that in the 1930s, this may have been a Lindarin [pre-Vanyarin] only development, see the entry on how: for discussion.
Conceptual Development: In the 1910s and 1920s, it seems that g between l and a became ll, and this was the usual development of lg in this conceptual period:
]]>g probably became [ʒ] but this stage was already past in early classical PQ. Initially in AQ and early PQ the sign h was used. It appears to have represented the “clear beginning” (or smooth breathing). But it soon disappeared (OP1: PE19/32).
g became at first the open spirant ʒ, with weak friction. But except initially this sound had already disappeared in Parmaquesta. Initially in early Parmaquesta g > ʒ was still represented by the sign [h]. This may be transcribed with [’], as ’ondo “stone”, since it denoted the “clear beginning” or sharp glottal opening, not shown by original initial vowels. But this sound was lost and its representation given up in normal or classical PQ. The same situation obtained in AQ. But the Rumilian alphabet contained a sign for [ʒ], and it appears that in archaic Quenya this sound, as product of g, still persisted (OP2: PE19/70).
As these notes indicate, it seems that ʒ still existed in Ancient Quenya [AQ] at the time the Sarati alphabet was used, but only barely existed by early Parmaquesta [PQ], lingering only as something like a glottal stop [ʔ] at the beginning of words, but this “clear beginning” sound was soon lost. The tengwa h lost its original function, and its name anna seems to have nothing to do with its original sound. In alternate tengwar modes, h was repurposed to represent vowels, and in Quenya its only remaining function seems to be as a carrier for the underdots used to represent an independent y sound: hÍ.
Note that where ʒ disappeared between vowels, the two vowels only combined when identical (aʒa > ā) or produced a normal diphthong (aʒi > ai); other combinations produced disyllabic vowels in hiatus (OP1: PE19/63; OP2: PE19/70-71). Examples include ✶ > Q. “living creature” (PE17/189) or ✶ > Q. “garland” (PM/347). As shown by the second example, this could even leave a long vowel in hiatus with a short one. Where two short vowels were left in hiatus, Tolkien often indicated this by placing a dieresis (¨) on the first of the pair.
As suggested in the entry on how , it is possible ʒ lingered longer in the combinations lʒ, rʒ, since these had divergent developments in the Ñoldorin and Vanyarin dialects of Quenya (to ll, rr and lg, rg, respectively). Assuming this is true, how these might have been represented in Tengwar isn’t clear.
Conceptual Development: The Early Qenya phonetic developments are complicated by the existence of an entire series of voiced spirants in Primitive Elvish in the 1910s and 1920s (rather than just isolated primitive ʒ as in the mid-1930s forward). The medial voiced stops merged with this voiced spirant series in the Kor-Eldarin period in Early Qenya (PE12/15-16). Thus medial g > ʒ > (nil), for example: ᴱ✶ > ᴱQ. “wax” (GL/60). However, , so that g- > k-, such as: ᴱ✶gṛþ- > ᴱQ. “to admire” (GL/42) and ᴱ✶ > ᴱQ. “alimentary canel” (PE13/144). Original primitive initial ʒ- did generally vanish in Early Qenya, however, as in: ᴱ✶ > ᴱQ. olwe “a stink” (PE13/145).
]]>Examples include:
Conceptual Development: Tolkien mentioned similar reductions of semi-vowels in the Qenya Phonology of the 1910s:
i̯, u̯ vanished after e/i o/u respectively in certain frequent cases ... i̯ vanishes after i- (iı̯i > ī) ... u̯ vanishes after ú (uu̯u > ú) (PE12/12).]]>
After a consonant group they [y, w] became syllabic i, u (with weak off-glide ı̯, u̯) - except that asyllabic y was retained and favoured after k, g (> t, d), t, d; and w after k, g. In these cases a diphthong or a long vowel could also precede: so mátya, maitya beside mantya, but kalt-wa > kaltua (OP1: PE19/48).
Since th, kh > t, k after r, l in the infrequent groups rthy, lthy; rkhy, lkhy; rkhw, lkhw: thy, khy > ty (for which see under Voiceless Stops); and khw > kw (qu). In other combinations y, w became syllabic: thus lphy > lpi; rphy > rpi (phw did not occur) (OP2: PE19/90).
After consonant groups y, w became syllabic i, u, except that y remained after t, d (either original or derived in Quenya from k, g); while w remained after k, g. Before retained ty or tw a long vowel or diphthong (durational equivalents of short vowel + consonant) could also stand. Thus possible in Q were mátya, maitya, mantya (dissyllabic); whereas mátwa, maitwa, mantwa > mătwa (or matua), maitua, mantua (OP2: PE19/100) [note #153: additional valid forms saikwe, laukwa were written nearby].
The net result is that all tri-consonantal clusters in Quenya ended in ty, dy, kw, gw, the first two of these possibly developing from ky, gy after velars dentalized before [j]. Tolkien listed the valid clusters as:
As indicated above, it seems Tolkien decided that lthy, lhy, lhw (< lthy, lkhy, lkhw) were no longer possible in the 1950s, as they became instead lty, lty, lkw and similarly for clusters beginning with r, since .
Conceptual Development: In the Primitive Elvish of the 1910s and 1920s, palatals and labialized velars were their own consonant series, so that “clusters” like nty and lkw were probably consonant pairs like [ntʲ] (or [ɲc]) and [ŋkʷ]. Given the behavior of long vowels and diphthongs before ty and kw, the same might be true in their Quenya pronunciation in the 1930s through 1960s (e.g. [tʲ] and [kʷ]); this is an area of some dispute among Tolkienic linguists.
]]>The frequent reduction of intervocalic semi-vowels was a concept established quite early in Tolkien’s writings on Quenya, dating back to the Qenya Phonology of the 1910s. Two detailed descriptions of these developments have been published, one in the Qenya Phonology from the 1910s (PE12/11-13) and another in the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s (PE19/62-63), as well as more limited discussions scattered elsewhere in Tolkien’s writings.
In the 1910s the development of intervocalic semi-vowels depends primarily on stress patterns (PE12/11-13), but by the 1930s vowel length plays a greater role (PE19/62-63). In particular, if the preceding vowel was long, the semi-vowel was generally preserved:
After long vowels y, w remained and w was strengthened to TQ v. So māya, rāwa (rāva). In the case of māya there was a tendency to maiya, often represented in spelling maia, maiya (OP1, PE19/62).
The preserved y formed diphthongs with the preceding vowel, but preserved w remained and generally became v:
After short vowels, however, the trend was towards semi-vowels weakening:
When [long vowels] unstressed and shortened the further changes occurred described below. After short vowels they [y, w] became weakened (OP1, PE19/62).
Intervocalic y tended to vanish after short ĭ/ĕ and intervocalic w after short ŭ/ŏ, but not necessarily after equivalent long vowels: see “once” vs. variant nea with short ĕ (VT49/31). Tolkien discussed this development in OP1 and elsewhere:
After ĭ, ŭ stressed or not (PQ accent) they [y, w] became very weak ı̯, u̯ glides and were seldom written. (Here w did not > v.) So manduwō > manduo. tŭwo > tuo. lĭye > lie (OP1, PE19/62).
ı̯ only to disappear after e, i; u̯ [after] o, u. aya > ea; awa > oa. w remains [?after] i, e. y [?after] o, u (from notes on verb inflections from the late 1960s, PE22/164).
Conversely, the semi-vowel y [ı̯] was generally preserved after ŏ/ŭ and w [u̯] after ĭ/ĕ, as indicated above. It seems y formed diphthongs in such cases and was represented as a vowel in writing, as was the case with y preserved after long vowels as noted above:
However the w that remained after short ĕ/ĭ then developed into v as it did after long vowels: the development ewe > eve appears in a deleted note in OP1 (PE19/63 note #162). Furthermore, the semi-vowels could still be lost in these cases if y preceded e or w preceded o, such as: Q. “somebody” < ew + o (PM/340). This was also discussed by Tolkien in OP1:
In oya etc., ewa the y, w [was] usually preserved, but y van[ished] before e, w va[nished] before o, so ewo > ëo, oye > öe (OP1, PE19/63).
The most interesting developments occur for short ăy, ĕy and ăw, ŏw before vowels, including cases where the preceding vowel was originally long but became short in an unstressed position:
Short ăy, ĕy, ŏy; ăw, ŏw, ĕw had a special development. Similarly [for] unstressed ay, aw etc. < āy, āw. The y, w tended to be lost with or without modification of preceding vowel (OP1, PE19/62).
Here the trend was ăy- > e- before another vowel and ăw- > o- so that aya, ayo > ëa, ëo and awa, awe > öa, öe, where Tolkien used diereses in OP1 to explicitly mark the combinations as non-diphthongal. In the case of aye, awo > ë-e, ö-o, the vowels dissimilated to ie and uo, respectively, so that the result was aye, awo > ie, uo:
There is even evidence that awi > oi, as in ✶tawĭnā > Q. “wood” (PE17/115), so perhaps also ayu > eu (and eyu, owi > iu, ui; see below).
Likewise the tendency was ĕy- > i- and ŏw- > u- before vowels, just as the diphthongs . Thus eye, eyo > ie, io and owe, owo > ue, uo (PE19/63). The developments given in OP1 before the vowel a were somewhat different: eya, owa > ëa, öa instead (PE19/63).
The sound change owa > oa is consistent with known examples, but attested examples actually show eya > ia, contradicting OP1:
The only remaining combinations requiring discussion are Tolkien’s comments in OP1 (given above) that ŏy / ĕw also had special developments like ăy, ĕy / ăw, ŏw. Indeed, Tolkien began a chart with oya > oa and ewa > ea (PE19/63 note #162) before abandoning this idea, and replacing it with the quote given above (and repeated below):
In oya etc., ewa the y, w [was] usually preserved, but y van[ished] before e, w va[nished] before o, so ewo > ëo, oye > öe (OP1, PE19/63).
Thus the only special reductions of ŏy, ĕw were oye, ewo > oe, eo as discussed above (and probably also oyi, ewu > oi, eu). See contemporaneous ᴹQ. “everlasting age” from The Etymologies (Ety/OY), not **oale.
In the 1940s and later, the interaction between stress and semi-vowel loss isn’t entirely clear. In OP1 Tolkien seems to indicate that the reductions only occur when the vowels were both short and unstressed: “When unstressed and shortened the further changes occurred described below” (PE19/62). However, this may refer only to long vowels that became short after being unstressed. There are definite examples of semi-vowel reduction after stressed short vowels:
However, in at least one place Tolkien gave this past tense as avante (PE17/63), so he may have sometimes conceived of stressed short vowels preventing semi-vowel reductions. Likewise, while it is clear that a preceding long vowel would prevent reduction, it is not clear whether this was also true of a following long vowel. The usual perfect of auta- was avánie < ✶a-wāniı̯ē (PE17/63, WJ/366), but Tolkien sometimes gave it as oávie < ✶a-wāwiı̯ē (PE17/148, PE22/164), which seems to indicate that semi-vowel reductions were possible even if the following vowel was long. This can also be seen in √ [> skeyeite > skeyēte] > Q. xiéte “passing, impermanent” (PE22/155).
To summarize the full set of sound changes for intervocalic semi-vowels:
Neo-Quenya: For Neo-Quenya, I think it’s simplest to assume stress doesn’t matter for semi-vowel reduction but a following long vowel will prevent it, just like a preceding long vowel. This gives the simplest explanation for the perfect avánie. Such long vowels in middle syllables would be rare in any case after long vowels shortened when the stress moved forward.
Conceptual Development: In the Qenya Phonology of the 1910s, semi-vowel preservation seems largely due to patterns of stress. In particular, whereas in the 1930s semi-vowels were preserved after long vowels, in the 1910s semi-vowels were generally preserved before stress, as indicated in the chart on PE12/13, for example: aiá, au̯á > ayá, awá. There is the caveat that y [ı̯] vanished after i/e and w [u̯] vanished after u/o, for example: eiá, ou̯á > eá, oá. There were some occasional aberrant developments whereby ei̯- > i-, ou̯- > u- even before a stressed vowel: ei̯é, ei̯ó, ei̯ú > ié, ió, iú (but not ei̯á) and ou̯é, ou̯ó, ou̯í > ué, uó, uí (but not ou̯á). However, the more regular results of ei̯é, ei̯ó, ei̯ú > eyé, eó, eú and ou̯ó, ou̯í > ovó, oí were given as alternates (but not ou̯é > oé; instead that alternate development was uá).
When stressed and short, we see special developments for ăy, ĕy and ăw, ŏw similar to those given in the 1930s for semi-vowels after short vowels, where ắı̯-, ĕ́ı̯- > e-, i- and ắu̯-, ŏ́u̯- > o-, u- (PE12/13):
The 1930s dissimilations aye, awo > ë-e, ö-o > ie, uo did not occur: the results in the 1910s were either long ē, ō or preserved semi-vowels áye, áwo > aiye, ávo. Furthermore, there are many variants where ắı̯-, ĕ́ı̯- > aiy-, e- and ắu̯-, ŏ́u̯- > av-, u- instead of e-, i-; o-, u-. This includes several alternate forms of the above (marked with *):
Given the large number of variant developments and the lack of clear examples in the 1910s, Tolkien’s precise ideas are hard to decipher, but there are clear indications of the later system already in Tolkien’s earliest writings.
]]>The stressed sequences yei, wou were the first to change. In these cases, loss of ı̯, u̯ by dissimilation producing yē, wō appeared already in AQ (OP1: PE19/54).
These sound changes are also reaffirmed in later notes. In a chart of diphthongal developments from the late 1960s, Tolkien notes that usually ei, ou > ī, ū but became “ē after i̯, y; ō after u̯, w” (VT48/7), but in these later notes there was no indication that stress was required for the sound change. There are also hints of this change in the developments for the suffix , one form of which was “éte (from eiti after i, y)” (PE22/155). This last text also provides the clearest example of this sound change:
Conceptual Development: See the entry on how for details on the conceptual development of the diphthongal pair ei, ou in Quenya.
]]>Likewise, this sound change can be seen in the futures of verbs stems ending in w:
]]>The products of rg, lg; rgw, lgw are in (N.) TQ rr, ll (but rgē̆, lgē̆ > rye, lye); rw, lw; in Vanyarin rg, lg, rw, lw. The TQ (Noldorin) forms, and especially the fact that even in PQ the product of rgw, lgw is rw, lw, point to the opening of g > ʒ ... The Vanyarin rg, lg must then be produced by re-stopping (OP2: PE19/93-94).
Tolkien described similar changes in the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s, but in this earlier document the sound change was limited to the Lindarin [pre-Vanyarin] dialect:
After l, r. In PQ the stops remained: ld, rd, lg, rg, lb, rb. lgw, rgw became lw, rw already in early PQ ... In Lindarin ld, rd, lb still remained; but rb > rv; while lg, rg > lʒ, rʒ > ll, rr, but rgē̆, lgē̆ > rye, lye (OP1: PE19/46).
Thus in the 1930s, voiced stops did not become spirants after liquids, except only in the limited case of lgw, rgw > lw, rw and in Lindarin TQ for a few combinations, of which lg, rg > lʒ, rʒ > ll, rr. However, in the 1950s, voiced stops did become spirants after liquids, only to be restopped in the Vanyarin dialect but in the Ñoldorin dialect developing onwards, so that lʒ, rʒ > ll, rr. The main exceptions in both conceptual periods are rgw, lgw > rw, lw and rge, lge > rye, lye, sound changes that occurred in PQ or earlier (in the 1950s, at least).
There are very few late examples of lg, rg > lʒ, rʒ > ll, rr. The most obvious example I’ve found is in the Quendi and Eldar essay from around 1960:
There is an example in The Etymologies of the 1930s with a somewhat different phonetic development:
Here it seems lgu > lʒu > lu, perhaps a variation on lgw > lw, but that was not the development seen in later Q. .
This particular sound change (lʒ, rʒ > Ñoldorin TQ ll, rr but Vanyarin TQ lg, rg) presents an interesting problem in establishing the timeline of the divergence of the Ñoldorin and Vanyarin dialects. In both these dialects, normally ʒ from g vanished, and it would make sense if the changes to lʒ, rʒ occurred before the general vanishing of ʒ. However, it is known that ʒ vanished in Early Parmaquesta [PQ] (PE19/70).
I see two possible explanations. First, that ʒ lingered longer in the combinations lʒ, rʒ, and then developed further only in the TQ period with divergent changes in the two dialects. Second, that the restopping of voiced spirants after liquids was a PQ divergence of the Ñoldorin and Vanyarin dialects (the latter perhaps influenced by the Valarin language), but the two populations remained in sufficient contact that their dialects shared other sound changes in the PQ period. Of the two theories, I find the first more compelling, and it probably means that the combinations lƀ, rƀ [lβ, rβ] also lingered for a while, diverging to Ñoldorin lv, rv and Vanyarin lb, rb only in the TQ period. This might help explain the occasional appearance of lb in Exilic Ñoldorin Quenya.
Conceptual Development: In draft notes for the Qenya Phonology of the 1910s Tolkien said “lɣ, rɣ ... gave lg, rg” (PE12/24). However, there are no words with the combinations lg, rg in the Qenya Lexicon from the 1910s, and there are a few examples from Noldorin word lists in the 1920s that show different phonetic developments:
Thus it seems lg > ll already in the 1920s, but rg > rk.
]]>The products of rg, lg; rgw, lgw are in (N.) TQ rr, ll (but rgē̆, lgē̆ > rye, lye); rw, lw; in Vanyarin rg, lg, rw, lw (OP2: PE19/93).
The fact that lgw, rgw > lw, rw was a common change despite the general differences in the Ñoldorin and Vanyarin developments for lg, rg point to it being a comparatively ancient change, in late Ancient Quenya [AQ] or early Parmaquesta [PQ]. Tolkien’s comments later in this document indicate it took place during or before the PQ period:
... especially the fact that even in PQ the product of rgw, lgw is lw, gw, point to the opening of g > ʒ, where it had not become d (OP2: PE19/94).
Tolkien described similarly ancient developments of lgw, rgw [> lʒw, rʒw] > lw, rw in the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1: PE19/46), but other details of these sound changes were different in the 1940s. See the entry on how for further discussion.
The only example I’ve found with anything resembling this sound change is:
Here it seems lgu > lʒu > lu, which might be a variation on lgw > lw.
]]>The exact timing of this sound change is hard to nail down, but as demonstrated by (one of) the etymologies of , it must have occurred after the Quenya syncope:
This change only occurred for the dental nasal n; the combination lm is a favored group in Quenya and remained unchanged (PE19/48, 100).
Conceptual Development: The combination ln is fairly common in the Early Qenya of the 1910s, for example: ᴱQ. “arrow” (QL/74) and ᴱQ. † “dead” (QL/76). This makes it unlikely that this sound change was part of Tolkien’s earliest conception of Qenya. Tolkien seems to have decided that ln mutated sometime in the 1930s, but the earliest entries in The Etymologies of the 1930s seem to show ln > ll:
The second example was rejected when Tolkien revised this root ᴹ√SKAL >> ᴹ√SKEL, at which point he change the adjective to ᴹQ. helda (with ld) as shown above. Furthermore, ᴹQ. appeared beside an alternate form nulda, and may well represent a blending with nulla “dark, dusky, obscure” < ᴹ✶ (Ety/NDUL). Thus, it seems Tolkien updated this phonetic rule to ln > ld fairly quickly.
]]>In addition, there is an “assimilated locative” form menelle “in Heaven” from Quenya prayers written in the 1950s (VT43/16) which is very likely derived from menel + sē, and thus represents a similar phonetic development. However, Tolkien also considered assimilated locative forms like menelde (VT43/16) which seems to show [ls] > [ld] instead. Another example of [ls] > [ld] appears in notes from 1940s: ᴹ✶matil·sa > ᴹQ. matilda “(people) eat something” (PE22/94); hat-tip to Vyacheslav Stepanov for pointing out this second example.
Finally, in both the Outline of Phonetic Development from the 1940s (OP1, PE19/47) and the Outline of Phonology from the 1950s (OP2, PE19/99) Tolkien said that primitive ls survived unchanged in Quenya. There are several Quenya words that demonstrate this ls survival: malsa (PE19/101), nelsat and tolsat (VT48/11). These examples all show either suffixion or metathesis from sl, which may have occurred after ls > ll, though it is also possible Tolkien changed his mind on the development of ls.
There are very few examples of s-suffixes in Quenya, so finding examples and counter-examples of this sound change are difficult.
]]>[Nasals] before s. In CE [Common Eldarin] the assimilations in this case precede as before voiceless stops. At the end of consonant-groups s was too strong to be voiced, while it was not strong enough to unvoice the nasal. Thus in CE as nt, ñt > nt, so ns, ñs > ns, but mt, ms remained. In Quenya ms was assimilated > ns (as mt > nt). The resultant ns, from any nasal + s, was then in the oldest strata unvoiced to ss (OP2, PE19/98-99).
This sound change was discussed elsewhere among Tolkien’s statements that all nasals + s became [ss], a phonetic development he noted in both Outline of Phonetic Development from the 1940s (OP1) and from the Outline of Phonology from the 1950s (OP2):
ñs, ms in old formations similarly > ns. Since nasals [n] were unvoiced before [s], the phonetic product was [ss] of all nasals + [s] (OP1, PE19/47).
ns from n/m/ŋ. This soon became ss (with unvoicing of n) (OP2, PE19/82).
As indicated in the very first quote above, the sound change whereby velar occurred in Primitive Elvish and was thus common to all Eldarin languages. This primitive velar assimilation was also noted in the second version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ2) from the 1950s:
The following general changes belong to CQ [Common Quenderin] or are at least anterior to PE [Primitive Eldarin] ... The nasal [ŋ] became n before t, th, d, s (TQ2: PE18/101-102).
Thus ms > ns was a later and possibly Quenya-only change. There is no sign of this sound change in Sindarin or Noldorin, but there are no counter-examples either: the combination ms does not appear in any published Eldarin words from the 1930s and later.
Conceptual Development: There are not enough examples to determine whether this sound change was present in the Early Qenya of the 1910s and 1920s, but given the general pattern of nasal assimilations in this early conceptual stage, it seems likely it would have occurred. Our only concrete example for the development of this primitive sound combination in the Early Period is for a Gnomish word:
Here it seems that perhaps [ms] > [ns] > [nn]. If so, then [ms] > [ns] may have been a phonetic development in Primitive Elvish in the Early Conceptual Period.
]]>mw became dissimilated > nw (OP2: PE19/97).
In a marginal note Tolkien also considered mw > mm (PE19/97 note #141) but the one late example of this sound change shows nw as a result:
In notes discussing Eldarin comparison from the mid-1960s, Tolkien said “mw later dissimilated to nw” (PE17/92), affirming that this was the normal phonetic development.
Conceptual Development: There are examples of mw > nw appearing in the Qenya Lexicon from the 1910s:
However, in the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s Tolkien said:
mw was avoided, or became prehistorically mm (OP1: PE19/47).
There is one clear example of this sound change in The Etymologies from the 1930s:
In the first versions of this entry Tolkien seems to have given the Noldorin cognate of this word as (its exact form is hard to read); in the rewritten entry he gave both ham and hanw as alternate cognates (EtyAC/KHAM). The Noldorin word hanw seems to indicate that the change mw > mm was Quenya-only, but ham probably means the sound change occurred in Primitive Elvish, affecting both branches of the Eldarin languages equally.
As indicated by the marginal note described above, Tolkien seems to still be considering mw > mm in OP2, but by the 1960s it seems the development was exclusively mw > nw. If so, the conceptual development of this sound change would be: (1910s) mw > nw, (1930s) mw > mm, (1950s) mw > nw. There were similar vacillations on the development of mw in Sindarin.
Hat tip to Lokyt for telling me about the mid-1930s rule from OP1 and the quote from PE17/92 which gives a much clearer picture of the conceptual development.
]]>Voiceless before nasals. pn, tn, kn; and pm, tm, km.
In these combinations the Q. tendency to intensify (and slightly aspirate) the voiceless stops, which accordingly were not voiced in contact with voiced following consonants, but tended to unvoice them, is seen most clearly. It was perhaps reinforced by the “etymological” tendency to preserve as far as possible in suffixal derivatives the identity of basic medial-consonants, of which p, t, k were the most important.
We also see that as usual in Q. the stoppage was tensest in case of dentals and weakest in case of labials. Thus the development appears therefore to have preceded in this way: pn, tn, kn* > pʰň, tʰň, kʰň with strengthening of p, t, k and unvoicing of the nasal. Similarly: pm*, tm, km > pʰm̌, tʰm̌, kʰm̌. The tenser n then > t; the weaker m > ƕ; producing
pʰt, tt, kʰt > ꝑt, tt, ht
pƕ, tƕ, kƕ > pp, tw, kw.* These [kn, pm] were very often transposed to ŋk, mp (especially latter)
He abbreviated this description for aspirates, but the developments were basically the same (PE19/87):
[Aspirates] before nasals. The results were same as for voiceless stops, see C (d) above. The nasals did not voice voiceless stops or aspirates, but were themselves unvoiced, in natural phonetic development unaffected by grammatical or etymological analogies. Most of the possible combinations were actually of infrequent occurrence, since ph was itself infrequent medially, while the sequences of aspirate + nasal were largely reduced in number prehistorically by metathesis (as thn > nth) or by the scarcely distinguishable process of substituting nasal infixion for nasal suffixion. No certain case of phm is known.
As indicated above, the frequency of these stops-nasal combinations were reduced by metathesis, particularly of kn > ŋk and pm > mp. Where such metathesis did not occur, the end results were essentially:
As noted above, the combination pʰm is purely theoretical, and did not occur in practice. In the combinations pt and kt, the p and k became (or remained) slightly aspirated ultimately resulting in a voiceless spirant; this was also the ultimate result of the primitive combinations pt, kt in Quenya. The aberrant change of pm > pƕ > pp is probably a mirror of more ancient phonetic developments whereby (PE19/86, 88); in any case such combinations were extremely rare (perhaps non-existent).
Tolkien reaffirmed these developments in various notes from the late 1960s, where he said:
better: let changes before nasals be relative[ly] late and after other changes ... tm, tn > tw (nt) > nt, tt (VT49/54 note #10). [This was first written as (rejected): tm, thm, dm > dm, tm̌h, đm > nm, tƕ, zm > nw, tw, rm (VT49/46) and there was a marginal note saying “what a muddle”]
Q k, t, p were not voiced before medial nasals
... km > km̃ > kƕ > kw
... kn > kþ > ht
... tn > tt
... tm > tm̃ > tƕ > tw
... pm > pp
... pn > pþ > pt (ft) (PE22/150).
Since metathesis of stop + nasal was common, there are relatively few examples of stop + nasal phonetic developments in Tolkien’s later writings where such a metathesis did not occur, but a few clear examples can be found:
Conceptual Development: In the Qenya Phonology of the 1910s, Tolkien described no special special phonetic developments for voiceless stop + nasal combinations, probably because at this earliest conceptual stage, the “transposition law” (metathesis) for voiceless stops + nasals was universal rather than sporadic (PE12/25).
In the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s, however, he described phonetic developments similar to those above, but only for aspirates + nasals (PE19/44):
[Aspirates] before nasals. Nasals did not voice aspirates, but were themselves unvoiced (in pure phonetic development, unaffected by analogy). Most of these combinations were rare, since they were largely got rid of prehistorically by metathesis (or by substitution of nasal infixion for suffixion); or by avoidance of a nasal suffix.
No cases of phm occur; and no clear case of phn. Medial ph was not frequent. Probably:
thn > thň (with voiceless n) > tth > tt or analogical st.
khn > khň (with voiceless n) > kht > ht.
but thm > þm̌ (with voiceless m) > thw, TQ sw (n.b. not hw).
khm > χm̌ (with voiceless m) > hw.
These aspirate developments in the 1940s were not 100% identical to those Tolkien describes after 1960, since thm, khm became sw (< þw), hw instead of tw, kw; these same developments were seen in the first drafts of OP2 from the early 1950s (PE19/87-88 note #88). Furthermore, in OP1 voiceless stops were instead voiced before nasals, and their phonetic development merged with those of voiced stops + nasals, ultimately becoming nasal pairs:
[Voiceless stops] before nasals, which in Q. exercised a strong voicing influence on preceding consonants, p, t, k were first (already earliest AQ) voiced to b, d, g. But in the earliest PQ b, d, g, whether original or thus derived from p, t, k were nasalized to m, n, ñ. Since ñ did not occur as a suffixal consonant, and m was seldom used after labials (p, ph, b) we are concerned only with pn > bn > mn; tn > dn > nn; tm > dm > nm; kn > gn > ñn; km > gm > ñm (PE19/43).
The most notable example of this phonetic development in the 1930s and 40s was:
This voicing of voiceless stops before nasals was mentioned in the second version of the Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ2) around 1950 (PE18/104) and can also be seen in the first (unrevised) layer of Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the 1950s (PE19/85-86 note #79 and 87-88 note #88). It seems, however, that when Tolkien revisited the etymology of tengwa in the late 1950s in his notes on Words, Phrases and Passages in the Lord of the Rings, he became dissatisfied with this phonetic development, saying:
The phonology of k, t, p + nasals in Quenya needs revising. In changes so far mapped k, t, p + m > g, d, b > nm, nm, mn > nw (> ngw), nw, mn, make derivation from nasal... (PE17/44).
In these same notes, he revised the root of tengwa from √ to √, probably because he no longer considered the km > ñm > ñw > ñgw developments to be viable. The connection between this note in PE17/44 and the revisions of the phonetic developments of stops + nasals in OP2 was suggested by Christopher Gilson (PE19/86, second half of note #79). While the exact timing of these conceptual developments isn’t clear, it seems likely that the new paradigm for stop + nasal developments was created after the note on PE17/44, probably circa 1960 or shortly before then.
One more relevant passage from the late 1960s is this:
tengwa is not from tekmā, since -mā is not passive but instrumental, and prob[ably] by rev[ised] phonology -km- does not > ŋm- > ngw. but √TEŊ “indicate, mark, signify”. teŋmā > tengwa ? “sign, token” (PE22/149).
This late note seems to show that Tolkien may have had reservations about nasal unvoicing after voiceless stops into the late 1960s. At minimum he needed to remind himself of the new revised paradigm, and the “?” in this last quote may have meant he was still unsure of it, although in this specific set of notes he went on to confirm the OP2 paradigm, as shown in the quote from PE22/150 given above. See also the “what a muddle” note from VT49/54 given above, also from the late 1960s. Tolkien made further green-ink revisions to the relevant sections of OP2 around 1970, still working on refining these ideas.
Neo-Quenya: For purposes of Neo-Quenya, it may be best to simply ignore the unvoicing of nasals after voiceless stops and retain the OP1 paradigm whereby the stops were voiced and eventually nasalized. There are nearly a dozen words from The Etymologies of the 1930s that depends on this older paradigm, and a few derivations in Tolkien’s later writings as well, such as Q. ongwe < (PE17/170) and Q. < Utupnŭ (MR/69). There are also a good half-dozen words from first layer of OP2 that could be salvaged if the old paradigm was retained (PE19/86, second half of note #79). Conversely, the few words that depend on the new paradigm can be generally be given alternate etymologies. For example, luqa “wain” has a more common variant via metathesis and “food” might be derived from mattā instead.
]]>In early PQ ñn remained as in tekna “a letter” > teñna. But in TQ pronunciation this is represented by nn, a development that may be due to actual natural pronunciation in later classical PQ, since the spelling nn is also there frequently found ... But iñn > ín; uñn > un (OP1: PE19/43).
In Quenya dissimilation, by loss of nasality, occurred ... probably in iñn, uñn > ín, ún (via iʒn, uʒn?). The only assimilation was the comparatively late assimilation of eñn, añn, oñn > enn, ann, onn ... (OP2: PE19/98).
As indicated in these quotes, the combinations iñn, uñn were an exception to this rule, with the ñ vanishing with compensatory lengthening to produce ín, ún. The OP1 quote indicates this change took place in late Parmaquesta [PQ]. Aside from the example ᴹQ. tenna “letter” given above, this sound change can also be seen in:
This sound change was mentioned in other contexts, each indicating it was a relatively recent phonetic development:
In TQ ñn > nn, hence 5{ often appears = g5. (Feanorian Alphabet, 1940s, PE22/149).
ŋn = ŋn remaining, but later > nn (phonetic notes from the 1960s, PE22/149).]]>
In Quenya, the velar nasal [ŋ] vocalized between i, u and n, producing long ī, ū in the process: iñn, uñn > īn, ūn. Tolkien described this sound change in both the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s and the Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the 1950s:
But iñn > ín; uñn > ún. Túna, Tukna. [faint] Tuʒna (OP1: PE19/43).
In Quenya dissimilation, by loss of nasality, occurred in ñm, nm > ñgw, nw; and probably in iñn, uñn > ín, ún (via iʒn, uʒn ?) (OP2: PE19/98).
As indicated in both notes, ñ may have passed first through ʒ [ɣ] before vanishing, making this sound change more like the vocalizations of ʒ. This vocalization of ñ before n only occurs after i, u; after other vowels, ñn became nn. However, in the 1950s Tolkien considered a vocalization for ñ before m as well, and this sound change occurred after all vowels (though the vocalizations after i, u occurred first):
ñm, ñn: here (though spelling with ŋ was retained to indicate nasality) ñ ceased to be consonantal and the preceding vowel became nasalized, and lengthened if short: as teŋ-mā > tę̄ma (PE19/82).
ñm, ñn originally remained but iŋ, uŋ early became nasalized ī̜, ų̄ in these positions (the nasality being still retained in Noldorin), later eŋ, aŋ, oŋ became en, an, on by forward assimilation before n, but eŋ, aŋ, oŋ + m became long ę̄, ą̄, ǭ. The spellings ŋm, ŋn were normally retained in PQ (PE19/96-97) @@@ this is a green ink revision, circa 1970.
Somewhat interestingly, Tolkien indicated that ᴹ√ > ᴹQ. in The Etymologies of the 1930s, perhaps an early manifestation of the vocalizations before m. However, téma is the only attested example of these vocalizations before m, and as discussed in the entry on how , the normal phonetic development both before and after OP2 was ñm > ñgw (PE19/43, 47; PE22/149). Thus, the vocalizations before m seem to be a transient idea.
There are a couple examples of the vocalization of ñ before n in The Etymologies of the 1930s, all the result of the nasalization of g in this position:
There is one example that does not fit the pattern of ñ-vocalizations described in OP1 and OP2, however:
Both this example and its deleted precursor seem to show eventual vocalization of gn after the vowels e and a. It may be that in The Etymologies, the vocalization of ñ was universal, or it may be that g > ʒ before nasals instead, and so fell in with vocalizations of ʒ. Without more information it is hard to be sure.
]]>Where the original sequence was maintained, after m: l became syllabic (as after stops), and the resultant vowel took its quality from the preceding vowel: amla > amala; imla > imila etc. But nl became ll; and in this case n-l is only a later form where it was felt desirable to restore the obscured stem. mr where not metathesized probably remained later than ml, and the ultimate product was mar. The phonetic product of nr, however, was rr; the later "restored" form was nar (OP1, PE19/47).
nl > ll; nr > rr; but mr, ml became syllabic and produced mar, mul ... Where n-l, n-r were restored or later produced the result was n-l (with intervening vowel dependent on the vowel before the n) and nar. (OP2, PE19/98).
As noted above, in cases where this sound combination was produced later (e.g. in compounds), the result was a syllabic liquid that produced a vowel. The sound change of nr > rr was rare, however, since frequently nr > rn as part of Quenya metathesis (PE19/47, 97). There are, however, attested examples of nl > ll, such as:
This sound change can also be seen in some Quenya past tenses produced by nasal-infixion, especially for basic verbs with the consonant l. This was discussed in Tolkien’s notes on Quenya past tense in his description of the Quenya Verbal System from 1948:
[l] usually employs ll (< nl), but ld (< ln) also appears. √TUL “come”: tule, pa.t. tulle, perf. utúlie. √KHAL (cf. halda “high, tall”) in orhale “exalt”, pa.t. orhalde (orhalle), perf. {orhálie >>} orahallie. √OL “grow”, olle “became”, perf. olólie, ólie. Also from weak present: ehtelu- “well, bubble out” (< etkelu), pa.t. ehtelle, perf. ehtelunelye (see below) or etekélie (PE22/103).
Other past tenses fitting this pattern include:
It seems these ll past tenses were somewhat divorced from their present tense forms, and could be replaced. For example, the more usual past tense of Q. was túle (SD/246, LR/47, PE22/140), probably produced by analogy from the perfect utúlie.
This sound change can also be seen in the assimilated form of the partitive plural suffix after nouns ending in -n, such as elelli the partitive plural of “star” (PE17/127).
Conceptual Development: There isn’t enough information to determine how this sound combination developed in the Early Quenya in the 1910s and 1920s. However, ll past tenses for verbs with the consonant l were fairly common (appearing beside other past forms with long vowels), which hints that this sound change may already have been established:
Thorsten Renk suggested that this Early Qenya past tense pattern was the result of nl > ll in his article on the Quenya Past Tense (QPT).
In Quenya Notes from 1957 (QN: PE17/145) Tolkien considered an alternate development whereby [n] vocalized before [r], much like how primitive velar which then vanished with compensatory lengthening ([ŋr] > [ɣr] > [¯r]):
māra “good”, which, as the † byform marna shows, is from manrā, in earliest formations nr > ¯r, (with nasality of preceding vowel subsequently lost) (PE17/162).
Elsewhere is given other etymologies, typically from the root √: [magra] > [maɣra] > [māra]. Thus, I think [nr] > [¯r] was a transient idea; there is no evidence of it outside the note above.
]]>Since ñ did not occur as a suffixal consonant, and m was seldom used after labials (p, ph, b) we are concerned only with pn > bn > mn; tn > dn > nn; tm > dm > nm; kn > gn > ñn; km > gm > ñm. All these combinations are said still to appear in AQ, but in classical PQ: nm > nw (a favoured group); and ñm > ñw > ñgw. Thus √TEK “write”: *tekma “writing, grammar” > tegmā, teñma, teñgwa (OP1: PE19/43).
In Tolkien’s later writing, voiceless stops were no longer voiced before nasals and instead [n], [m] became [t], [w] after voiceless stops. Thus, the development of new nasal + m combinations arose only from voiced stops + m. Tolkien’s description of the nm changes in the Outline of Phonology (OP2) in the 1950s are somewhat different from those of the 1930s:
nm became either mm (with forward assimilation of articulation point common [?with] nasals), or nw (a favoured group) by dissimilation. Which is the strictly “phonetic” development is not certain, since “etymological” considerations were at any period likely to have effect. mm was probably the older and more phonetic result - since it occurs in cases where the original stem was obscured and etymology of the word as a whole was forgotten; nw occurs usually when the stem ended in n + m-suffix, or in d (there are no known cases of dm > nm > mm): sc. when it was felt desirable to retain the dental quality of the first element of the group. mm also occurs in compounds where it was desirable to preserve the 2nd element or initial of the 2nd word, as Elemmíre (name) = “Elven-gem” or “Star-gem” (OP2: PE19/96).
Despite the comments above, primitive nm became nw in all attested phonetic developments from this conceptual period, and the assimilation nm > mm appears only in compounds. Compare:
Elsewhere in OP2 Tolkien said: “in compounds ... these the initial m/mb, n/nd of the second element usually became m, n; and similarly ñ, ñg > ñ” (OP2: PE19/81). This helps explain why compounds were immune to nm, ñm > nw, ñgw, since the initial nasal sounds in the second element generally had the same phonetic developments as if it were in word-initial position.
As for the combination ñm, in the first drafts of OP2 from the early 1950s, ñm > ñw > ñgw just as it did in OP1:
In these cases the historical results were the same as for stops + mn. mn, mm, nn remained unchanged. nm > nw. ñm > ñw > ññw > ñgw.
This is consistent with the derivation ✶wagme [> wañwe] > Q. vangwe “blow” from 1957, and in notes from 1969 Tolkien said:
-nm > nw̃ > nw ... ŋm = ñw > ngw (PE22/149).
However, in green-ink revisions to OP2 from around 1970, Tolkien introduce a new phonetic development, with ñ vanishing with compensatory lengthening:
Owing to the disappearance of medial ñ [in Common Eldarin] the historical developments retaining a stem-nasal were specially liable to later alteration. Thus tēma “series” fr[om] TEG- “line”: tegma, “direct[ion], process” > teñma > tę̄ma (OP2: PE19/97).
This vanishing of ñ (< g) before m with vowel-lengthening was a very late idea, and the example Tolkien gave was Q. téma < teg-mā. In earlier writings this word was derived from ✶teñ-mā (PE19/82) or ✶teʒ-mā (PE18/104) where the consonant loss with compensatory lengthening (> tēmā) was ancient, maybe even in CE.
Conceptual Development: In the Qenya Phonology from the 1910s Tolkien said that basically all combinations of nasals + w became ñgw: “ñ, n, m, ŋ + ẇ [>] ngw” (PE12/23), though the dot in ẇ may indicate this sound change may have in some cases been limited to w derived from ɣ͡w [ɣʷ]. The developments of nm in the Early Qenya period is hard to determine given the lack of examples.
Neo-Quenya: As suggested in the entry on how [n], [m] became [t], [w] after voiceless stops and aspirates, for purposes of Neo-Quenya it might be better to ignore the paradigm described in 1970 revisions to OP2 and retain the developments whereby (a) voiceless stops were voiced before nasals and (b) ñm > ñgw, the latter of which seems to be Tolkien’s normal development prior to 1970.
]]>The nasals were frequently assimilated to dentals ... ñs, ms in old formations similarly > ns. Since nasals [n] were unvoiced before [s], the phonetic product was [ss] of all nasals + [s]. (OP1, PE19/47).
Some other combinations (a) occurred only in the earliest periods and were soon changed ... ns from n/m/ŋ + s. This soon became ss (with unvoicing of n) (OP2, PE19/82).
In Quenya ms was assimilated > ns (as mt > nt). The resultant ns, from any nasal + s, was then in the older strata unvoiced to ss (OP2, PE19/99).
The fact that these changes were in “old formations” and “occurred only in the earliest periods” indicates this phonetic development was in AQ or perhaps even earlier. There was a similar sound change in Old Sindarin, and in one place Tolkien said that ns > ss in Primitive Elvish:
s. This became [z] medially; but ns became prehistorically (common to Noldorin and Quenya) > ss. (Since later Q. tolerated ns this is sometimes found for pa.t. ss in late classical Q. and TQ.) (PE22/103).
As indicated above, the combination ns could appear in Tarquesta [TQ], and thus it seems this pair of letters might arise later, either from later compounds, from reformations by grammatical analogy or after . A note describing these reformations appears in OP2:
Reformation of this ss seldom occurred in PQ. They were more frequent in TQ especially in the past-tense forms of bases with original medial s. In both PQ and TQ they occurred only after the change of intervocalic s > z. The restored forms thus showed nz and were thus distinct from TQ ns < nþ with restored nasal before medial th. Since in Ñ[oldorin Quenya] s > z > r the nz forms were also obscured becoming, or being replaced by, rr (or rn). This nz remained in Vanyarin but (where not altered) became ns in Ñ[oldorin Quenya]. So borrowing from language of Atani inzil (Núm[enórean] inzil) “flower, lily”, became in Exilic Ñ[oldorin Quenya] insil (OP2, PE19/99).
Tolkien considered similar reformations in the 1930s:
At end of consonant groups [s] was stronger, and was not voiced: hense rs, ls, ns remained with (partly) unvoiced r, l {n}. The {classical >>} earliest product of ns was > ss; but ns was {occasionally >>} often reproduced by grammatical analogy in that case. But [later?] ns > nz as in Rothinzil (OP1, PE19/49).
Possible examples of past-tense formations involving primitive ns are:
In the first example it seems no reformation occurred (though since the present tense form is archaic hríza, maybe Tolkien simply didn’t write down the reformed past tense), but in the second example the ancient past tense may have been *winsē > *visse, reformed to virne. Other likely grammatical reformations include the reflexives “itself” and “herself, himself”, altered by analogy with forms like “yourselves” and “themselves” (VT47/37).
Tolkien also seems to have considered having a later ns > ss sound change after :
ns > ns later Third Age ss: kanse, kāsen [with z written below kāsen] (in some notes associated with numbers from the late 1950s or early 1960s, PE17/95).
Where this grammatical renewal occurred in TQ after þ > s, ns remained as in TQ panse “smoothed” for PQ patte, after pase “smooths”. But panse soon > passe. This apparent substitution of ss for tt in cases of words having s for basic th is peculiar to Noldorin TQ (OP2, PE19/89).
For “substitution of ss for tt” compare also pitte past tense of ᴹQ. pise “spit” (PE22/103), probably with *pitʰnē, *patʰnē > pitte, †patte since [n] became [t] after aspirates. In the previous quote above, †patte was reformed to panse and then later became passe. If this later ns > ss sound change occurred, it was in late Exilic Quenya and may not have been reflected in spelling.
Finally, Tolkien also seems to have considered either later ns > nz (1930s, PE19/49) or nz > ns (1950s, PE19/99), but the only examples are tied to Ad. “flower”, so its hard to say whether Tolkien adopted these ideas generally (see the relevant quotes above).
Conceptual Development: Based on the example ᴱQ. “swoon” from the root ᴱ√ (QL/37), it seems unlikely this sound change applied to Early Qenya. Tolkien established the basic rule of ancient ns > ss in the 1930s and seems to have retained it thereafter, though as noted above he seems to have vacillated on the development of ns combinations that arose later in Parmaquesta.
Neo-Quenya: For the purpose of Neo-Quenya writing, I think it is best to assume that only ancient ns > ss and any later ns survived unchanged.
]]>Conceptual Development: There is no mention of sound changes involving pairs of voiceless stops in the Qenya Phonology of the 1910s, and the combinations pt, kt are common among Early Qenya words from Qenya Lexicon. Where ht appears in the Qenya Lexicon, it seems to be derived from primitive χt. However, examples of kt > ht start to appear in the 1920s:
There are also indications that pt > ps in the late 1920s:
In the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s, the normal development of pt, kt is to ps, ht in the original layer of composition for this document:
Quenya did not tolerate combinations of two different stops. When these anciently occurred, as in pt, kt, one of the two, or both, became open and spirantal (OP1: PE19/39).
pt, kt. The development here is obscured by the continuous use of the special single letters Q Z, no doubt originally devised to represent AQ pt, kt in spite of the later changes in their spoken forms.
The normal TQ (and L.) development is ps, ht. The latter being phonetically [χt] with a fairly strong back-spirant [χ], except in hty where the h is fully fronted (OP1: PE19/41 note #77).
Tolkien then elaborated on the development of pt > ps:
In Lindarin AQ pt yields both ht and ps. The divergence of pt, kt, and the development of pt in Lindarin are probably to be explained as follows: The earliest development in PQ, obscured by the maintainence of notation Q Z, was actually to open both elements > [ꝑþ, χþ]. In this combination, however, [ꝑ] did not develop > labiodental [f]; but in spoken Lindarin developed > ƕ > h [χ]: pt and kt thus falling together. The recognizable grammatical relationship of [-p + t-] was thus destroyed, and in most cases, where the relationship was still clear, p was restored. Thus for pt there existed [pþ] in the majority of the cases, but hþ only in isolated cases where the relationship to stems in -p was forgotten. For kt only ht existed. There then set in a reaction against a sequence of two spirants, and one was closed: hþ of either origin > ht; but pþ naturally remained becoming Lindarin and general TQ ps (pþ being maintained only by those Noldor who used their native þ for PQ, TQ th, þ). In TQ only the ps, pþ was used, because of the permanence of the PQ spelling with sign Q related to [p] q and quite distinct from Z kt, ht (OP1: PE19/41 note #78, #79).
These notes replaced several drafts that described more or less the same phonetic developments (OP1: PE19/42): pt, kt > ꝑþ, χþ > ps, χt, with occasional (Lindarin-only?) pt > χt (ht). The pt > ps development is well represented in The Etymologies of the 1930s:
There is only one clear example of the (Lindarin-only) sound change pt > ht: the archaic variant †lehta of lepsa “finger” from an early draft of the above notes (OP1: PE19/42). Thus pt > ps seems to be the normal phonetic development in the 1930s.
However, at some point Tolkien made revisions in red ink to his OP1 description of pt-developments:
In spoken Lindarin AQ pt Q is pronounced ht or Z. In PQ the pronunciation was probably ꝑt in which ꝑ remained bilabial (and in natural spoken language developed to χ). But in TQ the difference of the letter Q (related to q = p) and etymolog[ically] retained ꝑt which is pronounced ft or pt. In our transcription pt (or pht) is used. In T. pt, kt > pþ, kþ > ps, x, and some forms of this sort invaded TQ (OP1: PE19/41 and note #79).
In this revised system, pt > ht remains the (Lindarin-only) pronunciation, but pt > ꝑt in normal Quenya development written “pt”, whereas the pt > ps sound change appeared only in Telerin loan words. Some examples of this pt survival can be seen in words from the 1940s:
When Tolkien started writing the updated Outline of Phonology (OP2) in the 1950s, he seems to have restored the original OP1 scenario in the first layer of composition (PE19/84 note #75). But this was ultimately switched back to the pt > ꝑt development:
pt, kt. The history of the phonetic developments here is obscured by the continued use of special single letters, such as Feanorian Q A, probably originally intended to represent sounds still little or not at all altered from pt, kt, after considerable phonetic change had occurred in the spoken language ...
The development of kt is the more certain. This had become ht, in which h was a fairly strong spirant, in the spoken language of both Vanyar and Noldor before the Exile, and the opening of the k goes back to PQ. Even the loremasters represented PQ A by ht in recitation ...
Alter this and make change of pt (Q) > ꝑt normal. Transcription pt to show bilabial pronunciation. The combination ft was avoided in Q. and Sindarin (PE19/84).
The “alter this” refers to the replacement of text which originally had pt > ps (PE19/84 note #75). The clearest description of the exact conceptual changes in the phonetic developments appear in the section on the development of aspirates from OP2:
In Quenya there was no distinction between the products of CE pth, kth and pt, kt, probably because pt, kt > pth, kth. Both varieties then proceeded to {[ꝑþ, χþ] >>} [ꝑtʰ, χtʰ]. The ultimate results were {ꝑþ (TQ ps) >>} ꝑt (transcribed pt) and ht (OP2: PE19/87 and notes #84, #85).
Thus the revised system was pt, kt > ꝑtʰ, χtʰ > ꝑt, χt (transcribed pt, ht). As described in OP2, the sound change kt > ht [xt] is reflected in spelling and there are numerous examples of it in the 1950s and 60s. Tolkien even mentioned this pronunciation in The Lord of the Rings appendices:
The Quenya combination ht has the sound of cht, as in German “echt, acht”: e.g. in the name Telumehtar “Orion” (LotR/1113).
However, as noted above the pronunciation ꝑt [ɸt] was not reflected in spelling. There are a fair number of examples of written pt appearing in Quenya words in 1950s and 60s, some of which had ps in the 1930s:
The conceptual transition wasn’t entirely smooth, however, since Q. lepse “finger” appears in etymological notes from the late 1950s or early 1960s (PE17/89), and a form that might be lepþa appears in the late 1960s (VT47/23).
Tolkien’s notes in OP1 and OP2 focus on the combinations pt, kt, but there is evidence of similar developments for tk. This would not be a common combination, since usually in Primitive Elvish tk became kt. The best example of this sound changes is an alternate word for the number “seven” appearing in notes from the late 1960s:
This Quenya word “seven” is derived from the same root that produced S. . One possible explanation of otko > osko is that tk > þk > sk, with þ to s as usual and then sk > x [ks] via metathesis. Near this word Tolkien wrote “tk > sk in Q., T., S.” which seems to indicate this was a universal (and thus perhaps Primitive Elvish) sound change. However, AQ. otko is almost certainly the result of the Quenya syncope, strongly implying these were parallel changes in the child languages (and I have found no further evidence of Telerin or Sindarin sound changes tk > sk).
Another example from Quenya Notes from 1957 (QN: PE17/145) seems to show a similar set of phonetic developments:
This example might also have tk > þk > sk > ks, except that the Primitive Elvish sound changes were rutʰ-kā > rutkʰā > [AQ] rutkā. The adjectival suffix is unusual but not unknown, so this scenario is reasonably plausible (PE19/87).
To summarize:
On the early sporadic changes by metathesis: tr, tl, kl, ml etc. > rt, lt, lk, lm etc.: see General Account, p. 26. Where the original sequence was maintained before l a vocalic element was very early developed, normally of the same quality as the vowel preceding the stop: thus makla > makal. The [l] was thus early removed from the unvoicing influence of p, t, k (OP1: PE19/40).
On the early sporadic changes by metathesis: tr, tl, kl, kr, ml, &c. > rt, lt, lk, rk, lm &c.: see the General Description. Where the original order of sequence was maintained, l (but not r) became at an early period syllabic, and ḷ, ǝl then developed a full vowel of the qualities a, i, u according to the quality of the vowel preceding the stop: thus makla > makal(a). The l was thus early removed from the unvoicing influence of preceding voiceless stops and aspirates (OP2: PE19/83).
It is not clear what the developments were when the preceding vowel was e or o; perhaps the result was ḷ > al, but just as easily it could be il/ul. In this ancient period, r did not normally become syllabic after voiceless stops:
The vocalic element was not however developed before r at an early period (OP1: PE19/40).
At this (prehistoric) period r did not become syllabic, possibly because it was early more susceptible of unvoicing than l (OP2: PE19/83).
The normal development was that . However, there was one case where medial r could become syllabic in the ancient period, when it was at the end of a cluster of three consonants:
In a few old formations r, l followed after consonant groups. Here syllabification was early and the development of tr > ts seldom occurred. So √KWET: kwentrō “reciter” > Q quentaro, beside †quenso “minstrel” < kwentso, but tañklă “fastener, brooch” > tañkal(ă), Q tañkal (OP1: PE19/40).
In a few surviving formations of archaic pattern asyllabic r, l had followed after consonant-groups (usually nasal + stop). Here syllabification of r > ar was probably older and occurrences of the unvoicing to s are rare. Thus from base √KWET: kwentrō “speaker” > Q quentaro, beside the archaic form quenso, specialized in the sense “minstrel, reciter”. Syllabification of l always takes place, as in √TAK: tanklă “fastener, brooch” > Q tañkal “brooch” (OP2: PE19/83).
For these three-consonant clusters, metathesis could not occur, and syllabification was the normal pattern with ṛ > ar. These clusters were apparently rare, however: the word Q. mentioned above is the best published example. Such clusters also provide the best-known examples of ancient l-syllabification (such as Q. tankal), again because metathesis was inhibited.
With l, similar syllabification occurred after aspirates:
As after p, t, k the development of l after spirants (aspirates) to syllabic ḷ was early enough to prevent unvoicing, and the normal products are f-l, þ-l, h-l, with intervening vowel taking the quality of the vowel preceding the spirant (OP1: PE19/44).
The groups phr, phl; thr, thl; khr, khl ... As after voiceless stops, the development of l to syllabic ḷ was early enough to prevent the unvoicing of l, and the normal products were f-l, þ-l, h-l, with intervening vowels. On the quality of these vowels see above: C 1 (iv) (OP2: PE19/88).
With r after aspirates, the usual pattern in the ancient period was unvoicing and development to s, as mentioned above. Syllabification also occurred for those combinations of ml, mr that did not undergo metathesis, with results similar to those of syllabification after stops:
Where the original sequence was maintained, after m l became syllabic (as after stops), and the resultant vowel took its quality from the preceding vowel: amla > amala; imla > imila etc. ... mr where not metathesized probably remained later than ml, and the ultimate product was mar (OP1: PE19/47)
mr, ml became syllabic and produced mar, mul. Observe that the vowel generated between m-l was usually u irrespective of the neighbouring vowels: thus imla > imula (OP2: PE19/98).
In the 1930s, Tolkien felt that the syllabification of l after m followed the same pattern as after stops and aspirates, with the resulting vowel depending on the quality of the preceding vowel, but in the 1950s he decided the resulting vowel was always u. There are no examples of ml/mr syllabification other than the ones given above; it seems metathesis to lm, rm was more common (even there the only published example is Q. ). Combinations of l, r after n did not become syllabic, since . Syllabification of l, r also did not occur after voiced stops either: these combination followed the more usual pattern whereby voiced stops became spirants (PE19/46, 94).
As a last case, syllabification could also occur when a consonant cluster ending with l, r became final after the loss of short vowels in final syllables. Tolkien only discussed these word-final syllabifications in the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s, because his revisions in the 1950s (OP2) stopped short of that point:
Syllabic ḷ, ṛ were only produced by loss of ǝ (< a, e, o). ṛ produced ar. ḷ produced il/al/ul according to the surroundings of which the preceding vowel was the strongest influence. Initial ḷ only occurred as reduced form of negative prefix la. It yielded usually a [al-]. On the special vocalic development in Q. final syllables see below (OP1: PE19/56).
Final syllables [rough notes] ... When inflexional in significance stressed[?] ending[?] in CE. weakening[?] of a, e, o > ǝ {(> nil)} after or before continuant or nasal ... after l, r: la > ḷ > il/al/ul. ra > ṛ > ar ... after l, r: la > ḷ > il/al/ul. ra > ṛ > ar ... [before] l, r: ḷ, ṛ > al/il/ul, ṛ (OP1: PE19/66).
-lǝ > ḷ > il/ul/al ... -rǝ > ṛ > ar (OP1: PE19/67, summary of the preceding according to note #173).
Thus it seems final syllabic l, r had basically the same developments as medially: ṛ > ar and ḷ > al/il/ul depending on the preceding vowel. The developments after e/o were not discussed, but based on examples like Q. hecil (< hek-l(a)?), probably they also developed to -il/-ul; hat-tip to Parmandil for this suggestion. There is also one example where initial ḷ became syllabic: in the negative prefix ᴹ✶ḷ- > ᴹQ. al- (but see Conceptual Development below). Aside from the maklă > makal example given above (OP1: PE19/39), the clearest examples of these final developments can be seen with the primitive agental suffix ✶-rŏ (WJ/371) which frequently becomes -ar in Quenya after another consonant:
The challenge here is that it is often not possible to distinguish these from cases where the ar existed primitively. The above examples could instead be from primitive *ista-rŏ, *maka-rŏ, *sana-rŏ; compare with ✶ > Q. “companion” (PE17/183).
To summarize, in cases where metathesis did not occur:
Tolkien also described a “second wave” of syllabifications for r, l well after the ancient period but with very similar results; these “second wave” changes are discussed in another entry.
Conceptual Development: In Tolkien’s early conception Qenya from the 1910s and 1920s, syllabic ḷ, ṛ were among the vowels of Primitive Elvish, so that any syllabifications of r, l are hard to distinguish from original primitive ḷ, ṛ. He described the Early Qenya development of syllabic ḷ, ṛ in a table appearing in the Qenya Phonology of the 1910s (PE12/10):
| [Before] | q | k | k̂ | t | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ḷ short | ul | il | il | il | ul |
| ṛ short | ar | ar | ir | ar | ar |
In the chart above,
Regarding the development of final -ḷ, Tolkien first wrote: “-ḷ appears as -il, irrespective of preceding consonant” (PE12/11, note #64). The development of syllabic ṛ was basically the same as Tolkien’s later conception: ṛ > ar, except before palatals, where it became ir. In the case of ḷ, however, the development was usually to il, becoming ul before and after labials like [p] and labialized velars like [kʷ]. Based on the examples in the contemporaneous Qenya Lexicon, it seems that Early Qenya could also tolerate final syllabic ḷ without any vowel when it followed a t, such as: ᴱQ. , , .
The idea that syllabic ḷ developed into il lingered for some time. This was the usual development in The Etymologies of the 1930s:
For the second and third examples, compare with tankal and al- above, where ḷ > al under the influence of the base vowel a. The fourth example might also have been revised to maklă > makal (OP1: PE19/39), but that one is harder to tell: it could be a contrived example instead. In the 1950s and 60s Tolkien restored Q. “sword” (VT39/11; VT41/10), but in the later conceptual stages its Sindarin equivalent was S. (vs. N. ), indicating the il was in the primitive form of the word and not the result of syllabification.
The earlier phonetic developments ḷ > il (and sometimes ḷ > ul) can be seen in rejected notes in the first layer of the Outline of Phonetic Development from the 1940s:
It must be noted the normal articulation of l in Q. was high and without back-hollowing - hence its usual vocalization as il (OP1: PE19/40 note #66).
tl, kl > ty or to syllabic til, kil. But note after p the palatal character of l was not present and it could not develop to py. The development of pl was thus to syllabic pul (except sporadic, mostly ancient, case of metathesis to lp). Cf. ml > lm or mul (OP1: PE19/43 note #82).
These rejected notes also indicate that sometimes tl > ty (as tr > ts) but this seems to be a transient idea. In the final revisions of the 1930s, it seems that Tolkien abandoned ḷ > il/ul and replaced it with the phonetic development discussed above whereby the resulting vowel was derived from the quality of the vowel appearing earlier in the word. This remained the case in the 1950s, except that Tolkien restored the ḷ > ul development in the specific case of mḷ > mul. However in notes from 1969, Tolkien had ✶tanklă > Q. tankil (PE23/137), indicating he may have considered restoring the 1940s system of syllabification towards the end of this life.
]]>The vocalic element was not however developed before r at an early period. In Q. [r] before or after other consonants other than [r], was weaker than in isolation, and was in such cases only slightly trilled. Consequently when unvoiced, as after p, ph; t, th; k, kh, [r] became evidently in AQ a voiceless, probably untrilled, ř. This was transformed into s prehistorically - before the spirantalization of aspirates, so that the original products of say pr, phr were alike ps, identical with the products of p, ph + ancient s (OP1: PE19/39-40).
At this (prehistoric) period r did not become syllabic, possibly because it was early more susceptible of unvoicing than l. In Q. r before or after other consonants (other than r itself) was weaker than r in isolation, and in such cases only lightly trilled. When unvoiced it became a frictional ř which was soon transformed into s. This development occurred prehistorically & before the spirantalization of ph, th, kh; so that the most ancient products of both thr and tr, for instance, were ts, identical with the products of CE th + s and t + s (OP2: PE19/83).
Tolkien also mentioned this sound change in other contexts elsewhere in OP1 (PE19/43-44, 47) and OP2 (PE19/86, 88), under his discussion of the medial phonetic developments of voiceless stops and aspirates. This change of r to s was very ancient, before the spirantalization of aspirates, as noted above. Specific examples of this sound change are hard to find, however, since in many cases the consonants had already been inverted due to various Quenya metatheses. However, there are at least a couple words that seem to demonstrate this change:
Christopher Tolkien wrote the second example as miχa with Greek χ, but I think it is very unlikely that kr would have become a voiceless velar spirant, and that x [ks] is more likely to be what Tolkien intended. The third example was pointed out by Raccoon in a Discord chat; compare it to its variant form nerca with metathesis.
Conceptual Development: This sound change was not mentioned for either voiceless stops or voiceless spirants in the early Qenya Phonology from the 1910s, and indeed it seems r after voiceless stops (in cases where the combination did not undergo metathesis) became syllabic and developed some kind of vowel, usually a: pr, tr, kr > par, tar, kar (PE12/22-23).
]]>ll, lr, rl: These all gave phonetically ll; but lar, r-l occurred by grammatical analogy (OP1: PE19/49).
ll remained, and was a greatly favoured combination; rl and lr also became ll. In the case of rl (not lr) later reformations produced r-l with intruded vowel determined by the quality of the vowel preceding the r (OP2: PE19/100).
It is possible that the rule whereby was actually a phonetic development in Primitive Elvish, since there is evidence of this phonetic change in all Eldarin language branches in The Etymologies of the 1930s:
There is likewise evidence that rl > ll in (Old) Sindarin:
However, it is possible these were parallel sound changes rather than occurring during the Primitive Elvish period, as suggested by David Salo (GS/§4.160, §4.161). Nevertheless these sound change seem to be ancient and no longer active in Sindarin. The combinations rl and lr are fairly common in Sindarin/Noldorin compounds, and rl appears in at least one Quenya compound: ᴹQ. “June”, probably + laire “*first summer” and thus it is likely an Exilic compound.
Tolkien indicated there were assimilations dl, zl > ll later in Quenya’s phonetic history, and since both d and z became r in the Ñoldorin dialect of Quenya, these might represent another later example of rl > ll. However, since these changes occurred in Vanyarin as well, more likely these assimilations began before d, z > r: see the entry on how for further details.
On the other hand, it’s quite likely rl > ll remained an active phonetic rule in Quenya for a long time, probably even into Tarquesta [TQ]. For example, r + l > ll in the , as in Kasalli the partitive plural form of Q. Kasar “Dwarf” (WJ/388). Tolkien made a note to that effect in 1964: “-rl- was normally assimilated to ll in Quenya” (PE17/71).
Conceptual Development: I have found no direct evidence of either lr or rl > ll as an ancient sound change in the Early Quenya of the 1910s and 1920s, but Tolkien did indicate rl > ll (or zl > ll) as an assimilation occurring after other sound changes:
[Medial] s gave z and then r before l, r, m, n, w̑, y̑, ƀ, ʒ, giving ll, ´r, rn, rm, rw, ry, rb [or] rw, rg [or] ´r (PE12/19).]]>
ls, rs were preserved in PQ and so in correct spelling. But the Lindarin pronunciation of rs (not rs < rth!) as ss was frequent in TQ pronunciation (OP1: PE19/47).
rs remained in PQ, but the phonetic tendency in the spoken language was evidently to complete unvoicing and reduction of the group > ss. The tendency was still operative in TQ after the TQ change of th, þ > s. Both were sounded ss in colloquial TQ, but since the traditional spelling was retained rs was still used by the “learned” and regarded as the correct usage. ls normally was unchanged (OP2: PE19/99).
In 1930s Tolkien said this was a Lindarin-only change and did not affect rth, though elsewhere in OP1 he said “there was a strong tendency for rþ > rs to become in TQ ss (PE19/45)”. In OP2 rs > ss was a TQ change. Since the combination rþ > rs > ss in the 1950s, perhaps it was a Ñoldorin-only change, but more likely this sound change remained active for some time and simply applied to s of all origins. In notes from around 1964, Tolkien also said this sound change affected r of any origin:
r of any origin tended to become partly or wholly unvoiced before t, p, k, s, and rs was confused with ss (PE17/71).
Despite the above, the combination rs is reasonably common in Quenya, but where it appears it is almost always the result of rþ < rth:
In the few cases where we see rs > ss or rr, they are all combinations of original primitive r and s:
It is conceivable that these surviving rs represent “preserved spelling”, but it is also possible that, despite Tolkien’s statements in OP1 and OP2, this was a late PQ or early TQ sound change before þ > s, and only affect original primitive combinations of rs and not r or s of other origins.
Also note that despite Tolkien’s statement that ls survived, that combination is rare in Quenya and there is at least one example where it seems ls > ll:
Conceptual Development: The combination rs does not appear in Early Quenya, but in Qenya Phonology from the 1910s Tolkien said “ls, rs > rs, ls; rarer combinations” (PE12/19), which makes it seem like rs survives. Lack of examples makes it hard to determine when he decided rs > ss.
]]>ÓLOS- “dream” ... Olofantur (s-f > f) = Lorien. ... [N] Olfannor (= Olo(s)-fantur) ... (Ety/OLOS).
The development of N. seems to indicate this sound change also occurred in the Noldorin name’s history, but I think this more likely represents the usual loss of final s in ancient Noldorin/Sindarin; compare it with the isolated word N. “dream” from *ólos. This means the loss of s before f was probably a Quenya-only change, and could not have been true of ancient compounds since aspirates became voiceless stops after s in Primitive Elvish.
Conceptual Development: This sound change was also mentioned in the Qenya Phonology of the 1910s: “Note sꝑ > sf > ff > f (PE12/21)”. It is impossible to say whether this rule remained valid in the Late Quenya of the 1950s and 60s, since the name vanished form the legendarium and the circumstances producing this sound change are incredibly rare.
]]>Note that there is at least one example indicating that the combination ts could undergo a reversed metathesis to favored st: etsat- (= et + sat) vs. (modern?) estat- “distribute in even portions” (VT48/11). However there are examples of ts without metathesis, such as otso “seven”.
Conceptual Development: Tolkien mentioned these transpositions all the way back in the Qenya Phonology of the 1910s:
An “s” transposition period must be assumed that must be held to have been early discontinued and to have been uncertain in its area. sq > x is rare, sc > x is commoner than sc. st is never transposed; sty is never transposed; sp is almost unknown, ps being favoured (PE12/19).
The combination sp does not appear at all in Early Qenya (or in later iterations of the language for that matter), but sk is fairly common. There are, however, a few examples of transposition to ks in Early Qenya:
Tolkien did not introduce initial sk-, sp- into Primitive Elvish until the 1920s (PE14/64). At this conceptual stage, these initial clusters became spirants, and did not undergo metathesis:
In the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s Tolkien mentioned the initial metathesis of sp, sk for the first time:
The same development was common in the case of sp, st, sk which thus became [ꝑ, þ, χ] > f, th (s), h initially. But as will be seen medially Q. favoured the sequences ps, ks rather than sp, sk (while favouring st). Thus at an early period initial sp, sk (not st) became ps, ks and these combinations endured in classical PQ and were the most usual representations of Eldarin sp-, sk-. In TQ though the spelling is retained ps, ks initial are commonly rendered by simple s or ps, ks > ups, iks (OP1: PE19/36).
Despite Tolkien’s statement that these “were the most usual representations of Eldarin sp-, sk-”, all of the initial sp-, sk- became f-, h- in The Etymologies from the 1930s:
A few examples of initial ps-, ks- do appear in the 1940s, however:
None of these examples are clearly connected to roots beginning with sp-, sk-. In fact for one of these (psar- “rub”) Tolkien made a point that it was not related to the root √ “hunt” (PE18/94). There is also one example of initial ts-: “fly” (PE22/51), which was mentioned in at least one other place as a rare initial combination:
A notable feature of Quenya was the frequent reversal of sp, sk (sph/skh) initially and medially to ps, ks, the latter (with rarer ts) being tolerated initial combinations in Q. down to end of Classical period (PE18/93).
Medially sp is entirely absent in the 1930s and 40s, but sk did occasionally appear, as in ᴹQ. “reed” (PE19/51) and ᴹQ. “break asunder” (SD/310). Medial metathesis to ks became common, however, most notably in The Etymologies:
The OP1 scenario remained essentially the same in the Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the 1950s:
sp, st, sk. For these initial groups a development to f, þ, h identical with that of ph, th, kh but probably coalescing with these only at the spirantal stage, is well evidenced, & occurs in many words and stems ... Only, however, in the case of st is the spirantal development to þ (later TQ s as in the case of original th) the normal one in Quenya. Of sp and sk the most frequent development in PQ was ps-, ks- (OP2: PE19/78).
In OP2, Tolkien explicitly mentioned that skw was immune to metathesis, as in Q. :
sk was normally in older words transposed to ks, but (rare) skw was maintained (OP2: PE19/87).
Again, despite the statements above, the spirantalization of initial sp-, sk- was the norm in the 1950s and 60s. Where metathesis from primitive roots beginning with sp-, sk- occurs, it was after a vocalic augment, and thus may represent medial metathesis instead:
Nevertheless, words with initial ps-, ks- (x-) also appear in the 1950s and 60s: Q. “rub” (PE22/155), Q. “passing, impermanent” (PE18/94). Medial sp remains absent, but sk (or sc) also continues to appear in some words: Q. “fox” (PM/353), Q. “visible, easily seen” (PE17/148). There are also some sk/x variants: uskare/uxare “doing wrong” (PE17/151), rusca/ruxa “wroth” (PE17/188).
The last example indicates that sk metathesis could occur even from s derived from þ [θ]. The word ruxa is derived from the root √(U)RUÞ, and the likeliest development is ruþka > ruska > ruxa (ruksa). If so, sp, sk metathesis likely remained an active sound change in Quenya for a long time. The notes above indicate the sound change began at least by Parmaquesta [PQ] but if þk > sk > ks holds in the above example then the sound change remained active into (Ñoldorin) Tarquesta [TQ].
Neo-Quenya: For purposes of Neo-Quenya, I think it is best to assume that medial metathesis of sp is universal but sk is sporadic. Despite Tolkien’s statement that initial sp and sk metathesis was common, there are no actual examples. I think it is better to assume that the initial clusters ps-, ks- were introduced sometime in late AQ or early PQ (with rarer ts-) for newer words, perhaps aided by metathesis of sp, sk after vocalic augments. In any case, these initial combinations seem to be unusual (especially ts-) and in Tarquesta pronunciation .
]]>While s was still voiceless sr > sř > ss (similar to developments after stops) ... Later forms have zar (OP1: PE19/49).
In that case there are three developments of sr: (a) oldest, while s remained voiceless, sr > sř > ss: this commonly survived, being sufficiently perspicuous etymologically, in PQ and TQ; (b) after the voicing of intervocalic s > z, sr > zr > rr (such forms were more frequent in Ñ[oldorin] dialect, since z itself had there become r); in late formations z-r > zar (OP2: PE19/102).
The “intermediate” sound change (sr > zr > rr) appears in the first draft of a table of medial developments in the 1930s (OP1: PE19/52 note #119), but this page was rejected and the phonetic development does not appear in the final table, although sr > ss does (OP1: PE19/51). It seems the series of three distinct sound changes for sr was restored in the 1950s.
The first of these sound changes (sr > sř > ss) probably belonged to the Ancient Quenya period. Despite the supposed “survival” of this ancient sound change, I can find no examples of it in the phonetic history of individual words, where the intermediate voicing change of sr > zr > rr is more prevalent:
Thus, the ancient sound change of sr > ss was either frequently reformed, or Tolkien abandoned this phonetic development when forming actual words.
Conceptual Development: The one clear example of sr development in Early Qenya also shows sr > rr:
Neo-Quenya: For purposes of Neo-Quenya, I think it is best to ignore this ancient change and assume that sr > zr > rr was the normal development, as described in the entry on how .
]]>This sound change had some interesting political ramifications as well, in particular because it involved a change in the pronunciation of , one of the names of Fëanor’s deceased mother. This may have contributed to Fëanor’s alienation from other Elves, as discussed in The Shibboleth of Fëanor, written by Tolkien in 1968 (PM/331-339). This makes þ > s one of the best documented sound changes in all the Elvish languages, and Tolkien mentioned it frequently (Let/425; LotR/1114; PE17/129; PE19/31, 34, 49, 71; PE22/13, 44-45).
This sound change was also established very early in Tolkien conception of Qenya. He first mentioned it in the Qenya Phonology of the 1910s:
þ ... It gave s universally, except where it had already undergone certain changes from þ > t or đ or d (PE12/19).
In the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s, Tolkien attributed this sound change to the Lindarin [pre-Vanyarin] dialect:
In L. th (þ) > s. This became very general in TQ, with result that þ, s were confused in TQ both in spelling and pronunciation except among the learned. In learned and formal writing the distinction was maintained in writing; and the Noldor, who beside being the chief lore masters, also possessed the sound [þ] in their own tongue, usually represented AQ, PQ th by (þ) (OP1: PE19/31).
Note that in later revisions of OP1 Tolkien changed “L.” >> “V.” in the first sentence reflecting the name change of this dialect from Lindarin to Vanyarin (OP1: PE19/31 note #13).
In the 1930s, the Noldor retained the pronunciation þ because it was a common sound in their native Noldorin [pre-Sindarin] language. After Tolkien changed Noldorin to the native language of the Sindar, this scenario shifted and in the Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the 1950s Tolkien attributed the sound change þ > s to the Ñoldorin dialect of Quenya:
The Vanyar preserved the sound [þ]; but this became s in the speech of the Ñoldor not long before the Exile. This s for th > þ was thus originally characteristic of the Tarquesta, in which CE th, s coalesced in s initially. Not medially, for the spirants derived from aspirates did not become voiced, and s < þ remained voiceless medially while older s became z (see below). The PQ spelling with distinct signs for þ and s was, however, maintained and later many among the Exiles restored the sound [þ], after their adoption of Sindarin as their diurnal speech, a language which favoured the sound [þ]. Some retained it in imitation of the Vanyar: cf. under [s] and [ñ]. This was done chiefly in reciting or reading aloud matter written in PQ. In the actual use of the TQ as a spoken language s for þ remained characteristic of the Ñoldor (OP2: PE19/71).
Tolkien also mentioned this sound change in The Lord of the Rings Appendix E:
TH represents the voiceless th of English in “thin cloth”. This had become s in spoken Quenya, though still written with a different letter (LotR/1114).
Indeed, the name of the tengwa in question, “spirit” (3) was originally pronounced thúlë (LotR/1117), and was used exclusively for s of this origin, as opposed to “starlight” (8 or i) used for s for other origins (including surviving primitive s).
There are some interesting questions surrounding the timing of the sound change þ > s, but I believe it occurred fairly early in Tarquesta [TQ]. In particular, in Ñoldorin TQ only, z dissimilated to s when it preceded or followed r. This is more plausible if s had already been reintroduced as a medial sound by þ > s, meaning this shift probably occurred before z and ð merged into r in Ñoldorin Quenya. In the Eldamo data model, I am using the þ > s sound change to mark the start of TQ and the beginning of the divergence of the Vanyarin and Ñoldorin dialects.
Indeed, in the aforementioned The Shibboleth of Fëanor, Tolkien stated that this sound change took place before or shortly after the birth of Fëanor himself (PM/332). This scenario presents other problems though, because it means the Feanorian Alphabet could not have been invented until the TQ period. There is ample evidence elsewhere that tengwar were used very early in the Parmaquesta period, such as the history the tengwa anna (h) originally used for lost ʒ, a loss that began in Ancient Quenya [AQ] and finished in early Parmaquesta [PQ]. The Eldamo data model assumes the introduction of tengwar marks the boundary between AQ and PQ.
]]>Despite these phonetic rules, initial w does appear in some Quenya words, such as wendë “maiden” and wilwarin “butterfly”. These surviving initial w may be the result of more ancient initial gw-, the clearest example of this being words like walmë “excitement” < √GWAL. Here the initial g weakened to the voiced velar spirant ʒ before ultimately vanishing, but it survived long enough to prevent the w becoming v, at least in Classical Quenya. Tolkien did say that these initial w from gw also eventually became v, but later than isolated primitive w:
gw became [ʒw], and then initially a spirantal frictional w (with slight friction both at the back and at the lips); but already in PQ this w was weakened. The weakening was later than the beginnings of the change of original w > v, and w < gw remained as such and distinct from w, v for some time: in earlier PQ it is not represented by the sign for v; but in TQ it had become identified with w, v (PE19/75-76).
Given the statement that “in TQ it [w from gw] had become identified with w, v”, Neo-Quenya writers often change all initial w to v, for example writing vilvarin “butterfly” or vende “maiden”, something Tolkien himself did on occasion. Entries in the Eldamo lexicon represents w- words with v-, though it indicates the older pronunciation with a following [w] in brackets. Tolkien’s use of initial w could instead represent either archaic or dialectical pronunciation.
There are also some ambiguities in the pronunciation of w after another consonant. The letters w and y are unique in that they represent the only consonants that can make up three-consonant clusters in Quenya such as ngw or nty (PE19/82). Furthermore, consonants pairs ending in w or y were the only pairs that allowed a preceding long vowel or diphthong, such as sáque/saique or mátya/maitya, and (mostly) the only pairs allowed at the beginning of words. They were also “short enough” to allow for the Quenya syncope: [ᴹQ.] salquë “grass” < ✶salakwē.
As such, it is possible this following w represents a labialization of the preceding consonant, so that ngw = [ŋgʷ] and qu = [kʷ], and many Neo-Quenya writers assume that such sounds are unitary consonants. However, in notes on Qenya Spelling from the late 1930s Tolkien said:
q, ngw [= ŋw] are not actually strictly simple consonants in pronunciation though they can stand initially where Qenya does not tolerate actual consonant groups ... q (kw) consists of a lip-rounded k̊ followed by a partly unvoiced w-offglide (more marked medially than initially) ... gw which only occurs in the medial group ngw is the voiced counterpart: a lip-rounded g̊ followed by a w-offglide (PE22/65-66).
According to this, qu and ngw are actually pronounced as full clusters [kw] and [ŋgw] (more accurately [kʷw̥, ŋgʷw]). It thus seems likely that clusters with w and y were considered “long enough” to attract stress, so that [ᴹQ.] ataquë “building” was stressed on the second syllable rather than the first. I think it is best to think of qu and ty as “semi-clusters”, somewhere between a consonant pair and a labialized or palatalized unitary consonant.
]]>In Q. both rv (< rb) and rw existed: both in EQ [Exilic Quenya] > rv. {In Q. both lb and lw > lw: both in EQ > lb [deleted and replaced by]} In Q. lb and lw existed, then both became lv. Consider[ed] correct but lv often to lb, which is sufficiently common to be allowed as a correct variant. Thus distinct from Vanyar ancient lb from lv but lw from l + w (PE17/129).
Here it seems that in Exilic Ñoldorin Quenya lw, rw merged with rv, lv (from primitive rb, lb), all ultimately becoming lv, rv, with the caveat that sometimes lv was pronounced lb, a variant pronunciation also mentioned in The Lord of the Rings Appendix E (LotR/1121). The discussion on PE17/129 seems to have been inspired by Tolkien’s decision to change the suffix -lmo >> -lvo (genitive of ) in the phrase between the 1st and 2nd editions of The Lord of the Rings. Later in the same notes (PE17/130), Tolkien states that -lvë developed from the primitive pronoun ✶ “we (inclusive)”, which became the independent pronoun ve. Tolkien needed to explain how lw > lv, and this new phonetic rule provided this explanation.
This new phonetic rule contradicts the scenario originally described in the Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the early 1950s, where lw, rw and rv, lv (< rb, lb) remained distinct in the Ñoldorin dialect:
Note: since w remained [u̯] after r, l, CE lb, rb remained distinct from CE lw, rw in N[oldorin]. In V[anyarin] TQ there was a tendency to pronounce lw, rw also as lb, rb (PE19/93).
Tolkien likewise indicates that rw, lw were preserved in the table of medial combinations in OP2, with rv, lv derived only from Primitive Elvish rb, lb:
x. r/l + v, w, y: rv, rw, ry; lv, lw, ly (rv, lv in N. = V rb, lb derived only from Eldarin rb, lb) (OP2: PE19/81).
In the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) written in the 1940s, there are also indications in the table of medial combinations that the distinction between primitive lw, rw versus primitive lb, rb was preserved (PE19/38). In this conceptual period, the spirantalization of lb, rb to rƀ, lƀ [lβ, rβ] (and later > rv, lb) was only realized in the Lindarin dialect [pre-Vanyarin] (PE19/46), as opposed to Tolkien’s later conception that Vanyarin restopped these sounds to lb, rb but rƀ, lƀ underwent further phonetic development to lv, rv in the Ñoldorin dialect of Quenya (PE19/93 and note #118).
However, elsewhere in ink revisions to OP2 (made in the late 1950s or early 60s?) Tolkien instead said that lv, rv could become lw, rw in Noldorin Tarquesta [TQ]:
{After r, l and the diphthong ai however w remained as such >>} After s (z), n, r, l and the diphthongs ai, oi however w remained as such, and in N. TQ the tendency was here to change v > w (PE19/72 and note #22).
There was a similar change of lv, rv (< rb, lb) to lw, rw in extensive notes on the use of the Feanorian Alphabet from the 1940s:
The earliest distinction given up was that between lv, rv (< lb, rb) and lw, rw, which early coalesced in lw, rw (PE22/45).
Thus it seems Tolkien vacillated a great deal on whether or not primitive ✶rb, lb and primitive ✶rw, lw merged in Quenya, which dialects the mergers occurred in, and what the results of that merger may have been.
Neo-Quenya: Aside from the case of -lwe > -lve, there are no clear examples of this phonetic rule elsewhere in Tolkien’s writing, and in fact there remain plenty of examples of unmodified rw and lw. Where rv and lv do appear, they can be easily derived from primitive ✶rb, lb instead. For purposes of Neo-Quenya, it is probably best to assume these lw, rw / lv, rv mergers were a transient idea and ignore them.
This means we still need to justify -lve, but this can be explained by analogy with the independent pronoun ve. These ideas for Neo-Quenya usage came out of a discussion with Shihali on the Vinyë Lambengolmor Discord Server (VLDS) on 2018-01-28.
]]>The signs for v and w remained distinct in classical PQ. In the normal (Lindarin) pronunciation of TQ v, w fell together in v, except in kw, (ñ)gw, tw, rw, nw (OP1: PE19/33).
The absence of the combination lw from the list above may be notable (see below). There is no mention of any special development for gw > ʒw [ɣw] > w, so likely this change occurred after [ɣ] from [g] vanished in the 1930s. There is no mention of bilabial ƀ [β], so this change was likely also after [ɸ], [β] became [f], [v].
The contemporaneous Comparative Tables of phonetic development show initial w, gw > w in Quenya but > v in Lindarin (PE19/18-19). The medial developments likewise show gw > uw in Quenya and uv in Lindarin (the u is an indication of the vocalization of ʒ before voiced consonants), but in Quenya medial w > both w, v as opposed to just v (or u) in Lindarin (PE19/23). This medial Quenya w/v variation may be explained by the following:
After long vowels y, w remained and w was strengthened to TQ v. So māya, rāwa (rava) (OP1: PE19/62).
Thus is seems that while w > v was only a universal rule in Lindarin in OP1, it could also occur in the more general Quenya dialect for w after a long vowel. Some contemporaneous notes on the Quenya use of the Feanorian Alphabet describe similar developments from Parmaquesta [PQ] to Tarquesta [TQ]:
Sound changes which occurred after the “classical” fixing of the spelling, and which sometimes resulted in spelling modifications (“incorrect” and unclassical) are the following:
1. Confusions of v/w. See phonology. The classical PQ retained the distinction of y v / n w according to etymology as a rule, but the TQ confusion often reflected either in use of y throughout for both - the cases of retained w (s.c. in tw, nw, ñgw, kw, lw, rw) being denoted by separate letters (z = kw, x = ñgw) or by the diacritic ë, 1é 5è jè 6é = tw, nw, lw, rw (on b = nw, see below). The earliest distinction given up was that between lv, rv (< lb, rb) and lw, rw, which early coalesced in lw, rw. Here jè 6é for jn 6n is classical (PE22/45).
Again note the special developments for lw, rw. The change of w > v was sporadically applied in The Etymologies of the 1930s, with v/w variants often appearing in the same entry. One notable example is the root ᴹ√WIL “fly”, where Tolkien first showed wilwa > vilwa, but struck out the second form and also revised vilin >> wilin (Ety/WIL). The related word wilwarin “butterfly” appeared without v in The Etymologies, as well as in the Qenya Lexicon from the 1910s (QL/104), the early version of the Markirya poem from the late 1920s (MC/213) and the final versions of Markirya from the 1960s (MC/222).
The medial developments in The Etymologies mostly show w > v with two notable and interesting exceptions. First, the combination aiw consistently survives: ᴹQ. aiwe “bird” (Ety/AIWĒ), laiwa “sick” (Ety/SLIW), maiwe “gull” (Ety/MIW), vaiwa “wind” (Ety/WĀ), yaiwe “scorn” (Ety/YAY). The only example of aiv is derived from primitive aib: ᴹ✶laibē > ᴹQ. laive “ointment” (Ety/LIB²). These aiw survivals continue to appear in Tolkien’s later writings: Q. raiwë “lace” (VT42/12) as well as reappearances of Q. aiwë (UT/401), Q. maiwë (MC/222), Q. vaiwë (PE17/189); see further below.
Second, there is one example of medial w survival that was derived from medial gw: ᴹ✶yagwē > ᴹQ. yáwe “ravine” (Ety/LIB²). This indicates Tolkien may have been considering special developments for gw already in the 1930s. Likewise, the Quenya derivatives of the root ᴹ√GWEN show only initial w-: ᴹQ. wén, wenya, wende (Ety/GWEN), though the last of these has a variant vende derived from ᴹ√WEN(ED). These phonetic developments in The Etymologies may be an early sign of the sound changes described in the Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the 1950s:
But later the frictional element of w was increased where it stood initially or remained between vowels, and passing through bilabial v (ƀ) coalesced with v < CE b. This change was common to Vanyar and Noldor, and so began fairly early. It was consequently a feature of Tarquesta, and was usually also reflected in spelling (even affecting that of later writings in PQ). At the same time it was later than the reduction of gw > ʒw > w and affected w of that origin equally (but see gw: B 2 below) (OP2: PE19/72).
gw became [ʒw], and then initially a spirantal frictional w (with slight friction both at the back and at the lips); but already in PQ this w was weakened. The weakening was later than the beginnings of the change of original w > v, and w < gw remained as such and distinct from w, v for some time: in earlier PQ it is not represented by the sign for v; but in TQ it had become identified with w, v (OP2: PE19/72; 75-6).
These notes from the 1950s are a bit inconsistent, but it seems Tolkien’s intention was to pull the sound change w > v backwards in time, prior to the change of bilabial [β] to [v]. The full phonetic development was w > ƀ > v and this occurred early enough that the distinction was generally lost in PQ spelling. Furthermore, this change of primitive w was also before [ɣ] from [g] vanished, since gw > ʒw > w lingered longer and did not become v until the TQ period. These specialized developments for gw reappear in separate Quenya Notes (QN) from 1957 (PE17/145):
Q b-, w- > v-. ñw-, gw- > w-. medially b > v. w > u̯ or lost. gw > ¯w, u̯. mb, lb > b. ñw > ngw (PE17/154).
This note appears beneath a discussion of the root √GWAL whose Quenya derivatives consistently show w both initially and medially such as: Q. walmë “excitement”, walta- “to excite”, awalda “excited” (PE17/154, 189). This later note may indicate that Tolkien decided that w from gw survived all the way into spoken Tarquesta [TQ], but it is hard to say whether this was an actual conceptual shift or a transient idea; v/w variation continue to appear in the 1950s for words derived from primitive gw, such as wende vs. vende variations in the Quenya prayers of the 1950s (VT44/5, 12). It is likely that Tolkien introduced this special development for gw out of a desire to preserve certain early words like wilwarin “butterfly” and wingë “foam” which continued to appear as late as the 1960s (MC/222), albeit with occasional v- variants (MR/166, PM/370).
As described above, w generally survives in combination with other consonants both initially and medially, particularly ñgw, tw, nw, hw, kw, the last often written q or qu. The developments for rw, lw are more complicated, though, with various specialized developments noted above and elsewhere. See the entry on how [w] became [v] after [l], [r] for further details.
To summarize:
Tolkien did explicitly mention this aiw survival in OP2:
After r, l and the diphthong ai however w remained as such (OP2: PE19/72 note #22).
Tolkien then revised this sentence to add oi as another diphthong after which w survived:
After s (z), n, r, l, and the diphthongs ai, oi however w remained as such, and in N[oldorin] TQ the tendency was here to change v > w (OP2: PE19/72).
However, there are no Quenya examples of oiw past the 1920s, so it’s unclear whether or not this was a transient idea.
Conceptual Development: Initial and intervocalic w are fairly common in the Early Qenya of the 1910s and 1920s. The challenge with analyzing the early developments is that there is a much larger inventory of consonants in the Primitive Elvish of the 1910s, many of which could develop into either v or w. For example, in the charts appearing in the Qenya Phonology of the 1910s (PE12/15-16), the primitive labialized velar spirants x͡w, ɣ͡w [xʷ, ɣʷ] both could become Kor-Eldarin ẇ (v), and likewise the primitive labial spirants ꝑ, ƀ [ɸ, β] could become Kor-Eldarin v (w). In these charts primitive w [u̯] either survives in Kor-Eldarin or become u. Unfortunately, Tolkien does not accurately represent the most primitive forms of roots in the Qenya Lexicon, showing the Kor-Eldarin forms instead. This makes it very hard to determine the exact phonetic developments. However, I think the bulk of the evidence is that w > v did not occur in the 1910s and 1920s.
Neo-Quenya: Many Neo-Quenya writers go so far as to revise any initial or intervocalic w to v in all Quenya words. I used to be of the opinion that these v/w variations might be retained by assuming the survival of w from gw until TQ, but in 2023 I changed my mind and starting representing all Quenya words as beginning with v-. For those that feel otherwise, I indicate classical pronunciations with a following [w] in brackets.
]]>gw became [ʒw], and then initially a spirantal frictional w (with slight friction both at the back and at the lips); but already in PQ this w was weakened. The weakening was later than the beginnings of the change of original w > v, and w < gw remained as such and distinct from w, v for some time: in earlier PQ it is not represented by the sign for v; but in TQ it had become identified with w, v (OP2: PE19/75-76).
In notes from the late 1950s or early 1960s, Tolkien indicated this was a Ñoldorin-only change:
In this respect EQ [Exilic Quenya] represented the recognition of sound-changes which had begun among the Noldor before the Exile and had already caused Noldorin Quenya to diverge from the language of the Vanyar. The principal of these were: ... the change of w to v (except in nw, tw, hw, kw, ngw) ... (PE17/129).
He did not specifically declare that the “w” in question was limited to the ones derived from gw, but that would make the most sense in light of his notes elsewhere.
As a further indication of the relative lateness of this change, Tolkien continued to spell many of these words with w instead of v (or in some cases, vacillated on the spelling):
The Sindarin/Noldorin forms provide additional evidence that the etymology of these words involved gw, but they present a problem as well. If, in fact, these words began with gw in Primitive Elvish, then the proper Sindarin/Noldorin forms should show gw- > b-, as in S. balch above, but many of the examples show S. gw-. Perhaps the initial gw developed in these words after the Ancient Telerin sound shift (gw- > b-), but in a period before the second sundering when the Elves were still in contact with one another.
Other evidence for the relative lateness of this shift can be found in Tengwar usage. In The Lord of the Rings Appendix E, Tolkien said that the tengwa vilya “air” (n) originally has the pronunciation wilya (LotR/1123); however where it appeared in tengwar writing it was used to represent [w]. This word is almost certainly related to wilwarin “butterfly” with the same phonetic development gw > ʒw > w > v, and furthermore the last change was late enough that the tengwa n was still used to represent [w] in many contexts.
Furthermore, it is likely that tengwar Grade 6 containing n (vilya) was originally a set of voiced spirants: 6 y h n = ð ƀ ʒ ʒw ([ð] [β] [ɣ] [ɣw]): that is dental, bilabial, velar and labialized-velar voiced spirants. Ultimately these came to represent 6 = medial [r], y = [v] and n = [w], with h (anna) losing most of its original function and being repurposed to represent various vowel and semi-vowel sounds, such as [o] in Sindarin.
This begs the question of how [w] was represented in tengwar before these sound changes. Somewhat cryptically Tolkien said that “[tengwa] 35 [l] and 36 [.] were, when used as consonants, mostly applied to y and w respectively (LotR/1121).” This is never the case in any tengwar samples, where they are used exclusively to represent the final vowel in diphthongs, [ı̯] or [u̯] respectively, such as: au = .E. However, their use as consonants might describe their old [PQ] usage: perhaps these were the original representation of consonantal y and w.
If the tengwa . (úre) = [w] in early PQ, this function would have been largely unnecessary after primitive w merged with ƀ < b: the tengwa y (vala) could have been used to represent this new pronunciation. The tengwa n (wilya) = ʒw would have been the only remaining “w like” tengwa, and was probably repurposed to represent this sound in other combinations like lw = jn or tw = 1n. It seems to have retained this function even after ʒw > w > v. See for example, Tolkien’s writing on the Feanorian Alphabet from the 1940s where n was used for [w] (PE22/16, 43), though in this conceptual period the tengwa name was winge (PE22/22, 51). See also the Old Valinorian use where . was used for [w] (PE22/13 note #22, replacing deleted n).
Finally, Tolkien noted that tengwa #22 came to represent v in all cases: “Quenya did not possess dh, gh, ghw, and for v used letter 22” (LotR/1032). Thus it seems:
All of this was aided by the fact that the most common w-clusters had dedicated tengwar, such as z = [kw] and b = [ŋw]. As such, these tengwar would not require any changes as the writing system switched from using . to using n as the sign for [w]. Note that a similar change occurred in tengwar usage for y [j]. The tengwa l (yanta) gradually came to be only used for diphthongs, and the combination hÍ (anna with palatalization tehta, originally ʒy) came to be used for [j] after ʒy > y.
Some of the above is speculative, but these conclusions fit the available evidence, and indicate the depth of Tolkien’s thinking on the interaction of various phonetic developments with the use of the tengwar writing system. Similar developments occur in real-world languages: the history of English “w” (double-“u”) has its own interesting complexities.
Conceptual Development: This sound change was not relevant in the 1930s, since ʒw > w before w > v, so that ʒw and w merged before it became a labial spirant. See the entry on how [w] became [β] initially and between vowels for further discussion.
Neo-Quenya: It is common in Neo-Quenya to avoid all these complexities simply by changing all initial w- to v- in (Neo) Quenya words, a practice followed in Eldamo as well. However, the late retention of w from gw is a useful excuse for retaining initial w in the Quenya words where it appears if you wish to mimic Tolkien’s own writing, where w was often retained. This could be representative of classical spelling, with either [w] or [v] being viable as pronunciations. As noted above, derivation from gw may not actually be the case for all such words, however, especially those that show initial gw- in Sindarin.
]]>When stressed the sequence wo was usually changed to wa. A similar change occurs in Noldorin. But when unstressed wo was often reduced (before the unrounding of the o) to o with loss of w. Cf. the development of *gwo- “together” > wa- and o-´. The sequence wō remained unchanged (OP1: PE19/53).
When stressed the sequence wo was usually changed > wa. A similar change also occurred in Sindarin. But when unstressed wo was often reduced to o with loss of w. An example of both is provided by CE gwo “together” > wa- as a stressed prefix or element, but o- as an unstressed pretonic prefix. The sequence wō remained unchanged (OP2: PE19/106).
Here the rule is clear: wŏ was only reduced if short and unstressed. However, in the Quendi and Eldar essay from around 1960 Tolkien said:
WO ... This does not remain in Q as an independent word. It is however a frequent prefix in the form ó- (usually reduced to o- when unstressed) ... Telerin use does not materially differ; but in form the w- (lost in Quenya before ō) is retained: prefix vō, vo- (WJ/367).
This note indicates w could be lost before long ō. Furthermore, in The Shibboleth of Feanor from 1968 Tolkien said:
Connexion with Telerin vola “a roller, long wave”, which was sometimes made by the Teleri themselves, was not a serious etymology but a kind of pun; for the king’s name was not normally Volwë (Common Eldarin *wolwē) but Olwë in Telerin as in Quenya, and w was not lost before o in Telerin as it was in Quenya (PM/357-8 note #20).
These two notes from the 1960s seem to imply that wo > o more generally in Quenya. There are, in fact no obvious examples of wo surviving to become vo in Quenya, with the exception of a (deleted) etymology of Q. < ✶ (PE17/38), elsewhere derived from Val. (WJ/399). The most common example of the reduction of wo > o is in the etymology of the prefix “together” given above, but the pronominal suffix -ngo that seems to be the dual of -ngwë in a 1964 pronominal paradigm could be another example (PE17/75; VT49/48); hat tip to Vyacheslav Stepanov for pointing this out to me.
Conceptual Development: Both wo- and qo- appear in Qenya words from Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s, so it is unlikely this reduction of wo applied in Tolkien’s earliest conception of Quenya. There is evidence that quo- remained valid in Tolkien’s later writings, since qo- was given as a possible initial combination in a discussion of reduplicating syllables from the Quenya Verbal System written in 1948 (PE22/112). This qo- postdates Tolkien’s 1930s discussion of wo > o from OP1 discussed above (PE19/53), which is evidence that this rule did not apply to quo as late as 1948.
Neo-Quenya: For Neo-Quenya, I prefer to assume that only initial wo > o, mainly so that I can continue to use early Early Qenya words starting with qo-. However, other Neo-Quenya writers assume kwo > ko in Late Quenya, rendering early words beginning with quo- invalid.
]]>kh: produced a back spirant [χ], as “ch” in Welsh. It was not markedly fronted by adjacent front vowels (e, i), at least no more than the corresponding stop k. During the PQ period this spirant became weakened to breath [h] initially (and initially in the second elements of recognized or loose compounds), but remained a spirant medially ...
In Lindarin also kh became weakened to h (but not lost) medially; except in ht, and in rh, lh. This weakening was very general in all varieties of TQ, but a spirant was usually maintained in ht, rh, lh (Lindarin tt; and rh, lh > rrh, llh, long voiceless r, l) (OP1: PE19/30-31).
In the 1930s, the medial unvoicing was only fully accomplished in the Lindarin dialect, no doubt because the Noldor were familiar with the sound χ in their native Noldorin [pre-Sindarin] language. After Noldorin became Sindarin circa 1950, this was no longer relevant, and the medial change also became universal, as reflected in the description in OP2:
kh became the back spirant [χ], as “ch” in Welsh. It was not markedly fronted by adjacent front vowels ē̆, ī̆, at least no more than the corresponding stop k (or “ck” in English “thick”). In PQ this spirant became weakened to the breath h initially (including the beginnings of the second elements of recognized or loose compounds); but remained a spirant medially ...
In the TQ, also medial [χ], spirantal h, became weakened to breath h. This change was common to all the Valinorean dialects. Again the distinction in spelling was usually maintained, and the learned among the Noldor often restored the pronunciation [χ] for d (or medial h), since that sound was a familiar one (medially) in Sindarin. Note that in certain combinations, dealt with below, such as ht, the weakening to h did not occur (OP2: PE19/71).
It seems spirantal χ lingered longest medially after the liquids l, r, but eventually weakened to produce long voiceless l, r. In the 1930s this was only fully accomplished in Lindarin (see above), but in the 1950s this was a universal change:
[In late (TQ) combinations] long voiceless r, l from older rh, lh (originally = [rχ, lχ]). The spelling was often retained, though [h] ½ was sometimes written for d [χ] (OP2: PE19/82).
Tolkien also mentioned the development of l, r + χ in notes on the Feanorian Alphabet from the 1940s:
Medial lh, rh original = lχ, rχ became ľľ, řř, but the spelling jLd (or jL½), 6Éd (or 7½) was maintained (PE22/45).
Tengwar usage indicates the comparative lateness of the medial χ > h change. In early PQ the tengwa ½ (halla) was used to represent [h] initially (PE19/74); this sound was derived from primitive initial [ɣ] (ʒ) or from preserved primitive [h] in those periods when Tolkien imagined the primitive sound was voiceless. This sound could only appear initially, and after initial χ > h in PQ, the initial [h] of that origin also came to be spelled with ½ to better distinguish it from medial χ [x] (d) which still survived. This was reflected in the revised name of the tengwa d, as described in The Lord of the Rings Appendix E:
Thus No. 11 [d] was called harma when it represented the spirant “ch” in all positions, but when this sound became breath h initially (though remaining medially) the name aha was devised (LotR/1123).
This change in tengwar usage is also mentioned in notes on the Feanor Alphabet from the 1940s:
Initial d [h] = [χ] became already in the classical period breath h. It is thus permissible to use ½ = d initially (only). But the better use is d throughout (PE22/44).
After χ > h medially as well, d was also pronouned [h], except only in the combination ht [xt]. Also note that by the time of TQ, the spelling of initial [h] was switched from halla ½ to hyarmen 9 (PE19/71), perhaps for aesthetic reasons. The end result was that in Quenya tengwar usage the sign d was used for h medially, but the sign 9 was used for h initially; ½ remained principally as a marker of voicelessness.
As discussed above, medial the long voiceless lh, rh could be spelled with either d or ½: lh = jd or j½ and rh = 6d (PQ 7d) or 6½. The spellings with d were the historically correct ones in most cases. The medial spellings with ½ were probably borrowed from the spelling of initial voiceless lh, rh: as noted above, spelling with a preceding or following ½ was often used to represent voiceless sounds in the both the PQ and TQ periods.
Conceptual Development: These same developments happened initially for χ in Early Qenya, as discussed in Qenya Phonology from the 1910s, but medially it was voiced to [ɣ] as was usual for intervocalic voiceless spirants and ultimately vanished, surviving only in combination with other consonants:
χ or h: Initially gave h. Medially (and initially in certain old atonic forms): between vowels > γ > vanished; where h now appears it is due: (1) to some spirant combination (rare), as in Sahóra, and here is only maintained before a stressed vowel, e.g sahóra = saχsōđa, and the development to h < χχ, or to ks < χs is either sporadic or originally dialectal or due to different period of juxtaposition (saxóra appears); (2) to later compositions (PE12/18).]]>
HY was usually derived from sy- and khy- (LotR/1115)
Tolkien described this sound change in both the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s and the Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the 1950s:
khy became χy with [χ] fronted. The ultimate result was a strong voiceless y [ꜧ] here transcribed hy - similar to (but more strongly spirantal than) the sound of English “huge” ... khw became [χw]. This combination was rare except initially. There, parallel to the development of khy, it became spirantal voiceless w [ƕ]. It was more tense and spirantal than English (northern) initial “wh-” (OP1: PE19/34-5).
khy became first [χy] with voiceless y and marked fronting of the [χ]. The result already in PQ was initially and medially a strong voiceless y [ꜧ], here transcribed hy, similar to, but more frictional than the initial sound in English “huge” ... khw became first [χw] with unvoiced w. Parallel to the development of khy this became in PQ a spirantal voiceless w [ƕ]. It was more tense with closer lip-aperture and more friction than the voiceless “wh” of English. This combination was in CE rare medially, but not uncommon initially. It is here transcribed hw (OP2: PE19/75).
These sound changes can also be seen in the Comparative Tables of phonetic developments from the 1930s (PE19/18). The sound change khy > hy must have occurred before , because there is no sign that khy > thy. Tolkien made this explicit in notes from 1930s:
Note khy did not become thy, but produced [χy] with fronted [χ] a strongly spirantal (long) voiceless [y], [ꜧ] transcribed hy (OP1: PE19/40).
This also means these unvoicings probably began before the more general sound change whereby [x] became [h] (which did not occur until Parmaquesta), though they were probably driven by the same forces. Examples of khy > hy can be found in the 1930s through the 1960s, but explicit examples of khw > hw are difficult to find:
In the 1930s, Tolkien also indicated these sounds were the result of initial sky-, skw- > χy-, χw- > ꜧ-, ƕ- (OP1: PE19/36). Examples include:
However, sometime in the 1950s, he decided these initial combinations were no longer possible in Primitive Elvish (PE19/78, note #51).
Conceptual Development: Tolkien’s earliest conception of Primitive Elvish from the 1910s and 1920s already had voiceless palatalized and labialized spirantal sounds, which Tolkien transcribed χ̑ (or þ͡y) and x͡w (PE12/15). The palatalized sound developed initially into hy- in examples from the Qenya Lexicon: “here by us” and hyanda “blade” (QL/41). However, medially Tolkien seems to have denoted this sound as Ẏ in early primitive roots and it developed into an ordinary voiced y.
There are no clear examples for the development of x͡w- in the Qenya Lexicon, but charts in the Qenya Phonology indicate it became hu̯- [hw-] in the Kor-Eldarin period but later f (PE12/16). The more detail description of its initial development states that it generally became f initially except before u where it became h (PE12/17). There is some evidence of this initial development to f/h in the Qenya Lexicon: ᴱ√ > ᴱQ. or fui (QL/41). Medially it was denoted Ẇ and became ordinary voiced w.
Somewhat interestingly, the description of the phonetic development of χ̑ in Qenya Phonology states that it generally became hy initially but sometimes became s dialectically (PE12/18). The chart on its development in the Kor-Eldarin period shows that it passed through the sound sı̯- [sy-] (PE12/16), perhaps representing a labialized s or a voiceless co-articulated sy-sound (IPA [ꜧ]). This is the only evidence I have found that Tolkien’s use of ꜧ as an alternate representation of hy might match its common IPA usage.
Note that in the 1930s, Tolkien flirted with the idea that sy, sw also merged with khy, khw medially as well as initially to become (long) voiceless hy, hw (OP1: PE19/49, 50). However, there is no evidence of this in contemporaneous examples, where medial -sy- > -ry-: ᴹ√ > ᴹQ. “juice” (Ety/PIS). These sound changes sy, sw > hy, hw reappear in the table for medial developments in OP2 (PE19/80) but not in the main body of the text where the normal medial development was sy, sw > zy, zw > ry, rw (PE19/102). This matches all the examples from the 1950s and 60s, so it seems likely the concept of medial unvoicing for sy, sw was ultimately abandoned.
]]>d became r̃, as between vowels, before w. But dr, dl > rr, ll. In other words, in Quenya, before l, r, w CE d and r became identical ... Note dr, dl > rr, ll also occurred in Vanyarin. The assimilation probably took place at stage řl, řr before V. shift of > z. But sl, sr > zl, zr had same result in V. (and Ñ.) (OP2: PE19/94)
In that case there are three developments of sr: ... (b) after the voicing of intervocalic s > z, sr > zr > rr (such forms were more frequent in N. dialect, since z itself had there become r) ... sl remained as such until the voicing; then zl > ll (OP2: PE19/102).
Since ř, z merged to z instead of ř/r in Vanyarin, the Vanyarin developments indicate the shift to ll, rr took place before the ř/z-mergers of both dialects. Thus, the likeliest phonetic developments were ðl, ðr; zl, zr > ll, rr directly rather than becoming r first.
Conceptual Development: The Early Qenya developments are confused by the fact that ð is part of phonetic inventory of Primitive Elvish in the 1910s and 1920s. Tolkien mentioned no special developments for these combinations in the Qenya Phonology from the 1910s (PE12/24). There are no clear examples of any developments for dl, ðl, dr, ðr in this period, with the possible exception of ᴱ✶ > ᴱQ. (but here the presence of syllabic ḷ confuses the picture).
Tolkien did describe developments for s > z before l, r, however:
s gave z and then r before l, r ... giving ll, ´r (PE12/19)
Tolkien indicates z vanished before r with compensatory lengthening rather than the pair developing into rr, but there are no clear examples. There is one example of sl [> zl] > ll: ᴱ✶ > ᴱQ. “helmet” (PE13/140).
In the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s, Tolkien did describe special developments for dl, dr:
[d] became [r] as between vowels, before y, w; dr, dl > rr, ll (OP1: PE19/46).
However in this period, it seems that dr, dl > rr, ll is part of the general trend whereby [d] > [r]. There is an example ᴹ✶ > ᴹQ. in The Etymologies (Ety/NYAD). Tolkien likewise mentioned these developments in OP1 for sl but not for sr:
While s was still voiceless sr > sř > ss (similar to developments after stops); but sl appears to have remained as such, and asyllabic. Hence it later became zl > ll (OP1: PE19/49).
There are no examples from the 1930s and 40s that demonstrates sr > ss. However, the sound change sr > rr is mentioned in rejected notes from OP1 (PE19/52 note #119), and there is at least one example of it in this period: ᴹ√ > ᴹQ. “rise (from ground)”, ᴹQ. orro “up in the air, on high” (PE22/127). The best example of zl > ll is the (archaic) perfect of the verb: ᴹQ. “creep” derived from the root ᴹ√: izlīk- > †illīk[ie] (PE22/113).
]]>The earliest of these voicings, possibly already in CE, or at least AQ, was in sm, sn > zm, zn. The product of these in PQ was mm, nn. When later but before the general medial voicing of s the suffixes m, n were re-added to voiceless [s] the nasal was probably unvoiced and sm, sn > sw, st [per note #109 Tolkien wrote an “X” in the margin next to this and then “zm, nn”]. But cases are rare, and may be usually explained by suffix-alternation (OP1: PE19/49).
The change of sm, sn > zm, zn was the earliest. Here the phonetic change was > mm, nn. These were preserved in PQ and Noldorin TQ. In Ñ. after the change of z > r, in that dialect the etymological or grammatical relations of r to mb/nd became obscure and rm, rn were sometimes produced by re-formation as in √LAS “listen”, AQ lammo “listener” (spy or scout), Ñ larmo (OP2: PE19/101).
It is not entirely clear when zn, zm became nn, mm, but it must have been before . The example AQ. above indicates the sound change occurred in AQ; this word is also the best example of zm > mm. The best example of zn > nn is ᴹ✶ > ᴹQ. “husband” in The Etymologies (Ety/BES).
Conceptual Development: In the Qenya Phonology from the 1910s Tolkien said that s before n, m ultimately became rm, rn (PE12/19). Examples include:
The small number of examples makes it difficult to determine when Tolkien adopted the rules described in OP1 and OP2.
]]>Conceptual Development: According to the Qenya Phonology of the 1910s, the change of z > r was a factor in the development of intervocalic d, with d > đ [ð] > z > r (PE12/15-16, 24). In this early conceptual stage intervocalic s did not become z, and only final “s > z > -r (PE12/20)” although s > z > r did also occur before voiced consonants (PE12/19). It is not unusual to see Early Qenya words with -s- in its stem form but r in its uninflected form, both in the Qenya Lexicon and other documents from the 1910s and 20s:
Where final s did appear in Early Qenya, it was as the reduction of consonant clusters like ss. Note that the last three examples reappeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s:
However, this final -s > -r was not the only phonetic development in the 1930s. Tolkien gradually reversed himself, so that intervocalic s > z > r and final s survived in Quenya. The first indications of this trend appeared in Qenya noun declensions from the 1920s and early 1930s, where “head” was the uninflected form but inflected forms showed kar-, as in plurals kari/karin (PE14/69; PE16/112-3; PE21/22). The reappearance of in the mid-30s indicates Tolkien vacillated somewhat on this conceptual shift, but intervocalic s > z > r was the sound change he described in the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1940s:
s. Initially this remained unchanged. Medially in AQ and the earliest PQ it also remained unchanged, except in certain combinations discussed below. Later, but in the classical period it became voiced to [z] between vowels. This pronunciation as [z] remained the standard TQ pronunciation, serving as it did to distinguish early classical s, th after the development of th, þ > s (but never to z).
Note 1. In Lindarin z went on to r falling in with d, r. In TQ and later writings certain forms with r of Lindarin origin appear. This is especially the case with names. For example: Q Tindómirel “nightingale” (and name of Thingol’s daughter), N Tinnuviel from Eldarin *Tindōmi-ĕselde. Tindómirel (PQ Tindómisel) (OP1: PE19/33).
In the first draft of OP1, Tolkien attributed the final shift of z > r to Telerin and the pure Quenya form of Tinnuviel’s name was Tindómizil (PE19/33 notes #25-26). He then revised z > r to be a Lindarin [pre-Vanyarin] change as above, not in general Quenya usage (that is, not by the Noldor). The same remained true in the original draft of the Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the 1950s, where Tolkien attributed z > r to Vanyarin (PE19/73 note #26). But Tolkien reversed this so that z > r in the Ñoldorin dialect of Quenya and in Telerin:
This sound z was retained in Vanyarin, and so in their Tarquesta. In Noldorin & Telerin not long before the Exile z became first the same as the ř (derived from d) and later with that became merged with r. Some names and words showing this Vanyarin s/z were adopted in N. TQ before the Exile. Also owing to the prestige of the Vanyar the rhotacism was avoided throughout by some of the Noldor, especially those hostile to Feanor, but it was nonetheless a normal feature of Exilic TQ. Since z was not a sound used in Sindarin the pronunciation of z as s was often heard in Exilic TQ, especially among those that restored þ for the s-product of CE th. This mode was called “the Lisp of the Loremasters.” An example is furnished by AQ tindōmi-sel(dĕ) “nightingale” > Q tindómizel (Ñ tindómerel) = Sindarin tindúmhihel > Tinnúviel (OP2: PE19/73).
In this last scenario, [z] merged with [ɹ] (ř) as derived from [ð/d] (probably pre-Exile), and then [ɹ] became [r] (probably post-Exile). These edits was made in green ball point, indicating revisions made around 1970. However, there are references to this Ñoldorin-dialect sound change in a discussion of omentielmo vs. omentielvo, so this conceptual shift must at least predate the publication of the second edition of The Lord of the Rings:
In this respect EQ [Exilic Quenya] represented the recognition of sound-changes which had begun among the Noldor before the Exile and had already caused Noldorin Quenya to diverge from the language of the Vanyar. The principal of these were: 1. the change of both z (from s) and ř (from d) to r ... Of these the last stage in rhotacism, the change of z (< s) to r, was latest & probably belongs in the early Exilic (PE17/129).
Indeed, Vanyarin words with z (versus Ñoldorin words with r) appear in the Quendi and Eldar essay written in 1960. Tolkien also mentioned the sound change z > r in The Lord of the Rings Appendix E, where it must have referred to Exilic Quenya:
áre was originally áze, but when this z became merged with [tengwa] 21 [6], the sign was in Quenya used for the very frequent ss of that language, and the name esse was given to it (LotR/1123).
Thus the tengwa k (áze/áre), originally used for [z] as the voiced version of 8 [s] (double-bow typically indicates voicing in tengwar) ceased to be used for this sound after ř and z merged, being replaced with 6 (óre). This fits with the OP2 scenario described above. Since [ð] > [ɹ] first (probably in PQ), it follows that when [z] > [ɹ] (probably in early TQ) the tengwa 6 would be used for these new pronunciations and k abandoned (so it could later be repurposed for [ss]). The confusion in r-tengwar (6 vs. 7) was probably a late TQ phenomenon, after [ɹ] > [r]. This specific scenario for these tengwar came out of a Discord conversation with Shihali on 10-18-2019.
Despite the fact that this sound change occurred in Tarquesta [TQ], Tolkien almost never used z in Quenya spelling, with rare exceptions for explicitly Vanyarin words like “green” and , and occasional aberrant forms like Q. hríza “snow” (PE17/168) and ᴹQ. tyaze “like” (PE22/119). The letter z also appears in Tolkien’s Quenya translations of Catholic prayers where he may have been emulating an archaic style (VT43/8-9). Even in the 1930s where this was supposedly a “Lindarin” sound change, Tolkien used r as the ultimate result of s > z, and this remained true in the 1950s and 60s:
]]>[z] had only originally appeared in CE in the groups: zd, zg, and rare zb. These groups were unvoiced in Q. Cf. p. 21 on voiced stops. The resultant st remained; sk, sp were usually metathesized to ks, ps (OP1: PE19/48).
In conjunction with s. After s in CE zb, zd, zg were produced. These were unvoiced in PQ > sp, st, sk, later usually ps, st, ks (OP2: PE19/95).
As indicated above, the resulting pairs . This metathesis seems to be later than the other Quenya metatheses; see that entry further discussion. Examples of the unvoicing of z + stops are plentiful in Quenya. A representative sample includes:
The combination st was also the result of zd produced from d+d by suffixion, as in ✶red+dā > rezdā > Q. “sown field” (EtyAC/RED; OP2: PE19/91).
Conceptual Development: Finding clear examples of this development in Early Quenya is quite difficult, but given the prevalence of s + voiceless stop combinations (and the complete absence of z) it was likely a factor in the phonetic development of the earliest conception of the language as well.
]]>As the Orome example illustrates, this must have been a somewhat ancient change, before .
Conceptual Development: There is no evidence of anything like a-fortification in Tolkien’s earliest conception of Primitive Elvish in the 1910s and 1920s.
]]>ph: produced a bilabial spirant [ꝑ] ... Later or Tarquesta changes. ph > ꝑ became the labio-dental f (OP1: PE19/30-31)
ph became a bilabial spirant [ꝑ]. Later where preserved this became labio-dental [f] (OP2: PE19/71).
b became ƀ (bilabial v). Later, where preserved, ƀ became labio-dental v (OP1: PE19/32).
b became bilabial ƀ. Later, where preserved, ƀ became labio-dental v (OP2: PE19/69).
Examples are numerous in all conceptual periods. In the Late Quenya of the 1950s and 60s, the same developments applied to ƀ derived from w (OP2: PE19/72), but in the 1930s w > v occurred after the shift of ꝑ, ƀ > f, v (OP1: PE19/33).
In OP1 of the 1940s, Tolkien said that ꝑ > f in Tarquesta [TQ]. Likewise in notes associated with The Shibboleth of Feanor from the last 1960s, Tolkien indicates the ꝑ > f shift was fairly late, probably early in the TQ period but before þ > s, and that this sound change did not occur at all in the Vanyarin dialect:
It would appear that for reasons not now, of course, fully understood, the majority of the Ñoldor developed a distaste for the sound þ. This in Quenya was earlier, as it remained in Vanyarin, a dental spirant (made with the tongue-tip behind the back of the upper front teeth, which makes the passage to s easier). Similarly the labial spirant f was bilabial, and so remained in Vanyarin. The shift from dental and labial þ and f to interdental þ and labio-dental f occurred first in Telerin. The labio-dental f soon spread to Noldorin. Probably because it helped to make f and the voiceless w (transcribed hw) of Quenya more clearly distinguished (VT41/7).
In a footnote to the above quote Tolkien said:
The Ñoldor, before they made the change, accused the Vanyar of confusing the two sounds. In fact if left to unheeded change they would probably have merged in Quenya hw. Their near approach (by slackening the spirantal friction of f) before the separation of Vanyar and Noldor is seen in the development of phu- > *hwu- > hu-, as in Quenya huine “gloom”, unrelieved darkness (as a night without stars or moon), Telerin fuine of same sense, Sindarin fuin “night”. Later when the merging had been checked in Noldorin it was one of Feanor’s jests to declare that the Vanyar called his father Hwinwe and himself Hwëanaro (VT41/8 note #1).
Hat tip to Shihali for pointing out these two quotes to me. In OP2, Tolkien did not mention the preservation of bilabial f [ɸ] in Vanyarin, but he did say that hw > f in that dialect (PE19/75, 79, 88). This Vanyarin-only development is more plausible if f remained as bilabial ꝑ, so Tolkien may have established the TQ timing of ꝑ > f in OP2 or even in OP1.
Tolkien was less explicit on the timing of ƀ > v, but since
