Post by greywhiteblue on Sept 24, 2015 23:38:08 GMT
In the book Pedin Edhellen on page 17 - section 1.2.2 genitive (a copy can be found here: www.davio.se/sindarin.pdf ), it says that the genitive can be expressed by
1. using the articles
eg:ion i aran (son of the king)
ion in erain (son of the kings)
cabed i aras (leap of the deer)
2. using 'en / enan'
eg:cabed en aras (leap of the deer)
ion en aran (son of the king)
ion enan erain (son of kings)
methed en nirnaeth (end of bitter tears)
aran en noeg, (king of the dwarves)
3. using 'nan' or 'nia'
eg:aras nan aran (deer of the king)
ion nia erain (sons of the kings)
My question is: When is one supposed to use 'i / in' as opposed to 'en / enan' as opposed to 'nan / nia'? Or, in other words: When does one prefer eg: 'nan / nia' over 'i / in', or 'en / enan' over 'nan / nia'?
The only place 'nia' is actually found in Tolkien's work is here. As you can see it isn't a plural of 'nan', or Sindarin. 'Enan' doesn't exist at all, so I have to conclude that they were both reconstructions by Thorsten Renk.
The attested forms we have are: En = Of the (singular) In = (Of) the (plural) Cabed en aras = Leap of the deer Cabed in erais = Leap of the deer (plural)
If you said Cabed i aras you're saying 'Leap the deer', but where 'leap' is a noun and not a command. It's not good Sindarin (or English). If on the other hand you said Cabo i aras this would make sense as it does include a command - Leap the deer!
Nan is the older form of the preposition Na which means 'by, with'. It did mean 'of the', but in Goldogrin (Gnomish), the language predating Sindarin (in the real world and the legendarium) that became Noldorin and then Sindarin. (See here for the evidence.) In Sindarin, Cabed nan aras = Leap by/with/of a deer (in an old dialect). In modern Sindarin you would say Cabed n'aras = Leap by/with/of a deer.
Further examples using the given 'son of a king': Ion aran = King's son (son of a king) Ion en aran = Son of the king Ion in erain = Son of the kings or Ion erain = Kings' son Ion n'aran = Son by/of/with a king Ion nan aran = Son by/of/with a king (in older Sindarin). Older means 'a speaker from the First Age'. Ion n'erain = Son by/of/with kings Ion nan erain = Son by/of/with kings (in older Sindarin).
The difference between saying 'Ion en aran' and 'Ion n'aran' is basically the same in English. One says 'I am the son of the King', and the second says 'I am the son by the King'. The latter would tend to suggest you're either not a legitimate prince (by a King? hmm...), you speak quite archaically, or perhaps deferently.
I hope that makes sense, if you have any questions from all that please ask!
This is a little off topic but I didn't want to make a new thread if it wasn't necessary, so here it is: how good a resource do you think is Pedin Edhellen to learn Sindarin? That's what I started with and I find the lessons well constructed (also particularly love the Sindarin texts at the beginning of each one, being more of a hands-on learner) and I wonder how much of it is "reconstructed" and, thus, not worth learning?
Well. It's outdated, and there are several things that are incorrect: 1) The use of Ma to mean 'yes'. It only means 'Good!' as an interjection, e.g. "I passed the exam!" "Good!". The only known way to say 'yes' is Athon = Yes I will in response to a question.
2) The use of male and female personal pronouns (ho, ha). These are earlier Noldorin and didn't survive the transition into later Sindarin. You will find them used in the dialogue of the films, but this was because they predate the publication of several linguistic notes and journals. Modern Sindarin uses Te = He/she/it is.
3) Using Uin for 'I am not'. This does exist but is much older, see the section on negation in this lesson.
4) "ion (pl. ion)". The plural of Ion is Yn. Amusingly he states this himself on page 34. Also the usage of Sell for 'daughter'; this is older usage, the word is 'Iell'.
5) The use of 'mi' instead of 'vi' for 'in (a place)'. I only recently swapped this one myself, and bizarrely 'vi' does make an appearance on page 56.
6) He notes that 'LH' and 'RH' may alter under soft mutation differently depending on the word but doesn't expound upon why, and which ones.
7) His soft mutations following 'a' (and) are flat out wrong unless you want to only speak in an archaic fashion (i.e. like an Elf from the First Age). I teach modern Third Age+ Sindarin.
8) The blanket plural rule of 'if an 'a' is followed by r, l and an aspirated stop the final a changes to e' doesn't have any evidence.
9) No mention that AW changes differently for plural mutation depending on whether it's in a monosyllabic word or not.
10) His use of the infinitive is outdated. He uses the -i ending (Pedi, Teli) - this is old Noldorin, modern Sindarin uses the same ending as the gerund (-ad/-ed/-od depending on the verb type).
11) The object pronouns are completely messed up.
12) Lesson 9, past tense of I-stem verbs is practically entirely fictional. It gives you the 3rd person past tenses of two verbs in particular, Gwedh- = to bind, and Had- = to throw, as Ewend (he bound) and Achant (he threw) respectively. Except Tolkien himself wrote down how to form these two past tenses, and it's Hant = He threw, and Gwedhant = He bound. This point I think is one of the most salient.
13) Because this was published before the publication of Parma Eldalamberon #22 the future tense lesson is missing quite a lot of information.
14) He uses 'ae' for 'if'. Pe is a much better reconstruction (Ae is also a reconstruction).
15) Lesson 11 makes me want to give up when it talks about 'analagous past tenses'. This is pure supposition.
16) The discussion about 'aen' is outdated as we know now exactly what it does. It doesn't mean 'may'.
17) The dative pronouns are messed up (much like the object).
That all aside, I have always liked the general layout of his lessons with a short dialogue to introduce vocabulary followed by the vocabulary in a table. I make no comment upon the tengwar because I don't read it and have no interest in it.
I never could have hoped for a more thorough answer and I thank you very much for the time you took to write it.
Just like you I very much enjoy the lessons' layout which is why, until I found your lessons that is, I never really bothered to look for any other resources. Nonetheless I might have to abandon it and focus all my attention on yours because I wouldn't want to learn "outdated" Sindarin. Plus it might be interesting to use the Pedin Edhellen's text as an exercize, trying to "correct" them.