Brook Conner wrote:

> > If you want something that is certainly grammatically correct,
> > but perhaps slightly more awkward, try=20
> > _nai lambelya maruva sinome_ =3D "may your language dwell here".

> Why does the "lambelya" move between "nai" and "maruva"? I was under
> the impression that Quenya, while generally being SVO, was rather
> flexible about word order.

Then what's wrong about putting 'nai' at the front?
It sounds a lot better to me.

> Replacing "hir-" with "mar-" seems like a good compromise, lacking any
> information on whether "hir-" can be reflexive or not.=20

Yes. I think so too.

> I would ask if
> there is a separate verb attested for "to be located" - "to locate"
> would readily translate as "to find", right?  Which would mean, either
> passive voice or usage of "to find" in the sense of "to find oneself"
> - i.e., to be located. This is the question I keep asking about
> reflexivity of "hir-"

I know there's a noun 'men' meaning 'place', but to make a
verb out of that...=20
And the locative case suffix '-esse' has got to come from
somewhere... ;)

> Further, I still am not satisfied with "sinome" not being declined.
> It's a noun, not a pronoun - "here" doesn't need an antecedent.=20

What do you mean? Does pronouns need antecedents? Why would
'here' need an antecedent?

> It is
> specifying the location of the action named by the verb.=20
> If we
> replaced "sinome" with "Ro'men" - the East, a location - what would
> happen?
> >From "Namarie":
> Si vanwa na', Ro'mello vanwa, Valimar
> We see Ro'men *declined*.  Ro'men is "The East." A location. Clearly
> it has as much "locative" connotation as "sinome"
> So someone please explain again why sinome should not be declined?

Well. I still think the locative connotations is built into 'sinome'.
Let's see what the word 'sinome' comes from. I believe that
it's originally a compound of 'si(na)' _this_ and 'men' or 'nome'
meaning _place_. Also, let me quote Quettaparma Quenyanna and
see what it says.

"In LotR, 'sinome' is translated 'on this place', pointing
to #nome as the word for 'place'. Tolkien first wrote 'siimane',
then changed it to 'sinome'. If #man in the first word is a
variant form of 'men', Tolkien evidently rejected #man/men in=20
favour of #nome."

I think this clearly says that there should not be any
locative case ending on 'sinome'.

>  > Well, I don't think we should be making up uncertain
>  > future forms,

> Agreed - neither "nai hiruva" nor "nai maruva" are uncertain. The
> exact phrase may be unattested, but all the components *are*
> attested.

I know. I was referring to '*euva' as the unattested future
form of 'ea'. I seem to have snipped that part. Sorry.
> > Anyone up for doing the tengwar?
> Chop off the end of sinome, starting from "esse".

Good start. You seem to have changed your mind. :)

Ok. Below I might ask some stupid questions, but I'm
really not that familiar with the tengwar.

> Replace the "hir" part (hyarmen, i, romen) with "mar" ( a romen)

You forgot 'malta' before 'a roomen'. (malta a roomen)
(or should that be 'umbar'?)

> In total:
> "Nai" :  ore a (short carrier) i

Why 'oore'?
> "Lambelya" : lambe a  umbar e lambe yanta a
>   HF suggests lambe a umbar e lambe a two-under-dots
> "maruva" : hyarmen i romen u vala a

Why 'vala' and not 'vilya'? And why 'hyarmen' in the beginning?

> "sinome" : silme (nuquema if prefered) i numen o malta e
> Again, I suggest sinomesse, which adds:
>   esse (again, may be nuquema) e

We'll see about that... :)

/ Daniel Andreasson