Daniel Andreasson writes:
 > Brook Conner wrote:

 > > 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.

It's a question of which we want to emphasize: the wish or the
language? As this is a shirt on conlangs, I'd suggest the
language. Further, the "wish" concept is fairly buried in the
idiomatic English original: Your language goes here.


 > > Further, I still am not satisfied with "sinome" not being declined.
 > >
 > > It's a noun, not a pronoun - "here" doesn't need an antecedent.
 > What do you mean? Does pronouns need antecedents? Why would
 > 'here' need an antecedent?

Hmmm, maybe it's because I've been learning lojban, but I've gotten
really picky about unclear antecedents. No, scratch that - I've been
picky about it since writing a book. :-)

"Here" doesn't need an antecedent - it means "the area around me, the
speaker" (but can be narrowed with some sort of subordinate phrase or
clause).  While words like "I" and "you" are usually called pronouns,
they don't have the problem specific to pronouns and no other parts of
speech - pronouns need something else to establish what they really
mean. "That" can stand for any noun, even an entire clause. "It" works
the same way.  "Here" does not have this problem.


 > > >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_.

By this logic, Ro'men wouldn't be declined either - notice the "men"
at the end - I don't have the refs in front of me, but I'd be willing
to bet it is the same stem.  So presence of "men" does not by itself
indicate an implicit locative *case* (note the distinction - the
locative case is used for indicating location - it is not itself the
way you make something *into* a location).

 > 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
 > favour of #nome."
 > I think this clearly says that there should not be any
 > locative case ending on 'sinome'.

How exactly does it say that? It simply says "#man/men" has a variant
form of "#nome". Given the declension of Ro'men, this would seem to
require, in fact, the opposite - that things based on "#man/men/nome"
(which are all equivalent) *should* in fact be declined. The attested
use of "sinome" is "undeclined" because it would be the direct object,
thus accusative, thus identical in form to the declarative.


 > > Chop off the end of sinome, starting from "esse".
 > Good start. You seem to have changed your mind. :)

No - I'm just willing to describe the tengwar for something I think is
ungrammatical :-)

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

No - this was mostly me being sloppy and annoyed at the whole
"sinome/sinomesse" question - I know, I should just relax.

 > > 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'?)

Malta. And "D'oh!". I was looking up the name, and sent it before I
found it.

 > > In total:
 > >
 > > "Nai" :  ore a (short carrier) i
 > Why 'oore'?

Off-by-one error reading the chart. Of course this is numen.

 > > "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?

hyarmen is another stupid mistake - should be malta, of course. In
Quenya, vala is "v", while "vilya" is known as "wilya" and used for

 > > "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... :)

Yes :-)

Just to see if I can start something else:-) consider:

"Brookshire" (that's me)

Brook - Q nelle

Shire - land - Q ardo (no word for "shire" :-)

Drop the last e in nelle to form the compound "nellardo".

or in lojban,

co'o mi'e brukcr.

"If you can't make it good, at least make it look good."
-- Bill Gates on the solid code base of Win9X

Fancy. Myth. Magic.