J&u((cttn ^ ihe-fe cf

THE TOLKIEN SOCIETY

-pm&'tfpa^fi&t | Editor: Julian Bradfield

Dept of Computer Science
King's Buildings
EDINBURGH
U.K. EH3 9JZ

ISSUE 40 June 1990

CONTENTS
1 Editorial; / Tuluvante; Publications
2 On 'legitimacy5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chris Gilson
7 Quendillon
8 Frodo Torbins in Kvetlorien........ David Doughan
10 Vinyar Tengwar reviewed

Subscriptions and payments to:

Christina Scull
1A Colestown St.
LONDON
SW11 3EH
 Editorial
This issue is, surprise, later than intended, since it seemed sensible to distribute it
at Oxonmoot to those attending that function. We have quite a short issue, since the
files are looking a bit thin, and I want to put a reasonable amount in the next issue to
keep you busy while I withdraw from the world to complete my thesis. Incidentally, my
comments about shorter letters in the last issue did not mean that I don't want long
letters; I'd like short comments as well as long ones!
'How to make your editor very happy 5 : long contributions are especially appreciated
if they appear in the form of clear black typescript or NLQ dot-matrix (i.e. without
visible gaps between the dots), since I'm a very poor typist, and it's a lot easier to stick
things into the document scanner! (Contributions on disc or by email would be even
better, of course; plain ASCII text on Macintosh discs or 5 ^ " floppies, and I'll return
the discs—but always send hard copy as well.)
This issue contains the comments from Chris Gilson promised from last time, and
David Doughan's article on the Russian translation of FotR.

I Tuluvante
In the next issue, I shall bring the Vinyar Tengwar summaries up to date; there
is an article from Arden Smith analysing the runic inscription from the illustration of
Smaug's bed in H; Andrew Carrick, influenced by the Universalists, has things to say
about Quenya morphology; and I hope to have a full review of Parma Eldalamheron 8,
since I notice that we never gave it the detailed review it deserves.

Publications
The War of the Ring, volume 8 of HoM-e. (Unwin Hyman, £17.95)
WTould somebody like to pull out any linguistic items from this?

Parma Eldalamheron 9. $7 (incl. postage) from Chris Gilson, 300 North Civic Drive
#304, Walnut Creek, CA 94956, U.S.A.
Essential reading as always. Contents: 'On the Quenya Past Tense' by Tom
Loback; 'The Wedding of Tuor and Idril', Quenya text by Tom Loback; 'Bird and
Leaf, Image and Structure in Narqelion1 by Patrick Wynne and Chris Gilson; Quenya
poem by Jorge Quinonez; Poem by Patrick Wynne. Full review later.
 On 'legitimacy' in Elvish studies
I read Craig Marnock's analogy in Quettar 38 between Elvish and the visual arts
with some interest. It is an apt metaphor, but one which Tolkien himself carries to a
further insight on his own. I am thinking of course of 'Leaf by Niggle', which Tolkien
dates approximately 1938-9, "when The Lord of the Rings was beginning to unroll
itself", and which was first published in 1947. In it Niggle begins more or less like
Craig's imagined painter: "He had a number of pictures on hand" mostly unfinished,
for he concentrated on leaves, but "he wanted to paint a whole tree, with all of its
leaves in the same style, and all of them different." As it happens "a leaf caught in
the wind" becomes a tree that sends out branches and roots, acquires inhabitants and
a vast background. Then quite remarkably (I think), "Niggle lost interest in his other
pictures; or else he took them and tacked them on to the edges of his great picture.
Soon the canvas became so large that he had to get a ladder; and he ran up and down
it, putting in a touch here, and rubbing out a patch there." While we should not
ignore the touching up nor the rubbing out from the grand picture of the Tree of Elven-
tongues, neither should we consider such modifications 'legitimate' while dismissing the
simple, straightforward tacking on as 'illegitimate'. Indeed such terminology seems to
distract from the true issues involved in attempting to extrapolate Tolkien's final-form
conception of these languages from the comparatively minute fragment of his works
that were published in his lifetime and can receive the legitimate stamp of absolute
certainty.
By 1987 Christopher Tolkien had published seven volumes filled with stories that
Tolkien had abandoned at one point or another. (In one of these, The Silmarillion,
containing the stories for which there was the most ample evidence of the author's
intention of their ultimate publication, the editor presented us with the form approx-
imating that intention to the extent of the available clues—see LR1 part 2, section 6,
comm. on ch. 12-15, p. 298-302, for a sample of the method of editing employed.) For
most of the ample linguistic information embedded in these volumes there is little or
no evidence to decide whether they are branches of the Tree of Eldarin whose pictures
were tacked on by the artist or ones in which he lost interest, nor for that matter (since
we are concerning ourselves with s p e c u l a t i o n about the final form of the overall work),
whether such lost interest might not be later regained. :
The postulation of 'rules of thumb' may be a natural recourse for students of
Eldarin. But consider the real difference between Craig's rule and mine: Craig is saying
merely that he prefers to avoid pve-LotR Elvish (that Tolkien did invent) because he
might possibly have rejected it later. Thus for example he avoids using the suffix -ro 'he'
because it might not be 'final-form' (though certainly he cannot 'deduce' this rejection
so it is not 'legitimate' speculation by his stated standard). I on the other hand prefer
to use pre-LotR Elvish (where it is not provably inconsistent with LotR) in order to
avoid pseudo-Elvish that Tolkien might never have invented in the first place. Thus for
example I avoid using *-hye which was suggested long ago as a possible form for 'he'.
In essence this boils down to two rules of thumb: The conceptionists assume Tolkien
rejected a form where there is insufficient proof that he retained itv while the unifists
assume he retained a form where there is insufficient proof that he rejected it. (With
regard to the forms for which there is enough evidence to establish rejection or retention
we are all in agreement. And I might thus add, by the way, that the fact that LotR is
entirely within this common ground is the reason I do not use the term 'Ringite' which

2
 David has adapted frofil Tom Loback ill his titles tot Gtlr various discussions, as the
term is misleading.)
Now we know that in reality the situation of4 these uttascertainafole forms like -ro
4
he' must lie somewhere between these opposite rules of thumb, that some such pre-LotR
ideas would be rejected and some retained, and it is a belief about the relative frequency
which has led to the alternative theories. (At least I would say, not wanting to put words
in Craig's mouth, that if he does not believe that the majority of these forms were
rejected, then he is admitting that his method excludes a significant amount of final-
form, i.e. unrejected Elvish, and is hardly recommendable as a 'legitimate' method for
aproaching the use of Elvish approximating Tolkien's intention.) Remarkably enough,
the mathematician in me realizes, we can analyse this question of probability as a
corollary of the more general question: Did Tolkien throughout his lifetime more often
retain Elvish forms or reject them? But consider that at the end of his life we have
a corpus of certain retention, namely LotR, 'Notes and Translations' and 'Guide to
Names', all of which had been published; while at the beginning of his life he had not
invented any Elvish yet. So our general question can be related directly to another
question: When Tolkien rejected an Elvish form did he usually replace it with another?
If so we can deduce with certainty that he must have retained more often than rejected
in order to start with zero forms and end up with a positive number—a matter of
simple arithmetic, since the number of invented forms minus the number of rejected
forms equals the number of retained forms.
The importance of this correlation is that while the question of rejection vs. reten-
tion is so often uncertain of proof, the question of rejection vis-vis invention is easily
relatable, in our volumes of 'abandoned' stories as well as the two volumes of drafts of
LotR, for in the majority of these Christopher Tolkien has carefully laid out the imme-
diate processes of invention, and we can see without doubt that yes, Tolkien usually
invented a new replacement form whenever he rejected another form. Indeed for him
rejection was essentially just a side-effect of new invention, but only when such inven-
tions could not coexist in the same universe with their previous correlates. It is for this
reason then that I believe in my own rule of thumb, and feel strongly (and 'legimitately'
insofar as motivation from the evidence) that we should not assume rejection of a form
unless we can point to a new invention that replaces it. The result may be to include
a few forms that Tolkien intended to reject, but my feeling is that if Tolkien never got
around to a c t u a l l y replacing a form, then it is hardly 'illegitimate' to use that form.
Some readers may wonder if this arm-chair debate is not a deal of sound and fury
over little substance. That we cannot prove that -ro was rejected may simply be a rare
accident due to the fact that a pronoun like 'he' need have little necessary connection
with other pronouns, as is the case in English. But this would not (they might point out)
apply to most grammatical categories, like noun declension or verb conjugation, which
must have rules applying to many forms, and even if there are 'exceptions' there must
be rules to which they are the exceptions. I would agree with all this, and aside from
the fact that I often disagree with Craig and other theorists regarding how to handle
the exceptions (like consonant stem nouns, or the inflections of the past tense, where
even the certain evidence of LotR is vague or ambiguous) there is largely agreement
over syntax for a substantial segment of Quenya grammar at least. But vocabulary
is a very different question, and I think it will prove of utmost concern to most users
of Quenya to discover just how 'legitimate' the use of the abundant vocabulary in the
pre-LotR works is, and how to assess its potential use. And since Christopher Tolkien

3
has shown quite convincingly in his introduction, and we can confirm by finding the
majority of Queinya forms from LotR as published included in the body of Elyrn.^ to take
an example, that the transition from pre-LotR to published Elvish was quite smooth
not abrupt, it is perfectly legitimate to use the vocabulary in this work, not only where
we can confirm retention, but also wherever we cannot prove rejection.
The following then is a selection of examples of 'illegitimate' Qenya, according to
Craig's definition, which may prove useful to those who believe Tolkien intended us to
use Elvish like a real language, and not merely pastiche those expressions that found
their way into LotR, filling in the gaps with guesswork or euphemism in order to avoid
Tolkien's own inventions that might have been rejected:
P l a n t s , Animals, and Landscape
andamunda 'elephant' [MBUD-]
erde 'seed, germ' [ERED-]
halatir(no) 'fishwatcher, kingfisher' [SKAL-]
hwan (hwandi) 'sponge, fungus5 [SWAD-]
hwinde 'eddy, whirlpool' [SWIN-]
hyalma 'shell, conch, horn of Ulmo' [SYAL-]
korko 'crow' [KORKO- < K A R K A - ]
ku, kua 'dove' [KU-]
lingve 'fish' [LIW-]
morko 'bear' [ M O R O K - ]
norno 'oak' [ D O R O N - ]
nyano 'rat' [NYAD-]
onna 'creature' [ONO-]
rd (pi. rdvi) 'lion' [RAW-]
runya 'slot, footprint' [RUN-]
salqe 'grass' [SALAK-]
sangwa 'poison' [SAG-]
tamharo 'woodpecker' ( = 'knocker') [TAM-]
toa 'of wool, woolen' [TOW-]
tussa 'bush' [TUS-]
tyulusse 'poplar-tree' [TYUL-]
usqe 'reek' [USUK-]
van, wan ( p i vdni) 'goose' [WAN-]
yatta 'narrow neck, isthmus' [YAK-]
Personal Features and Relations
helda 'naked' [SKEL-]
indyo 'grandchild, descendant' [ N G Y O - ]
lapse 'babe' [LAP-]
nelet, (pi. nelki) 'tooth' [NEL-EK-]
nengwea 'nasal' [ N E N - W I - ]
otornasse 'brotherhood' [TOR-]
ranko 'arm', pi. ranqi [RAK-]
seler, pi. selli 'sister' [THEL-]
tiuko 'thigh' [TIW-]
verno 'husband' [BES-]

4
P e r s o n a l Feelings a n d E x p r e s s i o n
alasse 'joy, merriment' [GALAS-]
anwa 'real, actual, true' [ANA-]
faika 'contemptible, mean' [SPAY-]
harna 'wounded' [SKAR-j
hore 'impulse' [ K H O R - ]
intya- 'guess, suppose' [INI-]
lav- 'yield, allow, grant' [DAB-]
lussa- 'to whisper' [SLUS-]
naikelea 'painful' [NAYAK-]
orme 'haste, violence, wrath' [GOR-]
parka 'dry 5 [ P A R A K - ]
pasta 'smooth' [PATH-]
raika 'crooked, bent, wrong' [RAYAK-]
rinke 'flourish, quick shake' [ R I K ( H ) - ]
samnar 'diphthongs' [SAM-j
siule 'incitement' [SIW-]
tyavin 'I taste' [KYAB-]
varna 'safe, protected, secure' [BAR-]
verya- 'to dare' [BER-]
yaiwe 'mocking, scorn' [YAY-]
Personal Activities
alma 'good fortune, weal, wealth' [GALA-]
fasta- 'tangle' [PHAS-]
hauta- 'cease, take a rest, stop' [ K H A W - ]
kalpa- 'draw water, scoop out, bale out' [ K A L P A - ]
leuka, lehta 'loose, slacken' [LEK-]
lilta- 'dance' [LILT-]
luke 'enchantment' [LUK-]
mankale 'commerce' [ M B A K H - ]
mat- 'eat' [MAT-]
mdta- 'labour, toil' [MO-]
namba- 'to hammer' [ N D A M - ]
neuma 'snare' [ S N E W - ]
palpa- 'to beat, batter' [ P A L A P - ]
raime 'hunt, hunting' [ROY-]
sanye 'rule, law' [STAN-]
tape 'he stops, blocks' [TAP-]
tyalangan 'harp-player' [TYAL-]
tyar- 'cause' [KYAR-]
vanta- 'to walk' [BAT-]
Tools, P r o d u c t s , and Household
ambal 'shaped stone, flag' [MBAL-]
apsa 'cooked food, meat' [AP-]
fenda 'threshold' [ P H E N - ]
hwarma 'crossbar' [ S K W A R - ]

5
 kaimasan, pL kaimasambi 'bedchamber* [STAB-]
laive 'ointment' [LIB-]
lango 'broad sword'; also 'prow of a ship' [LAG-J
lanne 'tissue, cloth 5 [LAN-]
latta 'hole, pit' [DAT-]
latta 'strap' [LATH-]
limba 'a drop' [LIB-]
make 'dough' [MASAG-]
motto 'blot' [ M B O T H - ]
nandelle 'little harp' [NGAN-]
nirwa 'bolster, cushion 5 [NID-]
nute 'bond, knot' [NUT-]
nyelle 'bell' [NYEL-]
pano 'piece of shaped wood' [PAN-]
pilin (pilindi) 'arrow' [PILIM-]
pirya 'juice, syrup' [PIS-]
pore 'flour, meal' [POR-]
tankil 'pin, brooch' [TAK-]
tikse 'dot, tiny mark, point' [TIK-]
M e a s u r e s and Qualities
enta 'that yonder' [EN-]
farya- 'suffice' [ P H A R - ]
himba 'adhering, sticking' [KHIM-]
kainen 'ten' [KAYAN-]
kanta-, kan- 'four' [KANAT-]
larka, alarka 'swift, rapid' [LAK-]
nerte 'nine' [ N E T E R - ]
randa 'cycle, age (100 Vaiian years)' [RAD-]
rempa 'crooked, hooked' [REP-]
sinta 'short' [ S T I N T A - ]
tunga 'taut, tight (of strings, resonant)' [TUG-]
uve 'abundance, great quantity' [UB-]
vara 'soiled, dirty' [WA3-]
These are only a small fraction of the Qenya words contained in Etym. Many of
these bases have several derivatives listed. And there are over four times this number of
bases, not counting the ones struck through. I have selected only from those for which
there is no connection with the Quenya or Sindarin words in LotR or works that seem
to have been written after it. Yet I think you will agree that these are basic concepts for
which we would expect to find expressions in any language, and yet few if any of them
could be expressed in the LotR /post- LotR words other than by roundabout paraphrase.
When we add to this observable absence of alternatives the description of Christopher
Tolkien about this work of his father's: "The nearest he ever came to a sustained account
of Elvish vocabulary", I believe we can securely assert that the majority of forms listed
above are the final expression Tolkien ever gave to these concepts in Quenya. But be
that as it may. I hope that the lists of Qenya words may be of interest to some that
might want to express these ideas in their own Elvish compositions.
Christopher Gilson

6
 Quendiiion
Only one letter this time, from Ronald K y r m s e about the 'Appendix on Runes' in
The Treason of Isengard:
Is there a historical (in the 'internal' as well as in the 'external' sense) link between
the Alphabet of Dairon and the tengwar? I notice especially the vowels HIOAU com-
pared with CIOACI. Incidenatally, in the Japanese hiragana and katakana syllabaries the
vowel order is not aeiou, as usual, but (as above), aiueo.
The numerals in the Book of Mazarbul still don't fit in with any known angerthas
sequence. Why do we have the equivalences xk = 3, W = 4, Y = 5?
Where are the Gondolinic Runes? I believe no text on runes can be complete
without them. They should have been included, say as a redrawing like plates I-IV,
not just mentioned in a footnote!
Once more, the question is brought up of the historical grammar of Taliska, said
to exist (cf. Lhammas) but not shown—maybe in a later volume??? Let's hope C J R T
forgets nothing of importance and interest!
Lastly, but not leastly (this neologism is beastly!), I believe the system of phonetic
Dwarf runes for writing English may/should be adapted to a more cursive form (as the
Alphabet of Dairon). We might write your [JCB's] name, for instance, as:
U>sm ffx\f<$nsy
The letters have a minuscule, or uncial, or is it Gothic? look which rather pleases me
(though, as you'll have noticed, I can't quite put my finger on the why.) Let's try it
out: [apologies for my cacography—JCB]

3
YpT ^ ^p™ *'
 Frodo Torbins in Kvetlorien
The Russian Fellowship of the Ring

If you find the title of this article bizarre, I can assure you that it accurately reflects
my experience of reading The Fellowship of the Ring in Muravyov and Kistyakovskii's
translation. Unlike Rakhmanova in her excellent Russian version of The Hobbit (re-
viewed in Quettar Special Publication No. 2), they have not been content to leave well
alone, especially as regards nomenclature.
Translators of LotR have something of a problem with many of the names, espe-
cially hobbit names . Tolkien makes considerable use of names to provide a link between
the everyday life of English-speaking readers and the more exotic aspects of Middle-
earth in its Third Age. However, in French, let alone Russian, 'Baggins' is not much less
exotic than 'Beren', and remains at a distance from the reader. Yet if the translators
want to maintain the familiarity of these names by re-writing them in forms familiar to
their readers, they find themselves embarked on a very perilous undertaking, since it is
not only personal names which are supposed to have overtones of familiarity—for in-
stance, there is no native Russian word which can even approximately translate ; Shire'
(grafstvo is literally 'county 5 —the area ruled by a count—and is about as traditionally
Russian as 'Politbureau' is English); to get the same sense of familiarity, the Shire
would have to be transposed into a native Russian form, and its institutions similarly
adapted. Before long, consistent translators would find themselves having to recast the
entire story along the lines of Appendix F, so that, for example, the Riders of Rohan
became something like Cossacks.
Muravyov and Kistyakovskii recast names in the Common Speech so as to have
a Russian sense, with endings which are presumably intended to suggest Englishness
to Russian readers (a procedure which is sometimes less successful with English read-
ers). Thus 'Norbury' becomes 'Severn' (Russian sever = north), 'Baggins' is 'Torbins'
(torba = bag), 'Sandyman' is 'Peskuns' (pesok = sand), and 'Samwise Gamgee 3 becomes
°Semmium (semi + um = intelligence) Skromby' (? skromniy = modest). A bunny
fixation is apparent, not only in 'Brendizaiki' (Brandy-bunnies) for 'Brandybucks', but
in 'Krol' for 'Took' (krolik — rabbit). More prosaically, the Shire becomes 'Hobbita-
nia'. This process is not altogether consistent—for example, the Shirriffs are left alone;
and sometimes, in translating place-names especially, the meaning is misunderstood—
'Longbottom' is the wrong sort of bottom, and 'Weathertop' is the wrong sort of top
(it becomes Zavert' = whirl).
However unsatisfactory this may be in practice, it is at least a procedure approved
by Tolkien himself in the 'Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings1. It is when the
translators misapply their ingenuity to non-Westron names, that the horrors begin—
especially with Elvish names, which is not entirely surprising when one discovers from
reading his preface that Muravyov believes "the Elvish language" to be a mixture of
Finnish, Welsh and Old English. A consequent pseudo-Russification may explain why
Amon Lhaw has become 'Amon Sloush' (Russian slushat1 — listen) and Amon Hen,
'Amon Vedar' (vedat1 = know, videt' = see), and even more why Glorfindel turns into
'Vseslavur' (vse = all, slava = glory). The Ukrainian kvit ( = flower) is probably respon-
sible for Lothlorien's transformation into 'Kvetlorien'. There is also much evidence of
extremely careless transliteration, which accounts for 'Selebrimber', 'Luchien' (ch as in
church), 'Mae gverinnien', etc., etc. (some Elvish words have not been mistransiiterated,
but they are exceptional). However, neither Russification nor mistransliteration can ex-

8
 plain why Gildor becomes 'Garald', while 'lief and 'Naith* become respectively 'deioin/'
and 'Sierra' (words which, to the best of my knowledge, do not exisii m Russian—or
indeed any other language). Such changes are arbitrary and numerous.
So much for the names. The translation itself is fluent, highly readable and in
good modern Russian, for the most part moving easily between the literary and the
colloquial—though the use of second person pronouns is remarkable: virtually every-
body except Sam uses the familiar ty to everybody else on almost all occasions, which
is far from normal modern Russian practice, and even Sam addresses Galadriel as ty\ A
more serious matter (also marked in the otherwise very different and unrelated Russian
translation of Smith of Wootton Major) is a distinct tendency to paraphrase rather than
translate. The title itself is an example of this: Khraniteli literally means 'keepers', and
it is used in the text both to refer to the Fellowship and to translate 'Ringbearers' (the
actual word for 'Ringbearers'—kol'tsenostsy is perversely used for the Ringwraiths!).
Thus, when rejecting the Ring (in a highly paraphrased speech), Gandalf is made to
say: "I cannot become simply a keeper, I need it too much. Before me is darkness and
death."
On comparing this with the original, you may begin to have the dawning suspicion
that Muravyov's command of English is just not up to translating Tolkien. In fact, I
do not think that this can be the explanation. In many other cases he shows himself to
have a very good understanding of Tolkien's use of English—witness the very 'straight'
(and stylish) translation of the Ring-verse used in his preface, as distinct from the
version in the body of the text, which is paraphrased to the point of distortion. So the
reason for such changes seems to be not incompetence, but perversity.
Muravyov paraphrases; Kistyakovskii, the translator of Book 2, goes further. Some
passages, particularly in the Lorien chapters, look almost as though they are in the pro-
cess of being rewritten to fit one of the more crassly commercial role-playing games.
For example, the Ores who pursue the Company from Moria are led into the Secret
Groves, where they are disposed of (by Huorns on special assignment?), and the Com-
pany crosses the Fortune-telling River ( = the Silverlode) at the Second Guard Post,
which is manned by an Elf in a camouflaged cloak. This is not free translation, or even
paraphrase: it is significant rewriting. For an example of Kistyakovskii at his worst, try
the following paragraph, which I have retranslated from his Russian (Tolkien's original
begins: "Behold! You are come to Cerin A m r o t h . . . " ) :
'Before you is the Mound of Grievous Sorrow,' announced Heldar with sad
pride. 'Under it, as our traditions maintain, on the site of his abode in Lo-
rien, is buried the first sovereign of Lorien—-or, in your language, the Blessed
Land—Amroth, who had come to settle here from Eldar. Here even in the
severest winters the everliving flowers do not fade and the evergreen grass rus-
tles about the past. Rest, we have one crossing left, in the evening you will
stand before our Rulers.'
Translation is a complex business even with the most straightforward of texts, and
The Lord of the Rings is one of the least straightforward texts a translator could be
asked to cope with. Nevertheless, the most fundamental requirement of a translation is
that it represent as accurately as possible the author's intention, if not necessarily the
actual wording, neither adding nor subtracting beyond dire need, and certainly not re-
composing. For all its virtues of liveliness and and readability, the present translation
fails this most basic test.
David Doughan

9
 Vinyar Tengwar
Vinyar Tengwar, Carl F. Hostetter, 2509 Ambling Circle, Crofton, MD 21114, U.S.A
Subscriptions: USA $12, Canada $15, elsewhere surface $15, elsewhere airmail $18.
Payment in US dollars only, cheques etc. payable to Carl F. Hostetter.
Vinyar Tengwar appears every two months, and is a newsletter with the same
topics as Quettar} but a more informal approach; the frequency of publication leads
to continuing conversational discussions. Here I'll quickly summarize last year's issues,
and come up to date next time.

I s s u e 5, M a y 1989.
The cover is a Tom Loback picture of Daeron demonstrating the certhas to Thingol,
with the customary exercise in the Noldorin language. The letters contain scholarly
contributions from Chris Gilson and Craig Marnock—I commend Chris's little parable!
Articles include *A Quenya Higher Oral Paper' from Jenny Coombs and an analysis by
Arden Smith of the hitherto neglected material in Bored of the Rings,

I s s u e 6, J u l y 1989.
Sindarindili of the classical persuasion will enjoy Craig Marnock's translation of
Galadriel's Lament into Sindarin. Continuing from the previous issue there are 'Glos-
saries from the Etymologies\ some useful compilations of vocabulary by Ronald Kyrmse.

I s s u e 7, S e p t e m b e r 1989.
The debate on Quenya verbs and pronouns continues in the letters column of this
issue. A new column appears, on the topic of translations of Tolkien's works. The back
cover is another Loback picture, from the 'Scroll of Thingol', which also provided the
cover of issue 5.

I s s u e 8, N o v e m b e r 1989.
This issue included a 16" square map of Beleriand by Tom Loback, incorporating
post-Silmarillion information, together with notes on the place names given. It says
that the map is not included with back issues, but on the most recent VT it is said
that the map is included (and hence no. 8 costs more). The discussion continues in the
letters column—between them, Quettar and VT have said more than I ever thought
possible about Quenya pronouns and verbs!

JCB

10
 Q U E T T A R is Quenya, or 'Kigh-Elven*. It means 'words', and is the bulletin
of the Linguistic Fellowship of the Tolkien Society, whose members are referred to as
Q u e n d i l i , which means 'lovers of language' or 'lovers of Quenya', (though there are
some S i n d a r i n d i l i among us). Those who describe themselves as philologists tend to say
L a m b e n d i i i . Feanorian calligraphers are known (perhaps inaccurately) as T e n g w a r d i l i ,
runemasters as C e r t a t i i r i .
The languages which principally interest us are those sub-created by J. R. R. Tolkien,
including:
Quenya Khuzdul
Qenya Adunaic
Sindarin Rohirric
Nandorin Wose-speech
Wood-Elven Arctic
Telerin Black Speech
Eldarissa Common Speech / Westron
Goldogrin Other Mannish languages
This also involves a degree of interest in Finnish, Welsh, Old English and other 'real
world' languages. We stress 'interest'. While expertise is welcome, in order to become a
Quendil all you need is love. We trust that knowledge will follow.

S u b s c r i p t i o n s to Quettar cover 4 issues, and cost:

£3.00 for the United Kingdom
£4.00 for Europe and surface mail outside Europe
£7.50 for airmail outside Europe.
Cheques etc. should be made payable to Quettar, and should be sent to the Treasurer,
Christina Scull, at the address on the front cover. Details of back copies are also available
from Christina.

Typesetting and layout by J. C. Bradfield

Printing by Edinburgh University Computing Service
Distribution by Jeremy Morgan
Copyright © Quettar 1990