I was curious why Tolkien would choose an ending for the 2nd person attached to the 1st one e.g. menn-in, menn-in-og/l! Is this attested or a reconstruction? Both in present and future tense the 2nd person has its own separate endings atatched to the stem, e.g. mad-og/l, med-ithog/l. It would make more sense if the past tens of mad- (2nd person) would be mann-og(attatched to the stem and not causing i-affection) We see this at the irregular verbs, that have an irregular stem but all of them have a separate ending -og/l or -eg/l in the 2nd person e.g. avall-en avall-og/l, agor-en agor-eg/l, evenn-in evenn-og/l What do you think?
Tâd naid echedir i emm lîn, i andreth lîn ir savol ú-nad ar i theled lîn ir savol bain.
Reconstructed, from the scant information we have for the 2nd person endings (which isn't much). For the past tense it's a choice of taking the ending from either the 1st person forms or the 3rd, and hoping you guessed what Tolkien would have done himself.