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.
Amy: Hello! I am confused about the verb nautha-. In lesson 17 the dialog at the start has “nauthog” for “you think”, then “semin” for “I think”. Is nautha- one of the irregular verbs? I can’t find anything else it in the lessons or dictionary. Thank you!
Jul 12, 2020 2:56:39 GMT
Xandarien: Suilad! There have been two verbs used for 'to think', I apologise for the confusion. There's Nautha- 'to conceive an idea, think' and Sam- 'to think. Sam- should have been removed everywhere as it was a reconstruction that we don't need. I'll change that.
Jul 13, 2020 8:47:43 GMT
Amy: Thank you! I really enjoy the lessons. Len hannon!
Jul 14, 2020 2:16:08 GMT
Xandarien: Please note I am currently on holiday and will respond to messages next week 😃
Aug 7, 2020 11:41:18 GMT