Why is Nancy Martsch’s book Basic Quenya not completely reliable?
From a post to Elfling by Helge Fauskanger: • Martsch thinks the present tense is simply formed by adding the ending -a. She didn’t realize that in the case of “basic” verbal stems, you must also lengthen the vowel. So having isolated the stem sil- “shine” from the future tense siluvar, she would use sila as the present tense. It should be síla (síla). • The explanation of how the past tense is formed is very summary and strangely phrased. Martsch makes it sound as if past tense formation is a rather obscure feature of Quenya grammar. True, there are some uncertain points, but let us not exaggerate. • The traditional misinterpretation of the endings for inclusive and exclusive “we” made it into her book. Not really her fault; she relied on An Introduction to Elvish, where some garbled information from Dick Plotz is presented. The endings should go like this: exclusive “we” is -mme, inclusive “we” is -lme, inclusive dual “we”, sc. “you (sg.) and I”, is either *-lwe or *-lve, probably th
Related Questions
- I have two copies of the same Hardy Boys book -- at least, the title is the same, but actually, the books tell two completely different stories! Whats up?
- Which basic book i prefer for computer architecture. i want to start preparation 4 gate?
- Why is Nancy Martsch’s book Basic Quenya not completely reliable?
