> 2007/2/22, Isaac Penzev <isaacp@...>:
> > I know some ppl here study Quenya. I found a textbook among the Wikibooks:
> >
> >
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/5/5d/Quenya_wikibooks.pdf
> >
> > What do you think, how reliable/trustworthy is it?
>
> I quickly skimmed it. It looks like a good summary of current
> knowledges, in standard "reconciled" coursebook form.
>
> By "reconciled" I mean, it is done by the school who thinks writing a
> coursebook on Quenya is possible at all, while "Quenya" itself is
> continuum of ever-shifting fifty years of development, contradicting
> itself. I also note that this book makes absolutely zero effort to
> state how its materials were derived from Tolkien's writings, which is
> a good fun of detective work but very fragile in many places.
>
> It's like "Gospel harmony", a similar futile attempt to reconcile
> so-called "synoptic" gospels. No, it's much worse.
>
> To anyone trying to read any such Quenya coursebooks, I recommend
> reading "Elvish as She Is Spoke" together to balance the view.
>
>
http://www.elvish.org/articles/EASIS.pdf
>
> From Tolkien's manuscripts, we know that he tried to write
> comprehensive grammar of Quenya himself multiple times. He always
> started with sounds, then etymology, and at one time he managed to pin
> down the noun paradigm which is included in Appendix 1 of the above
> coursebook. In all cases, he never reached the stage of writing down
> the verb paradigm of Quenya, to say nothing of syntax. In the process
> of writing he started to tinker with the language, which soon became
> too extensive that he had to start from scratch.
>
> In one of his story, he let one of his character speak this line:
> 'I've got something new!', he shouted. 'More than mere words. Verbs!
> Syntax at last!' Alas, Quenya never reached that stage.
>
> --