Yet, at the same time, few people knowing Sindarin fully well are even aware of the existence of Goldogrin and while there are virtually hundreds of pages claiming to teach Sindarin in the web virtually nothing has been published about Goldogrin grammar (with the notable exception of two articles by Patrick H. Wynne which I found very helpful for this project).
Maybe it is because Goldogrin lacks the charme of the later Sindarin, both in phonology and in the connection to the LOTR elves, maybe the primary source (Parma Eldalamberon 11, containing the Gnomish Lexicon) is not readily available to readers. Be it as it may - it is the aim of this article to wake the language from its decade-long sleep and to demonstrate that we can in fact hope to write small bits and pieces in this early language by Tolkien just as we can use Sindarin and that Goldogrin is not an abandoned bit of unusable work only interesting for the academic-minded.
In the following essay, frequently Tolkien-made examples occur alongside deduced forms. In order to make a clear distinction, every deduced form, however plausible, is marked with a *. As a rule, no references to single words are given, I trust the reader knows how to look up word in a dictionary.
i·vrog na cuid arog 'the horse is a swift animal' (PE11:9)
i·weg na an fofrin 'man is a foolish creature' (PE11:9)
i·weg fof '*man is a fool' (PE11:9)
i·winin na gwandron 'women are beautiful' (PE11:9)
ôni cailthi a·mabwid glen irtha 'He pressed a kiss upon her slender hands.' (PE11:11)
ôni cailthi mabir gleni nan·hirilion 'He kissed the slender hands of the ladies.' (PE11:11)
nôbi·i·mab 'len suila ontha. '*He took the slender hand of his daughter' (PE11:11)
nûmi Galmir i·saroth (nuir Saroth) 'Galmir sank into the sea' (PE11:12)
talwi i'loss ar gwandra nan·Idril 'the beautiful white feet of Idril' (PE11:15)
talin i'lossi ar gwandron nan·Idril 'the beautiful white feet of Idril' (PE11:15)
cuithos hû le mui 'a cat and dog life' (PE11:27)
i·fesc ar i·dusc 'a red rag to a bull' (lit. 'the irritating and the irritable') (PE11:34)
u 'wirn u 'wethrin 'not unwelcome or welcome' (PE11:47)
on iltathi nin pieg '*he stuck in a pin to me' (PE11:51)
inig bast no odog saith '*A small bread means great hunger later.' (PE11:51)
en nin·ista mai 'I am well aware of that.' (PE11:52)
nin·ista feg 'I feel ill.' (PE11:52)
a·laithra nin 'I forget it.' (lit. '*it is lost for me') (PE11:52)
u lâ fin sî 'No room for you here.' (PE11:52)
u laudin laithin hastath unweg '*Floods and times do not wait for anyone.' (PE11:53)
u laud u laith hasta unweg '*Neither flood nor time wait for anyone.' (PE11:53)
o·gwath lemp nin 'He beckons.' (lit. '*he shakes a crooked finger for me') (PE11:53)
im len 'I have come.' (PE11:53)
um lenin '*We have come.' (PE11:53)
luista nin 'I am thirsty.' (lit. '*it thirsts for me') (PE11:55)
i·bridwen a·vridwen 'judgement of fate' (PE11:64)
acha 'waterfall' -> *in·acha 'the waterfall'
Frequently, this in· is shortened to n· or 'n·:
aithi 'sword' -> *n·aithi 'the sword'
The definite article i· causes consonant mutations for the following word according to the pattern
cuid 'animal' -> *i·guid 'the animal'
dorm 'summit' -> *i·dhorm 'the summit'
gwinc 'spark' -> *i·'winc 'the spark'
haig 'road' -> *i·chaig 'the road'
pui 'child' -> *i·bui 'the child'
falm 'wave' -> *i·falm 'the wave'
lôm 'shade' -> *i·lôm 'the shade'
madri 'food' -> *i·madri 'the food
However, modern Goldogrin makes an (optional?) distinction between ·'r-, ·'l- (as the result of a lost gr-, gl-) and true ·r-, ·l- (which remain unmutated). The latter two consonants are treated as vowels as far as the definite article is concerned, hence
glâm 'hatred' -> i·'lâm 'the hatred'
lam 'tongue' -> in·lam 'the tongue'
Usually long syllables in such words become shortened as soon as an ending is present. For example the word glôr 'gold' follows the pattern
gweg 'man' -> *gweg amra 'a man wanders'
sîr 'river' -> *art sîr 'beside a river'
bar 'home' -> bar 'at home'
nôs 'birth' -> nôs mora 'good by nature'
The genitive is used by itself in possessive or partitive sense. It usually follows prepositions of ablative or derivative sense and occasionally can occur by itself as an ablative. Hence
gweg 'man' -> *ais gwega 'a man's knowledge'
geth 'clan' -> *gweg getha 'a man of a clan'
bar 'home' -> bara 'from home, away'
Finally, the dative is used for the indirect object of a sentence (the one benefiting from the action done on the direct object). Further uses include the allative, both in thought and in real motion, and the dative follows all prepositions with allative sense. Hence
gweg 'man' -> *golda antha aithi gwegi 'a gnome gives a sword to a man'
banc 'trade' -> *gweg tul banci 'a man comes for trade'
arn 'son' -> *ador tir ar arni 'a father looks at a son'
bar 'home' -> bari 'homewards'
Unlike in English (or the later Sindarin or Quenya for that matter), the definite article changes accordingly when a noun is inflected for case. We find
|before consonants||before vowels|
|Dative||i· or ir·||ir·|
tûr 'king' -> *i·vess na·dura 'the wife of the king'
gweg 'man' -> *golda antha in·aithi ir·gwegi 'the gnome gives the sword to the man'
roth 'cave' -> *'n·anna nan·roth 'the entrance of the cave'
Polysyllabic words ending in a constant (the second declination) differ from the first declination by the fact that a final vowel in such words is usually lost, hence there are no singular case endings (there's however an auxiliary mechanism to mark case if the definite article is not used for this purpose, see below). Therefore the pattern of case endings is
Without the definite article, the singular cases are hardly distinct. The definite article can (partially) resolve this ambiguity. We show the example celeb 'silver':
The third declination (monosyllabic words ending with a vowel) has a different set of (mostly consonant) case endings. Since those do not alter the number of syllables in singular, typically a long vowel stays long in those words. The relevant system of case endings is
We give the example of gwâ 'wind':
The pattern relevant for the fourth declination is in fact quite the same, however a final vowel -a, -u in a polysyllabic word is usually changed into o in genitive and dative singular. Hence we find (using the example of coma 'disease'):
Nouns ending in -u may form the plural with -in, -ion, -ir as an alternative to the forms above, this often yields -wi- as in the example of culu, a poetic description of 'gold':
Note however that culuth, culuthon, culuthir are valid forms as well.
The prefixes are a· for genitive, go· for ablative and no· for dative. a· is here the exception, it is prefixed to the nominative whereas go· and no· are prefixed to the word having the appropriate case endings. Before vowels, these prefixes become an·, *gon· and *non·. The following example illustrates how the case distinction in the 2nd declination emerges again:
The distribution of endings across the various cases is best apparent for a 4th declination example:
The most common use of this suffix is to denote races and people, often also -thlim or -thrim (race) appear. The choice which one is taken in a particular instance is usually determined by euphony. Hence e.g. gondothlim 'the people of Gondolin'.
The genitive can also be without any case marking. In this case, the word in genitive follows and is after a singular noun subject to mutation. Hence e.g. *faigli geleb 'long hair of silver' as an alternative to *faigli a·geleb. After a noun in plural, the genitive remains presumably unmutated.
mô 'hand' -> mabwi 'a pair of hands' (the GL gives mab as dual, though)
tâl (tald-) 'foot' -> talwi 'a pair of feet'
hen 'eye' -> henwi 'a pair of eyes'
heth 'brother or sister' hethwi 'a brother and sister'
hunt 'nose' (*'a pair of nostrils')
Some of these forms take the prefix go- as a kind of augmentation, hence gomabwi, godalwi and gochenwi.
In addition, there are a few verbs with a different pattern, most important among them the group of derived verbs with endings in -u, e.g. felu- 'to seem'. A few verbs are denoted as 'irregular' or 'special' and we will list them later.
It would be tempting to argue that the verb ought to be pluralized in the first example since it refers to two things, and indeed it is pluralized in English. But in German, for example, the verb ends up in singular in a similar construction, hence one has to accept that Gnomish does not pluralize the verb in 'neither...nor...' constructions.
The verb na- 'to be' is said to have plural nain, the negative verb û has a plural uin, hence it seems that the verb essentially shares the noun plural markers -th and -in.
In the sentence i·winin na gwandron (PE11:9) the verb does not agree with the pluralized noun. This apparent discrepancy may be due to the fact that the GG predates the GL and that Tolkien decided on the plural nain later. After all, the example is quite generic for the use of the copula 'to be' and does not seem to involve any irregularity.
We may tentatively assume that the underlying principles for the choice of the plural pattern are the same as for nouns, i.e. derived verbs ending in -a would primarily form their plural in -th whereas stem verbs would prefer the plural -in; however verbs with the ending -tha may prefer alternative plurals -thain over -thath to avoid the repetition. If this is true, the plural of na- and û- would be specifically given since these verbs don't follow this pattern.
We do not know what number a verb would have to be in if the subject of the sentence is in dual - the most likely guess (based on number agreement of adjectives) is singular.
The complete set of non-emphatic prefixes is as follows:
|3rd Person male||o·||*a·|
|3rd Person female||*i·||*a·|
|3rd Person neuter||*a·||*a·|
In this table, it has been assumed that a· can be used as a general plural form for both male and female - after all, what of mixed groups?
The ordinary use of the pronomial prefixes can be inferred from a·laithra nin '*tt is lost for me.' (PE11:52) where the verb laithra- is prefixed by a· 'it'. As the example o·gwath lemp nin '*he shakes a crooked fonger to me' (PE11:52) indicates where the verb cwath 'to shake' occurs, the pronomial prefixes cause mutation for the following word. Finally, from nin·ista feg 'I feel ill.' (PE11:52) we may infer that the pronomial prefixes add an -n if the following verb starts with a vowel. Hence
*ni·chasta 'I wait'
*fi·chasta 'you wait'
*o·chasta 'he waits'
*me·chastath 'we wait'
*gwe·chastath 'you wait'
*a·chastath 'they wait'
*nin·antha 'I give'
*fin·antha 'you give'
*on·antha 'he gives'
*men·anthain 'we give'
*gwen·anthain 'you give'
*an·anthain 'they give'
*ni·mel 'I love'
*fi·mel 'you love'
*o·mel 'he loves'
*me·melin 'we love'
*gwe·melin 'you love'
*a·melin 'they love'
However, as nôbi·i·mab 'he took the hand' (PE11:11) indicates, the 3rd person singular may be expressed without writing the pronoun explicitly (this appears to be just as in later Sindarin).
Primary verbs with a final consonant -r, -l, -s, -v, -w, -m, -n or -ng primarily form their past tense by strengthening of the stem vowel. This usually implies the shifts a > ô, e > î, i > ai, o > û and u > au/û, for the latter choice, there seems to be a slight tendency of verbs ending with -m to do the shift into û. In addition to the strengthening, an -i is appended to all forms. Therefore
bas- 'to bake' -> bôsi 'baked'
mel- 'to love' -> mîli 'loved'
gil- 'to gleam' -> gaili 'gleamed'
nor- 'to run' -> nûri 'ran'
nus- 'to take note' -> nausi 'took note'
cum- 'to lie down' -> cûmi 'lay down'
Primary verbs with the final consonants -b, -d and -g have an about equal probability to form past tense by strengthening of the stem vowel (as outlined above, see e.g. sog- 'to drink' > sûgi 'drank') or by nasal infixion. Nasal infixion implies that final -m > -mf, final -n > -nth and final -g > -nc to which then an -i is appended (e.g. cap- 'to jump' > camfi 'jumped'). A few verbs even show both past tenses (e.g. nag- 'to chew' > nôgi, nanci 'chewed'). We find for example
heb- 'to bind' -> hemfi 'bound'
dod- 'to fall down' -> donthi 'fell down'
fag- 'to cut' -> fanci 'cut'
There are some primary verbs ending in a vowel. Their chief way of forming the past tense is the suffix -thi. Several other basic verbs make use of this mechanism as well, but mainly as an alternative to other past tense formation mechanisms.
rô 'to endure' -> rôthi 'endured'
gai 'to possess' -> gaithi 'possessed'
The largest class of derived verbs with endings in -tha changes this ending in the past tense to -thi (there is, however, quite a number of derived verbs ending in -tha which form their past tense by stem vowel strengthening). Therefore
bactha- 'to walk' -> bacthi 'walked'
gultha- 'to endure' -> gulthi 'endured'
antha- 'to give' ôni 'gave'
Verbs ending in -u usually form a valid past tense by appending -i, the ending is then changed to -wi:
felu- 'to seem' -> felwi 'seemed'
telu- 'to end' -> telwi 'ended'
Four derived verbs form their past tense (optionally) by using the suffix -ni:
lintha- 'to ring a bell' -> linthani or linthi 'rung a bell'
rûtha- 'to dwell' -> rûthani 'dwelled'
santha- 'to show' -> santhani 'showed'
saptha- 'to dig' -> sôbi or sapthani 'dug'
It stands to reason that the inflection of these past tense forms works just like in present tense, hence:
*nin·ôni 'I gave'
*fi·chemfi 'you bound'
*gwe·mîli 'you love'
*o·fanci 'he cut'
A present active participle is explicitly given for the verb na- 'to be', it is ol·, the gloss indicating that it ought to be prefixed to something. It is up to anyone's guess what is supposed to follow after this form - should we assume ?ol·bar 'being at home'? Or rather ?ol·gwadra 'being beautiful?' Or should this indicate that this is the way verbal participles are formed, hence ?ol·lintha 'ringing'?
The last alternative, though, does not seem to be very likely. The list of candidate forms contains several examples for which -ol seems to be used as an ending, among them
briga- 'to fear' -> brigol 'afraid' (lit. '*fearing')
gwirtha- 'to not wish' -> gwirthol 'reluctant' (lit. '*not wishing')
hadha- 'to cling to' -> hadhol 'abiding' (lit. '*clinging to')
hirtha- 'to care for' -> hirthol 'attentive, careful' (lit. '*caring')
lentha- 'to approach' -> lenthol 'approaching'
All these examples involve derived verbs, and the rule seems to be that the final -a is replaced by -ol. There is, however, also an example in which the complete derivational ending is lost before -ol is appended:
ictha- 'to excite' -> igol 'exciting'
Occasionally, we see the same thing with a consonant shift, possibly restoring an earlier consonant:
brigla- (from *bridla-) 'to change' -> bridol 'changing'
A few primary verbs are also attested with present participles:
mug- 'to keep silent' -> mugol 'taciturn' (lit. '*keeping silent')
naf- 'to suspect' -> nafol 'suspicious' (lit. '*suspecting')
uir- 'not to will' -> uirol 'unwilling'
Hence the rule appears to be the same, the ending -ol is appended to the stem.
A perfect active participle is given by the form len, pretty clearly identified as such by the example im len 'I have come'. This form seems to belong to the verb lentha- 'to come, to approach' (of which we also know lenthol 'approaching'). If so, the bare stem, after the loss of the derivational ending would act as perfect active participle. There is one more example which might support this theory, the pair camma- 'to bow' and cam 'bent, bowed' (being an intransitive verb, this apparently is 'having bowed').
This formation pattern would lead to a problem for stem verbs, since here the stem is identical with the present tense form, hence ?im mil could both be 'I love' and 'I have loved'. Presumably then, the stem verbs have a different pattern (or do not form this participle at all).
There are several examples of the formation of a form which looks like the perfect passive participle in the wordlists, among them derived verbs
beltha- 'to unroll' -> belin 'expanded, unrolled'
bentha- 'to shape' -> benin 'shapely' (lit. '*shaped')
fadra- 'to sate' -> fadin 'sated'
gultha- 'to carry' -> gulin 'burdened'
guira- 'to possess' -> guin 'owned'
ictha- 'to excite' -> igin 'excited'
lûtha- 'to pass (time) -> luin 'past'
and basic verbs
drib- 'to wear out' -> dribin 'worn out'
fag- 'to cut' -> fagin 'cut'
sam- 'to arrange' -> samin 'arranged'
Thus, the standard pattern seems to be that basic verbs append an ending -in to the word stem whereas derived verbs drop the derivational ending before -in is appended. Verbs with the stem ending in -r, -s and -l (regardless if primary or derived verb) seem to follow a slightly different pattern, though:
cartha- 'to make' -> carn 'made'
fur- 'to conceal' -> furn 'concealed'
gwirtha- 'to not wish' -> gwirn 'unwelcome' (lit. '*unwished')
îr- 'to intend' -> irn 'wished for'
We may conclude that for a stem ending in -r the ending used to form the perfect passive participle is -n rather than -in.
heltha- 'to freeze' -> helon 'frozen'
faltha- 'to strip' -> falon or falin 'stripped'
Thus, it seems like verbs with stems in -l occasionally prefer an ending -on. There is one example where a different verb does so as well, heb- 'to bind' and hebon 'bound'.
suthra- 'to hush' -> susc 'hushed, quiet'
thas- 'to shave' -> thasc 'shaven'
thista- 'to dry up' -> thisc 'dry' or thisin 'parched'
It appears as if the participle for the verbs with a stem in -s would be formed by removing the ending and changing the final -s into -sc.
elma- 'to marvel at' -> elm! or elum! 'marvelous! think of that!'
haitha- 'to go, to fare, to walk' -> hai! 'go!'
hitha- 'to listen to' -> hith! 'hearken!'
suthra- 'to hush' -> suss! 'quiet!'
and finally we find
bâ! 'be gone!'
haiva! 'be gone!, be off!'
Unfortunately, there are no stem verbs in this list. bâ apparently is not associated with a particular verb, and haiva evidently is a compound of hai + bâ (this is in fact supported by the way Tolkien references this form). We are left with two imperatives derived by removing the ending -a from a longer derivational ending -tha, -ma and one by removing the complete ending -tha. Giving this scarce evidence, it is difficult to judge what the normal pattern would be - probably euphony might make the decision.
ertha- (...) 'to isolate' (...)
fag- (fanci) 'cut'
However, occasionally we find verb forms with a translation in infinitive without the hyphen, e.g.
hada (hanthi) 'throw at'
lob (lompi) 'run, gallop (of animals)
loda (lonthi 'swallow'
the latter form changed from a previous entry lod- (lonti).
It is difficult to say if the intended meaning of these entries is indeed an infinitive or if the missing hyphen simply repesents an omission like the omission of 'to' in the translation. The form loda changed from lod- may indicate that stem verbs form an infinitive with the ending -a, but on the other hand, the form lob shows no such ending and yet has an equivalent translation. Given that, the best guess about the infinitive forms is that for derived verbs the bare verb can be used, for stem verbs likewise. There is no clear sign that the infinitive would be marked by a particular ending like in Noldorin.
The example i·winin na gwandron 'women are beautiful' (PE11:9) is somewhat puzzling because it shows the singular verb despite the subject in plural. We may interpret this either as a slip by Tolkien or as a signal that the pluralization is optional or simply as something which was revised from the early GG to the later GL.
As the example i·weg fof '*man is a fool' (PE11:9) indicates, it is entirely permissible to leave out na alltogether. We do not know if this is true for the past tense as well.
We may assume that the following examples may be acceptable:
*in·aith [na] inc. 'The sword is small.'
*in·aithi nain inci. 'The swords are small.'
*i·dûri thin goldath. 'The kings were Gnomes.'
*ol·golda mora. 'Being a Gnome is good.'
bess mora 'a good wife' -> bessin moron 'good wifes'
*bess faiglion 'a wife with long hair' -> *bessin faiglion 'wifes with long hair'
As evident from the pluralized form of gwandra 'beautiful' in i·winin na gwandron 'women are beautiful' (PE11:9), not only the attributive adjective but also the predicative adjective agrees in number.
Attributive adjective following a singular noun are subject to soft mutation (given by the table above). This is not the case if the noun is in plural. Hence
mab 'loss 'a white hand'
mabin glossi 'white hands'
If the noun is in dual, the adjective remains in singular but is not mutated. Hence
mabwid glen 'slender hands' (of one person)
mabin gleni 'slender hands' (of several persons)
Based on the actual evidence, it is unclear if a predicative adjective in singular would be mutated. Presumably this is not the case, because a close association of the adjective and the noun is required for mutation. This is evident from the following rule: If a noun is qualified by a definite article, two or more adjectives and even a genitive, then the word order is noun - article - adjectives - genitive. Hence
talwi i·'loss ar gwandra nan·Idril 'the beautiful white feet of Idril'
The only mutation in this example is caused by the definite article acting on the first adjective. Occasionally adjectives may precede a noun as well.
For adjectives in -a (and presumably all adjectives ending in vowels) the comparative endings take the form -dro(n) and -nthir. For the augmentative form, the final -a is shifted to -o. This shift does not take place for the diminishing form. Again, presumably adjectives in -i leave this vowel whereas -u would also change into -o, however this is not attested. One finds
gwandra 'beautiful' gwandrodron 'more beautiful' gwandronta 'exceedingly beautiful'
gwandra 'beautiful' *gwandranthir 'less beautiful' gwandranci 'really not beautiful'
Adjectives ending in a consonant take the endings -ron, -onta, -thir and -inci, various not well documented consonant shifts take place, we learn that
feg-thir > faithir 'worse', also *feg-ron > fedron 'worse'
*inc-thir > inthir 'smaller', also incron 'smaller'
moranthir > monthir '*less good' *mora-dron > modron 'better'
These forms are indeclinable, presumably implying they are not inflected for number.
tam 'copper' -> tambin 'of copper' -> tambrin 'like copper'
gais 'steel' -> gaisin 'if steel' -> gaithrin 'like steel'
However, if the adjective denoting substance is derived with -rin, -iol does the comparison:
celeb 'silver' -> celebrin 'of silver' -> celebriol 'like silver'
glôr 'gold' -> glôrin 'of gold' -> glôriol 'like gold'
Unfortunately, the rules are hard to predict. -og and -wed usually denote 'having the thing in question', here -og can also denote 'experiencing the thing in question'. This is most evident from
dair 'merriment' -> dairog 'merry (of persons)' -> dairol 'merry (of things)' -> dairwed 'merry' (general)
A lot of examples can be found:
gothri 'warfare' -> gothriol 'warlike'
gwilbrin 'butterfly' -> gwilbriniol 'like a butterfly'
nandri 'country' -> nandriol 'rural' (lit. '*like countryside')
sîr 'river' -> siriol 'flowing' (lit. '*like a river')
flass 'foam' -> falthrin 'foamy' (lit. '*of foam')
ger 'metal' -> gerin 'metallic'
glast 'marble' -> glastrin '(of) marble'
gling 'music' -> glingrin 'musical'
aith 'thorn' -> aithog 'thorny' (lit. '*having thorns')
gruith 'anger' -> gruithog 'ferocious'
maith 'rule' -> maithog 'having control'
polm 'strength' -> polmog 'strong'
clog 'stone' -> clogwed 'stone-covered'
fem 'venom' -> femwed 'venomous'
gonn 'rock' -> gonwed 'rocky'
thairin 'magic' -> thairinwed 'magical'
There are, however, some derived adjectives which deviate from these general trends.
|3rd Person male||o·||*a·|
|3rd Person female||*i·||*a·|
|3rd Person neuter||*a·||*a·|
|1st Person||im||um, umin|
|2nd Person||?tha||oth, othin|
|3rd Person male||on||onin|
|3rd Person female||ir||*irin|
|3rd Person neuter||an||atha|
If the independent emphatic pronoun is used, the verb does not get a second pronomial prefix as apparent from the example on iltathi nin pieg '*he stuck in a pin to me' (PE11:51). We observe that independent pronouns can be combined with participles without the verb 'to be', cf. im len 'I have come.' (PE11:53), therfore presumably the same use is legitimate for adjectives:
*im gwandra 'I am beautiful.'
*onin fegi 'They are bad (boys).
|3rd Person male||?on||?ar|
|3rd Person female||?in||?ir|
|3rd Person neuter||?an||?ar|
The 3rd person pronouns have been derived on the assumption that the inflection stays the same - producing forms which overlap with other pronomial forms - it is unclear if Tolkien would have accepted that clash or not.
To give some examples:
*on ôni nin celeb 'he gave me silver'
*a·santha mir in·acha 'they showed to us the waterfall'
|3rd Person male||ontha||*athra|
|3rd Person female||irtha||*athra|
|3rd Person neuter||*antha||*athra|
Like genitives/adjectives, they follow the noun whose possession they indicate, cf. mabwid glen irtha 'her slender hands' (PE11:11) or suila ontha 'of his daughter' (PE11:11). Hence maybe
*on·ôni nin in·aithi fintha. 'He gave your sword to me.'
*on·ôni nin aithi i·wandra fintha. 'He gave your beautiful sword to me.
The main group consists (in fact just like in Noldorin or Sindarin) of words in which an original nasalized stop is restored when the word is subject to lenition. This usually yields d- -> i·nd-, b- -> i·mb- and g- -> i·ng-. This type of lenition is known to take place for the following words:
dor 'land' -> i·ndor 'the land'
dolm 'pit' -> i·ndolm 'the pit'
deldron 'beech' -> i·ndeldron 'the beech'
doldrin 'mole' -> i·ndoldrin 'the mole'
drith 'savour' -> i·ndrith 'the savour'
Belca 'Melko' -> i·Mbelca 'Melko'
bast 'bread' -> i·mbast 'the bread'
basgorn 'loaf' -> i·mbasgorn 'the loaf'
bar 'home' -> i·mbar 'the home'
barwen 'homestead' -> i·mbarwen 'the homestead'
Bandoth 'Mandos' -> i·Mbandoth 'Mandos'
Balrog 'demon' -> i·Mbalrog 'the demon'
bal 'anguish' -> i·mbal 'the anguish'
Bridwen 'fate' -> i·Mbridwen 'the fate'
bless 'grace' -> i·mbless 'the grace'
bothli 'oven' -> i·mbothli 'the oven'
golda 'gnome' -> i·ngolda 'the gnome'
Goldriel 'Goldriel' -> i·Ngoldriel 'Goldriel'
golma 'lore' -> i·ngolma 'the lore'
goldobar 'Gnomeland' -> i·ngoldobar 'the Gnomeland'
Gainu 'Angaino' -> i·Ngainu 'Angaino'
Furthermore, all words with the prefixes go-, gwa- 'together' belong to this group, among them
gwanos 'family' -> i·ngwanos 'the family'
gôloth 'forest' -> i·ngôloth 'the forest'
glest 'moot' -> i·nglest 'the moot'
godaithri 'education' -> i·ngodaithri 'the education'
gogel 'mouth' -> i·ngogel 'the mouth'
By analogy, all words in gi- are mutated as if they would be derived from original nasalized stops, hence
gilim 'winter' -> i·ngilim 'the winter'
After na· or a·, all words in ga- are also treated as if derived from nasalized stops, hence
gadron 'fellow' -> *i·'adron 'the fellow' -> *a·ngadron 'of a fellow'
Finally 'many words in go-, ga- unaccented' (we do not learn of the exceptions or precisely how many:
gothweg 'warrior' -> *i·ngothweg 'the warrior'
tanc 'steady' -> iltanc 'unsteady'
giol 'fecund' -> ilgiol 'barren'
gultha- 'weigh' -> argulthion 'equal'
giol 'fecund' -> ilgiol 'barren' -> *ungiol 'not fecund (but not barren either)'
carm 'deed' -> ulcarm 'sin' -> *ugarm 'not a deed'
*nin·û golda. 'I am not a gnome.'
*nin·û feg. 'I'm not bad.'
as well as with verbs in infinitive, cf.
*men·uin thê 'We do not see.'
*nin·u-thê 'I do not see.'
*Im u-ngolda 'I'm not a gnome.'
*Im u-feg. 'I'm not bad.'
But as u laudin laithin hastath unweg (PE11:53) seems to indicate, it maybe possible to write all these as *nin·u thê, *Im u (n)golda and *Im u feg. instead. This is nicely confirmed by the example u lâ fin sî 'No room for you here.' (PE11:52)
Indeed, we find an entry in the GL describing u -u 'not... nor', and its use is illustrated by the example u laud u laith hasta unweg '*Neither flood nor time wait for anyone.' (PE11:53). So, a single u can be used as 'not, no' whereas a repetition means 'neither... nor'.
Goldogrin is (probably) quite different here - in order to get the correct meaning of u laud u laith hasta unweg which literally translates 'not flood not time wait for no one.' one has to assume that the double negation doesn't cancel - otherwise the implied meaning would be that flood and time wait for everyone, which is presumably not the case. Hence it once a sentence is negated, it is permissible to add further negations to its elements without changing the meaning.
Likewise, there appears no particular preference in the order of objects in different cases. In ôni cailthi a·mabwid glen irtha (PE11:11) we see the accusative object preceding the dative, in on iltathi nin pieg (PE11:51) we see just the opposite word order. In Goldogrin (which is, unlike later Sindarin, a language with case endings) this is no problem - the case marking allows to identify the function of a particular word in any position.
According to PE11:15, adjectives may and do precede the noun frequently. None the less the normal rule is that adjectives and adjectival genitives and equivalent forms succeed the qualified noun as nearly as possible. It appears that the possessive pronouns are counted similarly among the 'equivalent forms' - we find mabwid glen irtha 'her slender hands' (PE11:11) and suila ontha 'of his daughter' (PE11:11), in both cases the possesive pronoun follows the possessed object.
Note that there is no translation of the English 'it' of 'it is lost for me' in the Goldogrin sentence - the English language has a subject requirement, i.e. even if there is no thing logically doing the action which could replace the pronoun (consider 'it is raining' - neither 'the weather is raining' nor 'the clouds are raining' would be used much in English) the pronoun 'it' is filled in. But other languages may not necessarily have such a requirement. In Goldogrin where it is permissible to leave out the pronoun 'it' in any case this may not be much of a deal, but it implies that **an oltha nin would not be correct Goldogrin whereas *oltha nin would be a valid expression for 'I dream'.
There are several other verbs which seem to fall into this class:
luista- is marked as impersonal and given with the example luista nin 'I am thirsty'
nictha- is glossed 'it is raining, hailing, is snowing'
fôtha- is glossed 'it snows'
Back to the index