-lma pronominal ending "our", 1st person pl. exclusive (VT49:16), also attested (with the genitive ending -o that displaces final -a) in the word omentielmo "of our meeting" (nominative omentielma, PE17:58). Tolkien emended omentielmo to omentielvo in the Second Edition of LotR, reflecting a revision of the Quenya pronominal system (cf. VT49:38, 49, Letters:447). The cluster -lm- in the endings for inclusive "we/our" was altered to -lv- (VT43:14). In the revised system, -lma should apparently signify exclusive "our".
Quenya
-ngwa
our
-ngwa
suffix. our (inclusive dual)
-lma
our
-lma
suffix. our (inclusive)
-lma
suffix. our (inclusive dual)
-lmë
suffix. we (inclusive)
-lva
suffix. our (inclusive)
-lvë
suffix. we (inclusive)
The suffix -lvë is the first person plural inclusive inflection: “we (including you)” (PE17/130; VT49/16, 51). The corresponding possessive form -lva “our (inclusive)” appears in its genitive form -lvo in the famous phrase elen síla lúmenn’ omentielvo.
Possible Etymology: Tolkien indicated that this inflection was ultimately derived from the primitive pronoun ✶we, with the same plural marker l as other plural inflections such as -l(yë) and -ltë, and that its oldest form was ✶-lwe (PE17/130; VT49/50-51). At one point Tolkien indicated that the change of lw > lv was the normal phonetic development in Quenya (PE17/129). There little evidence that Tolkien carried through with the phonetic rule, however, and there are plenty of examples of unmodified lw in later Quenya. A better explanation might be that -lwe changed to -lve under the influence of the independent pronoun ve. These ideas came out of a discussion with Shihali on the Vinyë Lambengolmor Discord Server (VLDS) on Jan 28, 2018.
Conceptual Development: @@@
-lwa
our
-lwa, possessive pronominal ending, 1st person pl. inclusive "our" (VT49:16), later (in exilic Quenya) used in the form #-lva, genitive -lvo in omentielvo (see -lv-).
-lwa
suffix. our (inclusive)
-lwë
suffix. we (inclusive)
-mma
our
-mma "our", 1st person dual exlusive possessive ending: *"my and one others" (VT49:16). At an earlier conceptual phase, Tolkien apparently intended the same ending to be plural inclusive "our" (VT49:55, RS:324), cf. Mélamarimma "Our Home" (q.v.) In the latter word, Tolkien slips in i as a connecting vowel before this ending; elsewhere he used e, as in Átaremma "our Father" (see atar).
-nqua
suffix. our (inclusive dual)
menya
our
menya (pl. menyë is attested) possessive pron. "our", 1st person pl. exclusive independent possessive pronoun (VT43:19, 35). Evidently derived from the dative form men "for us" by adding the adjectival ending -ya. Compare ninya, q.v.
o-
prefix. together
A prefix meaning “together” derived from primitive √WO (WJ/367). The modern Quenya form of the prefix is the result of the sound change whereby “unstressed wo was often reduced to o with loss of w” (PE19/106). Note that “when stressed the [primitive] sequence wo was usually changed > wa”, so in theory Quenya might have a variant prefix ✱va- “together” that was the result of an ancient stressed prefix, much like Sindarin go- vs. gwa-. However, there is no sign of such a prefix va- in Quenya. Instead, the short o- became ó- in those rare cases where it was stressed (WJ/367).
In the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60 Tolkien said that o- was “used in words describing the meeting, junction, or union of two things or persons, or of two groups thought of as units”, as opposed to yo- used for three or more things (WJ/361, 367). In examples elsewhere, though, o- “together” seems to have a more general meaning in words like olass(i)ë “foliage, collection of leaves” or ombari “company, dwellers together” (NM/117). I would therefore assume yo- is only used when plurality was emphasized, and o- “together” was the default choice otherwise.
Conceptual Development: The earliest precursor to this suffix appeared in the Gnomish Lexicon of the 1910s as ᴱQ. ma- “together” derived from primitive ᴱ✶ŋu̯a (GL/40). This was part of a paradigm in which G. go- was the result of unstressed ᴱ✶ŋu̯a, and gwa- was the normal phonological result. There was also an apparently related suffix ᴱQ. -ngwe in the Narqelion poem in phrases like ómalingwe lir’ amaldar = “✱(together) with voices singing gently”, which could also be derived from primitive ᴱ✶ŋu̯a. The Early Noldorin Dictionary of the 1920s had ᴱQ. va- as the equivalent of ᴱN. go- “together”, probably reflecting a change to primitive ✱wa- (PE13/162).
The Etymologies of the 1930s had both ᴹQ. ō̆- and N. go- “together” derived from the root ᴹ√WŌ̆ (Ety/WŌ). In this new paradigm, N. gwa- was the result of stressed primitive wó-. In Quenya primitive wō and unstressed wŏ blended to produce o- “together”, which could be either short o or long ó. In the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) of the 1940s, Tolkien seems to hint that stressed (g)wo- > wá- in Quenya as well (PE19/53). But as noted above there are no examples of prefixal wa-/va- “together” in actual Quenya words from Tolkien’s later writings.
olos
noun. inflorescence, mass of flowers (on one plant), inflorescence, mass of flowers
A word for “inflorescence, mass of flowers (on one plant)” in notes on flowers from the same bundle containing Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN) written in 1959, with forms lōs and olos (olōs-) which were both based on √LOTH “flower”, the latter with the prefix o- “together” (PE17/160). There was also a form {lūsse, lōs >>} lōs in notes from around 1967, appearing near lótë “flower, a single blossom” and (deleted) {loste} “blossom (conglomeration of small flowers)” (PE17/26). The intended meaning of lōs in these 1967 notes isn’t clear other than that it was flower-related.
Conceptual Development: The Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s had ᴱQ. lokte (lokte-) “blossom, flowers in bunches or clusters” under the early root ᴱ√LOHO (QL/55). In the contemporaneous Poetic and Mythological Words of Eldarissa it was glossed “flower-cluster” (PME/55) and in the Gnomish Lexicon it was lokse “bunch, cluster” (GL/54).
Neo-Quenya: For purposes of Neo-Quenya, I would mainly used olos (olós-) for “inflorescence, mass of flowers”; compare olass(i)ë “foliage, collection of leaves”. I would use it for any mass of flowers, as opposed olótë “bloom, the flowers collectively of a single plant” from the late 1960s (VT42/18).
uo
together
[uo adv. "together" (PE17:191)]
uo
adverb. together
The adverb uo “together” appeared as a derivative of ✶ówō in a rejected page of notes on the etymology about the prefix o- of the same meaning, probably from around 1959 (PE17/191).
Neo-Quenya: Though the page is rejected, the etymology of ᴺQ. uo “together” remains plausible, so I would retain this adverb for purposes of Neo-Quenya.
wa-
prefix. together
uo
adverb. together
-ngwa "our", 1st person dual inclusive possessive pronominal ending: *"thy and my", corresponding to the ending -ngwë for dual inclusive "we" (VT49:16)