Throughout much of its conceptual development, Quenya had two distinct roots for the verb to be: the root √NĀ functioning mainly as a copula in “to be” expressions like Elrondo Elda ná “Elrond is an Elf” or Aracorno halla ná “Aragorn is tall”, versus a distinct root used mainly for existential statements such as Eru ëa “God exists”. The copula-root was established very early as √NĀ, but the existential-root varied considerably.
The earliest version of the existential root was ᴱ√Ō “be, exist” from the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s (QL/69). By the 1920s it seems this root has changed to ᴱ√Ī as it appeared in Early Qenya words lists from that period (PE16/140), and the verb for “to be” in the contemporaneous Early Qenya Grammar was ᴱQ. e- or i (PE14/51, 57).
A similar root ᴹ√YĒ or ᴹ√I appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s, albeit with no derivatives (EtyAC/YE). It was most likely the basis for the so-called “stative” suffix ᴹQ. -ie seen in the contemporaneous Fíriel’s Song (LR/72). The root ᴹ√YE was also mentioned in both the first and second versions of the Tengwesta Qenderinwa from 1937 (TQ1: PE18/60) and around 1950 (TQ2: PE18/84), though in the latter it was rejected (PE18/84 note #69). This root is reflected in the use of ᴹQ. ye- in the Quenya Verbal System (QVS) from 1948 (PE22/107, 115, 117, 119-120), but this verb was rejected and replaced towards the end of that document by a new verb ᴹQ. ea- (PE22/122-124 and PE22/123 note #130). The rejection of ye- “to be” may be due to the introduction of Q. yén for the Elvish long year, as suggested by Christopher Gilson (PE22/86).
In QVS, the new verb ea- was derived from a primitive ✱eʒe or ✱eñe (PE22/122); the root ᴹ√EƷ “be” had already been mentioned in Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the late 1930s, indicating Tolkien had been considering this form for some time. In 1948 QVS, Tolkien said:
> The primary sense of this verb was “to exist, to have being, to be found, extant, in the real world”. But it was often weakened to the copula, in statements of identity or predication. This however in classical Quenya was limited mainly to the past and future (PE22/123).
Thus in 1948 Tolkien started the process of establishing ea- as primarily an existential verb. A few years later, Tolkien mentioned the root √EÑ “be” in the Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the early 1950s (PE19/96) and he described √EÑ more fully in verbal notes from 1969 where he said:
> Stem of verb “exist” (have being in primary world of history) was √EŊE, distinct from √NA joining adjs./nouns/pronouns in statements (or wishes) asserting (or desiring) a thing to have a certain quality, or to be the same as another (PE22/147).
Thus the conceptual development of this root seems to have roughly been √Ō (1910s) >> √YĒ/Ī (1920s) >> √EƷ (late 1940s) >> √EÑ (early 1950s). This is an oversimplification however, in that √EƷ appeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s and Tolkien may have been considering it much earlier. Furthermore, the role of √EÑ as primarily as existential root (vs. copula √NĀ) was only firmly established in Tolkien’s later writings. When the root was √YĒ/Ī in the 1920s through 1940s, it seems the verbs ᴱQ. e- and ᴹQ. ye- were used for both existential statements and as a copula, and in this period √NĀ (though mentioned) was rarely used and may have been out of favor.
The root √ANA was connected to “giving” and “movement toward” for much of Tolkien’s life. The root first appeared as ᴱ√ANA “give, send towards” in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s, and in this period was the basis for words like ᴱQ. anta-/G. antha- “give” and ᴱQ. ana “to(wards)” (QL/31; GL/19). The root reappeared in The Etymologies of the 1930s as ᴹ√ANA with an inverted variant ᴹ√NĀ¹ “to, towards”; the most notable derivative of this inverted form was N. na “with, by” (Ety/ANA¹, NĀ¹). In the first version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa from the 1930s (TQ1), √AN was given as one of the primary examples of the inversion of roots, where √AN(A) was originally a “biconsontal root” (²√) with a vocalic beginning, and the inverted form √NA was an abnormal vocalization of the basic root (PE18/38).
This same example of inversion was used in the second version of Tengwesta Qenderinwa from around 1950 (TQ2: PE18/88), and this invertible root appeared regularly in Tolkien’s later writings almost always with glosses like “to, towards, motion to”. There were a few instances in which Tolkien explored some alternate meanings for the root, however. In Common Eldarin: Noun Structure from the early 1950s Tolkien said that:
> It is true that in Q. na appears with sense “to”, but this at nearest means “towards, to a position near, alongside” ... The original sense of Eldarin ana was plainly “at side of, alongside, besides”, hence also “moreover, in addition, plus” (seen in use of an- as an intensive prefix), and so an or na in some languages has the sense “along with, with, accompanied by, provided with, associated with” and the like (PE21/79).
Likewise in Quenya Notes from 1957 (QN) Tolkien said:
> √ANA/NĀ, to, towards — added to, plu-. Quenya verbal prefix ana, na-, as in napan-, add. an “plu-”, intensive prefix, arcalima, preeminently bright, ancalima, very bright ... S an, dative chiefly with pronouns or persons. < ana, hence vocalic mutation, but takes form m before m, b. ✱ to, for (PE17/146-7).
In this note Tolkien went on to explore various non-allative meanings associated with the root such as the conjugation/adverb Q. an “for, then, or, but” and prepositions S. na(n) “with” vs. S. na “to, towards”, differing mainly in the mutations they cause (nasal versus soft). It seems the association of this root with both the intensive an- and words like Q. an “for; moreover” and S. na(n) “with” motivated Tolkien to find a more nuanced meaning for the root. This likewise probably motivated Tolkien to explore an alternate basis for the intensive prefix in the mid-1960s, deriving it from √AMA rather than √AN (PE17/90-94).
Neo-Eldarin: For Neo-Eldarin, I prefer to retain an- as the basis for intensives in both Quenya and Sindarin, and thus I think it is best to retain the extended meanings of √AN from the 1950s to include senses like “add to, more” and “up to the side of”, hence by extension “alongside” becoming (in S.) “with, accompanying, possessing, having the trait of” as in S. na(n) “of, with”.