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 1940s, 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 √BER appeared in later writing as the basis for marriage words, and Quenya marriage words began with ver- for much of Tolkien’s life, dating all the way back in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s. However, there are many ways to produce a medial r in Quenya, and Tolkien experimented with more or less all of them in the formation of this root, as seen by the shifting forms in other branches in the Elvish languages.
The earliest form of this root appeared as √VEŘE in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s (QL/101), where the Ř indicated the actual primitive form was VEÐE (or ɃEÐE), as confirmed by its Gnomish equivalent Bedh- (QL/101; GL/22). This early root was unglossed, but its derivatives all had to do with marriage, including ᴱQ. veru/G. †benn/G. bedhron “husband”, ᴱQ. †veri/ᴱQ. vesse/G. bess “wife” and ᴱQ. vesta-/G. benna- “to wed”.
There are indications this root may have initially been ᴹ√BED in The Etymologies of the 1930s, based on primitive forms like ᴹ✶bedū “spouses” (Ety/LEP). But the main “marriage” entry in The Etymologies was ᴹ√BES “wed”, with derivatives like ᴹQ. vesta- “to wed”, ᴹQ. venno/N. benn “husband” and ᴹQ. vesse/N. bess “wife”. One interesting feature about this conceptual stage is that the Noldorin words for “husband” and “wife” drifted in meaning to become simply “man” and “woman”, and new words N. herven and herves were coined for “husband” and “wife”.
In various etymological notes from the late 1960s, Tolkien introduced a new root √BER for marriage. His longest description of it was in a 1969 note:
> √BER “to mate, be mated, joined in marriage”: Q. verya (intr.) “to marry (of husband and wife), be joined to” (veryanen senna); verta (tr.) “to give in marriage (a) to (b), or to take as husband or wife (to oneself)”; verū > veru “husband”; verī > veri “wife” (VT49/45).
The forms Q. veru/veri “husband/wife” were restorations of the Early Qenya forms from the 1910s.
It is not entirely clear when Tolkien made this change to the root, but in The Road Goes Ever On published in 1967, he said that “[S.] bereth actually meant ‘spouse’, and is used of one who is ‘queen’ as spouse of a king” (RGEO/66), strongly hinting that this word was derived from √BER “wed” at that conceptual stage. Earlier on, N./S. bereth “queen” was derived from primitive ✶barathī, an etymology Tolkien was still using in notes from the late 1950s or early 1960s (PE17/22-23). As discussed in the entry on Elbereth, this etymology presented some phonological difficulties in Sindarin, which may have motivated Tolkien to introduce a new etymology for S. bereth, switching to the root √BER for marriage in the process. My best guess is that this switch happened sometime in the mid-1960s, but it could have been earlier.
Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin writing, I think it is best to ignore the introduction of the root √BER “wed”, and keep using ᴹ√BES “wed” from The Etymologies. As a root for marriage, √BER presents a number of problems:
It clashes with ᴹ√BER “valiant” from the 1930s, the basis for the name S. Beren.
It invalidates a number of Noldorin words for husband and wife with no obvious replacements.
In Sindarin it is difficult to keep derivatives of √BER “wed” from colliding with other words like beria- “to protect”, bertha- “to dare” and beren “bold”, though technically these are all Noldorin words.
The main disadvantage of ignoring √BER “wed” is that it leaves us with no good etymology for the name S. Elbereth. It is quite possible to solve the above problems with √BER by coining new words, but I prefer to keep using the older words as they are quite popular in Neo-Sindarin. It would be relatively easy to coin a new etymology for Elbereth instead, perhaps from ✱elen-baratthī with the longer cluster inhibiting i-intrusion. See the entry on S. bereth for further discussion.