tulya- vb. "lead" (+ allative: lead into) (VT43:22)
Quenya
tulya-
verb. *to lead; to fetch, *to lead; to fetch; [ᴱQ.] to bring, send
tulya-
verb. lead
tulya
adjective. coming, approaching, future
@@@ Discord 2023-02-28 < PE ✱tárasā
álamë tulya úsahtienna
[and] lead us not into temptation
The ninth line of Átaremma, Tolkien’s Quenya translation of the Lord’s Prayer. The first word Álamë is a combination of the negative imperative particle ála “not” and the pronoun me “us”. It is followed by the aorist form of the verb tulya “lead” and the allative form úsahtienna “into temptation” of the noun úsahtië “temptation”. Thus, Álamë tulya úsahtienna is more literally “✱imperative-not-us lead temptation-into”. In the final version of the phrase, there is no Quenya element representing the English word “and”.
Decomposition: Broken into its constituent elements, this phrase would be:
> á-la-më tulya úsahtie-nna = “✱do-not-us lead temptation-into”
Conceptual Development: The word ar “and” appears only in version I of the prayer. It was omitted from all later versions for unknown reasons.
The earliest version used a different negative imperative particle úa (I-IIa). Versions IIa-IV also suffixed the pronominal element lye “you (polite)” to the imperative element, as was also the case in line 6 of the prayer. In all early versions of the prayer (I-IV), the object pronoun me appeared after the verb.
The early versions (I-IV) used a different verb mittanya- for “lead”. Tolkien considered several words for “temptation”: terfantië (I deleted) and terpellië (I-IIa), insangarë and sahtië (V deleted), before settling on úsahtië (V-VI). All appear with the allative suffix -nna: “(in)to temptation”.
| | I |IIa|IIb|III|IV|V|VI| |ar| | |{úna >>}|úa|úalye|alalye|Álalye|Álame| |mittanya|tulya| |{men >>}|me| | |{terfantie >>}|terpellienna|insangarenna|{sahtienna >>} úsahtienna|
-lmë
we
-lmë 1st person pl. pronominal ending: "we" (VT49:38; 51 carilmë *"we do", VT49:16). It was originally intended to be inclusive "we" (VT49:48), including the person(s) spoken to, but by 1965 Tolkien made this the ending for exclusive "we" instead (cf. the changed definition of the corresponding possessive ending -lma, see above). _(VT49:38) Exemplified in laituvalmet "we shall bless them" (lait-uva-lme-t "bless-shall-we-them") (the meaning apparently changed from inclusive to exclusive "we", VT49:55), see also nalmë under ná# 1. (LotR3:VI ch. 4, translated in Letters:308_)
-lwë
we
-lwë, later -lvë, pronominal ending "we" (VT49:51), 1st person pl. inclusive ending, occurring in the verbs carilwë "we do" (VT49:16) and navilwë (see #nav-). The ending became -lvë in later, Exilic Quenya (VT49:51). See -lv-.
-mmë
we
-mmë "we", 1st person dual exclusive pronominal ending: "I and one other" (compare the inclusive dual form -ngwë or -nquë). First written -immë in one source (VT49:57). Carimmë, "the two of us do" (VT49:16, cf. VT43:6). At an earlier conceptual stage, the ending was already exclusive, but plural rather than dual: vammë "we won't" (WJ:371), firuvammë "we will die" (VT43:34), etemmë ?"out of us" (VT43:36); see also VT49:48, 49, 55. Also compare the corresponding emphatic pronoun emmë (q.v.). The ending -lmë replaced -mmë in its former (plural exclusive) sense. In some early material, -mmë was apparently used as an ending for plural inclusive "we" (VT49:55).
-ngwë
we
-ngwë "we", 1st person dual inclusive pronominal ending: "thou and I" (compare the exclusive dual form -mmë). Caringwë, "the two of us do" (VT49:16). One source lists the ending as "-inke > -inque" instead (VT49:51, 53, 57; "inke" was apparently Old Quenya). In an earlier pronoun table reproduced in VT49:48, the ending -ngwë is listed as an alternative to -lmë, which Tolkien at the time used as the plural inclusive ending (a later revision made it plural exclusive).
ala
not
ala, #ála (1) imperative particle á, a combined with the negation lá, -la "not" to express a prohibition (VT43:22; see lá #1). Also with 1st person suffix -lyë (alalyë and álalyë, VT43:10, 22, VT44:8) and 1st person pl. object suffix -më (alamë and álamë, "do not [do something to] us", as in álamë tulya, "do not lead us", VT43:12, 22). In the essay Quendi and Eldar, negative imperatives are rather indicated by áva, q.v., but this form can well coexist with ala, #ála.
ala-
not
ala- (2) negative prefix "not", "un-", reduced to al- before a vowel (VT42:33, GALA, VT45:25), though the example Alcorin would suggest that al- can sometimes appear before a consonant as well. In a deleted entry in Etym, al(a)- was defined as "not" and said to be a "pure negative" (VT45:5). In alahasta, Alamanyar, alasaila, Alcorin.
emmë
we
emmë (2) pron. "we", emphatic pronoun; dative emmen (VT43:12, 20). In the source this pronoun is intended as the 1st person plural exclusive; later Tolkien changed the corresponding pronominal ending from -mmë to -lmë, and the plural emphatic pronoun would likewise change from emmë to *elmë. Since the ending -mmë was redefined as a dualexclusive pronoun, the form emmë may still be valid as such, as a dual emphatic pronoun "we" = "(s)he and I".
lanu
lead
lanu noun "lead" (LT1:268)
me
we, us
me (1) 1st person pl. exclusive pronoun "we, us" (VT49:51; VT43:23, VT44:9). This pronoun preserves the original stem-form (VT49:50). Stressed mé (VT49:51). Cf. also mel-lumna "us-is-heavy", sc. *"is heavy for us" (LR:47, mel- is evidently an assimilated form of men "for us", dative of me; the form men is attested by itself, VT43:21). For me as object, cf. álamë** "do not [do something to] us", negative imperative particle with object pronoun suffixed (VT43:19: álamë tulya, "do not lead us"), ámen** "do [something for] us", imperative particle with dative pronoun suffixed (ámen apsenë "forgive us", VT43:12, 18). Dual exclusive met "we/us (two)" (Nam, VT49:51), "you and me" (VT47:11; the latter translation would make met an inclusive pronoun, though it is elsewhere suggested that it is rather exclusive: "him/her and me", corresponding to wet [q.v.] as the true inclusive dual form). Rá men or rámen "for us/on our behalf", see rá. Locative messë "on us", VT44:12 (also with prefix o, ó- ?"with" in the same source). See also ménë, ómë.
mittanya-
verb. to lead
mittanya- vb. "to lead" (+ allative: lead into) (VT43:10, 22; Tolkien may have abandoned this form in favour of tulya-)
ve
we
ve (2) pron. "we", 1st person pl. inclusive (corresponding to exclusive me), derived from an original stem-form we (VT49:50, PE17:130). Variant vi, q.v. Stressed wé, later vé (VT49:51). Dative (*wéna >) véna, VT49:14. Dual wet*, later vet "the two of us" (inclusive; cf. exclusive met) (VT49:51). Also compare the dative form ngwin or ngwen (q.v.), but this would apparently be wen > ven** according to Tolkiens later ideas.
vi
we
vi pron. "we", 1st person inclusive (PE17:130), variant of ve #2.
we
we
we, wé, see ve #2
ú
particle. not
Tolkien used this verb with several similar meanings throughout his life. Its earliest appearance was in the Early Qenya Grammar of the 1920s where it was glossed “send, bring” (PE14/58), and in Early Qenya Word-lists from the same period it was glossed “bring” (PE16/133). In Quendian & Common Eldarin Verbal Structure (EVS1) from the 1940s, Tolkien had primitive ᴹ✶tulyā- “send hither” along with a statement that “causatives from verbs [verbal roots] more often used yā” (PE22/98).
Primitive ✶tuljā- “fetch” reappeared as another example of a ya-causative in Common Eldarin: Verb Structure (EVS2) from the early 1950s, where it also had a more extensive translation “cause to come, send for, fetch, summon” (PE22/135). The verb appeared again in the phrase Q. álamë tulya úsahtienna “lead us not into temptation” in Quenya prayers from the late 1950s, replacing a verb mittanya- presumably of similar meaning (VT43/22). The verb appeared a final time in Late Notes on Verb Structure (LVS) from 1969 as yet another example of a ya-causative verb (PE22/164); in this set of documents the related verbal noun tulyandë was glossed “fetching” (PE22/137).
The relationship between this verb and its root √TUL is somewhat tricky. In the 1910s, the early root ᴱ√TULU had a broad meaning, originally “uphold, support, bear, carry” and thus by extension “fetch, bring” and “move, come” (QL/95). This early meaning of the root may have influenced the 1920s glosses “send, bring” for tulya-. From the 1930s forward, however, √TUL was limited in sense to “come = move toward the speaker” (Ety/TUL; PE17/188). A causative form of this root therefore would mean “cause to come”. This could apply to ya-causative tulya-, as with primitive ✶tulyā- in EVS1 and EVS2 (see above). However, Tolkien often used ta-causative tulta- to mean “send (for), summon = cause to come” instead (Ety/TUL; PE22/114, 156).
Neo-Quenya: It is not clear whether Tolkien intended ya-causative tulya- and ta-causative tulta- to coexist. The only document in which they both appear is 1969 LVS (PE22/164). That package of documents includes many hypothetical examples, so it still is not clear whether both verbs were “real” in the context of in-universe Elvish. For purposes of Neo-Quenya, however, I assume the two verbs coexist with slightly different meanings: tulta- “fetch = cause to come > summon [someone]” and tulya- “fetch = cause to come with > bring [something]”.
This interpretation of tulya- as “bring, fetch” is largely consistent with its use in the 1920s through 1960s. In the Quenya prayer noted above, the translation “bring” also works: álamë tulya úsahtienna “✱bring us not into temptation” as an alternative to “lead us not into temptation”. As such I think tulya- = “lead” only in the sense “bring someone someplace”, and not “lead” in the sense of “give guidance and leadership”.