we

pronoun. we, us (inclusive)

we

root. dual

A primitive “dual” element mentioned in notes on numbers from the late 1960s, contributing to the forms of primitive ✶enekwe “six” and ✶yun(e)kwe “twelve” in the Quenya branch of Elvish, as well as the ancient 1st person inclusive pronoun ✶ñwe (VT48/10). It was probably related to the ancient dual suffix ✶-ū (Let/427). It was also likely a later iteration the dual root ᴱ√WI from the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s which was likewise connected to dual U (QL/33). This early root was mentioned in the contemporaneous Gnomish Lexicon as ᴱ✶u̯i (GL/45).

weg

root. live, be active, live, be active; [ᴹ√] (manly) vigour

This root was connected to vigour and masculinity for much of Tolkien’s life. The earliest iteration of this root seems to be primitive ᴱ√gu̯eg- from the Gnomish Lexicon of the 1910s that served as the basis for various words such as G. gweg “man”, G. gwectha- “impregnate; generate”, and G. gwionert “deed of valour” (GL/44). Tolkien mentioned a few Qenya cognates like ᴱQ. wie and ᴱQ. wenga, but they were unglossed (GL/44). In the Gnomish Lexicon Slips Tolkien gave {ᴱ√we >>} ᴱ√waik as the primitive form beside {ᴱ✶u̯ē+kĕ >> ᴱ✶u̯ĕ+kĕ >>} ᴱ✶u̯ǝkḗ (PE13/117).

In the Early Noldorin Dictionary of the 1920s Tolkien gave ᴱ✶wikā > ᴱN. gweg “man” vs. ᴱQ. vika “valiant”; the Qenya form indicates this 1920s primitive was not specifically masculine, and it also had a primitive feminine variant ᴱ✶wiktā (PE13/162). It was nonetheless related to other words likes ᴱ✶wiqē > ᴱN. gwib “teors”, which is Old English = “penis” (PE13/162). Some similar forms like ᴱQ. via “male” and ᴱQ. vie “teors” appeared in Early Qenya Word-list of the 1920s as well (PE16/135). These 1920s forms seem to be based on primitive ✱ᴱ√WI instead of ᴱ√(g)weg.

In the Declension of Nouns from the early 1930s Tolkien gave primitive weʒ- as the basis for N. gwe, ᴹQ. †wé “man, warrior” and the masculine suffix ᴹQ. -we common in names (PE21/1). In The Etymologies of the 1930s this masculine suffix was derived from ᴹ√WEG “(manly) vigour” along with other derivatives like ᴹQ. vea “adult, manly, vigorous”, ᴹQ. vie “manhood, vigour” and N. gweith “manhood; man-power, troop of able bodied men, host, regiment” (Ety/WEG; EtyAC/WEG).

In some notes from the late 1950s Tolkien again gave the suffix Q. -wë as masculine and derived it from √WEG or √WEƷ, but then changed his mind and decided it was derived from √WĒ or √WEƷ “person” (PE17/189-190), an idea he seems to have stuck with thereafter; see the entry on √WĒ/EWE for further discussion. In Quenya Notes (QN) from 1957 Tolkien gave {√WEK >>} √WEG as distinct from √WĒ, giving it the gloss “live, be active” where it served as the basis for words like Q. vëo/S. gwê “living creature” and Q. vehtë “life”, though he clarified that this last word was “not Life in general or as a principle, but (a period of) individual activity, as in vehtequentalë ‘biography’ (PE17/189)”. This use for “active” can also be seen in the primitive name ✶Denwego “Light-and-active” in the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60 (WJ/412).

Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I think it is best to assume this root had to do with vigour and activeness, characteristics that were generally (but not absolutely) attributed as masculine. This allows us to retain the largest array of derivatives of this root from various periods. I also think it is best to assume it remains distinct from √WĒ/EWE “person”, though the two roots may originally have been related.

-wē

suffix. person; male suffix

ingwe

pronoun. we (inclusive emphatic)

leñwe

noun. leñwe

igwe

pronoun. we (inclusive emphatic)

wē/ewe

root. person, being, individual

This root served as the basis for the suffix Q. -wë common in ancient Quenya names. In The Etymologies of the 1930s, this suffix had two variants: masculine ᴹQ. -we derived from root ᴹ√WEG “(manly) vigour”, but also abstract ᴹQ. -we derived from unrelated ᴹ✶-wē (Ety/WEG). In the first version of Quenya Personal Pronouns (QPP1) from the late 1940s where Tolkien said “Manwe etc. contain a stem or suffix √EWE, WĒ originally abstract” (PE23/87).

The suffix -we was sometimes specifically masculine in some later notes as well (circa 1959), where Tolkien said “√WEG, WEƷ, √NES, NETH- referred to masculinity and femininity apart from sex and so could refer to the Valar and Maiar” (PE17/190), but this etymology was rejected and in its place Tolkien wrote: “√WE ? WEƷ ‘person’, individual (only used of Elves and Men), thus origin of -we in Quenya names as Manwe, Voronwe” (PE17/189). In Quenya Notes (QN) from 1957 Tolkien wrote:

> -we in Quenya names (Manwe, etc.). This is in origin a separate word √WĒ (WE’E ?), from its form an ancient element of Eldarin vocabulary. Probably related to Q ve “as, like”; vëa “seeming, apparent”; vávea, ovéa “(con)similar, alike”. In Sindarin adoption of Quenya names (as Voronwe > Bronweg) -we was sometimes used to represent -we, which historically had become w or u (as in Elu = Elwe). But this S -we is of distinct origin, √WEG- “live, be active”. Hence ✱wego(n) “living creature”: Q weo, vëo, S gwê (PE17/189).

In these Quenya Notes, √WĒ as a name element was distinct from √WEG “active”, and neither were distinctly masculine. The initial version of this note glossed √WE as “a person or being” (PE17/190), but in revision Tolkien connected it to Q. ve “as, like” (PE17/189). The interpretation of the suffix -we as gender-neutral was mentioned again in The Shibboleth of Fëanor from 1968 where Tolkien said it was derived from √EWE “person” (PM/340). However, the only feminine name where this element appeared was Q. Elenwë the wife of Turgon (S/90, PM/345), and most of the names with this element were both masculine and ancient.

See the entry on √WEG for more on the evolution of earlier, largely masculine, forms.

teñwe

noun. sign, token, indication

me

pronoun. we (exclusive)

imme utūlijēr lá isse

we have come, not he

khe

pronoun. we, us (inclusive)

mi

pronoun. we (exclusive)

ñe

pronoun. we, us (inclusive)

nēnā

adjective. wet

bē

preposition. as, like

Tolkien used the word Q. ve for “as, like” in Quenya for much of his life, but its etymological origins varied. In the the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s, Tolkien had two distinct roots for “similarity”: unglossed ᴱ√SĒ with variant ᴱ√SENE⁽²⁾ and derivatives like ᴱQ. se “as, like, in manner of” and ᴱQ. (a)sesta- “to liken, compare” (QL/82), and also ᴱ√VĪ “as” with variant ᴱ√VI‘I and derivatives like ᴱQ. ve “as, like”, ᴱQ. vealta- “to resemble”, and ᴱQ. vīkana- “compare” (QL/101). The semantic distinction between the two roots isn’t clear, and in the contemporaneous Gnomish Lexicon there was a third set of forms beginning with fel- such as G. fel “as, like”, G. feleg “equal”, and G. feltha- “resemble, seem like” (GL/34).

In later notes Tolkien proposed a variety of primitive origins for Q. ve “as, like”: ✶wē (we’e) in 1957 Quenya Notes (VT49/10; PE17/189), ✶bē from notes from the late 1950s or early 1960s (VT49/32 note #10), and ✶vai as a relative of suffixal -va in notes from 1968 (VT49/32 note #10). As there are not any definite Sindarin cognates for Q. ve in Tolkien’s published writings, it is hard to know which of these is more likely.

Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would go with primitive ✶bē as the most widely excepted option, producing S. ✱be “as, like”.

uñg

root. spider

This root and ones like it were tied to spider words for much of Tolkien’s life, most notably in the name S. Ungoliant and its precursors. The earliest iteration of this root was unglossed ᴱ√GUŊU in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s with derivatives like ᴱQ. ungwe/G. gung “spider” (QL/98); Tolkien marked the root with a “?” and given that the Qenya forms had no initial consonant, the actual root may have been ✱ᴱ√ƷUŊU. In The Lost Tales of the 1910s, Tolkien changed G. Gungliont to G. Ungoliont (LT1/156), and in the contemporaneous Gnomish Lexicon the word for “spider” was G. ungwi (GL/75), so it seems Tolkien revised {✱ᴱ√ƷUŊU >>} ✱ᴱ√UŊU.

In The Etymologies of the 1930s, unglossed ᴹ√UÑG had derivatives like ᴹQ. ungwe “gloom” and ᴹQ. ungo “cloud, dark shadow” (Ety/UÑG), and it was the second element ᴹQ. liante in ᴹQ. Ungoliante that meant “spider” (Ety/SLIG). However, in notes from 1969 Tolkien gave ✱ungu- as the basis for “spider” words (PE22/160), as reflected in Q. ungwë “spider’s web” (LotR/1122) and S. ungol “spider” in his later writings (Let/180; RC/490, 767).

sam

root. to have, have; [ᴹ√] unite, join

The root ᴹ√SAM “unite, join” was a later addition to The Etymologies of the 1930s with the derivative ᴹQ. samnar “diphthongs” (Ety/SAM). There is also evidence for it in the word ᴹQ. sampane “combination” as in ᴹQ. Lámasampane “Combination of Sounds”, a term used in the first version of the Tengwesta Qenderinwa (TQ1) from the 1930s (PE18/40), and again in the second version (TQ2) from around 1950 (PE18/90). In an isolated note from the late 1930s, Tolkien gave ᴹ√kam “bind, join” as a replacement for √sam along with a new word ᴹQ. okamna “diphthong” (VT44/13), but given the reappearance of Q. sampanë in TQ2 this may have been a transient idea, and in any case Tolkien used the word Q. ohlon for “diphthong” in the 1950s and 60s (VT39/9; VT48/29).

In notes grouped with Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN) from 1959, Tolkien gave √SAM as the basis for Elvish verbs for “to have”, with Q. samin and S. sevin “✱I have” (PE17/173). Whether this was connected to 1930s ᴹ√SAM “unite, join” is unclear. In notes associated with the 1959-60 essay Ósanwe-kenta, Tolkien gave the root √SAM with the gloss “mind, think, reflect, be aware” (VT41/5), but in later writings he used √SAN for “think, use mind” instead (PE22/158); see that entry for discussion.

Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I’d use √SAM = “have”.

-lwē

suffix. 1st person plural b (inclusive)

-ngwā

pronoun. our (inclusive)

min(i)kewē̆

cardinal. eleven, (lit.) fresh one

sam-wē

noun. an act of thinking, a thought

-(u)mē

suffix. denoting a (single) action

-ū

suffix. dual

imi

root. in

mō

noun. person

ndab

root. to judge

ndē̆r

noun. man

năta

noun. thing

te

pronoun. they

tī

pronoun. they

en

root. name

nam Reconstructed

root. judge

A root implied by various Quenya words having to do with “judgement” from the 1950s and 60s, most notably Q. Námo “Ordainer, Judge” as the true name of Q. Mandos (S/28), a name that began to appear in documents starting in the early 1950s (PE21/85). The root is evident in other words from this period, such as Q. namna “statute” (MR/258), Q. námië “a single judgment or desire” (VT41/13) and the verb Q. nam- “judge” in the phrase: Q. ore nin karitas nō namin alasaila “I feel moved to do so but judge it unwise” (VT41/13). ✱√NAM might also be the basis for the second element of the name Q. Rithil-Anamo “Doom-ring”, the circle of thrones where the Valar sat in council (WJ/401).

In notes from 1969 Tolkien seems to have changed his mind of the root for “judge”, writing Q. nemin >> Q. hamin >> Q. navin for “I judge”, and giving a new root √NDAB “to judge” in a marginal note along with a revised name Návo to replace Námo (PE22/154, notes #53 and #55). This new root conflicts with √NDAB “endeavor, try” from earlier in the same bundle of documents (PE22/151).

Neo-Eldarin: For purposes of Neo-Eldarin, I would ignore the late change of ✱√NAM >> √NDAB “judge”, since ✱√NAM has more attested derivatives and Námo appears in the published Silmarillion. Also, all of the derivatives of this root are Quenya, and its possible use in the name Rithil-Anamo (coined in Valinor) imply that it might be a root invented after the Elves arrived in Aman. Thus I think it is best to treat it as Quenya-only root, and used ᴹ√BAD “judge” as the basis for (Neo) Sindarin words for judgement by retaining Noldorin words with these meanings from the 1930s (Ety/BAD).