(1 replies, posted in Site News)

Nice. But a note on the verbs of the Zhâburi A. I adapted them for these lists so that they could be used with the other dialects. Zhâburi (both A and B versions) have different verb-suffixes for transitive and intransitive functions for the verbs, -a- for transitive and -u- for intransitive. So the Zhâburi A verb stem bar- have different meanings depending on suffix; barut "to sit" (intransitive) and barat "to put (in place)" (transitive). But this makes it difficult to use the words in other dialects. So I used derivative suffixes to mark this difference so bar- "to put in place" (Swedish: att sätta) (transitive); barn- "to sit down" (Swedish "att sätta sig"); bart- "to sit [continously]" (Swedish "att sitta"). So if you are interested in Zhâburi A please consult me by writing a comment on my site:


That's interesting but I think it's just a coincident.

jarn (n) MERP "iron", Swedish 'järn' (iron)


(3 replies, posted in Black Speech talks)

Yes the allative of Finnish is more of upon but not in Quenya. From Ardalambion "The allative has the ending -nna, meaning "to", "into" or "upon". Both the ablative and the allative are exemplified in the words spoken by Elendil when he came to Middle-earth after the Downfall of Númenor, repeated by Aragorn at his coronation (LotR3/VI ch. 5): Et Eärello Endorenna utúlien. "Out of [lit. out from] the Great Sea to Middle-earth I am come" (Endor(e)-nna "Middle-earth-to"). The allative may also carry the meaning "upon"; cf. i falmalinnar "upon the foaming waves" in Namárië (-linnar being the ending for partitive plural allative; see below)."

In the two old lines of the Ring Verse in LoS the ûr-ending is used. Gakh Nazgu Golug-durub-uru lata-nu/Udu Gazat-shakh-uru ulub ruz-ishiz gund-ob. (Three rings for the elven kings under the sky/Seven for the drarflords in their halls of stone).

Mellonath Daeron have the dative in the their Quenya version of the text as well:

Cormar nelde Eldatárin nu Tarmenel,
Otso Herunaucoin hrótassen ondova,
Nerte Fírimoin martaine nurunen,
Er i More Herun mormahalmas hárala

Likewise the German and the Russian use dative
„Drei Ringe den Elbenkönigen hoch im Licht,
Sieben den Zwergenherrschern in ihren Hallen aus Stein,
Den Sterblichen, ewig dem Tode verfallen, neun,
Einer dem Dunklen Herrn auf dunklem Thron

премудрым эльфам/пещерным гномам / людям Средиземья/

In the Orc curse 'u' in "Uglúk u bagronk" is translated to "cesspool", "dung-pit", or "torture" and in all these cases the preposition u would correspond to the allative case in Quenya but not the dative case. This is of course not conclusive but if 'u' is the preferred postposition for dative then the ring verse should use it instead of -ûr. 

1. Gakh nazgu Golug-durub-u/ûr nut-lata
2. Udu Gazat-goth-u/ûr rûlub-ishiz gund-ob
3. Krith Tark-u/ûr matûrzu dûmpugaz matat
4. Ash Gothbûrz-u/ûr ulîmabûrz-tab-ir
5. Uzgbûrz-ishi amal burgûlu kâtut

The participles are taken directly from BSS.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gegenstän … _Eine_Ring


(3 replies, posted in Black Speech talks)

I've written a summary of LoS based on the Black Speech School variant. I've certainly misunderstood some things and there are certainly some mistakes and so on. You can find it on my Zhâburi-site

https://zhaaburi.wordpress.com/land-of- … ck-speech/


(9 replies, posted in Site Comments)

In lesson XIII on suffix order, verbs collective #6 two endings are given, -ûk and -âzh. The -âzh ending is used with a verb 'ufubulâzh' (will frighten them slightly). I cannot find this -âzh in the lessons or in the wordlists (there is "azh (conj, HORN) "also").

It seems to mean "slightly" but then it is not a collective. Confusing


(15 replies, posted in Site Comments)

Yes of course I knew that

Interesting - scandinavian got 'torg' from old slavic

From Old Norse torg, from Old East Slavic търгъ (tŭrgŭ, “trade, trading, commerce; (trade) square”),[1] from Proto-Slavic *tъrgъ. Cognate with Danish torv and Swedish torg (“a city square”).



(15 replies, posted in Site Comments)

I saw that the word for market is quite similar to the Swedish word for square "torg" which of course is the place you have the market

trog - n  market  LOS, SV, MERP, HORN


(9 replies, posted in Site Comments)

There are two collective plural, -hai and -ûk. In contrast to the ordinary plural these can be used with people and races. So we have uruk-hai (the orc people) as the most famous example. And then in the lessons (IV) there is an example of the -ûk ending used with  sharkû (old man) > sharkûk "all old men". So both the collective plurals can be used with people and races but what is the difference between them. What does sharkû-hai mean "all the old people" or maybe "the society of old men" or is it equivalent to sharkûk? Or is it just gibberish.


(9 replies, posted in Site Comments)

Does comparative and superlative adjectives, and adverbs mark plural?

The dark tower - lugbûrz; the darkest tower - lugbûrzaz; the darkest towers - lugbûrzazu

urukû ghâshuzat hîzarz lug "the old orc quickly burned the tower"; urukûz ghâshuzut hîzarzu lug "the old orcs quickly burned the tower"
edit 1. I saw that the adverb is not agreeing in number so: urukfuz ghâshuzut hîzarz lug
edit 2. I saw that I somehow confused the adjectives - this i now corrected.


(4 replies, posted in Texts in Black Speech)

Kings, lords and men are pluralized in the lines that I started with and the version you posted so it seems to be a difficult rule.


(4 replies, posted in Texts in Black Speech)

I looked on the Black Speech School’s lessons and realised that there is a queer rule that people and persons don’t take plural. In Zhâburi there is no plural at all. So the verse ought to be:

1. Gakh nazgu Golug-durub-ûr nut-lata
2. Udu Gazat-goth-ûr rûlub-ishiz gund-ob
3. Krith Tark-ûr matûrzu dûmpugaz matat
4. Ash Gothbûrz-ûr ulîmabûrz-tab-ir
5. Uzgbûrz-ishi amal burgûlu kâtut


(1 replies, posted in Site Comments)

On alphabets it's  written "In all sources Black Speech is written in Roman alphabet". This is plainly wrong - the ring inscription is in tengwar.


(15 replies, posted in Site Comments)

The Svartiska words are coined by Swedes and j is pronounced as y in English "yes". In my experience this is very difficult for English native speakers to understand. I suggest to change every Svartiska j to y in the dictionary or publish a table with sound descriptions for the different dialects. I can provide you with a sound table.


(9 replies, posted in Site Comments)

On pronunciation

There is an orc name that begins with y - Yagul - in The War of the Ring (The History of Middle Earth, vol. 8 )

I think Tolkien pronounce Mordor in Elvish, it is after all an Elvish name meaning Black land in Sindarin (or "shadows" in Quenya). It has nothing to do with pronunciation of the Black Speech.

And what about the sounds in the excercise: -qu- in "throqu-" and sr- in "srinkh-"? Especially -qu- seems out of place. Why not spell it kv or kw?


(1 replies, posted in Black Speech talks)

Inspired by Horngoth's orcish version of the conversation between Gorbag agh Shagrat I started to translate the original English to Orcish but run soon into trouble.

The first dialogue goes: "Hola! Gorbag! What are you doing up here? Had enough of war already?"

It's the final sentence which is a question that I find problematic because I don't understand how that kind of question is formulated. In Svartiska it's quite easy because you can always use the question particle 'ur' to mark the sentence as a question.

"In questions the word order can be either the  reversed (as in Swedish). Ex. Gonat gur lat? “Do I see you?”or with with question particle ‘ur’. With ‘ur’ the word order can either be the normal SVO or the reversed VSO. Ex. Ur gur gonat lat? (“what/do” I  see you) or Ur gonat gur lat? (“what”/do see I you)." In my opinion it ought to the normal word order SVO.

So: Ur dok thlûk lat uga-ush? "what already enough you had-fight?" (You already had enough fight?).

The problem I have with the LoS-dialect is that there are several question words but none of them seems appropriate for this kind of question. Which of these question words are one supposed to use in this sentence.

Vocabulary – list of question words
what? - mash
when? -mukh
where? -mal
which? - mut
who?    - mirz
whose?- mirzob / mob
why?    - mat
how?- mol

In Horngoth the verb brus- "to have" and the sentence seems to depend on word order (a germanic speciality if I understand i correctly) and the lessons don't mention word order as a way to construct questions. So if we don't want word order to be the question marker then we need some kind of word for it.

The third sentence "What are you doing up here?" is problematic as well but it is more clear that that one ought to use "what? - mash?" Which gives us a sentence very similar to Horngoth "Mash krampug-lat sûr-tul." (what doing-you up-here).

Here I had a bit trouble figuring out how to construct "upp here" and I settled with a new adverb constructed by the two adverbs "sûr" and "tul" and joining them in the same order as in English.


(15 replies, posted in Site Comments)

It's written "pot" and yes it can be used that way - "za ti pot" (it is here).

Actually I'm translating the zhâburi A-list right now. My idea was to label it as Svartiska but maybe it's just easier to just list them as Zhâburi A. But that's up to you. I have some more words for Zhâburi A which are not on that list.


(15 replies, posted in Site Comments)

I just noticed that a very common svartiska word is not glossed right in the dictionary. The word "pot" means "here" (Swedish "här") but when you put a verbal ending on it means "to come" - the rational is that when you act to come _here_. The imperative is "pot" which also means just "here". The dictionary seems to only have the verb meaning.

Yes English is quite different from german and Scandinavian, just want to keep it simple.

I use a set of rules on how to turn primitive elvish and etymology root to zhâburi words. I imagine a proto-orcish or first age orcish that developed from primitive elvish (PE) or even earlier (this urorcish constitutes the base vocabulary for Zhâburi B with additional loans from other Arda languages). There are different rules for initial, medial and final sounds. Such as:

nasal > voiced plosive: m > b; n > d; ng > g (inspired by bur(z) < MOR); and o > u
unvoiced plosive > unvoiced plosive: p > b; t > d; k > g (dur(b) < TUR)

I have about 70-80 of these rules depending on how to count them but the system is not fixed because I keep changing some of the rules. Only a few of them really follow from my "constructive" analysis so they depend on how think different words turn out.

I'm also working on a new set of derivative suffixes. I'm now slowly building a new vocabulary creating new words in this order:

1) looking for a PE word or etymological stem/root. If I find one I change it according to the rules.
2) looking for other arda languages mainly Valarin, Quenya or Adunaic more seldom Sindarin. I have different rules for different languages. For Quenya I try to find out what the PE word would look like.
3) Use a derivative suffix or combine two words
4) Use a word from Svartiska/LoS or Horngoth and adapts it to the phonological restrictions of Zhâburi

Very interesting. That would really make it a different language/dialect. Do you have a name for it?

I suppose you'll keep the words. That's kind of like the situation I was in when I started with my Zhâburi-project. I just wanted the Svartiska to have a better grammar. I hadn't been content with it since the beginning. (It's great orc speech but not the black speech.) But then I started over and now it's connection to svartiska is nearly gone. I just made know pronouns and will soon publish new numbers. Then the connection will only be in some words.

When you speak of verbal perfect forms, do you mean like in germanic languages like English "I have done it" or more like Russian/slavic perfective-imperfect aspect system?

There is a perfect system in Svartiska based on the Swedish perfect with three different variants. I prefer #a.

“has spoken”

jab- "to speak/say"

a) Prefix: uga-
b) Circumfix: uga- | -at
c) uga preceeding the infinitive

a) ugajab
b) ugajabat
c) uga jabat


(6 replies, posted in Black Speech talks)

yes they are very few if ant in the dictionary. But Svartiska is not a well recorded language and there is alot subgroup rules. Adragoor's grammar is an attempt to bring several different grammars together. I have added some additional ones that I know off in my own summary. Especially regarding the verb.

The ga- prefix just gives a verb a different meaning like the ka- prefix for nouns. They are probably related. And one can wonder if there is a clear line between nouns and verbs here. Throk "food", > throk- "to eat"; gathrokat "to cook/make food"; gathrokatâr "chef". Maybe gathrok could mean "prepared food" but I haven't heard it be used .

The creation of the Svartiska is not very systematic and new words are coined by different persons in different ways and most often by just taking a word or sound and give it a meaning. Sometimes by combining two or more words. A very orcish way I would say. So Svartiska is a very orcish language but not like Saurons lingua franca of darkness that I imagine that the Black Speech ought to be.

This is only my humble opinion.

You wrote "Сhanges were so huge that next one will probably break compatibility with Shadowlandian Black Speech and mark the birth of new dialect."

If you do break with LoS I suggest that you look into the verbal conjugation-system. The feature that the verbs have a special conjugation for the third person is a bit strange and really feels like a borrowing from English. It's is not a feature of any other languages that I have any knowledge on.

I would either simplify the system so it conjugates the same for all persons (like in e.g. Scandinavian languages). My proposal is then:

infinitive:-at (as in the Ring Inscription)
imperative: -Ø (null-ending)
Past tense: -az
Present: -aX (X= any consonant)
Future: -ub

The Svartiska system is really quite like it except for the past tense:
infinitive:-at (as in the Ring Inscription)
imperative: -Ø (null-ending)
Past tense: -ul
Present: -at
Future: -ub

Or you could construct a more complex system with different personal conjugation. Zhâburi marks the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs with difference suffixes, -u- being intransitive and -a- being transitive. E.g. thrak- > thrakag "bring something"; thrakug "bring one self/come".

The transitive then marks both subject and object (not obligatory) by different suffixes, e.g. thrakaganul "I bring it". The intransitive  marks both subject and object (because they are the same), e.g. thrakugul "he brings himself/he comes".


(6 replies, posted in Site Comments)

There are two versions of Zhâburi. First the one I developed for the Tolkien LARP Utumno, now called Zhâburi A. This one is quite complete but I haven't translated the word list from Swedish yet. But you can use all the Svartiska words just change all 'e's to 'i's and all 'j's to 'zh's. Then there is a second version that started on which I call Zhâburi B which is under construction.

Zhâburi A has quite much in common with Svartiska and can be said to be Svartiska inspired by Nemirovsky's analysis of BS as inspired by Hurrian.

Zhâburi B on the other hand is much closer to Hurrian and much more complex than Zhâburi A and the connections to Svartiska is much weaker and the more I work on it the weaker that connection gets. The main idea for Zhâburi B is to draw inspiration for grammar (the skeleton) from Hurrian but words (the flesh) from the languages of Arda.

I have summarised  Zhâburi A here: https://zhaaburi.wordpress.com/zhaburi-a/

Most of the page is dedicated to Zhâburi B  https://zhaaburi.wordpress.com/


(6 replies, posted in Black Speech talks)

First we should distinguish between between grammatical and derivative affixes. The prefixes you present here are derivative. Svartiska has a few derivative affixes. But are you really asking whether there only ought to be derivative suffixes or prefixes too?

In zhâburi A (my first version of the language) I used both pre- and suffixes but for Zhâburi B my idea was to only use suffixes. But then I made the analysis of the words uruk, olog and oghor as being constructed by a mono syllabic stem with a prefixed duplication of the stem vowel, so: ruk > uruk; log > olog >; ghor > oghor.

Read more here: https://zhaaburi.wordpress.com/2017/11/ … log-oghor/

These are listed by Adragoor for Svartiska

-at    Creates verbs from nouns, e.g. ghâsh “fire” > ghâshat “to burn”, “to fire”
-urz    Creates adjectives from nouns, e.g. ghâsh “fire” > ghâshurz “hot”
-um    Creates nouns of adjectives, e.g. burz “dark” > burzum “darkness”
-atâr    Creates agents or job titles, e.g. ush “combat” > ushatâr “warrior”

Then there is the prefix ga- which I learned from the one who introduces me to Svartiska. And then there are a some that I analysed that seems to actually function as derivative prefixes but are not listed as such:

mi-    creates nouns or alternative nouns gûl "wraith" > migûl "mist"
ka-    Creates alternative nouns dar “house” > kadar “tent”


(6 replies, posted in Black Speech talks)

Hi again. I missed that gat- is "punish" in Svartiska. I suppose kat- is better then. gat- both were coined for my Zhabûri where the initial unvoiced plosives of Elvish words becomes voiced in line with Q/PE tur- > BS dur(b)-.

I also coined the word for Svariska kaskût "mercy" from prefix ka- + skût "shield". And the verb dik- "part", "depart" from Primitiv Elvish nek  (part, deprive, separate, divide).

I suppose you could use the nouns krâsh (LoS) or sâhd (Horn) "part" and add a verb suffix to them instead of "dik-".