1 (edited by Un4givenOrc 2020-05-12 14:09:18)

Topic: Analysis of Ring Inscription by Tolkien himself!

The journal "Parma Eldalamberon" #17 published an analysis of "Ring Inscription" by J.R.R. Tolkien, made after the publication of "The Lord of the Rings". And it contains important remarks which change a current widespread view on Black Speech! It was published in 2007 but for mysterious reasons they were not used in later analyses of Black Speech, while 'orc-curse' from the same journal was. (Shadowlandian was finished in 2004)

I will quote them here with important phrases emphasized with red color by me:

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote:

durb-at=ulûk: durb-, constrain, force, dominate; at, verb ending (like a participle) (durbat = constraining, of a sort to constrain)1); ulûk, verbal ending expressing objects (particles indicating 'subject' were usually prefixed2)) 3rd person pl. "them" (ul) in completive or total form "them-all".

1) ending '-at' is some form of participle which can be translated as infinitive ("to rule") and gerund ("constraining"); so the combination of such characteristics resembles Latin's gerundive (see Wikipedia), which can be translated the same ways, and was sometimes used instead of future participles. Gerundive will be very suitable for translation of Ring Inscription into Latin.

2) for many years authors of Neo Black Speech dialects were copying either English or Quenya grammar (as  the Shadowlandian dialect used here).

https://folk.uib.no/hnohf/quenya.htm wrote:

Cf. Aragorn's exclamation when he found the sapling of the White Tree: Utúvienyes!, “I have found it!” (utúvie-nye-s “have found-I-it”; LotR3/VI ch. 5)

In Shadowlandian it will follow the similar pattern: "Gimbuzizgta" or "Gimbuzta-izg"
It's not clear from Tolkien's remark, if all verbs have prefix of person or only when the subject was a pronoun, if subject pronouns were sometimes suffixed, written standalone or both, but at least we now sure that Classical Black Speech had prefixes too.

also we now have a confirmation that "-ûk" may be translated as "completely, totally" and not just "all"

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote:

in the archaic ring-inscription burzumishi is evidently made up of this stem3) + a particularizing suffix or 'article' um4), and an enclitic 'preposition' ishi 'in, inside'.

3) it's about stem "bûrz", in LOTR it was written "búrz" but here Tolkien use circumflex (^) instead of accent mark.

4) so '-um' means not an abstract noun, but an article ("in the darkness").


Re: Analysis of Ring Inscription by Tolkien himself!

Oh this is really interesting. I have been thinking that I should get hold of this issue. This means that I must rework quite much of Zhâburi. It seems there will be a Zhâburi C with this information incorporated. Interesting that there is a definite article after all but that it is -um!


Re: Analysis of Ring Inscription by Tolkien himself!

I have published this text on my blog. https://zhaaburi.wordpress.com/2020/05/ … ck-speech/


Re: Analysis of Ring Inscription by Tolkien himself!

I had to rewrite everything too. And I don't really know what to do with subject pronouns now. Mixing prefixes and suffixes seems to be very rare for agglutinative languages (usually only suffixes or prefixes).


Re: Analysis of Ring Inscription by Tolkien himself!

It appeared that information from the topic was previously available for years in French Wikipedia article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noir_parler


Re: Analysis of Ring Inscription by Tolkien himself!

-um as a suffixed definite article, like in Romanian and Old Norse?
So... would we interpret -um being now both a -ness suffix and an article, or simply ignore the "-ness"ness of that?
Astonished... and amazed