12 Jun 04 12:09 PM
Reply To: 26896
Well, admittedly my translations are not perfect, but I never claimed to be an expert and I just try to learn by doing. I welcome discussion on my efforts because that always helps me think things though and see things from different angles. There are many different theories out there and Tolkien never finished tweaking his languages, so it is hard to say at times just precisely what is ‘correct.’ I will try to explain my reasons for choosing the forms I used.
In the Sindarin that I've studied, there isn't so much an independent word for "of." Rather, it uses a form following that which is seen in the terms "Elf-stone" or "Elf-friend."
True, but the genitival article _en_ is usually translated ‘of the’ and is used in genitival constructions if the second word of the construction is a common noun – as in _Haudh-en-Elleth_ ‘Mound of the Elf-maid”. (Source: “Sindarin - the Noble Tongue,” by HKF, Ardalambion)
So, in my understanding, _Sarn-en-Eden_ would more literally be translated ‘The Stone of the Renewal,’ which I considered to still carry the meaning requested by Raksha.
Perhaps ‘Renewal’ and ‘Silence’ are proper nouns here? I guess Tolkien’s few examples leave me a bit confused on where to draw the line. In the case of proper nouns, using word order alone to express the genitival relationship is possible, as in _Aran Moria_ ‘Lord (of) Moria’ or _Ennyn Durin_ ‘Doors of Durin’.
So, then, _Sarn Dín_ and _Sarn Eden_ would be correct. I do like the sound of these constructions better. I guess I was just going by the old adage, ‘better safe than sorry.’ The genitival article is not always required but my experience has been that including the article seems to make the translation more secure. And you are right, too, in that using the hyphens with the articles can also be helpful to alert the reader to a genitival construction, though Tolkien himself was inconsistent about using them.
could also probably be constructed either way and be correct. Somehow I still like using the article here, and, AFAIK, it would be translated as ‘Sickness of the Spirit.’
Rather, it uses a form following that which is seen in the terms "Elf-stone" or "Elf-friend." These could also be translated to "Stone of an Elf" or "Friend of an Elf." Here, I say "an Elf" because I don't see the Sindarin word "in" in either of them, …
_Edhelharn_ and _Elvellon_ are compound words and I believe the relationship is closer in compounds. Articles are not usually included in the compound formation and I am under the impressions that most compounds are usually translated without any ‘of’ or ‘of the’ components.
…IE "Friend of the Elves" would be "Mellon-in-Edhil" while "Friend of an Elf" would be "Mellon-Edhel" and "Friend of some Elves" would be "Mellon-Edhil." To make matters worse, "Friends of an Elf" would be "Mellyn-Edhel" and "Friends of the Elves" would be "Mellyn-in-Edhil."
Yes, and “Friend of the Elf” would be _Mellon-en-Edhel_ using the singular form of the genitival article. But, again, compounds and genitival constructions in sentences are slightly different – at least to my understanding.
That being said, Ithildin's translation for "Works of Eregion" is spot-on if you're not talking about *all* the works of Eregion, but some of them. That being said, there's morphology issues with "Curu" being used as a noun. If we're talking about more than one work, when it becomes plural, it undergoes a conjugation that would change it to "cyry."
True, ‘works’ would be plural. However, I substituted _curu_ (glossed as ‘craft/skill’) for ‘works’ and ‘Craft’, as in ‘the whole of the craft’ would be singular, would it not?
I hope you will come back and help with the translation requests here; I always welcome additional opinions on these topics!