APPENDICES
Based on all published material (and then some), I have set out most of the information about Quenya that I feel we can infer with a minimum of confidence. These Appendices to the course proper will supply some extra information, but primarily they will be devoted to discussing certain features of Quenya that are not so well attested or understood that I felt able to construct any exercises touching on these matters. If more Quenya material is published in the future, I may also summarize the new information here (unless or until I work it into the existing lessons, or write additional lessons to cover the fresh info).

WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE PARTITIVE PLURAL?
In this course we have discussed three Quenya numbers: singular, plural, and dual. There is however also a fourth, called the partitive plural, ignored throughout this course because I feel its function is not well understood. Hence I am also unable to guarantee that Tolkien would not have used the partitive plural where I have used the "normal" plural in some of the exercises of this course.
	Before discussing the possible function of the partitive plural, we will discuss how it is formed. The basic ending is -li, derived from a root LI "many" which is also the source of the noun lië "people". The Plotz Letter points to lasseli, ciryali as the partitive plural forms of lassë "leaf" and cirya "ship". It is less than clear how -li can be added to nouns ending in a consonant, for this would normally result in impossible consonant clusters (only nouns ending in -l can receive the ending -li with no further ado, since Quenya does permit double ll). In one attested example, involving the partitive plural of Casar "dwarf" (based on Dwarvish Khazâd and an alternative to the native word Nauco), we see assimilation: instead of the impossible form **Casarli we have Casalli. The Etymologies likewise points to Telelli as the partitive plural of Teler (an Elf of the Third Clan); see WJ:388, LR:391. 
Nouns ending in -s or -n may also assimilate this consonant to l before the ending -li, so perhaps the partitive plural of nouns like elen "star" or olos "dream" would be elelli, ololli. The behaviour of nouns ending in -t, like nat "thing", must remain a mystery for now. Either the impossible form **natli would have its consonants swapped around, producing nalti, or we must probably slip in some connecting vowel – perhaps resulting in a form like nateli (with the same extra vowel -e- as in Elendilenna "to Elendil", PM:401).
As for the various case forms as set out in the Plotz Letter, the archaic "Book Quenya" is to have the long ending -lí in the nominative and the accusative alike, but in later Quenya, this is shortened to -li as in the examples above. The ending -lí- with a long vowel is however still used before the endings -nen for instrumental and -va for possessive, so in these two cases, the partitive plural form ciryali appears as ciryalínen and ciryalíva respectively (and the long vowel of course receives the accent). The genitive simply adds the ending -on as in the normal plural, hence ciryalion. The dative adds the simplest dative ending -n, hence ciryalin.
In the locative, allative and ablative, it is optional whether one uses the simplest endings -ssë, -nna, -llo or their plural forms -ssen, -nnar or -llon (alternatively -llor). The ending -li- already indicates that the word is plural, so whether or not a second plural indicator follows at the end of the word is not important. Hence locative ciryalissë = ciryalissen, allative ciryalinna = ciryalinnar, ablative ciryalillo = ciryalillon (or ciryalillor). In Namárië in LotR, Tolkien used falmalinnar as the partitive plural allative of the noun falma "(foaming) wave", so writers who want to use a strictly LotR-style form of Quenya may opt for the forms with double plural marking.
	Listing the forms is easy; it is rather more difficult to tell precisely what their function is. If ciryar is simply "ships", how does the alternative plural form ciryali differ in meaning?
In English translation, Tolkien renders the "partitive plural" forms in -li as normal English plural forms (in -s): The allative phrase i falmalinnar in Namárië is translated "upon the foaming waves". However, in his interlinear translation of Namárië in RGEO:67, Tolkien broke this form of falma down as falma-li-nnar and indicated that the middle element means "many" – which as we have seen is also the meaning of the basic stem LI (LR:369). Furthermore, an Ent on one occasion used the word taurelilómëa, which in LotR Appendix F is said to mean "Forest-many-shadowed". Though this is not genuine Quenya as such, but merely "fragments of Elf-speech strung together in Ent-fashion", Tolkien is again seen to imply that the element -li connotes "many".
So inevitably and not without reason, many researchers have concluded that the forms in -li are examples of a so-called multiple plural. This plural form was thought to imply that there are many of the thing in question: Whereas ciryar is simply "ships" (few or many, but at least more than one), ciryali would imply "many ships". The example i falmalinnar "upon the foaming waves" in Namárië would agree well with this interpretation: Galadriel is singing about the waves of the wide ocean between herself and Varda – obviously a great multitude of waves.
However, I fear that this interpretation of the plural forms in -li is too simplistic; at least this can hardly be the whole story. Treebeard greeted Celeborn and Galadriel as a vanimar, vanimálion nostari, which greeting Tolkien translated as "o fair ones begetters of fair ones" (SD:73). Vanimálion "of fair ones" is the partitive plural genitive of vanima "fair (one)". Again, Tolkien translates a partitive plural form as a normal English plural, and there is nothing to suggest that the meaning "of many fair ones" is intended. (Unless Treebeard exaggerates to be polite, this would not agree very well with the facts either: Celeborn and Galadriel were the "begetters" of one known child, their daughter Celebrían. Even if we throw in their granddaughter Arwen as well, there are still only two "fair ones"; this can hardly count as "many".)
There is also an example of a partitive plural (this time in the locative case) in the Markirya poem, but it is not very helpful: Man cenuva rácina cirya ondolissë mornë, which question Tolkien rendered "who shall heed a broken ship on the dark rocks[?]" (MC:222, cf. 215, 220). So here we have ondolissë mornë = "on [the] dark rocks"; once again, a Quenya plural in -li is translated as a normal English plural in -s. While there is nothing that would preclude the possibility that the ship is described as being stranded on many "dark rocks", there is nothing that would confirm this interpretation, either.
Early material (far predating the LotR) provides yet more examples of plurals in -li. In the early versions of the Silmarillion narratives, the clan of the Noldor are referred to as the Noldoli (e.g. LT1:21). Here the ending -li may seem to be used as a kind of "generic plural", referring to the entire "race" of Noldorin Elves. Similarly, in the entry TELES in the Etymologies (LR:391), Tolkien may seem to virtually equate the form Telelli with the compound Telellië "Teler-folk" (Teler "Telerin Elf" + lië "people"; notice the regular assimilation rl > ll). However, when discussing various forms of Casar "Dwarf" in a much later (post-LotR) source, Tolkien seems to clearly distinguish between "the partitive plural" Casalli and "the race-name" Casallië (the latter evidently = "Dwarf-people", Casar + lië). See WJ:388. In the later narratives, Tolkien also abandons the form Noldoli and consistently refers to this people as the Noldor – a "normal" plural in -r, even though the reference is clearly to the entire clan of Noldorin Elves as a "people". The form Noldoli was certainly not obsolete as such, but perhaps its function was redefined.
In one passage in Letters, Tolkien makes some remarks that throw at least some light on the various plural formations, but he uses Sindarin examples:

The Eldarin languages distinguish in form and use between a 'partitive' or 'particular' plural, and the general or total plural. Thus yrch 'orcs, some orcs...' ... the Orcs, as a race, or the whole of a group previously mentioned would have been orchoth. (Letters:178)

If yrch "Orcs" is an example of a Sindarin "partitive" or "particular" plural, it must correspond to a Quenya plural in -li (though historically, yrch is rather descended from a plural in -i, which plural ending still survives in Quenya). We must then equate the "normal" Quenya plural in -i or -r with the "general or total plural". According to what Tolkien says, this plural would often be used of entire races (or of distinct groups previously identified). Indeed we see forms like Valar, Quendi, Eldar referring to the relevant "races" (does this obsolete the notion that the plural in -li can also have this meaning, and is this why Tolkien replaced Noldoli with Noldor in his narratives?) Of course, these plural forms can also have a more limited reference, pointing to some particular group rather than the entire "species" of the thing in question. Treebeard addresses Galadriel and Celeborn as a vanimar "o fair ones"; they are obviously just a couple of fair (beautiful) persons, not by themselves constituting the entire "race" of fair people in the world.
	Perhaps the system works something like this: If you refer to a group using the "normal" plural in -r or -i and do not insert the definite article before the plural noun, the noun may often have generic reference unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Cf. a Tolkien-made example like Valar valuvar, "the will of [all] the Valar [Gods, Powers] will be done" (WJ:404). Valar is here a "general or total" plural; it does not refer to "some" gods or Powers, but to the entire "race" of Valar. If you want to introduce some Valar as opposed to the entire race of gods, it would perhaps be appropriate to use the partitive plural: Valali. (Cf. Tolkien's implication that "some orcs" is a possible rendering of the Sindarin partitive plural yrch.) The very term partitive plural would then suggest that we are dealing with a sub-group, a part of the total group of Valar in the world. But once these Valali have been established as "a group previously mentioned", we would switch back to the "total" plural, that now refers to the total of the aforementioned sub-group. Now it would be appropriate to speak of this sub-group as i Valar (with the definite article: the particular gods we are considering here).
	When Treebeard addresses Galadriel and Celeborn as a vanimar "o fair ones", he naturally uses the "particular" plural since he is addressing two particular "fair" people. But when he goes on to describe them as vanimálion nostari "begetters of fair ones", he switches to the "partitive" plural to make it clear that Galadriel and Celeborn are the (grand)parents of some "fair ones" as opposed to all the fair ones in the world. (Perhaps Treebeard's wording could also be taken to mean that some, but not all of Galadriel's children were "fair" or beautiful. However, the context, as well as general courtesy, would indicate otherwise.) As for the ship that is stranded ondolissë, it is simply described as being stranded on some rocks, certain rocks, a number of rocks.
So in short, it may be that Quenya would typically use the plurals in -li where English would have "some" + a plural noun. Yet the older theory of the "multiple plural" may not be entirely wrong; the fact remains that the root LI originally signifies "many". Perhaps it is especially when plurals in -li are combined with the definite article that these forms may carry the idea of a great multitude, as in the Namárië phrase i falmalinnar "upon the [?vast ocean of] foaming waves". But generally, it may be just as wise to use a separate adjective to indicate "many" (in this course we used the adjective rimba pl. rimbë, by Tolkien glossed "numerous", to express this meaning).
	Since we have so few examples, these theories must remain tentative. As I said, I certainly cannot rule out the possibility that Tolkien would sometimes have used plurals in -li where I have used "normal" plurals in the exercises of this course. Much less can I tell whether he would have rejected the alternative wording as downright "wrong" or ungrammatical Quenya.

THE APPLICATION OF CASE ENDINGS INCLUDING T
As we recall, there are two Quenya endings denoting dual number: -u and -t (e.g. Aldu "two trees", ciryat "two ships"). Which ending is used depends on the shape of the noun it is added to. 

In the Plotz Letter, Tolkien listed various case endings also including the dual element -t-: genitive -to, dative -nt, allative -nta, ablative -lto, locative -tsë, instrumental -nten. Obviously, these are mere variations of the simplest case endings, normally associated with the singular: -o, -n, -nna, -llo, -ssë, -nen. The corresponding dual endings are derived simply by squeezing in a -t- and (where necessary) adapting the result to fit Quenya phonology. So the question is: since -t is obviously the dual marker here, are case endings including -t- to be attached only to nouns with nominative dual forms in -t, like ciryat? Maybe nouns that in the nominative receive the other dual marker, -u, should not take case endings including -t-?

This is a question I briefly discussed in many of the lessons, and as I indicated, there is no certain answer available. Yet we may form a plausible theory if we can figure out how the case endings including -t- originally arose in the language. Perhaps Tolkien imagined that initially, the case endings were simply added to the simplest dual form in -t.

Thus, starting from the simple nominative ciryat "two ships, a couple of ships":

ciryat + -o for genitive = ciryato
ciryat + -n for dative = ciryatn
ciryat + -nna for allative = ciryatnna, simplified to ciryatna
ciryat + -llo for ablative = ciryatllo, simplified to ciryatlo
ciryat + -ssë for locative = ciryatssë, simplified to ciryatsë
ciryat + -nen for instrumental = ciryatnen

However, the group tn came to be disliked, so the consonants underwent metathesis; that is, they were swapped around to produce nt instead. Thus the dative ciryatn, the allative ciryatna and the instrumental ciryatnen turn into the actual forms listed in Plotz: ciryant, ciryanta, ciryanten. Likewise, tl is swapped around to lt, so that the ablative changes from ciryatlo to the attested Plotz form ciryalto. Only the genitive ciryato and the locative ciryatsë persisted as they were, with no metathesis – giving away that originally, the case endings were suffixed directly to the simplest dual form in -t.
	If this is so, we have every reason to assume that the same case endings were suffixed to dual forms in -u as well, for instance like this (using Aldu "Two Trees" as our standard example):

Aldu + -o for genitive = Alduo
Aldu + -n for dative = Aldun
Aldu + -nna for allative = Aldunna
Aldu + -llo for ablative = Aldullo
Aldu + -ssë for locative = Aldussë
Aldu + -nen for instrumental = Aldunen

These forms would undergo no further changes, since they are all acceptable Quenya as far as phonology goes. By this theory, the dual case endings -nt, -nta, -lto, -tsë and -nten should only be suffixed to nouns with nominative dual forms in -t. Nouns with nominative dual forms in -u would merely add the simplest case endings -o, -n, -nna, -llo, -ssë, -nen. The sole uncertainty would relate to the dative form. It could be Aldun as suggested before, but as we demonstrated in Lesson Thirteen, Tolkien used the longer ending -en in one attested example dating from the period when -(e)n was still the genitive rather than the dative ending: Veruen as the genitive of the dual form veru "married pair, spouses" (Etym,. entry LEP, cf. BES). If this formation survived as such, irrespective of Tolkien's re-defining of this case ending, the dative of Aldu should be Alduen.
	As for the possessive-adjectival case form, no dual endings are attested anywhere. We have theorized that it should have the ending -twa in the case of dual forms in -t (ciryatwa "of a couple of ships"), but if the theory set out above is correct, the ending should simply be -va in the case of dual forms in -u (Alduva "of [the] Two Trees"). 

INFINITIVES WITH PREFIXED A-
The Markirya poem includes two examples of a special infinitive that is marked with the prefix a-. (Tolkien first wrote na-, then changed it to a-, perhaps suggesting that this was a grammatical feature that arose spontaneously in his mind as he worked out the later version of this poem.) The relevant couple of consecutive lines go like this:

	Man cenuva lumbor ahosta "Who shall see [the] clouds gather,"
	Menel acúna... "the heavens bending...[?]"

The verbs involved are the A-stems hosta- "to gather" and cúna- "to bend". What is the function of the a-prefix here occurring?
Tolkien provided a brief, rather obscure note about it: "When the bare stem of the verb is used (as after 'see' or 'hear') as infinitive [a-] is prefixed if the noun is the object not the subject" (MC:223). There are at least two possible interpretations of this, but the "traditional" interpretation – reflected in many post-Tolkien texts – goes like this: Following sense-verbs (like "see", "watch", "hear" etc.) we will typically find some noun that is the object of the sense-verb in question. In the examples above, lumbor "clouds" and Menel "the heavens" are the objects (not the subjects!) of the verb cenuva, "shall see". Nonetheless, these verbs are also the logical subjects of the verbs "to gather" and "to bend": The clouds gather, the heavens bend. So to express what an object is itself doing while it is the subject of another verb, you use an infinitive with a prefixed a-. In other words, man cenuva lumbor ahosta is the Quenya way of saying "who shall see [the] clouds as they gather". But unlike "gather" in this English circumlocution, ahosta remains an infinitive, as is clearly seen by the fact that it does not receive the plural ending -r even though its logical subject (lumbor "clouds") is plural.
We may wonder how the prefix a- would be added to a verbal stem beginning in a vowel, especially in a-. As suggested by Nancy Martsch in her Basic Quenya, it may sometimes be best to slip in a hyphen, for instance in a sentence like cennen i nís a-anta [?] i seldon parma, "I saw the woman give the boy a book".
It is also uncertain how the prefix a- would be added to primary verbs. A verb like (say) mat- "to eat" would probably include the ending -ë in its "stem" form, just as it does when it functions as an infinitive. Of course we may prefix a- and build a sentence like tirnen i Naucor amatë = "I watched the Dwarves eat" (= "I watched the Dwarves as they ate"). However, a form like amatë would be accented on the first syllable, on the prefix itself. Perhaps we should ignore the normal stress rules and let the accent fall on the syllable following the prefix (the spelling a-matë could be employed to suggest this)? Actually, the Markirya poem contains a relevant example involving the verb cir- "to sail", but in this example, the prefix a- is not used at all. Correcting some likely misreadings (a in Tolkien's manuscript thrice being misread as e), this line would go: Man cenuva fána cirya métima hrastallo círa = "Who shall see a white ship sail from the last shore[?]" (Tolkien's poetic translation in MC:214 reads "who shall see a white ship leave the last shore" – but it is clear what the literal meaning is.) The overall construction is very similar to the examples cited above; the "white ship" is the object of the verb cenuva = "shall see", but it is also the logical subject of the verb cir- "to sail". The latter is here simply constructed as a "continuative" stem, similar in form to the "present" or "continuous" tense: círa. So we must assume that "I watched the Dwarves eat" could similarly be expressed as tirnen i Naucor máta, and I think I would prefer this construction to the uncertain amatë-form.
Of course, we may then ask why a simple "continuative" stem cannot replace the infinitive with prefixed a- everywhere. The verbs hosta- "to gather" and cúna- "to collect" would presumably produce the forms hostëa and cúnëa. Why, then, cannot "who shall see the clouds gather, the heavens bending?" be expressed as man cenuva lumbor hostëa, Menel cúnëa? Why did Tolkien use the forms ahosta, acúna instead? Of course, for all we know, both constructions could be equally possible, and Tolkien simply picked the one that came into his head first, or the one that fit the meter of his poem better.
However, "Gildor Inglorion" has suggested a new interpretation of the function of the a- prefix that would allow us to explain all the attested forms. We have already quoted Tolkien's note that "when the bare stem of the verb is used (as after 'see' or 'hear') as infinitive [a-] is prefixed if the noun is the object not the subject" (MC:223). Does he mean: when the "noun" (that is, the object of the main verb of the sentence) is the logical object – not the subject – of the infinitive itself? If so, it is obvious why the a-prefix is not used in a sentence like "who shall see a white ship sail...", for the ship is the logical subject of the verb "sail", not the object. This interpretation would mean that the verbs hosta- "gather" and cúna- "bend" are actually transitive in the examples where the a- prefix occurs, not intransitive as in the English translation: "Who shall see the clouds gather, the heavens bending?" In English, it is just the clouds themselves that "gather" or assemble, and the heavens themselves that "bend"; they don't "gather" or "bend" something else.
Yet hosta- is also glossed "collect", which is clearly transitive. Of course, this verb could be both transitive and intransitive, just like at least one other verb in -ta (orta- = transitive "raise" or intransitive "rise"). But if hosta- is taken as meaning "gather" in the transitive sense of "collect", and the prefix a- indicates that the "noun" next to the infinitive is "the object not the subject" of this verb, then man cenuva lumbor ahosta[?] actually means "who shall see the clouds being gathered?" Similarly, man cenuva...Menel acúna would actually mean "who shall see...the heavens being bent?" By this interpretation of the a- prefix, our home-made example tirnen i Naucor amatë would not mean "I watched the Dwarves eat", but rather "I watched the Dwarves being eaten"! The prefix a- would indicate that the noun in front of the infinitive is actually to be taken as "the object not the subject" of the eating concerned.

Perhaps we shall never know with certainty which of these two interpretations is correct. It may very well be that the prefix a- (variant na-) was spontaneously invented when Tolkien worked out the latest version of the Markirya poem, and that it occurs nowhere else in his notes.

ELISION OF FINAL VOWELS
The greeting elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo "a star shines on the hour of our meeting" exemplifies a frequent, but not obligatory feature of Quenya phonology: When a word ends in a vowel and the next word begins in one, the former vowel may drop out. Thus the final -a of lúmenna "on [the] hour" is omitted before the initial o- of omentielvo "of our meeting". In Elendil's Oath occur the words tenn' Ambar-metta, "until the end of the world", the preposition tenna "until" being reduced to tenn' before the initial a- of Ambar-metta "World-end = the end of the world". Occasionally, this phenomenon may even result in new, seemingly unitary words, as when the same preposition tenna "until" and the noun oio "endless period" are contracted: tennoio (for tenn' oio) "forever" (UT:305, 317).
	Naturally, such omission of final vowels is especially common when one word ends in a vowel that is similar or identical to the initial vowel of the next word (like the omission of -a before o- and a- in the examples above). In Fíriel's Song as printed in LR:72, there is a dot under some final vowels, which may be taken as a sign that they are to be elided. Replacing the dot with underlining and not otherwise altering the original spelling of this "Qenya" text, we may quote the relevant phrases like this: 1) Ilu Ilúvatar en káre eldain "Ilúvatar made the world for Elves"; here the final -e of káre "made" is apparently omitted before an identical vowel; 2) íre ilqa yéva nótina "when all is counted" and íre Anarinya qeluva "when my sun shall fail"; here we have omission of final -e before i and a, respectively; 3) enyáre tar i tyel "in that day beyond the end", which if we interpret Tolkien's intentions correctly is a unique example of a final vowel being elided before an initial consonant in the next word (tar).
	Yet such omission of final vowels is clearly not necessary to produce correct Quenya, which is why we ignored it in the exercises of this course. The phrase lúmenn' omentielvo is twice attested in its full form lúmenna omentielvo (WJ:367, Letters:424). Our small corpus also contains examples of a final vowel persisting even where the next word begins in an identical vowel – as in the sentence aurë entuluva "day shall come again", cited in the Silmarillion, chapter 20. Presumably this could also be shortened (aur' entuluva), but not necessarily so. Elision of final vowels would probably be most common in the spoken language, and in poetry it may also be useful to be able to get rid of a syllable where the poetic meter demands it.

More material will be added to these appendices.