Select Elvish Words 10.49: to Depart, Go Away

10.49 to Depart, Go Away

Q. auta-¹ v. “to go (away), depart, leave; [variant: vanya-] to pass away, disappear, be lost”

A rather irregular verb whose base meaning is “go (away), depart, leave” and by extension with the senses “pass away, disappear, be lost”, derived from the invertible root √WĀ/AWA “away” (PE17/63; WJ/366). Its most notable use is in the Namárië poem where it appeared in its plural perfect form avánier “have passed” (LotR/377). The related adjective vanwa “lost, departed, vanished” appeared in the same poem. Tolkien’s desire to retain the forms avánie and vanwa likely influenced his investigation of this verb; its conceptual development is quite complex (see below).

The irregularity of this verb is due to some of its tenses being based on √AW, and others on √WĀ. Starting in the late 1950s he usually represent the base verb stem as auta- (PE17/63; PE22/164; WJ/366), such as in auta i lómë “the night is passing” from The Silmarillion (S/190). The stem form auta- was based on √AW + tă, similar to other verbs whose roots ended in y/w which usually required a formative suffix like ✶-tă (PE22/156). Such “half-strong” verbs normally had past forms with nasal-infixion before the formative suffix, in this case with primitive ✶áwa-n-tē becoming modern öante because ancient awa become öa in Quenya’s phonetic history (WJ/366-367). Tolkien posited similar perfect forms öantie or öávie (WJ/366; PE17/148; PE22/164).

In the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60, Tolkien said that:

In the more purely physical sense “went away (to another place)” the regular forms (for a -ta verb of this class) öante, öantie were used (WJ/366).

However, in this document (and others) he described another past form váne from primitive ✶wāne, derived from √WĀ rather than √AW (PE17/63; WJ/366). From this ancient past form the perfect avánie was derived, with Tolkien saying “the forms of past and perfect became progressively more closely associated in Quenya” (WJ/366). This variant of the past and perfect was associated with the adjective (originally a perfective adjective) vanwa “gone, lost, no longer to be had, vanished, departed, dead, past and over”, and from it got the meaning: “*passed away, went away (to never return)”. It was in this sense the perfect form avánier was used in the Namárië poem.

Conceptual Development: This verb has numerous precursors in Tolkien’s earlier writings, since the original root ᴱ√AVA “go away, depart, leave” dates back to the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s (QL/33). This root had a verb form ᴱQ. avin “he departs” with past form ambe (QL/33). The early root also had an inversion ᴱ√VAHA, from which an alternate past form vâ “went” was derived (QL/99). Thus the notion that the past and present forms of this verb were from inversions of the root was quite an old idea in Tolkien’s mind.

The English-Qenya Dictionary of the 1920s had a verb form ᴱQ. vana- “pass, depart, vanish, go away” (PE15/76). This became ᴹQ. vanya- “go, depart, disappear” in The Etymologies of the 1930s under the root ᴹ√WAN “depart, go away, disappear, vanish” (Ety/WAN). This verb reappeared in the “Merin Sentence” from the mid-to-late 1950s: merin sa haryalyë alassë nó vanyalyë Ambarello “I hope that you have happiness before you pass from the world” (MS). It is thus likely the base verb was vanya- when Tolkien first composed the Namárië poem, and in the 1st edition of The Lord of the Rings the perfect form was vánier without the leading a (RC/341).

The verb form ᴹQ. auta- with the sense “to go away” first appeared in the Outline of Phonetic Development (OP1) from the 1930s, where it was a variant of ᴹQ. apsa- < ᴹ✶abtā- of the same meaning, a back-formation from the past form avante < *aba-n-tē, all based on the root ᴹ√ABA/BA “away, go away” (PE19/45). However, sometime in the late 1930s or early 1940s, Tolkien revised the meaning of ᴹ√AB to “refuse, deny, say no” (Ety/AB). In the Outline of Phonology (OP2) from the early 1950s, Tolkien had a similar verbal paradigm with Q. apta < ✶ab-ta vs. Q. auta as back-formation from past avante, but in that document the past was glossed “refused, denied, said nay” (PE19/90).

The derivations of auta- “go away, depart” from the root √WĀ/AWA began to appear in documents from the late 1950s and early 1960s such as Notes on Galadriel’s Song (NGS: PE17/63), Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN: PE17/148), and Quendi and Eldar (Q&E: WJ/365-366). He seem to stick with this paradigm going forward, but continue to experiment with various forms for different verb tenses. For example, in couple places Tolkien gave anwe as another (archaic) past along with oante (WJ/366; PE17/148). In another place he consider a variant verb ava- “depart, go away, disappear, be lost” with present avea, future auva, past vāne, and perfect avānie (PE17/63).

Neo-Quenya: It is pretty clear Tolkien intended the aorist form of this verb to be auta. In NGS Tolkien gave a future form autuva (PE17/63) and in Late Notes on Verb Structure (LVS) from 1969 a present form autya (PE22/164). LVS had a number of -ya or -ia present tenses for various ta-formative verbs, but also said something like “make Q. ea as present tense invaded other forms” in a difficult-to-read note. I take that to mean that the -ya/-ia presents regularized to -ea across many verb classes, so I would use the present tense form *autea “is departing” instead and assume that †autya is archaic; see the discussion of the Quenya present tense for more details.

This verb had two past paradigms: öante “went away (to another place)” vs. váne “*pass away, went away (to never return)”, along with associated perfects öantie vs. avánie, with the last meaning “have passed away” (RGEO/58). In the aorist, present and future tenses this distinction is frequently less relevant, because the “to never return” qualifier is necessarily unknown. Where it is relevant, however, I would use a variant stem form vanya- “to pass away, disappear, be lost”, a back-formation derived from the alternate perfect avánie, inspired by the verb form in the The Etymologies and the Merin Sentence (see above).

Q. heca interj. “be gone!, stand aside!”

An imperative exclamation meaning “be gone!, stand aside!” derived from the root √HEK “aside, apart, separate” (WJ/361, 364). Since the root was not verbal, this is probably a fossilized form, based on an ancient suffixed imperative ✶hek(e) ā. The modern Quenya verb form derived from √HEK is hehta- “put aside, leave out, exclude, abandon, forsake” (WJ/365).

Tolkien said heca “often appears in the forms hekat sg. and hekal pl. with reduced pronominal affixes of the 2nd person” (WJ/364). This is the only place he used a pronominal suffix with a suffixed imperative, making this construction somewhat dubious, especially since it seems hec- is itself not a verb. I would assume these are additional fossilized forms. As further evidence of their fossilized nature, the sg. suffix -t(ye) seems to be used imperiously as it was in ancient language, as opposed to affectionately as it was in modern Quenya. Furthermore, the reduced suffix -l is plural rather than singular-polite as it was in modern Quenya.

Conceptual Development: There was a similar-meaning interjection ᴱQ. {avavanda >>} avande “get hence!” in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s under the early root ᴱ√AVA “go away, depart, leave” (QL/33).

Q. heca interj. “be gone!, stand aside!”

An imperative exclamation meaning “be gone!, stand aside!” derived from the root √HEK “aside, apart, separate” (WJ/361, 364). Since the root was not verbal, this is probably a fossilized form, based on an ancient suffixed imperative ✶hek(e) ā. The modern Quenya verb form derived from √HEK is hehta- “put aside, leave out, exclude, abandon, forsake” (WJ/365).

Tolkien said heca “often appears in the forms hekat sg. and hekal pl. with reduced pronominal affixes of the 2nd person” (WJ/364). This is the only place he used a pronominal suffix with a suffixed imperative, making this construction somewhat dubious, especially since it seems hec- is itself not a verb. I would assume these are additional fossilized forms. As further evidence of their fossilized nature, the sg. suffix -t(ye) seems to be used imperiously as it was in ancient language, as opposed to affectionately as it was in modern Quenya. Furthermore, the reduced suffix -l is plural rather than singular-polite as it was in modern Quenya.

Conceptual Development: There was a similar-meaning interjection ᴱQ. {avavanda >>} avande “get hence!” in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s under the early root ᴱ√AVA “go away, depart, leave” (QL/33).

Q. lenwë n. “leaving, departure”

A noun glossed “leaving, departure” derived from primitive ✶ledmē based on the root √LED “go” (PE17/51). Here the ancient dm became nm, and then nm became nw.

Q. lenweta- v. “to go away, migrate, leave one’s abode”

A verb glossed “go away, migrate, leave one’s abode”, an elaboration of lenwë “leaving, departure” (PE17/51). It has a half-strong past tense lenwente.

Q. vanwa adj. “gone, lost, departed, vanished, past, over, no longer to be had, passed away, dead, [ᴹQ.] gone for good; ⚠️[ᴱQ.] on the road”

An adjective whose basic sense is “gone, lost”, with numerous other similar translations such as “no longer to be had, vanished, departed, dead, past, over, gone for good”. The word vanwa is a good example of what I call an “anchor word”: a word that Tolkien established early in his development of Elvish and retained unchanged despite numerous changes in related elements of the languages. This word first appeared as part of the name ᴱQ. Mar Vanwa Tyaliéva “Cottage of the Lost Play” from the 1910s (LT1/14). Its most notable use in later writings was in the poem Namárië, where it appeared in the phrase sí vanwa ná, Rómello vanwa, Valimar! “now lost, lost to those from the east is Valimar!” (LotR/377).

Conceptual Development: In the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s, the adjective ᴱQ. vanwa “gone, on the road, past, over, lost” appeared under the early root ᴱ√VAHA (QL/99), itself based on the root ᴱ√AVA “go away, depart, leave” (QL/33). It reappeared in the English-Qenya Dictionary of the 1920s with the gloss “over, gone” (PE15/76). In The Etymologies of the 1930s, ᴹQ. vanwa “gone, departed, vanished, lost, past” was derived from the root ᴹ√WAN “depart, go away, disappear, vanish” (Ety/WAN).

In the Quenya Verbal System of the 1948, ᴹQ. vanwa “gone, over” was given as an example of the perfective participle -nwa in combination with the root ᴹ√BĀ/BANA “go, proceed” (PE22/106). Very likely this was the derivation when Tolkien wrote the Namárië poem for the 1st edition of The Fellowship of the Ring published in 1954. However, in 1959 Tolkien abandoned the root √BA(N) “go” (PE17/143). At that point Tolkien coined a new etymology for vanwa based on the invertible root √WĀ/AWA, most fully described in the Quendi and Eldar essay from 1959-60 (WJ/366). In that document Tolkien described its derivation and meaning as follows:

This last [vanwa] was an old formation (which is also found in Sindarin), and was the most frequently used part of the verb [auta- “go away, leave”]. It developed the meanings “gone, lost, no longer to be had, vanished, departed, dead, past and over”.

Despite all these changes in its derivation and the associated roots, the adjective vanwa itself retained the same basic form and meaning throughout Tolkien’s life.

S. ego n. “be off!”

A Sindarin interjection meaning “be off!”, derived from an ancient imperative form ✶hek(e) ā of the root √HEK “aside, apart, separate”, equivalent to Q. heca of the same meaning (WJ/364-365).

Conceptual Development: The Gnomish Lexicon of the 1910s had the imperative G. hai³ “go! hence, begone, away”, with a longer variant G. haiva “hence! begone, be off” which could also be used an adverb “away, hence, off” (GL/47). These Gnomish forms seem to be based on an unattested early root *ᴱ√HAYA, precursor to 1930s ᴹ√KHAY “far” (Ety/KHAY).

S. gwae- v. “to go [away], depart”

This highly irregular verb appeared in Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN) from 1959 as the Sindarin equivalent of Q. auta- “go (away), depart”, itself very irregular, both verbs derived from the invertible root √WĀ/AWA (PE17/148). The Sindarin verb has a present tense form gwaen “I go” and past forms 1st. sg. anwen “*I went” and 3rd. sg. anu/awn “*he/she went”, with these past forms apparently based on an ancient nasal-infixed strong past ✶anwē (from which the archaic Q. strong past †anwe “went” was derived). It has two more forms gwanu/gwawn. These seem to be the equivalent of Q. vanwa “lost” < ✶wanwā.

The present tense form gwaen “I go” is especially peculiar. Compare this to the more regular present tenses cewin “I taste” < kawin(e) (PE22/152) and galon “I grow” < galān(e) (PE17/131). I think the likeliest explanation is that gwaen is derived from an ancient aorist form wa-i-nĭ, with ai becoming ae as was usual of Sindarin’s phonetic developments. If so, the present inflections of this verb would be based on √WA and the past inflections based on √AW.

A final twist is that in the note from DLN Tolkien mentions u-intrusion, a sound change parallel to the more common i-intrusion, whereby a final u moved before a preceding consonant. The forms awn and gwawn are thus the u-intruded results of anu and gwanu. This u-intrusion would not occur in forms with further suffixes, like anwen “I went”.

A probably related form gwanwen “departed” appears in the Quendi and Eldar (Q&E) essay from 1959-60 (WJ/378). This could be an independent adjective, but could also be a passive participle of gwae- (or some variant of it), possibly a strengthened or elaborated form of gwanu/gwawn. Note that Q&E also states that:

The only normal derivative [of AWA] is the preposition o, the usual word for ‘from, of’. None of the forms of the element *awa are found as a prefix in S, probably because they became like or the same as the products of *wō, *wo (WJ/366).

Some people believe this indicates that Tolkien rejected other derivatives like gwae-, but since Q&E also contains gwanwen, I think this statement only applies to direct derivatives of AWA, as opposed to gwae- and gwanwen which are derived from the inverted root WĀ.

Neo-Sindarin: How to handle this verb in the context of Neo-Sindarin is unclear. Given the extreme irregularity of this verb, it is tempting to discard it. Unfortunately, we have no other attested Sindarin verbs for “to depart”. Furthermore, common verbs like “go” tend to be irregular in many languages (such as English as “go” vs. “went”), so it makes sense the same would be true of Sindarin. As such, I propose the following conjugation for this verb (hat tip to Gilruin for most of this paradigm; he suggested much better forms than my original ideas):

• Present tense *gwae “go” < primitive ✶gwa-ĭ, with inflections added to this form: gwaen “I go”, *gwael “you go”, etc.
• Past tense awn “went” < ✶awnē with u-intrusion. Inflected forms are based on non-intruded anw-: anwen “I went”, *anwel “you went”, etc.
• Past/passive participle gwanwen “departed”, an elaboration of the older (archaic?) perfective participle gwanu/gwawn.
• Future *gwatha “will go”, *gwathon “I will go”, < ✶wa-thā, wa-thā-nĭ.
• Gerund *gwaed (< ✶wa-itā) and active participle *gwaul (< ✶wa-ālā) “departing”.
• Imperative *gwaw “go!” < ✶wa-ā, as with baw “don’t!” < ✶bā (WJ/371-2).

Finally, this verb means “go” specifically in the sense “depart”, that is: “go away”. For “go (generally and in any direction)”, use the verb men-.

If you dislike this irregularity of gwae- or you believe that Tolkien’s note in Q&E (see above) indicates this verb was rejected along with (most) Sindarin derivatives of AWA, then the neologism haena- “to leave, depart” gives an alternative verb.

S. gwanwen n. “departed, *gone, lost [to time], past”

A word for “departed” in the Quendi and Eldar (Q&E) essay from 1959-60 (WJ/378), clearly derived from the root √WĀ “away”. It might be related to the verb gwae- from Definitive Linguistic Notes (DLN) of 1959 (PE17/148). That verb had an irregular passive participle gwawn or gwanu. The word gwanwen may be a modification of (archaic?) gwanu from DLN to more strongly resemble other passive participles like govannen (LotR/209) or onnen (WJ/387). Alternately, it could be a simple adjective, the Sindarin equivalent of Q. vanwa.

Neo-Sindarin: I would assume that, like its Quenya equivalent, gwanwen has the added connotation of “*gone, lost [to time], past” for purposes of Neo-Sindarin.

Conceptual Development: The Gnomish Lexicon of the 1910s had G. haim or haithin “gone, departed, lost”, the latter based on the verb G. haitha- “hie, go, fare, walk” (GL/47).