T h e  A t a l a n t e  F r a g m e n t s
analyzed by Ales Bican

Foreword

When at the beginning of summer 2001 I bought the book Sauron Defeated by J. R. R. Tolkien, commented by his son Christopher, I knew I would find some extensive information of Adunaic, the language of Númenor. This language was substantially different to the Elvish languages I had studied before and its structure impressed me. Besides Lowdham's Report on the Adunaic Language, an unfinished piece of work dealing with the structure of Adunaic, the book also contained an unfinished story The Notion Club Papers. In the story it was again the character of Lowdham who was connected with Adunaic. During the course of the story he had a strange dream about the Downfall of Númenor. As soon as he woke up, he jotted down a few fragmentary sentences about the Downfall in the Quenya and Adunaic languages. Since I had been very interested in Quenya and developed liking to Adunaic, I began studying these Fragments.
Several years before Tolkien wrote The Notion Club Papers, he worked on another story. It is a well-known fact that "[w]hen C. S. Lewis and [Tolkien] tossed up, and [Lewis] was to write on space-travel and [Tolkien] on time-travel" (Letters of JRR Tolkien no. 257, henceforth just Letters) and their tossing up resulted in Tolkien's writing The Lost Road, a story about a man called Alboin who happened to become involved in the story of the Downfall of Númenor. It came to pass that Alboin had a strange dream in the story and when he woke up, he got down sevaral fragmentary sentences about the Downfall.
It was my realization of the similarity of the two stories and especially of the striking similarity of the jottings by Alboin and the jottings by Lowdham that led me to the work presented here. Although Alboin's Fragments were written only in Quenya, it was clear after a close observation that they were a basis of Lowdham's Fragments, not only for the fact that the first part of Alboin's Fragments was almost identical to the respective part of Lowdham's Fragments, but also for the fact the the second part of Alboin's Fragments, which was not found in the Quenya version of Lowdham's Fragments, was a basis for the second part of the more detailed Adunaic text in Lowdham's Fragments.
And so at one point I decided to write an analysis of the Fragments and eventually publish it. There were several reasons for it. First of all, as far as I was aware there was not any complex analysis of the Fragments with comparison of their different versions published while there existed analyses of other major Quenya texts like Namárie or Markirya. I began studying sources, primary and secondary, and when I studied these sources, I realized that although there were some scattered notes here and there about the Fragments either in the TolkLang mailing list messages or the journal Vinyar Tengwar, new material was published and new interpretations of certain parts of the Fragments could be suggested (for instance, the form lenéme is, in my opinion, better to be analyzed as le-néme and not as lené-me).
However, I was not allowed to finish my analysis then. Some urgent things occurred and I had to abandon and leave the work untouched for a year due to lack of time. In the end, as a consequence of this, I felt urge to rewrite practically the whole analysis when I resumed the work. It was my dissatisfaction with the work and the fact that another new material had been published that led me to the reworking of the analysis. If I had to leave this work unpublished for another year, I am sure I would have to rewrite it once again, because new materials will be published and new research made.
Despite the seeming vanity of the scholarship research, the following text is a result of my work. It is supposed to be an analysis of the Atalante fragments as published in The Lost Road and Other Writings and Sauron Defeated by J. R. R. Tolkien. Its aim is to focus on particular words of the Fragments, an analysis of these words with their etymologies, and comparison of the use of these words in other Tolkien's text. A good deal of the text is spent on the comparison of different versions of the Fragments.

Ales Bican, 2003

The Fragments

The text that is here called the Atalante fragments are several mostly uncomplete sentences describing how a Númenórean king Tar-Calion assaulted Valinor and how the Valar destroyed Númenor consequently. The full story of this destruction occurs in several writings. Besides The Lost Road and The Notion Club Paper the events are described mainly in Akallabęth in The Silmarillion, The Fall of Númenor in The Lost Road and Other Writings and in The Drowning of Anadűnę in Sauron Defeated.
It is not certain when the Fragments were written in the Middle-earth time. It was written many years after the Downfall of Númenor in a land of exile (see SD:315). This land of exile was either Gondor or Arnor, two kingdoms founded by refugees from Númenor. 
On the other hand, the date when the Fragments were written by Tolkien is more or less certain, because we know dates when he wrote the stories that the Fragments are parts of. The Lost Road was written in 1936-7 and The Notion Club Papers some ten years later in 1945-6. During the period the face and structure of the Fragments was not changed very much. The text of Alboin's Fragments is actually very close to the text of Lowdham's Fragments except for a few mirror points. It is also obvious that the major revolution in the external evolution of Quenya was already done and Tolkien had more or less cleared for himself how he imagined his beloved language by the time. The revolution in question was the transition between Qenya of The Qenya Lexicon and Quenya of The Lord of the Rings. These two shapes of Quenya differed significantly in the phonology and morphology (inter alia). And although at the time of writing of The Lost Road, The Lord of the Rings was not yet written, it is obvious that the language of the Fragments is not Qenya but Quenya (the distinction in spelling is used to distinguish the two shapes of the language).
As regards distinctions between particular Fragments, there is hardly any difference in the phonology and some differences in the morphology (here we mean the final versions of Alboin's and Lowdham's Fragments and not drafts, i.e. versions A and L resp. F, see below). There cannot be said much about the syntax, since it seems to be very variable in Quenya; there are one or two semantical divergences. The most significant changes are in the lexicon, sc. in the use of words in the particular versions.
Because of the multiple versions (or drafts) of the Fragments, the following referencing system was adopted. This system differs to the system used by Christopher Tolkien in his commentary to the Fragments, because we found it inconvenient here. The Fragments printed in the text of The Lost Road are here referred to as A (Alboin's Fragments, LR:47), the version of the Fragments as found in the draft for The Lost Road was called Adr (draft of Alboin's Fragments, LR:56); the typescript version of the Fragments published as a part of the story of The Notion Club Papers is here L (Lowdham's Fragments, SD:246-7), the manuscript version in the draft of the story is called Ldr (draft of Lowdham's Fragments, SD:309-11) with two sub-versions Ldr1 and Ldr2; beside the typescript version of Lowdham's Fragments there is also a manuscript version with two previous versions/drafts: Fdr1 and Fdr2 (drafts for the Frontispiece version with sub-versions Fdr2a and Fdr2b, SD:311-3); finally the manuscript version itself is referred to as F (the Frontispiece version, frontispiece of SD). Individual versions are discussed in the same order in which the abbreviations were mentioned. It is therefore not in chronological order, because it was not our aim to describe the development of the Fragments from their first version to the last. Our aim was rather to take final versions A and L resp. F, sc. the versions that Tolkien treated as finished versions at the time, and compare their drafts or pre-versions with them. As will be mentioned, in case of F and L it is not wholly certain which of them is the final version, but in our opinion it is the version L. For this reason, the chronological order of the Fragments would be as follows:

Adr > A > Ldr1 > Ldr2 > Fdr1 > Fdr2a > Fdr2b > F > L

Aside from these versions, there is yet another version of the Fragments. This version is described in SD:317, but the text proper is not given, because the Fragments appear in "their original form (that is, in the form in which they are found in The Lost Road [...])" (ibid.). Unlike in A, in this version the Quenya text is translated to Old English and the translation is given at the place mentioned, not the Quenya text itself. This Old English text is here called OEA (sc. the Old English version of Alboin's Fragments) and it reproduced in the section dealing with A.
Finally let us also note that there exist other Old English versions of the Fragment, namely of the version L and Ldr. These versions, however, do not correspond to the Quenya version as precisely as OEA but they may be relevent for our discussions. We will therefore call OEL (the Old English version corresponding to Lowdham's Fragments) the Old English text along with its translation to Modern English describing the Downfall of Númenor as it appears in SD:257-9. As the story of The Notion Club Papers exists in a number of versions (drafts), there are various versions of the Old English text. These versions are as elaborate as OEL, but their relevance for this analysis is minimal. Besides these drafts there exist unique manuscript pages of the Old English texts written all in Tengwar. Christopher Tolkien discusses all these texts in Earlier versions of Edwin Lowdham's Old English text in SD:313-27.

* * *

Version A: Alboin's Fragments in The Lost Road

The following text is a transcript of the Fragments that were written down by Alboin Errol in the Chapter II of the unfinished time-travel story The Lost Road. The transcript is supposed to be identical to the text as printed in The Lost Road and Other Writing p. 47. The text in the book is also a transcript of Tolkien's original writing and therefore some editorial changes might have been introduced (such as the layout of the text). Here we tried to avoid any further editorial changes, though one was inevitable: the length of vowels is indicated by macrons in the text in The Lost Road, while here we used acute accents. It was not necessary to utilize any special font face (which would bring about a few technical difficulties), because the use of macrons has no influence on the text itself.
The Fragments are devided into two parts, not any specially distinguished like in L. Nevertheless, the text is devided by the sentence "Then there had seemed to be a long gap." placed between the particular parts. For this reason and for the reason that the second part did not survive to L, each part is discussed separately.
As mentioned in Foreword, there is a version of the Fragments, here called OEA, which form is not given anywhere, because it is the same as A according to Christopher Tolkien (see SD:317). There only exists an Old English translation of this text and we found it convenient to reproduce and discuss it here and not in a separate section, because the version OEA and A closely intertwined and the former helps us understand the latter better. Similarly as A, OEA was devided into two parts here. This division appears in the OEA itself.

(First part)

ar	sauron	túle	nahamna	...	lantier	turkildi	
and	?	came	       ?	...	they-fell	     ?
	
unuhuine	...	tarkalion	ohtakáre	valannar	...	
under-shadow	...	       ?	war-made	on-Powers	...
	
herunúmen	ilu	terhante	...	ilúvatáren	...	ëari	
Lord-of-West	world	broke	...	of-Ilúvatar	...	seas
	
ullier	kilyanna	...	númenóre	ataltane	...	
poured	in-Chasm	...	Númenor	down-fell	...	

(OEA, first part)

7 Saweron cóm to hýţe. Gedruron Fréafíras under sceadu. Tarkal-
ion wíg gebéad ţam Héamćgnum. Ţa tocléaf Westfréa ţas woruld
be ţćs Ćlmihtigan léafe. 7 fléowon ţa sć´ inn on ţćt micle gin 7
wearţ Nówendaland ahwylfed.

ar "and"; OEA: 7 (stands for and). The conjunction is found in many other sources (Etym s.v. AR2, Namárie). It also appears in Fíriel's Song (FS), which is contemporary with the Fragments, being also a part of The Lost Road (see LR:72). The first two lines of FS read:

Ilu Ilúvatar en káre eldain a fírimoin 
The Father made the World for Elves and Mortals
ar antaróta mannar Valion: númessier.
and he gave it into the hands of the Lords. 

The phrase eldain a fírimoin ar antaróta "for Elves and Mortals, and he gave" is especially of interest. We find here two forms of the conjugation "and": a and ar. It was suggested that the form a is used if the following word begins with a consonant (here f) and the form a if it is a vowel (here a). (Note 1) On this compare these forms from QL: ya "and" with a variant yan (104R), and se "with" with sen (82R). Although the usage of these n-forms is not specified, it can be inferred from these two examples: Kuluvai ya karnevalinar *"gold and orange-red ones" (Narqelion) and Eldar yan Indi *"Elves and Men" (QL:43L); we can see the n-variant of the conjunction ya used before a word beginning in a vowel while the unmarked variant appears before consonant-beginning words (cf. also what Christopher Gilson wrote in his analysis of Narqelion: "The variation may depend on stress or on phonological context, such as whether the following word begins with a vowel of consonant." (VT40:20)). Now given the phrase eldain a firimoin ar antaróta, the distribution of a and ar may be similar: the a variant would occur before words beginning in a consonant (cf. also a-nanta "and yet" (Etym s.v. NDAN)) and the ar variant before words beginning in a vowel.
However, here in the Atalante fragments ar is used before a word beginning is a consonant (namely before sauron) where a would be expected according to the described theory. The same situation may be seen in other texts, either older or younger than the Fragments: 

ar wilgildin wilwarindeën 
and the foam-fays like butterflies (Nieninque)

ar laiqali linqi falmari 
and the green wet waves (Earendel)

sí ar lúmesse ya firuvamme 
now and the hour of our death (AM IV) 

ar sindanóriello caita mornie 
and out of a grey country darkness lies (Namárie)

In light of this it is hard to explain why we have a fírimoin and not *ar fírimoin in FS.

Note 1: In his analysis of FS, Helge Fauskanger writes: 

It has been suggested that a is preferred when the next word begins in f (though it is far from certain that this idea is valid in later Quenya). The first a in ananta "and yet, but yet" in line 12 may also be a prefixed conjunction "and"[.]

sauron, not translated here by Alboin; OEA: Saweron. Although it is not translated, Alboin suspected that it was a proper name (see LR:47). Namely, that it was a proper Quenya name of Morgoth's chief herald. The name is listed under the stem THUS in Etym, being derived from the adjective saura "foul, evil-smelling, putrid"; the medial a was evidently infixed in order to intensify the original meaning of the stem, cf. rauko "very terrible creature" (Etym s.v. RUK; for the translation see VT39:10) or taura "very mighty" (s.v. TUR; see VT39:10), hence Sauron would be *"Very foul one".

túle "came"; OEA: cóm. Evidently a past tense of tul- "come" (Etym s.v. TUL), formed by the lengthening of the stem-vowel and addition of the past suffix -e; the same formation could be seen in ohta-káre below. In Etym, however, past tense of kar- "make, do" is given as karne, so Tolkien might have changed his mind and decided that if a verbal stem ended in a liquid (l, r), the "weak" (Note 2) past ending -ne or its allomorph le was added: cf. also tirne, past tense of tir- "watch" (ibid. s.v. TIR) or ville, past tense of vil- "fly" (s.v. WIL). On the other hand, this kind of past formation may be alternative or may denote another tense (or aspect), so that the form túle may be slightly different to supposed *tulle. Traces of this past formation are found in Namárie: unduláve "downlicked" (not **undulambe or something alike). 

Note 2: The form of káre is supposedly an instance of the 'strong' past tense while the karne is 'weak'. Although this distinction is not wholly certain in this case, there seems to be such a difference, cf. Tolkien's own words: "In Quenya the verb ava- was little used in ordinary language, and revealed that it was not in origin a 'strong' or basic verbal stem by having the 'weak' past form avane." (WJ:370).

nahamna. OEA: to hýţe. This word is not translated in the text. If we compare other untranslated words, it is obvious that all of them are proper names. Comments to the text say: "There were one or two new words here, of which he [Alboin] wanted to discover meaning: it had escaped before he could write it down this morning. Probably they were names[.]" (LR:47). Thus one would expect nahamna to be a proper name as well, sc. a name of a certain destination where Sauron came (but cf. the entry númenorenna in Adr).
Nevertheless, if we compare this passage with the same passage in L, which reads "o sauron túle nukumna", we will find a very similar-looking word nukumna. Because of the similarity and the same position in the text, it would seem reasonable to assume that nahamna is some kind of ancestor of nukumna, of which Tolkien changed its form but the meaning was probably retained, sc. "humbled". This does not seem to be the correct interpretation of the word, though.
In our opinion the most probable interpretation of nahamna lies in OEA where we find the gloss to hýţe which is translated as "to haven" by Christopher Tolkien (SD:317). He writes: "It is curious to see that nahamna (marked as usual with a query in the modern English gloss) was translated to hýţe 'to haven'" (ibid.).
In light of this we can say that nahamna is meant to be "to haven", though it remains unanswered why Alboin was not able to translate this word. He might have been confused by its structure, because without the knowledge of how to translate the gloss one may interpret nahamna not as being a noun but as a participle or adjective. This is mainly due to the structure of the word, because, as was pointed out, the similarity with other Quenya participles (or adjectives) is striking (notably with nukumna "humbled"). But with the Old English translation, its interpretation is more or less evident. The form nahamna can then be easily segmented into na and hamna. 
The segment na- is evidently a preposition (or a prefix funtioning as a preposition) "to" (Etym s.v. NÂ1). With this compare unuhuine "under-shadow" below: unu being another preposition (or a prefix). It seems that Tolkien was at a stage when he was adding prepositions to nouns rather than placing them before the words (cf. nu luini tellumar "under blue domes" in prose Namárie, RGEO:58) or using case endings (cf. Elendil's words (thereafter EW) Et Eärello Endorenna utúlien "out of the Great Sea to Middle-earth I am come", LotR: The Steward and the King). Cf. also the inflection of the preposition ó- "with" in VT43:29 suggesting that "with me" was óni in Quenya.
It is also noteworthy that Tolkien used the prefix na- "to" and not inflected the word. If the aforementioned sentence Et Eärello Endorenna utúlien. is compared with other directive words from the Fragments like kilyanna, númenna, rómenna, one might ask a question why the allative (sc. the case used in all those examples, functioning as directive, see kilyanna) was not used here, too. But perhaps Tolkien wanted to avoid too many n's, because *hamnanna would be the word then.
The remaining part hamna is not attested as such. A likely stem it could be derived from is KHAM "sit" in Etym. The entries at this stem were, however, very difficult to read and Christopher Tolkien, as the editor of The Etymologies, was only able to decipher ham- "sit". For that reason, we cannot be sure whether this word was listed under the stem. But if the word is to be associated with the stem KHAM, then hamna might mean something like "sitting place, place where ships sit", that is "haven". The derivative ending -na is not very usual for nouns, but it does occurs: cf. samna "wooden post" (Etym s.v. STAB), namna "statute" (Námo "Judge", see also VT42:34 s.v. Note 1). 
Another possible root/stem from Etym might be KHAP- "enfold". The "haven" might then be "something that is enfolded". The derivatives of KHAP- are, however, all connected with clothes, cf. Noldorin hab- "clothe" which seems to be a direct descendant of KHAP- "enfold". Furthermore, though this may not be decisive, all derivatives are Noldorin; it may be that this base was not productive in Quenya as some bases were (e.g. BARÁS).
If we take a look into QL, we can say that a possible source of the word hamna may be the base HAM- (p. 39L). Its meaning is not given, but it can be guessed from its derivatives: han (hamb-) "the ground", hant "down, to the ground", hamba, hambanoite "on the ground" plus hamb- "ground, earth" from PME. If hamna was derived from HAM-, it would mean something like *"place for grounding/landing". (Note 3)

Note 3: In addition to these and probably the three most likely interpretations of nahamna with the given data, there might be yet another. It is probably only temptative but it may be mentioned for curiosity. It was said that although nahamna looked like a past participle (being very reminiscent of nukumna from L), it was rather a noun hamna "haven" with the prefixed preposition na "to". Yet it is be possible that at one stage Tolkien thought of nahamna as really of a past participle. He might have been undecided about it and for that reason he did not provide any translation of the word, though it was not a proper name like other untranslated words in the Fragments.
It was proposed that hamna "haven" was derived from the stem KHAM "sit" from Etym (plus KHAP-). We also suggested another stem HAM- from QL. And this stem may bring the yet other interpretation of nahamna. It was said that the general meaning of the root HAM- was not given in QL, but it could be guessed from its derivatives and generalized to *"ground, earth". Now if this is compared to the etymology of the word "humble", we will get an interesting correspondence:

hum·ble :: Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin humilis low, humble, from humus earth; akin to Greek chthOn earth, chamai on the ground (Merrian-Webster OnLine)

This of course may be just a coincidence and does not have to mean that nahamna necessarily meant "humbled". Nevertheless, it is very likely that Tolkien was inspired by the Greek and Latin word for "earth, ground" when he created the stem HAM-.

[Between nahamna and lantier there is a gap in the Quenya version. No such gap is, however, indicated in OEA. Instead, the sentence is concluded with a period.]

lantier "they-fell"; OEA: Gedruron. It is evidently a plural of lantie which is a type of the preterite of lanta "fall" (Etym s.v. DANT). Although the Quenya form is translated with a simple past, structurally lantie seems rather to be a present perfect because of the suffix -ie, cf. avánier "have passed away" (Namárie), utúlien "I am come" (EW). As one can notice, the perfects cited feature an augmented stem-vowel, which lantie does not. It seems that the idea of augmented perfects was one of the late ideas of Tolkien's, since early (in the real time) perfects did not feature any augment, cf. I·Eldar tulier "the Eldar have come" (LT1:114, note the short stem-vowel!), fírie "she hath breathed forth" (MR:250) or just vánier "have passed away" in a version of Namárie as it appeared in the first edition of LotR. Tolkien speaks about these forms as about "not uncommon in verse" (WJ:366), though. It was as late as the second edition of LotR Tolkien replaced vánier with avánier. As Helge Fauskanger notes "[avánier] doesn't not fit the meter of Namárie very well" (The Course: Lesson Eight).
Yet it is not certain whether the form lantier is really a perfect tense, if the English translation is given (but see below). It might be a form of the past tense despite its structure. The Old English gedruron is evidently a preterite, related to dréosan "fall". This may, however, not be very important, since Old English did not have any perfect tense (linguistically speaking, what is called perfect in Modern English is not a tense at all). But there are other things that have to be taken into our consideration. Firstly, the form ohtakárie is used instead of (simple past) ohtakáre (q.v.) in Adr. Secondly and more relevantly, lantier was replaced by lantaner in L, which is evidently a past tense. Why then the form lantaner was not used even in this version is not clear, especially if ataltane "down-fell" (q.v.) which is a past tense of atalta-, which is of the very similar structure as lanta-. Helge Fauskanger thinks (op. cit.) that since as Tolkien writes that "the forms of past and perfect became progressively more closely associated in Quenya" (WJ:366), the form lantier is an augmentless perfect which may be used as the past tense. Therefore the relationship between the perfect and past may be seen in Tolkien's replacing of lantier by pure past lantaner.
It is also possible that Tolkien wanted to make a distriction between what happened before (sc. Sauron's coming to the haven) and what happened next and might have had certain consequences (Númenóreans' falling under shadow). The same distinction is seen in the Adunaic version of the same text in L. The phrase reads:

Kadô zigűrun zabathân unakkha ... ęruhînim dubdam ugru-dalad 
and so [Sauron] humbled came ... [Númenóreans] fell under shadow 

Although both verbs unakkha and dubdam are translated with the English simple past, their structures suggest that unakka is (probably) an instance of the Adunaic past tense and dubdam an instance of the Adunaic aorist. In Adunaic, the past tense was "often used as pluperfect when aorist is used [as] past" (SD:439). (Note 4) Hence if this distiction could exist in the Adunaic version, it might exist in the Quenya one as well: the simple past túle would indicate pluperfect ("what had happened") and the perfect lantier would be the past ("what happened"). And as we could have seen, both unakka and dubdam, though different tenses in Adunaic, were translated with the English simple past, so the English translation may be not decisive.
Nevertheless, if this distinction was really used here, it is not certain why it is not present where it would be most extected, sc. in L where there is simple past lantaner, because this version, unlike A, has an Adunaic counterpart. But even in A, the distiction would be exclusive to the pair túle and lantier, because as we can see other verbs in this version seem to be simple pasts (ohtakáre, terhante and atalante) except for ullier (which will be discussed below). The Adunaic counterpart of ohtakáre is azaggara, of terhante the aorist (functioning as the past tense) yurahtam and of atalante the past hikallaba (= pluperfect). Leaving aside azaggara corresponding to ohtakáre, we can see that atalante would correspond to hikallaba as túle to unakka, but terhante does not correspond to yurahtam, one being a past, the other aorist.
Despite these inconsistencies, there may be yet another support for the theory. FS contains this pair: en káre "[Ilúvatar] made" and En kárielto "they made". As we can see, both forms are translated with the English simple past, yet they differ in form. If we compare these forms in context, we will see that the former refers to Ilúvatar's making of the World and the latter to Valar's making of the Moon and Sun. It is evident that the former necessarily anteceded the latter and therefore the distiction between the ie- and e-forms might have been utilized here. (Note that there other ie-forms in the song, we will return to them). 
However, the occurence of the two forms may be due to another reason. It may be, and it is our opinion, that the ie- and e-forms were interchangable, in other words that the suffixes -ie and -e were both used for the past tense and if there existed the perfect tense in Quenya, it was either expressed by other means or the suffix ie was used for it, but then the perfect was not formarly distinguished from the past tense. This opinion of ours is based on the comparison of other instances of the ie-formes. It would be convenient to mention them here:

The Book of Lost Tales vol. 1:
Tulielto! "They have come"; I·Eldar tulier "the Eldar have come" (LT1:114; note the short u!)
I·kal' antúlien "Light hath returned" (LT1:184)

Earendel:
lútier [...] Earendil "sailed Earendel"
langon [...] kírier "the throat clove"

Oilima Markirya 1:
kirya kalliére "the ship shone"

To these instances we should add the pair from FS and a few ie-forms from a draft of Namárie from TI:284-5, but since this draft was not translated and its status remains uncertain, we will not discuss it here. We are also leaving aside the later ie-forms (like avánier), because it is certain these forms are perfects.
As we can see, all three forms from LT1 are translated with the English perfect, suggesting these forms may also be perfects in Q(u)enya. On the other hand, the ie-forms from Earendel are translated with the English simple past. Besides these two ie-forms, there are another preterites in the poem, namely i lunte linganer "the boat hummed" and i súru laustaner "the wind 'lausted'". The preterites contain the same past suffix -ne as ataltane (A) or lantaner (L) do. A similar situation can be seen in OM1 where the form kallíere (to which we return in the discussion on ullier below) stands beside falastanéro "was loud with surf" and laustanéro "rushed", which are also formed by means of the -ne suffix. From the context of both poems there does not seem to be any speacial reason to distinguish two types of preterites. It appears rather that these ie-forms stand freely beside the ne-forms, denoting the same type of the tense.
If we return to the situation in FS and apply this theory, we can say that the forms káre and kárie- both denote the same tense (past simple). Similarly, we can say that lantier is the same type of tense as ohtákáre (and for that matter as ataltane) in the Atalante fragments. If there was really some kind of difference or restrictions in the distribution of both types, we cannot say from the material we have at the moment. (Note 5)
Now we will return to the other ie-forms in FS. These forms are: númessier "They are in the West", meldielto "They are [...] beloved" or talantie "he is fallen". It is a common opinion that the ie component in these forms is related to ye "is" (seen also and only in FS: Írima ye Númenor "Lovely is Númenor"). This component was agglutinated to certain forms still functioning as the stative verb "is". Hence the forms mentioned can be interpreted as follows: núme(n) "west" ss(e) locative singular affix ie "is" r plural marker; meld(a) "beloved" ie "is" lto 3rd person plural suffix; and *talanta "fallen" (note that this word is not attested per se) ie "is" (cf. Fauskanger: Fíriel's Song).
With this knowledge we can suggest yet another intepretation of lantier. On the basis of talantie "he is fallen", we can segment temptatively lantier to lanta "fallen" ie "is" r plural. Unlike in case of *talanta, in case of lanta there is no need to asterisk the unattasted form, since the form lanta "fallen" is actually attested. It appears in OM2 in lanta-mindon "fallen towers". Petri Tikka thinks that the form talantier is actually an example of the passive in Quenya. In an Elfing message he wrote: "There is probably no passive tense in Quenya, but it is formed as in English with passive participle + the copula (in Quenya often absent), cf. talantie 'he is fallen' < *talanta 'fallen' + ye 'is'" (Re: I LANTE ARTANÁRO, September 6th 2002). Although we would not go that far in assuming that Quenya had no passive voice, the idea fits to our opinion that talantie may be some kind of pseudo-passive (pseudo because *talanta and lanta may both be adjectives). If this theory is applied on lantier, we can postulate that it would be lanta "fallen" (either adjective or participle) ye "is" r plural marker and the whole would mean "[turkildi] are fallen". Similarly, ullier may be *ulla "poured" ye "is" r plural markers, sc. "[seas] are poured" (on which see below).
Finally, we must note that the form lantier may still be an instance of the perfect tense in even if it contained the stative verb ye "be", for it is not uncommon for the copula to be utilized in the perfect in real languages, cf. the use of the verb ętre in the French passé composé or the English translation of utúlien "I am come" (EW).

Note 4: The interpretations of Adunaic version of the Alalante fragments differ, notably the interpretations of the particular verbal forms. Patrick Wynne and Carl F. Hostetter in the article 'Verbs, Syntax! Hooray!' A Preliminary Assessment of Adunaic Grammar published in VT24 identify unakka as a past continuative (28) and dubdam as either the simple past or aorist (30). On the other hand, Lalaith in Lalaith's Guide to Adűnaic Grammar is of the opinion that unakka is an instance of the past tense and dubdam of the aorist. We incline to this interpretation.

Note 5: As a side-note I must mention a certain message sent to the Elfling mailing list, because I feel a scholarly obligation to do so. In 2000 a message entitled Qenya verb chart was sent to the list. It contained a transcription of a Qenya verb chart from the archives of the Marquette library. I will not and cannot give any reference to the message, because the chart itself was not officially published and the message was later deleted from the Elfling archives. The chart does not officially exist and therefore my analysis is not based on it. In addition to this non-existence, I was let know (in private correspondence) that the person who provided the transcript might not have transcribed it properly and therefore it may contain errors. At any rate, the reason of this side-note is to inform readers that the message in question gives a paradigm of a certain Qenya verb. Among the forms, two of them are of particular interest: it is the perfect and the past tense of the verb, because the form of these tenses is identical (and similar to kárie- in its structure); the only difference between the two forms is in the use of the pronominal suffix. While the perfect shows what we could call (fellowing the common linguistic practice) a primary (full) pronominal suffix, the past tense shows the secondary (reduced) form.

turkildi, not translated here; OEA: Fréafíras. The reason why it was not translated is most likely its being a proper name (cf. nahamna above). If Alboin had problems with translation of this word, Lowdham does not in The Notion Club Papers: "[Turkildi was] the name of a people: 'lordly men', I [Lowdham] think" (SD:311; for a similar quotation see turkildi in L). In Etym, the word Turkil is equaled with "Númenórean", being the same as Tarkil (see entries TUR and KHIL). turkildi is a compound of tur "lord(ly)" (s.v. TUR) and hildi "followers, men" (s.v. KHIL). Due to the adjacent r, the original kh (wherefrom is the h- is hildi) was deaspirated to k. The plural form turkildi shows strengthening of the final l to ld.

unuhuine "under-shadow"; OEA: under sceadu. unu- "under" is apparently an augmented (longer) variant of nu (cf. nuhuinenna in L and Etym s.v. NU). Although it is not attested elsewhere, such an augmentation is seen in another preposition na "to", already mentioned. The entry NÂ1 in Etym lists these forms: an, ana, na, all signifying "to, towards", with a cross-reference to the stem ANA1, which is an augmented form of the former stem. The prefix unu- can be then compared to ana, nu (as in nu huine in Adr) to na and even an to un- from untúpa (Namárie); there is also a strengthened form undu listed under UNU, an augmented form of NU (cf. also unduláve in Namárie). The preposition is here used in the same way as na- in nahamna (see above).
huine is translated as "deep shadow" under PHUY in Etym along with its variant fuine. If we compare other stems on PH-, it is obvious that this prehistoric *ph (supposedly an aspirated voiceless stop) became f in Quenya. Now the reason why we have huine from PHUY is due to the stem-vowel u; finally in VT41 we learn about its precise development: 

The Ńoldor, before they made the change [a shift from labial f to inderdental f], accused the Vanyar of confusing the two sounds [labial f and voiceless w, transcribed hw]. In fact if left to unheeded change they would probably have merged in Quenya hw. Their near approach (by slackening the spirantal friction of f) before the separation of Vanyar and Ńoldor is seen in the development of phu- > *hwu- > hu, as in Quenya huine "gloom", unrelieved darkness (as a night without stars or moon), Telerin fuine of same sense, Sindarin fuin "night" (8)

[After unuhuine follows another gap indicated by an ellipsis (...). This gap is not present in OEA.]

tarkalion, not translated, for it is another of the proper names; OEA does not also translate it and gives Tarkalion. Alboin's comments read: "tarkalion was almost certainly a king's name, for tár was common in royal names" (LR:47). The bearer of this name was Ar-Pharazôn, "[t]he mightiest and last king of Númenor" (UT p. 2, ch. III; in the same source his name is spelled Tar-Calion). This name is not translated, but the king often gets the title "the golden" (see LR:27). This translation, however, does not seem to be a precise translation of tarkalion. Leaving aside the honorific tar (on which see Elements in Quenya and Sindarin names (thereafter SAp) in The Silmarillion s.v. tar- and the stem TA3 in Etym), the form kalion might be segmented to kal- and ion. The former segment kal- seems to be connected with the stem KAL "shine (general word)" from Etym (cf. also SAp s.v. kal-). Now the latter segment ion could be associated with the patronymic suffix -ion "son [of]" (Etym s.v. YON). It is possible that this ending was also used as a general masculine ending, sc. not meaning only "son", but "man in general". Cf. also morion "the dark one" in FS, though it may also analysed as mori- "dark" (cf. more "black" (Etym s.v. MOR)) and -on a masculine suffix. The same may hold for kalion: the element kali- might mean "light, golden" and -on would be the same masculine ending. Note that his Adunaic name Pharazôn does mean "golden (one)", because phazar is "gold" (see SD:426).

ohtakáre "war-made"; OEA: wig gebead. It is a compound of ohta "war" (Etym s.v. KOT) and káre, past tense of kar- "make, do" (Etym s.v. KAR; cf. en káre in FS), on which see túle and lantier above. *ohtakar- would be then a word for "to war, to wage war" followed by the allative. Cf. also struck out ohtakaro "warrior" (s.v. KAR).

valannar "on-Powers"; OEA: ţam Héamćgnum. The base of valannar is Vala, translated as "God" in Etym (s.v. BALA) and as "a Power" in Quendi and Eldar (WJ:403). Here this word is inflected; the segment nnar is a suffix of the allative plural, it expresses who was the source of Tarkalion's war-making. The suffix nna is related to the preposition na seen in nahamna. It is interesting that this preposition was not used here. It may be noted that this text along with FS is the first (known) occurence of this suffix. In earlier texts, Tolkien used nta, nda or nde: cf. Kaivo i sapsanta "As a corpse into the grave" (OM1), kiryanda (Bodleian Declensions), tande "thither" (Nieninque).

[After valannar there follows a gap indicated by an ellipsis in the Quenya version. OEA, however, has a period after Héamćgnum and then begins a new sentence with Ţa. The counterpart of this word is not found in any Quenya version of the Fragments. It means "then, thereupon; when".]

herunúmen "Lord-of-West"; OEA: Westfréa. This title refers to Manwe. It is generally believed it is a compound of heru "master" (Etym s.v. KHER) and númen "west" (ibid. s.v. NDŰ and MEN: nú- "set of Sun" + men "place").
However, beside this one there may be another, slightly different interpretation. The final n may be a genitive suffix (cf. the gloss "of-West") and then the word for "west" would be núme. This word is not found in Etym but it certainly existed in Tolkien's mind, cf. númeheruvi and númekundo (on both see below); furthermore the word is listed in QL:68L. As for the genitive ending, the same one is used in ilúvatáren "of-Ilúvatar" (see below).
In L, it was replaced by númeheruvi (Tolkien decided for the plural during the evolution of the Fragments), which means that the particular elements changed their positions. This was probably a more logical construction, since in plural the element heru had to be necessarily pluralized, not núme(n) "west". It was argued that the singular form of númeheruvi was still herunúmen. However, this is not very likely, because númeheruvi contains núme while the other word has probably númen (if it was not inflected núme, of course); furthermore númekundo in Fdr2 (which was a sub-step between those two words) shows the same sequence of the elements and it is evidently a singular. It is interesting that in The Line of Elros (as published in UT, p. 2, ch. III; the date of its origin is not given, but it is no doubt written after the final version of the Fragments in SD), Tolkien returned to Herunúmen as a name of a king of Númenor. Here we cannot assume a genitive suffix -n, because The Line seems to be written after the publication of LotR when the suffix -o was used for the genitive instead.

ilu "world"; OEA: ţas woruld. It is used in the same sence in FS: Ilu Ilúvatar en káre eldain a fírimoin "The Father made the World for Elves and Mortals". For more see ilúvatáren below.

terhante "broke"; OEA: tocléaf. It is a past tense of terhat- "break apart" (Etym s.v. SKAT): a compound of ter- "through" (s.v. TER) and hat- "break asunder" (s.v. SKAT). This is another type of the past tense in this text; here the past stem is formed also by the component e which is added to a nasal strenghtened present stem, namely ter.ha-n-t.e. This type of past was very common for stems with the coda ending in t: cf. quet- "speak" (Etym s.v. KWET) with quente (PM:401). Note that here, unlike in turkildi, the h (in hat-) did not become k because it is of another origin (*khil- > hil- vs. *skat- > hat-).

[There follows a gap in the Quenya version but OEA has here be [...] léafe "with leave". See leméne in L.]

ilúvatáren "of-Ilúvatar"; OEA: ţćs Ćlmihtigan; its governing word is not found in this version (but see L), but it is found in OAE, see above. As mentioned in the entry herunúmen above, the final n is a suffix of the genitive and Ilúvatáren is therefore a genitive of Ilúvatar. The ending n was used for genitives in Tolkien's earlier conceptions of Quenya (see VT36); there are many instances of this in and outside Etym. Tolkien, however, later decided that n would be a suffix of the dative singular (being derived from preposition na "to" and therefore related to the allative). Traces of this can be seen in FS which has eldain a fírimoin "for Elves and Mortals", hildin "for Men", ilyain "for all" and nin "[to] me", but still Ilúvatáren! This suffix seem to have become later exclusively used for the dative (see Tolkien's notes on Cirion's Oath in UT p. 3 ch. II Note 43), while the genitive singular acquired the suffix -o (traces this element can also be seen in FS: Valion "of the Lords").
In the form ilúvatáren we can see a long á which is not present in the nominative form Ilúvatar; this is because of the internal development of Quenya: quality of vowels in final syllables was neutralized if unstressed. Since the relevant syllable becomes non-final if inflected, the quality persists and the syllable acquires stress. In other words, there is an alternation between components atár and atar and their distribution is dependent on morphological and phonological enviroments. Similar alternation can be seen other words: anar "sun" vs. Anárion.
The e between Ilúvatár and genitive suffix n seems to be a connentor without any special function than to avoid a final consonantal cluster. The same connector is seen in talen, being the genitive of tál "foot" (Etym s.v. TAL) or in Elendilenna (WJ:401).
The etymology and meaning of Ilúvatar was being changed throughout Tolkien's life. Early in QL, the name meant "Heavenly Father", being derived from the root ILU "ether, the slender airs among the stars" (QL:42); the latter part of the name is atar (QL:33), hence it is probably *iluva "heavenly" + atar "father"; this etymology was suggested by Carl Hostetter on the Tolkien mailing list. (Note 6) Although the word *iluva is not attested per se, the adjectival ending -va is seen in some instances in QL, cf. e.g. alluva "clean" (QL:30).
Later the meaning seems to have been changed to *"father of universe" with ilúve "universe" therein (see base IL in Etym). Yet the meaning of the stem IL- and its usage is somewhat obscure. The same entry which gives Ilúvatar and equals IL- with "all" gives Ilurambar "Walls of the World" (compare also the image in SM:245) and here in the Atalante fragments occurs the word ilu "world", evidently referring to our earth, since this was what was broken by Manwe. We may wonder whether this means that there was yet another phase of the development of Ilúvatar in which it meant *"father of world" rather than *"father of universe".
Even later the meaning was standardized to "father of all", "made from ilúve 'allness, the all', an equivalent of Eä, and atar 'father'" (WJ:402); the semantical or mythological difference between "the universe" and "the allness" might be small or none. At this stage, ilu cannot mean "world" and that is probably why it was replaced by arda in L.

Note 6: In the letter entitled 'Re: Lucas, Tolkien, myth and motif' from July, 21st 1999, see Works Cited and Recommnended for more details.

[Here follows another gap in the Quenya version. Again, there is no corresponding gap in OEA; the sentence is concluded with a period and a new sentence begins with 7 signifying and. See ullier below.]

ëari "seas"; OEA: ţa sć´ (note that for technical reason the acute accent could not be placed over ć). It is undoubtedly a plural of ëar "sea" (Etym s.v. AYAR); the diaeresis above the e indicates that ëa is not a diphtong but forms two separate syllables.

ullier "poured"; OEA: fléowon. It is another of the ie-preterites in this text. It is noteworthy that it is the only ie-form that survived to L. However, in that version ullier seems to be a past subjunctive, which is also hinted by the translation "should flow". On the discussion about the subjunctive see the entry ullier in L below. In this version (A), there is no such translation and thence it is not certain whether the subjuctive idea was already present here. We are of the opinion that ullier is not here an instance of the past subjunctive judging from OEA.
First of all, the form ullier must be related to the verb ulya "pour" (Etym s.v. ULU). The entry in Etym gives two past tenses of this verb: ulle being intransitive and ulyane being transitive, suggesting that the verb ulya is both transitive and intransitive. Here ullier is evidently intransitive (it does not take a direct object) and therefore we can leave out ulyane. Now it is clear that ullier was derived from the past stem ull-. As we argued in the discussion on lantier above, the ie suffix is common for Quenya perfects. Hence the form ullier might also be an instance of the perfect. On the other hand, it may be argued that while ullier is derived from the past stem, lantier is derived from the present stem (lanta-) and therefore each of them may express another tense (or aspect). This objection is certainly legitimate, but it must be pointed out that even lantier may be derived from the past tense, in other words that the stem lant- functions as both the present and past stem. Another example of this would be vinta- "fade" (Etym s.v. WIN) with past tenses vinte and vintane! (Note 7)
Another important fact had been already mentioned above: in Quendi and Eldar, Tolkien writes: "the forms of past and perfect became progressively more closely associated in Quenya" (WJ:366). He wrote this when wanting to explain öantie (the perfect of auta-), because the form show "intrusion of n from the past" (ibid.). The same association of the perfect and past tense might have happened in case of ullier.
In the discussion on lantier above we make a list of other ie-forms existing outside the Alalante fragments. One of the forms was kalliére from OM1. The whole phrase reads: kirya kalliére kulukalmalínen "the ship shone with golden lights". Now the form kalliére is almost certainly kallie "shone" and -re "she". (Note 8) There is a problem with kallie, though. While in case of ullier we can be almost certain that its present is ulya-, we cannot say straightforwardly what is the present of kallie, because there are several possibilities: kala- (QL:44L) or kal(l)u- (ibid.), kalya- (Etym s.v. KAL) and even *kal- (though not found as such). It is also possible that it was *kalla-, but we do not find this very probable, because such a form is not attasted.
Now we would like to return to why we do not find it very possible that ullier is here an instance of the past subjunctive as it is most likely in L. First of all, it is the translation that differs: while ullier is translated as "should flow" in L, here it is translated simply as "poured". Secondly, it is the existence of lantier in this version (as opposed to lantaner in L) that is of the similar structure as ullier and that is not apparently an instance of the subjunctive (the same goes for kalliére which appears to be a simple past). But finally it is the existence and evidence of OEA that has the most suggestive force of ullier being a simple past. The Old English verb form corresponding to Quenya ullier is fléowon in OEA. This form is preterite plural indicative of flówan "to flow", while gutan in OEL is preterite plural subjunctive of geutan. Another important divergence will become obvious if we compare the relevant parts of the versions in question:

A
herunúmen ilu terhante ... ilúvatáren ... ëari ullier kilyanna
"Lord-of-West world broke ... of-Ilúvatar ... seas poured in-Chasm"

OEA
Ţa tocléaf Westfréa ţas woruld be ţćs Ćlmihtigan léafe. 7 fléowon ţa sć´ inn on ţćt micle gin
"Then West-lord broke the world by the leave of Almighty. And the seas flowed into the big abyss" (our translation)

L
númeheruvi arda sakkante lenéme ilúvatáren ... ëari ullier ikilyanna
"Lords-of-West Earth rent with leave of ? ... seas should flow into chasm"

OEL
ah tha Westfrégan gabédon hi to thćm Ćlmihtigan 7 be his léafe tosprengdon hi tha eorthan thćt alle sć´ nither gutan on efgrynde
"But the West-lords prayed to the Almighty, any by his leave split asunder the earth so that all seas should pour down into an abyss" (Tolkien's own translation, SD:258)

It is apparent that A corresponds to OEA and L corresponds to OEL. Now where there are two sentences in OEA, there should be also two sentences in A and therefore the gap between ilúvatáren and ëari should stand for a conjunction "and". On the other hand, since there is only one sentence in L which is devided into two clauses which are joined by the relative pronoun thćt, the same corresponding relative pronoun (or a conjunction of the same function) should stand in the gap between ilúvatáren and ëari in L.
For more discussion on ullier, especially on the theory that it might be *ulla "poured" + ye "is" + r plural, see lantier above.

Note 7: The stem WIN wherefrom the verb vinta- was derived in Etym was struck out (LR:399). This is not relavant for this discussion, though. The point was in showing that the idea of the two past tenses existed.

Note 8: The length of e preceding -re is caused by the pronominal suffix; similar lengthenings can be found in the same poem: falastanéro, laustanéro (-ro "he") and even outside the poem: tye-meláne (-ne "I"; LR:61), antaváro (-ro "he"; LR:63), antaróta (-ta "it"; FS) and kautáron (-ron "they"; Earendel).

kilyanna "in-Chasm"; OEA: inn on ţćt micle gin. This form is an inclected form of the noun kilya, in Etym translated as "cleft" (s.v. KIL), namely being in allative. The allative ending is the same one as in case of valannar (where of course with plural suffix r). It must be noted that the use of allative is here different to the use of allative in valannar or to the use of the preposition na is nahamna. Strictly speaking the allative functions here as the illative or directive: while the allative expresses movement toward something, the illative/directive expresses movement into something (here the Chasm). The same directive function of allative can also be seen in the phrase Et Eärello Endorenna utúlien. "Out of the Great Sea to Middle-earth I am come." (EW). (Note 9)
It seems that later Tolkien might have abandoned the word kilya and replaced it with cirya (though this necessarily clashing with kirya "ship" (Etym s.v. KIR)). In Etym under the stem KIL, there is Kalakilya "Pass of Light", but Namárie has Calaciryo (in genitive) instead. Note that Tolkien was also toying with kallasilya (not translated) in one version of Namárie (see TI:285).
The OEA equivalent inn on ţćt micle gin can be translated as "in to the big abyss". Aside from the demostrative pronoun (article) which is not present in the Quenya version (where it is probably redundant), the Old English version contains one extra word which equivalent is not found in the Quenya version. It is micle "big, much; great". Although there is a gap A after kilyanna where the Quenya equivalent could have stood, it is more probable that kilya itself signifies "big abyss" and therefore there was not need to express "big" by a special word.

Note 9: In Indo-European languages it was mainly the accusative that had the illative/directive function, cf. Sanskrit gráham gaččhámi "I go to the village".

[As mentioned above, there is gap between kilyanna and númenóre. OEA has again 7 (and) in this place.]

númenóre "Númenor"; OEA: Nówendaland. It is a full variant of Númenor (see Adr), the name of the island given to the faithful Men. The name is a compound; the final component of this compound is certainly nóre "land, dwelling-place, region where certain people live" (Etym s.v. NDOR) but the first component is not certain. It is undoubtedly a word signifying "west" but as was pointed out at the entry herunúmen above, the word in question may be either núme or númen. If the latter, than the two n's merged into one, though there would exist a "full" version thereof: SAp mentions Númennóre. There would not be any problem with núme: it would simply be attached to nóre. 
It may be noted that later Tolkien changed the etymology of nóre a little bit: in his view nóre was derived from PE nôrę (stem ONO) and meant "family, tribe or group having a common ancestry, the land or region in which they dwelt"; this was however confused with a derivative of PQ ndorę "the hard, dry land as opposed to water or bog" (see WJ:413). Thus the 'true' name for Westernesse was Númendor "land of the west" (SAp, s.v. dôr). Notwithstanding, at this time this etymology does not seem to have arisen yet.
It is interesting that the Old English equivalent Nówendaland does not signify "west-land" or similar. The underlying word is nówend "master of a ship, sailor". The whole hence meant "Land of sailors".

ataltane "fell down"; OEA: ahwylfed. It is a past tense of alalta "collapse, fall in", sc. talta "slope, slip, slide down" with an a-prefix signifying completeness (see Etym s.v. TALÂT). This is yet another type of the past tense, formed by adding ("weak") -ne, cf. lantaner in L.

(Second part)

...	malle	téra	lende	númenna	ilya	sí	maller	
...	road	straight	went	Westward	all	now	roads
	
raikar	....	turkildi	rómenna	...	nuruhuine	mel-lumna	
bent	....	     ?	eastward	...	Death-shadow	us-is-heavy
	
...	vaháya	sin	atalante	
...	far-away	now	     ?	

(OE, second part)

Géo lćg riht weg westanweard, nú sind alle wegas [?forcrymbed].
Fréafíras éastweard. Déaţscúa ús líţ hefig on. Nú swíţe feor is seo
Niţerhrorene.

[Before the first word malle there is a gap indicated by an ellipsis, hinting that something probably should precede it. OEA has here Géo meaning "formerly, of old", cf. Adunaic tâidô "once" in L.]

malle "road"; OEA: weg. It is translated as "street" both in Etym (s.v. MBAL) and QL (s.v. MALA(1)). See maller below.

téra "straight" (Etym s.v. TE3); OEA: riht; an attribute of malle. The word contains a common adjective suffix -ra (seen also in sára "bitter" (Etym s.v. SAG), for instance). The long é is a product of the loss of the sound 3 before a liquid, sc. *te3râ > téra. Unlike in English, in Quenya the adjective téra follows its governing substantive; on this compare Tolkien's own words:

The order of elements in compounds, especially personal names, remained fairly free in all three Eldarin languages; but Quenya preferred the (older) order in which adjectival stems preceded, while in Telerin and Sindarin the adjectival elements often were placed second, especially in later-formed names, according to the usual placing of adjectives in the ordinary speech of those languages. (PM:346)

lende "went"; OEA: lćg. In Etym, this past tense is found under the base LED and its present tense is given as linna. Under ELED (also in Etym), we find lesta, also with pa.t. lende. The status of the verb linna- is not certain, for if it is derived from the base ELED, its derivation would be unusual. Perhaps it is derived from another base (not given in Etym) and the pair linna- and lende is an instance of suppletion. On the other hand, the relationship between lesta- and lende is obvious: both are derived from the base LED; the former shows addition of derivative -ta (with the dissimilation of d-t to st); the latter shows a nasal infixion and addition of the past tense component e (its structure is hence comparable to terhante). It is noteworthy that lende is derived directly from the base LED and not from the present stem (that is, not like e.g. sintane from sinta- (Etym s.v. THIN)). Let us note that in The Quendi and Eldar, the present form of lende is given as lelya "go, procede"; the base was likewise changed to DEL. This base was dissimilated to LED from which the past tense lende is derived by the means described above (see WJ:363). Whether this verb (i.e. lelya) existed at this time is not certain.
It is interesting that Old English lćg does not precisely mean "went", since it is a preterite of licgan "to lie".

númenna "westward"; OEA: westanweard. Here again the notion about the West is expressed and it is again not clear whether the base-word was núme or númen, as either is possible here. The suffix nna is again a suffix of the allative singular. It is possible that this suffix was added to núme as well as to númen. If the former, the allative ending was added directly to núme; in the latter case, nna must have been added to númen with the connecting e, thus producing a hypothetical form *númenenna. This must have been then contracted to númenna via haplology, cf. the change of mindoninnar to mindonnar (MC:222). (Note 10)
Let us say a few words about núme here. It appears first in QL under the stem NUHU (or NŰ, which marked by a query) "bow, bend down, stoop, sink" and is glossed simply as "west" (that is, the place where the sun sinks down). As has been already pointed out, this word does not appear in Etym, but the underlying stem exists here in a slighly changed shape: NDŰ "go down, sink, set (of Sun, etc)", but only the form númen is listed meaning simply "west". In Letters no. 276, Tolkien mentions both núme and númen; his words read: "[Númenor] is a construction from the Eldarin base NDU 'below, down; descend'; Q. núme 'going down, occident'; númen 'the direction or region of the sunset' + nóre 'land' as an inhabited area.". Even in 1965 when the letter was written the word was not abandoned.

Note 10: The change of mindoninnar to mindonnar may also be explained otherwise: in the former case, mindon was certainly used but it might have be mindon as well as mindo in the latter case, because both words are used for single towers (see Etym s.v. MINI). It is also possible that the underlying word for "tower" was really mindon but instead of the haplology two variants of the allative ending might have been used. In case of mindoninnar it might have been nnar (with i being a connector or a plural marker) but in case of mindonnar it could have been only na (plus plural r). This simple ungeminated form of the allative suffix exists in Telerin (cf. él síla lúmena vomentienguo, WJ:407) and its realization may be seen in the form ciryanta being allative dual of cirya (see PL). Similar allomophic pair may be seen in talasse vs. talse (VT43:16).

ilya "all" (Etym s.v. IL); OEA: alle; it refers to maller "roads". Surprisingly, it does not agree in number with maller, though it would be expected to. In Namárie, wherein the same idea of a road going to west is expressed, ilya takes its plural form ilye: ilyë tiër undulávë lumbulë "all paths are drowned deep in shadow" (here ilya sí maller raikar "all roads [are] now bent"). The word ilya was probably not declined at this time; but in the LotR era, it became declinable, so that it could acquire a plural ending before a noun in plural. It is also possible that it was sí in between which prevented ilya to take a plural; ilya stands closely in front of tiër in Namárie.

sí "now" (Etym s.v. SI); OEA: nú. See sin below.

maller "roads"; OEA: wegas. Evidently a plural of malle seen above. This word seems to be one of those nouns ending in -e which form their plurals with the plural maker r, and hence plural of malle is not *malli but maller (cf. tyeller "grades" which singular is probably *tyelle (LotR, App. E)). Why it is so is not wholly clear. In WJ:361, Tolkien notes: "the majority [of nouns in -e] formed their plurals in -i". As was already hinted at ilya above, in Namárie, Tolkien used tiër instead. This is of course does not mean that the word malle is no longer valid in Quenya having been replaced by tië, though it is likely.
The history of this word does far back, for it was already listed in QL under the base MALA(1) "crush, squeeze, pulp". Like in Etym, it was here also glossed as "street"; the semantical difference between "street" and "road" is not so drastic, though one would hardly imagine a street going to Valinor. Perhaps later Tolkien decided that malle would refer only to "street" and thus would be in contrast with Sindarin/Noldorin rath "street" (Etym s.v. RAT), since the stem MBAL does not seem to exist in Sindarin and vice versa, RAT does not seem to occur in Quenya. tië then would be a general word for "road, way".

raikar "bent". Structurally, it seems to be a plural of raika which is glossed as "crooked, bent, wrong" in Etym (s.v. RÁYAK), agreeing in number with maller. It is interesting that the plural form is raikar instead of *raike, which would be a normal plural form of raika. An adjective can take the plural -r if treated like a noun, cf. vanimar "beautiful ones" (LotR: Many Partings, for the translation see Letters no. 230). If the same notion is used here, then the translation should read *"now all [the] roads [are the] bent ones". Since there is no other adjective in plural in this text, the (a-stem) adjectives might have formed their plural with -r instead of -i (i.e. -ai > -e) at this time. 
On the other hand, it is important to realize that raikar is not adjective directly describing the noun maller but it is rather an adjectival complement; there should be a stative verb between maller and raikar, namely the copula, which was here omitted, because the sentence is understandable even without it (cf. i Héru aselye *"the Lord is with you" in AM IV) similarly as in Latin or Sanskrit. As this is not possible in Old English, OEA has sind "are". The adjective raikar is here used predicatively and not attributively and this may be reason of the plural marker r. Another example of the predicative of an adjective is seen in FS: Toi írimar "which are beautiful" (lit. "they beautiful"). Here the adjective following the word in plural (sc. toi "they") does as well acquire the pluralizer -r. Something similar can also be found in the earliest poem Narqelion which contains these two lines: kuluvai ya karnevalinar and ómalingwe lir' amaldar. Both the r-words seems to be adjectives, yet they end in -r. Christopher Gilson in his analysis of the poem in VT40 assumes they are either nominalized adjectives, sc. of the vanimar type mentioned above, or one could choose which pluralizer he/she wants to use according to the context (in this case karnevalinar should rhyme with Eldamar and amaldar with i·aldar from other lines; see VT40:21). The Atalante fragments are, however, not a poem and therefore there seems to be no need for a rhyme, unless, of course, it is meant to allude to the preceding maller.
It may be noted that in VT39 there is a slightly different etymology of the adjective raika than the one mentioned above. According to this new view, it was derived from the stem RIK "twist" by means of the strengthening (a-infixion) of the base. Variants of this stem existed already in Etym (s.v. RIK(H) "jerk, sudden move, flirt") and QL (RIQI/RIKI with riqi- "wrench, twist", p. 80L). These two bases seem, however, to be unrelated to RÁYAK from Etym, and at this time the adjective raika was most probably derived from it.
The OEA equivalent is here forcrymbed placed into parantheses and preceded by a query. This is probably because Christopher Tolkien was not sure about the reading, as the jottings were hard to read. On the word he writes: "No verb (for)crymban is recorded, but cf. Old English crumb 'crooked, bent', and crymbing 'curvature, bend'" (SD:317).

turkildi, see above; this is a subject of a certain verb that does not appear in the Fragments. It is questionable whether the supposed verb (predicate) existed at all, because OEA has here the sentence Fréafiras éastweard. (strictly speaking it is not any sentence at all, but out point was in showing that it had the same structure like other sentences in OEA, i.e. it begins with a capital letter and is concluded by a period).

rómenna "eastward"; OEA: éastweard. The structure of rómenna is parallel to of númenna above. Hence the base word might be either rómen (for this see Etym s.v. RÔ, being derived similarly like númen) or *róme. But unlike núme, *róme is not attested per se; the word for "east" is óre (base OŘO) in QL and Etym has only rómen. Notwithstanding, there is no reason not to assume the existence of *róme by means of analogy with núme. Besides the analogy, there are a few hints that such a word might have existed in Quenya. In Namárie there is form Rómello which could be segmented to róme + llo (an ablative suffix) (similarly róme + nna); its evidence is not, nevertheless, overwhelming, for Rómello might also be derived from rómen either via haplology (*Rómenello > Rómello) or via the use -lo, being an allomoph of llo (its realization can be seen in ciryalto in PL), with the final n of rómen assimilated to l (rómen + lo > Rómello). The most convincing reason for the existence of *róme is a name of a Blue Wizard given as Rómestámo "East-helper" (PM:385). (Note 11)

Note 11: Even this, however, may be refuted by the argument that the final n of rómen might have merged this the cluster st; an indication of this may be seen in a variant of Rómestámo given in PM:391: Róme(n)star. The components stámo and star "helper" are probably related to sáro "saviour" occurring in Nanisáro "saviour of the Dani", being derived from ndani-thârô (see LR:188).

nuruhuine "death-shadow"; OEA: Déaţscúa. It is evidently a compound of nuru (Etym s.v.  ŃGUR) and huine (s.v. PHUY, see above).

mel-lumna "us-is-heavy"; OEA: ús líţ hefig on. lumna is found in Etym (s.v. DUB) where it is given as an adjective meaning "lying heavy, burdensome, oppressive, ominuous" and as a verb "to lie heavy". This means that lumna is probably one of the verbalized adjectives, cf. adjective kúna "bent" and verb kúna "bend" in the Markirya poem (MC:222). There are therefore (at least) two possible interpretations of the component lumna.
First, if it is an adjective, then it is used predicatively. The predicate (verb) proper would be then expressed by the copula and an adjectival complement in English translation ("is-heavy"). In Quenya, the copula may not be expressed at all (see raikar above). Another possibility is that it is a part of the component mel- (see below).
On the other hand, if the lumna is meant to be a verb, which is more probably, the English translation "is-heavy" would be another translation of it beside "to be heavy" given in Etym. The semantical difference, if any, between these two translations may be neglected.
Now the component mel- is traditionally explained as an assimilated form of men due to its immediate contact with lumna. This men would be an indirect object of lumna. It is most likely me "us" plus n a dative singular suffix (cf. VT43:18 s.v. men). A more literal translation of mel-lumna might thus run *"[death-shadow] is heavy on/for us". However, it is crucial to note that the suffix -n appears in Ilúvatáren (q.v.) where it is clearly a genitive marker! It has been already said that Tolkien was re-establishing the declension system at the time, so it is possible that the element n was used for the dative and genitive then.
This syncretism of the dative and genitive ending may be avoided, though. So far we assumed that mel- is an assimilated form of men, but there is no direct evidence for it. It is not wholly clear which ending was really neautralized before l of lumna. Instead of the n it might have been an s or r plus several other consonants (because all of them would presumably be assimilated to l before another l); actually, there might been no neutralization at all, sc. the l could be original.
From all the suggested consonants, the most likely possibilities are s and r; they would produce these forms: *mes and *mer. At a certain period Tolkien was using the element -r as a suffix of dative singular (cf. yar "to whom" in Nieninque), and it is also possible that the suffix -s was used for the same purpose (Note 12).
There may be yet another, though tentative, interpretation of the final n in men (under the assumption it is really men). The final -n may not be interpreted as a case ending but as an affixed copula, namely a short suffixable variant of ná or na "is". From this follows that me would be an indirect object "us", which, it is true, would be expected to acquire some kind of a marker of the indirect object to be distinguishable from the direct object form me, as it does in Átaremma: áme etelehta *"deliver us" vs. ámen anta *"give (to) us" (VT43:12), but it is not impossible that there was only one form for both indirect and direct object in Quenya at the time. The draft of this version (i.e. Adr) even has me lumna "us is-heavy" (note also that Old English ús is both dative and accusative, i.e. it functions both as a direct and indirect object). Now the final -n would be the suffixed copula (stative verb) "is", and lumna would be an adjective "heavy". The same suffixed copula might be present in sin "now" above and sín "now (is)" in L (note the translation!). It is very likely that the notion of the affixed copula existed in early Adunaic, cf. rôkhî-nam "bent-are" and îdôn "is now" in Fdr1. For further discussion on this see sín in L.
Finally, let us say a few words about the word-order. The object mel- stands directly in front of the predicate lumna (being either an adjective or verb); their juxtaposition is close that one is able to affect the other. The hyphen marks a mopheme boundary. Another example of an indirect object preceding a verb is in Namárie: Sí man i yulma nin enquantuva? "Who now shall refill the cup for me?". Similarly in At. VI: ámen anta síra ilaurëa massammna (but cf. other version of the text in VT43).

Note 12: In fact -s and -r might be ultimately related to each other. For more on this topic see my article the -s case.

vaháya "far away"; OEA: swíţe feor. The word itself in this from is not found elsewhere (except for Ldr1). In L, it becomes spelled vahaiya; in Fdr1 it is spelled vahaia (look there for the discussion of the differences in the spelling). háya "far off, far away" is found in Etym (s.v. KHAYA); the prefix va- must be a variant of ava- (s.v. AWA "away, forth, out"), related to the preposition va "from" (see VT43:20 s.v. va). It is probably some kind of intensifying prefix, because the word háya, judging from the Etym translation, denotes "far off, far away" by itself. If it is so, then it may have the same or similar function as swíţe in the OEA which is an adverb "exceedingly, very" (the whole phrase swíţe feor then means "very far (away)"). On the other hand, haiya is translated as "far" and vahaiya as "far away" in L.

sin "now" (Etym s.v. SI); OEA: Nú ... (is). This seems to be a variant of sí (seen above) according to Etym. Since the word it precedes begins with a vowel, it is perhaps a form used before vowels. The existence of a similar additional n was already mentioned in the discussion on ar above. Like the pairs se, sen "with" and ya, yan, the pair sí and sin may have the same distribution. Another similar pair may be ná and nán "but" (Etym s.v. NDAN). Here of course the underlying stem is NDAN while in the case of sí and sin it is SI. Yet the form ná must have had its origin, so perhaps there was a variant *NDA (or *NDÂ) of the stem NDAN, cf. SENE being a variant of SĘ (the bases se and sen were derived from, QL:82R). One may argue that the stem-vowel of nán is long while it is short in sin. However,  parallel variants do exist: nan "but" in FS and sín "now" in L. 
For more on sí, sín and sin see the discussion on sín in L. For another possible interpretation of final -n see also the discussion on mel-lumna above. Let us also note that there is is in OEA which has no obvious counterpart in the Quenya version.

atalante, its meaning not given; OEA: seo Niţerhrorene. It is another and the last of the proper names which Alboin was not able to translate. The comments to the text read: "What was atalante? It seemed to mean ruin or downfall, but also to be a name." (LR:47). In Etym it is translated as "the Fallen" (s.v. TALÂT); another Tolkien's note says: "Atalante (a-prefix = complete) downfall, overthrow, especially as name of the land of Númenor." (ibid.). In a letter cited in LR:7-8, Tolkien used atalantie and noted:

It is a curious chance that the stem talat used in Q[uenya] for 'slipping, sliding, falling down', of which atalantie is a normal (in Q) noun-formation, should so much resemble Atlantis. (LR:8, footnote)

In MC:222, atalante is translated as "collapse, downfall". For more see atalante in L.
The Old English Niţerhrorene is a compound of the adverb niţer "downwards; down, below" and hroren, being a past participle of hréosan "fall, collapse, perish"; the final -e is apparently a feminine suffix. The seo is a feminine form of the article; there is no word corresponding to it in the Quenya version, because it was probably not necessary.

* * *

Version Adr: a draft of Alboin's Fragments

There exists a draft for the first two chapters of the tale of The Lost Road; they are discussed by Christopher Tolkien in LR:53-6. This text contains a draft of Alboin's Fragments which Christopher Tolkien reproduced on p. 56 of the book The Lost Road and Other Writings. The Fragments are "slightly different in the draft text" (ibid.). In many respects this version is identical to A, although it is briefer than it. There does not seem to be any division into two parts like in A; the text runs without any marked interlude. Unlike in A, acute accents were used for marking length of vowel instead of macrons.
This version is being compared to A; we will try to list all divergences between them.

Ar	Sauron	lende	númenorenna	...	lantie	nu	huine	...	ohtakárie	
And	Sauron	came	to-Númenor	...	fell	under	Shadow	...	war-made
	
valannar	...	manwe	ilu	terhante.	eari	lantier	kilyanna	númenor	
on-Powers	...	    ?	 ?	broke.	seas	fell	into-Chasm	Númenor
	
atalante	...	malle	téra	lende	númenna	ilya	si	maller	raikar.	
down-fell	...	road	straight	went	westward	all	now	roads	bent.
	
Turkildi	rómenna	...	nuruhuine	me	lumna	
      ?	eastward.		Death-shadow	us	is-heavy	

Ar "and". Capitalized here only.

Sauron "Sauron". Unlike in A, it is glossed (though not translated in fact) here despite its being a proper name. Tolkien probably realized that Alboin could not know Sauron, hence the gloss does not appear in A. Capitalized also only here.

[nahamna is missing. Since there is no gap for it, it does not seem to have existed at this stage.] 

lende "came". It is surprising that lende is translated as "came" here, though the very same text contains lende once more, translated as "went", which should be its real meaning (see Etym s.v. LED-). It might be a mistake and Tolkien  might have meant another Quenya word, unless lende was supposed to signify both "came" and "went" at this stage of the development Quenya. Other versions has túle here in the place of lende.

númenorenna "to-Númenor". This is a sole occurence of this form: it is found in no other version. The suffix nna is again a suffix of the allative singular (see númenna in A). The e between númenor and nna is either a connector (avoiding a direct contact of númenor and nna) or a part of númenóre. In the former case, the underlying word is númenor (on which see below); in the latter, it is númenóre (see A s.v. númenóre). In case of númenóre, the long ó must have been shortened, being in an unstressed syllable (the stess should be on númenoREnna). In Quenya, we cannot have a long vowel in an entirely unstressed syllable, and a stressed syllable cannot be followed by another unless it is the first syllable of the word and hence receiving secondary stress (cf. únótime). (Note 13)

Note 13: This idea was introduced by David Salo in the letter Quenya stress and vowel length sent to the Elfling mailing list, see Works cited and recommended below.

lantie "fell". It is interesting that lantie is in its singular form here while it is in plural in all other versions. See turkildi below.

[turkildi is missing. There is a gap preceding lantie in which this word, if exiting at this stage at all, could have been present, though not recorded by Alboin. However, lantie is evidently in singular, not like lantier in A, so it is somewhat dubious (but cf. sakkante in L) whether the word turkildi was really intended to stand here. The subject of lantie might well be something else like númenor or tarkalion, though none of these words is given. Yet the text continues ohtakárie valannar "war-made on-Powers" and according to A, it was tarkalion who made the war. Therefore tarkalion might be the subject of both verbs, though not mentioned.] 

nu "under". This preposition is not found in Etym, which gives no instead (s.v. NU). It is, however, found in other sources. It is noteworthy that the preposition stands alone, not attached to any word, just like in nu luini tellumar "under blue domes" (Namárie, RGEO:58) or nu fanyare rukina "under broken skies" (Markirya).

huine "Shadow", see unuhuine in A.

[tarkalion is not found here. It is not certain whether this word (or alternatively any other word denoting the king of Númenor) was meant to be in the original, complete, text. Note that there is an indication of an empty gap here, though a similar indication can be seen before tarkalion in A. For more see turkildi above.]

ohtakárie "war-made". Other versions have ohtakáre instead. As has been already remarked, the ie suffix is more typical for the perfect than for the simple past tense. Hence the form ohtakárie might rather be a perfect than a simple past. If the English translation is correct, then the ie-forms and e-forms would be allowed to co-exist. See lantier in A for more.

valannar "on-Powers". Identical to A.

[The same gap after valannar.]

manwe, not translated. Despide the lack of glossing of the name, there is no doubt that no one else but Manwe himself is being meant. He is not named by his "true" name in any other version, where one of his titles is used instead (sc. "Lord of West").

ilu, untranslated and marked with a query. It is not certain why Alboin was not able to translate it in this version. The word is translated in A (and there is also a translation in L where ilu was replaced by arda).

terhante. "broke.". The same as in A except for the period indicating a finished sentence.

[ilúvatáren is missing. Since there is a period after terhante and no gap between it and eari, the notion of Ilúvatar's permission (see léneme in L) to break the world seem not to have been present here then.]

eari "seas". Other versions have a diaeresis diacritic mark over e (i.e. ë). Tolkien was using diaereses to indicate that ea (in this case, there were other combinations as well) was not a diphthong (i.e. monosyllablic) but two separate vowels (dissyllablic). The absence of the diaeresis does not necessarily mean that ea is monosyllabic, because it is not necessary to use them (and there seems not to be any counterpart of it in the tengwar script). It is interesting that although eari is obviously the first word for a new sentence, e is not capitalized (unlike Ar at the beginning) and even English "seas" is not capitalized.

lantier "fell". Plural of lantie above (see also lantier in A). Other versions have ullier instead. While in case of ullier in A we could speculate about the subjunctive mood, here it is almost obvious that the mood was simply indicative, since lantier necessarily corresponds to lantie above.

kilyanna "into-Chasm". In A, it is translated as "in-Chasm", which makes hardly any difference.

[No gap between kilyanna and númenor like in A.]

númenor "Númenor". A (and other versions) have númenóre instead. Both forms were possible; there was hardly any semantical divergence between them. Yet the form Númenóre seems to be more usual (for Quenya words tend to end in open syllables). For English translation (actually it was no translation at all), Tolkien was using shorter Númenor both here and in other versions, probably because Anglophonic speakers would not pronounce final e's, which would have led to erroneous pronunciations of words like Númenóre.

atalante "fell down". Although A has ataltane instead, the present form of both past tenses is undoubtedly atalta- (see Etym s.v. TALÁT). The atalante past is a nasal-infixed preterite, falling into the same category with verbs such as terhat- (terhante). Coincidentally, the derivation of atalante must be similar to the derivation of the name atalante (or atalantie; see atalante in A). It is a common feature of Quenya that in three-syllabic words, the medial syllable was syncopated if it was allowed by phonological and morphological environment. Therefore the present form atalta was derived from the base (a)talat by addition of -a (an ending of the present tense, cf. mâtâ in VT39:9) with the suppression of the medial syllable; the past tense ataltane was derived therefrom by addition of a past ending -ne.
On the other hand, the past tense atalante (and the nouns atalante and atalantie) was not derived from the present stem atalta but from the stem (a)talat itself: (a)talat- became atalante by means of nasal infixion and addition of the past ending -e (an allomorph of -ne). In this case the medial syllable in atalante could not have been syncopated in this environment (note that if we speak about a medial syllable, we treat the particular forms as if there was not a-prefix which denotes completeness (see atalante in A) for the sake of simplicity), because the syncope would result in an impossible sequence lnt.
Let us also note that this way of deriving past tenses was common for QL wherein there are many instances of this phenomenon, cf. for instance talante (!) from talta "to lade, burden, load, change" (88R) or avalante with a variant avaltane from avalta "strip, despoil" (34L).

[As mentioned above, there is no space dividing the text into two parts like in A.] 

malle "road"; téra "straight"; lende "went". All three words are identical to A.

númenna, "Westward,". Identical to A except for the colons both in the Quenya and English texts; they are found only in this version.

ilya "all". Identical to A.

si "now". A has sí instead. The short-vowel variant is found only in this version. It might be either slip for sí or a correct word. The same short variant occurs in AM I (VT43:26). Note that Tolkien was sometimes not concerned with marking long vowels, see VT43:7.

maller "roads". Identical to A.

raikar. "bent." Identical except for the period which does not occur in A.

Turkildi, not glossed as in A. Capitalized only here.

rómenna "eastward.". Identical to A except for the period which is only after the English gloss this time.

[The same gap follows rómenna like in A.]

nuruhuine "Death-shadow". Identical to A.

me "us". A has mel-(lumna). If the l is a realization of some case ending and me is a bare objective form, it shows no apparent case ending, neither is it glossed to contain any. In English, the "us" is an indirect object and the same would be expected in Quenya. For more see mel-lumna in A.

lumna. "is-heavy.". The form is in fact identical to A except for the period, which is only here. It has been remarked in A that lumna might be either an adjective or a verb. Here the form and the English translation suggest the latter.

[The conclusion ... vaháya sin atalante is missing here. It did not probably exist at this time.]

* * *

Version L: Lowdham's Fragments in The Notion Club Papers

It has been already stated in Foreword that after approximately ten years Tolkien returned to the Fragments in his new story The Notion Club Papers. This story is more complex than the story of The Lost Road but likewise it was never finished. One of the characters of the story is Alwin Arundel Lowdham. One day he had a strange dream and after his waking up, he jotted down a few fragmentary sentences. These fragments were written in two languages: Avallonian (that is how Quenya is called in the story) and Adunaic.
The similarity of these fragments with Alboin's ones is obvious. Although there are several changes, the basic frame remained unchanged. Many words are the same as in A; some were changed, because during the years Tolkien's view on Quenya changed a little bit (for instance his views on Quenya past tenses). The most significant difference is in the introduction of Adunaic, though. This was a new language, a Mannish language of Númenor; it did not probably exist at the time of The Lost Road.
The division of the text is similar to the division in A. Individual parts became labeled in this version and hence the first part became 'I', the second part 'II'; since there are two languages, the Quenya parts are marked by 'A' and the Adunaic parts by 'B'.
The following text is a reproduction of the Fragments as they appear in Sauron Defeated. It is editorially modified, because in the original typescript "the Avallonian and Adunaic words are given all in capital letters" (SD:288); Christopher Tolkien found it more convenient to "print them [...] in italic, capitalising according to the manuscript version [i.e. F]" (ibid.). We tried to reconstruct Tolkien's typescript and therefore all words were recapitalized (in the discussions alone, however, mijuscule letters are used).

I

The first part of these Fragments corresponds clearly to the first part of Alboin's Fragments. The main idea and basic structure did not in fact change at all. The changes are only grammatical or lexical. Nevertheless, this version has one new piece of information that was not found in A (but it already appeared in Ldr2), see lenéme.

(A)	O	SAURON	túle	nukumna	...	lantaner	turkildi	
	and	    ?	came	humbled	...	fell	     ?
	
	nuhuinenna	...	tar-kalion	ohtakáre	valannar	...	
	under shadow	...	       ?	war made	on Powers	...
	
	númeheruvi	arda	sakkante	lenéme	ilúvatáren	...	
	Lords-of-West	Earth	rent	with leave	of      ?	...
	
	ëari	ullier	ikilyanna	...	númenóre	ataltane	
	seas	should flow	into chasm	...	Numenor	fell down	

o "and". This word is found in no other version but F, which is practically identical. It is also without any doubt that it cannot be a misreading, since we have a reproduction of Tolkien's manuscript. Why Tolkien used this o remains unclear, especially when he used ar in A and this ar is found in many other Quenya texts (both earlier and later). The conjuction o does not seem to appear in any other Quenya text. It is true that a form o appears in the poem Earendel as a preposition "with" (in wingildin o silqelosseën "[t]he foam-maiden with blossom-like hair") and it is also mentioned in VT43:29 as the preposition "with". Be it so or other way round, it is still a preposition not conjunction.
A partial and not very satisfying answer may lie in the Adunaic version which has kadô "and so". If this word were the exact counterpart of Quenya o, then this o, meaning "and so", would be distinct from ar. Also, it might mean just "so" if the element ô in kadô is the same like Quenya o. This is however a merely temptative guess, because we do not have any evidence that Adunaic kadô should contain two components, although it is likely, because conjunctions and particles in general tend to be monosyllabic and after all it was translated as "and so", which might indicate the presence of two components. On the other hand, it is possible that kadô is *ka "and" + *dô a temporal particle. The particle *dô might then also occur in tâidô "once" and îdô "now". As regards *ka "and", cf. Sanskrit copulative conjunction ča (< *kwe). But even though this were the correct interpretation of the Adunaic conjunction, it would not explain the Quenya o and therefore we should seek the origin elsewhere.
We have mentioned the preposition o occurring in Earendel. It has also been said that it is mentioned in VT43:29. This preposition is apparently related to the stem WÔ "together" in Etym. It is possible that the conjunction o is also derived from this stem; it would certainly fit semantically. Nevertheless, Tolkien explicitly wrote in the essay Quendi and Eldar that the base WO (apparently a variant of WÔ) "[did] not remain in Q as an independent word" (WJ:367). This essay was, however, written more than ten years later than the Atalante fragments, precisely in 1959-60. (Note 14)

Note 14: The idea that the conjunction o might be derived from WÔ/WO was suggested by Hans-Juergen Fischer in private correspondence.

sauron, marked with an query. Unchanged from A.

túle "came". Unchanged.

nukumna "humbled". A has nahamna (Fdr1 and Fdr2 have kamindon and akamna respectively, q.v.). It has been already shown that the meaning of nahamna and nukumna is not the same, because the former means (most likely) "to haven", while the latter "humbled". The structure of nahamna and its similarity has also been already discussed.
The word nukumna is not found elsewhere but here (not counting F) and therefore its origin is not without doubts. However, it may be easily separated to nu- and kumna (though this segmentation may not be the correct one, but it seems to be more probably one) and one can say without a big hesitation that the former element is the prefix "under", occurring also in nuhuinenna below. The element kumna seems to be a past participle; this assumption is mainly based on the English translation, but since in Quenya the participial suffix -na seems to be ultimately related to the adjectival -na, it may therefore be sometimes difficult to tell out whether a certain word is an adjective or participle, cf. harna "wounded" (Etym s.v. SKAR). For more see nukumna in F.
A word kumna is listed in Etym, derived from stem KUM "void" and meaning "empty". If this could be the origin of the word kumna here cannot be said for sure. There seems to be a better interpretation, though. In kumna, the medial m may be a reflex of either m, p or b; and so kumna was derived some some stem KUP (wherein italic P stands for either m, p or b). (Note 15) Etym and QL give a number of possible bases: KUB- (Etym), with a derivative kumbe "mound, heap", which would be related to KUMU "heap up" and KUPU "hump" (both QL:49L). To these we must add also KU3 "bow" (Etym), being related to KUVU "bend, bow" (QL:49R); both bases are apparently related to the mentioned ones. Now given the meanings of these bases and their derivatives, such as kumba "burdened, laden" (KUMU), kupta- "to hump up, look lumpy" and kúna "bent, curved" (MC:222; possibly a derivative of KU3), we can postulate a meaning of the stem KUP as "bend, bow, hump". Hence nukumna would mean something like *"bent/bowed/humped down", very close to "humbled". See also discussions on kamindon and akamna below.

Note 15: During the development of Quenya, the opposition between phonemes /m/, /p/ and /b/ was neutralized before /n/ to an archiphoneme /P/ (sc. unvoiced bilabial sound as such) which was realized as m. Cf. kumna (already mentioned; Etym s.v. KUM) derived from *kum-nâ, telemna "silver" (s.v. TELEP) from *telep-nâ and samna "wooden post" (s.v.  STAB) from *stab-nâ. In other words p and b became m before n.
 
lantaner "fell". It was changed from lantier. It is apparently a plural form of *lantane (not attested as such), which in turn is a past tense of lanta "to fall" (Etym s.v. DANT). Here lanta takes a normal 'weak' past ending (like ataltane here and in A) like other verbs of this type.

turkildi, not glossed like in A, i.e. it remained unchanged. Lowdham says: "[turkildi] means, I think, 'lordly men'" (SD:248).

nuhuinenna "under shadow". It replaced unuhuine from A and nu huine from Adr. The seeming oddity of the prefixed preposition has already been discussed. What is new in this version is the allative singular ending nna, intensifying the motion of falling (in)to the shadow. A notion of a prefixed preposition added to a declined noun appears not to be an uncommon phenomenon in Quenya. In The Litany of Loreto, Tolkien used ómesse for a translation of "on us" (see VT44:12, 15). Here the preposition ó "with" (see VT43:29) is added to me "us" in locative. Since the form ómesse has a variant messe, it means that ó- is to some extend redundant here; it is not certain whether nu- might also be redundant here.
Note that the hyphen in the English translation was removed and the gloss "shadow" decapitalized (A has "under-Shadow").

tar-kalion, marked with a query. Not changed from A except for the hyphen between tar and kalion. Lowdham comments: "I think that is a king's name, for I've often come across the prefix tar- in names of the great" (SD:248).

ohtakáre "war made". Unchanged except for the omission of the hyphen in the English translation.

valannar "on Powers". Unchanged; no hyphen in the English translation in A, though.

númeheruvi "Lords-of-West". This replaced herunúmen from A, manwe from Adr and númekundo from Fdr2. The reason why all previous variants has been mentioned is that a new and essential idea was incorporated into this version: in all previous versions of the Fragments (save F) it was Manwe who broke the world, but this version states it was not just Manwe but all (resp. more than one) Valar instead, since númeheruvi is in plural!
As regards the structure of the word itself, its singular form would apparently be *númeheru (not attested per se, but cf. númeheruen, SD:290). It contains elements núme "west" and heru "lord"; both already mentioned and discussed. (Note 16) It is important to remark that the sequence of these elements was changed: while the element heru preceded núme(n) in herunúmen, it follows núme in númeheruvi. Tolkien must have realized that if he wanted to pluralize the very word herunúmen, it might cause troubles, since it had to be logically heru that had to acquire a plural form, not númen. On the other hand, the transposition occurs already in Fdr2 (sc. númekundo) where the form is in singular.
The form herunúmen does not, nevertheless, seem to be rejected in favor of *númeheru, since it appears as a name of a king in The Line of Elros (in UT, p. 2, ch. III), namely Tar-Herunúmen. Although there is no date given, there are clues hinting that the Fragments in question (as a part of The Notion Club Papers) were written before The Line of Elros was compiled. Let us note that an Adunaic name of the king was Ar-Adűnakhôr while Manwe (resp. Valar) was called bârun-adűnô (in Fdr1; plural bârim an-adűn here). Comments in UT read: 

But these names [Herunúmen and Ar-Adűnakhôr] were held by the Faithful to be blasphemous, for they signified 'Lord of the West', by which title they had been wont to name one of the great Valar only, Manwë in especial. (op. cit.)

Since we have postulated that the singular of númeheruvi is *númeheru, the ending -vi must be a realization of a mopheme signifying plurality. The occurence of i is nothing uncommon, as it seems to be a common Eldarin plural marker (cf. turkildi), but the v in between is unusual. A similar v in plural can perhaps be seen in rávi as a plural of rá "lion" (Etym s.v. RAW); this v is, however, probably an original part of the stem (with a change w > v), similarly like d is a part of the stem in case of turkil pl. turkildi. This v would presumptively appear if non-final, that is to say that the (old) genitive of rá would probably be *ráven. The genitive of *númeheru is however númeheruen (see SD:290), not *númeheruven. It is true that númeheruen was of earlier date than númeheruvi, not only because of the fact the númeheruen is singular in structure (the same morph en like in Ilúvatáren, unless it covered both singular and plural). (Note 17) It is possible that the purpose of v is to avoid the contact of u and i, which would result in the diphthong ui at the end of the word, i.e. to avoid *númeherui, since there seems to be no polysyllabic word ending in a diphthong or a long vowel in Exilic/Spoken Quenya. (Note 18) But even so, *númeherui might have become *númeherwi (cf. urqui as a plural of urko (urku-) in WJ:390). For some reason númeheruvi was preferred. Let us also note that a similar v appears in Adunaic: "In composition or inflexion a 'glide' W was developed between U and a following vowel (other than U), and this was developed into a full consonant in Adunaic." (SD:434). The Quenya v in númeheruvi might be of a similar origin.
We said that the singular of númeheruvi was most likely *númeheru. It was also said that heru was the word meaning "lord". This word is evidently masculine, not only because of the English translation, but also because it ends in the masculine suffix -u which occurs in many Quenya words (nouns), all being masculine; its feminine counterpart is -i. Stem KHER in Etym gives heri as a feminine counterpart of heru. There is also a pair Ainu and Aini (Etym s.v. AYAN). Now since the word heru is masculine, the plural númeheruvi will be masculine, too. However, when Tolkien wrote this, he did not probably want to imply that it were only male Valar that destroyed Númenor. This seeming contradiction can be easily explained: if in plural a party of both females and males is described, the plural form of the masculine is probably used. Another example of this is Ainur which must evidently refer to all holy spirits created by Eru. This usage of masculine plural for mixed parties is similar to the use of the pronoun ils "they" in French: it is used for mixed parties, while the same ils is also used for males only and elles is used for females only.

Note 16: While in case of words like númesse and herunúmen there were a few doubts about what was the underlying word, there is hardly any doubt that the underlying word meaning "west" is núme in númeheruvi. Tolkien probably preferred using the variant núme in order to avoid the contact of the final n of númen with h of héru (or perhaps for phono-ćstheric reasons, because all syllables in númeheruvi are open, i.e. of the CV structure and not CVC). The contact of númen and heruvi would not probably lead to *númenheruvi but to *númenkeruvi, because the initial h in heruvi was derived from original kh- and its contact with n would probably cause de-aspiration of kh to k, cf. rinke being derived from RIK(H) (Etym).

Note 17: The assumption that númeheruen is earlier that númeheruvi is based on Christopher Tolkien editorial note no. 62 to the text of The Notion Club Papers; it reads:

In [the version] E Lowdham cries out: 'Es sorni heruion an!' The Eagles of the Lords are at hand!' This was changed later to 'The Eagles of the Powers of the West are at hand! Sorni Númevalion anner!' In an earlier, rejected version of the passage Lowdham's words were: 'Soroni númeheruen ettuler!' (SD:290)

Let us note that the version E is the one where the text Ldr appeared while L (and therefore númeheruvi) appeared in F.

Note 18: The assumtion that there does not seem to appear any long vowel word-finally is based on the published corpus.  Long vowels tend to appear only in monysyllabic words like má "hand" (Etym s.v. MA3). Diphthongs may be treated similarly as long vowels (they were certainly treated so for means of stress, see Appendix E of LotR on Stress). Cf. also Tolkien's own words in the Plotz Letter: "[in Spoken Quenya] all vowels were reduced to short vowels finally and before final cons. [consonants] in words of two or more syllables".

arda "Earth". It replaced ilu from A. Tolkien must have revised the meaning of ilu, formerly meaning "world", cf. VT39 which cites Tolkien's note on stem ilű- "everything, all, the whole": "ilu includes God, all 'souls' & spirits as well as ëa" (20). In this conception ilu could not be used here in this context and therefore Tolkien used arda (being derived from GAR in Etym, with a meaning "realm", see entry 3AR). In WJ, Tolkien stated that arda being derived from gardâ "meant any more or less bounded or defined place, a region" (402). If arda was used as a proper name for "our world or earth as being the place, within the immensity of Eä, selected to be the seat and special domain of the King [i.e. Manwe]" (Letters no. 211), it was usually capitalized but there is no capitalization in the Fragments (i.e. in F because the whole Fragments are written in capital letters in L).

sakkante "rent". It replaced terhante "broke" from A and askante from Ldr2. All those three words appear to be related and even derived from the same base, namely SKAT "break asunder" (see Etym). A derivative of this base is hat- of the same meaning with the past tense hante. Now hante in terhante, skante in askante and kante in sakkante might be realizations of this past tense dependent on phonological environment. terhante has already been discussed and askante will be discussed in Ldr2.
As regards sakkante, which appears in this version, besides the component kante we may separate another component sak-. From all possible stems we have at hand, the stem STAK- "insert, split" from Etym seems to be the best solution. Having this we can then reconstruct  the primitive form of the preterite *stak-skant-ę from which sakkante could have been derived (with ksk producing kk). Although this proposed etymology fits semantically and morphologically, there is a fundamental objection against it: if sakkante is a past tense of *sakkat-, it contains no (apparent) plural suffix. Since the subject of sakkante is númeheruvi, which is in plural, sakkante is expected to agree in number with its subject, cf. lantaner turkildi and ëari ullier!
There are (at least) two possibilities: either the proposed interpretation of sakkante is correct or incorrect. If the former, then for some unknown reason Tolkien decided that the plural morpheme would be realized as zero in sakkante, or, what might be the likeliest explanation, it is an error and the correct form should be *sakkanter. One of the reasons for this error may be the fact that the subjects of terhante and askante were always in singular. The idea of plural entered the Fragments as late as F. When Tolkien was working on the new version, he must have had earlier versions ahead and might have automatically rewritten sakkante (or created sakkante on basis of askante resp. terhante) without realizing that its subject is now in plural. The same overlooking might have happened during the typing of L. Note that there is an agreement in number in the Adunaic version: bârim an-adűn yurahtam.
However, if the proposed interpretation of sakkante is incorrect, there must be another, the correct one. Anthony Appleyard suggested that the final nte be a pronominal ending. (Note 19) This would result in *sakka-. However, this supposed verb form does not appear to contain any explicit past marker, but this might happen in Quenya and the present tense form could be used as a past form in some contexts: compare antaróta "he gave it", antalto "they gave" (FS) with yar i vilya anta miqilis "to whom the air gives kisses" (Nieninque). As for the origin of *sakka-, David Salo postulated it might be related to sahta "marred" (MR:405) (see Note 19). Alternatively, it might still be a derivative of stem STAK- "split, insert" with final k genimated.
A problem lies in the ending nte. Tolkien's own notes on this pronominal suffix state: "inflexion of 3 plural where no subject is previously mentioned" (UT, p. 3, ch. II, Note 43). Here in the Fragments the subject is, however, mentioned (númeheruvi)! The notes do not state which ending is used if the subject is mentioned but it is apparently the plural marker r, seen in lantaner turkildi and ëari ullier. Cf. also the use of -lto (presumptively a parallel of -nte) and -r in FS. But even though nte could have been allowed to be used here, a new question rises: why is it not used in lantener turkildi and ëari ullier? It may be because the predicate sakkante does not follow immediately the subject númeheruvi (cf. ilya vs. ilye, see ilya in A), but it is not certain.

Note 19: Entering sakkante into the TolkLang search engine will result in several interesting posts discussing the mysterious sakkante. It is not certain who brought up a certain assumption first, but these are posts mentioning the particular theories (for detailed references see Works cited and recommended below):
Appleyard, Anthony. sakkante / hiruvantes / lt v. nt in 2p & 3p pl Quenya pronouns. 6.39
Hostetter, Carl. Re: sakkante / hiruvantes / lt v. nt in 2p & 3p pl Quenya pronouns 6.44 (Note also that Carl Hostetter came to the same conclusion regarding a posible origin of sakkante as we did, namely the form sakkante is derived from stems STAK- and SKAT-.)
Salo, David. Quenya perfect and futures. 19.03

lenéme "with leave". This word is not found in A. Its interpretion is a matter of controversy. A look at the Adunaic version will reveal that it corresponds to Adunaic sâibęth-mâ "assent-with". The component mâ is a postposition "with, by" (see SD:429). Although the Adunaic of L has no instrumental case, the Adunaic of Fdr1 had one and it was the same component which denoted the instrumental case (see Fdr1 and SD:439). (Note 20) It was suggested that the suffix *-me in lenéme is the same as the Adunaic mâ in sâibęth-mâ and that it is an Adunaic cognate of *-me (see VT24:8, 33). This would leave us with *lene "leave", which is not attested anywhere. In VT36 in his analysis of the so called 'Entu, Ensi, Enta Declension', Christopher Gilson suggested that the form assuimet might correspond to the supposed instrumental entuinen in the Entu Chart (24). If his assumption is correct, then the form assuimet contains an alternative ending for the instrumental case (the final -t being a dual marker) which is reminiscent of lenéme. In addition, Christopher Gilson points to words like kelume "stream" (Etym s.v. KEL) and phrases like ear-kelumesse "in the flowing sea" (MC:214, 222) and vear qalume "the sea heaving" (MC:214-5), remarking that "perhaps the -me in these verbal derivatives comes from the same etymological source that underlies part of the instrumental case-ending" (VT36:24). A few years later (when QL was published) in his analysis of Narqelion in VT40, Christopher Gilson suggested that -me might be related to base IMI1 "in, into" (QL:42R) and compared it to words like núme "west" (QL:63L), kaime "dwelling, home" (QL:46L) and orme "summit" (QL:70R) (12).
While these interpretations may be correct, each of them fails to explain the é in lenéme. In all cited examples there is no parallel of this é. The suffix *-me might of course cause lengthening of the preceding vowel, cf. suffix -va in Oroméva (WJ:368). Nevertheless, there might be another explanation of the lengthening and of the whole form lenéme as such.
So far the form lenéme was segmented to lené and me, but we will suggest another segmentation: le and néme. The component le would mean "with" and *néme "leave". The le "with" would then be the same le as listed in QL:52R: le "with (accompaniment)". The prefixion of the preposition le in lenéme would not be unusual, cf. Letinwesse "constellation" (ibid.) or nuhuinenna above.
As has been suggested, this preposition le also may explain the é, for now the lengthening is not caused by the suffix *-me, but it is a part of the word *néme. And although *néme does not appear to be attested anywhere as such, its origin might be deduced, because such a long stem-vowel occurs in many substantives like núte "knot" (Etym s.v. NUT "tie, bond") or líre "song" (Namárie; related to LIR "sing, trill" from Etym). These substantives are usually verbal ones, sc. núte would mean *"knotting" and líre *"singing". Besides, the é may be a result of a loss of a following consonants, cf. líne "cobweb" from slignę (Etym s.v. SLIG); the me part would then be a nominal suffix, actually the same one as in kelume cited above. The é may also be original or a result of monophthongization of ei (cf. derivatives of NEI in Etym). Now the initial n may be either original or a realization of nd. 
However, no combination of the mentioned possibilities result in any known or fitting base. The bases NEME with neme- "I sew" (QL:65R), NEHE with nekte "honey" and NEI- "tear" (Etym) do not fit semantically. If our assumption is correct, then there must exist another base from which it was derived.
It must be noted that the preposition le occurs only in QL from 1915; Etym does not list it. However, it seems to be in use at this time (1945-6), if the interpretation is correct. Later Tolkien probably abandoned this preposition, for a component le seems to used for 2nd person singular (see VT43:29). Similarly, there was a new component ó/o- used for the preposition "with" (ibid.): compare Letinwesse "costellation" with olassie "collection of leaves, foliage" (Letters no. 211).
It must also be noted that the entry in QL which gives le implies that it was used for accompaniment. Editorial notes to this entry say that GL lists li "with (of accompaniment only)" and equates it with Q lé (QL:52R). This means that the phrase númeheruvi arda sakkante lenéme ilúvatáren, if the interpretation be correct, could be translated as "Lords-of-West rent the world accompanied by Ilúvatar's leave".

Note 20: Lalaith, who did a lot of reseach in Adunaic, suggested these names for different stages of Adunaic: k-Adunaic, d-Adunaic and a-Adunaic. The initial letters k, d and a are taken from three different names for "earth" at different stages of Adunaic (but note that one does not rule out the other): kamât (Fdr1), dâira (L) and *aban (extracted from Abattârik, UT p. 2, ch. III, s.v. Tar-Ardamin). Therefore the Adunaic of Fdr1 would be k-Adunaic and the Adunaic of L would be d-Adunaic; there are certain clues that Tolkien revised the structure of Adunaic, which leads us to a-Adunaic.

ilúvatáren "of ?". Unlike Alboin in A, Lowdham did not gloss this word, he only recognized the genitive case. Alboin recognized that the nominative of ilúvatáren was ilúvatar, but he went no further. However, Lowdham comments:

Indeed, I need not have querried the words ęruvô and ilúvatáren: there can't really be any doubt that ęruvô is the sacred name ęru with a suffixed element meaning 'from', and therefore ilúvatáren means the same thing. (SD:249)

ëari "seas". Unchanged. Note that OEL (SD:258) has "all seas"; there is no word for "all" here or in OAE, though.

ullier "should flow". The form of this word remained unchanged. However, its English gloss was changed from "poured" to "should flow". It is possible that it is still the same thing as in A despite the translation. The ie ending may hence be a variantion of the past or perfect marker (no matter whether it could be related to ye "is" or not). Nevertheless, there is no other similar ending in this version; lantier from A was changed to lantaner.
The English translation of ullier is essential. Adunaic text in F is more complete. It reads: "Lords of West rent Earth with assent from Eru ... that seas should gush into Chasm". The form  equivalent to ullier is du-phursâ "should gush" (translated "so-as-to-gush" in L) and this construction differs to past forms of Adunaic: unakka "he-came", dubdam "fell", azaggara "was warring" and others. 
Even in English such a construction in not usual; the grammatical device used here is called 'the subjuntive mood'. A yet better reading of this part of the Fragments can be found in OEL: ah tha Westfrégan gabédon hi to thćm Ćlmihtigan 7 be his léafe tosprengdon hi tha eorthan thćt alle sć´ nither gutan on efgrynde. This is translated into Modern English as "But the West-lords prayed to the Almighty, and by this split asunder the earth so that all seas should pour down into an abyss" (SD:258). On this David Salo wrote on the TolkLang mailing list: 

Now the equivalent verb here is gutan. This is a 3rd person plural preterite subjunctive of the verb geotan (Germanic *geut-) (with the odd variant ending -an for standard -en), built on the past tense (reduced) stem gut-. The root UL in the Etymologies indicates an intransitive past, ulle, 'pours itself', whose Old English counterpart would be geat, plural guton (= uller, or perhaps ullir). The Quenya verb ullier would then appear to be built upon the past tense stem ull-, in the same way as the Old English subjunctive gutan (guten) is built upon the past tense stem gut- (Note 21)

A similar construction and most likely another example of the Quenya subjunctive can be found in the so-called Koivienéni sentence. It reads: Eldar ando kakainen loralyar Koivienenissen mennai Orome tanna lende i erenekkoitanie. "The elves were long lying asleep at Koivienéni until Orome came thither that he might awake them." (see VT27:8). The construction in the English translation is certainly an instance of the subjunctive. Now the structure of the verb erenekkoitanie is very similar to the structure of ullier: if we leave out the pronominal part eren, we will get *ekkoitanie. The base may then be *ekkoita- "awake" (cf. VT27:10); the n would be a past tense marker and ie a subjunctive marker. In other words, the subjunctive is derived from the past stem *ekkoitan-. And so is ullier, since ull- is a past stem (cf. ulle being a past tense of ulya, Etym s.v. ULU).
Although there appears not to be any further examples of the subjunctive in Quenya (resp. Qenya), we can say that this mood existed in Eldarin languages, at least at some time. In Early Noldorin Grammar we can find several paradigms of Noldorin verbs. The paradigms clearly show that this early Noldorin had (at least) those different moods: indicative and subjunctive. The subjunctive form of the past tense is clearly derived from the past indicative: madath (past indicative singular) being a base of madathai (past subjunctive singular) (PE13:131). The existence of the subjunctive in Noldorin does not necessarily mean that Qenya had this mood as well. It is very probable, though.
It is not certain whether the idea of the subjunctive existed already in A. As has been shown, the form ullier might be explained otherwise in the circumstances of A. Moreover, the translation "poured" speaks against this possibility.

Note 21: It was in the letter entitled 'Ullier, etc." from September, 11th, 1995. See Works Cited and Recommended below. 

ikilyanna "in Chasm". A has kilyanna. The form remained practically unchanged except for the prefixed i. This i may be a prefixed stem-vowel. Such a prefixed sundóma was common in Eldarin languages: cf. Anar "Sun" from base NAR1 in Etym (note that base ANÁR is said to be a derivative of NAR1 in Etym) or Isil "Moon" from SIL (ibid.). A prefixed sundóma apparently intensifies the meaning of a stem, so ikilyanna might mean "in a/the big chasm" (see OEA!). The i may, however, be also a definite article affixed to the word. Cf. i-mar "the earth" in FS. Hence ikilyanna might mean "to the chasm". But OEL has "into an abyss".

númenóre "Numenor". Unchanged from A, though surprisingly given in English as "Numenor" not "Númenor" (the diacritic marks were already missing in Ldr).

ataltane "fell down". Unchanged. In his comments to the text, Lowdham remarks: "a common base talat 'topple over, slip down' [...] occurs in Text I in an emphatic verbal form ataltane 'slid down in ruin'" (SD:249).

(B)	Kadô	zigűrun	zabathân	unakkha	...	ęruhînim	
	and so	?	humbled	he-came	...	?
	
	dubdam	ugru-dalad	...	ar-pharazônun	azaggara	
	fell	?shadow-under	...	?	was warring
	
	avalôiyada	...	bârim	an-adűn	yurahtam	dâira	
	against Powers	...	Lords	of-West	broke	Earth
	
	sâibęth-mâ	ęruvô	...	azrîya	du-phursâ	akhâsada	
	assent-with	?-from	...	seas	so-as-to-gush	into chasm
	
	...	anadűnę	zîrân	hikallaba	...	bawîba	dulgî	
	...	Númenor	beloved	she-fell down	...	winds	black
	
	...	balîk	hazad	an-nimruzîr	azűlada	
	...	ships	seven	of ?	eastward	

The Adunaic text here is more complete, for it gives some additional information not found in the Quenya version. The idea that some Númenóreans went eastward was already present in A (turkildi rómenna). Here, however, the idea is expanded and we learn that it were seven ship of Elendil (nimruzîr is his Adunaic name) that went (sailed) eastward. In addition, wholly new information about black winds was added.

II

The second part of the Fragments is all given in Adunaic only except for two verses. It is practically an Adunaic translation of the second part of A, because it gives the same information and uses the same English words in translation. It is, however, a little bit re-arranged: something was added ("longing (is) on-us") and something was removed (the part about turkildi going eastward was moved to Part I).

(B)	Agannâlô	burôda	nęnud	...	zâira	nęnud	
	Death-shadow	heavy	on-us	...	longing (is)	on-us
	
	...	adűn	izindi	batân	tâidô	ayadda	îdô	
	...	west	straight	road	once	went	now
	
	kâtha	batîna	lôkhî	
	all	roads	crooked	

(A)	Vahaiya	sín	Andóre	
	far away	now (is)	Land of Gift	

vahaiya "far away". It corresponds to vaháya in A. See vahaia in Fdr1.

sín "now (is)". It substitutes sin from A. Unlike sin, this form has long í instead of short i. This does not make the word sin necessarily obsolete. It is, however, likely, because there is another occurence of the form sin in a phrase in PM: Sin Quente Quendingoldo Elendilenna (401). Although this phrase is not translated, it was assumed from the context (Quente Quendingoldo Elendilenna means without a doubt *"spoke Pengolodh to Ćlfwine") that the word sin might mean either *"this" or *"thus". (Note 22)
It has already been suggested that sín might be either an antevocalic variant of sí (i.e. the variant occurring before words beginning in a vowel) or the final n might be an affixable variant of the copula ná/na.
It will be convenient to compare the relevant line with its Adunaic parallel. It reads: Ęphalak îdôn Yôzâyan "far away now (is) Land of Gift". Now sín corresponds clearly to îdôn. Another form of îdôn is îdô in îdô kâtha "now all" (see above) without the final n. It was suggested that the distribution of Adunaic pair îdô, îdôn is the same as the distribution of sí and sín: the n-form is used before words beginning in a vowel. However, the form îdôn occurs before h and y in îdôn hi-Akallabęth and îdôn Yôzâyan. The question is whether both phonemes behaved as consonants in Adunaic. It is said about h in SD: "[it] was originally [...] the voiceless back-spirant; but in classical language it had usually become the breath H" (419) and it could therefore loose it consonantal value. On the other hand, it is said about y that it was originally weak (a consonantal form of i) "[b]ut initially [it was] strengthened, becoming more spirantal" (ibid.).
We find it likelier to interprete the final n in îdôn as a marker of the subjective case which "represents the verb 'to be' as copula" (SD:429). For n as a marker of the subjective see the paradigm of anâ in SD:437.
In discussion on mel-lumna in A it has been noted that there are these forms in Fdr1: rokhî-nam "bent-are" and îdôn "is now". It will be better to give them in context; the whole phrases read: 

îdô kathî batânî rokhî-nam "lo! now all ways bent-are" (thereafter 1Fdr1) 
ęphalek îdôn athanâtę "far away is now Athanâtę" (2Fdr1)

These two lines correspond to

îdô kâtha batîna lôkhî "now all roads crooked" (1L)
Ęphalak îdôn Yôzâyan "far away now (is) Land of Gift" (2L) 

in L (we ignore changes rokhî > lôkhî, ęphalek > Ęphalak and athanâtę > Yôzâyan). It is apparent that there is no subjective case used in 1Fdr1 (batânî is a nominative plural, see SD:432). The subjective is used only in L, namely in 1L (batîna is a subjective plural, see SD:432, 435) and in îdôn, as assumed. This subjective case expressed the copula "to be" (see SD:429) here. In Fdr1, however, the copula is not expressed by means of the subjective but it is realized as enclitic nam (in plural; 1Fdr1) and suffixed -n (2Fdr1; it also occurs in burodan "heavy-is" in the same text and version).
This copula must be ultimately related to the Quenya copula ná/na. And since, as we have assumed, it may be suffixed in Adunaic, it is possible it may be suffixed in Quenya, too. And hence the form sín may contain this suffixed copula. The form sin in A is less likely to contain the suffixed copula, because it is listed in Etym as such, and the copula ná/na might not have been in use at the time, as ye in FS suggests. Moreover, FS contains sí ye "now is".
Let us also note that even if sín were a variant of sí occurring before word beginning in vowels, Tolkien would have abandoned this idea, since in all versions of Aia María he used sí (resp. si) before ar (see VT43:26-8).

Note 22: It was suggested by Bill Welden in an Elfing message Re: Free time that sin might mean either "this" or "thus", see Works Used and Recommended for more information.

andóre "Land of Gift". This word does not occur in A, see the discussion on atalante below. This name is a full variant of Andor, a name of Númenor (see SAp s.v. anna). The same alternation between short and full form could be seen on Númenor vs. Númenóre. The name contains evidently stem an- "gift" (cf. anna "gift", Etym s.v. ANA1) and (n)dóre "land" (on which see the discussion on númenóre in A).

(B)	Ęphalak	îdôn	Yôzâyan	
	far away	now (is)	Land of Gift	

(B)	Ęphal	ęphalak	îdôn	hi-Akallabęth	
	far	far away	now (is)	She-that-hath-fallen	

(A)	Haiya	vahaiya	sín	atalante	
	far	far away	now (is)	the Downfallen	

haiya "far". It is apparently an unprefixed form of vahaiya, see below. This word does not occurs in A.

vahaiya "far away". A has vaháya. The components haiya and háya must be of the same origin (see KHAYA in Etym). On the spelling see vahaia in Fdr1.

sín "now (is)". See above.

atalante "the Downfallen". The Quenya form remained unchanged from A but an English gloss was added.
In the text accompanying the Fragments it is stated about the name:

Atalante is plainly another name for Númenor-Atlantis. But only after downfall. For in Avallonian [i.e. Quenya] atalante is a word formed normally from a common base talat 'topple over, slip down': it occurs in Text I in an emphatic verbal form ataltane 'slid down in ruin', to be precise. Atalante means "She that has fallen down". (SD:249)

In A the concluding sentence reads vaháya sin atalante. Here Tolkien emphatized this idea by repeating it twice and using two names for Númenor; he also used the pair haiya and vahaiya to intensify the idea of Númenor being lost and inaccessible any longer.

* * *

Version Ldr: a draft of Lowdham's Fragments

There exists a manuscript version of Part Two of The Notion Club Papers (on different versions of the text see SD:146-7) and this version contains a manuscript draft of Lowdham's Fragments (here Ldr). This version is written only in Quenya and is very similar to A. Tolkien probably had Alboin's Fragments ahead when he wrote it. The following text is a transcription of the Fragments as they appear in SD:310, although acute accents were used instead of macrons (like in A!). The Fragments are again devided into two parts, but the parts are not still specially distinguished.
When Tolkien wrote down the following texts, "[a] few changes were made subsequently" (SD:310). It may be therefore convenient to distinguish two sub-versions of this version: version Ldr1, being the text as it appears in SD:310, and version Ldr2 where the changes were made. Christopher Tolkien did not reproduce the version Ldr2 (because Tolkien must have made the change into the text of Ldr1) but only mentioned the changes.

Version Ldr1

(First part)

ar	sauron	túle	nahamna	...	lantier	turkildi	
and	    ?	came	      ?	...	they-fell	     ?
	
unuhuine	...	tarkalion	ohtakáre	valannar	...	
under-shadow	...	      ?	war-made	on-Powers	...
	
Herunúmen	[ilu >] eru	terhante	...	Ilúvatáren	...	
Lord-of-West	world	sunder-broke	...	of-God	...
	
ëari	ullier	kilyanna	...	Númenóre	ataltane	
seas	they-should-pour	in-Chasm	...	Númenor	down-fell	

The beginning ar sauron túle nahamna ... lantier turkildi unuhuine ... tarkalion ohtakáre valannar ... is identical with A both in form and English glossing. Indeed Tolkien must have rewrote Alboin's fragments into this text incorporating a few changes.

Herunúmen "Lord-of-West". Not capitalized in A. 

eru "world", changed from ilu. A also has ilu. This change is the most pecuriar one in this version.
It is well-known that Eru is an Elvish name for God meaning "the One". The beginning of Ainulindalë reads: "There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar" (Silm). However, this word seems not to be always used for a name of Ilúvatar. In The Qenya Lexicon Ilúvatar is called Enu "God Almighty, the creator who dwells without the world" (35R). The stem ERE wherefrom later the name Eru was derived is also listed (36L). Furthermore, there is an entry ERE- & ESE "out" which lists eru "outward" and a name Erumáni (ibid.). Etym combines these two (resp. three) stems into one: ERE- "be alone, deprived". However, it does not list Eru as such but has erume "desert" and Eruman "desert N.E. of Valinor" (but Noldorin eru "waste, desert"). Later Tolkien abandoned the idea of Eruman being a name of a desent in Valinor and the form Eruman became a name of "Heaven", since he used it in his tranlation of The Lord's Prayer (for detailed discussion on this see VT43:16 s.v. Erumande). But even before this he must have introduced the idea of Eru being a name of Ilúvatar. If we leave out the use of eru for "world" here, it seems that eru as a name for "God" first occurs in Adunaic, namely in eruhîn *"Children of God" in Fdr1. In L it was changed to ęru (ęruhînim), since Tolkien changed the structure of Adunaic in the meantime. Lowdham's Report on the Adunaic Language states that the name was derived from the base ?IR "one, alone" (SD:432).
Whatever its origin, it is not certain why Tolkien used this word here, for neither of the meanings of eru mentioned does not fit here: Valar could certainly neither broke Eru himself (even with his leave) nor would Tolkien call the earth a waste, desert. And yet there seems to be no other stem which could be taken into consideration and would fit here. An explanation might, however, lie in the fact that the world ilu could not been used here any longer, since its meaning changed (see ilúvatáren in A and arda in L). While in A ilu was used for "earth", at this stage it might have become associated with Ilúvatar only. When Tolkien was altering Alboin's original text, he might have overlooked the fact that ilu had been intended to mean "earth" and not to be a name of God; he might then have replaced ilu with eru in this believe. On the other, it was Tolkien who knew Quenya best and the gloss "world" was obvious.

terhante "sunder-broke". Translated simply as "broke" in A. Here Tolkien apparently wanted to indicate that the word consists of two components: ter- "sunder" and hante "broke". Note the ter is translated as "through" in Etym (s.v. TER).

[The same gap as in A.]

Ilúvatáren "of-God". A translates it as "of Ilúvatar"; here the translation is surprisingly more precise.

[The same gap follows ilúvatáren.]

ëari "seas", unchanged.

ullier "they-should-pour". A translates this as "poured", L as "should flow" (see the relevant entries in particular versions). As the translation suggests, ullier may be an instance of the Quenya subjunctive. It has been noted that it is not certain whether this subjunctive idea was already present in A, where ullier is translated as "poured". This version may suggest it was so, since Tolkien's glosses appear to be more exact in this version (cf. terhante). Nevertheless, this version has still lantier "they-fell" instead of lantaner and this verbal form can hardly be an instance of the subjunctive.

kilyanna "in-Chasm". The same as in A.

[The same gap here.]

Númenóre "Numenor". Capitalized only here: both A and L have númenóre. The gloss is identical to L, sc. no ú in "Numenor".

ataltane "down-fell". The same as in A.

[In this version there is no ellipsis sign after ataltane like in A.]

(Second part)

Malle	téna	lende	númenna	ilya	sí	maller	
road	straight	went	westward	all	now	roads
	
raikar	....	turkildi	rómenna	...	núruhuine	
bent	....	?	eastward	...	death-shadow
	
méne	lumna	...	vaháya	sín	atalante.	
on-us	is-heavy	...	far-away	now	?	

[There is not any indication of any gap as in A.]

Malle "road". Capitalized only here: A has malle.

téna "straight". Both A and Adr have téra instead, which is in agreement with Etym (s.v. TE3). It is possible that téna might be a misreading for téra. This would not be uncommon. In Etym under the base DO3, an adjective lóna "dark" is given. Since its Noldorin cognate is dűr (ibid.), it is believed the form lóna is a misreading for *lóra.
On the other hand, this form is possible and may well be derived from the same stem TE3. The endings -ra and -na are both used to derive adjectives in Quenya (cf. sára "bitter" (Etym s.v. SAG) and kuina "alive" (Etym s.v. KUY)).

lende "went". Identical to A.

númenna "westward". A has "Westward".

ilya sí maller raikar ... turkildi rómenna ... "all now roads bent ... ? eastward". This part is identical to A.

núruhuine "death-shadow". A has nuruhuine "Death-shadow". The form núru (with an accent) for "death" is found only here; Etym lists nuru (s.v. ŃGUR), also a late essay The Istari has nuru (in Nurufantur; UT p. 4 ch. II). It is therefore possible that núruhuine is an error for núruhuine, though Tolkien might have used this for at the time.

méne "on-us". Together with lumna it replaces mel-lumna from A (and me lumna from Adr). It has been stated the mel in mel-lumna "us-is-heavy" could be analyzed as being assimilated *men "to us" wherein the n would be an ending of the dative (see mel-lumna in A). There is no assimilation here, though. It has also been stated that the form me would be an object form "us". This object form could be declined, cf. mello "from us" (At. IV). Hence if this base is assumed, then the ending -ne would be a moph(eme) denoting "on". Such a suffix, nonetheless, does not seem to appear elsewhere. It might be a variant of the dative ending -n. However, this ending must be related to the stem NÂ1 and it fails to explain the final e, since a would be expected then. The long stem-vowel is also curious.

lumna "is-heavy". Unchanged.

[The same indication of a gap.]

vaháya "far-away". Unchanged.

sín "now". A has sin instead (on the discussion on this see sín in L). The form of the English translation is identical to A. Christopher Tolkien's notes read: "sín [replaced] sin, where Lowdham's gloss was changed from 'now' (as in The Lost Road) to 'now-is'" (SD:310). Yet this change is not indicated in the text itself, so it might be a subsequent change or the gloss "now" should read "now-is".

atalante., not translated as in A.

Version Ldr2

As mentioned above, Tolkien made a few changes to the version Ldr1. It seems that when he wrote Ldr1, he rewrote more or less Alboin's Fragments (A). Only after that he adjusted it to his views on Quenya at the time. With these changes made, the Fragments became more similar to L and dissimilar to A. In fact, the version Ldr2 is practically the final version, because there are only a few differences between it and L (resp. F). It is interesting then when Christopher Tolkien mentioned the changes, he did not mention any that had been made into the second part of the Fragments. It is possible that it did not require any change, but it is also possible that Tolkien rejected it, because he began thinking about including an Adunaic version of the Fragments.

lantaner replaced lantier. The form lantier was at last replaced, probably because it did not any longer fit a new verbal system of Quenya (as the ie became a marker of the perfect). Now its form follows alaltane which was already present in A, sc. the past is derived by means of the 'weak' past suffix -ne. Despite this change, ullier was left unchanged, because it had another gramatical purpose (see L). This version has, therefore, only three types of the past tense: (not counting ullier): (1) nasal-infixed askante (for terhante) and lende, (2) 'strong' ohtakáre, and (3) 'weak' lantaner and ataltane.

arda replaced eru. The same word occurs in the final version. It is apparent that the strange eru for "world" was a short-lived change. Tolkien might have either realized his slip or eru was at last used as a name of Ilúvatar.

askante replaced terhante. One of the most significant changes in this version. Tolkien must have become dissatisfied with terhante for some reason and so he replaced it with askante. Yet this word did not survive a very long time and was replaced by sakkante in the final version.
Besides this text, the form askante does not appear elsewhere. But even despite it, the origin of askante does not have to be necessarily unknown. It is very possible that this verb is derived from the stem SKAT-, sc. from the same stem as the latter part of terhante. Since the primitive initial *sk produced h-, we have the form hante (medially following a vibrant r it seems to have undergone the same change, therefore terhante). However, in medial positions between vowels *sk seems to have remained unchanged (cf. rusko "a fox" (VT41:10) evidently related to the base RUSKÂ in Etym). The form askante would then be a past tense of the verb *askat-.
The origin of the prefixed a- is not certain. It might have an intersifying function (see QL:81L s.v. SA- and cf. Lowdham's comments on ataltane cited in the discussion on atalante in L) or denote completeness of the action (it would therefore be the same affix as seen in atalante). It may also have another function, though.
The translation of this word was not provided and it is therefore presumably the same as of terhante. But in light of the suggested origin, it may have a literal meaning *"break completely, destroy".

lenéme "by leave" was added. The translation of this word is slightly different to the translation in L where it is glossed as "with leave". The semantical difference between "by" and "with" in this context is very tiny or none. However, the translation "with" may be more literal, since it is the meaning of the preposition le as given in QL:52L.

* * *

Versions Fdr1 and Fdr2: emergence of Adunaic

As Christopher Tolkien informs us "[t]here are two manuscript pages of Lowdham's fragments in Quenya and Adunaic preceding those reproduced as frontispieces" (SD:311). We will call these two manuscript pages Fdr1 and Fdr2 here, while the version on the frontispieces of Sauron Defeated will be called F.
Here for the first time Tolkien decided to include the Adunaic version of the Fragments and make the text bilingual. The Adunaic of Fdr1 (or k-Adunaic) is different to the Adunaic of L (or d-Adunaic); the Adunaic of Fdr2 seems to be halfway between k-Adunaic and d-Adunaic; finally the Adunaic of F is clearly d-Adunaic, though with several differences (see Note 20 above). Again, the Adunaic versions will not be discussed here, only mentioned where necessary.
Unfortunately, the precise reading of the Quenya version was not reproduced in Sauron Defeated, because differences were not abundant. The Adunaic text of Fdr1 is found in SD:311-2 and is reproduced here, since it contains several Quenya phrases. The Adunaic text of Fdr2 is not reproduced in full in SD and only a list of changes is given; these changes are not dealt with here and are to be found in SD:312.
Unfortunately, there cannot be said much about the Quenya part, as it was not reprinted; Christopher Tolkien only points out divergences and does not provide the text in full. But as could be seen in Ldr1, he may not have done it precisely. He actually mentioned only one difference in Fdr1: that untranslatable nahamna was replaced by kamindon. In Fdr2, this kamindon was changed to akamna and later to nukumna (which appears in the final version, too). Another change made into Fdr2 was replacement of herunúmen by númekundo. No other change is mentioned. And since Christopher Tolkien did not find it important to reproduce or transcribe the full Quenya version of Fdr2 (as well as Fdr1), we can only speculate about other changes (if any at all). However, a few uncertainties about these two versions of the Fragment still remain. One will realize them if the immediate previous version (Ldr2) is compared with the immediate next version (F) or this version in question. It is not absolutely certain to which stage this version was closer, that is to say, whether Christopher Tolkien compared it with Ldr2 or F. Yet it is probably the version Ldr2 because he states:

In the Quenya fragment I (A) [see the labeling in L] the devolopment from the form found in E [i.e. Ldr] to the final form [L] [...] can be observed, but there are only a few points to mention. (SD:311)

If it was really the version Ldr2, it would mean that the Quenya text in these versions (Fdr1 and Fdr2) still had ar "and", unuhuine "under-shadow", ohtakáre "war-made", askante (not translated), lenéme "by leave" and kilyanna "in-Chasm", while F has O "and", nuhuinenna "under-shadow", ohta káre "war made" (but see the relevant entry in F), sakkante "rent", lenéme "with leave" (note the translation) and ikilyanna "into-chasm", respectively. Besides this, there are also some uncertainties about the capitalization, spelling (cf. vahaia vs. vaháya, there is no note mentioning Tolkien's changing the spelling of the word!) and translation, though they are not as significant as the ones mentioned.
As regards the second part of the Quenya text (Malle téna lende..., see Ldr), inferring from Christopher Tolkien's words cited above and the fact that the Adunaic was introduced, we can deduce that this part was abandoned and the Adunaic text presented the information of the abandoned text like in L. Nonetheless, a few remains of this text resurrected in form of vahaia sín atalante and haia vahaia sín atalante, see below.

Version Fdr1

kamindon replaced nahamna. Christopher Tolkien notes "[t]he word nahamna, which neither Alboin Errol [see A] nor Lowdham [see Ldr1] could translate became [...] kamindon, still untranslatable but with the gloss -ly beneath" (SD:311). This gloss undoubtedly meant that kamindon was an adverb in Quenya and that it contained an adverbial component, because otherwise Lowdham could not possibly write beneath the -ly. This segment is presumably *-(i)ndon. Nevertheless, there does not seem to appear any other Quenya adverb containing the same component in published corpus, although the ending itself does exist in Q(u)enya. It occurs in Oilima Markirya (OM1) in the phrase taurelasselindon "like leaves of forest". Now given the translation, it is obvious that taure stands for "forest" and lasseli for "leaves"; the ending -ndon then would express "like" in Q(u)enya (note that the whole functions as an adverbial!). This ending is also listed in two declension charts The Bodleian Declensions (see VT28) and The Entu, Ensi, Enta Declension (see VT36). In neither of these charts any name of the case is given. Christopher Gilson calls it Comparative (VT36:27). Anthony Appleyards calls it Similative in Quenya Reexamined.
If -ndon in kamindon is the same ending as the one in the charts, then it can be used adverbially. (Note 23) Let us note that Tolkien apparently abandoned the idea of the Comparative/Similative (or whatever its name) as a separate case, because no such case is listed in the Plotz Letter. Furthermore, it seems that the preposition ve "as, like" was used in such contexts instead, because the line in question in OM1 was replaced by ve tauri lillassië "like leaves of forests" in final Markirya. Now this ve might be, like -ndon, a means for derivation of adverbs in Quenya, cf. andave "long" (LotR: The Field of Cormallen, translated in Letters no. 230) and anda "long" (Etym s.v. ÁNAD). This would also suggest that the -ndon case may be used to derive adverbs. Nevertheless, the similarity between the preposition ve and suffix -ve may be accidental.
Now if the suffix -ndon is an adverbial marker, we are left with kami-, being the rest of the form kamindon. Since there is no translation of the whole form, we may theorize what it was supposed to mean. The 'ancestor' and 'descendant' of this form are nahamna "to haven" in A and nukumna "humbled", respectively. If we assume that Tolkien sticked to these two meanings, then kamindon would be close either to "to haven" or to "humbled". However, since (under our assumption) kamindon is an adverb, we could leave out the former possibility and assume that kamindon means *"humbly". There will of course be then a slight semantical divergence, but the use of the adverb "humbly" is still possible and likely here. It would only mean that Sauron came to Númenor in a humble manner rather than humbled.
Now with this assumption established, it is not difficult to find the origin of the segment kam(i). The Qenya Lexicon lists a base KAMA "lie down" with a derivative kamu- "to lay down, bend down, reduce" (44R). The meaning of this word kamu- would be very similar to the meaning of nukumna that we postulated, i.e. "bent/bowed/humped down" (see nukumna in L).
As for the i in kamindon, it was already indirectly suggested that it might be a part of the suffix -ndon or a part of the stem kam-. This i may also be a pure connector without any special origin and function but to connect two morphemes. Another origin may arise if we supposed that the suffix ndon was added to *kamin(a) (with either a merging of the two n's in case of *kamin or a haplology in case of *kamina). The form *kamin(a) would then be either an adjective (presumably *"humble") or past particple (presumbly *"humbled"; see akamna below). If this assumption be correct, the i would be a part of the adjectival/participal suffix -in(a).

Note 23: Patrick Wynne, Christopher Gilson and Carl F. Hostetter came to the same conclusion about this case being used adverbially (see VT28:28).

Kadô	zigűrun	zabathân	[hunekkű >] unekkű	...	eruhîn	
and so	?	humbled	he-came	...	?
	
udűbanim	dalad	ugrus	...	arpharazôn	
fell	under	horror? shadow?	...	?
	
azgaranâdu	avaloi-[men >] si	...	bârun-adűnô	
was waging war?	Powers on	...	the Lord of West
	
rakkatű	kamât	sôbęthumâ	eruvô	...	azrę	
broke asunder	earth	assent-with	of God	...	seas
	
nai [phurusam >] phurrusim	akhâs-ada.	anadűni	akallabi.	
might-flow	Chasm-into	Westernesse	fell in ruin.
	
Adunâim	azűlada	...	agannűlô	barudan	
The Adunai (Men of W.)	eastward	...	death-shade	heavy-is
	
nęnum	...	adűn	batân	akhaini	ezendi	îdô	kathî	
on-us	...	West	road	lay	straight	lo! now	all
	
batânî	rokhî-nam	...	
ways	bent-are	...	

vahaia	sín	atalante	

vahaia, not translasted. This is another spelling of vahaiya "far away" from L (capitalized in F) besides vaháya from A and Ldr of the same meaning.
Another variation of the same kind occurs elsewhere, compare these forms: Aiya (LotR: Shelob's Lair) and Aia (AM IV; Aiya in AM I); Maiar (Silm) and Máyar (PM:363); vaia (Etym s.v. WAY) and vaiya (ibid.). Similarly, there is no doubt that Aiya is the same as Aia, and Maiar the same as Máyar. It is therefore obvious that Tolkien kept changing the spelling of these words throughout the years (externally speaking). It was suggested that this change might also be internal, namely that the aia forms were derived from the áya forms (Fauskanger: The Evolution). Nonetheless, here in the Fragments all three spellings occur (i.e. vaháya, vahaia and vahaiya) and the text should presumably be from the same period of internal development of Quenya (Second Age). The text is not always from the same period in external development of Quenya, though.
Since the form vaia and vaiya were derived from is wâyâ (Etym s.v. WAY), we may take the sequence âyâ as the source of all sequences aia, aiya and áya. Given this, the divergence in external development would mean that Tolkien was undecided about what really was the reflex of the sequence âyâ. In The Evolution from Primitive Elvish to Quenya, Helge Fauskanger assumes that the (internal) change of this sequence was Primitive Elvish (resp. Common Eldarin) âyâ > early Quenya áya > late Quenya aia. Externally, Tolkien might have decided that the latter shift (áya to aia) did not occur in Quenya as he imagined it at the time.
It may of course still be possible that the change was internal. It would not be implausible. Let us illustrate it on *hâyâ, a supposed primitive form of háya, haia and haiya. (Note 24 a, b). First of all, the final long a was shortened, as this was common development (cf. The Evolution) and it is demostrated on many examples. After this reduction, which produced the form háya, Tolkien might have decided that the medial á would similarly be reduced to the short a. Finally, the short a and following y produced the diphthong ai (which, inter alia, shifted the syllabic boundary from há-ya to hai-a) resulting in haia.
With this said, let us take a look on the difference among these variants in sound. Although there are no recordings of these Fragments, much information can be inferred from way the words are written, since Tolkien employed (mostly) the phonetical/phonological way of transcribing Quenya words to English. (Note 25) Hence the form háya will mostly likely be pronounced as [ha:-ja] (with j for y and a syllabic boundary); haia as [hai-a], and haiya as [hai-ja]. It is obvious that there is a significant divergence between háya and haia in pronunciation of these two words (and the syllabic boundary is also different in each of the forms). However, as regards the difference between haia and haiya, the medial y ([j]) is possibly only a helping consonant functioning as a bridge between ai and a, easing the transition and avoiding the hiatus between the two vowels (respective between the diphthong and vowel). A similar situation is in Finnish where, for instance, the word paijata "stroke, pet" may be written also as paiata; the j in paijata "is an easening sound [...] [and] is sometimes not pronounced at all, but most often it is a gliding sound to help the transition to the next vowel after an i". (Note 26)

Note 24: (a) The prefix va- was left out, because it is not relevant for our discussion. Furthermore, the forms haiya and haia occur in L and here respectively. This prefix would presumably be derived from *wa- being related to the stem AWA, see vaháya in A. However, it is not certain when this change occured or rather when Tolkien expected it to happened (see Helge Fauskanger's Evolution s.v. Changes producing EXILIC QUENYA). Note also that since this prefix is always written with v and not with w, it is either possible that the change áya > aia, aiya was later or, as proposed, the change was not internal.

(b) Let us note that there might have been a yet more "primitive" form of *wâyâ and this form would be *wAjâ, cf. Tolkien's note on medial J in The Qenya Lexicon:

Medial j gave i (1) except before i where it vanished; (2) except before & after e or after i where it remained j, spelt j or ij [dialectal zy or z.] This relaxing of j > i is later than above changes so that Aja gave Ája, and ajA gave ajÁ, etc. (13; the information in the square brackets is original)

Let us note that here a couple of editorial changes were introduced: j stands for y with a dot over it, i for i without the dot but with an arch under it, simple i and e stand for both long and short i and e; the capitals should indicate the position of the stress. Note that Tolkien did not indicate what particular marks stand for, but according to Carl Hostetter, the dotted y "is a 'tenser' form of semivocalic i (with underposed arch)" (Lambengolmor message no. 193).

Note 25: That is to say that (almost) each grameme (letter) represents one phoneme. Sometimes two gramemes may be used for one phoneme, though it may not be in case of haia, because it is not certain whether diphthongs are monophonematic or biphonematic.

Note 26: A quotation from Petri Tikka's message to the lambengolmor mailing list (message no. 181), see Works Cited and Recommended.

sín, untranslated. The same as in L.

atalante, untranslated. In this position, L has andóre instead. The name atalante occurs only in the second line. Tolkien probably replaced atalante with andóre in order to avoid repetion.

ęphalek	îdôn	akallabęth	...	
far away	lo! now is	She-that-is-fallen	...	

haia	vahaia	sín	atalante	

Here the whole untranslated line is identical to its counterpart in L except for the spelling of haia and vahaia, which has been dealt with above.

ęphal	ęphalek	îdôn	athanâtę	
far	far away	is now	Athanâtę (the Land of Gift)	

Version Fdr2

Christopher Tolkien informs that after what kamindon from Fdr1 became akamna in Fdr2, it was subsequently changed to nukumna. Furthermore, herunúmen which survived in Fdr2 was changed to Númekundo, probably at the same time as the change of akamna occurred. It may therefore be convenient to distinguish these two phases of the development of Fdr2. For this reason the initial state of Fdr2 is labeled Fdr2a and the state after the changes is Fdr2b.

(Fdr2a)

akamna, not translated or rather Christopher Tolkien does not mention whether it was translated or not. It replaced kamindon from Fdr1. Tolkien was not perhaps satisfied with the form of kamindon, be it either because he decided to abandon the ndon case or because he might have decided that the adverb would not fit here. The form of akamna has a shape of a past participle, but as witnessed in case of nahamna, it also may be a noun. Yet it seems most likely that akamna is really a past participle, because the Adunaic version of Fdr1 has zabathân "humbled", and Tolkien changed it immediately to nukumna (see below). (Note 27)
The form of akamna is clearly reminiscent of previous kamindon and therefore it would be reasonable to assume that both words are derived from the same base. Since we have suggested the base KAMA "lie down" with a derivative kamu- "to lay down, bend down, reduce" from QL (see kamindon), the form (a)kamna would then mean *"laid down, bent down, reduced", which is very close to "humbled".
Nevertheless, the interpretation of akamna is not so easy because of the prefixed a which is hard to explain. It might be a prefixed stem-vowel but its function here would be uncertain. It probably intensifies the meaning of the participle and it may have the same function and origin as the a prefix in atalante and askante (see L and Ldr2 for these), i.e. denoting completeness of the action, in this case it may signify Sauron's complete humbling before Númenóreans (faked though it was). (Note 28)

Note 27: It has been stated above the form kamindon may contain a past participle derived from the base KAMA and that this participle might be *kamina, and yet here another form of the participle is presented, namely (a)kamna. However, both these forms are possible, because the mopheme {ina} has evidently (at least) two allomorphs ina and na. This is to say that ina is a variant of na and therefore both participles *kamina and (a)kamna are possible. Cf. karina "finished" (QL:45L; "made" in VT43:15) with vincarna (*"renewed"; MR:408).

Note 28: It must be noted that akamna may be derived from other roots distinct to KAMA. It may, for instance, be KAB "hollow" (Etym; cf. nukumna in L on the final B) with akamna meaning then *"hollow, hollowed", which might fit semantically. However, since akamna seems to be related to kamindon, we can leave out any root with the coda other then M, because only an intervocalic m seems to produce an intervocalic m in Quenya. If -indon were to added to the roor KAB, it would mostly likely produce *kavindon.

(Fdr2b)

As Christopher Tolkien writes in SD:311, his father made minor revisions to the text, having changed two Quenya words, namely he replaced akamna with nukumna and herunúmen with Númekundo.

nukumna replaced akamna. This form is found in the final version as well; it acquired its final form here. Tolkien again changed the underlying stem but this time the meaning remained presumably unchanged. It must be noted that the form nahamna in Ldr was not translated and even the form kamindon was "still untranslatable" (SD:311) in Fdr1 and we do not know about akamna whether it was translated or not. It is therefore not certain whether here the form nukumna was at last translated. In F, it is translated as "humble(d)" (about this see below).

Númekundo replaced herunúmen. Note the capitalization which is unique: neither herunúmen nor númeheruvi were capitalized. It appears that Tolkien was not satisfied with the form herunúmen. It was probably the sequence of particular elements that led him to replace herunúmen, because Númekundo has the element for "west" in the first position and the element signifying "lord" (note that it may not be the actual translation of kundo, we just describe the inherent structure of the word by which Tolkien named Manwe) was in the second position, while previously in herunúmen the element for "west" was in the second position and the element for "lord" in the first. This sequence of the elements is in agreement with númeheruvi in L (also in F).
Another shared feature of Númekundo with númeheruvi is the use of núme instead on númen for "west" (for a discussion on them see herunúmen and númenna in A). It may be due to euphony, because if númen had been used, it would have produced *númenkundo which would have contained too many nasals and combinations nk and nd in a close consequence).
But unlike herunúmen and númeheruvi, the form Númekundo contains a brand new element kundo. There are at least two possible origins of this word.
The Etymologies list a word kundu "prince". This word is derived from the stem KUNDŰ. It is possible that kundo is also derived from this stem or even that kundo is a variant of kundu. (Note 29) It is an added entry to Etym, and its Noldorin cognate is cunn that occurs also in a lenited form in Felagund. This name was elsewhere translated as "Lord of Caves" (LR:116, MR:177) and "Lord of Caverns" (LR:126). It is evident that it is possible to translate the word kundu as "prince" as well as *"lord". This agrees perfectly with the conception here. However, it must be noted that Tolkien later reconsidered the origin of the name Felagund. This was name was Elvish (Noldorin) in origin but Christopher Tolkien informs us in his comments to the development of what he calls The Later Quenya Silmarillion that "[a]gainst the name Felagund [his] father wrote this note: 'This was in fact a Dwarfish name'" (WJ:179; see also PM:351 where the idea is reiterated and expanded). Although there is more than a ten-year gap between The Notion Club Papers (written in 1945-6) and the note (written in 1959), it is possible that it was this idea of making Felagund a Dwarvish name that led Tolkien to abandon the element kundo (resp. kundu) and return to heru.
Another origin, though perhaps less likely, may be identification of the kundo of Númekundo with the kundo of Karma-kundo "Helm-guardian" being a title of Minalkar (a Gondorian king; PM:260). However, nothing more can be said about the origin of this kundo with the meaning "guardian", because there does not seem to be any stem which explain this word -- unless we are still dealing with same stem KUNDŰ. And if we realize that this name was added to Minalkar when he was Regent of Gondon (see PM:260), the close interrelation between "Helm-guardian" (note the the Crown of Gondor was in fact a Helm, cf. Tolkien's drawing in Letters no. 211), "prince" and "regent" is apparent.

Note 29: It is possible that the final -o in kundo is from an original *u, because final short u's became short o's in Quenya (see Fauskanger: The Evolution). As the stem KUNDŰ suggests, the final u in kundu is derived from original *ű (see again The Evolution). The short and long variation between agentive suffixes is not uncommon, cf. the variation between -ro and -rô (WJ:371).

* * *

Version F: frontispiece manuscripts

This is the only version of the Atalante fragments where we can deal with Tolkien's original manuscripts and not with transcriptions. In Sauron Defeated Christopher Tolkien decided to reproduce his father's handwritten version of the Fragments, probably because of the clarity of the handwriting. It is not necessary to describe the paper and the handwriting per se, because the reproductions can be found on the frontispiece of Sauron Defeated (see also the editorial notes no. 55 and 56 on pp. 288 and 289 of Sauron Defeated). Here only the differences between this version and other versions will be discussed. In particular it will be the version L, a type-written version, that will be compared in most cases, because there are mirror differences between these two versions, at least as regards the Quenya part, because there are some significant divergences in the Adunaic part. 
So far we have treated the version L as the final one without giving any explanation. It might be that this version is actually the latest one. Christopher Tolkien is undecided about it (see SD:289). Lalaith, however, thinks it is the typewritten version (L) that is the final one. He writes:

[A] couple of the word forms in L3m [i.e. F] and many of their translations are closer to L1 [Fdr1] and L2 [Fdr2] than those in L3t [L], while the latter displays a somewhat more complex grammatical structure. It might be safe to conclude that L3t [L] was the final version of the Lament. (Lalaith's Guide to Adűnaic Grammar)

Although at the time being it cannot be said with certainty which version is really the latest one, we agree with this conclusion. It is especially the presence of hikalba "she fell" in F that makes us think so. L has hikallaba "she-fell down".
The form hikalba is presumably an instance of the aorist and hikallaba of the (simple) past tense, see the discussion on lantier in A. If they are used together, the past tense functions as the pluperfect and the aorist as the past tense (see SD:439). Hence if we have zigűrun unakka *"sauron came" accompanied by ęruhînim dubdam *"númenóreans fell", we can say it is supposed to mean "Sauron had come [and then] Númenóreans fell". Similarly, if ar-pharazônun azaggara *"Tar-Calion was warring" is accompanied by bârim an-adűn yurahtam "Lords of West broke", we can say that "Tar-Calion had been warring [and then] Lords of West broke". (Note 30) Now if the same is applied to anadűnę hikallaba *"Númenor fell down", we can say that it is supposed to denote that "Númenor had fallen down" and then something else happened. It cannot, however, be said from the Fragments themselves what happened after the Downfall, because what fellows hikallaba are just fragments containing no predicate: bawîba dulgî ... balîk hazad an-nimruzîr azűlada. Fortunately, we can restore this using OEL, because as has been said the Old English version is more complex and less fragmentary. It reads "black winds arose and drove away Ćlfwine's seven ships". Hence the part marked by the ellipsis in the Adunaic text should presumably contain some verb(s) (predicate(s)) signifying "arose and drove away". If this is the correct interpretation, then the form hikalba in F does not precisely fits here. The same form appears in Fdr2, where it was changed from hikallaba (see SD:312); this version preceded F (see SD:311). One would therefore assume that when Tolkien was changing the verbal forms in Fdr2, he changed hikallaba to hikalba which was preserved in F but became hikallaba in L, because it was more appropriate, under our assumtion. (Note 31 a, b)
Although this may be the correct interpretation, it is still very doubtful whether L is really the latest version. The preceding reasoning is not satisfying and convincing enough, because it is necessarily based on the interpretation of the Adunaic verbal system. Moreover, it is possible to find arguments speaking against our theory. Nevertheless, we have treated the version L as the final one in this analysis. But even if we had treated so the version F, it would not influence the analysis proper, because the two versions are close to each other that they may be treated as mere variants of the same text.

Note 30: The form azaggara is somewhat problematic. Structurally, it seems to be a past tense (showing gemination comparable to hikallaba et al.), but it is translated with the English past progressive. It is not certain why it is so, but perhaps it is a relic from Fdr1 which has azgaranâdu "was waging war", a form different to other preterites in the version; in Fdr2 there is azagrâra, another unique form. Since azaggara is given there as a variant of azagrâra, it is possible that Tolkien was thinking about removing it, which he did in F, but he retained the translation.

Note 31: (a) Originally, Fdr2 had dubbudam, urahhata and hikallaba instead of dubdam, urahta and hikalba respectively as in F (where urahta became yurahtam, because its subject was in plural then, see númeheruvi in L). The reason for these geminated forms lies probably in Fdr1 where they occured and were probably used for the simple past. It is not certain whether the idea of the pluperfect was used in Fdr1.

(b) Another form which might suggests that F was written before L is kâtha "all". This form occurs in L while F has katha without the á. The same form without the á occurs in Fdr1 as kathî (apparently plural). Lowdham's Report on the Adunaic Language has, however, also a form without the á in the compound kathuphazgân "Conqueror" (SD:429).

Finally, let us note that "for unglossed words there are however (unlike what Lowdham said of his copies, p. 248 [of Sauron Defeated]) no query marks [as they are in L]" (SD:288). According to Lowdham, the text was written "in a big bold hand, done with one of the great thick-nibbed pens [he was] fond of" (SD:246); "[u]nder most of the words were glosses in red ink" (ibid.). Since the reproduction on the frontispieces is a black-and-white photocopy, there is no distinction in colors seen.

i

Tolkien entitled the first and second parts of the Fragment by the minuscule Roman number for 1, while L has majuscule numbers.

[A]	O	sauron	túle	nukumna	...	lantaner	
	and		came
	humble(d)		they fell	
	turkildi	nuhuinenenna	...	tarkalion	
		under-shadow
			
	ohta	káre	valannar	...	númeheruvi	
	war	made
	on-Powers		Lords-of-West	
	arda	sakkante	lenéme	ilúvatáren	...	
	Earth	rent
	with-leave			
	ëari	ullier	ikilyanna	...	númenóre	
	seas	should pour
	into-chasm		Numenor	
	ataltane.	
	fell down	

The [A] is original. Round brackets were used instead in L, though they may be incorporated editorially. Similarly as in L, the letters distinguishing the Quenya and Adunaic versions (A and B respectively) are placed to the left to the actual text.
As said above, this version is very close to L and for that reason only differences will be mentioned. The absence of the querries has been already pointed out. It has, however, not been remarked that the typescript version (L) contains ellipsis ('...') in blank spaces (but not blank in the sense that nothing should have been there, it signifies no doubt that the relevant parts of the Fragments did not survive) in both the Quenya text and English translation. The manuscript version (F) has the ellipsis mark only in the Quenya text.

nukumna, here glossed "humble(d)" while "humbled" in L. This is the most peculiar feature of this version, because it is not wholly certainly why the 'd' was put into parentheses. Yet there may be an easy explanation, though it will necessarily remain unfounded. 
It has been remarked in L that the word nukumna may be an adjective as well as a past participle, because the suffix -na is common for both adjectives and participles (since -na is an adjectival component in origin and participles are in fact verbal adjectives). However, if the context and the use of nukumna is taken in consideration, it seems more probable that this very word is a past participle rather than an adjective. Furthermore, its Adunaic counterpart zabathân seems also to be a past participle, because Adunaic adjectives seem to end mostly in -i (cf. dulgî "black" (pl.), izindi "straight" and lôkhî "crooked" (pl.)).
Nevertheless, the gloss "humble(d)" may be an evidence that the word nukumna might (at least at some stage) have been meant to be an adjective. Because if the gloss is meant to be read as that, the Quenya word actually means both "humble" and "humbled". The sub-gloss "humble" is either an adjective or a verb. If it is an adjective, than nukumna would mean both "humble" and "humbled" (which of course in turn may be a past participle of some verb *nukuP- (on the P see Note 15 above)). But if it is a verb, then it would mean the nukumna- is a verb "to humble" and at the same time an adjective "humbled". Another (and very similar in structure) Quenya word which is both adjective and verb is lumna meaning both "to lie heavy" and "lying heavy, burdensome" (see Etym s.v. DUB- and mel-lumna in A where this has been discussed).
On the other hand, the gloss "humble(d)" may some kind of strange slip which was (later) corrected, because L has simple "humbled".

lantaner "they fell". It is translated only as "fell" in L. The gloss "they" is here in fact superfluous because the subject of lantaner is turkildi; its funtion is mostly likely to indicate that "fell" in Quenya (i.e. lantaner) is in plural. The ending -r is not a pronominal ending, but a plural morph(eme). In his comments to Cirion's Oath Tolkien stated that -nte was "inflection of 3 plural where no subject [was] previously mentioned" (UT p. 3 ch. II Note 43). Since the subject is here mentioned (though not previously in the true sense of the word, because the subject turkildi follows lantaner) and it is probably in all cases where -r is used, it may postulated that this very ending is used for inflection of 3 plural (or of plural in general, not necessarily of the 3rd person) when the subject is previously mentioned. Cf. also sakkante in L.

nuhuinenna "under-shadow". There is no hyphen in L. This word is actually written as nuhuinenenna with en indicating deletion of en (note that this reading may not be absolutely correct). It is not certain why Tolkien first wrote huinen and then deleted the final en if it should be the correct reading. It is possible that Tolkien was hesitating about it, because in the previous versions huine was not inflected (sc. there was no allative ending -nna). As noted above, it is not certain what was the situation like in Fdr1 and Fdr2, but it is possible that these versions still contained unuhuine as Ldr and hence the allative ending attached to huine would emerge in this version for the first time (under the assumption L is the final version).

ohta káre "war made". It is written together as one word in L. It is not certain whether Tolkien intended to write it separatedly here, because in other versions it is always written jointly. Nonetheless, although the gap between ohta and káre is clearly perceivable, it is not as wide as between other words and hence it is possible to read it as ohtakáre. On the other hand, if it is really ohta káre, than it means that ohta is not compounded to káre but it is rather an object of it.

valannar "on-Powers"; lenéme "with-leave". There are no hyphens in L.

ilúvatáren, unglossed. In L, Lowdham was at least able to recognize the genitive ending -en, but he is not here. Interestingly enough, in Adunaic ęruvô the ending -vô is here identifiable as it was in L.

ikilyanna "into-chasm". No hyphen in L. 

ataltane. "fell down". There is no period after the Quenya word in L. [Note that the shifting of the word ataltane to the right is not found in L which has a different layout. The layout of L and F cannot be readily compared, since we do not have the original typecript but only a reproduction.]

	Kadô	zigűrun	zabathân	unakkha	...	
	and so		humbled	he-came	...
	
	ęruhînim	dubdam	ugru-dalad	...	ar-	
		fell	?shadow beneath		
	
	pharazônun	azaggara	avalôiyada	...	
		was warring	against Powers	
	
	bârim	an-adűn	yurahtam	dâira	sâi-	
	Lords	of West	They rent	Earth	with
	
	bęth-mâ	ęruvô	...	azrîya	du-phursâ	
	assent	from Eru		that seas	should gush
	
	akhâsada	...	anadűnę	zîrân	hikalba	...	
	into Chasm		Anadune	the beloved	She fell	
	
	bawîba	dulgî	...	balîk	hazad	annimru-	
	winds (were)	black		ships	seven	of ?
	
	zîr	azűlada	...	
		eastward		

There is no labeling [B] besides the text. Tolkien must have forgotten to write it in.

ii

[B]	Agannâlô	burôda	nęnud	...	zâira	
	death-shadow	very heavy	on us		longing
	
	nęnud	...	adűn	izindi	batân	tâidô	
	on us		West	straight (right?)	road	then (once?)
	
	ayadda:	îdô	kâtha	batîna	lôkhî.	
	it went	now	all	ways (are)	bent	

[A]	Vahaiya	sín	andóre	
	far away	now (is)	Andore (Land of Gift)	

This line is identical to its counterpart in L. The only difference is in glossing of andóre: L has simply "Land of Gift".

[B]	Ęphalak	îdô	Yôzâyan	
	far away	now	Gift-Land	

[B]	Ęphal-ęphalak	îdôn	hi Akallabęth	
	far far away	now	She that hath fallen	

[A]	Haiya	vahaiya	sín	atalante.	
	far	far away	now (is)	the Downfallen.	

Identical to L in each and every point.

* * *

Works Cited and Recommended

This list contains secondary works only; primary works (texts and books written by J.R.R. Tolkien himself along with commentaries by his son Christopher Tolkien) are not mentioned. The referencing system used here is practically the same as the one used on Ardalambion (http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/), the Elfling mailing list (http://www.groups.yahoo.com/list/elfling/) and Vinyar Tengwar (in issues up to 40 only). For abbreviations see http://www.elvish.org/elm/abbrev.html. 

Appleyard, Anthony
	Quenya Grammar Reexamined. TolkLang website.
http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/misc/local/TolkLang/articles/Appleyard.Quenya. 1995
sakkante / hiruvantes / lt v. nt in 2p & 3p pl Quenya pronouns. TolkLang mailing list. 
http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/misc/local/TolkLang/Vol6/6.39. June 28th 1993

Bican, Ales
the -s case. elm website. http://www.elvish.org/elm/scase.html. 2002

Campbell, A.
	Old English Grammar. Oxford. 1959

Erhart, Adolf
	Indoevropské jazyky, Srovnávací fonologie a morfologie. 1982

Fauskanger, Helge K.
The Evolution from Primitive Elvish to Quenya. Ardalambion website. http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/qevolution.rtf 
Adűnaic - the vernacular of Númenor. Ardalambion website. http://www.uib.no/People/hnohf/adunaic.htm 

Gilson, Christopher
	Narqelion and the Early Lexicons, Some Notes on the First Elvish Poem. Vinyar Tengwar no. 40. 1999
	The Entu, Ensi, Enta Declension, A Preliminary Analysis. Vinyar Tengwar no. 36. 1994

Hostetter, Carl F.
Re: Lucas, Tolkien, myth and motif. Tolkien mailing list. ftp://ftp.ii.uib.no/pub/bjornts/tolkien/archives/log9906.gz. July 21st 1999
Re: sakkante / hiruvantes / lt v. nt in 2p & 3p pl Quenya pronouns. TolkLang mailing list.
http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/misc/local/TolkLang/Vol6/6.44. June 29th 1993
Re: i and y in Quenya: two phonemes or one?. Lambengolmor mailing list. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/193. August 8th 2002

Lalaith
Lalaith’s Guide to Adűnaic Grammar. Middle-earth Science Pages. http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~lalaith/Tolkien/Grammar.html.

Merrian-Webster OnLine
	http://www.m-w.com 

Reszkiewicz, Alfred
	A Diachronic Grammar of Old English, Part One: Phonology and Inflections. Warszawa. 1973

Salo, David
Quenya perfect and futures. TolkLang mailing list. http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/misc/local/TolkLang/Vol19/19.03. June 27th 1996
Quenya stress and vowel length. Elfling mailing list. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/3977. December 29th 2000
Ullier, etc.. TolkLang mailing list. http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/misc/local/TolkLang/Vol14/14.45. September 11th 1995

Sweet, Henry
	The Student's Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon. Oxford. 1967

Tikka, Petri
Re: i and y in Quenya: two phonemes or one?. Lambengolmor mailing list. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/message/181. August 5th 2002
Re: I LANTE ARTANÁRO. Elfling mailing list. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/17564. September 6th 2002

Welden, Bill
	Re: Free time. Elfling mailing list. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/5495. July 26th 2001

Wynne, Partick. Gilson, Christopher. Hostetter, Carl F.
	The Bodleian Declensions. Vinyar Tengwar no. 28. 1993