Modality Propositional modality Epistemic modality is concerned with the speaker's attitude towards whether the proposition is true. There are three types which are common in languages: (speculative) an expression of uncertainty, e.g. En.  may :  Where is John? I'm not sure,  he may be in his office  now (deductive) an indication of inference from evidence, e.g. En.  must :  Yes, the lights are on, so  John must be in his office  now (assumptive) an indication of inference from experience , e.g. En.  will :  It's nine o'clock —  John will be in his office  now There is then two-way distinction between: strength of the conclusion (epistemical possibility vs necessity) source of the inference (evidence vs experience) In many languages one of these contrasts is either the only one present in the system or the more important one. Some languages have ways to indicate that the judgement is either weaker or stronger. English, for instance, uses the past tense forms of the modals. These express a lower degree of commitment. may  becomes  might must  becomes  should  (or less commonly  ought to ) will  becomes  would  (or  could ) Propositional modality in Quenya Quenya possesses epistemical possibility-necessity contrast with further differentiation in strength. There is no evidence for inference contrast, and it's assumed that either deductive and/or assumptive would be translated as unmarked future. Speculative Tolkien provided several contradicting paradigms for uncertain statements: EVS1 (PE22/98): strong  ai QVS (PE22/122-3): strong  ai , weak  au EVS2 (PE22/139, 1951): strong ai ai  tuluvanye  “I  may  come” LVS7 (PE22/154, 21-1969): strong  cé , weak quí  (see on  Unreality ) lá caritas alasaila  cé  nauva  “not doing this  may  prove unwise” carë mára  quí  tyarë naxa  “doing good ?may cause evil” Note that modal particle should directly precede the verb (PE22/97). Otherwise it is interpreted as a conjunction  if :   cé mo formenna tentanes Amanna  “if northwards, it pointed towards Aman” cé 'may' in PE22/154 (21-1969), PE22/158 (22-1969); 'if' in AS (08-1969) (Also see on  Optative ) Deductive & Assumptive No examples of deductive exists. No clear example of assumptive exists, but we can make an educated guess. It may be added that even languages that have future tenses that are not formally modal, but belong within the inflectional system, often use these tenses for similar purposes. They are used in an assumptive sense, like English will , in, e.g., French and Italian (cf French  ça sera le facteur  'that'll be the postman') Event modality Event modality refers to events which have not taken place yet. The distinction is drawn between conditioning factors, which are: external to the subject (he is permitted or ordered to act); internal to the subject (he is able and/or willing to act); Deontic Similarly to epistemic modality, deontic modality distinguishes between: deontic  possibility  ( permissive ), e.g. En.  can  (less often  may ): You  can  go now deontic  necessity  ( obligative ), e.g. En.  must : You  must  go now Additionally we can consider  commissive , where speaker  commits  themself to do something. In English it is signalled by the modal verb  shall . "You  shall  not pass!" — where Gandalf commits himself to ensuring that the balrog will not pass the bridge — is a canonic example of commissive. Just as with epistemic modals, the force of the judgements can be weakened: can  becomes  could  ( may  becomes  might ) must  becomes  should Deontic modality in Quenya Tolkien did not explicitly talk about permission and obligation in Quenya, but we have a few words which might fit the slot. permissive: nai  < NAY “have opportunity, chance or  permission ; be  allowed  by circumstance or way of the world”; This mostly used where the opportunity or permission is certain or very probable Overlaps with optative  nai ecë :  ecë nin?  'please, may I?'; lerta :  lertan quetë  'I can (am free to) speak' (there being no obstacle, of promise, secrecy, duty) Can be interpreted as  abilitive of circumstance obligative: * moa  < N.  bui  'I must' inya karie·te  'I have to make it'; (neg)  vá caris i  'he is not to do it'; commissive: (pos) future:  vanda sina  termaruva  Elenna·nóreo alcar enyalien  “This oath shall stand in memory of the glory of the Land of the Star” Such use of future can be seen in e.g. French:  Vous l'aurez demain (neg)  vá  + future:  vá matuvatye mastanya  “you shan’t eat my bread” Dynamic Dynamic modality expresses the ability and willigness (in English done with  can  and  will  respectively). In many languages there is no formal distinction between permission and ability. In English, however, the distinction is in that  may  is not used to indicate ability. Dynamic modality in Quenya Abilitive  is expressed in Quenya with  lexical  verbs: physical ability: polë :  polin quetë  'I can (able to) speak' (PE17/181) (inherent physically or mentally):  curu  (PE22/151) learned ability:  istan quetë  'I can (know how to) speak' (PE17/155, cf. French  savoir :  il sait nager  'he can swim') circumstantial ability/possibility: lertan quetë  'I can (am free to) speak' (there being no obstacle, of promise, secrecy, duty) (PE17/160) evë (PE22/151: "of mere possibility according to likelihood, natural probability, etc.")  ecë :  ecuva nin carë sa nöa  “I ‘may’ do that tomorrow, I have a chance of doing that tomorrow” may  in gloss seems to disqualify this verb (but it is in quotes?) Volitive  is only attested in negative constructions: (neg)  vá :  itas vá tuluvanye  'in that case I won't come' Imperative Most languages have a specific form that can be identified as Imperative. In languages such as English, where the modal systems are marked by modal verbs, the imperative is quite independent of them. But notionally, imperative is closely associated with deontic modals. Unlike in English, in Quenya  Imperative  is a part of its modality system, expressed by an optional particle  á . imperative proper:  á tule  'come' (PE22/140); jussive:  á he tuluvar 'let them come' (PE22/106); hortative: (PE14/59 had hortative the same as imperative and jussive) prohibitive:  avá carë  'don't do it' (WJ/371): (cf Latin  nolo :  Noite facere  'Don't do it'; and Welsh  peidio :  peidiwich â gadael iddo fynd  'Don't let him go') [To Do] Add description of gradation Optative The subjunctive is frequently used for wishes and fears: Dio vi benedica  'May God bless you' The more correct term applicable to Quenya would be  desiderative  and  timitive . We have examples of two constructions: nai  initially:  nai elye hiruva na  before the verb:  aranielya na tuluva The distinction then can be reminiscent of  cé  being used as an epistemic particle before the verb, or conjunction  if  initially. Note that the use of  nai  as a desirative marker was already present in Early Qenya (PE14/59), where  nai  was also the weak marker of epistemic possibility. In this sense the Early Qenya was very similar to the subjunctive use in European languages in this context. Purposive Clauses that express purpose are marked with a conjunction plus the subjunctive in Latin and Classical Greek, and similarly in Spanish and Italian: ti scrivo affinché tu capisca la situazione We have one purposive sentence in Quenya: mennai Orome tanna lende i erenekkoitanie  “until Orome came hither that he might awake them” (VT27/7) which potentially can use (defunct) subjunctive. Unreality In a large number of languages a clear distinction can be made between real and unreal conditions. In some languages this is marked with the tense alone, in others by a combination of tense and mood. Similarly to the discussion on epistemic and deontic modality, the 'modal-past' weakens the supposition, stating the condition less likely to occur. Conditions that  predict , in terms of cause and effect, the occurence of one event on condition of another, always require a modal verb in apodosis (both real and unreal): If John comes, Bill can leave (real) If John came, Bill would leave (unlikely) If John had come, Bill might have left (unreal, past) Non-predictive conditionals such as  If John came, Mary left , which merely indicate that if the protasis is true, so is the apodosis, without necessarily implying that there is a cause and effect, have no restrictions on the tense and modality of such sentences. In Quenya PE22/120 system is a verbatim carry-over from  Latin system : qe e·kestan, ni·tuluva  “if he asks me, I shall come” :  if  AOR, FT (predictive real) qe e·kestuvan, ni·tuluva  “if (on some future occasion) he asks me, then (on that occasion) I shall come” :  if  FT, FT (predictive real, specific) aiqe e·kestuvan, (en) ni·tuluva  “if he asked me, I should come” : MOD- if  FT, ( en ) FT (predictive unlikely) qe e·kárie i kirya aldaryas, ni·kauva kiryasta menelyas  “if he finishes the boat by Monday, I shall be able to sail on Wednesday” :  if  PF, FT (predictive real, future reference) qe e·káriéva i kirya, ni·kauva kiryasta menelyas  “if he has finished the boat by Monday, I shall be able to sail on Wednesday” :  if  FT-PF, FT (predictive real, specific, future reference) qe (ai) e·tule, (san) inye tule yú  “if he comes, I come too” :  if  (MOD) AOR, (san) AOR (non-predictive, present) qe (ai) e·tulle, (san) inye tulle yú  “if he came, I came too” :  if  (MOD) PT, (san) PT (non-predictive, past) íqa ette tule, (san) inye tule  “when he comes, I come” :  when  AOR, (san) AOR (non-predictive, present) qe/illume e·kestanen/kestanelyanen, ni·tulle ;  if/when  PT/IMP, PT (non-predictive, past) ai(qe) e·kestanen, en(ai) ni·túlie ;  MOD-if  ( if ) PT,  en  (MOD) PT (predictive unreal, ?past) ai(qe) e·kestanen ela, en ni·túlie ;  MOD-if  ( if ) PT NEG,  en  PT (predictive unreal, ?past) auve e·kestanen, au ni·túlie ;  MOD-UR-if  PT, MOD-UR PT (predictive unreal, past) aiqe ni·káraza (nila) san ette kára(za) yú ;  MOD-if  PR (NEG),  san  PR (predictive unreal, present) auve e·kestanen (ela)!   MOD-UR-if  PT (NEG) (wish unreal) Compare Latin schema: Condition Example PROTASIS APODOSIS SIMPLE CONDITION If he says this, he makes a mistake Present Indicative Present Indicative PRESENT GENERAL CONDITION Every time he says this, he makes a mistake Present Indicative Present Indicative PAST PARTICULAR CONDITION If he (has) said this, he (has) made a mistake Imperfect Indicative, Present Perfect Indicative Imperfect Indicative, Present Perfect Indicative PAST GENERAL CONDITION Whenever he said this, he made a mistake Imperfect Indicative, Present Perfect Indicative Imperfect Indicative FUTURE-MOST-VIVID CONDITION If I shall have said this, I shall have made a mistake Future Perfect Indicative Future Perfect Indicative FUTURE CONDITION (FUTURE-MORE-VIVID) If he says (will say) this, he will make a mistake Future Indicative Future Indicative FUTURE-LESS-VIVID CONDITION ("ideal") If he were to (should) say this, he would make a mistake Present Subjunctive Present Subjunctive PRESENT CONTRARY-TO-FACT CONDITION   Imperfect Subjunctive Imperfect Subjunctive PAST CONTRARY-TO-FACT CONDITION If he had said this, he would have made a mistake Past Perfect Subjunctive Past Perfect Subjunctive with Quenya: Condition Example PROTASIS APODOSIS SIMPLE CONDITION If he says this, he makes a mistake qe (ai)  + Aorist san  + Aorist PRESENT GENERAL CONDITION Every time he says this, he makes a mistake íqa  + Aorist san  + Aorist PAST PARTICULAR CONDITION If he (has) said this, he (has) made a mistake qe  + Past ? san  + Past PAST GENERAL CONDITION Whenever he said this, he made a mistake illume  + Imperfect, Past ? san  + Past FUTURE-MOST-VIVID CONDITION If I shall have said this, I shall have made a mistake qe  + Future Perfect Future FUTURE CONDITION (FUTURE-MORE-VIVID) If he says (will say) this, he will make a mistake qe  + Perfect Future FUTURE-LESS-VIVID CONDITION If he were to (should) say this, he would make a mistake aiqe  + Future en  + Future PRESENT CONTRARY-TO-FACT CONDITION   aiqe  + Present san  + Present PAST CONTRARY-TO-FACT CONDITION If he had said this, he would have made a mistake ai(qe)  + Past (NEG);  auve  + Past en(ai)  + Past;  au  + Past The difference between  aiqe  + Past,  enai  + Past vs  auve  + Past,  au  + Past might be as in: potevo farlo se mi aiutavano avrei potuto farlo se fossi stato più vecchio with the 1st, there is an implication that I had the ability and merely needed help to fulfill it, but with the second it is clear that I did not have the ability, but would have had it if (impossibly) I had been older. PE22/138 had differences ( que > quí > íte  in pencil): íte kestallen, tuluvanye ;  if  AOR, FT (predictive real) íte kestuvallen, tuluvanye ;  if  FT, FT (predictive improbable) aite kestuvallen, tuluvanye ;  MOD-if  FT, FT (predictive improbable) (ai)te kestanellen, (ai) tullenye ; (MOD)-if PT, (MOD) PT (predictive unreal past; discarded) quílas túleste, san inye túle ;  if -NEG PT,  san  PT (predictive unreal past) au tuluvanye ; MOD-UR FT (wish unreal future; discarded) au túlielde (las) ; MOD-UR PFT (NEG) (wish unreal past) PE22/158 was discarded: quí(ta) la tuldes, náne márie ;  if -MOD-UR ?NEG PT, PT (predictive unreal past)