Collectio Argumentorum - On the affixes of imperative particle

Assumption 1:

Argument:

Imperative marker can be affixed with an objective pronoun

áme etelehta.

[VT43/12, 1955-69]
Both subjective and objective pronoun cannot be affixed at a time without ambiguity
Therefore only objective pronoun can be affixed.

Context:

In 1950, Tolkien reverted to subject suffixes (Q. le-tule >> tuli-lye). However, he liked the imperative constructions from the prefix period (á le-tule!) too much to part with them; so he devised the system sketched in EVS2 (PE 22/139-140), whereby imperative was an exception from the general rule that pronominal subjects got encliticized > suffixed to verbs: in imperative, the post-verbal pronominal subject was not encliticized, while where it was encliticized was in a pre-verbal position if the imperative particle was present (which allowed Tolkien to keep CE. ā-le tuli, in this particular order).

In accordance with this, the earlier versions of the Prayers (from 1951-1955) have consistently a-lye [= subj.] eterúna me [= obj.] and such. Note the due etymological development CE. ā-le > Q. á-lye.

And a laita te, published in LotR in 1955, is also consistent with the above: although there’s an independent object (not subject) following the verb, EVS2 shows that the presence of á marks any post-verbal independent pronoun as an object anyway (as subject would get moved before the verb and suffixed to the particle).

However, Tolkien then started rewriting the Prayers in or shortly after 1955 — and at this point, his enthusiasm for the pre-verbal imperative subjects was gone. So he redevised the system to yield á-me [= obj!] etelehta and such. Which implies that from now on, CE. *ā-me kari was no longer “let us do (something)”, as it would be in 1950-1955, but rather “do us (you there!)“. In other words, since ca. 1955 that particular passage of EVS2 is no longer valid and CE. subject pronouns are not pre-verbal & agglutinated to a. Instead, object pronouns are.

Now, a laita te, allowed to stand even in the revised 1965 edition of LotR, is still consistent with this new concept, as there’s no reason why á-me etelehta shouldn’t be reformable to á etelehta me, and a laita te to á-te laita.

Assumption 2:

Argument:

There are markers ma, vá, lá.
These markers permit a subjective pronoun in the absence of a verb:

This ma could similarly take pronominal affixes … manye “what? me?”

[PE22/160]

Like lá it [vá] could be combined with pronominal affixes.

[PE22/161]
These markers are not syntactically different from imperative marker
Therefore subjective pronoun can be affixed to imperative marker in the absence of a verb.