#valarin

So, the question, or rather, about the question. I hope it will be very interesting not only to me. Due to stress, I decided to delve into the study of Tolkien's languages (brain activity relaxes me), and although I had previously ignored everything except Khuzdul, I decided to fill in the gaps in my knowledge. And it was worth it! As I understand it, Valarin is the oldest language of Arda, and Khuzdul is essentially the second oldest language, as it was created by Mahal. This means that... there must be something similar in their words, right? And even though Neo-Khuzdul is not exactly Tolkien's Khuzdul, I found a lot of similarities with the minimum I could find in Valarin! For your convenience, here's what I found:

Fire: Uruš/rušur(V.) - shamalʹ urs(K.) or arsur(K.)

Light: ithīr(V.) - ilkhid(K.)

Water: ulu/ullu(V.) - uslun(K.)

(Some words in Neo-Khuzdul of course have a slightly different meaning, but I decided to still take into account that I was looking for SIMILARITIES in the words. Plus, I took into account the fact that Khuzdul and Valarin are, after all, different languages)

And finally, the question: did Valarin really influence Neo-Khuzdul? Or am I just a conspiracy theorist, and it's all just a coincidence..?

Well met again!

Thank you for that question, it’s an interesting one. Short answer: Based on what we know, no, Valarin did not directly influence Khuzdul, and what you are seeing here is coincidence rather than connection.

To take a step back, Tolkien presents these languages as fundamentally separate in origin.

Valarin is unrelated to the other languages of Middle-earth, as it arose outside of Arda. Very little is known of it beyond a small number of words, mainly proper names, and it is notably characterised by long, complex forms. A well-known example is the Valarin name of Telperion: Ibrīniðilpathānezel.

Khuzdul, on the other hand, was created by Mahal (Aulë) specifically for the Dwarves, and Tolkien explicitly modelled it on Semitic languages in its structure. Its vocabulary, morphology, and internal logic follow a completely different system.

Because of that, we do not expect systematic overlap between the two.

Looking at your examples more closely:

• “light” — in Neo-Khuzdul, the noun is ulkhud. The form ilkhid is not “light” as a noun, but an imperative, as in “light (the fire)!” It uses completely different consonants to ithīr, so this is not a lexical match at all.

• “water” — uslun does not mean “water” though, but “waterfall,” and is not related to ulu / ullu.

• “fire” — this is the only case where there is some real resemblance and possible connection (rušur / uruš  and 'urs). Forms like arsur are derived or contained forms (relating to heat or contained fire), and shamal means “ground,” so there is no real correspondence there.

What is happening here is a very common pattern: comparing short words and looking for similarities, even when the underlying systems are unrelated. Once you look at the full meanings, forms, and derivations, the apparent links almost all disappear.

In real linguistic terms, you would need consistent sound correspondences across a wide range of vocabulary, not isolated similarities in a handful of words.

Stunning art by Šárka Škorpíková "Manwe and Varda" That said, there are a few interesting observations one might make, as long as we remain cautious. Valarin has sometimes been noted to resemble ancient languages such as Babylonian in its general “feel,” particularly in its long, complex word forms and possible patterns. Similarly, the Valarin word ayanûz (“Ainur”) contains a final element -ûz, which could be interpreted as a kind of plural or collective marker, not unlike plural endings seen in various Semitic languages (for instance -ân in Neo-Khuzdul).

One might even be reminded of terms such as the Sumerian Anunnaki, often translated as “[offspring] of An,” referring to a group of divine or semi-divine beings. The resemblance between ayanûz and Anunnaki is interesting at a glance.

However, and this is important, these comparisons remain speculative. Tolkien never confirmed any such connections, and drawing direct links would be no different from the kind of pattern-matching discussed earlier.

More likely, Tolkien simply aimed to create a language with a very distinct and unusual character, fitting for beings such as the Valar.

As for Khuzdul, its Semitic-style structure is explicit, but that does not imply any shared vocabulary with Valarin. At most, if there is any parallel at all, it would be at the level of general linguistic “style,” not direct influence.

So in short: no direct connection, and the similarities you are seeing are coincidental rather than meaningful.

the only true valarin word for "service" very strongly signifies something willing and freely chosen and is basically in the same 'conceptual bracket' as "love" or "father/child/sibling/etc". when they finally get around making a word for those of the ainur who followed morgoth, it's not really a connected concept. if anything, "servant" and "slave¹" are antonyms.

(¹by which I mean, yes, they chose it themselves and at least to start with were uncoerced in their actions. but there is no – reciprocity on morgoth's side, no true relationship, ergo travesty of allegiance, ergo basically the same bracket – to the valar)

and then, the noldor should have two words I think – I hope there's space to headcanon it so in the lexicon – one positive, directly influenced by these valarin concepts and the other derived from constructions such as "scissors serve to cut", neutral – and then the terms get politicised and either the second becomes thralldom, or a new word for fëanor to use is coined – but in either case I feel like they would still end up with at least three or even four – even if with quenya it is a progression within the bounds of what's seen as the same concept.

black speech obviously only has "slave", or probably "slave (lowest of the low)", "slave (average)" and "taking orders directly from the dark lord" (...most likely to be used in different configurations depending on where in the hierarchy the interlocutors stand). earlier angband slang is probably more varied depending on who uses it, but I doubt it could ever get 'higher' than a neutral term, and probably not even that. there is however a word that implies a decision to consistently aim for small acts of help towards another in the rare moments where it's possible that might be not unrelated.

---

actually, regarding valarin, I feel like a significant part of the difficulty elves have learning it has to do with the language being built around a very specific understanding of the universe? there's a dozen different future tenses for things 'seen in the music' (...and as the ainur have a complex relationship with time these end up being necessary to describe the present)... their understanding of the world is strictly hierarchical, except even that word isn't really a good translation of a concept – say rather that it's built on complex relationships of giving and receiving and you're still not entirely there, but nearer the mark. the true skill in speaking the language, the one that Fëanor picked up, is not just in the standard stuff, but also in navigating around this (forget 'through', I don't think any elf's managed 'through'), in picking the right constructions that allow the speaker to by-pass the unusable bits.

Been browsing some names and found these (the names evolved differently in different languages, this is just an example of current English ones):

Hrōþiberhtaz = Rupert

Gaizawaldaz = Gerald

Waldaharjaz = Walter

Mahtihildiz = Matilda

Aþalawulfaz = Adolf