etelehta, verb free, release, deliver. It would seem that the #lehta- part is essentially the same as the Quenya verb lehtaloose, slacken listed in the Etymologies, in LR:368 derived from a stem lek- loose, let loose, release (primitive *lektâ-; this would be one of the cases where the ending -tâ adds nothing to the meaning of the stem itself). It is closely related to Noldorin/Sindarin leithia release (as verb; noun leithian, as in the Lay of Leithian or "Release from Bondage" referred to in the first paragraph of Chapter 19 in the Silmarillion). Unlike the more mundane meaning of Quenya lehta- loose, slacken, these Sindarin forms more prominently seem to connote a release or freeing, and this is also true of the longer Quenya verb etelehta- in the text before us. The prefixed element ete- can evidently be equated with the Quenya prefix et- that in the Etymologies is derived from a stem et- forth, out (LR:356; the prefix as such is undefined, but it is clearly meant to have the same meaning as the stem). Etelehta- would seem to mean literally out-release or out-free (here in Norway we actually use the word utfri for "deliver" as in delivering someone from danger); the idea is that the object is brought "out" from the danger or menacing/suppressing situation. It is interesting to see that the prefix et- is lengthened to ete- where an impossible consonant cluster would otherwise occur (in this case **tl). It may be that the second e is the stem-vowel of et- reduplicated; on the other hand, it may simply be the normal "connecting vowel" e as in the allative form Elendilenna to Elendil in PM:401 (Elendil-e-nna). The short form of the prefix, et-, can actually occur only when it is prefixed to words beginning either in a vowel or in one of the consonants s-, t-, w- or y- (for t- we have an attested example: ettuler in SD:290). Otherwise the form ete- must be used to avoid impossible clusters. (However, in one old example, primitive etkelê *out-flow, t and k early metathesized, and Quenya ehtele spring, issue of water comes from ektele. See LR:363 s.v. kel-. If this Quenya word had been coined later, instead of descending from the oldest period, it would perhaps have appeared as **etekele instead.)
firuvamme, future-tense verb with pronominal ending: *we shall die. The verb fir- fade, die is mentioned in MC:223, clearly to be referred to the root phir- in the Etymologies (LR:381), which yields words having to do with death and mortality. The base itself was not defined in Etym., but in MR:250 it is explained that the verb fírë (read *firë?) originally "meant to expire, as of one sighing or releasing a deep breath… This word the Eldar afterwards used of the death of Men." A reference in WJ:387 confirms this; here the stem is quoted as phiri, glossed exhale, expire, breathe out. In the text before us, fir- occurs in the future tense, denoted by the well-known ending -uva (many attestations, e.g. kenuva shall see in MC:221 cf. 214 or hiruva shalt find in Namárië; in the present text it also occurs in the word tuluva, q.v.) The pronominal ending -mme denotes exclusive we, that is, a "we" that does not include the person that is addressed. If one is talking about "we" to a person that is included in the "we" group, the ending -lme for inclusive "we" would be employed. Previously, the exclusive ending -mme was attested only in the word vamme we won’t in WJ:371. It corresponds to the independent pronouns #me (see áme) and emme, plus the possessive ending -mma our seen in Átaremma, massamma.
han is evidently a preposition, but its meaning is uncertain: in? among? permeating? above?[17] This preposition, if that is what it is, would seem to describe the "spatial" relationship between Eru and Eä, God and the Universe – however that is to be imagined. No really plausible etymology can be offered. The stem khan- understand, comprehend (LR:363) could have yielded a word of this shape, but its meaning certainly seems to disqualify it. The stem kham- sit (ibid.) just might be relevant, if han refers to some kind of stationary position (final -m regularly becoming -n in Quenya). Unfortunately, all Christopher Tolkien reproduced of this entry in the Etymologies was the verb ham- sit; "the other derivatives are too chaotic and unclear to present". – By another suggestion han could be a variant of the known preposition an, in the Etymologies glossed "to, towards" (LR:374 s.v. na2-); if so it is here used with a different shade of meaning, since "to" would not make much sense in this context. By this theory, the h prefixed to an is merely an intruding consonant inserted to avoid two a's in a sequence (the word before han being ëa). However, no other Quenya examples of such an intruding h can be quoted. – It may be noted that in a text reproduced in MC:217, apparently some variant of "Gnomish" (but somewhat closer to Sindarin than the Gnomish of the GL), there occurs a phrase han Nebrachar. This is translated above Nebrachar. We must of course be very wary about basing conclusions regarding LotR-style Quenya on an obscure Gnomish variant of the early thirties, but if the word han has the same meaning in the text before us, Átaremma i ëa han ëa might mean *our Father who is above Eä – as if Tolkien used a circumlocution instead of translating "who art in heaven" literally. (However, the normal Quenya word for above would seem to be or, as in Cirion’s Oath[18].)
18
In VT43 it is argued that i ëa han ëa means "who is beyond Eä", which would indeed be a circumlocution. The fact that han appears with the meaning "beyond" in a manuscript 15-20 years younger than the Lord’s Prayer text cannot be seen as conclusive regarding its meaning here. However, a variant version of the prayer used the word pella instead, a well-known Quenya word for "beyond". This suggests that "who is beyond Eä" may indeed be the intended meaning here.