The wishing-particle na opens up certain vistas of expression that the formerly known particle nai does not cover. In all known examples, nai expresses a wish that is to be fulfilled in the future, and that only involves what a subject hopefully is to do to an object: Nai hiruvalyë Valimar! Be it [that] thou wilt find Valimar! (Namárië), nai tiruvantes *may they keep it! (Cirion’s Oath). While this remains an important Quenya wishing-formula, the particle na is more flexible. It can be used to connect adjectives and nouns (na aire esselya, hallowed be thy name or literally *wish-that holy [is] thy name). (Presumably this could also be expressed as *nai nauva esselya aire, but this would place the fulfillment of the wish in the future.) Na can be used in the case of a wish regarding what a subject hopefully is to do in the future, but no object needs to be involved: Aranielya na tuluva thy kingdom come or wish that thy kingdom will come (reworked from the declarative statement *aranielya tuluva thy kingdom will come simply by inserting the wishing-particle in front of the verb). This could probably also have been expressed by means of the "traditional" formula *nai aranielya tuluva (though all attested examples of this formula involves an object and not only a subject). Of particular interest is the peculiar construction na care indómelya, apparently *wish-that [one] does thy will. Not only does this show that na can be used with other tenses than the future (care looks like an aorist) – it also indicates that this formula can be used to express a wish about what is to be done to an object without actually mentioning any subject. In effect we have a passive of sorts.
The form aistana for blessed seems to tell us that though "derived" verbs, or A-stem verbs, normally form their past participles in -ina (as in hastaina marred, MR:254, 408), the shorter ending -na may be preferred when the resulting form would otherwise come to have the diphthong ai in two concomitant syllables: hence not **aistaina. (Other verbs for which this may be relevant include laita- bless, praise, naina- lament, taita- prolong, vaita- wrap: past participles *laitana, *nainana [?], *taitana, *vaitana. A few other verbs containing ai, like faina- emit light, seem by their meanings to be intransitive and could probably not have meaningful past participles.) – As for the verb that underlies the form aistana, sc. #aista- to bless, it seems to supersede aista- to dread in the Etymologies (LR:358 s.v. gáyas-), though as we have argued above, the ultimate derivation may be much the same. For the meaning to dread writers can rather use the verb #ruk- from a post-LotR source (first person aorist in WJ:415: rukin I feel fear or horror, said to be constructed with "from" – sc. the ablative case? – of the object feared). For the meaning bless we already had laita- from the Cormallen Praise, but as we have argued, this is by its etymology rather *magnify and may often better be rendered praise (Letters:308; cf. also the corresponding verbal noun in Erulaitalë, Praise of Eru, as the name of a Númenórean festivaclass="underline" UT:166, 436). In a more purely "religious" meaning, bless as opposed to merely praise or magnify, #aista- must henceforth be the first choice of writers.
These texts do not provide much more information about the verb to be in Quenya (a topic writers really would like to know more about!), though it may be noted that the imperative be! seems to be na (q.v. above). If i ëa han ëa does mean something like *who art in heaven (Eä), or even *who art above Eä, this confirms that ëa rather than ná is used for is with reference to a position (cf. i or ilyë mahalmar ëa who is above all thrones in Cirion’s Oath). It is, however, interesting to see that nominal sentences with no explicit copula are apparently quite permissible and even usuaclass="underline" i Héru as elye the Lord [is] with thee, aistana elye blessed [art] thou, aistana i yáve mónalyo blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb.
There are also some academic (rather than "practical") lessons here. The Lord’s Prayer/Hail Mary translation demonstrates how Tolkien might "re-explain" certain forms that had been published, so that they would not conflict with linguistic revisions he had undertaken afterwards (a conflict that would have been unavoidable if he had maintained the explanation that he had originally intended). Aire is here repeatedly used for holy, and the first part of the compound airetári in Namárië is likewise translated holy in LotR. In a much later source Tolkien however states that aire is "actually" a noun sanctity, the adjective holy being rather aira (PM:363-364). It can now be seen that this is not what he originally had in mind; when he first wrote airetári he did intend aire to mean simply holy. What triggered the subsequent re-explanations and rationalizations may have been a post-LotR revision of the diachronic phonology (or actually the undoing of a revision that was "valid" during the final part of the period when LotR was written): When Tolkien once and for all decided that the change of primitive short *-i to Quenya -e occurred only at the end of words and did not normally make it into other positions even by analogy, he had to face the fact that the already-published form airetári should have been *airitári. In the related case carnemírie, Tolkien did change it to carnimírie in the revised version of LotR (1966), but airetári persisted in this form and was later reinterpreted.