The original text didn't have a title, but I always title my own texts.

Throughout the text, Taliesin used the personal conjugation -aym we, which is from the set of non-empathic words. Normally these would only be used to talk about animals, or to derogatorily talk about humans. A speaker talking about his own people this way is quite weird. So much so that I'm assuming I just didn't do a good enough job of explaining the usage, thereby misleading Taliesin to use the wrong set of personal conjugations.

For my version of the text, I have chosen -eithîm (das) my acquiances and I (all of us) as the primary subject. This seems the appropriate choice for discussing one's people. Anywhere that Taliesin used -aym, I have replaced it with -eithîm.

The other change made to Taliesin's first sentence is to move one of the two adverbial phrases to the end of sentence. Only one adverbial phrase is allowed to precede the verb; which one was merely a stylistic choice, in this case.

The derivational suffix -ad is added to a verb to form a related noun. For example, alcáspi'ad might mean travels. (Note that the verb's final v is removed before adding the nominalizer.) To form the noun traveling, use the nominalizer suffix -on (without removing the final v): alcáspi'evon.

A minor orthography nitpick is applying the consecutive apostrophes rule. The word alcáspi'ev already has an internal apostrophe (representing a glottal stop). When jhor is added with a prefix-joining apostrophe, the second apostrophe must be dropped.

(Of course, the apostrophes rules are no longer current since the spelling reform.)

Taliesin wrote this clause and the following one in the reverse order from how they're presented here. I have moved them to follow the ordering in my version of the text for easier side-by-side comparison.

Only adverbial phrases of one word may precede the verb; all longer phrases must occur after the core VSO portion of the sentence. This is why I had to move the vek...k' clause after the main gyev clause.

The verb kemav to sit was the best choice for expressing snow-covered mountains, given the words that existed when Taliesin wrote his text. However, I decided to coin gyev to cover to better describe the situation.

Finally, it looks like Taliesin confused the verbal personal conjugation -aym with the simple plural -im when translating passes.

I had not documented (nor decided, actually) how to form ordinals from cardinal numbers. In that light, Taliesin's ve'sar ADVERB-one is perfectly logical. In fact, I like his method enough to officially adopt it (with only the slight modification of using vek when) to form such ordinal temporal adverbs.

The verb teizav to pass through is not the main verb; rather, it is part of a subordinate clause. It therefore requires the suffix -on. Similarly, the ne of the emdebbed clause must be done instead. Them's the rules of subordinate clauses.

I misclassified vesik as an adverb when it really seems to act like a coordinating conjunction: it can only be used to join sentences together. (Furthermore, coordinating conjunctions want te and to precede them.)

Because vesik is supposed to join complete sentences, vesik'syirún is an ungrammatical fragment. To fix this, I've expanded it into a full sentence.

When deriving the adjective fallen from the verb drav fall, the final v needs to be removed first. Then a y should be inserted because otherwise the word would have two consecutive vowels. So, the adjective should be drayith fallen rather than dravith.

I think Taliesin must have meant haláin tree in place of dehalaizen (a sentient feline species related to Cresaeans). It fits much better in the context of syirún forest and the adjective drayith fallen. And if there are enough fallen trees that it blocks the people's progress, then it must be more than one. So I added the plural marker -im.

Finally, there is the matter of translating (prevent) our crossing. In Asha'ille, this is not considered a possessive. It would be better to think of the English phrase as (prevent) us crossing or (prevent) us from crossing. We cross is kilemáveithim; nominalized with -on it becomes kilemávoneithim. No possessive necessary.

The verb saemirv to arrive takes the arrival destination as its object. So instead of introducting the location mmaváshish kritharún windy steppes with the adverb veia goal, just use ne to introduce the object.

As mentioned previously, vesik can only join sentences. Rather than repeat the verb saemirv, use the pro-verb vo.

The verb shatruv to ask instructions doesn't make much sense in context here. My best guess is that Taliesin meant shav to speak or to talk instead.

The personal conjugation can be dropped from these verbs because it is the same subject as the preceding sentence.

The conjunction te and is not used in simple serial verb constructions.

The word alcáspeth traveling is already an adjective; no extra adjectivizer -ith is necessary. Were you to actually intend to say alcáspethith, it would mean something like traveling-y.

Only one adjective is allowed to precede a noun; I decided to emphasize gejhelle very good and leave alcáspeth traveling as additional description. To link the second adjective back to the noun, I used alunsa (commonly abbreviated as 'sa) to show it describes the word immediately previous.

Unlike saemirv to arrive, alcáspi'ev to travel does not take a location as its object. So instead of introducing cresin home with the object marker ne, use the adverb toward.

The personal conjugation could also have been dropped in this sentence, but I decided to repeat the subject of the first sentence for parallelism.