The transitive verb for “to burn [something]” in the Qenya Lexicon of the 1910s was ᴱQ. usta- from the early root ᴱ√UŘU or ᴱ√USU² (QL/98), though the Gnomish form of the root gudh- (GL/42) indicates the actual root form was *ᴱ√ƷUÐU. In Early Qenya Word-lists from the 1920s, the transitive verb for “burn” was instead ᴱQ. hus- (PE16/134), perhaps related to the verb G. husta- “burn (tr.)” from the Gnomish Lexicon, variant of G. gusta- (GL/42), as suggested by Wynne and Gilson (PE16/134).

By the 1930s the root had become ᴹ√UR “be hot”, rendering these early forms invalid. There was a 1930s verb Q. urya- “blaze” in The Etymologies of the 1930s under this new form of the root, but the entry was deleted (Ety/UR) and in any case in later writings Q. urya- from √UR meant “be hot” (PE17/148).

Neo-Quenya: These shifting roots and verb forms give us no good Neo-Quenya options for “burn”. In his Neo-Quenya New Testament (NQNT), Helge Fauskanger restored the 1930s sense “blaze, *burn” of urya- and used it intransitively, and for transitive “burn” used ᴺQ. urta- as an adaptation of ᴱQ. usta-. I think using urya- for both “burn” and “be hot” is problematic, so my current solution is to use ᴺQ. urta- as “burn (both tr. and intr.)”. I would give it differing past forms, however: urtane “burned (tr.)” [weak past] vs. urunte “burned (intr.)” [half-strong past]; compare Q. orta-¹ “raise” [past = ortane] vs. Q. orta-² “rise” [past = oronte].