I have a question on how to transcribe ned wilith using the mode of beleriand (this is quoting Galadiel at the beginning of FOTR). I have been reading inMessage 1 of 7 , Dec 2 12:32 PMView SourceI have a question on how to transcribe 'ned 'wilith' using the mode
of beleriand (this is quoting Galadiel at the beginning of FOTR). I
have been reading in the articles on how to write with the tengwar
and it indicates there's a separate tehte mark for [w] which follows
another consonant (You would place the [w] tehte above the tengwa it
follows, correct?). Since 'wilith is from gwilith, would this rule
apply even though the [g] has been lineated out? Where would the [w]
tehte go, or would you use Wilya instead of a [w] tehte if the first
letter of the word disappears?
... [w] ... Well, the written lenited initial g doesn t disappear, even in Roman transliteration ... the apostrophe plainly shows that the radical formMessage 1 of 7 , Dec 2 2:59 PMView SourceTeithant Nathan:
>I have a question on how to transcribe 'ned >'wilith' using the mode[w]
>of beleriand (this is quoting Galadiel at the >beginning of FOTR). I
>have been reading in the articles on how to >write with the tengwar
>and it indicates there's a separate tehte mark >for [w] which follows
>another consonant (You would place the [w] >tehte above the tengwa it
>follows, correct?). Since 'wilith is from gwilith, >would this rule
>apply even though the [g] has been lineated >out? Where would the
>tehte go, or would you use Wilya instead of a >[w] tehte if the firstWell, the written lenited initial 'g' doesn't disappear, even in Roman
>letter of the word disappears?
transliteration ... the apostrophe plainly shows that the radical form
begins with 'g'. What happens with tengwar is less clear. I would assume
that the 'g' would be replaced by the gasdil, but we're not sure what
the gasdil is ... we don't know if it's a tengwa or some kind of
punctuation mark, possibly a tehta. My belief is that the gasdil would
be written with anca in the mode of Beleriand, so _'wilith_ should be
spelt: anca + following 'w' tehta - short carrier - lambe - short
carrier - thúle. Of course, this is just my opinion. However, it is
also my opinion that the mode of Beleriand is not really appropriate for
a quote of Galadriel, and the quote from the movie isn't grammatically
accurate, e.g. 'in the air' should be _vi gwilith_, among other things.
Cuio mae, Danny.
... be ... appropriate for ... grammatically ... things. I agree with all three points (anca usage, the chosen mode and the translation). Just a littleMessage 1 of 7 , Dec 2 11:28 PMView Source--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, d_daniel_andries@w... wrote:
> My belief is that the gasdil wouldbe
> be written with anca in the mode of Beleriand, so _'wilith_ should
> spelt: anca + following 'w' tehta - short carrier - lambe - shortappropriate for
> carrier - thúle. Of course, this is just my opinion. However, it is
> also my opinion that the mode of Beleriand is not really
> a quote of Galadriel, and the quote from the movie isn'tgrammatically
> accurate, e.g. 'in the air' should be _vi gwilith_, among otherthings.
I agree with all three points (anca usage, the chosen mode and the
translation). Just a little question: I believe that even Beleriand
mode can use quessetéma (as well as the nowhere-seen tehta mode for
Sindarin), so would it be okay to start with unque that would then
represent _'w_? My point is that additional tehtar are used for
shortening, so writing the sentence in full should be no mistake.
My belief is that it s safer not to transcribe the gasdil at all as long as we don t know what the gasdil is. So I d suggest to use the simple _w_ sign, vilyaMessage 1 of 7 , Dec 3 7:30 AMView SourceMy belief is that it's safer not to transcribe the gasdil at all as long as
we don't know what the gasdil is. So I'd suggest to use the simple _w_ sign,
vilya or vala, depending on the mode. I wouldn't use the sign for following
_w_ but within a word.
If the gasdil were represented by the _gh_ sign (anca or unque), then why
wouldn't Tolkien write _gh_ instead of _'_?
The gasdil is the mute sign of the k-series. We actually have a mute sign of
the k-series attested: However, it's not an anto-tyelle letter (like anca,
unque) but an óre-tyelle letter, anna, in the classical Quenya mode. In the
mode of Beleriand, however, that letter represents _o_.
In the probably mannish Sindarin modes of the King's Letters, the óre-tyelle
letter of the k-series, vilya, is unused, so this could be a gasdil letter.
It wouldn't surprise me if the gasdil weren't used but by men, who are
probably less fluent in Sindarin than the Elves. After all, it's only a
reminder that there's been consonant mutation, and I don't think that an Elf
who speaks Sindarin fluently would need such a reminder.
Of course, it might be the other way round: Men could spell according to
pronunciation (without gasdil) and Elves according to etymology (with
gasdil). This might be suggested by the discrepancy between the claims for
etymological spelling in app. E and the phonetical spelling in the attested
tengwar texts (e.g. regarding the spelling of Q _thúle/súle, ngoldo/noldo_):
The claim in app. E might refer to elvish use (but why?) while the attested
texts might be written by men.
"Gasdil" might also be the name applied to the simple _g_ letter when it's
not pronounced. In the Moria gate inscription, at least, the mutations
aren't represented in the spelling (it's _ennyn durin_ not _dhurin_; _aran
moria_ not _voria_; etc.). As far as I know, however, the other text written
in the mode of Beleriand transcribes the mutations, the Aerlinn in Edhil
(DTS 21). (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Is there really no instance of a _g_ dropped by mutation in the attested
As to Lucy's suggestion of unque: If we suppose that there are Sindarin
modes that use the quesse-téma for labiovelars, and if we suppose that a _g_
dropped by mutation is represented with a letter of the anto-tyelle, then
it's okay to use unque for _'w_. But isn't this too much of speculation?
> However, it is also my opinion that the mode of Beleriand is not reallyI suppose you have some reason for this interesting opinion, have you?
> appropriate for a quote of Galadriel
... as long as ... _w_ sign, ... following ... then why ... It is not explicitly said that gasdil has to be a sign in Tengwar as far as I understand what isMessage 1 of 7 , Dec 3 11:20 AMView Source--- In email@example.com, mach <machhezan@g...> wrote:
> My belief is that it's safer not to transcribe the gasdil at allas long as
> we don't know what the gasdil is. So I'd suggest to use the simple_w_ sign,
> vilya or vala, depending on the mode. I wouldn't use the sign forfollowing
> _w_ but within a word.then why
> If the gasdil were represented by the _gh_ sign (anca or unque),
> wouldn't Tolkien write _gh_ instead of _'_? ...It is not explicitly said that gasdil has to be a sign in Tengwar as
far as I understand what is written in Etymologies in the entry
Gorgoroth. I think that _gasdil_ is a Sindarin word for
English "apostrophe", Czech "apostrof", French "apostrophe" etc. As
Moradan first explained in the Elfscript message #26370:
> Don't forget that 'g' is lenited to 'gh' and then transformed in anAnd I agree.
> apostrophe by simple assimilation of the consonant. 'gh' is a
> sound non existing in English that can be found in Arabian and is
> like a very soft 'g' without the plosive efect of English 'g'.
> This sound is so weak that disapears.
> Besides, we have proof that 'd' lenites to 'dh' and in tengwar it
> results in the rising of the stem of the symol. 'b' gets lenited
> to 'v' and this also happens by the lifting of the stem. Therefore
> if you follow these two patterns you can conclude that the symbol
> for lenited 'g', though not pronounced, should still be the 'g'
> with the stem lifted.
... Why not Unque? Cf. (or /BP 8^) -- B.Philip JonssonMessage 1 of 7 , Dec 3 3:12 PMView SourceAt 20:12 3.12.2003, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:59:49 -0600 (CST)Why not Unque? Cf. <http://www.melroch.se/tengwar/omasind/omasind.pdf>
> From: d_daniel_andries@...
>Subject: Re: question on ned 'wilith
>My belief is that the gasdil would
>be written with anca in the mode of Beleriand, so _'wilith_ should be
>spelt: anca + following 'w' tehta
B.Philip Jonsson mailto:melrochX@... (delete X)
A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
__ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
\ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
/ / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
/ /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /'Aestan ~\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
/_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
|| Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
"A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)
... That s a good point. And you re also right that the elves would rather tend to show etymology in their spelling, so that the notes in app. E would refer toMessage 1 of 7 , Dec 6 7:14 AMView SourceDanny wrote:
> if it were written as 'gh', we would tend to pronounce it asThat's a good point.
> 'gh'. The Romanised spelling sometimes reflects pronunciation rather
> than orthography.
And you're also right that the elves would rather tend to show etymology in
their spelling, so that the notes in app. E would refer to elvish use. So
the attested, rather phonetic samples would be mannish. Men: phonetic
Therefore, in a mannish Sindarin mode (like the King's Letter mode) the
gasdil is likely not to be represented (and I'm not trying to do more than a
man can do).
Danny wrote that in _ennyn durin aran moria_:
> _Durin_ and _Moria_ are not mutated.Thanks for correcting me, I didn't know that.
> I've never supposed there to be a Sindarin mode that representedExcellent argument!
> labiovelars as separate tengwar. This is based on Tolkien's words
> concerning cirth #23 - 28: '...were actually most probably inventions of
> the Noldor of Eregion, since they were used for the representationof
> sounds not found in Sindarin.' (App. E) Well, certainly 'gw', 'chw' and
> 'ngw' existed in Sindarin, but the quote suggests to my mind that the
> Sindar didn't consider them to be units separate from the simple velars,
> not enough to warrant their own signs, anyway.
> If Sindarin labiovelarsWell, maybe just because the tengwar provided letters for these sounds?
> weren't represented by a separate series in the Cirth, why would it be
> different in the Tengwar?
As I asked Danny for a reason why he opined "that the mode of Beleriand
wasn't really appropiate for a quote of Galadriel", he answered:
> Nothing especially profound. I am of the opinion that the mode ofI'd also say that it were Noldorin loremasters who invented the mode of
> Beleriand was invented and used by the Noldor of Beleriand, or in areas
> where the High Elves exerted a considerable influence (e.g. Eregion and
> Imladris). This influence would likely not greatly affect the Silvan
> Elves of Lothlórien, though Galadriel was half-Noldorin.
Beleriand. But more than this, I'd think that they invented all Eldarin
modes (while the King's Letter modes are, I'd think, rather mannish).
Which Sindar would develop a tengwar mode? The Sindar of Doriath? I don't
think that they'd adopt the script invented by Feanor. Indeed, Daeron is
said to have rearranged the cirth, which seems to be a conservative reaction
against the growing influence of the tengwar, kind of orthography politics.
The Sindar of the Falas? The Sindar of Gondolin? I have no idea. But I'm
quite sure: If the Silvan Elves would use another mode than the one used in
Eregion and Imladrist, then that other mode wouldn't be their own invention,
but taken from other Sindar. I just don't think that the wood elves would
care about writing.