Dave 'Hísilómë' wrote:
> Yet I still seem to have found one inconsistency that somewhat
> bothers me. While the length of the carrier is irrelevant, I thought
> that the chevron was a necessary feature to indicate "y". It is seen
> in both DTS 10 and DTS 5 on all occasions (very, happy/by) except
> one, the "history" in DTS 5. No chevron here.
> It looks very much too me like there's only a dot on the carrier
> here, somewhat to the left, which touches the O-tehta on the
> preceding roomen. This I gather from my hardcover edition; looking
> at the paperback ones, one might even think there's nothing on the
> carrier at all (only a largish O-tehta looming over both roomen and
> the carrier). You'd probably need a look at the original manuscript
> to be 100 percent sure, but I doubt you'd see a chevron even then.
J. 'Mach' Wust answered:
I can't tell for sure either. Don't you think it could as well be a
similar hook as in the first instance of "by" in the same specimen?
[Not in my copies, not by a long stretch of the imagination. If anything, it might be closer to the hook in the second instance of "by", because it seems that hook doesn't swing up as high on the right.
Still, I don't see it, and also the "hook" (if that's what it is) as a whole still looks too far to the left to me :).
I agree though that there's enough evidence in favour of "carrier + chevron for vowel 'y' where no consonant follows" to dismiss this as a "slip-up" or "sloppy" writing (and I still think the quality of the reproduction[s] could also play a role--in the second impression of the second ed. of "The Two Towers" (1967) and the third impression of the second ed. of "Fellowship" (1968), for example, I'm fairly certain to see what looks like a dot, somewhat to the left, which I mentioned, but in the third volume, also of the second hardcover Allen & Unwin LotR edition (second impression, 1967), it's all much more "fuzzy", let alone the paperback editions).]
Anyway, I don't bother much because I think there are enough instances
of this tehta in order to rule out a deviating case as a mistake (as
I'd do in other cases as well).
> Well, hope I won't be bothering you with new questions after this
> till after Christmas :).]
You've already posted other questions (before Christmas), but as for
me, your questions don't bother me! :-)
[Good to know! And yes, I did post again...my "hope" was in vain...
Merry Christmas to you too, and to everybody on the list!]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]