Måns Björkman wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@y...>
> > ...
> > TENGWAR - GENERAL USE
> > English samples:
> > DTS 11 is also "general use", and so presumably is Tolkien's name
> > in DTS 56 (though I don't know that latter sample).
> Indeed they are! DTS 56 is another example of phonemic spelling: the
> Roman letter digraph "ie" in Tolkien's name is transcribed as a
> tehta on a long carrier. The tehta looks like a grave accent, but
> the inscription is made in such shaky handwriting that I strongly
> suspect it is meant to stand for something else, probably a regular
> acute accent.
> > In DTS 41, I consider the word "klædiowl?s" to be English, not
> > Latin.
> I guess we have covered this subject in the "Latin (?) Tengwar"
English phonology, Latin language. Fair enough.
> The value /w/ for <rómen> has now been included but I have not added
> the Old English /hw/ tengwa, simply because more exotic "additional
> tengwar" will be adressed in the descriptions of each respective
As I've said in message #4456, I imagine there might be an
interdependence between the use of rómen for W and of the halla-rómen
ligature for HW. The only published texts that use rómen for W and at
the same time show instances of HW are the Anglosaxon texts, so
there's not much evidence for that interdependence. The idea that the
values of certain signs interdepend with the value of similar signs,
however, is very characteristic to the tengwar. In any case, you're
right that the halla-rómen ligature is exotic. But isn't the use of
rómen for W as well?
> > b. Phonemic Spelling:
> > ...
> > In the chart, vilya is marked as if it were not necessary even
> > though it is attested in the (enigmatic) transcription of "lie" in
> > DTS 36.
> I am not sure how to treat this. To me, the use of <vilya> for [j]
> is quite clearly a mistake. I base this on three facts:
I think we can't even be sure that it is intended to represent [j]. It
might also be a representation of <e>, since the original text of that
line has "lie", so that use of vilya for <e> could be equivalent to
the use of yanta for <e> in DTS 62, if we assume it were intended to
be an orthographic transcription. If it really were an orthographic
transcription, then we'd expect the silent <e> of the word 'where' to
be transcribed with a dot below, yet there is none. However, the
nasalization bar in the word 'land' is also missing. Except for that
'e' in "where" and for the transcription of "lie", we can't decide
whether it is a phonemic or an orthographic transcription. What
puzzles me most is the diaeresis tehta in the transcription of "lie"
which is not found in any other English tehtar mode (if I'm not wrong)
and which makes the word look as if it were transcribed in the full
mode of DTS 16 etc.
> 1) Given the points of articulation for the témar in this mode, we
> would expect <vilya> to represent a velar, not a palatal.
Definitly not palatal, but perhaps a vowel or a glottal stop.
> 2) The preceding tengwa in the text is a <lambe>, and it is possible
> to see the closing line of <vilya> as an extension of the top line
> in the <lambe>.
I'm not sure about that one. Calligraphically, the text looks quite
carefully written. And is there any other evidence for a lambe closing
line extending onto a following calmatéma tengwa?
> 3) DTS 36 is a draft of the Two Towers cover, and the spelling was
> corrected to <anna> in the final version (DTS 37).
And the two dot tehta was corrected to a three dot tehta. I agree that
this sample is not important in a description of the general use.
j. 'mach' wust