>>Similarly, if [Tolkien] writes "dentals" and lists _t, s, n, r, l_, it
>>does not mean that all these sounds are dentals.
>In a wider sense, all these sounds are dental; in the sense of 'consonants
>produced with the tip of the tongue', that is, dentals or alveolars. So I'd
>still say that Tolkien's terms are trustful.
**I did not claim that Tolkien's term "dental" was not trustful
or appropriate, because yes, all there sounds are dentals
in a _wider_ sense. However, if Tolkien spoke about these sounds
as about 'dentals' (note his usage of inverted commas!), it
does not necessarily mean that all of these sounds have
a dental target of pronunciation. Some of them may be dental,
some alveolar; similarly, some of them may be apical (made
with the tip of the tongue), some of them laminal (made with
the blade of the tongue), though of course a precise border
between dental/alveolar and apical/laminal cannot be set.
I also wrote:
>>I would not rely much on the fact that <óre> belongs to Grade 6,
>>because it does not actually state anything about how it was pronounced.
>I'd say we have a quite exact indication of how it was pronounced. It's
>stated to be "weak" immediately after explaining the word "weak" to mean
>"'semi-vocalic'" (note the quotation marks). At least that's my reading of
>the passage of App. E already cited by Helios:
>"Grade 6 was most often used for the weakest or 'semi-vocalic' consonants of
>each series. It consisted of the smallest and simplest shapes among the
>primary letters. Thus 21 [óre] was often used for a weak (untrilled) _r_,
>originally occurring in Quenya and regarded in the system of that language
>as the weakest consonant of the tincotéma."
**But do we really know what "weak" means? Yes, "'semi-vocalic'"
but what is it? And do we know what "a weak (untrilled) _r_"
means? Or do I miss something?
>>Suppose Quenya really had a tap and not an approximant, do you think
>>that Tolkien would have hesitated to use <óre> for this sound or do you
>>think he would have used another _tengwa_?
>I think he would have hesitated since the consistency of both _lúvar_
>(témar) an _telcor_ (tyeller) seems to be important in the tengwar. It's
>only broken in the mode of Beleriand where _óretyelle_ has both nasals and
**I do not think so. What about <vala> representing _v_? If _v_ is
a labio-dental spirant ("_v_ has the sound of English _v_", App. E),
why is it represented by a tengwa from Grade 6? Is it "weak",
"'semi-vocalic'"? It a sense it is, but the term "weak" has to be
extended to spirants.
>Ales Bican says that <silme> can belong to the _tincotéma_ "supposing it is
>a modification of <thúle>". I wouldn't suppose this since <silme> is
>explicitly stated to be a "strictly independent letter" in App. E.
**If it is written there, then I was of course wrong.
Could you tell me exactly it is written, for I am
unable to locate it. Thanks.
I theorized that <óre> represented a tap, because its distribution
was similar to distribution of the Spanish tap (and distribution
of the Q trill was similar to distribution of the Spanish one).
mach summarized and specified the distribution of Spanish rhotics
pointing out that there was also a significant difference, because
the trill (/rr/ and the tap (/r/) stand in opposition
intervocalically. I mentioned this fact in one of my earlier posts
(though mach mentioned a new piece of information: /rr/ is
sometimes heard also before consonants and word-finally, especially
in careful pronunciation). And I would like to stress that I spoke
about similarity and not about identicalness. I find the similarity
important. And there are other similarities between Spanish and
Quenya, see below.
>If I were to take indirect evidence for the pronunciation of the original
>sound of <óre> from real languages, then I'd look at English: The most
>common rhotic in English dialects is the approximant; the next common is
>either an alveolar trill/tap or the French/German guttural
>trill/approximant. The opposition between alveolar trill and tap, as in
>Spanish, is very difficult to learn for people who don't have it in their
>own tongue, esp. if they don't have either of the two sounds.
**It must be remembered that Quenya existed in Tolkien's mind
and papers) long before LotR. When he created Quenya, he
followed his phono-aesthetic taste, it was his personal language
and therefore the choice of sounds was his own. If he liked
Spanish and found the opposition between a trill and tap pleasing,
he was free to choose no matter if English did not have the tap
and English people would find it difficult to learn.
> For sure,
>Tolkien knew very well the sounds of Spanish, but what someone considers to
>be aesthetic tends to be influenced by what he knows.
**If he knew Spanish very well, why could it not influence him?
There seem to be other Spanish influences in Quenya. Perhaps
Quenya _t_ is really dental (as it is described as "dental"),
Spanish _t_ dental (sure, Finnish _t_ is also dental), English
one is not. _þ_ in Noldorin Quenya (before it became _s_) was
interdental (see VT41:7), Spanish _þ_ is interdental as well,
Enlish one is not. Quenya is supposed to possess a palatal
nasal, Spanish has one, English does not. Perhaps Quenya has
a palatal lateral (about which I am not sure, though), Spanish
has one as well, English not (but sure, other languages (e.g.
Italian) have the last two mentioned sounds as well).
> Tolkien chose few
>consonants unknown in English for his invented languages, and he described
>them all carefully in App. E.
**Not all (and I would not even say carefully), it seems. What
about _ny_ (a palatal nasal I believe) if it really existed in
Quenya? No mention. Remember problems Tolkien had with _ty_ --
"probably similar to the sound _t_ in English _tune_". If it is
a palatal stop (which I believe), then yes, it is probably
similar but not the same sound. Tolkien's description of
pronunciation of Elvish sounds is rather illustrative and is
generally meant to warn or prevent English speakers from their
habits when pronouncing Elvish words.
> So I'm inclined to believe that the rhotics he
>chose correspond rather to those common to English speaker than to more
>exotic sounds: The approximant and the trill/tap.
**I do not think so. A few Quenya sounds correspond to English
sounds. No palatals in English (except for /j/ of course).
Labiovelars seem to be of the Latin type (i.e. rather velars
with secondary labialization rather than velars followed by _w_
off-glide like in English). _r_ is a trill. _t_ perhaps dental,
_þ_ interdental, _hy_ seems to be a palatal approximant. _ch_
does not occur in standard English (though _h_ does). No need
to mention voiceless _hr_, _hl_. And as regards vowels, Tolkien
recommended Italian vowels. There are rather a lot exotic sounds
for English speakers (but not for Tolkien).
>Furthermore, I'm inclined to believe that this sound stood in opposition to
>the trilled rhotic; this means, I think that its distribution wasn't
>identical to the one observed in the _Namárie_ transcription and other _tengwar_
>texts, because I think it's unlikely that an allophonic distinction would be
>rendered in _tengwar_, and also because Tolkien's Quenya _tengwar_ texts show a
>defective orthography that doesn't reflect the distribution of other
>original sounds either, e.g. of /th/ vs. /s/.
**Opposition? Could you be specific? For this would mean
that Quenya had two _r_ phonemes (I do not count _hr_).
What would be the opposition like? Like in Spanish? ; )
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet. (Juliet, _Romeo and Juliet_)