Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3535Re: orthographic vs. historical (was: are there orthographic French modes?)

Expand Messages
  • machhezan
    Mar 4, 2004
      I wrote:
      > >Though I consider that Tolkien's orthographic English
      > >modes were rather orthographic than historic, that is,
      > >their only aim was to be as easy as possible while still
      > >not going against the principles of tengwar spelling. The
      > >man of Gondor hesitated between the values of the letters
      > >familiar in his 'mode' and the _traditional_, not the
      > >_historical_ spelling of English.

      Melroch 'Aestan answered:
      > Between which the line is thin at most times, although I'm
      > aware of the differences.

      The line is thin, but it's after all a difference in aims: You can
      either aim at creating the easiest way of writing or at creating the
      most consistent historically (both of course consistent with the
      principles of tengwa spelling). And for a primer, the difference may
      be significant.

      You seem to search for the historically most consistent orthography,
      while I try to search the easiest one (and I fancy I go along with
      Tolkien). Therefore, I fear that we won't agree on a system of
      consonant signs. For the vowels, however, I think we could find an

      You're right that the long carrier is a more natural way to represent
      the circonflexe than esse nuquerna. I consider, however, that your
      representations of the grave still need improvement, because they're
      not regularly related to the 'accentless' variants of the same vowel,
      and because I think three dot tehtar and circumflex tehtar ought to be
      free variants. So here's a suggestion for a regular relation between
      grave vowels and unaccented vowels:

      (i) The grave vowels be represented by the common modifications of the
      original vowel tehtar, that is, by the inverted three dots (like your
      suggestion), by the reversed acute (grave) and by the modified u-curl
      (like your suggestion). The _e aigu_ be represented by a doubled
      acute. For typing, the hachek/inversed circumflex might be used while
      there's no grave tehta.

      This suggestion has a big disadvantage: It makes the use of the
      modified u-curl for a following _-w_ impossible, a sign I need for my
      representations of the mute _u_ in _qu, gu_. So here's another
      suggestion for a regular relation between grave vowels and unaccented

      (ii) The grave vowels be represented by the doubled version of the
      original vowel tehtar. The _e aigu_ be represented by a reversed
      e-tehta. The disadvantages are obvious: There's no doubled a-tehta, so
      the reversed one must be taken; it's counter-intuitional to have the
      _e aigu_ represented by a grave accent. So I'm still inclined towards
      my first suggestion:

      (iii) The grave vowels be put on a long carrier; the circonflexe
      vowels be put on esse nuquerna; the _e aigu_ be represented by a
      doubled acute. The disadvantage is the esse nuquerna which isn't be
      historically justified in all cases.

      I'm desperate, I don't believe in orthographic French tehtar modes,
      and a full writing mode must be too orthographic for my taste, that
      is, I don't believe that there's another way than using the same
      accents as in the traditional orthography even though they're alien to
      the tengwar.

      I see why you're using vilya for -u: You're using calmatéma for both
      palatals (ch, j, gn, i) and velars (c, g). I can't approve of that.

      I've thought again about your use of súle and anto: Your suggestion is
      partly based on the former pronunciations of <c/ç, z> as /ts, dz/. How
      could the letters súle and anto be related to these sounds?

      j. 'mach' wust
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic