4908Re: Amanye Tenceli update: The General Use
- Sep 5, 2005Mellyn,
Based on Wust's comments, I have now extensively revised the overview
and General Use Tengwar descriptions on Amanye Tenceli
http://at.mansbjorkman.net/teng_general.htm). I just want to remark on
a few minor details.
--- In email@example.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@y...> wrote:
> 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" thread.
> Remark on the inclusion of the Old English samples:
> You have included the Old English specimina of DTS 50 and 51. However,
> you only describe the tehtar of DTS 50, but neither the tehtar of DTS
> 51 nor the special tengwar uses of either sample: The representation
> of "w" by rómen, "wh" by the halla-rómen ligature (if you allow this
> interpretation) and the use of vilya and vala as independent vowel
> tengwar (vilya is attested many times in this use, vala in the last
> word of DTS 50 II, line 24).
Yes, the Old English samples are in many ways special cases. I have
admittedly chosen a rather broad definition of the term "General Use".
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 language.
> In the description of the diaeresis tehta, the DTS 50 value is
> indicated as equally common as the "y"-value, whereas all other DTS 50
> values are marked as rarer values.
The wording is now altered so as to make no assessment of which values
are more common.
> a. Orthographic Spelling:
> You've forgotten to mention the prenasalization bar.
No, but the division into different subheadings might be confusing. I
hope the added note makes it more clear.
> 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:
1) Given the points of articulation for the témar in this mode, we
would expect <vilya> to represent a velar, not a palatal.
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
3) DTS 36 is a draft of the Two Towers cover, and the spelling was
corrected to <anna> in the final version (DTS 37).
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>