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

4908Re: Amanye Tenceli update: The General Use

Expand Messages
  • Måns Björkman
    Sep 5, 2005

      Based on Wust's comments, I have now extensively revised the overview
      and General Use Tengwar descriptions on Amanye Tenceli
      (http://at.mansbjorkman.net/tengwar.htm and
      http://at.mansbjorkman.net/teng_general.htm). I just want to remark on
      a few minor details.

      --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "j_mach_wust" <j_mach_wust@y...> wrote:
      > ...
      > 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
      the <lambe>.
      3) DTS 36 is a draft of the Two Towers cover, and the spelling was
      corrected to <anna> in the final version (DTS 37).

    • Show all 14 messages in this topic