5015Re: Another Tengwar Crack
- Nov 2, 2005Hisilome wrote:
>Yes, that's what I meant, the i-tehta on yanta, based on the Endorion
> j. 'mach' wust wrote:
> > a transcription of the e in _cries_ with yanta instead of
> > a seperate e-tehta
> <<<What exactly do you mean here? i-tehta on short carrier plus
> yanta, or i-tehta on top of yanta? Where would either usage be
> attested? (I-tehta on top of yanta maybe based on analogy to the
> spelling of "ae" in the Michael Endorion dedication?)
dedication (DTS 62).
> In DTS 5, Tolkien spelled "ie" in his own family name with i-tehta...
> on short carrier plus "seperate" e-tetha on the following consonant,
> just as Lucy did. True, the "ie" in _Tolkien_ is pronounced
> differently from the one in _cries_, yet we're dealing with
> predominantly orthographic spelling here, anyway...>>>
Thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't aware of it when I wrote that
previous message. I agree that the pronunciation doesn't matter. I
still think that a transcription with yanta may be an option, since it
accords with what I've called a "general tencency" of having only one
true vowel sign per syllable. Based on the transcription of "Reuel" I
speculate proper names to be excepted from that tendency, allowing an
even closer reproduction to traditional spelling which may be
important in proper names this would account for the use of separate
vowel signs in the transcription of "Tolkien" in DTS 5. However, this
speculation is based on very few data, like most assumptions on
English tehtar modes.
Then there might be a practical reason to favour the use of yanta in a
transcription of "cries": If we use two seperate tehtar, this might
require two separate carriers... Well, on a second thought, I've just
noticed that this isn't true, since the e-tehta is preferably put on
the s-hook of the ending and not on a separate carrier: quesse, rómen,
carrier + i-tehta, attached s-hook + e-tehta.
Either case, it's a tricky word.
j. 'mach' wust
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>