5102Re: Happy New Year Elf Script v3
- Jan 2, 2006Dave "Hisilome" wrote:
> All in all, how many authentic (Tolkien) samples do we have forMåns' list is quite useful:
> English orthographic tehta writing? There are the doodles from AI
> (illustration 184/DTS 39), but apart from that?
As you've said, I'd however also include DTS 41 as far as it clearly
is written in English pronunciation, that is to say, at least the word
"cladiolus" and maybe "boobles". By the way, it was David Salo who
proposed the reading "doodles":
> For the elven tongues at least, the distinctionI guess you're only saying that because by comparison to English,
> between phonemic/phonetic and orthographic spelling isn't at all
> meaningful, and for me that's part of the appeal of, say, the
> "classical Quenya mode".
there is very few distinction between phonemic and orthographic
spelling in languages like Quenya, Sindarin or, for instance, Spanish.
Nonetheless, we can clearly distinguish phonemic and orthographic
transcriptions of such languages. In Quenya, we have for instance on
one hand the theoretical claim that the s-sound that originally was þ
(TH) is still written with súle (orthographic approach), but on the
other hand, that s-sound is written with silme in the known tengwar
texts (phonemic approach).
> Personally, I also prefer to use tehta modes for orthographicI'm not so sure about that. There is little data. I thought that also
> English tengwar texts, and full modes for phonemic English tengwar
> texts. Maybe that's because this was also the way Tolkien seems to
> have preferred it, judging by the specimens we have.
in the orthographic modes, there are more samples of "full writing"
than of tehtar modes.
> what exactly are the two underdots forIt was my opinion about the indication of the palatalization in words
> palatalization based on? Did I understand you correctly in message
> #5090 that this is just your extrapolation (from Quenya it would
> seem?), or did you (as so often) notice something I overlooked? (I
> wasn't sure when saying that "this is only my personal opinion"
> whether you were referring to the use of the underdots being
> optional, depending on the English "dialect", or to the use of
> underdots for palatalization _at all_ in English modes.)
such as "due", "new", "mute", "suit". Or, even more generally
speaking, I was talking about which differences between the varieties
of English I consider should be represented in a phonemic
transcription and which shouldn't, similar to what I've tried to
explain in the section "Some Thoughts on How to Spell Words" in the
> The other thing: the usage of the grave accent on silme nuquerna...
> to spell the English word "us", is that based on DTS 41 mentioned
> above? More precisely, on the spelling of _kladiowl&s_?
> "&" = the sound that follows "l"--in your article on Tolkien's
> Phonetic English modes, you say that "this tehta represents the
> schwa-sound". (If we accept this, I guess it's a good
> representation of the "u" in "us", in particular when the word is
> pronounced lightly, i.e. doesn't receive particular stress, as
> would be the case in the text we're dealing with.)
Exactly. Unfortunately, we don't have any sample of the (stressed)
vowel of "nut" in a phonemic tehtar mode. We know that in phonemic
"full writing", this sound wasn't represented in the same way as the
(unstressed) schwa vowel (for instance in the last and the first
syllable of "AmericA" or in "gladiolUs").
Having another look at the sarati samples, I've found that the sample
R22 is comparable to the phonemic tehtar modes because it also
distinguishs two different uses of the dot according to its position
(though it's not above-below but rather left-right). It is a quite a
long text (I've counted 318 letters excluding the tehtar), and it has
many occurences of the "nut" vowel, of initial schwa, of medial schwa,
of syllabic N M L R analyzed as combinations with preceding schwa, and
one occurence of the indefinite article "a", all represented by a
single dot on the opposite side of the following letter. So based on
R22, we could use a dot below the following tengwa.
Unfortunately, R22 has no instance of a final schwa (except for the
many occurences of the word "the" wich is however written as if it
were "eth", so I don't think this can be a model for a transcription
of other words with final schwa such as "Edna", "data", "etcetera"). A
short carrier with a dot below might be used. However, I'm not so sure
whether there should be any final short carriers at all in such a mode
or whether tehtar modes allow carrier to be used in any other way than
with a tehta above; it is certainly not attested.
Another problem of using the dot below the following tengwa in
accordance to R22 is that such a use can collide with two dots below
being used for a following j. Consider for instance the phrase "a cute
one" or the word "accuse". Here, the k-letter quesse would have both
the two dots for the following j below and the single dot for the
preceding schwa, that is, it would have three dots below. We might
just not care and use three dots below anyway, or we might place the
two dots for the following j above the tengwa since its position seems
to be variable.
I have now updated my phonemic transcription of David's greetings so
they use the dot below:
Anyway, I hope that in the next numbers of Parma Eldalamberon to be
published we will finally find a phonemic tehtar mode with a sample of
the "nut" vowel. I think this is not so improbable because I assume
that Arden R. Smith has now published all of Tolkien's alphabets
previous to the tengwar, so now it's time for the early tengwar documents.
j. 'mach' wust
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>