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

Re: [elfscript] And yet another translation request....

Expand Messages
  • DDanielA@webtv.net
    ... True enough. Even so, they are rather phonemic as opposed to strictly phonemic . ... Of course. When speaking of phonemes, such digraphs are units. ...
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Teithant Alf Gandson:
      >I wouldn't even call the consonants "rather phonemic",
      >but also corresponding to traditional English consonant
      >spelling. Of course, they are "rather phonemic", but
      >only because traditional English spelling is.

      True enough. Even so, they are 'rather phonemic' as opposed to 'strictly
      phonemic'.

      >(Important: Only while considering combinations such
      >as _th_, _wh_, _sh_ as unities!)

      Of course. When speaking of phonemes, such digraphs are units.

      >in the doubling of [b] in the word _hobbits_.
      >There's absolutely NO phonemical or phonetical reason
      >for doing so.

      I would never deny that JRRT would give a nod to orthographic
      conventions concerning consonants as well as vowels. This is indeed one
      such example.

      >I wouldn't be surprised to have the word _knight_ spelled
      >in Title Page Inscription mode as "quesse - nuumen -
      >unque with an i-dot on it - tinco", i.e as k-n-i-gh-t

      Nor would I be surprised. In fact, I'd expect it. The use of unque
      follows the use in KL, and that goes along with my point of filling in
      gaps using inferences from other English modes JRRT used.


      >How to spell _dead, sea, idea, boy, coin, shoe, does, boat,
      >lie, thieve, loud, ..._?

      'Idea' doesn't really belong in this list; it doesn't contain a
      diphthong. 'e' and 'a' form two separate syllables. And I believe that
      the 'e' in 'shoe' and 'does' would be represented by the under-dot. The
      Title Page Inscription contains two diphthongs: 'eu' and 'ee'. In both
      cases they were represented by two short carriers bearing the
      appropriate ómatehtar. Perhaps we should consider that the standard.

      >But when trying to represent orthography - and that's what
      >to my point of view the writer mainly does - 'musik' is
      >preferable.

      You could be right; it's not beyond debate. However, you missed a point
      of phonemic rather than orthographic spelling which shows up inthis
      example. JRRT spelt 'is' as 'iz' according to pronunciation. Shouldn't
      we prefer 'z' to 's' in 'music' as well?
      > > ...neutral vowel...
      >? An _e_ which isn't pronounced any more? A schwa?

      Yes. I used the term 'neutral vowel' since JRRT used the same term for
      the same sign in the same word in Appendix E.


      > >Tolkien did not distinguish vowel length in the Title
      > >Page Inscription.
      >* Modern English doesn't have such a distinction. Quenya
      >has, Sindarin has, Finnish has, German has, many other
      >languages have, but English doesn't.

      Certainly it does, at least in terms of phonetics. The difference
      between 'bin' [bin] and 'bean' [bi:n], or between 'full' [ful] and
      [fu:l]. Just because spelling doesn't always reflect the distinction
      doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

      >Please avoid it, because it's particularly misleading for
      >persons who're not native English speakers.

      Of course I avoid it. Tolkien didn't distinguish, so I don't
      distinguish. That was precisely my point.

      >short and long vowels didn't mean that the vowels were
      >short or long, but rather simple and compound. (I
      >think that error is also due to traditional English spelling.)

      Actually it's not an error. It's a matter of English linguistic history
      rather than comparative phonetics.

      >Don't forget about the long carrier in _history_.

      Ah, you're right ... I had forgotten that one!

      >"My completion of the Title Page Inscription mode"?

      Rather "The Title Page Inscription Mode as interpreted by D. Daniel
      Andriës, supplemented by inferences from other published English
      tengwar documents of J.R.R. Tolkien". Nah ... too long ;)

      >btw, what's bad about using anna for consonantal y?
      >I've always used it according to vala for w.

      I never implied that it's 'bad', just that it isn't the only logical
      choice. The consonant system of the TPI seems to be based pretty closely
      to the Sindarin mode of the King's Letter, version III, which uses yanta
      for consonantal 'y'. Other English tengwar examples (though admittedly
      in full writing modes) use the long carrier. Personally, would advocate
      the use of anna, but I realize that we have no confirmation of this in
      Tolkien's examples. My hope is that someday more tengwar samples written
      by Tolkien in a variety of languages will enjoy publication.

      Cuio mae, Danny.
    • Alf Gandson
      (Answers to the questions about the spelling of your are all spread about this message.) ... does, boat, lie, thieve, loud, ..._? ... doesn t contain a
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        (Answers to the questions about the spelling of your
        are all spread about this message.)

        DDanielA@w... teithant:

        > >How to spell _dead, sea, idea, boy, coin, shoe,
        does, boat, lie, thieve, loud, ..._?

        > 'Idea' doesn't really belong in this list; it
        doesn't contain a diphthong. 'e' and 'a' form two
        separate syllables.

        * I've always thought 'idea' would rhyme with 'tear'
        in varieties of English that don't pronounce _r_ after
        vowels, i.e. a diphtong with a glide from /i/ into
        schwa.

        > And I believe that the 'e' in 'shoe' and 'does'
        would be represented by the under-dot. The Title Page
        Inscription contains two diphthongs: 'eu' and 'ee'. In
        both cases they were represented by two short carriers
        bearing the appropriate ómatehtar. Perhaps we should
        consider that the standard.

        * (I think you're rather talking about digraphs than
        diphtongs, but that could be dicsucced.) Yes, perhaps
        we should consider that the standard, but I'll never
        be happy with this solution because I don't like at
        all the short carrier, specially when it's doubled or
        when there's a tehtar under it - as you suggest for
        'shoe, does', right? - That's why I'll always prefer
        more dangerous because less attested modes. It's a
        matter of taste.

        > >But when trying to represent orthography - and
        that's what to my point of view the writer mainly does
        - 'musik' is preferable.

        > You could be right; it's not beyond debate. However,
        you missed a point of phonemic rather than
        orthographic spelling which shows up inthis example.
        JRRT spelt 'is' as 'iz' according to pronunciation.
        Shouldn't we prefer 'z' to 's' in 'music' as well?

        * You're right, I missed that. And with f - v it's
        most probably all the same, even though in the Title
        Page Inscription we only have the abbreviations for
        'of' and 'of the'.

        > > >Tolkien did not distinguish vowel length in the
        Title Page Inscription.
        > >* Modern English doesn't have such a distinction.
        Quenya has, Sindarin has, Finnish has, German has,
        many other languages have, but English doesn't.

        > Certainly it does, at least in terms of phonetics.
        The difference between 'bin' [bin] and 'bean' [bi:n],
        or between 'full' [ful] and [fu:l]. Just because
        spelling doesn't always reflect the distinction
        doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

        * I don't count that as a distinction in length (even
        though there might be one), but after all as a
        distinction in vowel quality: there are two kinds of
        _i_ as well as two kinds of _u_.

        > Rather "The Title Page Inscription Mode as
        interpreted by D. Daniel Andriës, supplemented by
        inferences from other published English tengwar
        documents of J.R.R. Tolkien". Nah ... too long ;)

        * "Danny's very serious and sophisticated Title Page
        Inscription mode interpretation"? ;-))

        > >btw, what's bad about using anna for consonantal y?
        I've always used it according to vala for w.

        > I never implied that it's 'bad', just that it isn't
        the only logical choice. The consonant system of the
        TPI seems to be based pretty closely to the Sindarin
        mode of the King's Letter, version III, which uses
        yanta for consonantal 'y'. Other English tengwar
        examples (though admittedly in full writing modes) use
        the long carrier. Personally, would advocate the use
        of anna, but I realize that we have no confirmation of
        this in Tolkien's examples. My hope is that someday
        more tengwar samples written by Tolkien in a variety
        of languages will enjoy publication.

        * I suppose most of the full writing modes use anna
        for the vowel _o_ even though in teemar and tyeller
        logic it should be consonantal _y_. Yanta is just a
        variant of anna, the long carrier is a variant of the
        common _i_ sign in full writing modes. Do these
        samples really make a difference between short and
        long carrier? I'm really sorry I don't have any access
        to these famous King's Letters.


        Cobertura especial de la Copa Mundial de la FIFA Corea-Japón 2002, sólo en Yahoo! Deportes:
        http://ar.sports.yahoo.com/fifaworldcup/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.