(Answers to the questions about the spelling of your
are all spread about this message.)
> >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
* 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
> 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: