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

Expand Messages
  • DDanielA@webtv.net
    ... I believe that he would. He d use it to represent nasalised stops in the Sindarin mode that uses post-positioned ómatehtar (the _Imladrist_ / _Lúthien
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 2, 2002
      Teithant xeeniseit:
      >We can suppose Tolkien'd never have used a
      >nasal bar in a mode which places the vowel
      >techtar on the preceding tengwa.

      I believe that he would. He'd use it to represent nasalised stops in the
      Sindarin mode that uses post-positioned ómatehtar (the '_Imladrist_ /
      _Lúthien Tinúviel_' mode.) I think it's unlikely that he'd use the
      other logical aternative: to replace the nasal bar with a separate
      tengwa of Grade 5.

      >if it's a oomatehtar Quenya mode which makes
      >use of the nasal bar.

      The only example of Quenya in an ómatehta mode that uses a nasal bar
      that comes to mind is the name _Elessar Telcontar_ in KLIII, and that's
      Quenya in an otherwise Sindarin text, and therefore written in a
      Sindarin mode. AFAIK, there is no Quenya ómatehta mode that uses the
      nasal bar. It's unnecessary; Quenya uses Grades 2 and 4 for nasalised
      stops.

      >The nasal bar doesn't come before or after the
      >tengwa it's placed above, but attributes the global
      >property of "nasality" to the consonant represented
      >by that tengwa (analogous to the underbar,
      >which doesn't come after or before the tengwa,
      >but indicates a longer duration of the sound
      >assigned to that tengwa).

      Exactly. What's so confusing about that?

      >Who said there was any logic or structure or
      >order or similar unnecessary stuff in the tengwar?

      To a large extent, the structure and order of the Tengwar is very
      logical, especially in arranging the series into related consonantal
      groupings (i.e. a dental series, a labial series, a velar series, a
      palatal series and a labiovelar series).

      >So I suggest we'd claim that modes with variable
      >tengwar-tehtar order (i.e. a mode with the vowel
      >techtar on the preceding tengwa AND the nasal
      >bar) should be avoided.

      Why? It's not confusing. All tehtar that modify a consonant (nasal bar,
      doubling bar, over twist [= +'w'], double under-dots [= +'y'], 's'
      hooks) are always over/under the consonants they modify regardless of
      the language or mode that employs them. Ómatehtar are a different
      matter; they are not 'attached' to a consonant, so they're placement
      depends on the mode.

      Cuio mae, Danny.
    • xeeniseit
      ... That s interesting, didn t know there was such a thing. I suppose it has also Sindarin tehta-tengwa order, has it? ... What s with the sample Erestel
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 3, 2002
        Danny teithant:
        > The only example of Quenya in an ómatehta mode that uses a nasal bar
        > that comes to mind is the name _Elessar Telcontar_ in KLIII, and
        > that's Quenya in an otherwise Sindarin text, and therefore written in
        > a Sindarin mode.

        That's interesting, didn't know there was such a thing. I suppose it
        has also Sindarin tehta-tengwa order, has it?

        > AFAIK, there is no Quenya ómatehta mode that uses the
        > nasal bar. It's unnecessary; Quenya uses Grades 2 and 4 for nasalised
        > stops.

        What's with the sample Erestel mentioned in http://groups.yahoo.com/
        group/elfscript/message/1322 ? I don't know it, but because of the
        context I deduced it actually IS written in that mode:

        "And what about the quenya sentence 'Menelluin Irildeo Ondolindello'
        [A&I n°189] ?"

        > >The nasal bar doesn't come before or after the
        > >tengwa it's placed above, but attributes the global
        > >property of "nasality" to the consonant represented
        > >by that tengwa (analogous to the underbar,
        > >which doesn't come after or before the tengwa,
        > >but indicates a longer duration of the sound
        > >assigned to that tengwa).
        >
        > Exactly. What's so confusing about that?

        Very simple: First, any orthography based on the Roman alphabet says
        there's an order between nasal and stop: nasal first and stop
        afterwards. Second, my ears tell me the same. Third, the inversed order
        also exists (even though in the languages I know only between two
        words, as in _redneck_, but there are other languages). In fact, that's
        why I tend to explain the nasal bar as a simplification of the tengwa
        nuumen (in analogy to the nasal bar in medieval writings), and not as a
        mere modification.

        > >Who said there was any logic or structure or
        > >order or similar unnecessary stuff in the tengwar?
        >
        > To a large extent, the structure and order of the Tengwar is very
        > logical, especially in arranging the series into related consonantal
        > groupings (i.e. a dental series, a labial series, a velar series, a
        > palatal series and a labiovelar series).

        I totally agree: The tengwar are one of the most structured writing
        systems of the world (AFAIK, only the korean is comparable in this
        respect). And that's precisely the reason why it strikes me that much
        that there can be variation in the tengwar-tehtar order in one mode
        (while we affirm that in a word like _ando_ the _n_ is first and the
        _d_ is second).

        > >So I suggest we'd claim that modes with variable
        > >tengwar-tehtar order (i.e. a mode with the vowel
        > >techtar on the preceding tengwa AND the nasal
        > >bar) should be avoided.
        >
        > Why? It's not confusing. All tehtar that modify a consonant (nasal
        > bar, doubling bar, over twist [= +'w'], double under-dots [= +'y'],
        > 's' hooks) are always over/under the consonants they modify
        > regardless of the language or mode that employs them. Ómatehtar are a
        > different matter; they are not 'attached' to a consonant, so their
        > placement depends on the mode.

        And this can lead us to certain modes where a tehta placed above a
        consonant tengwa has to be read either before this consonant or after
        it - that's what I call confusion! But I can live with this confusion,
        it gives the tengwar such a lovely HUMAN touch of imperfection!-)

        suilaid
        xeeniseit
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.