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

Re: tengwa-tehta-order

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 2 , Dec 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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!-)

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