- Danny teithant:
> The only example of Quenya in an ómatehta mode that uses a nasal barThat's interesting, didn't know there was such a thing. I suppose it
> 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.
has also Sindarin tehta-tengwa order, has it?
> AFAIK, there is no Quenya ómatehta mode that uses theWhat's with the sample Erestel mentioned in http://groups.yahoo.com/
> nasal bar. It's unnecessary; Quenya uses Grades 2 and 4 for nasalised
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 theVery simple: First, any orthography based on the Roman alphabet says
> >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?
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
> >Who said there was any logic or structure orI totally agree: The tengwar are one of the most structured writing
> >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).
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 variableAnd this can lead us to certain modes where a tehta placed above a
> >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.
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!-)