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

Re: Hi, and a Tengwar Mode

Expand Messages
  • xeeniseit <xeeniseit@yahoo.com.ar>
    Hi Steg First of all, I have to confess that I don t speak any Hebrew. But I still think my theoretical knowledge I have about it and my tengwar knowledge
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 4, 2003
      Hi Steg

      First of all, I have to confess that I don't speak any Hebrew. But I still think my
      theoretical knowledge I have about it and my tengwar knowledge allow me to
      make some remarks about your mode of writing Hebrew.

      As I see it, you've chosen to orientate your Hebrew mode by traditional
      Hebrew spelling (by Classical Tiberian). That's a good choice, because it
      can't be discussed a lot. But personally, I prefer modes that are rather
      orientated by the actual Standard Pronounciation.

      Along with this goes my critic on the representation you've chosen for long
      vowels: tehta + approximant. This is unusual in tehtar modes (though it's
      attested in "full writing" modes!) - the same representation as in traditional
      Hebrew orthography. This allows you to drop all tehtar - as in traditional
      Hebrew spelling. But there's no tehtar mode where all tehtar can be dropped,
      so tehtar and Hebrew vowel diacritics are not really the same. I think it's more
      tengwar-like (=it fits better "the spirit of canonical tengwar [tehtar] modes") to
      represent long vowels using a long carrier, but your way of representing them
      of course works very well.

      Another remark on your vowel representations: Isn't it possible to have no
      sign at all for shva?

      But now I stop critisizing your choice of orientation by traditional spelling; now
      I come into "harder" critics, i.e. critics about your way of choosing tengwar
      sound values (if they're "logically-arranged"):

      I don't like your choice of anto-tyelle (row 4) for emphatic stops. I'd prefer anto-
      tyelle to be used for voiced fricatives. Of course, in Quenya it's not used like
      this. But Quenya has only one voiced fricative and has alternative uses for all
      four tengwar of anto-tyelle, while Hebrew has (at least in traditional spelling)
      two voiced fricatives, but only (in the mode you propose) two alternative uses.
      In Quenya, it's thus in a ratio of 4 to 1 (or even more, because Quenya has a
      parallel use of ando-tyelle/row 2), but in your mode only of 2 to 2, which does
      not justify the alternative use (as I see it). But I'd neither suggest oore-tyelle/
      row 6 to be used for emphatic stops; rather the tyelle of tengwar with the very
      extended stem (but see below).

      Anyway, one of the sounds you represent with anto-tyelle, qoph, could as well
      be consedered as the voiceless stop of quesse-teema (column IV). I know it's
      not pharyngal, but you could consider quesse-teema to be represent the most
      back counterparts of calma-teema.

      You could even give up the distinction between calma-teema and quesse-
      teema (as long as qoph isn't counted as belonging to the latter), considering
      for example calma-teema as a general back consonant column.

      Now about what alternative tengwa I'd use for emphatic /t./: You've inspired
      me for a proposal to write Arabic with tengwar. What do you think about the
      following?:

      t - k q
      d b j -
      th f ch h.
      dh - gh 3
      n m - -
      - w y ?

      r - l -
      s s z z
      h - - -

      (Exept for the "most back" consonants, I've used the transcriptions Tolkien's
      used for his languages.) As for the consonant sounds which are not yet
      covered by this chart: the emphatic dentals and /sh/, I'd propose to consider
      them "dentalized" versions of other consonants, i.e. instead of considering the
      emphatic dentals as pharyngalized dentals, I propose them to be considered
      as dentalized pharyngals. The reason for that is that it's easier to have a sign
      for "dentalization" than one for "pharyngalisation": I propose the s-hook (which
      comes from dental silme) to be considered as dentalization sign. There is thus
      the following chart of dentalized consonants (i.e. of tengwar + s-hook):

      - - - t.
      - - - d.
      - - sh s.
      - - - z.
      - - - -
      - - - -

      (The representation of vowels isn't problematic -at least as for Classical
      Arabic-: I propose the simple point, the a-tehta and the right-curl as
      representations of i, a and u; and if long, they're to be put on a long carrier. I
      propose to put them on the preceding tengwa, because there are no words
      which begin with a vowel, but there are words which end with one.)

      yours
      xeeniseit
    • draqonfayir@juno.com
      On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 11:27:39 -0000 xeeniseit ... - Have you seen Yehuda Ronen s mode? You can see it at:
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 4, 2003
        On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 11:27:39 -0000 "xeeniseit <xeeniseit@...>"
        <xeeniseit@...> writes:
        > As I see it, you've chosen to orientate your Hebrew mode by
        > traditional
        > Hebrew spelling (by Classical Tiberian). That's a good choice,
        > because it
        > can't be discussed a lot. But personally, I prefer modes that are
        > rather orientated by the actual Standard Pronounciation.
        -

        Have you seen Yehuda Ronen's mode?
        You can see it at:
        http://samurajdata.se/~cj/psview.php3?id=92c48ce5&page=1&size=full
        His website itself is at:
        http://my.ort.org.il/tolkien/gandalf/index.html (but it's in Hebrew)
        I hope your "theoretical knowledge" of Hebrew is enough to understand his
        alphabet chart...
        The things he has that aren't just letters:
        16, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28, 34, etc.: marked "unused" (lo'-beshimush)
        23: |yud| "consonant"
        The last two lines in the first chart, reading Right-to-Left, are:
        "no", "of", "and", |et| (direct object marker)
        "the", "of the", "and the", |et ha-| (direct object marker + 'the')
        35: the |yud| as a vowel-letter
        36: |patahh genuva|, the /a/ inserted before pharyngeals
        He also, for some reason i don't know, gives two letters for /r/ - the
        first for syllable-finally and the second for syllable-initially.

        > Along with this goes my critic on the representation you've chosen
        > for long
        > vowels: tehta + approximant. This is unusual in tehtar modes (though
        > it's
        > attested in "full writing" modes!) - the same representation as in
        > traditional
        > Hebrew orthography. This allows you to drop all tehtar - as in
        > traditional
        > Hebrew spelling. But there's no tehtar mode where all tehtar can be
        > dropped,
        > so tehtar and Hebrew vowel diacritics are not really the same. I
        > think it's more
        > tengwar-like (=it fits better "the spirit of canonical tengwar
        > [tehtar] modes") to
        > represent long vowels using a long carrier, but your way of
        > representing them of course works very well.
        -


        I guess i'm so used to Hebrew and Arabic that i didn't really understand
        the idea that a consonant-letter + vowel-diacritic system could consiter
        the vowels as important as the consonants. Or maybe i just wanted the
        Tengwar-Hebrew mode to be as similar as possible to Hebrew orthography
        itself.

        > Another remark on your vowel representations: Isn't it possible to
        > have no sign at all for shva?
        -

        I originally had that, until i saw that Tengwar itself had a 'no vowel'
        sign, so i decided to use it - which then made deciding on a form for the
        hhatafim/ultrashort vowels much easier.

        > I don't like your choice of anto-tyelle (row 4) for emphatic stops.
        > I'd prefer anto-
        > tyelle to be used for voiced fricatives. Of course, in Quenya it's
        > not used like
        > this. But Quenya has only one voiced fricative and has alternative
        > uses for all
        > four tengwar of anto-tyelle, while Hebrew has (at least in
        > traditional spelling)
        > two voiced fricatives, but only (in the mode you propose) two
        > alternative uses.
        > In Quenya, it's thus in a ratio of 4 to 1 (or even more, because
        > Quenya has a
        > parallel use of ando-tyelle/row 2), but in your mode only of 2 to 2,
        > which does
        > not justify the alternative use (as I see it). But I'd neither
        > suggest oore-tyelle/
        > row 6 to be used for emphatic stops; rather the tyelle of tengwar
        > with the very extended stem (but see below).
        -

        According to this idea, of moving row 6 up into row 4, why would you then
        not want to just move the old row 4 down into row 6? What else would you
        use the oore-tyelle for? |vav| and |yud|?
        Actually, i could see a rational for having the emphatic stops be row
        6... if rows 1&2, and 3&4 are connected in being voiced/voiceless
        versions of each other, if the emphatic stops were in oore-tyelle we
        could say that rows 5&6 were for stops with *secondary articulations* -
        in row 5's case, it would be nasality, and row 6 would be emphaticness.
        So how come you don't want to use oore-tyelle for that?

        > Now about what alternative tengwa I'd use for emphatic /t./: You've
        > inspired
        > me for a proposal to write Arabic with tengwar. What do you think
        > about the following?:
        > t - k q
        > d b j -
        > th f ch h.
        > dh - gh 3
        > n m - -
        > - w y ?

        > r - l -
        > s s z z
        > h - - -
        > (Exept for the "most back" consonants, I've used the transcriptions
        > Tolkien's
        > used for his languages.) As for the consonant sounds which are not
        > yet
        > covered by this chart: the emphatic dentals and /sh/, I'd propose to
        > consider
        > them "dentalized" versions of other consonants, i.e. instead of
        > considering the
        > emphatic dentals as pharyngalized dentals, I propose them to be
        > considered
        > as dentalized pharyngals. The reason for that is that it's easier to
        > have a sign
        > for "dentalization" than one for "pharyngalisation": I propose the
        > s-hook (which
        > comes from dental silme) to be considered as dentalization sign.
        > There is thus
        > the following chart of dentalized consonants (i.e. of tengwar +
        > s-hook):
        > - - - t.
        > - - - d.
        > - - sh s.
        > - - - z.
        > - - - -
        > - - - -
        -

        I like this! It makes a lot of sense, especially the re-analysis of the
        emphatics in order to give them places on the chart. It looks like it
        works well with Arabic, since it has all of /t. d. s. z./ to fill a
        column with. However, i think to use a similar solution for Hebrew would
        be a bit too much, when there are still empty places on the chart.

        > (The representation of vowels isn't problematic -at least as for
        > Classical
        > Arabic-: I propose the simple point, the a-tehta and the right-curl
        > as
        > representations of i, a and u; and if long, they're to be put on a
        > long carrier. I
        > propose to put them on the preceding tengwa, because there are no
        > words
        > which begin with a vowel, but there are words which end with one.)
        -

        This was my idea, too, although thinking in the transliterating style i
        used when designing my Hebrew mode i couldn't decide whether to have long
        I and U use the letters for /j/ and /w/ instead of long carriers.


        -Stephen (Steg)
        "Beornings speak with a Lithuanian accent?!"

        ________________________________________________________________
        Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
        Only $9.95 per month!
        Visit www.juno.com
      • xeeniseit <xeeniseit@yahoo.com.ar>
        ... ... which is a good reason, because it keeps the mode easy even for non- linguists. But perhaps your understanding of the tengwar-tehtar system is closer
        Message 3 of 6 , Jan 5, 2003
          Steg teithant:
          > I guess i'm so used to Hebrew and Arabic that i didn't really understand
          > the idea that a consonant-letter + vowel-diacritic system could consiter
          > the vowels as important as the consonants. Or maybe i just wanted the
          > Tengwar-Hebrew mode to be as similar as possible to Hebrew orthography
          > itself.

          ... which is a good reason, because it keeps the mode easy even for non-
          linguists. But perhaps your understanding of the tengwar-tehtar system is
          closer to the original one of the Elven lore masters, and it's just because of
          Roman spelling influence that I think different.

          > > Another remark on your vowel representations: Isn't it possible to
          > > have no sign at all for shva?
          >
          > I originally had that, until i saw that Tengwar itself had a 'no vowel'
          > sign, so i decided to use it - which then made deciding on a form for the
          > hhatafim/ultrashort vowels much easier.

          What's your reason to consider the subposed single dot a 'no vowel' sign?

          > According to this idea, of moving row 6 up into row 4, why would you then
          > not want to just move the old row 4 down into row 6? What else would you
          > use the oore-tyelle for? |vav| and |yud|?

          Exactly. Two reasons for that: It's the most common assignations vor the /w/
          and for the /y/ sound, and it allows you to abandon two of the "additional"
          signs, yanta and uure (I think we always have to prefer the primary signs). Of
          course, this wouldn't help anything if we'd have to pay for the gain of these
          two new assignations (|vav| and |yud|) with the loss of two old assignations (|
          t.ad| and |qof|). But that's not the case, because I think |qof| can perfectly be
          expressed by quesse. But how to express t.ad?

          > Actually, i could see a rational for having the emphatic stops be row
          > 6... if rows 1&2, and 3&4 are connected in being voiced/voiceless
          > versions of each other, if the emphatic stops were in oore-tyelle we
          > could say that rows 5&6 were for stops with *secondary articulations* -
          > in row 5's case, it would be nasality, and row 6 would be emphaticness.
          > So how come you don't want to use oore-tyelle for that?

          Sounds good to me, but I'm very used to have oore-tyelle for the weakest
          consonants. I like best the possibility of expressing t.ad with an extended stem
          tengwa, because these are ment to express consonantal stop combinations
          and pharyngalisation is something alike.

          Have you thought about the possibility of expressing all zayn, vav, yud and
          3ayn in the same row?

          suilaid
          xeeniseit
        • xeeniseit <xeeniseit@yahoo.com.ar>
          ... v/, stuck in a row all by itself. :-P Why did you use the doubled S letter for |z|, instead of a T + s-curl combination like |x|? About the /v/ all
          Message 4 of 6 , Jan 5, 2003
            Teithant Steg:
            > > This talk about a Hebrew tengwar mode has finally led me to make the
            > > German tengwar mode I had always planned to make one day...
            > > http://catharsis.netpeople.ch/langmaking/DTM/dtm.html
            > > Comments? (It's in German, I'm afraid... ;-)
            >
            > I don't know German, but the system looks good! Although i feel bad for |w| /
            v/, stuck in a row all by itself. :-P Why did you use the 'doubled S' letter for |z|,
            instead of a 'T + s-curl' combination like |x|?

            About the /v/ all allone I don't feel bad, because there's also "dh" and "zh" in
            the same row which occur in loan words.

            The idea of representing the Umlaute with yanta combinations is good, but
            what I don't like that you use the same yanta in diphtongs. I'd suggest to make
            a clearer difference between diphtongs and Umlauten, and the easiest way I
            see to do so is the following: Don't use yanta but for the three Umlaute
            (considering it kind of a "-e" sign), use vala and anna for the diphtongs, don't
            use uure at all. If yanta is used as a diphtong sign, all the three signs you
            suggest for the Umlaute can be misread as diphtongs: ai as in "Schweiz", oi
            as in "deutsch" and ui as in "pfui".

            I'll never agree on the reason you give for inverting the tehtar-tengwar order.
            I'll try to translate what you've written in order to justify it:

            "You can either place the vowels on the preceding (CV) or on the following
            consonant (VC). The Tolkienian modes for English and Sindarin do the latter
            because in these languages the majority of the words end in a consonant.
            Moreover, in the Enlish mode a point is placed under the last consonant to
            indicate a mute -e at word ending.

            Also in German, most words end in a consonant or in an -e, but for esthetical
            reasons, I have decided to use a CV mode. On one hand, you often get
            troubles with the subposed point for -e when other symbols (e.g. the
            doubbling sign) already fill the place under the consonant; on the other hand,
            the VC notation originates an un-beautiful amount of vocal signs at the end of
            the written word, instead of distributing them equally on the whole writing."

            Many people will never agree on these esthetical reasons, because Tolkien's
            said very explicitly that in a language as German, the tehtar-tengwar order
            has to be VC.

            The same happens with your suggestion of vilya for the h-sound (and
            anyway, when using VC tehtar-tengwar order, your argument disappears).

            And as for the z-sign, i totally agree with Steg. The tengwa aare mustn't be
            used for the /ts/-sound of the German letter z.

            But except for these few objections, your mode is a very good intent of
            representing German with tehtar. What I really like about it: I's very easy! Most
            suggestions for German modes I've seen are much more complicated,
            because most of them don't follow traditional spelling but pronunciation, i.e.
            they ban doubled consonants but they demand a consistent representation of
            long vowels.

            suilaid
            xeeniseit
          • draqonfayir@juno.com
            On Sun, 05 Jan 2003 15:09:41 -0000 xeeniseit ... - http://hem.passagen.se/mansb/at/teng_quenya.htm Section The Vowel A , and Figure
            Message 5 of 6 , Jan 5, 2003
              On Sun, 05 Jan 2003 15:09:41 -0000 "xeeniseit <xeeniseit@...>"
              <xeeniseit@...> writes:
              > > > Another remark on your vowel representations: Isn't it possible
              > > > to have no sign at all for shva?

              > > I originally had that, until i saw that Tengwar itself had a 'no
              > > vowel'
              > > sign, so i decided to use it - which then made deciding on a form
              > > for the
              > > hhatafim/ultrashort vowels much easier.

              > What's your reason to consider the subposed single dot a 'no vowel'
              > sign?
              -

              http://hem.passagen.se/mansb/at/teng_quenya.htm
              Section "The Vowel A", and Figure 4 (Known ways to write 'calma')

              > > According to this idea, of moving row 6 up into row 4, why would
              > you then
              > > not want to just move the old row 4 down into row 6? What else
              > would you
              > > use the oore-tyelle for? |vav| and |yud|?

              > Exactly. Two reasons for that: It's the most common assignations vor
              > the /w/
              > and for the /y/ sound, and it allows you to abandon two of the
              > "additional"
              > signs, yanta and uure (I think we always have to prefer the primary
              > signs). Of
              > course, this wouldn't help anything if we'd have to pay for the gain
              > of these
              > two new assignations (|vav| and |yud|) with the loss of two old
              > assignations (|
              > t.ad| and |qof|). But that's not the case, because I think |qof| can
              > perfectly be
              > expressed by quesse. But how to express t.ad?
              -

              So you'd put |quf| in row 1 column IV as quesse, and then leave |t.et| as
              the only 'extended' stem? I assume it'd have one open rightwards bow,
              i.e. same as /t/ except with an extended stem?

              > Have you thought about the possibility of expressing all zayn, vav,
              > yud and 3ayn in the same row?
              -

              Would that mean moving |vav| and |yud| into row 6 with |zayin| and
              |`ayin|, or moving them all into row 4 to replace the emphatics and have
              row 4 be the 'voiced fricatives & approximants' row, with |vav| as ampa
              and |yud| as anca? Hmm... if that were done, harma/aha right above the
              new |yud| could be used for |shin|, since it's sort of palatal like
              |yud|. And then |s.adi| could be silme instead of being aze/esse?


              -Stephen (Steg)
              "Beornings speak with a Lithuanian accent?!"

              ________________________________________________________________
              Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
              Only $9.95 per month!
              Visit www.juno.com
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.