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

Re: [elfscript] sanskrit mode

Expand Messages
  • Brook Conner
    ... I m pretty sure that the question has been addressed in the past. Not putting my finger on the link right at the moment, but I know I ve seen it. Just a
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 12:14 AM, Jeremy Gilbert wrote:
      > I was wondering if anyone has any insight on how to use Tengwar to
      > write
      > in Sanskrit.

      I'm pretty sure that the question has been addressed in the past. Not
      putting my finger on the link right at the moment, but I know I've seen
      it. Just a matter of finding it (and the obvious google doesn't get
      much).

      > The main difficulty is that Sanskrit has 5 classes of
      > consonants, whereas there are only 4 classes of Tengwar.

      By "Classes", you mean the témar, the series (i.e., the columns in the
      canonical diagram in LotR)?

      > The extra class
      > is basically a modification of the dentals, ie. retroflex consonants I
      > guess you could call them. So in Sanskrit there is t, d, etc.
      > pronounced
      > as dentals as well as the softer, t, d, etc, pronounced by lifting the
      > tip of the tongue towards the roof of the mouth.

      In Quenya, the use of two dots underneath was taken to indicate a
      palatal sound. This was applied to Series III, meaning the first Grade
      was t, p, k (or ky with two dots), kw; the second grade was d, b, g (or
      gy with two dots), gw.

      It sounds like, for Sanskrit (which is a language I don't know), you'd
      apply the two dots the *first* series.

      That assumes, of course, that a following y isn't something you'd use
      in Sanskrit for a different set of sounds following dentals. If it is,
      I'd suggest a different tehta underneath.


      > I've been using a modified version of the first class of Tengwar -- ie.
      > those normally used for t, d, th... I've been flipping the bows so that
      > they open upwards for these consonants. Is this something that's done,
      > or
      > is it acceptable at least? What do you think?

      It's not attested that I know of. I wouldn't use it myself unless I was
      departing from the Tengwar whole-sale and using it only as inspiration
      for a completely new writing system - in Tengwar the bows are either on
      the left of the stem and facing up or on the right and facing down.

      That being said, writing in tengwar is idiosyncratic at best -
      individual calligraphers will make modifications to usage to suit needs
      and or personal taste (a flexibility described by Tolkien). In other
      words, so long as your audience can read it, go to town.

      > Also, Sanskrit doesn't have the fricatives th, f, v, etc. but does have
      > th, dh as in hoTHead, reDHead, for which I've been using the extended
      > forms of the Tengwar (stem extending above and below the bow). This
      > seems
      > consistent with the standard usage from what I can tell. Is it?

      You could use either the extended form or Grades 3 and 4 (which would
      otherwise be unused). Third-Age writing used either Grades 3 and 4 or
      their extended variants (where the stem goes both up and down).
      Basically a font difference.

      So either style would be consistent with Quenya and Sindarin modes.


      Brook
      ___________
      The owls are not what they seem....
    • Jeremy Gilbert
      Hi Brook, ... Yes, exactly, the témar. ... Thanks, that s something I wasn t aware of. The only thing is Sanskrit has 9 distinct vowel positions and I think
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Brook,

        > > The main difficulty is that Sanskrit has 5 classes of
        > > consonants, whereas there are only 4 classes of Tengwar.
        > By "Classes", you mean the témar, the series (i.e., the columns in the
        > canonical diagram in LotR)?

        Yes, exactly, the témar.

        > > The extra class
        > > is basically a modification of the dentals, ie. retroflex consonants
        > I
        > > guess you could call them. So in Sanskrit there is t, d, etc.
        > > pronounced
        > > as dentals as well as the softer, t, d, etc, pronounced by lifting
        > the
        > > tip of the tongue towards the roof of the mouth.
        > In Quenya, the use of two dots underneath was taken to indicate a
        > palatal sound. This was applied to Series III, meaning the first Grade
        > was t, p, k (or ky with two dots), kw; the second grade was d, b, g
        > (or
        > gy with two dots), gw.
        > It sounds like, for Sanskrit (which is a language I don't know), you'd
        > apply the two dots the *first* series.
        > That assumes, of course, that a following y isn't something you'd use
        > in Sanskrit for a different set of sounds following dentals. If it
        > is,
        > I'd suggest a different tehta underneath.

        Thanks, that's something I wasn't aware of. The only thing is Sanskrit
        has 9 distinct vowel positions and I think using a tehta to indicate a
        different class/series of consonants would just cause confusion.

        > > I've been using a modified version of the first class of Tengwar --
        > ie.
        > > those normally used for t, d, th... I've been flipping the bows so
        > that
        > > they open upwards for these consonants. Is this something that's
        > done,
        > > or
        > > is it acceptable at least? What do you think?
        > It's not attested that I know of. I wouldn't use it myself unless I
        > was
        > departing from the Tengwar whole-sale and using it only as inspiration
        > for a completely new writing system - in Tengwar the bows are either
        > on
        > the left of the stem and facing up or on the right and facing down.
        > That being said, writing in tengwar is idiosyncratic at best -
        > individual calligraphers will make modifications to usage to suit
        > needs
        > and or personal taste (a flexibility described by Tolkien). In other
        > words, so long as your audience can read it, go to town.

        I've mostly been using Tengwar for my own enjoyment, it stemmed from an
        interest in alternate writing systems and ideally I would like to settle
        on a mode that can be used to write in English, French, Sanskrit and
        other languages... which would obviously involve taking advantage of the
        flexibility and adaptability of Tolkein's beautiful script.

        At the same time, I would like to stick to the attested usage as much as
        possible, which is why I'm asking these questions.

        For a right-handed person, it seems that forming a right-facing bow
        opening upwards is more difficult than one opening downwards, but that
        might just be me. Still, this is the most satisfying solution I've found
        so far.

        I've also found myself needing to create new tehta, sometimes adapting
        them from the devanagari (sanskrit script) diacritics. I was wondering if
        other people had created tehta other than the attested ones and what
        sounds they are using them for.


        > > Also, Sanskrit doesn't have the fricatives th, f, v, etc. but does
        > have
        > > th, dh as in hoTHead, reDHead, for which I've been using the
        > extended
        > > forms of the Tengwar (stem extending above and below the bow). This
        > > seems
        > > consistent with the standard usage from what I can tell. Is it?
        > You could use either the extended form or Grades 3 and 4 (which would
        > otherwise be unused). Third-Age writing used either Grades 3 and 4 or
        > their extended variants (where the stem goes both up and down).
        > Basically a font difference.
        > So either style would be consistent with Quenya and Sindarin modes.

        I see. As I mentioned, I would like to settle on a mode that can be used
        for a variety of languages. F, V, etc are used in English and Elvish and
        even some Indian languages other than Sanskrit, so I think I'll stick to
        using the extended stems for the consonants with extra aspiration. It's
        nice to know this is consistent with the existing modes.

        > Brook

        Thanks for your help,

        Jeremy

        > ___________
        > The owls are not what they seem....
        >

        --
        http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own
      • xeeniseit
        Brook teithant:In Quenya, the use of two dots underneath was taken to indicate a palatal sound. This was applied to Series III, meaning the first Grade
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Brook teithant:

          > In Quenya, the use of two dots underneath was taken to indicate a
          > palatal sound. This was applied to Series III, meaning the first Grade
          > was t, p, k (or ky with two dots), kw; the second grade was d, b, g (or
          > gy with two dots), gw.

          That's new to me! I always thought the tengwar representation of Quenya
          palatals would be the same as their Roman letter representation: dentals + =
          y.

          Jeremy teithant:

          > and ideally I would like to settle
          > on a mode that can be used to write in English, French, Sanskrit and
          > other languages... which would obviously involve taking advantage of the
          > flexibility and adaptability of Tolkein's beautiful script.

          If I'm right, you intend to create something most similar to a tengwar vers=
          ion of
          the script of the International Phonetic Assiciation IPA (or of similar scr=
          ipts).
          Personally, I don't like this idea. I think such a mode will suffer the sam=
          e
          defects the IPA script suffers: it's much more complicated than a mode whic=
          h
          is adapted specifically to one language.

          > For a right-handed person, it seems that forming a right-facing bow
          > opening upwards is more difficult than one opening downwards, but that
          > might just be me.

          I don't think that's just you; the tengwar fit IMHO to the (right-handed) h=
          and
          movements.

          > I've also found myself needing to create new tehta, sometimes adapting
          > them from the devanagari (sanskrit script) diacritics. I was wondering if=

          > other people had created tehta other than the attested ones and what
          > sounds they are using them for.

          I use a little circle for the very closed rounded front vowel y. I explain =
          this tehta
          as a simplification out of a tehta most similar to the paragraph sign §, wh=
          ich
          looks like two s-letters written onto each other, or like two modified u-te=
          htar ~
          written onto each other. The reason why I use this sign are in the relation=

          between tehtar shape and sound in that specific mode: I don't represent the=

          rounded front vowels by a doubling of their unrounded front counterparts (a=
          s
          in DTS 49 Sindarin tehtar mode) but by a doubling of their rounded back
          counterparts, because to people who speak my language, the relation
          between rounded front and back vowels is more obvious than the relation
          between rounded and unrounded front vowels.

          And as for a modification of the tengwar in order to represent the retrofle=
          x
          sounds: Why don't you use the combination of tincoteema tengwar + s-hook?
          That's not attested, but a most similar modification of letter shapes can b=
          e
          observed in the sarati.

          suilaid
          xeeniseit
        • Brook Conner
          ... It s attested - In the appendix of Return of the King. ... On the other hand, an IPA phonetic mode would mean that you could read it aloud without
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 6, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 06:20 PM, xeeniseit wrote:

            > Brook teithant:
            >
            >> In Quenya, the use of two dots underneath was taken to indicate a
            >> palatal sound. This was applied to Series III, meaning the first Grade
            >> was t, p, k (or ky with two dots), kw; the second grade was d, b, g
            >> (or
            >> gy with two dots), gw.
            >
            > That's new to me! I always thought the tengwar representation of Quenya
            > palatals would be the same as their Roman letter representation:
            > dentals + =
            > y.

            It's attested - In the appendix of Return of the King.

            > Jeremy teithant:
            >
            >> and ideally I would like to settle
            >> on a mode that can be used to write in English, French, Sanskrit and
            >> other languages... which would obviously involve taking advantage of
            >> the
            >> flexibility and adaptability of Tolkein's beautiful script.
            >
            > If I'm right, you intend to create something most similar to a tengwar
            > version of
            > the script of the International Phonetic Assiciation IPA (or of
            > similar scripts).
            > Personally, I don't like this idea. I think such a mode will suffer
            > the same
            > defects the IPA script suffers: it's much more complicated than a mode
            > which
            > is adapted specifically to one language.

            On the other hand, an "IPA phonetic mode" would mean that you could
            read it aloud without knowing the language in question. It would also
            obviate the need for any indication of a change in mode as you changed
            what language you used. On the other hand, of course, there wouldn't be
            a clear marker as to what language *was* being used - many languages
            have cognates, and confusion could result.

            The conlang lojban addresses some of these issues - not the phonetic
            alphabet, but it *does* have provisions for marking foreign words,
            including labeling their language. See http://lojban.org for more.

            >> For a right-handed person, it seems that forming a right-facing bow
            >> opening upwards is more difficult than one opening downwards, but that
            >> might just be me.
            >
            > I don't think that's just you; the tengwar fit IMHO to the
            > (right-handed) hand
            > movements.

            Um, I'd suspect that it has less to do with handedness and more to do
            with the orthography you're used to writing. The Roman alphabet has no
            curves going from the lower left to the upper right that are open at
            the top. One of the characteristics of the alphabet is that most
            miniscule glyphs have a vertical bar on the left rather than the right
            and that almost all open curves open downward.

            Arabic glyphs, as an example, often open upward. I suspect someone
            fluent in Arabic calligraphy would find little problem writing an
            up-facing bow. I however am not a fluent Arabic calligrapher. Anyone
            here that is and care to proffer an opinion?


            Brook
            ________________
            One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them.
            One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them!
          • Jeremy Gilbert
            ... From: Brook Conner To: elfscript@yahoogroups.com Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:20:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [elfscript] Re: sanskrit mode This
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 7, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original message -----
              From: "Brook Conner" <me@...>
              To: elfscript@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:20:50 -0500
              Subject: Re: [elfscript] Re: sanskrit mode

              This message only has an HTML part -- this is a text generated
              representation


              On Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 06:20 PM, xeeniseit wrote:

              > Jeremy teithant:
              >
              >> and ideally I would like to settle
              >> on a mode that can be used to write in English, French, Sanskrit
              and
              >> other languages... which would obviously involve taking advantage
              of
              >> the
              >> flexibility and adaptability of Tolkein's beautiful script.
              >
              > If I'm right, you intend to create something most similar to a
              tengwar
              > version of
              > the script of the International Phonetic Assiciation IPA (or of
              > similar scripts).
              > Personally, I don't like this idea. I think such a mode will suffer
              > the same
              > defects the IPA script suffers: it's much more complicated than a
              mode
              > which
              > is adapted specifically to one language.

              Yes and no, I'm trying to settle on something multilingual, but less
              particular than the IPA -- not to mention less ugly.

              On the other hand, an "IPA phonetic mode" would mean that you could
              read it aloud without knowing the language in question. It would also
              obviate the need for any indication of a change in mode as you changed
              what language you used. On the other hand, of course, there wouldn't
              be
              a clear marker as to what language *was* being used - many languages
              have cognates, and confusion could result.

              Possibly. But when a person is speaking for example, there is no
              confusion in whether he is speaking French or English or Dutch or
              Spanish, even if we don't really know the language in question. I found
              that once I learned to read a more phonetic script, its easier to use a
              common mode for English, French, Sanskrit, etc. than to use a different
              mode for each.

              The conlang lojban addresses some of these issues - not the phonetic
              alphabet, but it *does* have provisions for marking foreign words,
              including labeling their language. See [1]http://lojban.org for more.
              >> For a right-handed person, it seems that forming a right-facing bow
              >> opening upwards is more difficult than one opening downwards, but
              that
              >> might just be me.
              >
              > I don't think that's just you; the tengwar fit IMHO to the
              > (right-handed) hand
              > movements.
              Um, I'd suspect that it has less to do with handedness and more to do
              with the orthography you're used to writing. The Roman alphabet has no
              curves going from the lower left to the upper right that are open at
              the top. One of the characteristics of the alphabet is that most
              miniscule glyphs have a vertical bar on the left rather than the right
              and that almost all open curves open downward.

              Yes but keep in mind that the orthography that we're used to writing was
              developed by natural evolution out of centuries and centuries of scribes
              writing things out by hand. Most of them were probably right-handed. It's
              not that I have trouble forming up-facing bows, it's that the movements
              required seem slightly more awkward, anatomically speaking, when
              reversing the orientation of the bows.

              Regarding the extra tehta, xeeniseit, I've been using the bottom half of
              a circle (a little 'u') for the top-front rounded y (as in french 'lune')
              and the reverse, the top half of a circle for the mid/bottom-front
              rounded oe. Similarly I've been using a little 'c' for the Sanskrit 'r'
              vowel, and the reverse for the 'l' vowel -- which are something like
              English 'acre' and 'able' respectively.

              I'll look into your other tehta and see whether I can integrate them.

              Some kind of modifier on the first series might work well for the
              Sanskrit retroflex consonants, whether a tehta or an s-hook or whatever.
              Most Sanskritists consider that class a modification of the dentals, so
              it would make sense. I'll experiment with that and see if I can find
              something that feels right. That would obviate the need for new Tengwar
              at least.

              Thanks,

              Jeremy




              --
              http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own
            • Brook Conner
              ... I d agree on the ugliness of the IPA :-) However, it sounds like you re aiming for something smaller than the IPA in terms of glyphs. That s what I infer
              Message 6 of 14 , Mar 7, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                On Friday, March 7, 2003, at 02:25 PM, Jeremy Gilbert wrote:
                > Yes and no, I'm trying to settle on something multilingual, but less
                > particular than the IPA -- not to mention less ugly.

                I'd agree on the ugliness of the IPA :-)

                However, it sounds like you're aiming for something smaller than the
                IPA in terms of glyphs. That's what I infer from "less particular" -
                i.e., allophones would have the same glyph in your mode when they
                wouldn't in IPA (e.g., because it was spoken by someone with a
                different accent).

                This sounds tricky - as each language you want to cover has potentially
                a different set of allophones. What may be semantically important to
                distinguish in one language may be confusing to distinguish in another.
                For example, consider aspirated vs. unaspirated "p". Allophones in
                English. Distinct phonemes in other languages (including, I think,
                Sanskrit - but again, I don't really know Sanskrit, so don't hold me to
                that - the point is the same).

                > But when a person is speaking for example, there is no confusion in
                > whether he is speaking French or English or Dutch or Spanish, even if
                > we don't really know the language in question. I found that once I
                > learned to read a more phonetic script, its easier to use a common
                > mode for English, French, Sanskrit, etc. than to use a different mode
                > for each.

                Um, yes and no.

                I'll point out the scene in "Pygmalion" where the refined linguist
                points out that the apparent gibberish in fact records the exact sounds
                said, and proceeds to demonstrate this with an over-emphasized Cockney
                accent.

                There is, I believe, no attested examples of dialects of Quenya or
                Sindarin, meaning Quenya and Sindarin modes can be purely phonemic
                without worrying about the accent of the speaker. A phonemic English
                spelling needs to be a little more careful (not everyone pronounces
                vowels the same way, for instance - "You say tomAYto, I say tomAHto -
                let's call the whole thing off!"). A phonemic English/French/etc.
                spelling strikes me as being trickier.

                I'm not saying don't do it. I think it's a neat idea. I'm trying to
                raise some issues of a multi-linguistic mode (as distinct from a strict
                phonetic IPA equivalent), not trying to bash your idea as unworthy.

                > Yes but keep in mind that the orthography that we're used to writing
                > was
                > developed by natural evolution out of centuries and centuries of
                > scribes
                > writing things out by hand. Most of them were probably right-handed.

                I think the same could be said for Arabic - centuries of evolution by
                largely right-handed scribes.

                I don't *think* handedness varies significantly in the
                Arabic-orthography-employing (um, yeah, that's a clumsy term - is there
                a better one I've missed?) population of the world from handedness in
                the Latin-orthography-employing population.

                If cultural neutrality is an issue for you, then what *you* find easier
                to write is something to be careful about. If cultural neutrality isn't
                an issue you care about, then it isn't an issue.

                > It's not that I have trouble forming up-facing bows, it's that the
                > movements
                > required seem slightly more awkward, anatomically speaking, when
                > reversing the orientation of the bows.

                And I'm suggesting that the apparent awkwardness is perhaps more a
                matter of training than anatomy. I'm right-handed. I'm reasonably
                certain my hand anatomy is not markedly different from yours. :-)

                However, I don't find upward bows more or less awkward than downward
                bows (I stick with downward righ-thand bows and upward left-hand bows
                in my Tengwar calligraphy in order to stick to the attested tengwar).

                Maybe I've got different training in writing etc. from you. I first
                started taking calligraphy classes in maybe 2nd grade. I've been
                studying art all my life. I have formal, college-level training in
                typography, graphics, geometry, linguistics, and a suite of related
                disciplines. This is not me trying to be uber-authority - this is me
                trying to show that my training is atypical and may explain the
                different comfort levels.

                Maybe that explains the reason you find those forms awkward and I
                don't. Assuming we've got the same relevant anatomy.

                :-)


                Brook


                -----
                I *made up* the term 'object-oriented,' and I can tell you I did *not*
                have C++ in mind.
                - Alan Kay, one of the inventors/designers of Smalltalk.
              • xeeniseit
                ... You re right, the handedness is only a secondary matter. I m not a fluent Arabic calligrapher, but I know the main difference between Arabic and Western
                Message 7 of 14 , Mar 8, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Brook teithant:

                  > >> For a right-handed person, it seems that forming a right-facing bow
                  > >> opening upwards is more difficult than one opening downwards, but that
                  > >> might just be me.
                  > >
                  > > I don't think that's just you; the tengwar fit IMHO to the
                  > > (right-handed) hand
                  > > movements.
                  >
                  > Um, I'd suspect that it has less to do with handedness and more to do
                  > with the orthography you're used to writing. The Roman alphabet has no
                  > curves going from the lower left to the upper right that are open at
                  > the top. One of the characteristics of the alphabet is that most
                  > miniscule glyphs have a vertical bar on the left rather than the right
                  > and that almost all open curves open downward.
                  >
                  > Arabic glyphs, as an example, often open upward. I suspect someone
                  > fluent in Arabic calligraphy would find little problem writing an
                  > up-facing bow. I however am not a fluent Arabic calligrapher. Anyone
                  > here that is and care to proffer an opinion?

                  You're right, the handedness is only a secondary matter. I'm not a fluent
                  Arabic calligrapher, but I know the main difference between Arabic and
                  Western European/American calligraphy: They traditionally write with a hard
                  writing tool (reed, if my dictionary isn't wrong) which allows upward left
                  strokes, while we Europeans traditionally use a soft writing tool (the pen)
                  which generally doesn't allow that movement. In this sense, the Elvish
                  calligraphy we know about belongs to the Western European tradition (or vice
                  versa).

                  suilaid
                  xeeniseit
                • xeeniseit
                  Jeremy teithant: Possibly. But when a person is speaking for example, there is no confusion in whether he is speaking French or English or Dutch or
                  Message 8 of 14 , Mar 8, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jeremy teithant:
                    > Possibly. But when a person is speaking for example, there is no
                    > confusion in whether he is speaking French or English or Dutch or
                    > Spanish, even if we don't really know the language in question.

                    That's because in speech you can hear the most characteristic sounds of
                    languages: their melodies and their very specific vowel qualities. Neither =
                    of
                    them can be represented adequately with letters, not even in the most
                    elaborate/most complicated/ugliest versions of IPA. But still an interlingu=
                    al
                    mode is possible!

                    > I found
                    > that once I learned to read a more phonetic script, its easier to use a
                    > common mode for English, French, Sanskrit, etc. than to use a different
                    > mode for each.

                    Maybe, but it's much more difficult to design such a mode. (I'm happy I've =
                    not
                    taken that burden!-)

                    Besides, Lothenon had the same idea of designing a interlingual mode (but
                    I'm sorry I've discouraged him too much), but he didn't want to make it a t=
                    ehtar
                    mode, but a full writing mode, and based on the mode used in the Bombadil
                    tengwar texts.

                    > Regarding the extra tehta, xeeniseit, I've been using the bottom half of
                    > a circle (a little 'u') for the top-front rounded y (as in french 'lune')=


                    So I'm not the only one in ignoring the attested y-tehta, the two points. I=
                    've
                    ignored it in modes for my high-allemanic dialect and for French, because I=

                    haven't been able to design a tehtar system around that sign for a language=

                    which has sounds inbetween i and e, y and oe, u and o. But even though in
                    this regard, these two languages are quite the same, I don't use the same
                    tehtar mode for them (even though it'd be perfectly possible). It's because=

                    French speakers analyse the middle vowel height (fée, bleu, haut) as varian=
                    ts
                    of the lower vowel height, i.e. as e/oe/o-variants; while in my high-allema=
                    nic
                    dialect, (almost) the same sounds are considered variants of the upper vowe=
                    l
                    height, i.e. as i/y/u-variants.

                    > and the reverse, the top half of a circle for the mid/bottom-front
                    > rounded oe. Similarly I've been using a little 'c' for the Sanskrit 'r'
                    > vowel, and the reverse for the 'l' vowel -- which are something like
                    > English 'acre' and 'able' respectively.

                    That reminds me that I forgot about some tehtar I was using: for the syllab=
                    ic r-
                    sound I used a simplificated roomen, i.e. a sign looking like an inverted s=
                    -
                    letter; for the syllabic l-sound I used a simplificated lambe, i.e. a sign =
                    looking
                    like a c-letter. And for the German oe-sound, I'm using the gravis accent (=
                    the
                    reversed acutus accent), because:

                    1. relation i-y equal to relation e-oe
                    2. y tehta is modificated i-tehta
                    --> 3. oe tehta is modificated e-tehta

                    If you replace "modificated" in 2. by "doubled", then the only possible oe-=
                    tehta
                    is the doubled e-tehta, a solution propagated in Per Lindberg's Swedish
                    mode (and first suggested by Björn Fromén).

                    Do you know the Old English Lowdham tengwar samples? They're interesting
                    because they make a quite different use of the tehtar than all other sample=
                    s.
                    But what I found most interesting: It says that another sample which hasn't=

                    been printed, the y-sound is represented by the u-tehta + a single point, i=
                    .e. by
                    a combination of two tehtar!

                    > Some kind of modifier on the first series might work well for the
                    > Sanskrit retroflex consonants, whether a tehta or an s-hook or whatever.
                    > Most Sanskritists consider that class a modification of the dentals, so
                    > it would make sense. I'll experiment with that and see if I can find
                    > something that feels right. That would obviate the need for new Tengwar
                    > at least.

                    I've had a look through my tengwar papers and I've found some attempts for =
                    a
                    Sanscrit mode. There I used the same trick as is being used in Roman
                    transcription: a single underposed dot.

                    suilaid
                    xeeniseit
                  • Mark A Miles
                    ... What about a J as it is sometimes written? -MArk -- May it be an evening star shines down upon you Mornië utúlië ... Mornië alantië
                    Message 9 of 14 , Mar 8, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, xeeniseit wrote:

                      > > Um, I'd suspect that it has less to do with handedness and more to do
                      > > with the orthography you're used to writing. The Roman alphabet has no
                      > > curves going from the lower left to the upper right that are open at
                      > > the top. One of the characteristics of the alphabet is that most
                      > > miniscule glyphs have a vertical bar on the left rather than the right
                      > > and that almost all open curves open downward.

                      What about a 'J' as it is sometimes written?

                      -MArk

                      --
                      "May it be an evening star shines down upon you
                      'Mornië utúlië ... Mornië alantië'"

                      http://www.nine9.ukshells.co.uk ICQ: 41974841
                      "Any opinions expressed above are mine. Everybody else can get their
                      own..."

                      E-mail with subject "get pgpkey" to obtain PGP key(s)
                    • Brook Conner
                      ... That s one of the few exceptions, and thus why I said almost all and not all . As xeeniseit observed, the typical historical Western calligraphic
                      Message 10 of 14 , Mar 9, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Saturday, March 8, 2003, at 12:36 PM, Mark A Miles wrote:
                        >>> Um, I'd suspect that it has less to do with handedness and more to do
                        >>> with the orthography you're used to writing. The Roman alphabet has
                        >>> no
                        >>> curves going from the lower left to the upper right that are open at
                        >>> the top. One of the characteristics of the alphabet is that most
                        >>> miniscule glyphs have a vertical bar on the left rather than the
                        >>> right
                        >>> and that almost all open curves open downward.
                        >
                        > What about a 'J' as it is sometimes written?

                        That's one of the few exceptions, and thus why I said "almost all" and
                        not "all".

                        As xeeniseit observed, the typical historical Western calligraphic
                        instrument is a pen - usually a quill. Generally it has a flexible nib.
                        Writing a J with a quill, you'd always start from the top and pull
                        down. Pushing a quill nib up can make the tip stutter on the paper. If
                        you've used a calligraphy pen, you wouldn't necessarily notice any
                        problem, as most nibs these days are metal and rigid enough to handle
                        upward strokes. Try that with a goose feather and it won't work well.

                        The attested shapes of the tengwar are all readily written with a soft
                        nib.

                        You can actually trace the development of letter forms in part to the
                        implement used to create them (thanks, xeeniseit - I'd had all this
                        locked in my head til you reminded me). Roman letterforms are big and
                        round, shapes easy to chisel into rock with a flat-headed chisel used
                        in sculpture. Norse runic shapes have very few curves and are easier to
                        make in wood or in stone if you're using a pointed chisel. Minuscule
                        forms didn't begin to evolve until the 6th century CE with the rise of
                        monastic orders and an increase in the amount of writing being done in
                        books (as opposed to monuments and such and ledgers (where the
                        esthetics of the letter forms don't matter much)).


                        Brook
                        ___________
                        Klactovedestene!
                      • Shreyas Sampat
                        ... Not ... seen ... get ... Sorry for resurrecting a month-old thread; I did a Sanskrit Tengwar mode some time ago and posted it here. The URL:
                        Message 11 of 14 , Mar 31, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > I'm pretty sure that the question has been addressed in the past.
                          Not
                          > putting my finger on the link right at the moment, but I know I've
                          seen
                          > it. Just a matter of finding it (and the obvious google doesn't
                          get
                          > much).

                          Sorry for resurrecting a month-old thread; I did a Sanskrit Tengwar
                          mode some time ago and posted it here. The URL:
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/message/1529

                          What I did with the problematic elements was to use the fricative
                          rows for Hindi aspirates, because they've got more acoustic friction
                          than the plain stops, and used the tyelepeteema for the retroflexes,
                          because historically they arose from dentals in proximity with I or
                          Y.

                          To match better with Sanskrit calligraphy methods, I used the s-curl
                          as a reph-curl and improvised a great deal of compound tehtar for
                          the vowels. They're not perfectly methodical, to give the script
                          some irregular flavor.
                        • abrigon
                          Got any examples? would be good to see.. I have wanted to do a Uighur/Mongol/Tibetan form of the Tengwar, based on Sanskrit forms. Giving me some ideas for
                          Message 12 of 14 , Mar 31, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Got any examples? would be good to see.. I have wanted to do a
                            Uighur/Mongol/Tibetan form of the Tengwar, based on Sanskrit forms.

                            Giving me some ideas for sure..

                            Mike


                            --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Shreyas Sampat" <laopooh@y...>
                            wrote:
                            > > I'm pretty sure that the question has been addressed in the past.
                            > Not
                            > > putting my finger on the link right at the moment, but I know I've
                            > seen
                            > > it. Just a matter of finding it (and the obvious google doesn't
                            > get
                            > > much).
                            >
                            > Sorry for resurrecting a month-old thread; I did a Sanskrit Tengwar
                            > mode some time ago and posted it here. The URL:
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfscript/message/1529
                            >
                            > What I did with the problematic elements was to use the fricative
                            > rows for Hindi aspirates, because they've got more acoustic friction
                            > than the plain stops, and used the tyelepeteema for the retroflexes,
                            > because historically they arose from dentals in proximity with I or
                            > Y.
                            >
                            > To match better with Sanskrit calligraphy methods, I used the s-curl
                            > as a reph-curl and improvised a great deal of compound tehtar for
                            > the vowels. They're not perfectly methodical, to give the script
                            > some irregular flavor.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.