Re: [elfling] Re: Oore, roomen, halla, etc
- BP Jonsson wrote:
>I agree that [h] and [x] were probably allophones at all stages of
> >Måns Björkman wrote:
> >I think Melroch's interpretation must be essentially correct. But I miss
> >the <halla>, which would incidentally require a way of distinguishing [h]
> >and [x] in the table; and wouldn't it be a rather safe bet to exclude
> ><hwesta sindarinwa>?
> You are absolutely right: I should replace Hwesta Sindarinwa with
> Halla! Personally I doubt that [h] and [x] were distinct phonemes in
> Feanorin Quenya, but Halla is needed to write voiceless _hr_ and _hl_.
Quenya's development, though one might get the impression, from the
wording in Appendix E, that the two sounds were distinguished in writing
from the beginning. Later initial [h] was written with <hyarmen>, while
medial [x] would apparently be written with <aha>.
The recent <óre>/<rómen> discussion has had me pondering if Feanor's
original "mode" were in some respects phonetic rather than phonemic --
perhaps Feanor's interest in the "practical and decorative aspects" of
writing got the better of him. Or perhaps his phonemic analysis was
simply flawed, though I guess this is unlikely.
> >Any particular reason why you arranged the table the way you did?A very good reason, if I may say so.
> Yes. The image becomes very nearly a square and displays better in a Web
> Beztum kveðjum,Ves heill!
Måns Björkman "Mun þu mik!
Störtloppsvägen 8, III Man þik.
SE-129 46 Hägersten Un þu mer!
Sweden http://hem.passagen.se/mansb An þer."