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

Re: [elfscript]: consonantal y in "full" Sindarin

Expand Messages
  • xeeniseit
    ... (not as sindarin or westron) because of Quenya s strict rules Suppose you mean King s Letter Sindarin, as Moria Gate Sindarin doesn t even have consistent
    Message 1 of 20 , May 8, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Gildor Inglorion teithant:
      > he then adapted Quenya to them, but the adaptation was not perfect
      (not as sindarin or westron) because of Quenya's strict rules

      Suppose you mean King's Letter Sindarin, as Moria Gate Sindarin
      doesn't even have consistent tyeller. Which Quenya has (except for
      óretyelle, but that's the case in most modes). It only changes the
      meaning of the lúvar, but the change is more or less regular: A
      doubled lúva means (pre)nasalisation.

      xeeniseit teithant:
      >> And if yanta is a modification of anna (of what other tengwa could
      it be a modification?), we can assume that in the very original mode
      we unfortunately don't know of, anna would represent a consonantal y-
      sound.

      Gildor Inglorion teithant:
      > no, yanta and anna have no relation.. my theory is that yanta was
      used as consonantal y while anna was used for a carrier and/or to
      show early-lost initial g- sound (eg. alda from galada or alasse from
      galasse)

      The appendices say that all additional letters but lambe and silme
      are modifications of another tengwa. What other tengwa could be the
      model for yanta, if it's not anna?

      Assuming that the appendices are right, and assuming that yanta is
      really developped out of anna, then we have to ask: why? There is a
      certain similarity between g-sounds and y-sounds, cf. "yesterday" to
      German "gestern" (yesterday) and "Tag" (day). But Quenya didn't have
      the development *g>y but *g>*gh>(zero). I don't know a lot about the
      historical phonology of Quenya, but it seems very unlikely to me to
      assume *g>*y>(zero), because Third Age Quenya has y-sounds in the
      same environments where that loss would have taken place.

      Why then? Perhaps: Anna is the very original sign for the y-
      consonant, yanta has developped from it, because there was a need for
      a special sign for the -i in diphtongs.

      But if anna was the very original sign for the y-consonant, the
      original value of calmatéma couldn't be that of a velar series, but
      rather of some kind of palatal series. Quenya has such a series, but
      it uses calmatéma with two underposed dots for it. Do we have to
      assume that Feanor originally designed a wholly different témar
      distribution? Or is it more likely that the original tengwar mode was
      designed for the English language, not by Feanor but rather by J.R.R.
      Tolkien?

      suilaid
    • Gildor Inglorion
      teithant xeeniseit ... none... yanta and hyarmen seem to be related ... where? the only circumstance i can remember is yelle from GJEL... in Quenya, as far as
      Message 2 of 20 , May 10, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        teithant xeeniseit

        > The appendices say that all additional letters but
        > lambe and silme
        > are modifications of another tengwa. What other
        > tengwa could be the
        > model for yanta, if it's not anna?

        none... yanta and hyarmen seem to be related

        > German "gestern" (yesterday) and "Tag" (day). But
        > Quenya didn't have
        > the development *g>y but *g>*gh>(zero). I don't know
        > a lot about the
        > historical phonology of Quenya, but it seems very
        > unlikely to me to
        > assume *g>*y>(zero), because Third Age Quenya has
        > y-sounds in the
        > same environments where that loss would have taken
        > place.

        where? the only circumstance i can remember is yelle
        from GJEL... in Quenya, as far as etymology and
        phonology are concerned, y is not related to g

        > Why then? Perhaps: Anna is the very original sign
        > for the y-
        > consonant, yanta has developped from it, because
        > there was a need for
        > a special sign for the -i in diphtongs.

        App. D of Quendi and Eldar says more or less, that the
        original value of Anna was *gh- and it was used as a
        tehtar carrier.. when this way of thinking was
        abandoned, anna was used now as 'following-y' carrier,
        because as i udnerstand, the dots under the short
        carrier wouldnt look good

        > But if anna was the very original sign for the
        > y-consonant, the
        > original value of calmatιma couldn't be that of a
        > velar series, but
        > rather of some kind of palatal series. Quenya has
        > such a series, but
        > it uses calmatιma with two underposed dots for it.

        no, it used Tyelpetema which is Tincotema with dots

        > Do we have to
        > assume that Feanor originally designed a wholly
        > different tιmar
        > distribution? Or is it more likely that the original
        > tengwar mode was
        > designed for the English language, not by Feanor but
        > rather by J.R.R.
        > Tolkien?

        you might be interested in the Quenta Eldatencelion i
        have written (still not perfect), found in the essays
        of Gwaith.. it was based mostly on App. D of Quendi
        and Eldar

        ____________________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Αποκτήστε τη δωρεάν @... διεύθυνση σας στο http://www.otenet.gr
      • Gildor Inglorion
        im teithant ... gee i just remembered... felya from phelga, and possibly other cases... you are right :)
        Message 3 of 20 , May 10, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          im teithant

          > where? the only circumstance i can remember is yelle
          > from GJEL... in Quenya, as far as etymology and
          > phonology are concerned, y is not related to g

          gee i just remembered... felya from phelga, and
          possibly other cases... you are right :)

          ____________________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Αποκτήστε τη δωρεάν @... διεύθυνση σας στο http://www.otenet.gr
        • xeeniseit
          teithant xeeniseit: The appendices say that all additional letters but lambe and silme are modifications of another tengwa. What other tengwa could be the
          Message 4 of 20 , May 11, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            teithant xeeniseit:
            >> The appendices say that all additional letters but lambe and silme are
            modifications of another tengwa. What other tengwa could be the model for
            yanta, if it's not anna?

            Gildor teithant:
            > none... yanta and hyarmen seem to be related

            That's true, and it makes sense, as the pair hy/y is the palatal fricative =

            unvoiced/voiced opposition. But this doesn't change much, because hyarmen
            also is a modification of one of the primary letters (if the appendices are=
            right).
            Of which one? I'd guess of harma. That's the same case: A sign for a palata=
            l
            sound (no matter whether yanta or hyarmen) is borrowed from calmatéma.
            And that seem very curious to me.

            But if -as Gildor's affirmed- Quenyan y is somewhat related to g, this coul=
            d be
            the explanation. I wonder whether the sound of hy also has a relation to
            palatal sounds? Then the development from harma to hyarmen could also be
            explained. Who knows about that?

            suilaid
          • laurifindil
            ... e = unvoiced/voiced opposition. But this doesn t change much, because hyarmen= ... re= right). Of which one? I d guess of harma. That s the same
            Message 5 of 20 , May 12, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "xeeniseit" <xeeniseit@y...> wrote:
              > teithant xeeniseit:
              > >> The appendices say that all additional letters but lambe and silme are=

              > modifications of another tengwa. What other tengwa could be the model for=

              > yanta, if it's not anna?
              >
              > Gildor teithant:
              > > none... yanta and hyarmen seem to be related
              >
              > That's true, and it makes sense, as the pair hy/y is the palatal fricativ=
              e =
              >
              > unvoiced/voiced opposition. But this doesn't change much, because hyarmen=

              > also is a modification of one of the primary letters (if the appendices a=
              re=
              > right).
              > Of which one? I'd guess of harma. That's the same case: A sign for a pala=
              ta=
              > l
              > sound (no matter whether yanta or hyarmen) is borrowed from calmatéma.
              > And that seem very curious to me.
              >
              > But if -as Gildor's affirmed- Quenyan y is somewhat related to g, this co=
              ul=
              > d be
              > the explanation. I wonder whether the sound of hy also has a relation to =

              > palatal sounds? Then the development from harma to hyarmen could also be =

              > explained. Who knows about that?

              All of this is just plain nonsense! :-(

              The tengwa _yanta_ is just a copy of a sarat ; see/read Parma XIII, p.
              88.

              EJK
            • xeeniseit
              Laurifindil teithant: The tengwa _yanta_ is just a copy of a sarat ;I suppose this an explicit statement by Tolkien, isn t it? If it really is,= then it s
              Message 6 of 20 , May 13, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Laurifindil teithant:
                > The tengwa _yanta_ is just a copy of a sarat ;

                I suppose this an explicit statement by Tolkien, isn't it? If it really is,=
                then it's in
                overt contradiction to the appendices, where J.R.R. Tolkien says that all
                additional letters but lambe and silme are modifications of other letters. =
                This
                wouldn't be the first contradiction in Tolkien's work, but such a contradic=
                tion
                must be judged on very carefully and not just be thrown away as plain
                nonsense. Tell me at least a reason why you're ignoring the appendices.

                But there are more questions, and more intersting ones: Why is the relation=

                between hyarmen and yanta so similar to the relation between thúletyelle an=
                d
                óretyelle, e.g. between hwesta and vilya? In both cases we have a pair of a=

                voiceless fricative and an approximate (the weakest consonant of its téma),=
                in
                both cases we have no doubling, in both cases the only difference in shape =
                is
                the raised "stem" of the former, vs a shortened one of the second. Such
                interesting relations are totally ignored if you simply affirm that yanta i=
                s copied
                from the "alphabet of Rúmil".

                > see/read Parma XIII, p. 88.

                I'm sorry it's only a few time ago I've become aware that there's such a th=
                ing
                as parma, but it was way too late. And borrowing it is a very complicated t=
                hing,
                if you don't find any copy in your country.

                suilaid
                xeeniseit
              • Gildor Inglorion
                teithant xeeniseit ... parma 13 has been published over a year ago, and i m still waiting for some of its info incorporated to the known sites... even Amanye
                Message 7 of 20 , May 13, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  teithant xeeniseit

                  > > see/read Parma XIII, p. 88.
                  >
                  > I'm sorry it's only a few time ago I've become aware
                  > that there's such a th=
                  > ing
                  > as parma, but it was way too late. And borrowing it
                  > is a very complicated t=
                  > hing,
                  > if you don't find any copy in your country.

                  parma 13 has been published over a year ago, and i'm
                  still waiting for some of its info incorporated to the
                  known sites...

                  even Amanye Tenceli has been 'dead', promising that it
                  will incorporate the info from parma 13 'soon' :(

                  ____________________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Αποκτήστε τη δωρεάν @... διεύθυνση σας στο http://www.otenet.gr
                • xeeniseit
                  ... Then I shouldn t ignore them either. The appendices say something interesting on hyarmen: That in the beginning it was a weaker variant of harma. How is
                  Message 8 of 20 , May 13, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    teithant xeeniseit:
                    > Tell me at least a reason why you're ignoring the appendices.

                    Then I shouldn't ignore them either. The appendices say something
                    interesting on hyarmen: That in the beginning it was a weaker variant of
                    harma. How is this to be understood? Does this mean that the palatal fricative
                    hy is to be considered a variant of the velar one? Etymologically? I can't judge
                    on that, as I don't know about Quenya etymology. Phonetically? This would
                    seem strange to me, but maybe possible, but I'd like to have more evidence
                    on it.

                    suilaid
                    xeeniseit
                  • John Cowan
                    ... Consider the alternation in German and other languages between [x] and [C], the velar and palatal fricatives. Near front vowels, as in ich , one gets the
                    Message 9 of 20 , May 13, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      xeeniseit scripsit:

                      > Then I shouldn't ignore them either. The appendices say something
                      > interesting on hyarmen: That in the beginning it was a weaker variant of
                      > harma. How is this to be understood? Does this mean that the palatal fricative
                      > hy is to be considered a variant of the velar one? Etymologically? I can't judge
                      > on that, as I don't know about Quenya etymology. Phonetically? This would
                      > seem strange to me, but maybe possible, but I'd like to have more evidence
                      > on it.

                      Consider the alternation in German and other languages between [x] and [C], the
                      velar and palatal fricatives. Near front vowels, as in "ich", one gets the palatal
                      fricative; near back vowels, as in "ach", one gets the velar fricative.

                      --
                      A poetical purist named Cowan [that's me: jcowan@...]
                      Once put the rest of us dowan. [on xml-dev]
                      "Your verse would be sweeter http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
                      If it only had metre http://www.reutershealth.com
                      And rhymes that didn't force me to frowan." [overpacked line!] --Michael Kay
                    • DDanielA@webtv.net
                      ... overt ... silme are modifications of other letters. It isn t really a contradiction. JRRT does indeed write that the additional letters (save lambe and
                      Message 10 of 20 , May 13, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Teithant Alf:
                        >Laurifindil teithant:
                        > >The tengwa _yanta_ is just a copy of a sarat ;
                        >I suppose this an explicit statement by Tolkien,
                        >isn't it? If it really is, then it's in
                        overt
                        >contradiction to the appendices, where J.R.R.
                        >Tolkien says that all additional letters but lambe and
                        silme are modifications of other letters.

                        It isn't really a contradiction. JRRT does indeed write that the
                        additional letters (save lambe and silme) are "modifications of other
                        letters", but note that he does not say "modifications of other
                        Fëanorian tengwar." "Letters" could apply equally well to the sarati;
                        they are also letters. JRRT also states in the appendix that the tengwar
                        owed something to the letters of Rúmil. I had always assumed that this
                        referred to things like arrangement and use of vowel diacriticals, but
                        it could also apply to borrowing the shape of a sarat.

                        >but such a contradiction not just be thrown
                        >away as plain nonsense.

                        Some people just happen to use an unfortunate choice of words.
                        'Nonsense' is too strong a word, and inappropriate here.
                        >Why is the relation between hyarmen and yanta
                        >so similar to the relation between thúletyelle
                        >and óretyelle, e.g. between hwesta and vilya? In
                        >both cases we have a pair of a
                        voiceless
                        >fricative and an approximate (the weakest
                        >consonant of its téma), in
                        both
                        >cases we have no doubling, in both cases the
                        >only difference in shape is
                        the raised
                        >"stem" of the former, vs a shortened one of the
                        >second.

                        Good point. But of course the correspondence is not exact. In origin,
                        hyarmen represented [hj]. Hwesta originally represented [xw] before the
                        [x] was softened to [h]. But still an interesting observation! :)

                        Cuio mae, Danny.
                      • xeeniseit
                        ... interesting on hyarmen: That in the beginning it was a weaker variant of harma. How is this to be understood? Does this mean that the palatal fricative hy
                        Message 11 of 20 , May 15, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          xeeniseit scripsit:
                          > > Then I shouldn't ignore them either. The appendices say something
                          interesting on hyarmen: That in the beginning it was a weaker variant
                          of harma. How is this to be understood? Does this mean that the
                          palatal fricative hy is to be considered a variant of the velar one?
                          Etymologically? I can't judge on that, as I don't know about Quenya
                          etymology. Phonetically? This would seem strange to me, but maybe
                          possible, but I'd like to have more evidence on it.

                          John Cowan responsit:
                          > Consider the alternation in German and other languages between [x]
                          and [C], the velar and palatal fricatives. Near front vowels, as
                          in "ich", one gets the palatal fricative; near back vowels, as
                          in "ach", one gets the velar fricative.

                          Well known to me. And 3rd Age Quenya shows the same alternation with
                          original ch between vowel and t (tehtar as "te-hy-tar", ohtar as "o-
                          ch-tar"). But even though in that way, an original ch has become hy,
                          there's also an original hy which -as far as I can see- has nothing
                          to do with original ch. At least, both sounds occur in the same
                          surroundings (e.g. at the beginning of a word before a: hyarmen,
                          charma). But it depends (almost) entirely on the context whether you
                          have German /x/ or /C/, and the same happens with Quenya vowel `+ ht:
                          it depends on the preceding vowel.

                          Danny teithant:
                          > In origin, hyarmen represented [hj].

                          This makes things even trickier! Even though I believe that by means
                          of coarticulation, of connected speech (nobody pronounces isolate
                          sounds), there's only a very short way from [hj] to [C]. But I have
                          no idea how I can put together the ideas of hyarmen originally
                          representing [hj] and being derived from charma as a weaker variant.

                          But suppose that hyarmen originally represented /h/: Then its being a
                          weaker variant of /ch/ wouldn't be problematic any longer. - But then
                          there'd be a mess with the word 'original'. What is the most original
                          tengwar mode? In internal history it must be Feanors mode, but we
                          don't know it; in external history I suspect it's the English mode.
                          And the h-ch stuff in an English mode makes more sense to me than the
                          hy-ch stuff of Quenya!???

                          Why is there more logic in the English mode than in the Quenya mode
                          or in the mode of Beleriand?

                          suilaid
                          alf
                        • xeeniseit
                          ... interesting on hyarmen: That in the beginning it was a weaker variant of harma. How is this to be understood? Does this mean that the palatal fricative hy
                          Message 12 of 20 , May 15, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            xeeniseit scripsit:
                            > > Then I shouldn't ignore them either. The appendices say something
                            interesting on hyarmen: That in the beginning it was a weaker variant
                            of harma. How is this to be understood? Does this mean that the
                            palatal fricative hy is to be considered a variant of the velar one?
                            Etymologically? I can't judge on that, as I don't know about Quenya
                            etymology. Phonetically? This would seem strange to me, but maybe
                            possible, but I'd like to have more evidence on it.

                            John Cowan responsit:
                            > Consider the alternation in German and other languages between [x]
                            and [C], the velar and palatal fricatives. Near front vowels, as
                            in "ich", one gets the palatal fricative; near back vowels, as
                            in "ach", one gets the velar fricative.

                            Well known to me. And 3rd Age Quenya shows the same alternation with
                            original ch between vowel and t (tehtar as "te-hy-tar", ohtar as "o-
                            ch-tar"). But even though in that way, an original ch has become hy,
                            there's also an original hy which -as far as I can see- has nothing
                            to do with original ch. At least, both sounds occur in the same
                            surroundings (e.g. at the beginning of a word before a: hyarmen,
                            charma). But it depends (almost) entirely on the context whether you
                            have German /x/ or /C/, and the same happens with Quenya vowel `+ ht:
                            it depends on the preceding vowel.

                            Danny teithant:
                            > In origin, hyarmen represented [hj].

                            This makes things even trickier! Even though I believe that by means
                            of coarticulation, of connected speech (nobody pronounces isolate
                            sounds), there's only a very short way from [hj] to [C]. But I have
                            no idea how I can put together the ideas of hyarmen originally
                            representing [hj] and being derived from charma as a weaker variant.

                            But suppose that hyarmen originally represented /h/: Then its being a
                            weaker variant of /ch/ wouldn't be problematic any longer. - But then
                            there'd be a mess with the word 'original'. What is the most original
                            tengwar mode? In internal history it must be Feanors mode, but we
                            don't know it; in external history I suspect it's the English mode.
                            And the h-ch stuff in an English mode makes more sense to me than the
                            hy-ch stuff of Quenya!???

                            Why is there more logic in the English mode than in the Quenya mode
                            or in the mode of Beleriand?

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