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

hyarmen

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.