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

Re: hyarmen

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.