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

Re: [elfscript] Re: hyarmen

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 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
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.