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

Re: hyarmen

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 20 , May 13, 2003
      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 2 of 20 , May 13, 2003
        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 3 of 20 , May 13, 2003
          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 4 of 20 , May 15, 2003
            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 5 of 20 , May 15, 2003
              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.