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

Re: hyarmen

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 20 , May 13, 2003
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 20 , May 15, 2003
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 20 , May 15, 2003
        View Source
        • 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.