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

Re: [elfscript] miscellanea

Expand Messages
  • Jeremie Knusel
    ... There is a mail in the tolklang archive whose topic is: Dot below tehta = no vowel (Vinyar Tengwar #25 p6)
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 14, 2001
      > **A dot below a tengwa seems to do the same job as the apostrophe
      > in English. _menelluin irildeo_ may be _menelluine irildeo_. The form
      > _luine_ is not actually attested but many color-names end in _-e_ (its
      > variant _lúne_ show final e indeed).

      There is a mail in the tolklang archive whose topic is:
      'Dot below' tehta = "no vowel" (Vinyar Tengwar #25 p6)
      (http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/misc/local/TolkLang/Vol5/5.66)

      Does anyone have VT25 ? :)


      Jeremie
    • Angasule
      ... Is ñalta identified as a Quenya word? I ask because I have doubts about the behaviour of initial Ñ, the only example I knew was ñolme holme which
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 15, 2001
        Ales Bican wrote:
        >
        > Angasule wrote:
        >
        > > The sound ñ by itself doesn't occur medially in Quenya outside of
        > > clusters, AFAIK.
        >
        > **You can get it secondarily. If we assume the existance of
        > the word *_ñal-_ "shine by reflection" (root ÑAL of the same
        > meaning, _ñalta_ "radiance", PM:347), then the perfect may be
        > *_añálie_ "has shone".
        Is ñalta identified as a Quenya word? I ask because I have doubts about
        the behaviour of initial Ñ, the only example I knew was ñolme > holme
        which could be a misreading. Anyway, I think añálié would rather become
        eálie (or would that be aelie? vowels confuse me still) or maybe even
        angálie (with strengthening, in the second case).

        > **WJ:394 gives _hloni_ "sound", VT39:9 gives both _ohloni_ and
        > _ohlon_ "diphtong". This suggests *_hlon_ "sound".
        Thanks for the info.
        Angasule
      • Ales Bican
        ... **Yes, it is. Primitive (CE) form is given as ñalatá, and its scions are Quenya _ñalta_, Telerin _alata_ and Sindarin _galad_. ... **I would say it is a
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 15, 2001
          Angasule wrote:

          > > > The sound ñ by itself doesn't occur medially in Quenya outside of
          > > > clusters, AFAIK.
          > >
          > > **You can get it secondarily. If we assume the existance of
          > > the word *_ñal-_ "shine by reflection" (root ÑAL of the same
          > > meaning, _ñalta_ "radiance", PM:347), then the perfect may be
          > > *_añálie_ "has shone".
          > Is ñalta identified as a Quenya word?

          **Yes, it is. Primitive (CE) form is given as ñalatá, and its scions
          are Quenya _ñalta_, Telerin _alata_ and Sindarin _galad_.

          > I ask because I have doubts about
          > the behaviour of initial Ñ, the only example I knew was ñolme > holme
          > which could be a misreading.

          **I would say it is a misreading. Anyway, stem ÑOL gives
          Quenya _holme_ and Noldorin _ûl_ (not *_gûl_).

          > Anyway, I think añálié would rather become
          > eálie (or would that be aelie? vowels confuse me still) or maybe even
          > angálie (with strengthening, in the second case).

          **Good point. You are right that CE intervocalic ñ disappeared, but it
          is uncertain what would happen here. Will ñ be lost or not? This
          leads to another problem.
          You know there is a verb _halya-_ "veil" derived from the stem SKAL-.
          Initial sk became _h_ in Quenya. Now how will its perfect look like?
          _ahálie_ or _axálie_? Medial sk became _cs_ (_x_) in Quenya.
          What about _laira_ "shady" (stem DAY), will "most shady" be _andaira_
          or _allaira_? We know that _lindornea_ "having many oaks" behaves like
          this (stem DORON, _norno_ "oak"; _lin-_ "many").
          And what about _verya_ "bold" (BER). Will "boldest" be _amberya_
          or _anverya_? We know that _Envinyatar_ is possible and that it is
          neither _enwinyatar_ nor _embinyatar_.
          So it is questionable what will happen with _añálie_.
          However, _ñal-_ is pronounced _nal-_ in 3rd Age Quenya, so the
          perfect can be _análie_ then.


          Ales Bican

          --
          **I want love or death, that's it. (Mathilda, _Léon: Version Intégrale_)
        • Angasule
          ... Yes, it was the most likely, confirming it is good, though! ... Envinyatar can be exaplained as a late construction, but análie is definitely the way to
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 15, 2001
            Ales Bican wrote:
            >
            > Angasule wrote:
            >
            > > > > The sound ñ by itself doesn't occur medially in Quenya outside of
            > > > > clusters, AFAIK.
            > > >
            > > > **You can get it secondarily. If we assume the existance of
            > > > the word *_ñal-_ "shine by reflection" (root ÑAL of the same
            > > > meaning, _ñalta_ "radiance", PM:347), then the perfect may be
            > > > *_añálie_ "has shone".
            > > Is ñalta identified as a Quenya word?
            >
            > **Yes, it is. Primitive (CE) form is given as ñalatá, and its scions
            > are Quenya _ñalta_, Telerin _alata_ and Sindarin _galad_.
            >
            > > I ask because I have doubts about
            > > the behaviour of initial Ñ, the only example I knew was ñolme > holme
            > > which could be a misreading.
            >
            > **I would say it is a misreading. Anyway, stem ÑOL gives
            > Quenya _holme_ and Noldorin _ûl_ (not *_gûl_).
            Yes, it was the most likely, confirming it is good, though!

            > > Anyway, I think añálié would rather become
            > > eálie (or would that be aelie? vowels confuse me still) or maybe even
            > > angálie (with strengthening, in the second case).
            >
            > **Good point. You are right that CE intervocalic ñ disappeared, but it
            > is uncertain what would happen here. Will ñ be lost or not? This
            > leads to another problem.
            > You know there is a verb _halya-_ "veil" derived from the stem SKAL-.
            > Initial sk became _h_ in Quenya. Now how will its perfect look like?
            > _ahálie_ or _axálie_? Medial sk became _cs_ (_x_) in Quenya.
            > What about _laira_ "shady" (stem DAY), will "most shady" be _andaira_
            > or _allaira_? We know that _lindornea_ "having many oaks" behaves like
            > this (stem DORON, _norno_ "oak"; _lin-_ "many").
            > And what about _verya_ "bold" (BER). Will "boldest" be _amberya_
            > or _anverya_? We know that _Envinyatar_ is possible and that it is
            > neither _enwinyatar_ nor _embinyatar_.
            > So it is questionable what will happen with _añálie_.
            > However, _ñal-_ is pronounced _nal-_ in 3rd Age Quenya, so the
            > perfect can be _análie_ then.
            Envinyatar can be exaplained as a late construction, but análie is
            definitely the way to go with the current info, I agree! It may actually
            turn out to be the correct form (in any case it can be seen as
            levelling).
            Angasule
          • Mans Bjorkman
            ... I do. Without having reread the TolkLang message, I do no doubt that it refers to the article The Subscript Dot: A New _Tehta_ Usage by our esteemed
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 16, 2001
              Jeremie Knusel wrote:
              >
              > There is a mail in the tolklang archive whose topic is:
              > 'Dot below' tehta = "no vowel" (Vinyar Tengwar #25 p6)
              > (http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/misc/local/TolkLang/Vol5/5.66)
              >
              > Does anyone have VT25 ? :)

              I do. Without having reread the TolkLang message, I do no doubt that it
              refers to the article "The Subscript Dot: A New _Tehta_ Usage" by our
              esteemed elfscribe Arden Smith. In brief, the article begins with
              describing the tehta usage in Lowdham's Old English manuscripts from the
              then recently published Sauron Defeated. It is noted that the Adûnaic
              word _Zigûr_ is once written with a dot beneath the <óre> (and _Zigûre_
              is not), likewise that Quenya _Tarcalion_ has a dot beneath the <númen>,
              while the a-tehtar are missing. Smith then quotes the note from Appendix
              E about _a_ often being omitted in Quenya, so "for _calma_ 'lamp' _clm_
              could be written." In _Tarcalion_, Smith notes, <tinco> and <quesse>
              (sic! not <calma>) "are each followed by an implicit _a_. The letters
              [<óre>] and [<númen>] have _no_ vowel following them, and _this_ is what
              the subscript dot indicates."

              Then the exhibition catalogue "J.R.R. Tolkien: Life and Legend. An
              exhibition to Commemorate the Centenary of the Birth of J.R.R. Tolkien
              (1892-1973)" is referred to. The catalogue contains the inscription
              _Menelluin Írildeo Ondolindello_ (with the authorial caption "Idril's
              Device The 'Cornflower' pattern Menelluin"), the same inscription that
              was later published in Artist and Illustrator. Here the final <númen> of
              _Menelluin_ carries a subscript dot, while the preceding _i_ is placed
              on a short carrier.

              The catalogue also contains an untranscribed inscription that goes:
              "<quesse><lambe + subscript dot><malta> <hyarmen + e-tehta><ando +
              superscript tilde><silme + subscript dot>". Smith interprets this as
              _calma hendas_, "a light in the eye", despite the untraditional use of
              <quesse> and <ando>. However this inscription is to be interpreted, it
              seems clear to me that the subscript dot is here and elsewhere used to
              indicate lack of following _a_.

              Yours,
              Måns

              --
              Måns Björkman "Mun þu mik!
              Störtloppsvägen 8, III Man þik.
              SE-129 46 Hägersten Un þu mer!
              Sweden http://hem.passagen.se/mansb An þer."
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.