Re: [elfscript] How to write this?
- On 8/20/03 4:20 PM, "Mach Hezan" <machhezan@...> wrote:
> to 1.: I'd suggest you just write all <gh> digraphs the same way: withI will do so from now on.
> There's something abouth the <gh> that concerns me more: I think thatAs shown in the Michael Endorian autograph.
> this digraph was never pronounced with the voiced /GH/ sound (appendices
> phonetic transcription), but with the unvoiced /CH/ sound (the sound of
> hwesta). The reason why it was written <gh>, not <ch> was simply that in Old
> French, there was already a digraph <ch> but for another sound. In tengwar,
> this confusion can't arise, but still the sign for the voiced /GH/ sound is
> My own guess is the following: He designed these modes, the orthographic
> ones, for publication, and thus wanted to keep them easy so that also people
> with less knowledge of the history of English could understand them. Indeed,
> the English tengwar samples that were addressed to other people or clearly
> meant to be published are written in orthographical modes. On the other
> hand, those that without any doubt weren't meant to be published are written
> in phonemic modes.
By the way, this brings up another question I have. What is the purpose of
extended stems on certain tengwar? I know Tolkien used an extended thúle
for 'the' and an extended ampa for 'of'. He also used an extended hwesta
for 'ch' in 'Michael'. Since I've only recently started learning all this,
which Tengwar have an extended stem, and when should I use them?
> to 2.: The attested transcriptions of <s> are written with silme, theHmm... Silme - silme nuquerna looks very odd when written out. I'll have to
> attested transcriptions of <c> when pronounced /s/ are written wich silme
> nuquerna. I have no better suggestion.
do some more studying to see if I can find a hint about this somewhere.
Thanks for the feedback,