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

Re: Quenya or Sindarin?

Expand Messages
  • Calwen Rudh
    ... and ... and ... harder ... like ... It is hard to tell. I think maybe Quenya is easier in a way that there a course made so your searching and studying
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 10, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Chris Ruzin <chris@m...> wrote:
      > OK, I've been doing a LOT of searching for Sindarin audio examples,
      and
      > noticed there seem to be many more examples of Quenya both written
      and
      > spoken than Sindarin. Is there a reason? Is Quenya easier or
      harder
      > than Sindarin to learn? I know I want to learn them, but I would
      like
      > to start with the easier one for now.
      >
      > Thanks,
      > Chris
      It is hard to tell. I think maybe Quenya is easier "in a way" that
      there a course made so your searching and studying is made easier. On
      the other hand, we have more of Sindarin text. It is up to you. You
      may also see the FAQ of Elfling, you may find some answers on your
      question. Me personally prefer Sindarin :)
      Suilad,
      Lucy
    • Carl F. Hostetter
      ... The advantage of studying Quenya first is that it makes many of the features of Sindarin far more transparent, and thus easier to understand and remember.
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 10, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sep 10, 2003, at 2:20 AM, Chris Ruzin wrote:

        > Is Quenya easier or harder than Sindarin to learn?

        The advantage of studying Quenya first is that it makes many of the
        features of Sindarin far more transparent, and thus easier to
        understand and remember. Sindarin is characterized (_inter alia_) by
        weakening and loss of final elements that are usually retained in
        Quenya, and by mutation and assimilation of consonants that are often
        unchanged in Quenya. Knowing the Quenya cognates of various
        phonological and morphological (sounds and endings) features and
        developments let's you "see the history" behind and within Sindarin
        forms, and thus to more easily analyze them.
      • Michael Everson
        ... Not dissimilar to Finnish and Estonian. I learned the latter (some); later on I discovered that a number of features in Estonian are shared in Finnish, but
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 10, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          At 08:37 -0400 2003-09-10, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
          >On Sep 10, 2003, at 2:20 AM, Chris Ruzin wrote:
          >
          >> Is Quenya easier or harder than Sindarin to learn?
          >
          >The advantage of studying Quenya first is that it makes many of the
          >features of Sindarin far more transparent, and thus easier to
          >understand and remember. Sindarin is characterized (_inter alia_) by
          >weakening and loss of final elements that are usually retained in
          >Quenya, and by mutation and assimilation of consonants that are often
          >unchanged in Quenya. Knowing the Quenya cognates of various
          >phonological and morphological (sounds and endings) features and
          >developments let's you "see the history" behind and within Sindarin
          >forms, and thus to more easily analyze them.

          Not dissimilar to Finnish and Estonian. I learned the latter (some);
          later on I discovered that a number of features in Estonian are
          shared in Finnish, but Finnish preserves elements which make it clear
          why certain processes are occurring. So Estonian "lugu" has a
          genitive "loo" where the consonant is dropped (the lowering of the
          vowel is secondary); compare Finnish "Turku" genigive "Turun" where
          the consonant is dropped because the syllable is closed by the
          genitive -n. So Estonian was originally "lugu" gen. "lugun" >
          "luun" > "luu" > "loo".
          --
          Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
        • DDanielA@webtv.net
          Chris, If you want to study both Quenya and Sindarin, there s a number of reasons to start with Quenya. For one, you don t have to deal with Sindarin phonemes
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 10, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Chris,
            If you want to study both Quenya and Sindarin, there's a number of
            reasons to start with Quenya. For one, you don't have to deal with
            Sindarin phonemes like 'ae', 'oe', 'y' that are notoriously difficult
            for English speakers. On the other hand, Quenya does have 'hl' and 'hr'
            (corresponding to S 'lh' and 'rh'). And tose who live the American Deep
            South won't find S 'ae' and 'oe' to be a problem.
            Quenya is better attested. We get a much better idea of Quenya word
            order and grammar from the published texts than is possible for
            Sindarin. The Etymologies contain more vocabulary entries for Noldorin
            than for Qenya, but the attested Quenya forms far surpass those of
            attested Sindarin. With Quenya you don't have to wrestle with those
            blasted initial mutations, many of which remain hypothetical. Tengwar
            writing is better attested for Quenya, for the most part restricted to a
            single mode, unlike the three relatively well-attested S modes. Isolated
            'w' is still unattested in two of the three modes! The minus side is
            that Q has a large declensional system. That means memorising many
            endings, but they luckily tend to be fairly regular.

            That said, I still prefer Sindarin. A lot has been said about how Quenya
            is a more 'sonorous' sounding language than Sindarin. Personally, I find
            the abundance of S voiced stops and spirants where Quenya has voiceless
            stops, and S 'th' in place of many Q 's' cognates, tends to make
            Sindarin sound softer and less staccato than Quenya. Just my opinion.

            Cuio mae, Danny.
          • Chris Ruzin
            I ve been going over different responses from people and reading over explanations and histories of both languages on several Web sites. Every one of them says
            Message 5 of 7 , Sep 10, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              I've been going over different responses from people and reading over
              explanations and histories of both languages on several Web sites.
              Every one of them says that Quenya is easier to learn because it is
              more attested, but I keep leaning towards learning Sindarin first.
              It's much prettier to me. I've always loved Gaelic, so maybe that's
              why I have this leaning?

              I'm from the deep south, so the Sindarin "ae" and "oe" shouldn't be
              that difficult. I pick up on languages pretty fast. I had no problem
              picking up Portuguese while I was in Brazil. I was there for only one
              month, but I learned enough to know what they were talking about to
              each other. Spanish is also easy to pick up on. And I knew enough
              German to hold a basic conversation while I was in Germany. I didn't
              have formal lessons in any of these languages though, so I don't know
              all the terminology or even where to begin learning really.

              All that said, I will try to learn Sindarin first. I've found the
              lessons on councilofelrond.com and they look pretty good. If anyone
              else knows of other good lessons (besides those on Ardalambion), please
              let me know.

              Thanks,
              Chris
              --
              Chris Ruzin
              www.chrisruzin.net
            • DDanielA@webtv.net
              ... My feelings as well. ... Think of pronouncing my and boy with a strong redneck accent, but without drawing out the diphthongs. Yo ll be pronouncing S
              Message 6 of 7 , Sep 10, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Teithant Chris Ruzin:
                >I keep leaning towards learning Sindarin first. It's
                >much prettier to me.

                My feelings as well.

                >I'm from the deep south, so the Sindarin "ae" and
                >"oe" shouldn't be that difficult.

                Think of pronouncing 'my' and 'boy' with a strong redneck accent, but
                without drawing out the diphthongs. Yo'll be pronouncing S _mae_ and
                _boe_. Those two diphthongs don't exist in Received Pronuciation, but I
                hear them on a daily basis here in Louisiana!

                By the way: you can find sound samples of Sindarin (readings of the
                published samples) on Florian Dombach's Mellyn in Edhil website, if you
                haven't already checked it out. I don't agree with everything I heard
                there, but all in all it's pretty accurate. My main disagreements are
                the pronunciation of 'ae' and that long and short 'i' are not
                differentiated in quality, though Tolkien tells us that they are. It's
                worth a listen.

                Cuio mae, Danny.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.