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

Re: Why is ómatehtar Sindarin 'inconvenient'?

Expand Messages
  • BP Jonsson
    ... I think you are on to something there, having gone through the said kind of trouble with computer fonts. OTOH when writing in the Arabic script one first
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 23, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      At 08:09 22.9.2003 +0000, you wrote:
      >Message: 1
      > Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 01:36:47 -0700
      > From: "Arden R. Smith" <erilaz@...>
      >Subject: Re: Why is ómatehtar Sindarin 'inconvenient'?
      >
      >
      >Mach Hezan wrote:
      >
      > >Has anybody an idea why ómatehtar were regarded to be inconvenient for
      > >Sindarin?
      >
      >I think it's because modes in which a tehta is placed over a
      >following consonant require the scribe to spell out sounds OUT OF
      >SEQUENCE. For example, if I were to write "Elrond" in a Sindarin
      >mode with ómatehtar, I would spell it out in the sequence L-E-R-D-N-O
      >(lambe; e-tehta above that; rómen; ando; nasal tehta above that;
      >o-tehta above that). On the other hand, if I were to write out the
      >same sound sequence in the usual Quenya mode, I would put it down on
      >paper in the order E-L-R-O-ND (short carrier; e-tehta above that;
      >lambe; rómen; o-tehta above that; ando).

      I think you are on to something there, having gone
      through the said kind of trouble with computer fonts.
      OTOH when writing in the Arabic script one first writes
      the "skeleton" of the word, then afterwards adds the
      diacritic dots. (True the **vowel** diacritics are not
      necessary to write out at all, but the dotd distinguishing
      several consonant letters are considered essential, e.g.
      s/sh, p/b/t/th/n, j/kh/hh/ch etc.) This is simply the way
      one writes, and no other way is possible due to the highly
      cursive nature of the "skeleton". It is true that dots
      sometimes get displaced, or very 'loosely' written around
      the "skeleton", but nevertheless this is the way I usually
      write tengwar by hand: first all the tengwar of each word,
      then I add all the tehtar. IME this makes writing in a
      consonant-first or vowel-first mode about equally (non)-
      difficult.



      /BP 8^)
      --
      B.Philip Jonsson mailto:melrochX@... (delete X)
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
      A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
      __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
      \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
      / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
      / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Gaestan ~\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
      /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
      Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
      ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
      || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
      "A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Benct Philip Jonsson
      ... [snip] ... I think this is correct, although according to my aesthetic impulses a lot of final short carriers **is** ugly! Perhaps this is an acquired
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 29, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        At 07:48 29.9.2003 +0000, elfscript@yahoogroups.com wrote:

        >Message: 2
        > Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:21:05 -0000
        > From: "gildir_2" <gildir_2@...>
        >Subject: Re: Why is ómatehtar Sindarin 'inconvenient'?

        [snip]

        >I presume that the writer wants to minimize the total
        >number of short carriers. At least, that's what I infer
        >from what the Venerable Translator of the Red Book writes
        >in Appendix E:
        >
        > "In languages such as Quenya, in which most words ended
        > in a vowel, the _tehta_ was placed above the preceding
        > preceding consonant; in those such as Sindarin, in which
        > most words ended in a consonant, it was placed above the
        > following consonant. When there was no consonant present
        > in the present in the required position, the _tehta_ was
        > placed above the 'short carrier', [...]"
        >
        >There are, of course, several interpretations:
        >+ minimize the total number of short carriers
        >+ minimize the use of short carriers initially and finally
        >
        >Perhaps is the number of short carriers medially invariant
        >with the mode? Then I guess that the two goals above are
        >the same.

        I think this is correct, although according to my aesthetic
        impulses a lot of final short carriers **is** ugly!
        Perhaps this is an acquired impulse. Certainly a language
        written in Latin script does not automatically become ugly
        if it has a lot of final _i_s, as Finnish has.

        >During our work to figure out a practical tehta mode for
        >Swedish, someone mentioned that it has about an equal
        >number of words that begin in a vowel and ends in a vowel.

        I found the same while developing my own mode for Swedish.

        <http://www.melroch.se/svteng.jpg>

        >The choice fell on the 'Sindarin/English' way (or, should
        >I say 'Mannish' way), partly because it appears to be a
        >more common mode.

        Actually I use sometimes the one method, sometimes the other
        when writing Swedish. When I use the preceding vowel method
        I sometimes use subscribed tehtar for final unstressed
        _a, e, i_, which make up a large percentage of final vowels
        in Swedish! Mostly however I use vowel tengwar, if space isn't
        an issue.

        >Perhaps Finnish has different statistics?

        Since the majority of Finnish words end in vowels final
        vowels are certainly more frequent than initial ones.

        >Has anyone calculated that kind statistics for Q and S?

        I haven't.

        >Suilaid,
        >Gildir, Per Lindberg


        /BP 8^)
        --
        B.Philip Jonsson mailto:melrochX@... (delete X)
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
        A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
        __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
        \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
        / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
        / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /Gaestan ~\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
        /_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
        Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
        ~~~~~~~~~Kuinondil~~~\________/~~\__/~~~Noolendur~~~~~~
        || Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
        "A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Arden R. Smith
        ... I agree, and for me they need not be *final* short carriers. Short words consisting of nothing but carriers and tehtar are the worst, especially if you
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 29, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          B. P. Jonsson wrote:

          >I think this is correct, although according to my aesthetic
          >impulses a lot of final short carriers **is** ugly!

          I agree, and for me they need not be *final* short carriers. Short
          words consisting of nothing but carriers and tehtar are the worst,
          especially if you get several close together. I did a calligraphic
          version of the Lord's Prayer in Quenya for a tutorial on the tengwar
          at this year's Mythcon, and the phrase "i ea han ea" in the first
          line is not aesthetically pleasing to me at all.


          --
          *********************************************************************
          Arden R. Smith erilaz@...

          Perilme metto aimaktur perperienta.
          --Elvish proverb
          *********************************************************************
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.