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

Re: Why is ómatehtar Sindarin 'inconvenient'?

Expand Messages
  • Mach Hezan
    Curiously, we all agree on an important role of the short carrier: (a) B.Philip Jonsson says the short carrier is ugly at the end of a word ­ which is my
    Message 1 of 18 , Oct 4, 2003
      Curiously, we all agree on an important role of the short carrier:

      (a) B.Philip Jonsson says the short carrier is ugly at the end of a word ­
      which is my opinion as well.

      (b) Gildir presumes that the total number of short carriers is to be
      minimalized, because we know that in languages where most words end on a
      consonant, the tehtar are placed on the following letter.

      (c) I hypothetized that due to some reminiscence of pre-feanorian syllable
      theory, the short carrier is only convenient before vowels. This hypothesis
      seems to be knocked down because Tolkien said that the feanorian short
      carrier is "merely a 'carrier'" (as Carl F. Hostetter's pointed out).
      However, Tolkien also said that the use of the short carrier _is_ a
      reminiscence of the pre-feanorian syllable theory, even though it was only
      "for the practical representation of Quenya" and "chiefly for the sake of
      compactness and brevity" (VT39:9).

      The inconvenience of ómatehtar Sindarin (VT39:9) can be explained directly
      by (a) or by (c), but both explanations are highly questionable.

      The inconvenience can also be explained by Arden R. Smith's assumption:

      (d) that the natural way of writing is to write the tengwa first and the
      tehta second (which IMO is also questionable).

      Explanation (d) makes use of (b), as well as the explanations (a) and (c),
      so in any of these cases, there's a special role of the short carrier. IMO
      this seems to be remarkable.

      suilaid
      mach
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.