Re: Why is ómatehtar Sindarin 'inconvenient'?
- 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.