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

on Westron and DTS 49 yanta (was: Ómatehtar & Sindarin again)

Expand Messages
  • Mach Hezan
    Benct Philip Jonsson wrote... ... That s true! Why yanta in DTS 49? To me, this belongs within the big unanswered questions about tengwar. And makes me
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 9, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Benct Philip Jonsson wrote...
      > > > And then Anna with two dots below for initial _i_ before a vowel
      > > > and for _i_ between two vowels.

      ...and wrote...
      > Because it meets my eye and my phonological feeling better.

      That's true! Why yanta in DTS 49? To me, this belongs within the big
      unanswered questions about tengwar.

      And makes me think... I see a parallel: Greek was for the old Romans what
      Quenya and Sindarin were for the Gondorians: Language of wisdom and poetry.
      Both Romans and Gondorians adopted words from these languages to their own
      language. I claim that both used their own orthography for the rendering of
      these words.

      Let's suppose the Gondorian orthography is what Tolkien calls the 'general
      use' (cf. DTS 58), an ómatehtar mode that uses the calmatéma for palatals
      (or palatoalveolars). The (Gondorian) King's Letter is written in that mode
      as well as the (very Gondorian) Return of the King Jacket (DTS 38).

      The Romans wrote Greek words with their own orthography, which is shown by
      the fact that they added two letters to their alphabet so that it could
      write Greek loans: Y and Z (the original Roman alphabet ended with X). The
      letters of the Roman alphabet are cousins of the Greek letters because the
      alphabets are kindred. The Roman cousin of the Greek Z letter was lost
      (substituted by the G letter), so its adding was but a reintroduction. The
      Roman cousin of the Y letter, however, was still in use: it's the V letter
      (which at that time covered the sounds /u/ and /w/).

      Why was that letter reintroduced to the Roman alphabet even though it was
      already there? The answer is that the sounds covered by this (these)
      letter(s) in the respective languages had dissimilated so much that people
      feeled the need of having two different letters: Original Greek /u/ ­ as
      later French /u/ ­ had become /y/ (I really hope this isn't false), while
      Latin /u/ hadn't changed.

      There might have happen something similar with the case of anna vs. yanta.
      The Gondorian, I mean the 'common use' sign for /j/ is supposed to be
      _anna_. Maybe the sound covered by anna could have dissimilated so much from
      the Sindarin /j/ sound that the Gondorians felt the need of having different
      letters. Original Gondorian Westron /j/ could have become /dzh/ but still be
      written with the original letter, anna. (The same has happened in English,
      where /dzh/ is still represented with the j-letter.)

      If there's any instance of 'common use' Quenya or Sindarin /j/ _not_
      represented with yanta, then this hypothesis is proved to be wrong. That's
      because it predicts 'common use' Quenya and Sindarin to use yanta, not anna.
      I mean, I'm predicting that the Manney Inscription (DTS 46) uses yanta
      without knowing it. Could people who possess VT 21 please check this out
      (I'm still waiting for it)?

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