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

Full Tengwar Modes for Modern English

Expand Messages
  • Kyrmse
    I wish to reply as soon as possible to the very perceptive remarks (quoted below) made by Mach Hezan and Arden Smith on my text at
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I wish to reply as soon as possible to the very perceptive remarks
      (quoted below) made by Mach Hezan and Arden Smith on my text at
      www.geocities.com/otsoandor/FTMME.htm on the above subject. This is
      in order not to give the impression that I will not react to their
      comments. I will indeed, and will correct my online publication as
      soon as time allows... Please see my own comments in double square
      brackets [[ ]] -- and sorry for the extensive quotes!
      And many thanks to Mach and Arden for their comments!
      - - - - -
      Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:37:00 +0100
      From: Mach Hezan <machhezan@...>
      Subject: Re: Full Tengwar Modes for Modern English - and DTS
      Specimina (long)

      Ronald Kyrmse, I really like your page! It gives an thorough overview
      on the
      English 'full writing' modes and after all it clearly distinguishes
      between
      phonemic and orthographic modes. [[Thanks -- positive feedback is
      always welcome, even though my work is still far from complete -- see
      below]]

      Unfortunately, I don't have DTS 53 and 54 either, nor do I
      have "Tolkien:
      Life and Legend". How did you get all that precise information about
      DTs 53
      and 54 although you don't know them? [[I got info through the DTS
      webpage, and in the meantime have obtained images of them]]

      What I noticed about DTS 60 is that it seems to repeat two times the
      same
      line (as far as it's decipherable), a variation of the first line of
      the
      Ring Verse. [[Yes, so it seems]]

      Since you've described the Bombadil mode (I mean the mode of DTS 16,
      17, 18,
      23, samples I assume to be written at about the same time): Have you
      noticed
      that the word _lie_ in DTS 36 looks as if it were written in that
      mode? This
      can't be the explanation, however, since it's an orthographic tehtar
      mode.
      I'd rather explain it like that: Two points represent vocalic <y>;
      anna
      represents unsyllabic <e>, so the spelling would be _lye_ (a
      misspelling). [[This seems to be so indeed -- antway I hadn't looked
      too closely at DTS36, exactly because it is a tehtar-mode]]



      Comments to your page:

      € AFAIK the only sample you've missed is DTS 14. [[Very true, and
      very embarassing too! This will be corrected asap. The only thing I
      can say in self-defence is that I had a memory (mistaken, as it turns
      out) of that line as being in a tehtar-mode]]


      € On DTS 25 you write: "Three drafts in the same mode for the
      inscription on
      the West Gate of Moria."

      What same mode? Neither do they have the same mode among each other
      nor the
      same mode as DTS 24: Because of the representation of /r/. [[That is
      right: it is _not_ the same mode!]]


      € You write: "The three texts without an estimated date appear to
      have been
      written comparatively late, possibly around the time when The Lord of
      the
      Rings was published in 1954-55 or somewhat later still."

      As to DTS 15, I agree. DTS 17 and 18, however, match so perfectly
      with DTS
      16 and 23 that I assume they've been written at the same time, in the
      early
      1930. Additionally, the Bombadil mode (the mode of these samples) is
      less
      congruent with App. E of the Lord of the Rings than other modes I
      consider
      to be more recent, e.g. the mode of the Treebeard Page (DTS 24). The
      Bombadil mode has letters for /w, wh/ that don't figure in App. E and
      it
      doesn't use the abbreviations for _of, of the_, while the Treebeard
      Page
      matches perfectly with the Westron use described in App. E. [[Well,
      this shows that your analysis is better than mine! Due corrections
      will be made]]


      € "Common consonant values":

      As you indicate in FTMME.pdf, /w/ and /wh/ aren't represented by the
      same
      tengwar throughout all phonemic modes. [[Well, no: the Treebeard-mode
      has hwesta sindarinwa for /wh/ and vala for /w/, and so on. But at
      least the 2-tengwa (high or low) is always /w/ _when_it_occurs_, and
      inverteed rómen is /wh/. That is what I meant, but probably it pays
      to be a little more specific]]


      € In the chart of the vowels, you've confused the tengwar for /a/
      and /o/
      (in the chart at the end of the page they're correct). [[The vowel
      chart next to the common consonant chart was not meant to show common
      vowels, but rather the struck-out vowels on the Steinborg drawing,
      and there /a/ is indeed úre, and /o/ is vilya]]


      € You're writing: "the tengwa anna has variously stood for a, o and
      the
      first vowel in butter."

      Anna for /a/? I only know one instance of this, the word _about_ in
      DTS 18,
      but this seems to be a mistake. And I rather think that all instances
      of the
      vowel of _but_ are spelled with the u-shaped tengwa, compare them
      with other
      tengwar of calmatéma. [[DTS24 (Treebeard) does have anna for /a/,
      e.g. in _fragment_ and _while_. The Bombadil-I-mode has anna, not the
      u-tengwa, for ^ (in the word _up_). On the other hand, you are right
      commenting on _about_ in Bombadil II's (DTS18's) line 5; in fact, I
      think it is _not_ written with anna, but with vilya, and have
      registered the fact on my table]]


      € You continue: "A character looking rather like a cursive lower-case
      u has
      also been used to designate this latter vowel-sound, but it seems to
      be a
      mere allograph of anna."

      This is true for the Bombadil mode, but not for the Treebeard Page and
      similar modes. [[You are right: Treebeard has anna for /a/ and the u-
      tengwa in _but_]]


      € You write: "my own opinion is that we would be faithful to JRRT's
      most
      recent practice in employing a Bombadil-mode (if writing
      phonemically)"

      As I've pointed out above, I believe that the mode of the Treebeard
      Page is
      more recent. That mode shows all required signs except for the sign
      for /j/,
      but I assume it's yanta since the long carrier is already used.
      [[This "more recent" business will have to be revised by me, as I
      said...]]


      € On the bottom of the chart at the end of the page (and in
      FTMME.pdf), I
      see many instances of ˆ but no phonemic/orthographic values. That's
      your
      intention, right? [[Yes: ^ should not appear in the orthographic
      modes, as it is not a letter of the "normal" Latin alphabet (and
      orth. modes try to reproduce the _letters_ of English spelling]]



      Comments to FTMME.pdf:

      € Your distinction between the sounds _trilled r_ and _approximant r_
      for
      rómen and óre isn't correct, since standard English doesn't have but
      _approximant r_. I think the alternation of rómen and óre is best
      described
      typographically (before vowels elsewhere). In the phonemic modes,
      there is
      a phonetic correspondance to that alternation: the distinction between
      _approximant r_ and _dropped r_ (shva), but this correspondance is
      only
      found in _r-dropping_ dialects, and after all it's not phonemic.
      [[Before vs. after vowels: I agree. What I meant by writing an
      inverted _r_ is that variety of /r/ that can be dropped (or almost)
      depending on the English dialect you use, and the right-side-up _r_
      is the one not normally dropped, and sometimes even trilled]]


      € I wouldn't have distinguished between acute, left curl, right curl
      and
      tilde, like you do in FTMME.pdf. I think we can be safe to assume
      that these
      aren't but allographs of the andaith. [[This makes perfect sense to
      me]]


      € I assume that in _christmas_ (DTS 10), the tehta below quesse is a
      vertical bar, a reflex of a halla. Anyway, it's not the tehta you're
      using
      in FTMME.pdf. [[I plead guilty to the tehta used in FTMME.pdf]]


      € You haven't mentioned the r-shaped version of the short carrier but
      in DTS
      53 and 22, and in the latter case you've only mentioned it among the
      "peculiar uses" (it doesn't even figure in your transcription of DTS
      23). [[Should we consider the r-shaped version as a mere allograph of
      the short carrier?]]


      suilaid
      mach



      _____________________________________________________________
      _____________________________________________________________

      Message: 2
      Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:13:17 -0800
      From: "Arden R. Smith" <erilaz@...>
      Subject: Re: Full Tengwar Modes for Modern English - and DTS Specimina


      Mach Hezan writes:

      >As to DTS 15, I agree. DTS 17 and 18, however, match so perfectly
      with DTS
      >16 and 23 that I assume they've been written at the same time, in
      the early
      >1930.

      This is right on the money. Evidence in Tolkien's manuscripts in
      fact indicates that DTS 16, 17, and 18 were most likely written in
      1931. [[This insight will make its way into version 3!]]
    • Mach Hezan
      ... May I ask how you ve managed to do so (as I d be very interested in obtaining them also)? ... Sure, I should have been reading more carefully. However, I
      Message 2 of 7 , Nov 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Ronald Kyrmse wrote:

        >> How did you get all that precise information about DTs 53 and 54
        >
        > in the meantime have obtained images of them

        May I ask how you've managed to do so (as I'd be very interested in
        obtaining them also)?

        >> € In the chart of the vowels, you've confused the tengwar for /a/ and /o/
        >
        > The vowel chart next to the common consonant chart was not meant to show
        > common vowels, but rather the struck-out vowels on the Steinborg drawing,

        Sure, I should have been reading more carefully. However, I rather think
        that on the Steinborg drawing, the tengwa next to _e_ is anna, not a
        stemless calma (or anna). It's not very clear. Sure, stemless calma is more
        consistent with the other modes, but the tengwa I see on the Steinborg
        drawing looks very similar to anna as e.g. seen in the word _by_ on the
        Treebeard page. BTW, this version of anna reminds very much the r-shaped
        short carrier!

        >> € You're writing: "the tengwa anna has variously stood for a, o and the
        >> first vowel in butter."
        >>
        >> Anna for /a/? I only know one instance of this, the word _about_ in DTS
        >> 18,
        >
        > DTS24 (Treebeard) does have anna for /a/, e.g. in _fragment_ and _while_.

        I've confused things up. The use I wanted to question was the use of anna
        for _o_, but somehow I got into _a_. But now I see that the Ilbereth
        Greetings use anna for _o_.

        > The Bombadil-I-mode has anna, not the u-tengwa, for ^ (in the word _up_).

        I'm not so sure about this any more. Compare e.g. the u-shaped tengwa with
        the tengwar from the calmatéma in DTS 17: The uppermost part of the
        calmatéma lúvar always points to the right. The same can be observed in DTS
        16, 18, and 23, but not that clearly.

        >> € On the bottom of the chart at the end of the page (and in FTMME.pdf), I
        >> see many instances of ˆ but no phonemic/orthographic values. That's your
        >> intention, right?
        >
        > Yes: ^ should not appear in the orthographic modes

        Seemingly, our computers have some troubles in understanding each other:
        What I intended to say is that I see many instances of a little hook,
        probably only intended to affirm that the signs exist.

        > What I meant by writing an inverted _r_ is that variety of /r/ that can be
        > dropped (or almost) depending on the English dialect you use, and the
        > right-side-up _r_ is the one not normally dropped, and sometimes even trilled

        This isn't the IPA use, but these are IPA signs. I couldn't find a sign for
        these 'potentially dropped' _r_.

        Since the alternation of óre and rómen reflects the alternation of dropped
        _r_ and 'kept' _r_ that I'm not sure whether it should be suggested to
        speakers of rhotic/_r_-keeping dialects. Indeed, this consideration makes
        the mode of DTS 25 preferrable, where any _r_ is represented with óre. But
        this brings other problems along: Should rómen be used for _w_? How should
        _Mary ­ merry ­ marry_ be distinguished (not all speaker make these
        distinctions)?

        > Should we consider the r-shaped version as a mere allograph of the short
        > carrier?

        Yes, I would consider it a variant of the short carrier, but certainly not a
        free variant but a variant only allowed in certain positions in certain
        modes. In that respect, it might be interesting to compare the use of the
        r-shaped versions of calmatéma letters with the use of their |-shaped
        versions, but I've never paid any attention to that.

        suilaid
        mach
      • Kyrmse
        My replies below -- as usual between [[ ]] == There are many issues to be addressed here, and I have not got the time to make a proper correction to FTMME
        Message 3 of 7 , Nov 5, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          My replies below -- as usual between [[ ]]
          ==> There are many issues to be addressed here, and I have not got
          the time to make a proper correction to FTMME right away. But rest
          assured, all, that I will put up Version 3 asap, _and_ post an
          announcement on Elfscript!

          --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Mach Hezan <machhezan@g...> wrote:
          > Ronald Kyrmse wrote:
          >
          > >> How did you get all that precise information about DTs 53 and 54
          > >
          > > in the meantime have obtained images of them
          >
          > May I ask how you've managed to do so (as I'd be very interested in
          > obtaining them also)? [[They were sent to me by Måns Björkman, but
          I understand (as you of course know) they are for internal use only]]
          >
          > >> € In the chart of the vowels, you've confused the tengwar
          for /a/ and /o/
          > >
          > > The vowel chart next to the common consonant chart was not meant
          to show
          > > common vowels, but rather the struck-out vowels on the Steinborg
          drawing,
          >
          > Sure, I should have been reading more carefully. However, I rather
          think
          > that on the Steinborg drawing, the tengwa next to _e_ is anna, not a
          > stemless calma (or anna). It's not very clear. Sure, stemless calma
          is more
          > consistent with the other modes, but the tengwa I see on the
          Steinborg
          > drawing looks very similar to anna as e.g. seen in the word _by_ on
          the
          > Treebeard page. BTW, this version of anna reminds very much the r-
          shaped
          > short carrier! [[It seems to be an anna indeed, although quite
          drawn-out horizontally -- but not inconsistent with JRRT's usage
          elsewhere]]
          >
          [...]
          >
          > > The Bombadil-I-mode has anna, not the u-tengwa, for ^ (in the
          word _up_).
          >
          > I'm not so sure about this any more. Compare e.g. the u-shaped
          tengwa with
          > the tengwar from the calmatéma in DTS 17: The uppermost part of the
          > calmatéma lúvar always points to the right. The same can be
          observed in DTS
          > 16, 18, and 23, but not that clearly. [[Will compare and publish
          findings...]]
          >
          > >> € On the bottom of the chart at the end of the page (and in
          FTMME.pdf), I
          > >> see many instances of ˆ but no phonemic/orthographic values.
          That's your
          > >> intention, right?
          > >
          > > Yes: ^ should not appear in the orthographic modes
          >
          > Seemingly, our computers have some troubles in understanding each
          other:
          > What I intended to say is that I see many instances of a little
          hook,
          > probably only intended to affirm that the signs exist. [[I finally
          understood that _after_ my reply had gone out -- but had no time to
          correct the reply; you are right, of course]]
          >
          > > What I meant by writing an inverted _r_ is that variety of /r/
          that can be
          > > dropped (or almost) depending on the English dialect you use, and
          the
          > > right-side-up _r_ is the one not normally dropped, and sometimes
          even trilled
          >
          > This isn't the IPA use, but these are IPA signs. I couldn't find a
          sign for
          > these 'potentially dropped' _r_.
          >
          > Since the alternation of óre and rómen reflects the alternation of
          dropped
          > _r_ and 'kept' _r_ that I'm not sure whether it should be suggested
          to
          > speakers of rhotic/_r_-keeping dialects. Indeed, this consideration
          makes
          > the mode of DTS 25 preferrable, where any _r_ is represented with
          óre. But
          > this brings other problems along: Should rómen be used for _w_? How
          should
          > _Mary ­ merry ­ marry_ be distinguished (not all speaker make these
          > distinctions)? [[Maybe using /r/ for a "droppable" _r_ and /R/ for
          the other, strongly pronounced by some rhotics, _and_ explaining the
          notation in a footnote? Am still open to this]]
          >
          > > Should we consider the r-shaped version as a mere allograph of
          the short
          > > carrier?
          >
          > Yes, I would consider it a variant of the short carrier, but
          certainly not a
          > free variant but a variant only allowed in certain positions in
          certain
          > modes. In that respect, it might be interesting to compare the use
          of the
          > r-shaped versions of calmatéma letters with the use of their |-
          shaped
          > versions, but I've never paid any attention to that.
          >
          > suilaid
          > mach
        • mach
          ... Yet [R] is again an IPA sign. I d use the same sign [r] (or the inverted version) for both letters and explain the difference only in the note. suilaid
          Message 4 of 7 , Nov 5, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Ronald Kyrmse wrote:
            >
            >> I couldn't find a sign for these 'potentially dropped' _r_.
            >>
            >> [...]
            >
            > Maybe using /r/ for a "droppable" _r_ and /R/ for the other,
            > strongly pronounced by some rhotics, _and_ explaining the notation
            > in a footnote? Am still open to this

            Yet [R] is again an IPA sign. I'd use the same sign [r] (or the inverted
            version) for both letters and explain the difference only in the note.

            suilaid
            mach
          • Kyrmse
            Version 3, revised after very instructive discussions with several tolkiendili, has been published at http://www.geocities.com/otsoandor/FTMME.htm
            Message 5 of 7 , Nov 10, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Version 3, revised after very instructive discussions with several
              tolkiendili, has been published at
              http://www.geocities.com/otsoandor/FTMME.htm
            • Benct Philip Jonsson
              ... Have you updated your PDF as well? /BP 8^) -- B.Philip Jonsson mailto:melrochX@melroch.se (delete X)
              Message 6 of 7 , Nov 12, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                At 13:39 11.11.2003, elfscript@yahoogroups.com wrote:

                >Message: 5
                > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:07:19 -0000
                > From: "Kyrmse" <certur@...>
                >Subject: Full Tengwar Modes for Modern English
                >
                >Version 3, revised after very instructive discussions with several
                >tolkiendili, has been published at
                >http://www.geocities.com/otsoandor/FTMME.htm

                Have you updated your PDF as well?



                /BP 8^)
                --
                B.Philip Jonsson mailto:melrochX@... (delete X)
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__
                A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
                __ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
                \ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
                / / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
                / /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /'Aestan ~\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
                /_________//_/ \_\/ /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)
              • Kyrmse
                Yes, the PDF file has been updated too -- but do _not_ consider this as the definitive word on the subject! The jury (all of you) is still out, and this is
                Message 7 of 7 , Nov 12, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yes, the PDF file has been updated too -- but do _not_ consider this
                  as the definitive word on the subject! The jury (all of you) is still
                  out, and this is merely Version 3 (of many to come, I'm sure).

                  --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Benct Philip Jonsson <bpj@m...>
                  wrote:
                  > At 13:39 11.11.2003, elfscript@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                  >
                  > >Message: 5
                  > > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:07:19 -0000
                  > > From: "Kyrmse" <certur@a...>
                  > >Subject: Full Tengwar Modes for Modern English
                  > >
                  > >Version 3, revised after very instructive discussions with several
                  > >tolkiendili, has been published at
                  > >http://www.geocities.com/otsoandor/FTMME.htm
                  >
                  > Have you updated your PDF as well?
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.