Re: [elfscript] question on ned 'wilith
- Teithant Nathan:
>I have a question on how to transcribe 'ned >'wilith' using the mode[w]
>of beleriand (this is quoting Galadiel at the >beginning of FOTR). I
>have been reading in the articles on how to >write with the tengwar
>and it indicates there's a separate tehte mark >for [w] which follows
>another consonant (You would place the [w] >tehte above the tengwa it
>follows, correct?). Since 'wilith is from gwilith, >would this rule
>apply even though the [g] has been lineated >out? Where would the
>tehte go, or would you use Wilya instead of a >[w] tehte if the firstWell, the written lenited initial 'g' doesn't disappear, even in Roman
>letter of the word disappears?
transliteration ... the apostrophe plainly shows that the radical form
begins with 'g'. What happens with tengwar is less clear. I would assume
that the 'g' would be replaced by the gasdil, but we're not sure what
the gasdil is ... we don't know if it's a tengwa or some kind of
punctuation mark, possibly a tehta. My belief is that the gasdil would
be written with anca in the mode of Beleriand, so _'wilith_ should be
spelt: anca + following 'w' tehta - short carrier - lambe - short
carrier - thúle. Of course, this is just my opinion. However, it is
also my opinion that the mode of Beleriand is not really appropriate for
a quote of Galadriel, and the quote from the movie isn't grammatically
accurate, e.g. 'in the air' should be _vi gwilith_, among other things.
Cuio mae, Danny.
- --- In email@example.com, d_daniel_andries@w... wrote:
> My belief is that the gasdil wouldbe
> be written with anca in the mode of Beleriand, so _'wilith_ should
> spelt: anca + following 'w' tehta - short carrier - lambe - shortappropriate for
> carrier - thúle. Of course, this is just my opinion. However, it is
> also my opinion that the mode of Beleriand is not really
> a quote of Galadriel, and the quote from the movie isn'tgrammatically
> accurate, e.g. 'in the air' should be _vi gwilith_, among otherthings.
I agree with all three points (anca usage, the chosen mode and the
translation). Just a little question: I believe that even Beleriand
mode can use quessetéma (as well as the nowhere-seen tehta mode for
Sindarin), so would it be okay to start with unque that would then
represent _'w_? My point is that additional tehtar are used for
shortening, so writing the sentence in full should be no mistake.
- My belief is that it's safer not to transcribe the gasdil at all as long as
we don't know what the gasdil is. So I'd suggest to use the simple _w_ sign,
vilya or vala, depending on the mode. I wouldn't use the sign for following
_w_ but within a word.
If the gasdil were represented by the _gh_ sign (anca or unque), then why
wouldn't Tolkien write _gh_ instead of _'_?
The gasdil is the mute sign of the k-series. We actually have a mute sign of
the k-series attested: However, it's not an anto-tyelle letter (like anca,
unque) but an óre-tyelle letter, anna, in the classical Quenya mode. In the
mode of Beleriand, however, that letter represents _o_.
In the probably mannish Sindarin modes of the King's Letters, the óre-tyelle
letter of the k-series, vilya, is unused, so this could be a gasdil letter.
It wouldn't surprise me if the gasdil weren't used but by men, who are
probably less fluent in Sindarin than the Elves. After all, it's only a
reminder that there's been consonant mutation, and I don't think that an Elf
who speaks Sindarin fluently would need such a reminder.
Of course, it might be the other way round: Men could spell according to
pronunciation (without gasdil) and Elves according to etymology (with
gasdil). This might be suggested by the discrepancy between the claims for
etymological spelling in app. E and the phonetical spelling in the attested
tengwar texts (e.g. regarding the spelling of Q _thúle/súle, ngoldo/noldo_):
The claim in app. E might refer to elvish use (but why?) while the attested
texts might be written by men.
"Gasdil" might also be the name applied to the simple _g_ letter when it's
not pronounced. In the Moria gate inscription, at least, the mutations
aren't represented in the spelling (it's _ennyn durin_ not _dhurin_; _aran
moria_ not _voria_; etc.). As far as I know, however, the other text written
in the mode of Beleriand transcribes the mutations, the Aerlinn in Edhil
(DTS 21). (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Is there really no instance of a _g_ dropped by mutation in the attested
As to Lucy's suggestion of unque: If we suppose that there are Sindarin
modes that use the quesse-téma for labiovelars, and if we suppose that a _g_
dropped by mutation is represented with a letter of the anto-tyelle, then
it's okay to use unque for _'w_. But isn't this too much of speculation?
> However, it is also my opinion that the mode of Beleriand is not reallyI suppose you have some reason for this interesting opinion, have you?
> appropriate for a quote of Galadriel
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, mach <machhezan@g...> wrote:
> My belief is that it's safer not to transcribe the gasdil at allas long as
> we don't know what the gasdil is. So I'd suggest to use the simple_w_ sign,
> vilya or vala, depending on the mode. I wouldn't use the sign forfollowing
> _w_ but within a word.then why
> If the gasdil were represented by the _gh_ sign (anca or unque),
> wouldn't Tolkien write _gh_ instead of _'_? ...It is not explicitly said that gasdil has to be a sign in Tengwar as
far as I understand what is written in Etymologies in the entry
Gorgoroth. I think that _gasdil_ is a Sindarin word for
English "apostrophe", Czech "apostrof", French "apostrophe" etc. As
Moradan first explained in the Elfscript message #26370:
> Don't forget that 'g' is lenited to 'gh' and then transformed in anAnd I agree.
> apostrophe by simple assimilation of the consonant. 'gh' is a
> sound non existing in English that can be found in Arabian and is
> like a very soft 'g' without the plosive efect of English 'g'.
> This sound is so weak that disapears.
> Besides, we have proof that 'd' lenites to 'dh' and in tengwar it
> results in the rising of the stem of the symol. 'b' gets lenited
> to 'v' and this also happens by the lifting of the stem. Therefore
> if you follow these two patterns you can conclude that the symbol
> for lenited 'g', though not pronounced, should still be the 'g'
> with the stem lifted.
- At 20:12 3.12.2003, email@example.com wrote:
> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:59:49 -0600 (CST)Why not Unque? Cf. <http://www.melroch.se/tengwar/omasind/omasind.pdf>
> From: d_daniel_andries@...
>Subject: Re: question on ned 'wilith
>My belief is that the gasdil would
>be written with anca in the mode of Beleriand, so _'wilith_ should be
>spelt: anca + following 'w' tehta
B.Philip Jonsson mailto:melrochX@... (delete X)
A h-ammen ledin i phith! \ \
__ ____ ____ _____________ ____ __ __ __ / /
\ \/___ \\__ \ /___ _____/\ \\__ \\ \ \ \\ \ / /
/ / / / / \ / /Melroch\ \_/ // / / // / / /
/ /___/ /_ / /\ \ / /'Aestan ~\_ // /__/ // /__/ /
/_________//_/ \_\/ /Eowine __ / / \___/\_\\___/\_\
Gwaedhvenn Angeliniel\ \______/ /a/ /_h-adar Merthol naun
|| Lenda lenda pellalenda pellatellenda kuivie aiya! ||
"A coincidence, as we say in Middle-Earth" (JRR Tolkien)
- Danny wrote:
> if it were written as 'gh', we would tend to pronounce it asThat's a good point.
> 'gh'. The Romanised spelling sometimes reflects pronunciation rather
> than orthography.
And you're also right that the elves would rather tend to show etymology in
their spelling, so that the notes in app. E would refer to elvish use. So
the attested, rather phonetic samples would be mannish. Men: phonetic
Therefore, in a mannish Sindarin mode (like the King's Letter mode) the
gasdil is likely not to be represented (and I'm not trying to do more than a
man can do).
Danny wrote that in _ennyn durin aran moria_:
> _Durin_ and _Moria_ are not mutated.Thanks for correcting me, I didn't know that.
> I've never supposed there to be a Sindarin mode that representedExcellent argument!
> labiovelars as separate tengwar. This is based on Tolkien's words
> concerning cirth #23 - 28: '...were actually most probably inventions of
> the Noldor of Eregion, since they were used for the representationof
> sounds not found in Sindarin.' (App. E) Well, certainly 'gw', 'chw' and
> 'ngw' existed in Sindarin, but the quote suggests to my mind that the
> Sindar didn't consider them to be units separate from the simple velars,
> not enough to warrant their own signs, anyway.
> If Sindarin labiovelarsWell, maybe just because the tengwar provided letters for these sounds?
> weren't represented by a separate series in the Cirth, why would it be
> different in the Tengwar?
As I asked Danny for a reason why he opined "that the mode of Beleriand
wasn't really appropiate for a quote of Galadriel", he answered:
> Nothing especially profound. I am of the opinion that the mode ofI'd also say that it were Noldorin loremasters who invented the mode of
> Beleriand was invented and used by the Noldor of Beleriand, or in areas
> where the High Elves exerted a considerable influence (e.g. Eregion and
> Imladris). This influence would likely not greatly affect the Silvan
> Elves of Lothlórien, though Galadriel was half-Noldorin.
Beleriand. But more than this, I'd think that they invented all Eldarin
modes (while the King's Letter modes are, I'd think, rather mannish).
Which Sindar would develop a tengwar mode? The Sindar of Doriath? I don't
think that they'd adopt the script invented by Feanor. Indeed, Daeron is
said to have rearranged the cirth, which seems to be a conservative reaction
against the growing influence of the tengwar, kind of orthography politics.
The Sindar of the Falas? The Sindar of Gondolin? I have no idea. But I'm
quite sure: If the Silvan Elves would use another mode than the one used in
Eregion and Imladrist, then that other mode wouldn't be their own invention,
but taken from other Sindar. I just don't think that the wood elves would
care about writing.