Re: more translating...
- kaoticlight wrote:
> like i said, the words are just word for word translations, and theyI'm sorry I can't help you with the translation. But with the transcription
> aren't structured right. i'm not sure how to structre words, as i
> am only begining. I think I got how to use the suffixes/prefixes,
> but any help would be great.
I can. I see you're using the Westron mode for Quenya, or maybe we could
call this _general use Quenya_. This is rather unusual, but it's attested
several times and it perfectly works. The 'classical' Quenya mode is more
usual, and you can find it e.g. in Per Lindberg's Tengwar Guide:
A few comments:
The vowel tehtar should perhaps rather be placed on the preceding than on
the following signs, since there are (at least) three samples of general use
Quenya that do so (DTS 42, 46, 59), while there is only one sample (at
least) where they are on the following sign (DTS 38). Additionally, that
sample shows another peculiarity not found in other Quenya modes: It uses
óre also with following vowel.
The combinations of primary letters + y and + w have a special treatment.
The former are most probably all represented by calmatéma signs (attested
with _y_ and _ty_); the latter seem to be represented with a modified
u-curl, the sign for following _w_, above the preceding letter (even if
vowel tehtar are placed on the following letter). For instance in _tyel,
tarwenya_ or in _vanwa_.
The combination of l + y, however, is represented by lambe with two dots
below, the sign for a following _y_ (in _hehtailya_).
I suppose the point below should be a final _e_. I don't think this is
appropiate, since the point below represents rather a weak or even mute _e_
than a final one. This means also that the _r_ it's placed below is actually
followed by a vowel, and thus should be rather rómen, e.g. in _faire,
I don't know how the second _h_ in _hehtailya_ should be represented.
Phonetically, aha would be correct, but etymologically, it might be hwesta.
Maybe in this spelling, the phonetical aha would be more appropriate, since
this spelling seems to be rather mannish.
j. 'mach' wust