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

French transcription assistance

Expand Messages
  • Dan Smith
    Can anyone help this lady? ... Many thanks in advance. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 17 , Feb 16, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Can anyone help this lady?

      At 2/11/04 11:49 AM, <Josiane.St-Louis@...> wrote:
      >Do you know somebody else who can translate what I have from French to
      >Quenya and then transcibe in Tengwar ?

      Many thanks in advance.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • machhezan
      ... I can t since I don t know Quenya. However, this reminds me of another question: Does anybody know of an orthographic French mode? I ve done a phonetic
      Message 2 of 17 , Feb 17, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Daniel Smith wrote:
        > At 2/11/04 11:49 AM, <Josiane.St-Louis@c...> wrote:
        > >Do you know somebody else who can translate what I have from French
        > >to Quenya and then transcibe in Tengwar ?

        I can't since I don't know Quenya. However, this reminds me of another
        question: Does anybody know of an orthographic French mode?

        I've done a phonetic one, and then I've tried to find an orthographic
        one, but I didn't succeed since it requires too many special letters.
        Okay, it would be possible to use a 'full writing' mode with the same
        diacritics actually used in French, but I didn't like that solution.

        ---------------------------
        j. 'mach' wust
        http://machhezan.tripod.com
        ---------------------------
      • calwen76
        ... Well, I neither have seen an orthographic one. So let s make it out on-line :o))) I suppose French in Tengwar follows Quenya when writing tehtar
        Message 3 of 17 , Feb 17, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "machhezan" <machhezan@g...> wrote:
          > Does anybody know of an orthographic French mode?

          Well, I neither have seen an orthographic one. So let's make it out
          on-line :o))) I suppose French in Tengwar follows Quenya when writing
          tehtar (preceeding tengwar).

          Since I am no expert, my suggestions may be wrong but at least I can
          give you some ideas. I thought of two first temar and this is what I
          guessed:

          CONSONANTS (PART 1)
          tincotéma: tinco (T-tu), ando (D-devoir), thúle/súle (ç -C with a
          cédille- in _français_), anto (X-in _deux_ [silent] as well as in
          _deuxième_ [z]), númen (N-nuit), óre (final R, seen e.g. in
          infinitives, including the ones from the 2nd class, ending with _-re_
          e.g. _prendre_)

          parmatéma: parma (P-papa), umbar (B-bonjour), formen (F-felicité),
          ampa (V-voir), malta (M-maman), vala (hmm, don't know, maybe we could
          use it as a carrier for one of the semivowels: -OI- in _Loire_)
          ----------------------
          VOWELS - SHORT with no accents
          -A, E, I, O can be transcribed with ómatehtar generally used
          -U is quite easy here: let's use Sindarin double dots
          -but what about Y???

          VOWELS - SHORT with accents
          -let's face the fact: French has three kinds of accents above vowels
          (aigu: é; grave: è, à; circonflexe: â, î, ê, ô) so the only way how
          to distinguish these is finding some tehtar that would go together
          with tengwar, similarly to diphthongs or semivowels, I am afraid.

          VOWELS - "DIPHTHONGS"
          Although I know this is supposed to be an orthographic mode, I think
          these vowel compounds should be expressed as diphthongs I mean as a
          tengwa+tehta: AI (anglais), AU (l'auto), EAU (l'eau), OU (toujours)
          The question is what tengwar>tehtar to use?
          -then, EU could be written as a tengwa (yanta/vala/vilya) with a
          tehta (E or U tehta) (in i.e. _pneu_)

          SEMIVOWELS
          -OI, UI, IO - these are said to be semivowels/semiconsonants. IO
          (like _radio_) can be written as a diphthong: this -I- behaves like
          [j] - as Sindarin initial -I-. So _radio_ would be rómen with triple
          dots-ando-anna with O tehta
          I don't know what to do with OI, UI. Diphthong again, using a short
          carrier as a carrier and O, U write under? Dunno.

          NASAL VOWELS
          in _fin, un, plan, chanson_ - I don't suppose we need to distinguish
          these in an orthographic mode, do we?

          VOWELS - LONG
          Long vowels (reportAge, cultUre, RobErt, rObe) can be on a long
          carrier with (a) particular tehta(r).

          Maybe I forgot some vowels (they have too many of them). If so,
          sorry. I'll work on the second part and give you my ideas later.

          Hope I was of any help.
          Lucy
        • Melroch 'Aestan
          ... Could you describe it or upload a table? The Portuguese mode someone posted about a while back ought to be helpful. /BP 8^) -- B.Philip Jonsson
          Message 4 of 17 , Feb 17, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            At 11:32 17.2.2004, machhezan wrote:

            >I can't since I don't know Quenya. However, this reminds me of another
            >question: Does anybody know of an orthographic French mode?
            >
            >I've done a phonetic one,

            Could you describe it or upload a table?
            The Portuguese mode someone posted about a while
            back ought to be helpful.

            /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)
          • machhezan
            ... The phonetic mode I ve made up for French is in a pdf linked on this page: http://machhezan.tripod.com/phonological_calligraphic/id5.html ... j. mach
            Message 5 of 17 , Feb 18, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              B.Philip Jonsson:
              > Could you describe it or upload a table?

              The phonetic mode I've made up for French is in a pdf linked on this
              page:

              http://machhezan.tripod.com/phonological_calligraphic/id5.html

              ---------------------------
              j. 'mach' wust
              http://machhezan.tripod.com
              ---------------------------
            • machhezan
              ... We can try it! ... In spoken French, most words end on vowels, but I d say it s the other way round in written French, so I d rather go for the other
              Message 6 of 17 , Feb 18, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Lucy wrote:
                > Well, I neither have seen an orthographic one. So let's make it out
                > on-line :o)))

                We can try it!

                > I suppose French in Tengwar follows Quenya when writing
                > tehtar (preceeding tengwar).

                In spoken French, most words end on vowels, but I'd say it's the other
                way round in written French, so I'd rather go for the other direction.
                The easiest thing to do would be a 'full writing' mode that
                unsatisfyingly uses the same tehtar as actual French, and the _e muet_
                could be represented with a point below.

                > thúle/súle (ç -C with a
                > cédille- in _français_), anto (X-in _deux_ [silent] as well as in
                > _deuxième_ [z])

                Are these historically justified?

                In order to have a closer resemblance to the English mode, calma and
                anga could be used for <ch, j>, like in Old French from which the
                English uses are derived. Silme nuquerna could be used for <ce, ci,
                ç>.

                > -but what about Y???

                As a tehta, two points. As a tengwa, the long carrier.

                > VOWELS - SHORT with accents
                > -let's face the fact: French has three kinds of accents above vowels
                > (aigu: é; grave: è, à; circonflexe: â, î, ê, ô) so the only way how
                > to distinguish these is finding some tehtar that would go together
                > with tengwar, similarly to diphthongs or semivowels, I am afraid.

                The origin of the accent circonflexe is most of the times a lost <s>.
                In older writings, this is still written out, as well as in certain
                names. So this could be still done this way. In a tehta mode, esse
                nuquerna could be used for this purpose, but that's a bad idea since
                it makes it look as if it were a <z>. In a full writing mode, the
                s-curl could be used.

                The origin of the accent grave is just a mark for stress and sometimes
                for distinguishing words. It could be expressed by the long carrier in
                ómatehta modes or by the andaith in full writing modes. I think it's
                the oldest of the French accents, but I'm not sure.

                I have most troubles with the accent aigu which isn't found but on
                <é>. In a tehtar mode it might be expressed by a modified e-tehta,
                doubled or reversed maybe, and in a full writing mode by another
                e-tengwa, maybe yanta besides stemless calma (but which?), or by the
                andaith, in which case there must be another representation for the
                accent grave.

                > VOWELS - "DIPHTHONGS"

                _Diphthongs_ is not a term of phonetics or phonology/phonemics, not of
                orthography. The term like _double vowel (letters)_ would be more
                appropriate. Diphthongs are combinations of a vowel and a semivowel.
                Now spoken French diphthongs start with the semivowel, while written
                French double vowel letters end with a semivowel. In 'full writing'
                I'd write them all out, while in a tehta mode I wouldn't recommend
                that. Rather I'd use the known tengwar for vowel combinations ending
                on -i/y, -u/w, -e. But that's contrary to pronunciation. The same
                could be done in full writing also, in order to follow the tendency of
                repesenting vowel groups with single signs. But I don't know how this
                could be achieved for the group <eau>.

                > VOWELS - LONG
                > Long vowels (reportAge, cultUre, RobErt, rObe) can be on a long
                > carrier with (a) particular tehta(r).

                That's not an orthographic distinction, is it?

                ---------------------------
                j. 'mach' wust
                http://machhezan.tripod.com
                ---------------------------
              • calwen76
                ... other way round in written French, so I d rather go for the other direction. Oh, really? I can t judge this. I d guess it is more or less 50 to 50 percent
                Message 7 of 17 , Feb 19, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "machhezan" <machhezan@g...> wrote:
                  > > I suppose French in Tengwar follows Quenya when writing
                  > > tehtar (preceeding tengwar).
                  > In spoken French, most words end on vowels, but I'd say it's the
                  other way round in written French, so I'd rather go for the other
                  direction.

                  Oh, really? I can't judge this. I'd guess it is more or less 50 to 50
                  percent in written French but my French is weaker than my English so
                  I really can't tell for sure.

                  > > thúle/súle (ç), anto (X-in _deux_)
                  > Are these historically justified?

                  No. I didn't realise that I needed to know the history of French
                  which I don't have so I am for sure of no help for you here and
                  there. Sorry.

                  Lucy
                • machhezan
                  ... You don t need to at all, but I wouldn t use break the témar consistency unless this could be justified, e.g. historically. And you have indeed helped me
                  Message 8 of 17 , Feb 19, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Lucy wrote:
                    > > > thúle/súle (ç), anto (X-in _deux_)
                    > > Are these historically justified?
                    >
                    > I didn't realise that I needed to know the history of French

                    You don't need to at all, but I wouldn't use break the témar
                    consistency unless this could be justified, e.g. historically.

                    And you have indeed helped me to see things better, so I honestly
                    thank you!

                    ---------------------------
                    j. 'mach' wust
                    http://machhezan.tripod.com
                    ---------------------------
                  • calwen76
                    ... I am glad I helped a bit. I spent the whole yesterday on the following so I hope this will help a bit too.
                    Message 9 of 17 , Feb 19, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "machhezan" <machhezan@g...> wrote:
                      > You don't need to at all, but I wouldn't use break the témar
                      > consistency unless this could be justified, e.g. historically.
                      >
                      > And you have indeed helped me to see things better,

                      I am glad I helped a bit. I spent the whole yesterday on the
                      following so I hope this will help a bit too.

                      http://sweb.cz/Calwen.Rudh/modes/French/french.htm

                      Lucy
                    • machhezan
                      Thanks a lot for that draft, Lucy! That makes discussion much easier. I don t think that your distinction between _semivowels_ and _vowel compounds_ is
                      Message 10 of 17 , Feb 19, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks a lot for that draft, Lucy! That makes discussion much easier.

                        I don't think that your distinction between _semivowels_ and _vowel
                        compounds_ is necessary. I would treat them all in the same way, that
                        is as if they were pairs of real vowel _a/e/i/o/u_ + semivowel
                        _y/w/e_. That's contrary to pronunciation, but goes along with
                        history. I've e.g. heard that the old pronunciation of _oi_ (still
                        used in English) was conserved until the French Revolution - but only
                        by the nobles (then, from one day to the other, it disappeared).

                        By the way, for the vowel pairs ending on _-u_ I'd rather suggest
                        vala, based on the 'general use'. In tehtar mode diphthongs, úre isn't
                        used but in modes where the tengwar bear the following vowel tehtar,
                        and in these modes úre (and yanta) bear the preceding vowel tehtar, e.
                        g. in classical Quenya or in some samples of phonetic English (DTS 39
                        and 41).

                        Your suggestion for the circonflexe is interesting. I'd say it would
                        require the _î_ to be represented the same way, that is, by doubling.
                        Which would require another representation of _y_. Why not by a
                        brevis, like in English orthographic tehtar modes (that would anyway
                        be better than the two points based on Sindarin use).

                        I don't like your suggestion for the accent grave. Why yanta? I see no
                        reason.

                        The letters _c, ç, s, z, ss, x_ are difficult. The Numenian mode chart
                        seems to suggest that languages which don't have English _th_ use súle
                        and anto for _s_ and _z_. I'd say that _c_ could be transcribed like
                        in the English orthographic modes: With quesse when it's pronounced
                        like _k_ and with silme nuquerna when it's pronounced like _s_. That
                        means: quesse for _ca, co, cu_, silme nuquerna for _ça, ce, ci, ço,
                        çu_. For _x_, I'd simply suggest the normal transcription: quesse +
                        s-hook. And I'd say that esse nuquerna could be used for the accent
                        circonflexe. History. Nobody needs to know it, but it's useful, and
                        when dealing with Tolkien's notions, I'm always inclined to historical
                        arguments.

                        ---------------------------
                        j. 'mach' wust
                        http://machhezan.tripod.com
                        ---------------------------
                      • Melroch 'Aestan
                        An interesting thought hit me yesterday: an orthographic mode for French would almost be a phonemic/phonetic mode for Old French! The same is of course
                        Message 11 of 17 , Feb 20, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          An interesting thought hit me yesterday: an orthographic mode
                          for French would almost be a phonemic/phonetic mode for
                          Old French! The same is of course mutatis mutandis true
                          WRT modern and middle English. This is of course due to
                          the fact that orthography was originally intended to be
                          phone*ic, but change in orthography lags behind -- or even
                          is totally independent of -- change in the spoken language.
                          The fact is that a given mode of writing, in any script,
                          may fall anywhere inbetween being fully phone*ic or being
                          rigidly historical (or rigidly 'orthographic', if it is a
                          transcription system), in which case it may often reflect
                          some in-between historical stage of the language, between
                          the time when the orthography was first created and the
                          present.

                          I've let these thoughts take shape in my own proposal
                          for a French mode, which I call "semi-orthographique".
                          I've uploaded it to my site (unlinked for now) for
                          your revision and criticism.

                          <http://www.melroch.se/tengwar/french/semiorthographique0.pdf>

                          /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)
                        • machhezan
                          ... It s not true that people ever pronounced exactly the way we spell now. Not all spellings are historical. The distinction of _flower_ and _flour_, for
                          Message 12 of 17 , Feb 22, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Melroch 'Aestan wrote:
                            > An interesting thought hit me yesterday: an orthographic mode
                            > for French would almost be a phonemic/phonetic mode for
                            > Old French! The same is of course mutatis mutandis true
                            > WRT modern and middle English.

                            It's not true that people ever pronounced exactly the way we spell
                            now. Not all spellings are historical. The distinction of _flower_ and
                            _flour_, for instance, is artificial, or the spelling _debt_ is
                            latinizing, etc.

                            > I've let these thoughts take shape in my own proposal
                            > for a French mode, which I call "semi-orthographique".
                            > I've uploaded it to my site (unlinked for now) for
                            > your revision and criticism.

                            The only un-orthographic feature I've found in this semi-orthographic
                            mode is the spelling of the nasal vowels with vilya, which I don't
                            understand. Neither do I see why óre is used for _x_. The
                            representations of the letters _g, c, z_ are interesting, though I'd
                            stick closer to Tolkien's examples. It's a pity that _e_ is
                            represented with (variants of) two different tehtar.

                            ---------------------------
                            j. 'mach' wust
                            http://machhezan.tripod.com
                            ---------------------------
                          • Melroch 'Aestan
                            ... Maybe I wasn t hedging enough, but note the almost ! ... Mainly a carry-over from the method of writing an imaginary descendant of Quenya that I devised a
                            Message 13 of 17 , Feb 23, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 22:32 22.2.2004, machhezan wrote:
                              >Melroch 'Aestan wrote:
                              > > An interesting thought hit me yesterday: an orthographic mode
                              > > for French would almost be a phonemic/phonetic mode for
                              > > Old French! The same is of course mutatis mutandis true
                              > > WRT modern and middle English.
                              >
                              >It's not true that people ever pronounced exactly the way we spell
                              >now. Not all spellings are historical. The distinction of _flower_ and
                              >_flour_, for instance, is artificial, or the spelling _debt_ is
                              >latinizing, etc.

                              Maybe I wasn't hedging enough, but note the "almost"!


                              > > I've let these thoughts take shape in my own proposal
                              > > for a French mode, which I call "semi-orthographique".
                              > > I've uploaded it to my site (unlinked for now) for
                              > > your revision and criticism.
                              >
                              >The only un-orthographic feature I've found in this semi-orthographic
                              >mode is the spelling of the nasal vowels with vilya, which I don't
                              >understand.

                              Mainly a carry-over from the method of writing an imaginary
                              descendant of Quenya that I devised a few years ago.

                              >Neither do I see why óre is used for _x_.

                              Only for *final* _x_, and this is because final _-ux_ goes
                              back to an abbreviation sign for _-us_, which looked similar
                              to _x_. I thought that because final _-x_ is usually
                              pronounced [z] when pronounced at all I might use a tengwa
                              from the same téma as Anto, which I use for _z_.

                              Anyway I have changed the representation of both nasalization
                              and _-ux_: this frees up Wilya to be used instead of Úre for
                              _-u_, so that Wilya plus an alternate form of s-curl can be used
                              for _-ux_. Úre is now used only for _y_ in full writing.

                              >The
                              >representations of the letters _g, c, z_ are interesting, though I'd
                              >stick closer to Tolkien's examples.

                              This is because French _z_ in inherited words goes back
                              to /ts/ or /dz/ -- just as 'soft' _c_ used to be /ts/.

                              As for the representation of _c, g, qu, gu, ç_ it is now changed
                              and fully orthographic, except that I persist in writing all
                              soft _c_s as Thúle, and not only _ç_.

                              > It's a pity that _e_ is
                              >represented with (variants of) two different tehtar.

                              I changed that too. I now use the 'circumflex' tehta for
                              _é_ (it begins as an acute), and the 'inverted circumflex'
                              tehta for _è_ (since it begins like a grave). This also
                              makes it possible to use the 'circumflex tehtar' on a
                              long carrier as alternative graphies for the very frequent
                              digraphs _ai, aî_.

                              The URL to the new version is
                              <<http://www.melroch.se/tengwar/french/semiorthographique0.pdf>http://www.melroch.se/tengwar/french/semiorthographique1<http://www.melroch.se/tengwar/french/semiorthographique0.pdf>.pdf>

                              Note the change of file name!

                              /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)
                            • machhezan
                              ... Very interesting! Makes a whole lot of sense. ... Will you have another interesting explanation for this one? Because I think that the óretyelle sound of
                              Message 14 of 17 , Feb 23, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Melroch 'Aestan wrote:
                                > Mainly a carry-over from the method of writing an imaginary
                                > descendant of Quenya that I devised a few years ago.

                                :)

                                > >Neither do I see why óre is used for _x_.
                                >
                                > Only for *final* _x_, and this is because final _-ux_ goes
                                > back to an abbreviation sign for _-us_, which looked similar
                                > to _x_. I thought that because final _-x_ is usually
                                > pronounced [z] when pronounced at all I might use a tengwa
                                > from the same téma as Anto, which I use for _z_.

                                Very interesting! Makes a whole lot of sense.

                                > Anyway I have changed the representation of both nasalization
                                > and _-ux_: this frees up Wilya to be used instead of Úre for
                                > _-u_,

                                Will you have another interesting explanation for this one? Because I
                                think that the óretyelle sound of the k-series can't express any
                                u-like sound.

                                > >The representations of the letters _g, c, z_ are interesting,
                                > >though I'd stick closer to Tolkien's examples.
                                >
                                > This is because French _z_ in inherited words goes back
                                > to /ts/ or /dz/ -- just as 'soft' _c_ used to be /ts/.

                                That's most interesting. It's indeed a very consistent way of
                                historical spelling. Though I consider that Tolkien's orthographic
                                English modes were rather orthographic than historic, that is, their
                                only aim was to be as easy as possible while still not going against
                                the principles of tengwar spelling. The man of Gondor hesitated
                                between the values of the letters familiar in his 'mode' and the
                                _traditional_, not the _historical_ spelling of English.

                                The one example where this is obvious is the representation of the
                                digraph _gh_. I don't imagine that English ever had a voiced velar
                                fricative, but only a voiceless, like the other Germanic languages.
                                The spelling _gh_ was only adopted because the spelling _ch_ wasn't
                                available any more, since Old French required it for another sound,
                                the sound it still has in Modern English. (I hope I'm not wrong.) This
                                means that historically, the adequate sign would be hwesta, not unque.
                                Unque isn't adequate but orthographically.

                                > I persist in writing all soft _c_s as Thúle, and not only _ç_.

                                I fully agree that these don't need to be distinguished.

                                > The URL to the new version is
                                > <<http://www.melroch.se/tengwar/french/semiorthographique0.pdf>http:
                                //www.melroch.se/tengwar/french/semiorthographique1<http://www.
                                melroch.se/tengwar/french/semiorthographique0.pdf>.pdf>
                                >
                                > Note the change of file name!

                                I don't note any - a mistake, I suppose.

                                ---------------------------
                                j. 'mach' wust
                                http://machhezan.tripod.com
                                ---------------------------
                              • Melroch 'Aestan
                                ... [stuff butchered by the mail client] ... Yes, but not mine. The mailer got confused when I changed the URL by hand!
                                Message 15 of 17 , Feb 23, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  At 20:01 23.2.2004, machhezan wrote:

                                  > > The URL to the new version is

                                  [stuff butchered by the mail client]

                                  > > Note the change of file name!
                                  >
                                  >I don't note any - a mistake, I suppose.

                                  Yes, but not mine. The mailer got confused
                                  when I changed the URL by hand!

                                  http://www.melroch.se/tengwar/french/semiorthographique1.pdf>

                                  More answers later!

                                  /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)
                                • Melroch 'Aestan
                                  ... Why not. Anyway I use the quessetéma for (orthographic) _qu, gu_ now. I prefer Wilya for the u- diphthongs because it looks funny when o-tehtar and
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Feb 25, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 20:01 23.2.2004, machhezan wrote:

                                    >Melroch 'Aestan wrote:
                                    > > Mainly a carry-over from the method of writing an imaginary
                                    > > descendant of Quenya that I devised a few years ago.
                                    >
                                    >:)
                                    >
                                    > > >Neither do I see why óre is used for _x_.
                                    > >
                                    > > Only for *final* _x_, and this is because final _-ux_ goes
                                    > > back to an abbreviation sign for _-us_, which looked similar
                                    > > to _x_. I thought that because final _-x_ is usually
                                    > > pronounced [z] when pronounced at all I might use a tengwa
                                    > > from the same téma as Anto, which I use for _z_.
                                    >
                                    >Very interesting! Makes a whole lot of sense.
                                    >
                                    > > Anyway I have changed the representation of both nasalization
                                    > > and _-ux_: this frees up Wilya to be used instead of Úre for
                                    > > _-u_,
                                    >
                                    >Will you have another interesting explanation for this one? Because I
                                    >think that the óretyelle sound of the k-series can't express any
                                    >u-like sound.

                                    Why not. Anyway I use the quessetéma for (orthographic) _qu, gu_ now.
                                    I prefer Wilya for the u-'diphthongs' because it looks funny when
                                    o-tehtar and s-curls are attached to Úre. Let's say the scribes
                                    originally used Úre, but switched over to the otherwise unused
                                    Wilya because it looked better and was smoother to write with an
                                    s-curl attached. Of course Úre then becomes unused and free to use
                                    as an alternative.

                                    > > >The representations of the letters _g, c, z_ are interesting,
                                    > > >though I'd stick closer to Tolkien's examples.
                                    > >
                                    > > This is because French _z_ in inherited words goes back
                                    > > to /ts/ or /dz/ -- just as 'soft' _c_ used to be /ts/.
                                    >
                                    >That's most interesting. It's indeed a very consistent way of
                                    >historical spelling. Though I consider that Tolkien's orthographic
                                    >English modes were rather orthographic than historic, that is, their
                                    >only aim was to be as easy as possible while still not going against
                                    >the principles of tengwar spelling. The man of Gondor hesitated
                                    >between the values of the letters familiar in his 'mode' and the
                                    >_traditional_, not the _historical_ spelling of English.

                                    Between which the line is thin at most times, although I'm
                                    aware of the differences.


                                    >The one example where this is obvious is the representation of the
                                    >digraph _gh_. I don't imagine that English ever had a voiced velar
                                    >fricative,

                                    It had, but only in words like _law_ < _lagu_ [laGu],
                                    _bow_ < _boga_, which had become _lawe, bowe_ already in
                                    the earliest Middle English.

                                    >but only a voiceless, like the other Germanic languages.

                                    *All* Germanic languages (except perhaps OHG) had [G]
                                    as an allophone of /g/ at some point. Middle Dutch even
                                    had it as the main allophone.

                                    >The spelling _gh_ was only adopted because the spelling _ch_ wasn't
                                    >available any more, since Old French required it for another sound,
                                    >the sound it still has in Modern English. (I hope I'm not wrong.)

                                    Right. Scots still writes _nicht_ for 'night', and pronounces it
                                    much as the German word for 'not'.

                                    > This
                                    >means that historically, the adequate sign would be hwesta, not unque.
                                    >Unque isn't adequate but orthographically.

                                    True, except that the modern pronunciation of e.g. _through_ suggests
                                    that a [G] allophone existed at least in some positions in some dialects,
                                    but that's purely coincidental as far as spelling goes.

                                    > > I persist in writing all soft _c_s as Thúle, and not only _ç_.
                                    >
                                    >I fully agree that these don't need to be distinguished.

                                    Except that it means that the pronunciation of orthographic _c_
                                    still varies depending on how it is pronounced.

                                    FWIW I also decided to use extended-stem tengwar for the
                                    orthographic _ph, th_ and for soft _g_. Perhaps also
                                    extended-stem hwesta for _ch_ when it is pronounced /k/?

                                    'Tis amazing how the Gauls keep mutilating their own language! ;)


                                    /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)
                                  • machhezan
                                    ... The line is thin, but it s after all a difference in aims: You can either aim at creating the easiest way of writing or at creating the most consistent
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Mar 4, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I wrote:
                                      > >Though I consider that Tolkien's orthographic English
                                      > >modes were rather orthographic than historic, that is,
                                      > >their only aim was to be as easy as possible while still
                                      > >not going against the principles of tengwar spelling. The
                                      > >man of Gondor hesitated between the values of the letters
                                      > >familiar in his 'mode' and the _traditional_, not the
                                      > >_historical_ spelling of English.

                                      Melroch 'Aestan answered:
                                      > Between which the line is thin at most times, although I'm
                                      > aware of the differences.

                                      The line is thin, but it's after all a difference in aims: You can
                                      either aim at creating the easiest way of writing or at creating the
                                      most consistent historically (both of course consistent with the
                                      principles of tengwa spelling). And for a primer, the difference may
                                      be significant.

                                      You seem to search for the historically most consistent orthography,
                                      while I try to search the easiest one (and I fancy I go along with
                                      Tolkien). Therefore, I fear that we won't agree on a system of
                                      consonant signs. For the vowels, however, I think we could find an
                                      agreement.


                                      You're right that the long carrier is a more natural way to represent
                                      the circonflexe than esse nuquerna. I consider, however, that your
                                      representations of the grave still need improvement, because they're
                                      not regularly related to the 'accentless' variants of the same vowel,
                                      and because I think three dot tehtar and circumflex tehtar ought to be
                                      free variants. So here's a suggestion for a regular relation between
                                      grave vowels and unaccented vowels:

                                      (i) The grave vowels be represented by the common modifications of the
                                      original vowel tehtar, that is, by the inverted three dots (like your
                                      suggestion), by the reversed acute (grave) and by the modified u-curl
                                      (like your suggestion). The _e aigu_ be represented by a doubled
                                      acute. For typing, the hachek/inversed circumflex might be used while
                                      there's no grave tehta.

                                      This suggestion has a big disadvantage: It makes the use of the
                                      modified u-curl for a following _-w_ impossible, a sign I need for my
                                      representations of the mute _u_ in _qu, gu_. So here's another
                                      suggestion for a regular relation between grave vowels and unaccented
                                      vowels:

                                      (ii) The grave vowels be represented by the doubled version of the
                                      original vowel tehtar. The _e aigu_ be represented by a reversed
                                      e-tehta. The disadvantages are obvious: There's no doubled a-tehta, so
                                      the reversed one must be taken; it's counter-intuitional to have the
                                      _e aigu_ represented by a grave accent. So I'm still inclined towards
                                      my first suggestion:

                                      (iii) The grave vowels be put on a long carrier; the circonflexe
                                      vowels be put on esse nuquerna; the _e aigu_ be represented by a
                                      doubled acute. The disadvantage is the esse nuquerna which isn't be
                                      historically justified in all cases.

                                      I'm desperate, I don't believe in orthographic French tehtar modes,
                                      and a full writing mode must be too orthographic for my taste, that
                                      is, I don't believe that there's another way than using the same
                                      accents as in the traditional orthography even though they're alien to
                                      the tengwar.


                                      I see why you're using vilya for -u: You're using calmatéma for both
                                      palatals (ch, j, gn, i) and velars (c, g). I can't approve of that.

                                      I've thought again about your use of súle and anto: Your suggestion is
                                      partly based on the former pronunciations of <c/ç, z> as /ts, dz/. How
                                      could the letters súle and anto be related to these sounds?

                                      ---------------------------
                                      j. 'mach' wust
                                      http://machhezan.tripod.com
                                      ---------------------------
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.