Melroch 'Aestan wrote:
> At 20:39 23.2.2004, machhezan wrote:
> >Unfortunately, many descriptions of English tengwar propagate such
> >an impure spelling. Tolkien, however, used either solidly
> >orthographic tengwar modes or rædicæli fonetik tengwar mowdz dhæt
> >ar veri difrent from orthogræfik Inglish. He never stuck half-way
> Except WRT the spelling of _c_ pronounced /s/ and _g_ pronounced
> /dZ/, which were spelled as if they were written _s, j_.
I once searched for <g> spelt as if it were <j>, but I found none, so
I think you've been cheated by the propagation of impure tengwar
spellings. The letter <c> pronounced /s/ is represented with a letter
by itself, silme nuquerna (I don't remember if there are exceptions),
but when pronounced /k/, then it's spelt as if it were <k>.
> He also
> tended to distinguish /s/ and /z/ even where orthography doesn't.
In certain texts, that's true. Still, even these texts are
unambiguously orthographic. I think there are two different kinds of
minor deviations from traditional spellings: (a) deviations that are
based in peculiarities of the Roman alphabet; (b) deviations that are
really based on pronunciation.
With regard to (a), peculiarities of the Roman alphabet: Some signs of
the Roman alphabet correspond to several sounds, e.g. <th>, while some
sounds correspond to several signs, e.g. <k, c, q>. With regard to (b)
, I know only of three cases: The final <s> sometimes written as if it
were <z> in certain samples; the word _war_ spelt as if it were _wor_
(in a sample that has also <z> for final <s>); and final <f> written
as if it were <v> (perhaps only in the abbreviation of _of_). The
range of all the three is very restricted.
j. 'mach' wust