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

Re: Tengwar Challenge 10

Expand Messages
  • machhezan
    ... I should better check out my Vinyar Tengwar first: The same s been pointed out by Arden R. Smith in his analysis of the King s Letters in VT29: The letter
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 20, 2004
      I wrote:
      > I've found 12 occurences of final óre in the
      > King's Letters and 18 of final rómen. All words that end with rómen
      > are followed by a word that begins with a vowel. Among the words
      > that end with óre, only three are followed by a word that begins
      > with a vowel.
      >
      > The interpretation seems quite obvious to me: The writing of final
      > _r_ follows the pronunciation of Tolkien's English: Rómen, where the
      > _r_ is pronounced, where it isn't, óre. That's a problem for those
      > who pronounce every _r_: How should they write?

      I should better check out my Vinyar Tengwar first: The same's been
      pointed out by Arden R. Smith in his analysis of the King's Letters in
      VT29: "The letter [óre] _óre_ is generally used for preconsonantal _r_
      and [rómen] _rómen_ for prevocalic _r_. This also applies when a word
      boundary falls between the _r_ and the following sound. Silent vowels
      are disregarded."

      ---------------------------
      j. 'mach' wust
      http://machhezan.tripod.com
      ---------------------------
    • d_daniel_andries@webtv.net
      ... is pronounced, ... They should write according to Tolkien s usage. Remember that this mode is largely orthographic rather than phonemic. The orthography is
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 20, 2004
        Teithant Mach:
        >The writing of final _r_ follows the pronunciation
        >of Tolkien's English: Rómen, where the _r_
        is pronounced,
        >where it isn't, óre. That's a problem for those who pronounce
        >every _r_: How should they write?

        They should write according to Tolkien's usage. Remember that this mode
        is largely orthographic rather than phonemic. The orthography is set by
        Tolkien's example. Whether or not the person transcribing a text into
        tengwar pronounces final or preconsonantal 'r' or treats it as silent is
        immaterial; he is not transcribing according to his spoken dialect, but
        rather according to what Tolkien's example dictates.

        >By the way, this explains the corrections of óre to rómen
        >that are found in all three versions of the King's Letter.

        The treatment of rómen vs. óre is the biggest inconsistency in the
        King's Letter. Still, the rules we quote seem to be the standard.

        > > 'convince', 'difference' - Write the 'n' before 'ce' as
        > > númen rather than as a tehta. Strictly speaking, [s]
        > >cannot be nasalised.
        >I also recommend not to use the bar on silme (nuquerna),
        >but what has this to do with nasalization of [s]?

        Simple sibilants, such as that represented by IPA symbol [s], cannot be
        nasalised. The 'c' in the ultimae of 'convince', 'difference' = [s]. A
        diacritical mark that has the purpose of nasalising a consonant should
        not be placed over a letter representing a consonant tat cannot be
        nasalised. Therefore, silme (nuquerna) (= [s]) should not bear the nasal
        tehta.

        Cuio mae, Danny.
      • machhezan
        ... I think the problem is that we have two ways of understanding Tolkien s usage. We can understand it either phonetically: r-letters depend on pronunciation,
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 21, 2004
          I wrote:
          > >The writing of final _r_ follows the pronunciation of
          > >Tolkien's English: Rómen, where the _r_ is pronounced,
          > >where it isn't, óre. That's a problem for those who
          > >pronounce every _r_: How should they write?

          Danny answered:
          >They should write according to Tolkien's usage. Remember
          >that this mode is largely orthographic rather than
          >phonemic. The orthography is set by Tolkien's example.
          >Whether or not the person transcribing a text into tengwar
          >pronounces final or preconsonantal 'r' or treats it as
          >silent is immaterial; he is not transcribing according to
          >his spoken dialect, but rather according to what Tolkien's
          >example dictates.

          I think the problem is that we have two ways of understanding
          Tolkien's usage. We can understand it either phonetically: r-letters
          depend on pronunciation, or 'typographically': r-letters depend on the
          following letters.

          What arguments do we have to favour one of the two? Your argument that
          the observed mode is "largely orthographic" doesn't help much. Of
          course, the spelling is orientated by the traditional orthography, but
          it's well known that some features follow pronunciation nonetheless,
          e.g. the choice between súle and anto for <th> or between quesse and
          silme nuquerna for <c>. The choice between rómen and óre for <r> can
          also be explained as a reflection of two different pronunciations.
          This allows a consistent explanation of the distribution of óre and
          rómen, while the 'typographical' explanation is more arbitrary (why
          should the r-letter depend on the following letter?).

          There's one difference between the letters <th, c> and <r>: All major
          dialects of English have two different pronunciations of <th, c>,
          while only some have two different pronunciations of <r>. Tolkien had
          two different pronunciations of <r>, but I daresay that most Tolkien
          researchers haven't (assuming that most come from the U.S.), so the
          neglect of that feature might be an unconscious impact of the
          researchers' own dialects of English.

          >Simple sibilants, such as that represented by IPA symbol
          >[s], cannot be nasalised. The 'c' in the ultimae of
          >'convince', 'difference' = [s]. A diacritical mark that has
          >the purpose of nasalising a consonant should not be placed
          >over a letter representing a consonant tat cannot be
          >nasalised.

          No obstruents can be nasalized unless you consider e.g. an [m] to be a
          nasalized [b]; what you're referring to is prenasalization.

          Prenasalisation of fricatives requires a more complex articulatory
          movement than prenasalization of stops. However, there are names like
          _Nsama, Nseleni, Nshawu, Nsuze_ that suggest prenasalized fricatives,
          so I wouldn't deny their existence.

          In this question it's me who goes for the 'typographical' explanation:
          I woulnd't use the bar over silme (nuquerna) because it isn't a
          primary letter.

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