Re: [elfscript]Quenya Numbers??
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Harri Perälä <harri.perala@l...> wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, there are no examples of how of such "foreign"Letters
> sounds and combinations would be handled in the middle of a document
> written in the classical Quenya mode. If the problematic word or name
> was in a language that had a standard tengwar spelling, it would seem
> reasonable to write it according to that mode.
> I actually might have expected "Elessar Telcontar" in the King's
> to be written in the classical mode that App. E calls "the standardThat's a very good example! I wasn't conscious but of the
> spelling of Quenya", but it's in the same mode as the rest of the
> document. From a modern perspective, this is maybe a bit odd: if the
> English name "Strider" is mentioned in a document written in any
> language that uses the Latin alphabet, it is still written "Strider".
counterexample, the Quenya mode words (though not 'classical' Quenya
mode) within the Anglo-Saxon mode of Lowdham's manuscript in DTS 50
(neither is described on the net, I think).
> I can think of some possible reasons why the Letters are written theway
> they are:important in
> - Quenya was written in other modes as well as the "standard spelling",
> so readers were used to seeing different spellings of Quenya words.
> - Having only one spelling for a name was not considered as
> the Third/Fourth Age as it is today.Three very good reasons. We might even speculate that in Gondor,
> - At least in version III, written in a tehta mode, switching between
> "postposited" and "preposited" tehtar would be too confusing.
Quenya was normally spelt according to the general use, as seen in the
Return of the King jacket (DTS 38) and in the example you've given
which are the only examples that can be identified as Gondorian with a
certain security. I don't think that there's any evidence in app. E
that would prove this speculation to be wrong.
j. 'mach' wust
- I saw the Appendix D only after posted my message.
So, _cermie_ is the perfect solution at all my problems with months.
Really I don't know that Postlithe is an Italian translation of Afterlithe
(usually the latin radix "Post" is perfectly integrated with the English
language, so I thought that this name of month was in the original lang...)
In this way, if I use _cermie_ the _g_ of "Luglio" is not a problem.
I can write perfectly _cermie_ with the classic tengwar mode for Quenya.
I think also your thoughts are perfectly correct...
But I'm too inexpert to give an absolutely correct opinion!
- Harri Perälä wrote (one of several explanations):
> - At least in version III, written in a tehta mode, switching between"postposited" and "preposited" tehtar would be too confusing. (The Latin
alphabet equivalent might be "Elessar Telcontar, Ragaron Ratharonino..." or
"Eelassr Etlocantr, Aragorn Arathornion...")
>Yes, I tend to think this is the correct explanation.
> Am I on the right track here?
It should be remembered that Quenya was not a language in daily use, though
it served as a source for particularly noble names. Every literate person
in Gondor must have known the Tengwar, but it is in no way certain that
non-scholars would be familiar with the (rather peculiar) Quenya spelling
mode. So Quenya names occurring in a Sindarin or Westron context would
naturally be written in much the same mode as the rest of the text, making
things much easier for both the writer and the reader. Possibly some
"loremasters" wouldn't be quite happy about it, but a universally accepted
standard orthography is not to be expected in a pseudo-medieval setting
- --- In email@example.com, "Helge K. Fauskanger"
> It should be remembered that Quenya was not a language in dailyDTS 38 provides us with an instance of a 'general use' Quenya text
> use, though it served as a source for particularly noble names.
> Every literate person in Gondor must have known the Tengwar, but it
> is in no way certain that non-scholars would be familiar with the
> (rather peculiar) Quenya spelling mode. So Quenya names occurring
> in a Sindarin or Westron context would naturally be written in much
> the same mode as the rest of the text, making things much easier
> for both the writer and the reader.
that is not within a Sindarin or Westron context. We might speculate
that the text could be supposed to be written by a very literate
Sindarin speaker. I think that this specimen suggest, as I've said,
that in Gondor, Quenya was normally spelt according to the general
j. 'mach' wust