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

Re: My Name :P

Expand Messages
  • Patrick H. Wynne
    ... The majority of the Sindarin dialogue in Jackson s movies does not appear in JRR Tolkien s novel -- it is _new_ dialogue created for the movies by David
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 4, 2004
      Anja Johansson <anjjo615@s...> asked:

      > OK..? I am a bit confused about this because on www.elvish.org
      > ["_hannon le_"] is listed under Sindarin and no comments are
      > made that it would be incorrect. What about most of the other
      > movie lines? Are they correct?

      The majority of the Sindarin dialogue in Jackson's movies does
      not appear in JRR Tolkien's novel -- it is _new_ dialogue created
      for the movies by David Salo, who worked as translator/linguistic
      consultant for the films. Since the actual amount of authentic
      Sindarin recorded in Tolkien's published writings is quite small,
      in writing this dialogue, Salo had to rely heavily on updated
      _Noldorin_ material taken from the _Etymologies_ (Noldorin being
      an earlier and somewhat different conceptual phase of Sindarin),
      as well as occasional back-formations from Quenya and unattested
      extensions or alterations of meanings of attested Sindarin words.

      The result is that David Salo's "Movie Sindarin" is a sort of
      _hypothetical reconstruction_ of Tolkien's Sindarin. And while
      this reconstruction certainly serves its function well enough
      in the movies, it should not be taken as a guide to what constitutes
      "correct" Sindarin grammar or vocabulary. We can only be certain
      that the Sindarin _actually attested in Tolkien's writings_ is
      correct; Sindarin composed by anybody else will have the
      potential for varying degrees of error.

      For the reasons why _hannon le_ is probably an incorrect
      reconstruction of a Sindarin phrase meaning 'thank you',
      I'll copy here the final paragraph of Carl F. Hostetter's post of
      April 9, 2004 on the "Lord of the Rings Fanatics Plaza". This
      will give you some idea of the complexities involved in
      reconstructing Sindarin:

      "Now, to return to **hanna-, intended to mean 'to thank':
      This invented form is based solely upon the attested Quenya
      form hantale, apparently meaning 'thanksgiving'. It is assumed
      that this contains a verb *hanta- 'to thank', and that this verb
      would have a Sindarin cognate of the form *hanna- 'to thank'.
      The problem is this: we now see (as first pointed out by John
      Garth) that Q hantale is most likely a derivative of the now attested
      root *han- 'add to, increase, enhance, honour (espec. by gift)'
      (VT43:14). But original initial *h disappears in Sindarin; so that
      any Sindarin derivative of this root, and thus any Sindarin cognate
      of Q *hanta-, cannot have an initial h-. The form we would expect
      to develop regularly would, in fact, be *anna-; but such a verb (in
      the inf. anno), meaning 'to give', already exists, at least in
      Noldorin of the Etymologies. And so **hanna- 'to thank'
      disappears in a puff of logic."

      -- Patrick H. wynne
    • j_mach_wust
      ... That s because Tolkien wrote it that way. The idea is that the two r- letters represented different sounds originally, but later the sounds merged. Still,
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 6, 2004
        --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Anja Johansson <anjjo615@s...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Thank you for the reply. I still have some questions...
        >
        > >All r's in Tolkien Elvish are thrilled.
        >
        > Then why do people insist on writing Aragorn with the _óre_
        > tengwar? Is it possible to use that one instead of the thrilled r? 

        That's because Tolkien wrote it that way. The idea is that the two r-
        letters represented different sounds originally, but later the sounds
        merged. Still, both letters continued to be used, but the distinction
        between them became a mere typographical one.

        ---------------------------
        j. 'mach' wust
        http://machhezan.tripod.com
        ---------------------------
      • laurifindil
        ... Tengwar is a complicated matter indeed. Most do not have the single idea on how its a complex and a changefull matter. So far, I am not into what peolpe
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 8, 2004
          --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Anja Johansson <anjjo615@s...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Thank you for the reply. I still have some questions...
          >
          > >All r's in Tolkien Elvish are thrilled.
          >
          > Then why do people insist on writing Aragorn with the _óre_
          > tengwar? Is it possible to use that one instead of the thrilled r? 


          Tengwar is a complicated matter indeed. Most do not have the single
          idea on how its a complex and a changefull matter.

          So far, I am not into "what peolpe want", but to what Tolkien wrote.

          If you care about Tolkien's tengwar you can forget about what you
          read on Internet and most of all about : "what peolple want to". :)

          Aragorn can be written in many ways, since there are many modes of
          the tengwar.

          The tengwar have been made by Feanor/Tolkien to look "nice" and not
          as a full _phonetical alphabet_.
          The "right way of writting" or ortho-graphia is a Modern Invention
          (but even the Romans had a few problem with it:).

          In the Middle Age you could choose the way you wanted to write : the
          rules were not as tight as they have become (but some rules were
          uptight of cause). The same goes for the sarati and also for the
          tengwar.

          You want to write Aragorn ? Look into HOME 9.

          > >> Hannon le!
          > >That sentence is NOT Tolkien-Elvish.
          > >ejk
          >
          > OK..? I am a bit confused about this because on www.elvish.org it
          > is listed under Sindarin and no comments are made that it would
          > be incorrect. What about most of the other movie lines? Are they
          > correct?

          Movie ??? What movie ??? :) :) :)

          Tolkien wrote books not movies.

          You want to learn about Elvish and Tengwar ? Forget the Movies and
          get down to Tolkien's books. :)

          Have a nice day,

          E. Kloczko
        • j_mach_wust
          ... I d rather say that you have to be very critical about what you read on internet, but some sites are worth consideration. ... Feanor is said to have been
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 9, 2004
            --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "laurifindil" <ejk@f...> wrote:
            > Tengwar is a complicated matter indeed. Most do not have the single
            > idea on how its a complex and a changefull matter.
            >
            > So far, I am not into "what peolpe want", but to what Tolkien wrote.
            >
            > If you care about Tolkien's tengwar you can forget about what you
            > read on Internet and most of all about : "what people want to". :)

            I'd rather say that you have to be very critical about what you read
            on internet, but some sites are worth consideration.

            > Aragorn can be written in many ways, since there are many modes of
            > the tengwar.
            >
            > The tengwar have been made by Feanor/Tolkien to look "nice" and not
            > as a full _phonetical alphabet_.

            Feanor is said to have been more concerned with matters of esthetics
            than of spelling. However, there's much phonetic knowledge in the
            design of the tengwar with their correspondance of shape features
            with sound features. I believe that this is the reason why tengwar
            are considered a _phonetical alphabet_, which would be a tautology
            otherwise, unless you're referring to a cientific notation system
            like the IPA script.

            For sure, Tolkien's used the tengwar for phonemical representation of
            different languages, e.g. English or Quenya.

            > The "right way of writting" or ortho-graphia is a Modern Invention
            > (but even the Romans had a few problem with it:).

            So what? The "right way" of using the tengwar is to imitate Tolkien's
            example. That is, by an examination of his samples we can reconstruct
            a set of rules that would produce identical samples.

            This is different from Tolkien's languages, where reconstructions of
            the rules is less safe since it'd require much more material than we
            have.

            > In the Middle Age you could choose the way you wanted to write :
            > the rules were not as tight as they have become (but some rules
            > were uptight of cause). The same goes for the sarati and also for
            > the tengwar.

            Where could this be affirmed in Tolkien's writings?

            ---------------------------
            j. 'mach' wust
            http://machhezan.tripod.com
            ---------------------------
          • Anja Johansson
            ... So you do not recommend the Sindarin Course by Thorsten? Writing sindarin only based on what Tolkien clearly stated would be fairly difficult, which is why
            Message 5 of 7 , Sep 10, 2004
              > If you care about Tolkien's tengwar you can forget about what you
              > read on Internet and most of all about : "what peolple want to". :)

              So you do not recommend the Sindarin Course by Thorsten? Writing sindarin only based on what Tolkien clearly stated would be fairly difficult, which is why I prefer this course.

              > Movie ??? What movie ??? :) :) :)
              >
              > Tolkien wrote books not movies.

              Yes indeed, but he was thrilled about the idea of making the story into a movie as far as I've heard. I do not intend to become a Tolkien expert, I just want to be able to understand the movie lines better and to be able to write small lines myself. I am as much a movie fan as a book fan, although I did read the books before I watched the movies. I do not consider the books "holy" and I don't find it wrong to adapt neither story nor language to the purpose of making a movie. After all, it is "just" a work of fiction (Note that I'm a huge fan of Tolkien and admire him immensly!! No offense anyone!). However, I know that David Salo worked on the movie lines and I believed he was an expert and so I thought the movie lines were more or less correct.

              Thank you,

              Anja aka Lúthien
            • laurifindil
              ... you ... to . :) ... sindarin only based on what Tolkien clearly stated would be fairly difficult, which is why I prefer this course. There can only one
              Message 6 of 7 , Sep 11, 2004
                --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Anja Johansson <anjjo615@s...>
                wrote:
                > > If you care about Tolkien's tengwar you can forget about what
                you
                > > read on Internet and most of all about : "what peolple want
                to". :)
                >
                > So you do not recommend the Sindarin Course by Thorsten? Writing
                sindarin only based on what Tolkien clearly stated would be fairly
                difficult, which is why I prefer this course.

                There can only one language called Sindarin : the one Tolkien
                invented.
                Mr Thorsten's creation (it can't be called a "language") is *not*
                Sindarin.

                You are free to prefer this and that, and even spend your time as
                you will. And *I* do the same.

                One last thing, this ML is dedicated to *Tolkien's* Writings Systems
                and not anybody else.

                Cheers,

                E. Kloczko
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.