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

Re: [elfscript] Re: New file added : is it correct?

Expand Messages
  • Dave
    ... Oops, that s a bit harsh, isn t it? I don t want to get into that (by its nature inconclusive) discussion about what is Sindarin and what isn t (clearly,
    Message 1 of 19 , Nov 2, 2004
      calwen76 wrote:

      >
      > --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "fradeve virgilio" <fradeve11@v...>
      > wrote:
      > > _Aa' I elin thilio ui erin le, ar I sul dregi im fin llie brannon
      > en ely_
      > >
      > > Is it completely correct?
      >
      > This is Grelvish and this ridiculous word grist doesn't deserve to be
      > expressed by any of prof. Tolkien's writing systems. Apart from
      > calling it Sindarin.
      >
      > Lucy
      >
      Oops, that's a bit harsh, isn't it? I don't want to get into that (by
      its nature inconclusive) discussion about what is Sindarin and what
      isn't (clearly, if you take a very strict approach, ONLY what Tolkien
      himself wrote IS REALLY Sindarin, and any other composition, no matter
      how "standardized" or "Tolkien-inspired" a version of "reconstructed"
      Sindarin it's based on, has to be considered "not authentic"----there,
      now I HAVE spoken my mind), and neither do I want to defend what you
      call a "word grist" as "good" Sindarin by any standard this group would
      likely subscribe to, BUT the author of that mail was just asking about
      the SPELLING, and there he/she (?) did a reasonably good job. I mean,
      you could spell (or at least try to) spell pretty much anything with
      Tengwar script, and it can be fun and enlightening to do so. (Try
      transcribing Chinese with Tengwar for example :).)

      Anyway, I don't think "deserve(s)" has anything to do with it. What are
      we, defending the Holy Grail? Lighten up :).

      Hísilómë



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • calwen76
      ... ... brannon ... to be ... (by ... Tolkien ... matter ... of reconstructed ... there, ... you ... would ... about ... mean, ... with ...
      Message 2 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
        --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Dave <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:
        > calwen76 wrote:
        >
        > >
        > > --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "fradeve virgilio"
        <fradeve11@v...>
        > > wrote:
        > > > _Aa' I elin thilio ui erin le, ar I sul dregi im fin llie
        brannon
        > > en ely_
        > > >
        > > > Is it completely correct?
        > >
        > > This is Grelvish and this ridiculous word grist doesn't deserve
        to be
        > > expressed by any of prof. Tolkien's writing systems. Apart from
        > > calling it Sindarin.
        > >
        > > Lucy
        > >
        > Oops, that's a bit harsh, isn't it? I don't want to get into that
        (by
        > its nature inconclusive) discussion about what is Sindarin and what
        > isn't (clearly, if you take a very strict approach, ONLY what
        Tolkien
        > himself wrote IS REALLY Sindarin, and any other composition, no
        matter
        > how "standardized" or "Tolkien-inspired" a version
        of "reconstructed"
        > Sindarin it's based on, has to be considered "not authentic"----
        there,
        > now I HAVE spoken my mind), and neither do I want to defend what
        you
        > call a "word grist" as "good" Sindarin by any standard this group
        would
        > likely subscribe to, BUT the author of that mail was just asking
        about
        > the SPELLING, and there he/she (?) did a reasonably good job. I
        mean,
        > you could spell (or at least try to) spell pretty much anything
        with
        > Tengwar script, and it can be fun and enlightening to do so. (Try
        > transcribing Chinese with Tengwar for example :).)
        >
        > Anyway, I don't think "deserve(s)" has anything to do with it. What
        are
        > we, defending the Holy Grail? Lighten up :).
        >
        > Hísilómë

        I hope you're kiding. Grelvish has no rules, it is just a accidental
        mix of nonsence sound clusters and it is denounced by almost all non-
        ignorant Tolkien languages fans, students and scholars all over the
        world. And I was serious by saying this crap (Grelvish) doesn't
        deserve a word of defense in either elfling or elfscript.

        I'm not saying it is not your or anybody's right to express
        your/his/her opinion but it seems to me that you know nothing much
        about Tolkien's languages if you dare to state such a thing.

        Lucy
      • Dave
        ... [Hm. Did you even read (I mean really READ) my reply to your mail?] ... [I think I clearly stated that I did NOT wish to defend Grelvish in any way. I am
        Message 3 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
          calwen76 wrote:

          >
          > --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Dave <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:
          > > calwen76 wrote:
          > > >
          > > > --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "fradeve virgilio"
          > <fradeve11@v...>> wrote:

          > > > > _Aa' I elin thilio ui erin le, ar I sul dregi im fin llie
          > brannon en ely_
          > > > >
          > > > > Is it completely correct?
          > > >
          > > > This is Grelvish and this ridiculous word grist doesn't deserve
          > to be expressed by any of prof. Tolkien's writing systems. Apart from
          > > > calling it Sindarin.
          > > >
          > > > Lucy
          > > >
          > > Oops, that's a bit harsh, isn't it? I don't want to get into that
          > (by its nature inconclusive) discussion about what is Sindarin and what
          > > isn't (clearly, if you take a very strict approach, ONLY what
          > Tolkien himself wrote IS REALLY Sindarin, and any other composition, no
          > matter how "standardized" or "Tolkien-inspired" a version
          > of "reconstructed" Sindarin it's based on, has to be considered "not
          > authentic"----
          > there, now I HAVE spoken my mind), and neither do I want to defend what
          > you call a "word grist" as "good" Sindarin by any standard this group
          > would likely subscribe to, BUT the author of that mail was just asking
          > about the SPELLING, and there he/she (?) did a reasonably good job. I
          > mean, you could spell (or at least try to) spell pretty much anything
          > with Tengwar script, and it can be fun and enlightening to do so. (Try
          > > transcribing Chinese with Tengwar for example :).)
          > >
          > > Anyway, I don't think "deserve(s)" has anything to do with it. What
          > are we, defending the Holy Grail? Lighten up :).
          > >
          > > Hísilómë

          [Hm. Did you even read (I mean really READ) my reply to your mail?]

          >
          > I hope you're kiding. Grelvish has no rules, it is just a accidental
          > mix of nonsence sound clusters and it is denounced by almost all non-
          > ignorant Tolkien languages fans, students and scholars all over the
          > world. And I was serious by saying this crap (Grelvish) doesn't
          > deserve a word of defense in either elfling or elfscript.

          [I think I clearly stated that I did NOT wish to defend "Grelvish" in
          any way. I am well aware that "Grelvish" doesn't have much to do with
          "Sindarin". What I DID defend was the _spelling_ in that calligraphy,
          which looked by and large ok. I was NOT concerned with the content of
          the text (if you read my first mail on this topic, you will have noticed
          that I started by saying "as far as the spelling is concerned").]

          >
          > I'm not saying it is not your or anybody's right to express
          > your/his/her opinion but it seems to me that you know nothing much
          > about Tolkien's languages if you dare to state such a thing.

          [Again, what exactly did I "state"? Just that anybody certainly has the
          right to transcribe any text they like into Tengwar--and if they want to
          have an opinion on the result, who should they ask if not the people in
          this group? Whether the text itself is Sindarin of not, is an entirely
          different matter, and just for the record: I am not fond of "Grelvish"
          myself, and of course you are right that this text is NOT something
          Tolkien would have recognized as his invented language. Personally, I am
          studying Tolkien's Quenya and Sindarin because it allows one an even
          keener appreciation of his entire secondary world with all its myths and
          stories, and because I am generally interested in languages, invented or
          "real". Therefore, I have no interest whatsoever in "Grelvish" or any
          other language constructs that are only remotely based on Tolkien's ideas.

          Finally, on a more general note, you are right that everybody has the
          right to express an opinion in this forum, and I think it would be nice
          to do so courteous manner. No need for an expression like "crap", I
          think :).]

          Hísilómë




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • calwen76
          ... Yes. I did. Carefully. It is maybe but my opinion nevertheless this forum concerns Tolkien s writing systems that are inseparable from Tolkien s
          Message 4 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
            --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Dave <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:
            > [Hm. Did you even read (I mean really READ) my reply to your mail?]

            Yes. I did. Carefully. It is maybe but my opinion nevertheless this
            forum concerns Tolkien's writing systems that are inseparable from
            Tolkien's art(ificial) languages. Tolkien used to write English with
            Tengwar and Tengwar can be adopted by many languages - I think that
            to adopt Chinese to Tengwar (or vice versa) would be really a hard
            work.

            My point is that I don't dare to even look on a text that is written
            in Grelvish since I really do deprecate it because I think it's a
            mockery of Tolkien's work. And I do think it's a crap. And I much
            appreciate Tolkien's work. That's why I do defend it so hard.

            It's nothing against 'fradeve virgilio' who maybe even doesn't know
            that the sentence is Grelvish. But if he/she does know, then let
            he/she turn to Grelvish company to help him/her with the
            transcription since this group concerns completely different stuff:
            Grelvish was made and it looks like a mixture Sindarin and Quenya
            together with many inexplicable changes and editions, yielding
            something that is by many seen as a language, but a closer look shows
            it is not so. I guess the Grey company have maybe adjusted the
            writing systems as well to their work: because Tolkein's writing
            systems were made for (real) languages as such, for languages that
            have specific features and have been changing over the centuries
            (real languages), have been made with love to linguistics and words
            (Tolkein's ones). This is not the case of Grelvish, which is a
            nonsense mish-mash of Tolkien's work - how great, huh? Can you not
            see? :-( I could make such a language in two hours from let's say
            English and proclaim it as a variant of English:

            Wwe em Luciel nad wil lieke uciter bugus.

            Well, this is exactly what is Grelvish comparing to Tolkien's
            languages --- does this "sentense" look like English? Would you even
            be able to say what it is supposed to mean? Would you dare to try to
            analyze the Tengwar transcription of it if I would have made it and
            would have asked you to check it? What rules would you follow?

            Lucy
          • j_mach_wust
            ... There are indeed many Tengwar texts where it s difficult to discern long and short carriers (another example is the Treebeard fragment, DTS 24). However,
            Message 5 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
              'Hísilómë' Dave wrote:

              > one more small thing occurred to me: I'm not sure whether "i" should
              > be spelled with a long or a short carrier, especially when standing
              > alone or when it is not the initial sound of a world. I have always
              > had trouble discerning long/short carriers for "i" in the two
              > best-known examples of the Sindarin Mode of Beleriand from Tolkien
              > himself, the Tengwar text for "A Elbereth" (in "Pictures") and the
              > Gate of Moria inscription (LotR).

              There are indeed many Tengwar texts where it's difficult to discern
              long and short carriers (another example is the Treebeard fragment,
              DTS 24). However, there are also other texts that have a very marked
              distinction between the two, e.g. the King's Letters or the Lay of
              Leithian fragment (DTS 23). Maybe the texts that don't distinguish
              them clearly don't do this because these modes don't require that
              distinction at all?

              > In "A Elbereth", the only "i" spelled with a long carrier seems to
              > be the word-initial one in _Imladris_ (Aerlinn in Edhil o Imladris).

              I disagree. This letter is different from all other long carriers and
              looks rather like a capitalized short carrier.

              > In the Doors of Durin inscription (as published in Fellowship), I'm
              > not sure whether for example the "i" in _minno_ is to be considered
              > a long or a short carrier? What does it look like to you? Anyway, in
              > this sample, again, the only clear-cut occurence of a long carrier
              > seems to me to be the "i" in _Im (Narvi)_, word-initial again.

              I'd say it the other way round: The only clear-cut occurences of short
              carriers are in the words _Durin_ and _Moria_.

              ---------------------------
              j. 'mach' wust
              http://machhezan.tripod.com
              ---------------------------
            • Dave
              ... [Sure, why not?] ... [Well, without any indications how to pronounce it, I guess I would try to stick to an orthographical mode of spelling. Could be an
              Message 6 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
                calwen76 wrote:

                >
                > Wwe em Luciel nad wil lieke uciter bugus.
                >
                > Would you dare to try to
                > analyze the Tengwar transcription of it if I would have made it and
                > would have asked you to check it?

                [Sure, why not?]

                > What rules would you follow?

                [Well, without any indications how to pronounce it, I guess I would try
                to stick to an orthographical mode of spelling. Could be an interesting
                challenge, actually :).]

                >
                > Lucy
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • calwen76
                ... and ... try to stick to an orthographical mode of spelling. Could be an interesting challenge, actually :).] Why doesn t that suprise me... No comment :)
                Message 7 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
                  --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, Dave <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:
                  > calwen76 wrote:
                  > > Wwe em Luciel nad wil lieke uciter bugus.
                  > >
                  > > Would you dare to try to
                  > > analyze the Tengwar transcription of it if I would have made it
                  and
                  > > would have asked you to check it?
                  >
                  > [Sure, why not?]
                  >
                  > > What rules would you follow?
                  >
                  > [Well, without any indications how to pronounce it, I guess I would
                  try to stick to an orthographical mode of spelling. Could be an
                  interesting challenge, actually :).]

                  Why doesn't that suprise me... No comment :)
                • Dave
                  j_mach_wust wrote: ... There are indeed many Tengwar texts where it s difficult to discern long and short carriers (another example is the Treebeard
                  Message 8 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
                    j_mach_wust wrote:
                    <>
                    'Hísilómë' Dave wrote:

                    > one more small thing occurred to me: I'm not sure whether "i" should
                    > be spelled with a long or a short carrier, especially when standing
                    > alone or when it is not the initial sound of a world. I have always
                    > had trouble discerning long/short carriers for "i" in the two
                    > best-known examples of the Sindarin Mode of Beleriand from Tolkien
                    > himself, the Tengwar text for "A Elbereth" (in "Pictures") and the
                    > Gate of Moria inscription (LotR).

                    There are indeed many Tengwar texts where it's difficult to discern
                    long and short carriers (another example is the Treebeard fragment,
                    DTS 24). However, there are also other texts that have a very marked
                    distinction between the two, e.g. the King's Letters or the Lay of
                    Leithian fragment (DTS 23). Maybe the texts that don't distinguish
                    them clearly don't do this because these modes don't require that
                    distinction at all?

                    [Maybe! Just as with those dots on top that I mentioned that seem to be
                    used (or not) without any clearly discernible pattern--it doesn't really
                    make a difference I think, since with or without the dot all these
                    carriers represent (short) "i".]

                    > In "A Elbereth", the only "i" spelled with a long carrier seems to
                    > be the word-initial one in _Imladris_ (Aerlinn in Edhil o Imladris).

                    I disagree. This letter is different from all other long carriers and
                    looks rather like a capitalized short carrier.

                    [Well, as I said, it _is_ hard to be sure! Are there many incidences of
                    a "capitalized short carrier"? Come to think of it, long carriers
                    usually seem to be extended _downwards_, not upwards, so this would
                    certainly give weight to your argument :).]
                    <>
                    > In the Doors of Durin inscription (as published in Fellowship), I'm
                    > not sure whether for example the "i" in _minno_ is to be considered
                    > a long or a short carrier? What does it look like to you? Anyway, in
                    > this sample, again, the only clear-cut occurence of a long carrier
                    > seems to me to be the "i" in _Im (Narvi)_, word-initial again.

                    I'd say it the other way round: The only clear-cut occurences of short
                    carriers are in the words _Durin_ and _Moria_.

                    [Don't know, this really seems to be a matter of interpretation. I'm
                    looking at the second hardcover edition by George Allen & Unwin, p.319,
                    and to me the "i" in, say, _Celebrimbor_ or _Eregion_ also look kind of
                    short to me, especially when compared with the "i" occurrences in _i
                    thiw hin_. To close to call I guess :). In some earlier drafts that are
                    reproduced in AI, e.g. nos 150 and 151, all carriers seem to be
                    distinctly short. As you said, it doesn't seem to make a big difference
                    in this mode.
                    BTW, there are some "strange" spellings in these earlier drafts, so
                    _Moria_ seems to have a malta for "m", which is obviously inconsistent
                    with the Sindarin Mode of Beleriand as we know it (malta = double "m")
                    and was in the LotR version "emended" to vala. Also, _thiw_ is spelled
                    with an initial númen in 150, and an ando with an over-bar (tilde) in
                    151, then there is "curly" thing above the anna in _Moria_, and so on.
                    This is probably some earlier conceptual stage for this mode?]
                    <>
                    Hísilómë



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • j_mach_wust
                    ... We also find many capitalizations in other Tolkien s tengwar texts. There s another sample of a capitalized short carrier in DTS 18 (third verse, third
                    Message 9 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
                      'Hísilómë' Dave wrote:

                      > j_mach_wust wrote:
                      >
                      >> 'Hísilómë' Dave wrote:
                      >>
                      >>> In "A Elbereth", the only "i" spelled with a long
                      >>> carrier seems to be the word-initial one in _Imladris_
                      >>> (Aerlinn in Edhil o Imladris).
                      >>
                      >> I disagree. This letter is different from all other long
                      >> carriers and looks rather like a capitalized short
                      >> carrier.
                      >
                      > Well, as I said, it _is_ hard to be sure! Are there many
                      > incidences of a "capitalized short carrier"? Come to think
                      > of it, long carriers usually seem to be extended
                      > _downwards_, not upwards, so this would certainly give
                      > weight to your argument :).

                      We also find many "capitalizations" in other Tolkien's tengwar texts.
                      There's another sample of a "capitalized" short carrier in DTS 18
                      (third verse, third line) (the same sample shows even a "capitalized"
                      long carrier: fifth verse, first word).

                      >>> In the Doors of Durin inscription (as published in
                      >>> Fellowship), I'm not sure whether for example the "i" in
                      >>> _minno_ is to be considered a long or a short carrier?
                      >>> What does it look like to you? Anyway, in this sample,
                      >>> again, the only clear-cut occurence of a long carrier
                      >>> seems to me to be the "i" in _Im (Narvi)_, word-initial
                      >>> again.
                      >>
                      >> I'd say it the other way round: The only clear-cut
                      >> occurences of short carriers are in the words _Durin_ and
                      >> _Moria_.
                      >
                      > Don't know, this really seems to be a matter of
                      > interpretation. I'm looking at the second hardcover
                      > edition by George Allen & Unwin, p.319, and to me the "i"
                      > in, say, _Celebrimbor_ or _Eregion_ also look kind of
                      > short to me, especially when compared with the "i"
                      > occurrences in _i thiw hin_. To close to call I guess :).
                      > In some earlier drafts that are reproduced in AI, e.g. nos
                      > 150 and 151, all carriers seem to be distinctly short. As
                      > you said, it doesn't seem to make a big difference in this
                      > mode.

                      Wait a minute, isn't DTS 8 not drawn by J. R. R. Tolkien at all, but a
                      copy made of DTS 32 by some graphic? I think this is told in the
                      Artist & Illustrator, but I have only made a copy of page 158 and
                      brought the book back to the library.

                      > BTW, there are some "strange" spellings in these earlier
                      > drafts, so _Moria_ seems to have a malta for "m", which is
                      > obviously inconsistent with the Sindarin Mode of Beleriand
                      > as we know it (malta = double "m") and was in the LotR
                      > version "emended" to vala. Also, _thiw_ is spelled with an
                      > initial númen in 150, and an ando with an over-bar (tilde)
                      > in 151, then there is "curly" thing above the anna in
                      > _Moria_, and so on. This is probably some earlier
                      > conceptual stage for this mode?

                      I think this isn't a reflection of a earlier conceptual stage of this
                      mode, but of a earlier conceptual stage of the language (have a look
                      at the bottom of DTS 29 :-). Well, there is actually one earlier
                      feature in the mode, too: The andotyelle seems to be used not only for
                      long nasal consonants (nn, mm), but also for the prenasalized voiced
                      stops (nd, mb), see 'Celebrimbor, ndíw'.

                      ---------------------------
                      j. 'mach' wust
                      http://machhezan.tripod.com
                      ---------------------------
                    • Dave
                      ... We also find many capitalizations in other Tolkien s tengwar texts. There s another sample of a capitalized short carrier in DTS 18 (third verse, third
                      Message 10 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
                        <>> j_mach_wust wrote:
                        >
                        >> 'Hísilómë' Dave wrote:

                        > Are there many
                        > incidences of a "capitalized short carrier"? Come to think
                        > of it, long carriers usually seem to be extended
                        > _downwards_, not upwards, so this would certainly give
                        > weight to your argument :).

                        We also find many "capitalizations" in other Tolkien's tengwar texts.
                        There's another sample of a "capitalized" short carrier in DTS 18
                        (third verse, third line) (the same sample shows even a "capitalized"
                        long carrier: fifth verse, first word).

                        [Right, so a "capitalized" carrier would have an upwardly extended stem
                        and a curl to the left at the bottom, and thus generally look a bit like
                        a "J"--BTW, did you come up with the term? The "capitalization" does not
                        seem to serve any special function, does it?]

                        >>> In the Doors of Durin inscription (as published in
                        >>> Fellowship), I'm not sure whether for example the "i" in
                        >>> _minno_ is to be considered a long or a short carrier?
                        >>> What does it look like to you? Anyway, in this sample,
                        >>> again, the only clear-cut occurence of a long carrier
                        >>> seems to me to be the "i" in _Im (Narvi)_, word-initial
                        >>> again.
                        >>
                        >> I'd say it the other way round: The only clear-cut
                        >> occurences of short carriers are in the words _Durin_ and
                        >> _Moria_.
                        >
                        > Don't know, this really seems to be a matter of
                        > interpretation. I'm looking at the second hardcover
                        > edition by George Allen & Unwin, p.319, and to me the "i"
                        > in, say, _Celebrimbor_ or _Eregion_ also look kind of
                        > short to me, especially when compared with the "i"
                        > occurrences in _i thiw hin_. To close to call I guess :).
                        > In some earlier drafts that are reproduced in AI, e.g. nos
                        > 150 and 151, all carriers seem to be distinctly short. As
                        > you said, it doesn't seem to make a big difference in this
                        > mode.

                        Wait a minute, isn't DTS 8 not drawn by J. R. R. Tolkien at all, but a
                        copy made of DTS 32 by some graphic? I think this is told in the
                        Artist & Illustrator, but I have only made a copy of page 158 and
                        brought the book back to the library.

                        [You are, as usual, right :). On page 161 of my edition of AI, it says
                        that "The picture of the Doors of Durin [154] reproduced in "The Lord of
                        the Rings" was made by a blockmaker's copyist after Tolkien's final
                        design [153]." I have to say, though, that in [153], as opposed to
                        [154], I feel that _all_ the carriers clearly look short, and it would
                        thus seem that the "ambiguity" in this sample was only introduced by the
                        copyist, who in all likelihood was not aware of the subtleties of
                        Tolkien's script.]

                        > BTW, there are some "strange" spellings in these earlier
                        > drafts (...) This is probably some earlier
                        > conceptual stage for this mode?

                        I think this isn't a reflection of a earlier conceptual stage of this
                        mode, but of a earlier conceptual stage of the language (have a look
                        at the bottom of DTS 29 :-).

                        [Yes, about that: I've never been able to clearly decipher Tolkien's
                        writing here, specifically what follows after the opening "This is...".
                        Can you read it? "This is an (?) use of the elvish character (?)
                        spelling" (or maybe it's "This is a-something-use, the "n" belonging to
                        the word following the article "a"). At first I thought maybe
                        "erroneous" use, but the letters really to me look more like a-r-e-h(or
                        l-i?)-a (?)(?), and that obviously doesn't make much sense. Maybe
                        "earlier use"? But where we should see "e", I only see "a", and it
                        generally doesn't seem to fit. Guess I'm a lousy reader of Tolkien's
                        handwriting. Any ideas? BTW, I only thought it might be an "earlier
                        stage of this _mode_" because "spelling" is being mentioned...]

                        Well, there is actually one earlier
                        feature in the mode, too: The andotyelle seems to be used not only for
                        long nasal consonants (nn, mm), but also for the prenasalized voiced
                        stops (nd, mb), see 'Celebrimbor, ndíw'.

                        [Right, the latter use for nasalized voiced stops would correspond to
                        the use in the Classical Quenya Mode. I'd say it's an earlier stage in
                        both the language and the spelling :)--though the two are, of course,
                        not _necessarily_ closely connected.]

                        Hísilómë



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Fradeve Virgilio
                        ... Hi to all, Replying to Calwen76: The “Grelvish” text that I’m translating in tengwar is not a my creation. I’m only doing a favour to my
                        Message 11 of 19 , Nov 30, 2004
                          >--- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "fradeve virgilio" <fradeve11@v...>
                          >wrote:
                          >> _Aa' I elin thilio ui erin le, ar I sul dregi im fin llie brannon
                          >en ely_
                          >>
                          >> Is it completely correct?

                          >This is Grelvish and this ridiculous word grist doesn't deserve to be
                          >expressed by any of prof. Tolkien's writing systems. Apart from
                          >calling it Sindarin.
                          >
                          >Lucy

                          Hi to all,

                          Replying to Calwen76:
                          The “Grelvish” text that I’m translating in tengwar is not a my creation.
                          I’m only
                          doing a favour to my girlfriend, that needs help with the tengwar
                          transcription.
                          I’ve studied Quenya, not Sindarin, so I don’t know exactly in which way the
                          phrase

                          _Aa' I elin thilio ui erin le, ar I sul dregi im fin llie brannon en ely_

                          must be representative of Grelvish or other depreciable languages.

                          So, starting from my personal point of view, I will more appreciate someone
                          who
                          will underlines where and what are the errors, than a simply and corrosive
                          verdict.
                          Probably my girlfriend will think right there.

                          So, now we can discuss about the tengwar side of the phrase: I think that an
                          elvish word of
                          thank is better than one simply: _Hantanyel!_ to Dave for his comment.
                          Answering to his questions:

                          - yes, I’ve forgotten an _i_ in _llie_!
                          - And, it can seems stupid, the mark on the yanta that looks like an
                          o-curl is only a
                          decoration to hide a tragic error, a stain of ink! Really, this work is only
                          a scratch,
                          so I’ve thought that this particular mark can be interpreted simply like a
                          decoration (also
                          because who really knows the Beleriand Full Mode knows that this mark can’t
                          be used. So,
                          it must be intended like this: each sign that isn’t used in the Beleriand
                          Mode but appears
                          in the scratch must be interpreted like a decoration mark! But, I repeat,
                          this mark is the
                          consequence of an error! In the definitive version I will take care to
                          cancel this kind of
                          mistakes!).
                          - last but not least, the óre in _en_ is my personal calligraphic
                          style.

                          The question of the _i_ looks more complicated. Like I’ve said, I don’t know
                          Sindarin, so the
                          question of peculiar accentuation of the word is a problem for me. I will
                          draw long or short
                          carriers everywhere you will indicated me.
                          So, on this topic, I ask you to be more clear!

                          Thanks and regards,

                          Fradeve virgilio


                          Á carë tittë nati alta melmenen




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Dave
                          ... [Well, for a discussion of this, you may want to read Elfscript messages 4345-4349 and 4353. If you want a straightforward recommendation though, I d
                          Message 12 of 19 , Nov 30, 2004
                            >--- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "fradeve virgilio" <fradeve11@v...> wrote:

                            >The question of the _i_ looks more complicated. Like I've said, I don't know Sindarin, so the question of peculiar >accentuation of the word is a problem for me. I will draw long or short carriers everywhere you will indicated me.
                            >So, on this topic, I ask you to be more clear!

                            [Well, for a discussion of this, you may want to read Elfscript messages 4345-4349 and 4353.

                            If you want a straightforward recommendation though, I'd repeat what I wrote in message 4336, i.e. simply use short carriers for all occurrences of _i_.

                            My _rationale_ for suggesting this would be a bit different now: it seems that in this mode (Mode of Beleriand) long vs. short carriers do not indicate any distinct sounds, so there is no need to distinguish between them in writing (they all stand for short _i_). Long _i_ (which incidentally does not occur in your calligraphy) can be indicated by an andaith (acute accent) on top (as with the other vowels), _not_ with the help of long vs. short carrier.

                            (The dot that is occasionally seen on the I-tengwar (i.e. the long or short carrier) in this mode does not carry any special phonetic significance, either. Rather, it just seems to "emphasize" the I-tengwar visually.)

                            The upshot is that it's really up to you: you can use only short or only long carriers, with or without dots, or even mix them as you like (I personally would prefer consistent usage).

                            So, in other words, once you've corrected the spelling of _im_, _llie_ and maybe _en_ (see message 4335), the spelling will be fine.]

                            Hísilómë




                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • calwen76
                            ... creation. I m only doing a favour to my girlfriend, that needs help with the tengwar transcription. I ve studied Quenya, not Sindarin, so I don t know
                            Message 13 of 19 , Dec 1, 2004
                              --- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Fradeve Virgilio" <fradeve11@v...>
                              Replying to Calwen76:
                              > The "Grelvish" text that I'm translating in tengwar is not a my
                              creation. I'm only doing a favour to my girlfriend, that needs help
                              with the tengwar transcription. I've studied Quenya, not Sindarin, so
                              I don't know exactly in which way the phrase

                              _Aa' I elin thilio ui erin le, ar I sul dregi im fin llie brannon en
                              ely_

                              must be representative of Grelvish or other depreciable languages.
                              So, starting from my personal point of view, I will more appreciate
                              someone who will underlines where and what are the errors, than a
                              simply and corrosive verdict. Probably my girlfriend will think right
                              there.

                              ------------

                              Hm, so if it's not your creation how can you say it is a "Sindarin"
                              text?
                              My comments:
                              1) this group concerns the scripts, not the languages (it's better to
                              go to the Elfling group to look for help)
                              2) to be more specific, as you wished me to be, in Sindarin, e.g. the
                              _Aa'_ cluster is not possible, as well as the initial cluster _ll_ in
                              _llie_ : this language is called Grelvish and thus I can't help you
                              with the translation since I don't know Grelvish as well as I think
                              none here (and either on Elfling group) is willing to help you with
                              correcting such text. You missed my point though. :-/

                              To Dave: I don't understand you, Dave, why are you doing this? :-(

                              Lucy
                            • Fradeve Virgilio
                              ... know Sindarin, so the question of peculiar accentuation of the word is a problem for me. I will draw long or short carriers everywhere you will indicated
                              Message 14 of 19 , Dec 5, 2004
                                In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "fradeve virgilio" <fradeve11@v...> wrote:

                                >>The question of the _i_ looks more complicated. Like I've said, I don't
                                know Sindarin, so the question of peculiar >>accentuation of the word is a
                                problem for me. I will draw long or short carriers everywhere you will
                                indicated me.
                                >>So, on this topic, I ask you to be more clear!

                                > [Well, for a discussion of this, you may want to read Elfscript messages
                                4345-4349 and 4353.

                                > If you want a straightforward recommendation though, I'd repeat what I
                                wrote in message 4336, i.e. simply use short >carriers for all occurrences
                                of _i_.

                                > My _rationale_ for suggesting this would be a bit different now: it seems
                                that in this mode (Mode of Beleriand) long >vs. short carriers do not
                                indicate any distinct sounds, so there is no need to distinguish between
                                them in writing (they >all stand for short _i_). Long _i_ (which
                                incidentally does not occur in your calligraphy) can be indicated by an
                                andaith >(acute accent) on top (as with the other vowels), _not_ with the
                                help of long vs. short carrier.

                                >(The dot that is occasionally seen on the I-tengwar (i.e. the long or
                                short carrier) in this mode does not carry any >special phonetic
                                significance, either. Rather, it just seems to "emphasize" the I-tengwar
                                visually.)

                                > The upshot is that it's really up to you: you can use only short or only
                                long carriers, with or without dots, or even >mix them as you like (I
                                personally would prefer consistent usage).

                                > So, in other words, once you've corrected the spelling of _im_, _llie_
                                and maybe _en_ (see message 4335), the spelling >will be fine.]

                                > Hísilómë




                                Excellent!

                                Now I’m completely satisfacted…
                                You’ve been too exaurient explaining the point of situation (on the contrary
                                of other people on this ML…): little pills of Sindarin!
                                Much thanks, I’m going to prepare the scratch for a difinitive version!

                                Fradeve Virgilio



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Fradeve Virgilio
                                ... Answering to Calwen76: Now, I ve very appreciated your explaining. I think it s better than your behaviour before this last post. I ve said that it was a
                                Message 15 of 19 , Dec 12, 2004
                                  >--- In elfscript@yahoogroups.com, "Fradeve Virgilio" <fradeve11@v...>
                                  >Replying to Calwen76:
                                  >> The "Grelvish" text that I'm translating in tengwar is not a my
                                  >>creation. I'm only doing a favour to my girlfriend, that needs help
                                  >>with the tengwar transcription. I've studied Quenya, not Sindarin, so
                                  >>I don't know exactly in which way the phrase
                                  >>
                                  >>_Aa' I elin thilio ui erin le, ar I sul dregi im fin llie brannon en
                                  >>ely_
                                  >>
                                  >>must be representative of Grelvish or other depreciable languages.
                                  >>So, starting from my personal point of view, I will more appreciate
                                  >>someone who will underlines where and what are the errors, than a
                                  >>simply and corrosive verdict. Probably my girlfriend will think right
                                  >>there.
                                  >
                                  >------------
                                  >
                                  >Hm, so if it's not your creation how can you say it is a "Sindarin"
                                  >text?
                                  >My comments:
                                  >1) this group concerns the scripts, not the languages (it's better to
                                  >go to the Elfling group to look for help)
                                  >2) to be more specific, as you wished me to be, in Sindarin, e.g. the
                                  >_Aa'_ cluster is not possible, as well as the initial cluster _ll_ in
                                  >_llie_ : this language is called Grelvish and thus I can't help you
                                  >with the translation since I don't know Grelvish as well as I think
                                  >none here (and either on Elfling group) is willing to help you with
                                  >correcting such text. You missed my point though. :-/
                                  >
                                  >To Dave: I don't understand you, Dave, why are you doing this? :-(
                                  >
                                  >Lucy




                                  Answering to Calwen76:

                                  Now, I've very appreciated your explaining. I think it's better than your
                                  behaviour before this last post.
                                  I've said that it was a "Sindarin" text only because I supposed that my
                                  girlfriend had a little knowledge
                                  on this linguistic topic (but, however, now I'm thinking I'm wrong.).
                                  Was not my intention to start a linguistic dibate on this ML in wich it's
                                  quite OT, but I've started considering
                                  the tengwar side of the phrase, so anything was put out during this
                                  discussion was not my fault.
                                  I'll sent your response to the author of the phrase.
                                  I'm working on a correct version. so,

                                  Regards,

                                  Fradeve


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.