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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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 3 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            '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 5 of 19 , Nov 3, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              <>> 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 6 of 19 , Nov 30, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                >--- 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 7 of 19 , Nov 30, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  >--- 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 8 of 19 , Dec 1, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- 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 9 of 19 , Dec 5, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 19 , Dec 12, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >--- 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.