Re: "silent e" in DTS 16-18/23 (was: "ea" in Bombadil Mode)
- --- In email@example.com, Dave <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:
> j_mach_wust wrote:like
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Dave <david.vdpeet@m...> wrote:
> > >> <>Hello,
> > >>
> > >> I was wondering how you would spell "earth" in the modes of the
> > >> Bombadil poem/Errantry calligraphies (DTS 16-18) [...].
> > >In an analysis of Tolkien's phonemic English modes, this sound (that
> > >occurs in words like "EARth, wORd, gIRl, lURk, mERge" should be
> > >considered to form a unity together with the following /r/. We can
> > >think of it as a kind of stressed syllabic r (opposed to the
> > >unstressed syllabic r in words like "bettER").
> > >> In the "Bombadil mode", could one use the sign that looks a bit
> > >> a lower-case Latin alphabet "r" (and occurs for example in DTS 18,to the
> > >> line 1, word 3 and word 5, etc.)? The rest of the word of course
> > >> spelt with óre - thúle. This letter seems to come the closest
> > >> "ea" sound in earth.finding
> > >In all attested instances, this sound is spelled with (normal) short
> > >carrier + óre.
> Thanks! I had an admittedly rather quick look at the samples in the
> "Bombadil mode" samples that I could think of (DTS 16-18 and DTS 23 [So
> Lúthien]--are there any other specimina?), and I had a hard time
> many instances. Maybe you could give me a hint where to look? In DTS23,
> I _did_ find "purchased" (last line but one), and looking at thecopy in
> "Lays of Beleriand" (p.299 HarperCollins hardback), I agree with yousound in
> that one could very well interpret as a short carrier (without a dot) +
> óre. (Interestingly, Chris McKay in his ISS renders this as anna + óre,
> though. I guess you would concur, then, that that's an error?).
> Then I found "lurking" in line 6 of DTS 23, which provides another
> clearcut example.
> I would be curious to know if you've found any examples of this
> the DTS 16-18, because I havent't :).Yes I have, one in DTS 16 (in a word you've cited). ;)
> In Elfling message #2530, you wrote:You may still find his texts if you google for them. It's orthographic
> "I'd spell the <er> in 'keener' with oore and a point below, as this
> is the most common spelling of the '-er' ending. The explanation's
> simple: The 'e' is mute, because the 'r' functions as a vowel,
> similar to the 'm' in 'rhythm'."
> Unfortunately, I don't know exactly which mode you're referring to
> here (tried to hit the link in Chris Ruzin's mail in reply to which
> you made this commment, but page no longer found :)), but you must
> be describing orthographic modes here surely? Otherwise, how to
> explain the above evidence (óre without under-dot)?
modes. The dot should be below the preceding consonant, for sure, not
below the óre. This is the most common spelling in the King's Letters.
> Now, I am truly confused by this: Apart from silent "e" before/afterIn these modes, the dot below has nothing to do with the silent e of
> "r" (which is represented by óre alone in the phonetic modes DTS
> 16-18/23), there seems to be not much regularity as to when a dot
> for mute "e" is and isn't used. Cf. DTS 16, line 7, "perfumed" (no
> dot), line 9, "called" (no dot); DTS 17, line 11, "pulled" (no dot);
> DTS 18, stanza 8, line 2, "inside" (no dot), DTS 18, stanza 5, line
> 2, "care" (no dot) etc., all vs. the following occurrences that do
> have an under-dot: DTS 16, "Errantry" and "seventeen" as quoted
> above; DTS 17, line 8 "dangled", line 18, "frightening"; DTS 18,
> "little" as quoted above, or stanza 8, line 3, "wooden".
> Even in DTS 23, we sometimes see an under-dot for silent "e" (stanza
> 1, line 3, "welcome" [twice], stanza 3, fifth line from the bottom,
> "minstrels", last two lines, "little", but on many other occasions
> (stanza 1, line 6, "like", to name just one) we don't.
traditional orthography, but with the syllabicity of the consonant
it's written below.
In "prr-fjumd", "koold", "puld", "insaid", "ker", "laik", etc. (giving
a romanization of Tolkien's tengwar orthography), there's no syllabic
consonants, whereas in "E-rN-tri", "se-vN-tiin", "dan-gLd", "li-tL",
"wu-dN", "wel-kM", "mins-trLz", there are syllabic consonants. In the
case of "frightening", there doesn't need to be a syllabic consonant
(it may be "frait-ning"), but "frai-tN" would definitly have one.
You may also have a look at the "overview" I've written (follow e.g.
the link of my signature).
j. 'mach' wust