Re: [elfscript] Re: Chinese tehtar mode: a few more questions/clarifications
- j_mach_wust wrote:
>[Yes, I was curious about DTS 46 and wanted to have a look at it, but I
> Dave 'Hísilómë' wrote:
> >> I noticed that Tolkien places the vowel tehta _under_ the modified
> >> U-curl (e.g. third copy of the King's Letter). I personally would
> >> find the other way round aesthetically more pleasing, but I guess
> >> since the Professor himself did it that way, it's canonical.]]]
> >I prefer the representation in DTS 46, where the modified left-curl is
> >at the left and the vowel tehta at the right. It also shows a very
> >narrow modified left-curl that looks like a hasty and a little angular
don't have Vinyar Tengwar 21. Too bad.
I _did_ look at Chris McKay's transcription in ISS (with computer
fonts, so I don't know how accurate they reflect the original), and here
there are two examples: one is n(g)win (if that is how we should read
it), which is the one you must be referring to here, with modified curl
on the left, I- (or E-??) tehta on the right (Tolkien here doesn't seem
to have quite made up his mind whether to use the dot for _i_ and the
acute for _e_ or vice versa, or am I mistaken there?). Since the curl
and tehta are on a two-luuva tehta (nwalme), it looks ok, but things get
a little cramped on a one-luuva tehta like quesse----which brings us to
the second example in this short specimen (still based on McKay's
transcription, as that's the only source available to me), "enquantuva".
Here it seems that, from top to bottom, the three diacritic signs on top
of quesse are: modifed left-curl (am I right to assume that this is the
one you refer to as "a very narrow modified left-curl...hasty and a
little angular <s>?) plus A-tehta plus bar (for preceding nasal).
In the third copy of the King's Letter, we have modified U-curl and
E-tehta on ando, a two-luuva tengwa, yet still the two diacritic signs
are placed on top of each other, instead of next to each other, so I
guess "space" wasn't Tolkien's main consideration here. I think in the
end it is a matter of taste whether one places the vowel-tehta below or
to the right of the modified left-curl, since both are attested.]
>[For <lüan>, yes, this might be an _older_ pronunciation for some signs
> >> > On http://www.wfu.edu/~moran/Cathay_Cafe/IPA_NPA_4.htm
> <http://www.wfu.edu/%7Emoran/Cathay_Cafe/IPA_NPA_4.htm> there's
> >> > also <nü>, <lüan>, <nüe>, and <lün>.
> >> [[[Well, I had forgotten <nü>, granted, which contrasts with <nu>,
> >> but the sounds <lün> and <lüan> don't exist in Mandarin (I would've
> >> noticed after almost twenty years living among Chinese :)), there
> >> are only <lun> and <luan>.]]]
> >Then you're certainly more reliable than that web site! There is still
> >a chance that it might be different dialects or an older
(see also below), for <lün> I don't think so (haven't been able to find
any examples, neither in dictionaries nor asking native speakers for
As for "other dialects", I can't rule out the possibility that these
sounds might occur in them (I certainly don't claim to know, even
superficially, all the numerous Chinese dialects and sub-dialects!), but
even if this was the case, it would be irrelevant here, since Pinyin is
explicitly designed as a Romanizations system for "Putonghua", or
Mandarin Chinese, the official language in China and the one that this
Tengwar mode is designed for. The fact is that the Pinyin symbols would
a very poor tool for transcribing other dialects such as those of
Canton, Hunan or Fujian.]
> >I've found sample words for <lüan> and <lün>, in a[You must mean <luan> and <lun> here. Of course <lu> also exists, and
> >pronunciation said to be "Pekingese dialect", numbers 192 and 193 at
> >this page: http://www.pinyin.info/romanization/murray/table_a.html
> >However, the very same site affirms that there are only <luan> and
unlike the other two, it does have a complementary spelling <lü> (i.e.
both <lu> and <lü> are two actual and distinct pronuncations in Mandarin).]
> >http://www.pinyin.info/romanization/hanyu/basic.html and so does[Well, it's really a rather marginal issue for our purpose here, and
> >the site http://www.zein.se/patrick/chinen8p.html#all . Additionally,
> >at http://www.mandarintools.com/chardict.html number 193 is
> >transcribed as lun2 'normal human relationships', and the same
> >transcription is used at http://www.zhongwen.com/ where it figures as
> >part of the words lun2-chang2 'social order governing interpersonal
> >relations', lun2-ci4 'logical sequence', lun2-dun1 'London', and
> >lun2-li3 'ethics'. I haven't been able to find number 192.
you've made it clear that the inconsistencies of Pinyin are not exactly
your main interest :), which I understand completely, but just for the
record: your slight confusion may have arisen from several factors. I
looked at a few of the links you gave above, and I found that they were
either too old (and thus used rather outdated spellings quite different
from Pinyin) or simply wrong.
To name one example
(http://www.pinyin.info/romanization/murray/table_a.html) which gives
Chinese characters and thus allowed me to check what actual
pronuncations were meant by certain transcriptions, here I found that
the spelling <lüan> (no. 192 in the chart) was actually used for a
character (meaning "love, to love, be fond of" etc.) that in Pinyin is
spelled <lian>, i.e. the <ü> was used for <i>.
As for the spelling of <lun> (no.193)(the one you quote above correctly
as the character used in lun2ci4, lun2dun1, lun2li3), it is given in the
same chart as <lün>, but in Pinyin, this would be <lun>, spelled
identical with character no. 196 in that chart (which means "discuss,
opinion, idea, statement, argue, mention..."); the only difference
between them is that no.193 is in the second and no.196 in the fourth
tone. I am not sure what the rationale is for these spellings, but I do
know what the Pinyin spellings are like. It is, that much is sure, an
outdated Romanization system (looks a lot like Wade-Giles, but I didn't
check every character). Of course, when reading older scholarly works on
China/the Chinese language, you may still encounter this spelling system
(and other, non-Pinyin ones, very frequently.
As for charts like
(http://www.pinyin.info/romanization/hanyu/basic.html), I'm at a loss to
explain the spelling <lün> here, it certainly occurs in none of my
dictionaries (from China, Hong Kong or Taiwan), and on this site even
the Zhuyin Fuhao (or BoPoMoFo) version of that sound is spelled as <lCn>
(i.e. the "wrong" sign in the middle), so it doesn't just seem to be a
slip-up. Apart from that problem, the chart is correct and as far as I
can tell (didn't count the syllables, eh), complete, i.e. the syllables
listed are identical to those you'll find in authoritative dictionaries
from China, such as the Xin1hua2 Zi4dian3.
I think the best site among the above is
http://www.zein.se/patrick/chinen8p.html#all, not only does it have what
looks like a complete and correct list of syllabes, but it also provides
a lucid explanation on the <u>/<ü> dichotomy.
To sum it up: there is no <lüan> and no <lün> in Pinyin (although <lüan>
does occur in some Taiwan dictionaries as an older pronuncation for a
very few [and rare] characters that in Standard Mandarin, as transcribed
by Pinyin, are pronounced <luan>).
As I said, these are marginal issues, and part of the beauty of your
Mandarin mode is that it could easily transcribe such older
spellings/sounds as well. Anyway, I'm going to start writing some
Chinese poems in Tengwar soon...and I'm sure it'll look every bit as
good as calligraphy with Chinese characters (which is also very
beautiful, of course)----well, as good as my skills allow :).
If there's one little thing I might like to do a little different in the
Chinese mode, it is the placing of the tonal signs in the special case
that under-dots are also required. You write in your "corrected version"
that "I'd also suggest not to place them immediately below the lúvar, in
order to leave some space for a possible double dot below."
I would prefer to place the under-dots immediately below the luuvar
instead, and put the tonal sign under them. (Of course this would be
irrelevant in a syllable like <diao>, since here the tonal sign goes
under uure which carries the A-tehta, etc.) This is not for aesthetic
reasons (I have no preference on that count), but I think this might
better reflect the fact that the tones are an "additional" feature
(albeit a very important one, as anyone having learnt Chinese will
agree), superimposed on the basic sound of the syllable if you like.
Since the two under-dots belong to the "basic sound", I wouldn't like
the tonal sign to "come between" the palatal/Y-sign and the tengwar.
But this is only a minor point, and of course spelling it your way is
just as easily understood.]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]